Talk:Milford Haven/GA1

I'll be reviewing this. I lived in Milford Haven many years ago, and I have fond memories of the place. I've cast my eye quickly over the article, and there appears to be plenty of material and cites, so this is very promising. Points that jumped out at me are that the lead looks rather short for an article of this length - take a look at WP:Lead; that the structure needs attention - look at WP:LAYOUT and WP:UKCITIES; that there are a lot of images - see Wikipedia:Layout#Images; that there are a lot of sections - some of which have only one sentence, and sub-sections that could be useful merged together; and that there is an inclination toward lists rather than prose - see WP:Embedded lists. These are all aspects which are covered in the GA criteria - Wikipedia:Good article criteria. I'll put up a list later. Any questions, please let me know. SilkTork *^YES! 00:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   Lists need to be turned into prose, and the lead needs expanding

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   There are references and a reference section

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Some statements are unsourced

   C. No original research:

   Without being able to check reliable sources some statements may be OR

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Needs a governance section at least

   B. Focused:

   History section may need breaking out in WP:Summary style to a standalone article, leaving behind a decent summary

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I've just been doing some basic organising and tidying up. I'm OK doing it as we all share a common aim of improving this article (regardless of if it gets a GA status, the article will be improved by the process), however there has been a fair bit to do, and a lot of this basic stuff should be done before nominating an article for GA. I've just sorted out a series of petty spelling mistakes/typos - this is basic stuff that can be easily checked with online spell-checkers. I'm going to pause on doing the tidying up for the moment. There is enough work for people to get on with - expand the governance section, convert the list sections into prose, and find references for any sections or paragraphs or contentious statements that don't have inline citations. I'll do the hit-list in a moment. SilkTork *^YES! 12:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Putting on hold for seven days to allow development:

• Article to be copyedited to comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style

• Could you zoom in a bit on this. The Manual of Style is huge, and I'm finding it difficult to focus on where to improve. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Any questions, please get in touch. SilkTork *^YES! 12:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Copy editing is the work of improving the formatting, style, and accuracy of a manuscript. A copy editor may abridge a text, by "cutting" and "trimming" it, to reduce its length or to improve its meaning. It's not unusual, for example, for doctoral candidates to get their PhD thesis copy edited before submitting it.--Kudpung (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Consideration given to breaking out the History section to History of Milford Haven, leaving behind an appropriate summary, per WP:Summary style
  • If the article was 90,000 bytes I'd agree, but I think as it is I would fight to keep the History on this page. It's not a city or major region, I think it's better to keep in one place (IMO). FruitMonkey (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Guideline#History has some guidance on this issue. I don't think that it's a clear and obvious case for a split, and in general I am in favour of keeping as much information on one topic in one place, however the history section is 20k of a 56k article - it is over a third of the content. And at 56K the article is already at a size where some browsers are having difficulty loading, and recommendation in Wikipedia:Article_size is leaning toward a split. A reader looking for a quick summary of the history of Milford Haven has to read nearly 3,000 words - which would take the average reader 15 - 20 minutes with only 60% comprehension, so further readings would need to take place. An overview of the history would be what most readers would want, with a link to a more detailed history for extra depth. As I say, this is not an obvious, obvious split, but I think it tips over the borderline into a sensible idea. If you'd like me to do it, let me know. SilkTork *^YES! 12:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do think a History of Milford Haven needs to be created. I've had a look around, and in every case I looked at when a history is this long, it is broken out into a sub-article. Take a look at the articles on this list: Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places. Unless there is an objection, I will create the new article and write up the summary to be left in this article. SilkTork *^YES! 19:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it will not damage the articles chance at achieving GA status, then I see no objections. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at streamlining the The 20th century section. It's possible that there is still too much historcal 'tittle-tattle' left in it. Less is often more and it won't harm the GA status. Some articles of only two or three paragraphs such as one on a motorway services station have made it to GA. When stuff is cut, nothing is ever irretrievably lost and it can always be put back in.--Kudpung (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see what Silktork has planned before we decide to undue good faith edits. Removing large chunks without discussion aids no one. Reverting 'pruning' until a consensus has been reached. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Good faith edits. See the discussion on the talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will slightly improve the chance of retaining GA status as there would be a possibility someone could challenge it under the "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" criteria. I'll do it now. SilkTork *^YES! 16:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• List sections such as "Education", "Religion", and "Notable people" to be presented as prose per Wikipedia:Embedded list and Wikipedia:UKCITIES#Notable_people
  • "Notable people", switched from list to prose and referenced, all individuals appear to meet Wikipedia standards for notability. Believe this section is done. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Religion" has now been dealt with. Now in prose format. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Notable people section is excellent! That's very good work. Religion is also very good - it puts religion into context within the community. I like that. There are, however, a lot of images - see Wikipedia:Layout#Images and WP:IG. Unless the article is going to discuss the architecture of the churches, then the images are mainly decorative, so a gallery is not appropriate. I'd suggest selecting one and removing the others. Education still needs doing. SilkTork *^YES! 12:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Religion" now has one representative image Alvear24 (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Education" now in prose form, but may need some additional work Alvear24 (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's some excellent work being done on this article. SilkTork *^YES! 12:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Any sections or statements that could be challenged to be sourced.

While much of the article is well researched with good referencing, there are still statements that need sourcing, such as the second half of Etymology, and "The Second World War altered the rhythm of the town considerably", "The only man-made structures on the future site of Milford were the medieval chapel, and Summer Hill Farm, and its accompanying cottages", and "Into the new millennium, its fortunes seem to have risen, as can be witnessed in the activity surrounding the impending LNG terminal, and all the new building works which accompany it and its connection to the controversial South Wales Gas Pipeline." This is not an exhaustive list, just examples. SilkTork *^YES! 13:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Clean up references: Every reference needs checking to ensure that it is reliable at the time of the GA review. There needs to be some consistency in the way the references are displayed, in particular the 'Retrieved' dates, should be either American or English but not a mixture of the two, and as this is a British article about a place in Britain, probably the British format would be more apt. The quickest way to achieve consistency may be to use a citation template. I am inclined to disbelieve that 236th October 1889 had 236 days! --Kudpung (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The intro will need more references, even if the items might be mentioned and sourced in later sections (WP:LEAD). the same references, if relevant, can be used again.--Kudpung (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Kudpung, some useful comments there. Checking "every" reference is not something that all GA reviewers do. Some articles I have reviewed have had 500 or more references, many of which may be documents in difficult to access libraries. I do tend to check out the major reference sources - buying a book if needed, and I will check that some statements are accurately supported by the references. I have failed nominations on the basis that the statements I checked were not supported by the sources. But it is by the nature of what we do, only a selective sampling.

GA criteria does not require that the cites are presented in a particular way - that is a FA requirement. As long as there is a reference, it can be a bare url. Of course, any improvement is welcomed, but we need to differentiate between what is required for GA, and what is a general improvement. I do try to indicate when I am doing a review which of my observations are general recommendations, and which are my interpretations of the GA criteria.

As citing in the lead section is often misunderstood, it is worth reading the guideline on that - WP:LEADCITE. A number of editors feel that the Lead does not need citing if the statements are in the main body - though if the statement is quite contentious and likely to make a reader doubt the truth, then as WP:LEADCITE advises, it would make sense to cite the lead as well as the main body. SilkTork *^YES! 12:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do reviewers now often check every ref, but they often insist on the format in which it is presented, and often the template to be used. Bare URLs are definitely not recommended at GA level. Plenty of examples from recent GA reviews. If the lack of refs in the lead is contested, it should be subject to a consensus. Nevermind, i'll let you get on with it. Good luck.--Kudpung (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Observation. Having had to consider how and whether to respond to a spurious claim on lead citations (the claim itself being more reactionary than considered), I am pleased to see the underlying logic of WP:LEADCITE is not dissimilar to my own conclusions. One could probably come up with heuristics on this sort of thing. For example.

• If the subject is not a living person,
• and if the lead is a succinct synopsis of information elaborated on and cited within the body of the article,
• and if the lead contains uncontentious material,
• and if there is no other gain from placing a citation within the lead,
• then there is no purpose to do so,
• else if one or more of the above reasons exist to cite within the lead, do so.

A flowchart could be derived from such a heuristic. One could expand the heuristic, but it's probably as brief as one could get it and still have it cover all bases. One could not exhaustively list all possibilities, so the "no other gain" statement or a variation of it (which unpacks to cover anything not thought of or foreseen - a version of the ubiquitous "other" category in heuristics and taxonomies etc). Wotnow (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion: With 17 references to McKay it's likely you have this book. It might be an idea to cite the page numbers.--Kudpung (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Checking & verifying : There is a tool for checking the connectivity of links and automatically reporting dead ones. This tool has been run for all the links on the Milford Haven page, so it would be unwise to change any URLs at this stage. Some URLs have typos in them that are typos in the URL itself. Changing it will make a dead link. This may help to demonstrate the importance of checking every link manually - the tool does not tell us if the information is really on the linked page.--Kudpung (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my goof. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are more dead links and links with non-matching content. But in the light of your recent comments, it's probably quicker and easier if you find them yourself.--Kudpung (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McKay - Many of the claims in this article use McKay. However, the way in which this source is presented could be considered rather vague and can't be verified online. See: WP:CITE. In this particualr instance, as one of the contributors obviously has the book, it might be better, and look more professional, to use the correct format or a citation template, (or even Harvard style citations) that provides:

• Author (first names, last names)
• Title
• Publisher
• Date of publication
• Page number
• Line number (if appropriate)
• location
• ISBN

One such template that can be used for book sources is this one:

{{cite book
 | last1 =
 | first1 = 
 | last2 =
 | first2 =
 | title = 
 | publisher = 
 | date = 
 | location = 
 | isbn = 
}}

If consensus agrees on this, I'll do it for you, but I'll need the page numbers.--Kudpung (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the Landmarks section is quite small, so I have browsed in Category:Milford Haven. I found Stack Rock Fort and Palmerston Forts, Milford Haven . There is a small mention of these in the Landmarks section, though I feel that could be developed a bit more, and something about them placed in the history section. SilkTork *^YES! 13:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Governance section developed per Wikipedia:UKCITIES#Governance

• • I think it's a bit more comprehensive now.--Pondle (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good! The last bits need a cite though. SilkTork *^YES! 13:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Now referenced as requested. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on the copyright issues related to images, but I do check each one to see if there is a viable fair use tag on each one. I changed one tag to something more appropriate. I am uncertain about File:Milford Harbour.jpg, and File:Milford Haven 'Where Fish Comes From'.jpg. There's no source given for File:Milford aerial 2.jpg and File:Milford aerial 2.jpg. Those four need to either be removed, or to have sources and/or more convincing copyright tags. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. SilkTork *^YES! 17:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated copyright status, but am confused over your comments on File:Milford Haven 'Where Fish Comes From'.jpg. My original copyright description seemed OK - could use some clarification. Alvear24 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is of a poster advertising Great Western Railway, a company which is not mentioned in the article. The copyright tag says that posters may be used: "to provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself, not solely for illustration". I note that the rationale is that the image is "Used here to illustrate nature of fishing industry in Milford Haven in a contemporary setting." But I am not convinced that mentioning Milford Haven on the poster is enough. You could ask Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for clarity. As I say, I'm not an expert on copyright tags, so I tend to be a little cautious because there are serious implications if we get it wrong. SilkTork *^YES! 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point I have boosted the railway section to mention the GWR and the connections with the town. I hope that gives the poster some more weight. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the link to the website which has the image File:Milford aerial 1.jpg- I found the image here, but I couldn't see any information regards date or author. The collection is pre-1940, so I wondered if {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} is a more appropriate tag? SilkTork *^YES! 19:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Alvear, regarding Milford_Header.jpg, and Milford Architecture.jpg - are the actual elements of these compilations your own work too? --Kudpung

The majority yes, although some are borrowed from other liscenced Wiki users Alvear24 (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Regardin Milford Harbour.jpg - no copyright information, i.e. template of one kind or another from the list of available Licensing solutions is shown. AFIK, one is generally required.--Kudpung (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a GA requirement - however I notice that the climate chart intrudes in a messy manner on the layout of the article. I had a look, and I couldn't find any Good Articles which used the climate chart. If Good Articles had such a chart, they tended to use a weatherbox. As I say, not a GA requirement, but a comment on what the most respected articles appear to use. SilkTork *^YES! 18:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead to be expanded per WP:Lead. SilkTork *^YES! 12:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanded the Lead to mention the historical importance of the waterway and included the breakdown as a modern community. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the lead section may need possible expansion relative to the length of the article and its contents. (WP:LEAD) --Kudpung (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good work on the lead FruitMonkey. As I'm looking more into this article I feel there will be some changes to the main body which will have an impact on the lead, so I think we'll look again at the lead at the end. SilkTork *^YES! 12:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead section still requires a couple of elements: WP:UKCITIES#Lead--Kudpung (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is true Kudpung. However, there will be some changes made to this article as it develops, and this will impact on the Lead. Some material may be removed, and some material added to the body, and so the Lead will need adjusting accordingly. It is acceptable and helpful to work on the Lead as we are working on the body, though, because we know at this point that the Lead is likely to be somewhat different at the end of the review to what it is now, I will not be commenting that the Lead needs work until we get to the end, otherwise it will be a constant statement: "The Lead needs attention". I hope at this stage that everyone involved in this review is aware of this situation, and there will be no more need to comment on the Lead until we are ready. SilkTork *^YES! 09:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are three articles in the See also section. Per WP:See also it might be appropriate to incorporate mention of these articles within the main body, and link to them when mentioned. What is the relationship between Milford Haven and Milford Haven (harbour)? Why are there two articles? (I'm not saying there shouldn't be - just wondering the rationale, as it is not clear at the moment.) SilkTork *^YES! 12:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One article is about the town and one is for the waterway / harbour of the same name.--Pondle (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Encyclopedia of Wales gives both subjects different articles too, ...if that is of any weight? FruitMonkey (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I'm working on the History now, and I see what has happened. The inlet is called Milford Haven, and the town was named after the inlet. The Early history that I am now reading is actually about the inlet, not about the town. I am going to need to rethink this. Two reliable sources I have just read to start writing the summary, state that the town of Milford Haven was founded in 1793. I think it's appropriate to give some detail about the location where the town was founded, but if we are to have two articles, one on the inlet, and one on the town, then we don't need to give a full and detailed early history of the inlet twice. I'm going to undo my last edit, and have a rethink on the best approach to take. SilkTork *^YES! 16:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Week and the carnival are the kind of local information found in a town guide. These inclusions might not strictly be of encyclopedic value.--Kudpung (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you are saying, though such information is often found in place articles. It depends on the size of the place, and the importance of the local event/carnival to that place. I'm easy. The information is sourced and doesn't take up much room, so I have no objection to it staying. SilkTork *^YES! 20:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the story here? There was an objection which wasn't upheld? Looks like a sentence at the most, and even then that is questionable. Any one able to explain why it has a section to itself? SilkTork *^YES! 20:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to give it some context, by running it into the Welsh language opening and using it as an example. It probably is still too much weight within the section, though I do remember it making the national news for a few days when the story broke. I await others' comments. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new section heading is an improvement. I think you're right that it can be reduced further. The Demographics section as a whole at the moment is not very broad and needs expansion, the only information selected from sources is that the population are mostly white and English speaking. The main source for the information, statistics.gov.uk, only gives stats by electoral wards - so the stats are only from one ward in Milford Haven - the central one, yet are presented in the article as though this covers the whole of Milford Haven. It is better to say nothing at all, than to give incorrect information. People rely on Wikipedia, and it is not uncommon for incorrect information to be copied and repeated until it becomes so widespread it seems authoritative. I'll see if there is information available on the demographics of Milford Haven as a whole. If nobody can find a decent source and build the Demographics information before this review ends, then the section would need to be removed as unreliable. SilkTork *^YES! 09:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad, I see that it does say that the stats are for the central ward. SilkTork *^YES! 09:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because I corrected it a couple of hours ago! --Kudpung (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When citing sources, it probably more prudent to report them accurately (s: numbers of employees, M & F.) rather than loosely interpreting the facts for a more prosaic style. Fishery was not 'by far' the largest employer in MH in 1921 - Tpt & Comm was a very close second. Anyone checking the facts in such sources (and people do) might lose confidence in the encyclopedia as reliable document. The corrections have been effected - revert if you wish.--Kudpung (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Reporting exact figures is what we like. Editors' interpretation of any sort is not liked. There is already an editorial decision being made in the selection and organisation of facts, which can bias an article despite the best efforts of the editors to be neutral. Indeed, there is an awareness that our very choice of subject matter is biased - Wikipedia:Systemic bias. We must strive at all times to present the facts, and allow the readers to make up their own minds. SilkTork *^YES! 08:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As with the reporting of the employment statistics (see Economy above), the architecture section should preferably strive to report the facts as shown in the source material and try to avoid introducing peacock terms to embelish the prose.
The quoted source Archeology.org does not appear to mention Georgian buildings in the Historic Background section. The section Description and essential historic landscape components however, discusses buildings "mainly in the Georgian style" but does not appear to refer to their architectural excellence. However, there was too much to read and I may have missed it. I have flagged the place in the text. It should be addressed before the tag is removed.--Kudpung (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC only gives half the explanation. It does not adequately explain Haven, which of course is none other than the German word for port; also related to the French havre. I would have thought it worth a mention. Plenty of references exist.
The gleddau part of the Welsh name might come from the confluence of two rivulets, the Cleddau Fawr and the Cleddau Fach, where in Welsh cleddau , If I remember rightly, can mean sword. (I may be wrong on this because I haven't looked it up, and my childhood Welsh is is now very rusty) I would have thought it worth a mention. Not sure about references.--Kudpung (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added destination to compass with major destination in bold. This was one edit, revert if not wanted.--Kudpung (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be an idea at this stage to go through all the embedded comments that are accumulating in the various sections above and add the  Done template to them when they have been addressed. --Kudpung (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome Kudpung's advice, and appreciate the enthusiasm, as I, along with other GA reviewers, welcome and encourage people to comment on an article under review - supporting suggestions made by the reviewer, or pointing out aspects of the article that the reviewer may not have noticed. We welcome people to get involved in working on the article to bring it to GA standard. We also welcome comments on the review process where appropriate. However, because it can get confusing if there is more than one person giving advice on how to conduct the review and bring the article to GA standard, the actual running of the review, and the decisions made on the outcome, are best left to one person. The GA process is such that if a person does not approve of the outcome, the decision can be examined, or the article put through another review. The aim throughout is to make the process as clear and easy as possible, and for inappropriate decisions to be quickly and easily overturned.

It may be helpful to explain my thinking behind doing a GA review:

• The first aim is to check that an article meets GA criteria
• The second aim is to improve the article - for it to reach GA level, and to be improved in general
• The third aim is for the GA review to be a beneficial experience for those involved - if nominators and significant contributors are motivated by the process they are more likely to improve other articles to GA status, and if they can see what needs to be done to bring an article to GA status, it makes the next GA review easier for all concerned.

Each review is different and brings its own problems to overcome. Some reviews can be fairly quick, others take a long time. When reviews start to take a while, either because there is a fair amount of work to be done, or because the way forward is not clear, some tension and conflict may arise. At such times it is even more important that the guidance during the review is simple and precise, and that - unless the reviewer is totally lost - the guidance come only from one person - the reviewer. The reviewer doesn't know everything, but the reviewer should be allowed to lead discussion to find solutions, and direct the review for the benefit of all - too much conflicting advice without someone to take charge can make things messy and frustrating. I would be quite happy to assist Kudpung in conducting his own GA review, and that is something we can talk about away from this review. In the meantime I would appreciate if Kudpung restricted his comments to the article and not to the review process. SilkTork *^YES! 10:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]