User talk:Mhygelle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Speedy deletion nomination of Malvern Hills Act 1995

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Malvern Hills Act 1995 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mithunc (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

A possible FA?

Hi Mhygelle. I see you are still valiantly improving articles from the Malvern area. I've often thought that this one might be just about ready for FA. Thoughts? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, Welcome back! I hope you enjoyed your Wikibreak? I've just had a quick look at the Malvern, Worcestershire article. On the whole it appears that the article meets all of the FA Criteria but I think there is still some work to do with regards to fulfilling the following criteria:

1. (c) well-researched: Some of the sources are self-published: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
2. (c) consistent citations: There are a handful of inline citations that I haven't yet converted to the citation template format: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

It shouldn't take me too long to format the rest of the citations and I'll consult my copies of A History of Malvern and Malvern Country etc. and see if I can find alternative sources. Perhaps it would be a good idea to enlist the help of the other editors (and/or WP:WORCS members) before submitting the article as a FA candidate? Mhygelle (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't enjoy my Wikibreak - I missed the work terribly. That said, I have just returned from an increedibly interesting Wikimania in the USA. I'm aware of what are considered self-published sources, but we need to differentiate between vanity publications, and Garrards books which are highly respected, well researched, frequently cited - including by local government - and held in many libraries. We also had some support from DGG on that when one editor (now retired) went through all the Malvern and Malvern related articles and removed passages and refs. The Garrard references used in the article are not for contentious claims, but a neutral FA reviewer may not understand that. I therefore suggest that where two refs are given and one of them is to a work of Garrard's, we just remove the Garrard ref. If the Garrard ref is the only one, we should either look for an alternative ref, or if the topic or paragraph is not really important, just delete the claim that requires a source. Much has been added to the article since I last looked at it 5 months ago, mostly by spammers and people who don't understand what a GA is. I'll be removing some more such trivia and spam links today. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion re sources. I'll start tackling the Garrard ref's as soon as I get a chance. I've finished formatting the citations. Please let me know if I've missed any. On a separate note, I notice that you have removed the information about the Worcestershire Way. I must admit that I was unsure whether I should have included it under the Transport section. I was unable to find any guidance but noticed that some articles list long-distance footpaths under Transport (eg Whitby). Would it be acceptable to create another Transport subsection and add it there or do you think it would it be more appropriate to include in the Leisure or Geography section? Mhygelle (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can credibly claim a hiking trail to be a transport route. However, do by all means try to accommodate it under leisure provided that it is adequately sourced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I have added the information to the Leisure section and replaced the outdated link. Mhygelle (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced/removed the Garrard ref's as discussed. On closer inspection I don't think a reviewer would have a problem with the the Penley & Putley ref's as "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The only other source that I think a reviewer might take issue with is Weaver, Cora; Osborne, Bruce (2006). The Illumination of St. Werstan the Martyr. Cora Weaver. ISBN 978-1-873809-67-9. ("Although the legend may be monastic mythology, historians have however concluded that St. Werstan was the original martyr.") I don't think the paragraph is that important so we could just remove it. What do you think? Mhygelle (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, Cora & Osborne are very respected local historians, their books aren't vanity publications either and their research is solid. I would tend to say 'claim to have concluded', but that doesn't sound very encyclopedic, and it's not for us to pass judgement on. If you think it's not crucial for the article, just go ahead and remove it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I have finally untangled the citations, although a more experienced editor might spot something I've missed. What's the next step? List the article for another Peer Review or submit it as a FA candidate (I'm not sure what the procedure is)? Mhygelle (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have recently edited the multi-page Smith sources to try and make it clear what pages were being cited (following the existing system of one citation template per page). I've since noticed that there are two other sources which cite multiple pages but do not make it clear what pages are being cited (Nott and Hembry). Do you think it would be prudent to try and identify which pages have been cited and if so would you recommend sticking with the system that I have used for the Smith sources or would it be better to use the {{rp}} template? Mhygelle (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The footnote system is a complete headache to me. I don't think there is another article that uses it. It was developed by Wotnow and Gyro and it's basically a very good idea until someone changes some text that has a ref. You probably know your way round the refs better than I do by now, so I hate to bury my head in the sand, but I'll let you do whatever you think is best. I'm not sure that a Peer review would help much for FA at this stage. If I remember rightly , TimRiley did a peer review on it not too long ago - it will be in the archives somewhere. If you feel confident that everything is OK with the refs (that's the main thing), there can't be much harm in doing a FAC. It can only pass or fail, but it will involve a lot of hard work for us once the FA review gets going - it always does. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi Mhygelle. In case you hadn't found it, the peer review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Malvern, Worcestershire/archive1. I think I addressed most of the points at that time, but of course there have been a year's worth of new edits since. That said, I believe all the subsequent edits have continued to vastly improve the article. Featured Article examination will always find a lot of things to improve, and the process can stretch over several weeks. There is in fact no reason why we should not ask for another peer review before going ahead, but I feel fairly confident that if all the issues with the refs and fotnotes have been covered, it should be OK to go to FA. If you haven't looked at it recently, the criteria for FA are at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. I would like to see an article on the front page of the Malvern Gazette when it becomes an FA, and I should be able to organise that ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. Thanks for the links. I have re-read the peer review and I agree that it should be ok to go to FA once the issues with the references are resolved (I think I was being overly optimistic when I said that it shouldn't take too long to standardise the references!). Wrt the multi page sources I will adopt the {{rp}} system as it will probably entail less work in the short and long term. I've spent the last few days identifying the specific pages that were cited so converting the refs should only take a couple of hours. I'll let you know how I get on. Mhygelle (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's only taken me nine months, but I think I have finally addressed the issues with the references that were outlined here by Nikkimaria. I've moved the errant in-line citations into the references section, formatted the citation templates so they are consistent and used the {{rp}} template to specify which pages are being cited in the case of multi-page sources (Nott, Hembry and Smith). As mentioned above, a more experienced editor might spot something I've missed or be able to recommend a better system to deal with the multi page sources, but on the whole I think the article is ready to go to FA. I'm going to give my eyes a chance to recover from CVS but will be on standby for FA examination. Mhygelle (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)