Talk:Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service

Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 6, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Firefighting

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

North East England High‑importance

	North East England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copy edit suggestions

This article needs a bit of an overhaul, it's littered with repeat Wikilinks, uses too many links, (not relevant to the article eg: rectangle). Has no sources/refs, is written in a non-encylopaedic style, and need de-Cap-itating. I've made a start on this, any help would be appreciated. There's also some painfully long-winded descriptions of buildings, uniforms and appliances, and I think these should go. Escaper7 11:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing this article up to standard

I'm baffled by some of the edits to this article, any help in copy-editing would be appreciated, please discuss here. Escaper7 20:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately i disagree

I think the article is good with appliance descriptions, uniforms etc on as it gives readers a useful description of how TWFRS is set out. Tellyaddict ^Talk14:23 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article has been the target of a rather patient vandal who normally makes a few edits from an IP address, then goes dormant for several weeks, then returns and adds similar nonsense again. Semi-protecting the article has become a habitual safety measure and if my note appeared directed at any registered editor who wants to improve the article I apologize. The latest request for protection was accompanied by some more serious allegations that haven't been supported by page diffs or other evidence so I've held off on responding to those. Any registered account more than 4 days old may edit this article now. So please continue making the page better. If there's some sort of prior history or need for further sysop intervention then follow up at my user page. Regards, Durova^Charge 14:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: I haven't decided to stop reading anyone's messages. It's just a matter of evidence. If someone wants to say that vandalism has happened at this article then please verify it with page diffs when you contact me. This site's ratio of sysops to registered accounts is roughly 1:3000 so I address a lot of other matters as well. I'll certainly pay attention, but the burden of evidence rests with the person who makes a complaint. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 21:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done

I've corrected the article and de-capitated areas where necessary and removed a section (per above). The references don't seem to be showing, can anybody else see them?Tellyaddict 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's you, but I see 23 references. --Daysleeper47 18:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You fixed them (thanks!) and I can see them now it's jsut ever since the new link to formatting refs appeared on the toolbar underneath the edit thing it's been confusing me but I understand it now.Telly addict 19:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of all of the individual list of fire stations, I've put them all into a clear and easy to read wikitable.Telly addict 16:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

$Insertformulahere$

GA Review

The prose looks decent, although a good copyedit could be done to improve some areas that are a bit awkward. There are two 'citation needed' issues that need to be resolved prior to GA status, but overall, most information seems pretty well-referenced. Editors should probably review WP:CITE for information on how to better format the references; these are just links to websites right now, and should ultimately include more than that (author, publisher, date of publication, etc). If any of these links disappears from the web, they are useless.

However, the main reason I am not listing this as a GA is criterion 3. The article is mainly just a description of the fire department, and what services it provides. I'm not sure most of it is exactly 'encyclopedic', as I would expect to get the best information on this from the website sponsored by the fire department itself. Listings of fire stations and call signs are not really very important to an encyclopedia article. The history and traditions of the fire department, IMHO, is far more important, which this article seems to be lacking. See the article on the New York City Fire Department for some examples on things to include in the history section. Although the NYCFD article isn't a GA, so it's not the best example. But it does a better job at covering some of the more important historical aspects,... Maybe a section on traditions might help, too. The photos seem ok, but how many photos of fire trucks alone are you going to have? Any action shots, maybe something from the department's PR office that are fair use?

Hope this helps. Dr. Cash 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]