Talk:Navenby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Navenby is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article uses British English dialect and spelling. Some terms that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, American English. For more information, see American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Contents

[edit] Importance

Considering that Navenby is mentioned in the Domesday Book and was an Iron Age, Bronze Age and Roman settlement, I think the village deserves a slightly higher importance rating than just 'Low.' Seahamlass 13:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahamlass (talk • contribs)

The importance scale is set up so that settlements are prioritised by the community for development and attention according to their population size. Thus the major urban areas and subdivisions of the UK recieve top priority, whilst hamlets of a 100 people are not as high on the list. The Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/Assessment page gives some pointers on how the assessment system works for UK geography.
However, don't let that fool you or put you off. Wormshill, a village of just 200, is a low priority article with Featured article status - the highest status the community can bestow upon an article. Navenby would benefit from adopting some of the style and layout of Wormshill, and other featured settlement articles like Stretford, Bath, Somerset, Blyth, Northumberland, Weymouth etc etc, all of which follow WP:UKCITIES as a guide.
Does that help? -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Going forwards

OK, this is clearly a very well loved article. It is fairly comprehensive and mirrors alot of the advanced features of other articles, however, there are several ways in which this article does not meet its full potential of which I raise the following concerns and set respective challenges:

  1. Layout:- the layout of the article is my biggest concern. Some of the section headers don't make sense ("General history") whilst others are in breach of WP:HEAD. I recommend using WP:UKCITIES as a way of organising literature in a way more famillar to the editting and reading community. This would involve the amalagamation of all the History sections into one.*:Y Done
  2. Lead:- I'm concerned about the lead. Is Navenby an "ancient market town" or was it once an "ancient market town"? What about a "large village? Large might be a point-of-view term, and surely Village would suffice on its own? It is also stated that the "parish" straddles others, so is Navenby also a civil parish? - if so this needs to be stated. It is usually taken as convention to tell us what the settlement is in the present first rather than what it once was or what it is most notable for. Only the first instance of Navenby needs to be in bold text, the others can be in standard text (again, see WP:UKCITIES or WP:LEAD).*:Y Done
  3. Census statistics:- Lists and bulletted sections are generally discouraged (see WP:LIST). This material (with other data) would be better served as a section on Demography (as outlined at WP:UKCITIES) and converted into prose.*:Y Done
  4. Places of interest:- Where did you find the image for "Mrs Smith's Cottage"? Material from other websites that is copyright is forbidden, and WILL be deleted. The actually section on Mrs Smith's Cottage doesn't make clear its notability. Is this a listed building? Was Mrs Smith a notable person? It's not clear. Perhaps revamp this as a Landmarks section, perhaps also including mentions of any churches, community spaces or chapels in the area??*:Y Done
  5. External links: - Some of these need to be toned down or removed I'm afraid. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, a space for advertising or a directory. Some of those could be considered as spam or blantent free advertising. Manchester, a major city (and featured article), has only three external links for example! UKCITIES has a short paragraph explaining what's usually permissable.*:Y Done

There are a few other issues but I think these issues should give regular editors more than enough to get their teeth into for a while. I hope this helps rather than hinders. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I made several of these changes myself here. The same edit removed a section which pertained to the City of Lincoln. The article is looking much better, though next I would recommend the implimentation of proper citation templates to better organise the reference material. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)*:Y Done

[edit] Anonymous B

An anonymous editor rated this as a B - does that grading now stand? Seahamlass 21:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look and i would agree that B is right. Simply south (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I'm a little concerned about the copyright status of some of these images. A cursory glance at Image:Navenbymeth.jpg shows that is actually from a Crown Copyright image at this Flickr page (that it say Public means it is viewable by the public, not that it is in the public domain). It is not under the Creative Commons licencing and nor is its original author creditted.

Some of the others don't state their source, or have an explicit rationale, whilst the formatting suggests these are from proffessional webspaces. The metadata suggests too that these are from multiple, conflicting sources.

No matter how tempting it is to misappropriate or borrow images, it is illegal and not only will the images be deleted, but accounts can be blocked from editting indefinately. I appreciate this is frustrating (from experience) but it needs addressing with the utmost urgency. Please refer to Wikipedia:Image use policy. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Three images removed for now and official permission sought - via email to photographers. Sorry - I honestly thought 'public copyright' meant I could use them freely. Seahamlass 08:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahamlass (talk • contribs) *:Y Done
No problem. It had to be addressed urgently before this article was reviewed by an administrator. Photographers usually release work from, or change the licencing at Flickr, when they are told that they are creditted and that Wikipedia is one of the most visited sites going. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Restored comments with this sig. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference format

To get this article to GA or better the references need to follow the format recommended at Template:Cite web, Template:Cite book etc which in additional to the URL requires title, work & date accessed etc.— Rod talk 16:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)*:Y Done

OK - that sounds like fun! Will do it tonight. --Seahamlass 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahamlass (talk • contribs)

Another minor point on references, the reference tag should go immediately after the punctuation rather than before. I have corrected one paragraph that I was reading. Keith D (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)*:Y Done

Thanks Keith - I noticed what you had done and have started doing the same. --Seahamlass 13:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Where a ref is used more than once it can be "named" so that you do not have to enter it twice. Accessdate is not needed for books but published date is. Where as large web site is used eg National statistics the specifric page from which the fact/data came should be used rather then the title page. If you need further help let me know.— Rod talk 19:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)*:Y Done

I don't see anywhere in WP:GACR (or the links it recommends one to follow) a statement that the citation templates must be used otherwise GA status won't be achieved (which is implied by what Rodw wrote). May be I have missed it somewhere, and so, if so, could someone point it out to me? The reason I ask is that I dislike them, and use a quite consistent form which fulfils all the requirements and which corresponds most closely to APA style (bar the author-date intext reference marker), with which I am very well familiar and know its structure off by heart. If we must use these templates, then I need to know so I can go around and remove the handicaps I have been unwittingly placing on articles I have edited.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You are right in that the templates are not a requirement at GA (although a consistent referencing format is required) but sources must be verifyable which thoise in this article clearly were not (although they are getting there now) - as it says at Wikipedia:Citing sources other formats are acceptable so my guidance above was too prescriptive.— Rod talk 07:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, you are quite right in stating that consistency of reference style is required, and so I always add them using citation templates if references are already there which use them. I'm not so sure of the practice I've seen used, when a lot of adequate references that fulfil the requirements are present, and they are all changed so as to use citation templates. I always understood this was not advised, but I'm probably in a minority here, and can see myself having to get to like and use them all the time.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Rodw - I have just spent three hours carrying out the task you suggested. Hopefully the references are all sorted now. The only one I had trouble with was Number one: Research Lincs website. I only used it yesterday, but today it seems to be out of order. A temporary glitch I hope! Seahamlass--Seahamlass 00:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Seahamlass 00:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahamlass (talk • contribs)

Well done for improving the references on this article - just one point where a reference is used more than once you only include it once with ref=name"X" & then when reused ref=name"X"/ (where X is something relevant eg authors name) when it is used again. So refs (12 & 13), (33 & 34), (8, 38 & 50), (52 & 53), (48 & 58) should be combined. Also wikipedia should not be used as a ref so try to find another source for ref 29. Well done for all your work on this article.— Rod talk 07:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)*:Y Done

Hi Rod. Many thanks for your further comments and suggestions on Navenby. Just to let you know that I've corrected the references you pointed out, as well as swapping a Wiki reference for a local council one and adding a reference for the little bit on Lincolnshire accents. I know one editor doesn't want to accent bit included, but I think accent is very relevant to Navenby. The people there are very proud of their Lincolnshire accents and, when I moved there as a child, it took me ages to understand some of the words! There is one reference I didn't change - citing the Navenby.net website. I have referenced this site several times, but always to a different page. I decided not to lump them all together, to make things clearer for people. --Seahamlass 10:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahamlass (talk • contribs)

[edit] Scope

I'm a little concerned about the scope of the article. There is alot of material that pertains to the county of Lincolnshire, not the village of Navenby. The Linguistics section ought to go as it is not Navenby specific and is unsourced. Simillarly, under Transport there is material about Lincolnshire (lifted almost word-for-word), not Navenby and this needs tackling to improve context.*:Y Done

Other than that, the next step before WP:GA is a WP:PR. I suspect this would raise objections about some of the weasel words and lack of neutrality; words like "interestingly", "lucky", "sadly" and "peaceful" may breach guidelines on letting facts speak for themselves. This also needs tackling at some point. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)*:Y Done

Hi Jza84 - Thanks for taking the time and trouble to help. I have been looking for the words "lucky" and "sadly" to edit out, but can't find them - could you point me in the right direction please? I have also edited the transport section per your suggestions. However, I have to disagree with you on the Linguistics section - which I have now referenced. The Lincolnshire accent is very important to the people of Navenby - they speak it with pride. However, to an outsider, some of the words - like "mardy" do need explaining! --Seahamlass 10:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahamlass (talk • contribs)

Can you provide a source that the Lincolnshire accent is spoken with pride in Navenby? I'll try to find the words. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)*:Y Done

[edit] About

This article does not seem to be ready for fac.

  • Many references should be added to paragraphs throughout the article. *:Y Done
    • Some of particular concern:
      • The Media section is not even referenced at all. *:Y Done
      • Others are just needing extra refs such as Streets, Transport, Demography, Education and Economy*:Y Done
  • The trivia section should either be retitled or as a suggestion i would merge it into Notable people or something similar.*:Y Done
  • On demograpy, can the imag abovee and table be sorted out so that it does not create a large white space...?*:Y Done

Simply south (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

I have placed these reviews here, so I can refer to them as I try and make the imporvements suggested.--Seahamlass (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hello Seahamlass, here are some comments which may help you on your quest for one of those little bronze stars...!

  • Per WP:HEAD, you should avoid over-capitalising, so "Early History" should be "Early history" etc.*:Y Done
  • Any chance of making the co-ordinates at the top of the page read in degrees, minutes, seconds with a N for north and W for west? I think you can modify it to be coords dms if memory serves...Sorry: Really sorry, can't work out how to.
  • The WP:MOS#Images recommends that you don't "squeeze" text between two images. With thirty images on this page, it's probably over-illustrated so try to avoid having images squashing the text.*:Y Done
  • "Chapel Lane" - why italics? same with all the other italics in the early history section, is there a good reason for using italics here? Reply: Sorry - thought I had to do that to street names, have now removed the italics*:Y Done
  • Curiously, despite my previous point, I would think that "Nafni+by" should be, at least, in quotations perhaps also italicised.*:Y Done
  • "October 17th" - October 17 or 17 October, but ditch the "th" - see WP:DATE.*:Y Done
  • Ref [15] is used twice for the quote, no need.*:Y Done
  • Image:Stpeterchnav.jpg you say you have written permission to use this. Does Wikipedia also have that written permission? *:Y Done Reply I have written permission for all the photos used. I'm happy to pass that on to Wikipedia, but not sure how to do that.--Seahamlass (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • RAF wasn't formed until 1 April 1918, so the fledgling RAF didn't exist in 1917...*:Y Done Changed to the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service.
  • Argh, "WW1"? Generally British English would refer to this as the "First World War".*:Y Done!
  • "8 for World War Two" - "eight for the Second World War"*:Y Done
  • Ensure that image captions which are fragments don't have full stops and image captions that are grammatically complete sentences do have a full stop.*:Y Done
  • Does Wikipedia have permission to use Image:Navenbywitch.jpg?*:Y Done Reply Yes, I have an email from the Portable Antiquities Scheme, granting me permission to use it on Wikipedia.
  • Governance paragraph has several short paragraphs, could do with merging them to make the prose flow better.
  • Not sure of the style of these articles but in the topography section , I'm really not keen on the in-line link to geographical co-ordinates. Reply: I don't like it either much, but I have noticed in other peer reviews that editors have been told to put it in, so I think I had better keep it.
  • No spaces between citations please, so [36] [37] needs adjustment.*:Y Done
  • Not sure I understand your source for climate statistics, "Source: MSN Years on Record: 11"? Can you clarify?*:Y Done Changed and simplified.
  • "next 5 years " five years.*:Y Done
  • Can you link to something relevant for "Grade II listed" and be consistent with II-listed and II listed.*:Y Done
  • "It is allegedly ..." something like "It is claimed to be..." with appropriate citations would be more encyclopaedic.*:Y Done
  • Numerical ranges should be separated with an en-dash, not a hyphen, so "aged 5-15" should be "aged 5–15".*:Y Done
  • "rate was 3" - 3 isn't a rate, it needs a "per..."*:Y Done
  • "20.18 km" - use the convert template for the imperial-ists amongst us.*:Y Done
  • "now 47.9% do" - now? needs context, like, As of March 2008, ...*:Y Done
  • 1859/60 - 1859–60. There are others...*:Y Done - Several anyway!
  • "1832.[63]x " - what's the x?*:Y Done Random character removed!
  • Avoid bullet point lists in potential FA's when prose would be better.Fixed them.*:Y Done
  • Culture and community section could use some work on prose, merging paragraphs, reducing the over illustration.*:Y Done: Took out a couple of pictures, merged paragraphs, removed bullet points etc.
  • Shouldn't Under 11 be Under-11? Not sure myself...*:Y Done Looks better like this anyway!
  • "Tracey Duxbury " - again, why italics? *:Y Done Correcte - italics removed.
  • Trim the external links to those directly relevant.*:Y Done

That's a good start for you. Let me know if you need anything more from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Bigbluefish (talk · contribs)

In addition to the comments by The Rambling Man, I have a few comments. First of all, a very impressive article and also clearly the subject of a lot of hard work by Seahamlass (over 1000 edits!). So, a few comments:

  • The lead section should introduce the rest of the article. Currently, there are facts like the mention of the Viking Way and the suffix "-by" which do not recur in the main part of the article. WP:LEAD has some pointers to this end.*:Y Done
  • Perhaps partly as a result of this the lead has too many inline references. If the source of a statement is cited in the main body, it doesn't need to be cited in the lead as well (per WP:LEAD) since this is just a summary of what the main article says.*:Y Done
  • Several photos in the articles have black borders, which are generally not preferred; I've gone and tagged them with {{RemoveBorder}} though, so you may find these are subsequently fixed quite quickly. They are all under derivative-allowable licenses, so removing the borders is implied to be fine by the authors.*:Y Done
  • The section on food is rather WP:PEAcocky. The article needs to focus on what the significant role of Navenby is in the food being commented on, as opposed to Lincolnshire food in general, and this done in a neutral way.*:Y Done Changed and edited.
  • Some parts, in particular the one on sport, need to establish the notability of the things they comment on. Some things might not be sufficiently notable for encyclopedic inclusion, while others just need to be treated in less of a tour-guide-like manner.*:Y Done Changed and edited.

By the way, this coordinates issue affects the whole of {{Infobox UK place}} (that is, about 5000 articles). It can and should be much better dealt with by discussing it at the template talk page, since the template currently only permits decimal coordinates. Indeed, this may well affect other place infoboxes.

Anyway, good luck with the ongoing evolution of this article! BigBlueFish (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Countryside Commission ref

I just cleaned up the ref to the source published by the Countryside Commission, and noticed that it doesn't seem to back up the hard figure in the sentence from which it references - that is, the 360 feet of cliff. Is there another reason for this source, and also is there a source to support the height? BigBlueFish (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I got the 360ft from Google Earth - but couldn't work out how to link to that particular bit. (It was some photos added by someone of the area). I used this reference as it explained quite well how the cliff 'came to be' and also showed a map of the cliff (Southern Lincolnshire Edge), featuring Navenby and showing the cliif was 200-400ft above sea level near the village. After scouring Google, just come across a Bench Mark database, which seems a bit less vague. although the figures are slightly different... Will add it now. Also adding a North Kesteven Council reference to this part of the article.--Seahamlass (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Much clearer... just to note that the refs could still be better formed as they are being written. The title should be the title of the work as given by the source, not a descriptive one for Wikipedia. The author and/or publisher should be how they call themselves. If the work is undated, no date field should be given, not an access date. If not all the date is available, use year and month instead as necessary. BigBlueFish (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This article is in excellent shape, and is very close to meeting the GA criteria. Quality of prose is excellent, it is adequately cited, images are tagged, there are no NPOV or stability issues.

  • It needs a little work on the completeness aspect, however. The history section pretty much stops around World War II. Certainly, something has happened in this town since then. Please complete the story by telling us details about what happened the last 60 years or so.
  • Based on the UK cities guideline, the article should also have a section on 'public services'. Things like water, sewage treatment, fire, police, healthcare/hospitals, electricity, etc.
  • The UK cities template also calls for a 'notable people' section. But I'm not too concerned with this, as such sections mostly just tend to be lists of people and inspires vandals to add random people from time to time. If you could write a good notable people section, in prose, without list format, great. If not, don't worry about it.

Once these issues are addressed the article can be promoted to Good article status. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The article looks good now. Promoted. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

This is not directly an issue relevant to the FAC, but it's a shame to lose quite a few pictures altogether, although I agree that removing them has improved the composition of the article. The obvious thing to do, since I believe they are all under free licenses, is to move them all to the commons (should be done anyway really) and adding a {{commons}} template. BigBlueFish (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Copied from my talk: BigBlueFish (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

    • Happy to do this - but don't know how. Sorry!--seahamlass 17:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • If I had time I would go through them and do them myself; however that might not be for a while. If you want to, you could either just go through them all and tag them with {{copy to Wikimedia Commons}}; this has a pretty big backlog but a Wikiproject exists to soldier through them so eventually your images will be moved. Alternatively you can register an account on the Commons and upload them yourself; the move-to-commons assistant greatly simplifies this process, and if you have all these images saved on your hard drive already even better. this page may also be helpful for a list of all the images which need to be moved. BigBlueFish (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)