Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sunderland Echo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:19, 20 July 2008 [1].

Sunderland Echo

[edit]
Nominator(s): Seahamlass

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I am hoping that it is of the quality you are looking for in a Featured Article. This was pretty much a stub when I first started working on it in March, [2] but I began by adding some history and then decided to go the whole hog and try for FA quality. I am breaking into new territory, somewhat, with this article, as I could only find one FA and three GA articles about newspapers - and none of them about provincial English newspapers. It has been rather tough, therefore, to follow any set format for this piece, and if you have any suggestions for improvement I will gladly follow them. The article has undergone a thorough peer review by Brianboulton and has been copy-edited by Malleus Fatuorum. It has also been checked over by brighterorange's dashification gadget, although he found nothing needed to be done.[3] Permission for use of all the article's pictures has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system and I have tried to ensure that all the refs are to WP reliable sources. In order not to have any red-links, I have also created extra (smaller) articles about the founders of the Echo not already mentioned on Wikipedia.[4][5][6] Seahamlass 12:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Thankyou for your comments. Refs 30 and 43 fixed and now have publishers. Have checked all the others too.-- Seahamlass 23:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth - All fixed

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 2, is it published by the Sunderland Daily Echo? It's hard to tell because both are italicised. Same for current ref 5.
Yes. Ref 2 says it is published by the Sunderland Daily Echo. The ref automatically formats titles in italics, and I was told in Peer Review that the paper's name should always be in italics. Do you want me to take the paper's name out of italics just for the refs?
No, they should be italicised, its just hard to distinguish.
Holdthefrontpage is a website written by journalists, for journalists. It is not a blog, or an advertising site, it is purely a website for the newspaper industry. This is the blurb I found about it: "This website, maintained by the Derby Telegraph, provides information for, and about, regional newspapers and it is intended for journalists and journalism students. It features a comprehensive listing, with hypertext links, of the UK regional newspapers which have a web presence; a contacts database for research stories; a UK list of regional journalists; news about journalism awards; training courses for journalism and ideas for news stories. HoldTheFrontPage was launched in 2000 by Northcliffe Electronic Publishing."
Wearsideonline - the one ref I thought you might question as reliable! I've done some digging and it is described as "a non-commercial website run by independent businesses in Sunderland." It takes its historical stories from properly sourced books such as Sunderland - River, Town and People, by Stuart Miller, and merits history links from the BBC website[7], a mention in the bibliography of a history brochure produced by District of Easington Council[8] and can also be found mentioned on the Sunderland City Council website. I also backed up the ref with further refs from Sunderland - River, Town and People - which has exactly the same information.
  • Current ref 22, need to remove the bare url link. LIkewise for current ref 20. both are to measuringworth.com.
I took out the two bare refs you mentioned. The website won't let me cite to the direct conversion page, as I've tried. It just brings up a page saying you haven't put in any figures for a conversion. You have to do it manually on the site.
www.ne-diary.bpears.org.uk can be considered a reliable source, as it is is written by a local historian who has used documents and data from World War Two to produce the site. (These can be found listed on the site). He has also designed and maintains the Tyne and Wear Archive webiste[9] for the North East. (Run by local museums). His work is well known and cited in many articles, books, newspapers etc and also merits links on About Tomorrow's History site (an official NE England history site)[10], the BBC , the Durham County Record Office site[11] etc. Again, I have backed up the refs with extra written refs from local newspapers, which document the same material.
Removed: www.abyznewslinks.com/ukingne.htm - I can't claim to know if this is 'reliable', although I wasn't using the site to back up anything controversial (!), just to provide another way of seeing which papers are produced in the North East of England. I chose the site as the details are correct and fairly simply presented.
Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ealdgyth - thanks for the comments.-- Seahamlass 09:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15
04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Done Links
    • "World War Two" vs "Second World War" choose one (I prefer the latter).
Done Changed to Second World War
    • "The tabloid format remains today, although the Echo ..." - why although here?
Done Although removed
    • "Daily" in the infobox should just be "daily"
Done
    • "The highest number of readers, 29%, " 29% isn't really a number is it? Perhaps a proportion?
Done Switched to proportion
    • The overview is not that much of an expansion of the lead.
OK: I used the General Overview to talk about the paper today, its readership/circulation etc in more depth than the lead, but I always thought the lead had to give a summary of what was included - so obviously they touch on the same things.
    • Northern Echo redirects to "The Northern Echo" so perhaps that's what you should call it here.
Done Retitled The Northern Echo
    • " and nostalgia and a local history nostalgia supplement" double nostalgia makes this awkward reading.
Done Removed the extra nostalgia
    • Not convinced you need the see also for Samuel Storey.
Done Removed see also
    • "full colour" - hyphenate?
Done
    • "44,000 tabloid copies" - is there a need to re-emphasise tabloid here?
Done Removed the extra tabloid
    • Is Sunderland a town or city? I think it's referred to as both in this article. Perhaps it changed status though...
Both - as far as this article is concerned. Sunderland changed status in about 1992. So, it was a town right up until then, and is now a city.
    • MP is relinked but, worst of all, it links to a dab page.
Done I had found one the other day, but over-looked the second. Removed.
    • Do you really think we need to link century?
Done No. Removed wikilink
    • "a sour note" - a touch POV.
Done Removed sour note
    • " Storey sued for libel." - and..... what happened?!
Done Re-worded this as "successfully sued for libel" No further details available.
    • "was put right" - POV - it wasn't wrong, it was just different.
Done Changed "put right" to changed
Done Thanks for the tip. Changed
    • "rise by a halfpenny" - that, in isolation, doesn't sound too big a deal. However, it's double what it was previously. Point that out?
Done
    • "He died two years later, three months after the death of his eldest son, Fred. The chairmanship of the company passed to another Samuel—Fred's elder son." - merge so the relevance of the first sentence becomes clearer sooner.
Done
Done
    • "word daily was " - perhaps "word Daily was".
Done
    • "bombed towns on the country" - in the country.
Done
    • "Despite the heavy shelling of the North East coast and River Wear, however,..." - however is redundant I think.
Done Removed
    • "was not so lucky." - again, a little POV. Be factual, i.e. it was affected more.
Done Changed
    • If you link censorship, perhaps consider linking rationing.
Done linked
    • "tabloid size and the tabloid style" - 2 x tabloid. Maybe the second clause should be "and this style"...?
Done changed
    • "Today, the paper" - is that "As of July 2008, ..."?
Done Changed
    • "mid 1960s" - hyphenate.
Done
    • Sunderland AFC (should be A.F.C.) is linked to twice in one para.
Done Reworked letters and removed excess wikilinks
Done
    • "£4million" space please!
Done
    • "The Sunderland Echo is still published" again, add a timeframe, eg. as of July 2008.
Done
    • "with the huge rise in the popularity of the internet" - no, that's not why the paper's online, it's because of a response by the company to the huge rise in popularity of the web.
Done Removed that line
    • "Bt" - this needs linking out to something.
Done Removed
    • Portrait formatted images should use the upright parameter according to WP:MOS#Images.
Done - although not at all keen. The pics - particularly of the first Echo, look squashed
    • Because you've hidden the awards, my browser (Safari) won't render the Show button - it's behind the image. Any way you can make the awards section prose and not hidden?
Fixed: I've tinkered round with this and now works OK.
    • ref 22 needs a comma in the 3500.
Done
    • External links can be made using the {{cite web}} template or by plain links like this but not the way you currently have them.
Done

comment Fantastic job with the licencing of the images. The best article dealing with a contemporary subject from a GFDL image point of view I have seen. This really should be held up for others to aspire to! I would maybe remove the copyrighted Image:Echologo.gif, as it is available on the frontpage which is cc licenced, and tag Image:Echofrontpage.jpg with {{trademark}}. I would prefer a frontpage without post-office and Citreon logos (but that is me being petty). With the removal of the logo, it will pass criteria 3 with flying colours. Fasach Nua (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fasach Nua. Many thanks for your kind comments! I have done as you suggested and removed the Echologo and marked the newspaper picture as {{trademark}}. I picked this edition of the paper, as it didn't have a "personal" story on the front. I didn't want an edition featuring a tragedy, murder or court story, as that could have caused problems in the future. Done-- Seahamlass 09:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am now content this article meets FA criteria 3 in full, a credit to the author Fasach Nua (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Support: By way of disclosure, I carried out the main peer review and made various suggestions that have been incorporated into the text. The article looked in pretty good shape after the review, and has been worked on substantially since. At this stage I would offer the following comments for consideration:-

  • "Today the Echo has an average daily circulation..." "Today" is changing all the time; it would be better to say: "In July 2008 the Echo had..." You can always update from time to time, to keep the article current.
Done I have changed this to "as of July 2008"
  • "across the demographic divide" - what is this "divide"? Do you mean "across a range of demographics"?
Done Agreed - and changed
  • I am a little concerned about the extent of repetition of detail. The final paragraph of the lead and the first paragraph of "Facts and figures" are virtually identical - we don't need to read this information twice in rapid succession. One or other of these paragraphs should go, or be reduced to a simple summary. Also, later in the article the reversion of the title to Sunderland Echo is reported twice, once in the "Post-war changes" section and again in "Decades of change".
Done I have re-jigged the lead, cutting quite a lot out to prevent repetition. The only repetition now is the sentence about circulation, readership and website figures, which really has to be mentioned in both the lead and main piece. Removed one of the "reversion of the title to Sunderland Echo" sentences too.
  • There seems to be some confusion about when the Shipping Gazette name was dropped - either in 1972, as in the Post war changes section, or in 1976 as in Decades of change. Again, this change doesn't need to be reported twice.
Done Good catch. Fixed now and one mention removed.
  • During the peer review I remember suggesting that it would be useful to have a modern day value equivalent of the £3,500 invested by Mr Storey, and I believe that this was done. Now, it has disappeared. May I ask why this information, which I think is of use, has been dropped?
Done I didn't remove the refs, they are at numbers 21 and 23. I like these too much to take them out! The only thing changed about them is that I removed the "bare url web refs" - following a comment above. The website won't let me cite to the direct conversion page, as I've tried. It just brings up a page saying you haven't put in any figures for a conversion. You have to do it manually on the site - so I have just mentioned the figures etc.

Generally, the article looks very thorough and informative, but I would like to see these points addressed Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All my concerns have been addressed. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Well researched, generally well written and nice use of images (although I wanted to see the smiling / frowning sports sign). I prefer a lead with a few more "hooks" to draw the reader in (in the Second World War the city was heavily bombed but the paper was undamaged, however it did have to print its competitor's paper - that sort of thing) but I am happy to support as it now is. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - An excellent article, comprehensive but understandable for even those who have a basic grasp of the English language. A particularly nice use of images and less formal tone than what I had expected, concludes the fact that the article covers all of the featured articles requirements. All comments above have been addressed to an acceptable standard. A credit to the author and copy-editors alike. Well done. Rudget (logs) 21:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sunderland_Echo&oldid=1078807203"