Wikipedia:Peer review/Bristol/archive4

Bristol

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is nearing the quality for a FA nomination. It has had peer reviews in the past (I did one of them) and has recently had the referencing issues sorted and copy editing from others. Another set of eyes to spot anything else which is likely to cause a problem at FAC would be really helpful. Thanks, — Rod ^talk 19:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Historically in Gloucestershire, the city received a Royal charter in 1155[7] and was granted County status in 1373." I did not understand this until I read the details below. I think it would be better to spell out with something like "The city received a Royal charter in 1155. It was part of Gloucestershire until 1373 when it became a county in its own right."

Changed— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"latter part of the 18th century." A bit clumsy. Why not the later 18th century?

Changed.— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Archaeological finds believed to be 60,000 years old, discovered at Shirehampton and St Annes, provide "evidence of human activity" in the Bristol area from the Palaeolithic era." I find statements like this problematic, as they could be interpreted as implying occupation since that time, whereas modern humans did not reach Europe until around 45,000 years ago and Britain has probably only been continuously occupied since the end of the last Ice Age around 11,000 years ago. The paper here shows that the evidence is of Neanderthals using the Lavellois technique, which is interesting in its own right.

I will have to look at bit more closely at this one.— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go, but could you take a look at the way I have worded this please?— Rod ^talk 20:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Palaeolithic going back 2.6 million years is too broad to be meaningful in this context, so I have changed it to "in the Middle Palaeolithic period". I trust this is OK with you.

"appears to have been founded in c.1000 and by c.1020 was an important enough trading centre to possess its own mint," Surely it cannot have developed in 20 years enough to have its own mint? Perhaps before 1000.

Changed— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Harold's sons" I would link Harold.

Done— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" Having been rebuffed in the east," I think it would be better to spell out that Sturmy's expedition was unsuccessful.

Done

" Isle of Hy-Brazil, " You need to spell out that this was a phantom island.

Done— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Traditionally this is equivalent to the town being granted city status, which was granted to Bristol in that year." So Bristol became a county in 1377 and a city in 1542. This needs clarification. I see you say below that Bristol is both, but this could do with spelling out in the history section as it seems confusing as it stands.

Done— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"18th century expansion" I think 18th century should be hyphenated when it is a qualifier.

Done— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete sport from the history section as it has its own section below.

I will look at this.— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The next [elections] are expected in May 2013." Articles should not be written so that they become out of date. See WP:Recentism. There are other comments which will become out of date such as "There are two Labour members of parliament (MPs), one Liberal Democrat and one Conservative." Dates should be given when making statements which will become out of date in the future.

Changed— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked through the article down to demographics and will try to come back to it later. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the really helpful comments. I've dealt with some and will come back to the last couple.— Rod ^talk 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

It would take up a bit more space, but I think it would be better to have the historical data in single vertical columns rather than 3 horizontal as it would be easier to see the trend.

I don't quite understand this one - I presume this is the population records, but what would each column contain?— Rod ^talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was not clear. I mean a table with two columns, headed Year and Population (total is superfluous). The technical details above the table could be relegated to a footnote.

I've had a bash at this in my sandbox. The most recent few years need sorting and updating but I think the main problem is the length. If this were added to the article in the Demographics section this would either create a large amount of white space or push down the pics etc in the subsequent Ecomony and industry section.— Rod ^talk 17:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps dividing into 3 vertical columns would look better, but I will leave it to you to decide what looks best. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at this - what do you think?— Rod ^talk 20:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole table is not visible on my screen at the same time. Contrary to my original suggestion, I think splitting it into 3 vertical columns might work better. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the middle course and made it two vertical columns - better?— Rod ^talk 08:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine. I think tables in columns are easier to read than rows. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"As a major seaport, Bristol has a long history of trading commodities, originally..." It would be better to give approximate dates of the phases.

I've added more history of the port with dates.— Rod ^talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2004, Bristol's GDP was £9.439 billion, and the combined GDP of Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and North Somerset was £44.098 billion." Maybe a bit pedantic, but as Bristol is a county the higher figure appears to exclude Bristol (and I doubt it tells us anything useful.)

I've removed the surrounding counties.— Rod ^talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Portbury Dock (1977) as the size of shipping increased" This is ambiguous. Would size of ships be more accurate?

Changed.— Rod ^talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Since the port was leased in 1991," This needs clarification. Something like: Until 1991 the port was publicly owned, since when it has been leased. (if this is correct).

Revised.— Rod ^talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"but imports of wines and spirits by Averys continue." Probably best not to mention Averys and more recentism.

Averys removed.— Rod ^talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that your reversion of the edit on non-league clubs is correct. The Conference Premier is the top league of the Conference, not separate from leagues below it. Does 'non-league' mean anything with the new set up?

I reverted my own revert.— Rod ^talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the biggest problem with the article is frequent recentism. You need to go through it looking for statements that may look out of date or trivial to someone reading it in ten years. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again - I will look for more examples of recentism.— Rod ^talk 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]