Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Whitby/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… The article was recently the subject of a co-operative improvement effort by WikiProject:Yorkshire. We would like to get it to WP:GA standard.

Thanks, Harkey (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chipmunkdavis
[edit]
Lead
  • Is there a reason North Yorkshire is linked, but not England?
    • England is not linked per WP:OVERLINKING. personally I would link on first occurrence but they say not to link countries. North Yorkshire is linked as it is not expected that people would generally know where that is and is useful for background information on the area involved. Keith D (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the information about distance from York and Whitby's relation to the River Esk seem unrelated, they should probably not be included in the same sentence.
  • I was slightly confused by the sentence from the coast, but understood what it is trying to say after looking at the map. Could you clarify the coast is the coast of Great Britain?
  • Instead of "The settlement", it might be good to change to "A settlement", especially as the settlement was apparently destroyed by the vikings at one point.
  • Don't just say "Whitby is known for its ammonite fossils", instead explain why. Are they particularly common or of good quality?
  • In popular culture sections are often discouraged from articles; it's very surprising to see information about such a thing in the lead, and if a mention of Dracula remains in the lead more context should be given.
  • It's suggested that the lead should contain information from every section, even if just a word or a phrase.
History
Governance
Geography and geology
  • Reword the first sentence, it seems like it just runs on.
  • The second paragraph seems fairly unrelated to geography and geology. Although information about land reclamation may be pertinent, the information about companies etc. seems like it would be better located elsewhere.
  • Is the Rotunda Museum notable enough to get its own mention here?
  • Link geographical fault to Fault (geology)
  • Remove "As part of the United Kingdom" from Climate. Whitby's being in the UK does not create its weather.
  • I would remove the climate header, as if only one paragraph of information can be gathered it hardly seems like it should have its own section.

In addition, more information on geology would be useful, as it seems incomplete somehow.

Demographics
  • Be prepared for a 2011 update!
  • The whole second paragraph seems to be better suited to the Economy section than here.
  • I would suggest moving some other sections, possibly Religion and Education, under the demographics section. In addition, information on other aspects, ethnic makeup/ancestry, immigration, etc. is needed.
Economy
  • What's in this section is good, but somehow it seems like more could be added. There's a lack of statistics, surprising as it is an Economy section. Are there really no industries within the town itself? Perhaps a note of when previous industries mentioned in history shut down would be useful.
Transport
Public Services
  • As I mentioned above, Public Services sounds to me like something that should be subsectioned under governance. The small amount of information included in governance (street lighting etc.) should be moved into here.
  • Does the Yorkshire Ambulance Service apply just to the Whitby Community Hospital? What level of care can this hospital provide?
Landmarks
  • The sentence "The stone steps are around 200 years old and were completely renovated between 2005 and 2006" should be located before its current preceding sentence.
  • What is the elevation of the East Cliff?
  • The fourth and fifth paragraphs need sourcing. So does the last sentence of the final paragraph.
Education
  • Could any more information be provided on these schools? Their size as well as how they are funded seem to be the most needed information.
Religion
  • Don't say there were no Hindus, there is no point mentioning just 1 religion of which there were no practitioners.
  • Details on St. Mary's Church should be in the Landmarks section, with this section just covering its religious affiliation and the number of practitioners.
Sport
  • Is there a special reason the Red Arrows were singled out for mention? They shouldn't be described as a "spectacle" anyway; not a very neutral tone.


Culture
Literature
  • It may help readers if you indent the quotes slightly.
  • I'm not sure if a list of works which reference Whitby is helpful. For a start, it's unsourced.*Done, sourced and list trimmed. --Harkey (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)I would also say if the relevance of Whitby to the work is no more than a simple passing mention, and not enough to even earn it a sentence on this article, it shouldn't be mentioned on this article.[reply]
People/Twin Cities

There's a lot fo work that's been put into this article, and it shows a very high level of local knowledge. However, this is detrimental in some areas, notably history, where the article assumes too much knowledge from the reader. When editing, place yourself in the mind of someone who has never heard of Whitby, and perhaps someone who knows nothing about the UK. Make sure any words which are specific to the UK are explained. Anyway, I enjoyed reading this. All the comments above are suggestions, you may take them, adapt them, or leave them as you please. I ahve this page watchlisted in case there are any questions. Good luck with GAN, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]