Wikipedia:Peer review/Sunderland Echo/archive1

Sunderland Echo

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I have spent the past few weeks building up what was essentially a stub, and I suppose my ultimate goal would be to take it to FAC eventually, as the paper is 135 years old this year and a little bronze star would be a great way to mark the anniversary! However, it is nowhere near GA, let alone FAC, at the moment and I would be very interested in any suggestions, pointers, guidance etc on which way forward I should now go.

Thanks, seahamlass 15:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

After an initial read-through, I think you may be doing yourself less than justice in your assessment of the article's present standard. I'll prepare a detailed list of points for attention, but I'd say this is a pretty good beginning. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(Later)

There is a lot of good stuff in this article, and with sufficient time and care I believe it can be brought to GA standard. Before I present a detailed list of textual points, here are some general areas in which action is required.

• The lead needs to be expanded into a proper summary of the whole article, as required by WP:Lead. It is sometimes a good idea to write the lead last, when you have decided the content of the main body of the article. Things that could be mentioned in an extended lead include: role of the Storey family; rival newspapers, various technological changes, brief summary of the present-day position. The lead should be around 400-450 words, in no more than four paragraphs.

• For the main body of the article I would recommend a different structure from the present one, along the lines following. I am not suggesting that you abandon the present text, but that you reorganise it under different headings and sub-headings. These are my suggestions (please note they are suggestions, not directions:-:

• • 1 Early years – based on the present 19th century history section*: Done
  • 1.1 Foundation – based on the first 4 paragraphs of “19th century history”*: Done
  • 1.2 Bridge Street – based on the remainder of “19th century history”. But I would omit all, or nearly all, of the information relating to the Carnegie syndicate, which is not relevant to the story of this particular newspaper.*: Done

• • 2.Twentieth century*: Done
  • 2.1 Consolidation (based on 1st 2 paras of "Early 20th c.")*: Done
  • 2.2 Depression years (based on 3rd para of "Early 20th c.")*: Done
  • 2.3 World war II (based on 4th para of…..*: Done

• • 2.4 Post-war years (a new section – at present the article hardly covers the period between 1945 and 1970 *: Done

• • 2.5 Centenary (based on 1st 2 paras of "The 1970s"*: Done

• • 3. The modern era*: Done
  • 3.1 Decades of change (based on last 2 paras of "The 1970s" & the whole of "The 1980s to 1999"*: Done
  • 3.2 On-line revolution (based on the "Present Day" section)*: Done

• • 3.3 Facts and figures (based on the present section) *: Done

• The text needs a lot more citations. I will indicate, in my detailed list of points, where I think further citations are necessary. I notice that the citations you have are to a rather narrow range of sources. I am also a bit confused by the "Bibliography". If this is material that is used in the preparation of the article, it ought to be called "Sources", and there should be citations to it. If the material has not been specifically used in the article, the section should be called "Further reading" Either way, the items should be consistently formatted.

My detailed list of points and suggestions will have to follow tomorrow, but you can get an idea from the above as to what is needed to begin the process to GA. Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the list as promised.

• Lead - *: Done suggestions - will rewrite once article is finished.*: Done

• • 1st para: commas required after "two-edition daily" and "East Durham"*: Done
  • 2nd para: suggest to swap order of 2nd & 3rd sentences – but, hopefully, the lead is going to be re-written anyway.*: Done
  • "It has a daily circulation of…" should read ; "It has an average daily circulation of…"*: Done
  • References (throughout) to the Echo and Football Echo should be italicized*: Done

• 19th c. history
  • The information about first printing, print run and initial price needs to be cited*: Done
  • delete comma after "full colour press" - Please can I keep the comma, as, when read out loud, you kind of pause for breath at that part?
  • ha'penny: the link is to the post-1971 decimal half-penny piece, not to the old £sd ha'penny. You need to remove the link, and then by footnote explain that you are referring to the older currency. According to Measuringworth.com, a ha’penny in 1873 had current purchasing power of 13p.*: Done-ish
  • "42p" should be spelt out: "42 pence", for the benefit of non-English readers*: Done
  • "MP of Sunderland" is awkward. Suggest: "…future Sunderland mayor and MP" (mayor lower-case preferred)*: Done
  • mdashes, not hyphens, required around The Sunderland Times and the Sunderland herald*: Done
  • Use full quote marks (") around quotations*: Done
  • The Storey quotes need citations.*: Done
  • £3,500 should have an approximate present value. According to Measuringworth.com, £3500 in 1873 had purchasing power equivalent to about £220, 000 today.*: Done
  • Colon unnecessary after "…venture were"*: Done removed
  • The sentence: "Only Ruddock had any knowledge of newspapers and the money was soon used up" is a bit too terse. Something like: "Lack of experience—only Ruddock had previous knowledge of newspaper management—and over-optimstic estimates of costs meant that the initial funds were quickly exhausted".*: Done
  • Combine the "Storey later..." admitted para with the previous one*: Done
  • Instead of "started to seem remote", say "receded", and delete the following "so"*: Done
  • Cite "wheezing…" quote, and the date of removal to Bridge Street*: Done
  • Non-break space required in "100 years".*: Done Also, you should include a rough timescale for the demolitions and installations that followed the move.*: Done
  • Do you actually mean that the "Tories", i.e. the Conservative Party, started their own newspaper, or that Conservative supporters did? I meant the supporters - sorry - just added it.*: Done
  • Why are "Silksworth" and "Colliery" italicized?*: Done removed italics

• Early 20th c.
  • Citations required for its description as a "leading" daily newspaper, and for it being one of the last to use hand typesetting.*: Done
  • On a general historical point, you can’t describe the 1906 election as a landslide victory for Liberal and Labour. The newly-formed Labour Party had only a couple of dozen or so members, far fewer than, for example the Irish Nationalists. It was a landslide victory for the Liberal Party.*: Done I removed the word 'Labour'*: Done
  • The word "too" at sentence end is redundant*: Done
  • Comma required after "six months later"*: Done
  • See earlier note re link on ha’penny*: Done
  • Citations required for the price rise*: Done and the succession of the younger Samuel to the chairmanship - Ref 15 cites this, as well as the next sentence.
  • ndash required in "Samuel – Fred’s elder son"*: Done
  • I’d omit "and talk of another war" – this is too vague and general, whereas mass unemployment and the Jarrow march are concrete facts.*: Done
  • "But, for the Echo, it was time to cement the ties made by Storey and Carnegie" - sound magaziney and informal. I’d say something neutral like: "Meanwhile there were important structural changes in the Echo’s ownership."*: Done
  • Portsmouth and Sunderland Newspapers Ltd should not be italicized*: Done
  • I don’t understand he sudden mention of The Shipping Gazette. When did this come in?Sorry - should have been at beginning. Have now changed it.*: Done
  • Citation require for fire - the details are covered by the citation after following sentence.*: Done
  • Fawcett Street does not require italics, neither does Chapter Row, later*: Done
  • Citations required for "one of the seven most heavily bombed towns", and the bombing of the Shield Gazette premises*: Done

• The 1970s
  • First sentence refers to two separate, unrelated events. Could be rephrased as: "After refurbishment of the Bridge street base in the late 1960s, the year 1973…" etc.*: Done
  • Comma required after "at this time"*: Done
  • "Honorable" is American spelling. British form is "The Honourable", usually abbreviated to "The Hon." The term can be linked.*: Done
  • Citation required for move to Pennywell and intro of new technology*: Done
  • Further citation required for claim to be "the first daily newspaper in the North-East…" etc.*: Done
  • "pinned to the wall…": I assume that this means the outside wall, and perhaps "pinned" isn't the right word?*: Done

• 1980s to 1999
  • First sentence needs rewording and simplifying: "In 1985 there was a break in tradition when the title-piece appeared reversed out in white on a red background…" etc. *: Done
  • "dropping Sunderland from the title" – Sunderland should be in italics*: Done
  • "once again" at sentence end is redundant*: Done
  • Citation required for installation of new printing press
  • First mention f Northeast Press – need to explain that they were the subsidiary that published the Sunderland Echo*: Done

• Present day*: Done
  • The word "too" at sentence end is redundant as is "just", before “seconds”*: Done
  • Suggest "this figure had risen to 216,000 by January 2008".*: Done
  • Clarify that "match reports" and "transfer rumours" are football related*: Done

• Facts and figures*: Done
  • This section is overlinked. You do not need to link sport, business, nostalgia, entertainment or fashion – these are common words with an understood meaning.*: Done
  • Boldface should not be used in the general text*: Done

• Further reading: This has been tidied since yesterday, but the entries still require to be properly formatted.

This may seem like a long list, but many are relatively minor matters that can be fixed quickly. I look forward to seeing the article later.

Brianboulton (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Further comments from Brianboulton

I have read through the article again, and offer the following additional comments

• Direct links to websites, such as you have in the Facts and figures section, are frowned on in article texts. I can’t remember where it says this, but I recall being rebuked a few months ago for doing it. In your case the relevant address is in the adjacent infobox, so there is no loss involved in removing the link from the text.*: Done

• Image congestion: parts of the article are a bit cluttered with images – the left-aligned cluster in mid-article is a case in point. You need to consider whether the article needs this many images, and whether they are deployed in the best way. Removed three pics. *: Done

• Referencing formats: I notice that in many of your cite web formats you have confused publisher with author, which produces the wrong format in the reflist. I have altered [5] to the correct format, but you will need to work through to get the rest of them right. Also, (and this is no doubt my own appalling ignorance here), I can’t work out how reference [1], which you write in your text as <ref name= "statistics"/>, produces the information as recorded in the reflist – where is “statistics” defined? I’m sorry, I don’t know how you did this, or other similar instances, e.g. <ref name= "oldechoo"/>. Perhaps you can enlighten me?*: Done

• Popular culture sections are frowned on by Wikipedia. Personally, I think that this new section, and the one following it, weaken rather than strengthen the article. Proportionately, too much space is occupied with the statue story. You should seriously consider how much of this information you need retain, and then try and absorb it in abbreviated form into one of the earlier sections.*: Done Section removed

Brianboulton (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)