→Article mentioned at Manual of Style: good moving forward |
|||
Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
::::Odd perilous sentence is sorted. Has your juggling sorted the floating 'the'? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Giano|<span style="color:Black;background orange;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 15:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC) |
::::Odd perilous sentence is sorted. Has your juggling sorted the floating 'the'? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Giano|<span style="color:Black;background orange;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 15:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::::Like you I can't see the floating "the", so I don't know. Don't even know what sentence we're talking about. [[User:Eric Corbett| <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:900; color:green;">Eric</span>]] [[User talk:Eric Corbett|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:500;color: green;">Corbett</span>]] 15:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC) |
:::::Like you I can't see the floating "the", so I don't know. Don't even know what sentence we're talking about. [[User:Eric Corbett| <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:900; color:green;">Eric</span>]] [[User talk:Eric Corbett|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:500;color: green;">Corbett</span>]] 15:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::::No, it's a buisance not being able to see it, but this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Montacute_House&diff=566172163&oldid=566160771] may well have sorted it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Giano|<span style="color:Black;background orange;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 17:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::[[:File:Screenshot of Montecute house.png]] - Thank you guys for addressing one of the concerns raise over the passed few months. -- [[User:Moxy|Moxy]] ([[User talk:Moxy|talk]]) 16:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:23, 28 July 2013
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Montacute House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 20:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | well written | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead: | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Well organised sources and refs. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Not a problem | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Good coverage | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Level of detail seems reasonable throughout. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ok | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Has undergone intensive team editing recently. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All images are suitably licensed. Hard to believe the stone screen is a watercolour, amazing piece of work. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Well chosen images. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Credit to longstanding editors on this article - User:Rodw, User:Giano, and more recently User:Malleus Fatuorum. This is a handsome article, elegantly structured and illustrated, and a pleasure to review. It is also notable for its long preparation with careful and energetic collaboration by experienced editors. Well done everyone. |
Images
Very nice article ... however there is a small problem with the sandwiching of text in a few places any way to fix this as per MOS:IMAGELOCATION...may be with {{Multiple image}}.? Moxy (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- What exactly is sandwiching Moxy? I don't believe I am familiar with the term. Giano 20:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I believe the issue has been resolved. it happens when you do something like this
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
- as the browser window is reduced, you will see the text sandwiched between the two images. the solution is to shift one of the images up or down. which, as far as I can tell, has been done here since the comment was posted. Frietjes (talk)
- Well, I don't know what has happened, but it now looks totally appaling on my screen with images here, there and everywhere! A total mess. Giano 20:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure what font size or screen size you are using but to the average readers with a laptop monitor it looks like ..File:Sample of Wiki page.jpg and on my I phone looks like ...File:Wiki page snap shoot.jpg. Could also be that the images are being force to a large size... that again is something we should try to avoid if its not a diagram as per WP:IMGSIZE ... All that said this had noting to do with the GA status... as the article is great...just some small format problems. Moxy (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well it looks nothing like that to me; I have images overhanging sections; on my nice bif wide screen; this looks perfect [1]. We need the images to be large or they don't illustrate anything properly. Giano 18:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is possible to apply a little fixie-dust to avoid the worst of the text-pinching:
- Well it looks nothing like that to me; I have images overhanging sections; on my nice bif wide screen; this looks perfect [1]. We need the images to be large or they don't illustrate anything properly. Giano 18:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Duplicate Images of England ref
Footnotes 1 and 4 (as currently numbered) are to the same Images Of England link. They differ in the "retrieved" date, but the current page still supports both the assertions in the text. I'm not familiar with all the subtleties here, and I know the "retrieved" qualifier is necessary in case the source changes. But, in this case, is there any reason not to combine the refs, and update the "retrieved" date? David Brooks (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Good catch, David, thank you. I've combined the refs and, having checked the link is still live, I've now updated the accessdate. --RexxS (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Gallery
Because there are 87 pictures in Commons in random order, I thought it would be nice to have a gallery - commons:Montacute House. I just created an initial structure and put some representative pictures into it. I'm sure the more active editors around here can improve it. David Brooks (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
p.s. one thing bugs me. The standard "Wikimedia Commons has media related to..." link goes to the media category page, and you have to know that the first link in that page, which is auto-generated, goes to the gallery. Based on a very few samples, that's a convention. It seems a great way to bury the gallery from view. Is there a conventional way of making it more discoverable? David Brooks (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- No gallery. Wikipedia isn't a coffee table picture book. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not a lover of galleries either, unless they contain really specific and worthy images which for reasons of space just cannot be included in the page proper. From what I can see the images, while excellent, they only depict what is already well illustrated in the article already. Sorry. Giano 09:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it's there now, although as I said not very discoverable. My intention was to highlight some of the better images that aren't in the article, especially of the exteriors, and bring some order to the Category, reducing the duplication. But if nobody is that interested I'll put it on the back burner. David Brooks (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not a lover of galleries either, unless they contain really specific and worthy images which for reasons of space just cannot be included in the page proper. From what I can see the images, while excellent, they only depict what is already well illustrated in the article already. Sorry. Giano 09:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Article mentioned at Manual of Style
The problems with the images on this article ( images on the left - forcing big images beyond any recommendations - hiding of images - sandwiching of text) have been mentioned as an example of what not to do at the Image Manual of Style talk page. Those involved with the article may want to join the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Location (2). -- Moxy (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- The images should be shown at the users default thumbnail size, and not oversized as at present; for justification, see Talk:Charles-Valentin Alkan#Lede image. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Very interesting - I see that it is also a GA article. Why are the reviewers not following our basic guidelines on images and accessibility during the review process? Moxy (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Have you ever read the GA criteria? One of them is most definitely not "The article should be laid out as I prefer". Eric Corbett 19:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- You got it - best to follow our basic guidelines over personal preferences. Perhaps the GA review template should mention image size and placement.Moxy (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- The GA review template is irrelevant. If you want to change the GA criteria then I would suggest this is not the correct venue. Eric Corbett 19:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure what your saying at all - my guess now is your first comment was sarcasm that back fired. What we are looking for is solution to the current problem(s) as described above - as there is no need to change any GA criteria because the GA review process should be guided by our guidelines and policies (this is common sense). If you believe accessibility and image size and placement is not a concern pls join the conversation about the MOS as linked above. -- Moxy (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- If you don't understand what I'm saying then you really need to spend some time reading the GA criteria. Eric Corbett 20:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is nothing ore than Moxy and Mabbitt having a joint stir - ignore them, and if they attempt to force any changes revert them. Giano 20:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. Eric Corbett 20:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Good! That's decided then. I accepted Moxi's invitation to comment at MOS, and have done so [2]. I don't think it necessary to say anymore. I am confident that the Arbs will soon be dealing once and for all with the disruptive Mabbitt [3] and hopefully then Moxi will realise that such behavior is unacceptable on pages where he has never edited and on subject about which he knows nothing. Giano 20:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- At some point could you comment on the concerns raised over posting your paranoid insulting associations. Was hoping to get those here involved in a conversation that I presumed editors here would be interested in - but I see this may not be possible because of preconceptions. If at any point in the future thoses that wish to engage in the topic raised pls send me a message.Moxy (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. Eric Corbett 20:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is nothing ore than Moxy and Mabbitt having a joint stir - ignore them, and if they attempt to force any changes revert them. Giano 20:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- If you don't understand what I'm saying then you really need to spend some time reading the GA criteria. Eric Corbett 20:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure what your saying at all - my guess now is your first comment was sarcasm that back fired. What we are looking for is solution to the current problem(s) as described above - as there is no need to change any GA criteria because the GA review process should be guided by our guidelines and policies (this is common sense). If you believe accessibility and image size and placement is not a concern pls join the conversation about the MOS as linked above. -- Moxy (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- The GA review template is irrelevant. If you want to change the GA criteria then I would suggest this is not the correct venue. Eric Corbett 19:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- You got it - best to follow our basic guidelines over personal preferences. Perhaps the GA review template should mention image size and placement.Moxy (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Have you ever read the GA criteria? One of them is most definitely not "The article should be laid out as I prefer". Eric Corbett 19:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Very interesting - I see that it is also a GA article. Why are the reviewers not following our basic guidelines on images and accessibility during the review process? Moxy (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I adjusted the image locations and forced sizing in the Montacute House article according to the current MOS:IMAGES guidance, showing that images can be staggered left and right where appropriate without placing images on the left at the start of a section. Since I did not work on the article, please feel free to revert or modify my edit. Bede735 (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's much better, and much less harmful to accessibility for our readers. And that is work on the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- and I have reverted. The primary editors are quite happy with the page as it is. Now go away and try and cause trouble somewhere else. Giano 16:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- The new format was better, but I suppose there must be a good reason for old format. We should fully protect the page now that it is finished. Frietjes (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- We can see Giano is not interested in following the recommendations set forth by the community or advice by many editors. But Giano you need to address people with a little respect - just a little would go a long way in helping you get your positions across. Thus far your civility is more of a concern and determent to the project and its editors then a few articles that you have implemented your personal image preferences on.Moxy (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Go away Moxy. You and Mabbitt are nothing but trouble to any page. Giano 17:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- You need to work on your delivery because your reputation is in the craper - thus far here your a determent to your side. Not one time have you even tried to explain your position. Are you sure your suited and have the maturity level needed for this collaborative environment. -- Moxy (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Go away Moxy. You and Mabbitt are nothing but trouble to any page. Giano 17:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- We can see Giano is not interested in following the recommendations set forth by the community or advice by many editors. But Giano you need to address people with a little respect - just a little would go a long way in helping you get your positions across. Thus far your civility is more of a concern and determent to the project and its editors then a few articles that you have implemented your personal image preferences on.Moxy (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- The new format was better, but I suppose there must be a good reason for old format. We should fully protect the page now that it is finished. Frietjes (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- and I have reverted. The primary editors are quite happy with the page as it is. Now go away and try and cause trouble somewhere else. Giano 16:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm looking at this on my netbook, and the sandwiched text does look a bit awkward (there's an initial "The" floating at the top"). But the size of the images, I can't see why we shouldn't have nice big images here (esp. the first two); the visual rhetoric here successfully conveys the scale of the object(s). Certainly the plans are better in the larger format: one can read them without having to click on them, and I can't read the smaller ones. Anything that prevents clicking away from the article is to be encouraged. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Drmies; it all looks fine on my screen. Is there anyway that you can fix the 'floating the' without altering the layout too much; I can't do it yself because I can't see it. Giano 09:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ha, Giano, changing the syntax so the first word is much longer is one way--but that's not preferred. (The sentence is kind of a run-on, with so many "and"s in there.) Anyway, look at a file I just uploaded, File:Screenshot of Montecute house.png, and you'll see what I mean (quick, before it gets deleted because I made a typo in some attribution.) Drmies (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think we'll need to do a little bit of juggling with the images, but while you're here, what does "... which from the exterior appear to cling perilously with only a small corbel like to the masonry" mean? Eric Corbett 13:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Odd perilous sentence is sorted. Has your juggling sorted the floating 'the'? Giano 15:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Drmies; it all looks fine on my screen. Is there anyway that you can fix the 'floating the' without altering the layout too much; I can't do it yself because I can't see it. Giano 09:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)