Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

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:

• Article has had some reverts, but no wars, so is stable. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Prose is reasonable, but article could do with a proper copy edit all the way through. There are inappropriate uses of capital letters - see MOS:CAPS (I have dealt with a number - there may be more). Sometimes the language is poor, such as "The Sovereign Harbour district is a marina/harbour development which was given the go ahead in 1988. An Act of Parliament had to be in force to allow breaking through of the foreshore owned by the crown. A new village was formed at the edge of the main town, comprising restaurants, shops and housing." There are one sentence paragraphs scattered throughout. In general, the article reads like a series of statements of varying quality and reliability, and opinion. It would benefit from an overhaul, and a consistent, neutral and reliable voice speaking without opinion, but simply stating facts supported by sources. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Lead needs building per WP:Lead and the images need reducing and setting out appropriately per Wikipedia:Layout#Images. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a reference section, and the article does have many statements cited; however, there are statements scattered throughout that are asserting opinions or facts or quotes that would benefit from citing. Not every statement or sentence needs citing, but if the statement is saying something that people might question, then it needs a cite. I have scattered a few {{fact}} tags around, but only here and there - I haven't read all the article. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The article appears to cover the main points, but it does go into too much detail in general, and could do with some trimming. In particular, the Culture section and the Blue plaques is excessive. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was passed as a Good Article in 2007. There have been many edits in that time, and also our expectations of what to expect from a Good Article have increased. The article contains a good deal of useful information, however as I was reading the article I felt it had a number of issues, such as the short lead, and the excessive section on Blue plaques, so the article no longer meets the GA criteria. I will notify major contributors and projects and put this on hold for seven days. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 23:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there we were all feeling rather smug about our GA when along comes this silk-talking guy! But constructive criticism is no bad thing and various things have happened since 2007. For starters, I propose that the entire section about blue plaques be transferred to a new article entitled something like “Eastbourne - blue plaques and notable residents”. A summary would remain in the main Eastbourne article with a link to this new “Main article”. The numerous ^{[citation needed]} remarks can easily be remedied, but in at least one case a citation at the end of a paragraph refers to several facts within that paragraph. So it seems that each of these is to require a separate citation from the same work. Mikeo1938 (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions differ about the amount of citing to use. There is one school of thought that says that a cite at the end of a paragraph should be enough to cover all the statements in that paragraph if they come from the same source. There is another that says that all sentences should be cited (a rather excessive view!). While the policy and guidelines and general consensus is that it is the contentious statements that need citing, regardless of how often they come - so this may mean using several cites per paragraph, even though all the material comes from the same source. There are a number of reasons for this, not least that various editors will work on an article, and material may well get inserted into the paragraph that is not contained in the original source, and sentences may be lifted and moved into other places in the article. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering about the putting of the article on hold for seven days. Does this mean that we have seven days to sort things out? Or does the fact that a start has been made provide more leeway? A group of us got together to work the article up to its current GA status, but thus far no one else has come forward in the wake of your recent comments on the discussion page. Mikeo1938 (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A seven day hold is normal. I'm not in favour of a quick fail. It is surprising what can be done even in seven days. I tend to keep reviews open longer than most reviewers. For me, as long as significant improvement is being made then I'll keep a review open. I sometimes get involved in improving an article under review myself, but if I find I am the only or main person doing the work, and there's a fair amount still to do, then I will close. If it's just a bit more work, I will finish it off. In this case, I have an interest in working on the article, but I'm thinking there is a fair amount to do, to be honest. As I'm getting involved in it, I'm finding that there are significant areas not adequately covered (such as the pier and other landmarks), and the history section is not that clear. We'll see what the situation is at the end of the hold, but if it's mainly me doing the work, then I think I'll close this as a delist. People are often more motivated to do something positive like get an article listed as a GA, than something negative like working to save it from being delisted. A GAN is a much more positive and creative experience than a GAR. So after delisting, the article can simply be nominated again. That's the beauty of the GA project - it's so light and easy. (Though I would recommend that some work is done before re-nominating as some reviewers tend to quick fail if they see an article has had no work done after a fail or a delisting). SilkTork *^{Tea time} 23:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes have been made but I am requesting that more time be given. It's possible that some people are on holiday. Mikeo1938 (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Article is looking better and is being developed. I like that the blue plaques section has been reduced. The new article, Eastbourne Blue Plaques, may attract notability concerns so at some point it would be worth finding some reliable sources - at the moment it relies almost entirely on the Eastbourne Society Newsletter. The images are still an obvious concern, so I will look at those now. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 08:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following the comments by our reviewer, various changes have been made to the images – both by myself and by the reviewer in question. However, I do feel strongly that the recently deleted image of the Bourne Stream should be reinstated. Although the picture is small and shows only a narrow stream in a park, this Bourne Stream is the heart of the ancient settlement of Eastbourne. Over the years, this fact has been stressed in all the major books about the town. Eastbourne Local History Society has recently revised and republished the book by Harold Spears, The Stream that Gave Eastbourne its Name.

• Comments, pse? Mikeo1938 (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thumb|upright|left|The Bourne stream running through Motcombe Gardens

Even though I am reviewing this, my edits are simply those of another editor. Please feel free to undo any of my changes if you feel they are inappropriate. Image selection is just another part of the editing process, and will be ongoing. What sometimes tends to happen - and had happened here - is that people add images without taking one away, so in places the images start to crowd. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK: all noted. I'll sort out the image later today. Thanks for your constructive input. Mikeo1938 (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've felt like a one-man band over the past few days, but am pleased to see the banners removed and our GA still valid. (In this respect, it's worth noting that there are fewer than 120 towns with a GA; so it's not something to let go without an effort.) I feel we should no longer accept uncited statements (even when accurate and in good faith) to creep into the article. The latter can happen because of laziness or, more probably, because someone does not know how to insert a citation.Mikeo1938 (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's worth pointing out again that citations can so easily be inserted via the following tool:
• http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php
• Mikeo1938 (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first section (lead) is considered too short and lacking in detail. This still remains to be done. Mikeo1938 (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm dealing with the missing citations but cannot find anything to support the one in 'Governance'; the same goes for the women's football team from Brighton University
• As stated above, I propose that Blue Plaques be moved to a separate article entitled 'Eastbourne - Blue Plaque Scheme' but that we leave a summary in the existing article
• Regarding the comment on the excessive number of images, I note that we have eight images of parks and gardens. I accordingly suggest the removal of all apart from Manor Gardens
• The image showing Chalet 2 can be moved to the new article on blue plaques

Comments from anyone? Mikeo1938 (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree there are too many pictures of corporation gardens (which look like any other corporation gardens) but we should not lose any pictures that are uniquely Eastbourne.

I don't think we should take out the blue plaques just because of one person does not like them. In my view this is very interesting material and provides a creditable list from a sound source. It is an example that should be encouraged in other articles on places, not something that should be condemned as an oddity. Motmit (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the pictures, and those in the category which you mention should indeed remain in place. I have, however, created a new, discrete article about the plaques, and you will see that this is linked, as are some of the existing sections. I believe that the picture of chalet 2 is best placed with the new article. A short introduction to the section about blue plaques remains and this can be expanded. I am tackling the statements which are not cited, but am heavily committed with many 'unwiki' matters at present. Might you be able to look through the text and do some copy editing? (I hope that Mortimer Cat will return to the fray.) Mikeo1938 (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been significant work done, and I'm impressed at the improvement in the article. Still a bit of tidying to be done. Some areas of the article could do with closer citing and updating. I just looked at the sport section and it was out of date and mostly uncited, and also a little too detailed in some areas. In this general article on Eastbourne, a mention of the sports teams is usually enough, and if people wish to learn more about the team itself, they can click on the team's article. Of course, sometimes a team is notable enough to give a few more details, or there is something interesting or pertinent to point out, so it's not a hard and fast thing, and individual judgement is important. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tracking down those citations and for the general tidy-up. Mikeo1938 (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

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:

• Prose is clear and does convey meaning, so by itself the prose is not a reason to delist. However, there are some short paragraphs which inhibit flow, and so the prose could still do with a decent copyedit - reading through from start to finish and ensuring the article reads attractively and with the conciseness that an encyclopedia entry should have. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• MoS requirements have been met. The lead is more detailed, and the images and layout have improved. The Culture section has a number of sub-sections that could be either merged or are significant enough to stand alone as a section, per WP:UKTOWNS. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The focus and detail is appropriate for GA level. As part of ongoing development the article could be more comprehensive and balanced. The History section along with the Notable people, the Transport, and the Parks sections could be cut back a little bit, while Economy could be developed - tourism and conferencing fit appropriately in this section, and some background on the history and development of conferencing in Eastbourne would be useful. Consideration could be given to breaking out the History into a standalone article. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Stable and neutral with appropriate use of images. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• There is an appropriate reference section. I will read through and check again for appropriate inline cites, and to ensure that summaries and opinions are gathered from reliable sources. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are very close. There's been some impressive work done on the article. Hopefully I will be able to spend an hour or two reading through one final time today, and then close this review. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Governance section needs updating to match what is said in Eastbourne (UK Parliament constituency). Consider linking to Eastbourne local elections. Is there a reliable source for the observation of "The political allegiance in Eastbourne swings between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, the balance of power changing frequently"? Looking at the source I'm not sure a situation where the Conservatives are in office for six years and the Lid Dems are in office for six years is "changing frequently". The wording in Eastbourne (UK Parliament constituency) is perhaps better: "Traditionally a safe Conservative seat, Eastbourne became very marginal following the 1990 by-election..." though a source would be welcomed. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and useful links. I'll do some more work on the parts which you mention, but am committed (non-Wiki) elsewhere at present. Mikeo1938 (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the article continues to need development, particularly in the history section, this is true of all articles, even Featured Articles, and Good Article listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but an indication of a reasonable quality. The article is reasonable - it contains the main points of the town, and people reading this would get a reasonable and fairly accurate description of the town. The main contributors, especially Mikeo1938, are to be commended on the amount of work they have put into this article over the years - there is a lot of information here, and the main task I had was to sort that information into a more digestible form. I am closing this GAR as a Keep. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job Mikeo1938! I feel guilty for being away and letting you do all the hard work :) Putney Bridge (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. I'm just psd that we've kept the GA. Over the years, the article had got a bit ragged and it's looking a lot better now. I'm grateful to our reviewer, who also contributed to the overhaul. Mikeo1938 (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]