Daicaregos (talk | contribs) →Use of references in lead: What? |
→Use of references in lead: fix copy and paste error |
||
Line 230: | Line 230: | ||
The reference appears instead to indicate a debate around the use of the term (specifically with the UK central govt. using it in a UN report and a Welsh Assembly member raising a concern over it). "Some politicians would say there’s nothing wrong with the term", the reference says, "Others recoil in horror". Fair enough. But that is a long way off from supporting the statement that the term "has no modern geographical or constitutional basis". |
The reference appears instead to indicate a debate around the use of the term (specifically with the UK central govt. using it in a UN report and a Welsh Assembly member raising a concern over it). "Some politicians would say there’s nothing wrong with the term", the reference says, "Others recoil in horror". Fair enough. But that is a long way off from supporting the statement that the term "has no modern geographical or constitutional basis". |
||
The first part (no modern geographical basis) would also appear to be at odds with references given immediately before (Reader's Digest:1999, Oxford Illustrated Dictionary:1976), which describes Wales as a "principality" in modern times. (Not the mention |
The first part (no modern geographical basis) would also appear to be at odds with references given immediately before (Reader's Digest:1999, Oxford Illustrated Dictionary:1976), which describes Wales as a "principality" in modern times. (Not the mention [http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/9th-UNCSGN-Docs/E-CONF-98-48-Add1.pdf the submission to the UN], which gives "principality" in the definition section.) |
||
The essential issue I see is that the following statement is not supported by [http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/welsh-politics/welsh-politics-news/2010/07/03/un-report-causes-stir-with-wales-dubbed-principality-91466-26777027/ the given reference]: "...although this has no modern geographical or constitutional basis." The reference appears instead to indicate a debate around the use of the term (specifically with the UK central govt. using it in a UN report and a Welsh Assembly member raising a concern over it). "Some politicians would say there’s nothing wrong with the term", the reference says, "Others recoil in horror". Fair enough, but that is a long way off from supporting the statement that the term "has no modern geographical or constitutional basis". |
|||
The first part (no modern geographical basis) would also appear to be at odds with a reference given immediately before (Reader's Digest:1999, Oxford Illustrated Dictionary:1976), which describes Wales as a "principality" in modern times. (Not the mention the submission to the UN.) |
|||
There is also the relatively trivial use of the definitive article (''the''), where the supporting references use no article or the indefinite article (''a''). --RA ([[User talk:Rannpháirtí anaithnid|talk]]) 09:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC) the submission to the UN], which gives "principality" in the definition section.) |
|||
There is also the relatively trivial use of the definitive article (''the''), where the supporting references use no article or the indefinite article (''a''). --RA ([[User talk:Rannpháirtí anaithnid|talk]]) 09:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC) |
There is also the relatively trivial use of the definitive article (''the''), where the supporting references use no article or the indefinite article (''a''). --RA ([[User talk:Rannpháirtí anaithnid|talk]]) 09:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:16, 15 October 2010
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The lead...
Hi folks,
Haven't been around much, and certainly haven't read the Wales article for some time. It's looking good, but I think the lead needs some adjustment - only in terms of grammar and technicality rather than the spirit of its contents. For instance, we have:
Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, bordered by England to its east, and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west. Wales has a population estimated at three million and is officially bilingual; the indigenous Welsh language and English have equal status, and bilingual signs are the norm throughout the land. The once-steady decline in Welsh speaking has reversed over recent years, however, with fluent Welsh speakers currently estimated to be around 20% of the population.
However, I'd be more inclined to be a bit more choppy and drop some of the poor wording ("norm" and "recent" years, whatever that may mean):
Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, bordered by England to its east, and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west. It has a population estimated at three million and is officially bilingual; the indigenous Welsh language and English have equal status, meaning bilingual signs for navigation are standard. The Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture; although it experienced a decline in ?????, a resurgence/series of changes/whatever reinstated its popularity, with fluent Welsh speakers were estimated in 200? to be around 20% of the population.
I think we also need to change from:
In 1955, Cardiff (Welsh: Caerdydd) was proclaimed as the capital city and it is the largest city in Wales with a population of 317,500. For a period it was the biggest coal port in the world.
...to...
In 1955, Cardiff was proclaimed as the capital of Wales. It is Wales's largest/most populous city with a population of 317,500. In the 19th century (?) it was the biggest[clarification needed] coal port in the world.
...reason being that "city" is used twice in close succession; "largest" may mean by area (in which case it needs to be specified); "for a period" is ambiguous; "Caerdydd" is Welsh whereas this is the English language Wiki. --Jza84 | Talk 23:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would prefer to begin a new sentence after "The Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture." rather than link with "although".
The citation from the BBC says "Cardiff was once the world's biggest coal-exporting port, according to historian Brian Lee who said the Coal Exchange had cost £40,000 to build." Do you think it should mention "according to historian Brian Lee ... ", or find the direct reference? Daicaregos (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)- I'm just thinking that we need to explain it: do we mean biggest in size, biggest as in busiest, biggest by area, frontage, amount of ships, amount of cargo, biggest by workforce etc? The whole lead is good but just needs tightening up in terms of its wording in my view. --Jza84 | Talk 10:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think I can throw some light on this. According to the Encyclopedia of Wales (pages 116-117), in 1907 Cardiff docks had total quayage of 11km, "one of the largest dock systems in the world". However, trade figures for the Port of Cardiff included Barry (which eclipsed Cardiff as a coal exporter in 1901) and Penarth - so "the role of Cardiff itself as a coal port can sometimes be inflated".--Pondle (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm just thinking that we need to explain it: do we mean biggest in size, biggest as in busiest, biggest by area, frontage, amount of ships, amount of cargo, biggest by workforce etc? The whole lead is good but just needs tightening up in terms of its wording in my view. --Jza84 | Talk 10:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Id agree with those changes especially removing " are the norm throughout the land" bit, although i do still think the lead whilst it should rightly make clear the two languages have equal status, it also needs to make clear English is primarily used still, this must be the case when the following sentence goes on to state 20% of the population are fluent Welsh speakers. Legally English and Welsh are equal, but that is not the reality on the ground as far as im aware and at present that sentence does not make it clear. Infact it is rather odd for it to say Wales is officially a bilingual country and then point out less than 30% can speak one of the languages fluently. Oh and welcome back Jza84, hope you had a good break. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- The "reality on the ground". :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I dont dispute that there are bilingual signs everywhere and that all children are now learning Welsh in school and that some parts of Wales use Welsh as the primary language rather than English. But we need to make it more clear than just saying they have equal status, which is true officially but not in reality when it comes to daily usage. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Lmao i just got the joke! very good BritishWatcher (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- We do need to be careful about the words we use. It is true that more people speak English than Welsh, and we should make that clear; but the fact that the two languages have equal official status is important in itself, "in reality", for instance in terms of signs, the official names of places and organisations, legislation, and so forth. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- We agree! =) BritishWatcher (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- So something like.... "The Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture. Although Welsh experienced a decline in the 20th century, a revival reinstated its popularity, to the point where fluent Welsh speakers were estimated in 2001? to be around 20% of the population, the remainder predominantly using English.".... If you read the present lead it jumps in with a very poorly worded statement about Welsh recentism and doesn't stress its importance why it's in the first paragraph. --Jza84 | Talk 12:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd prefer: "The Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture. Its use declined before the late 20th century but has recently increased. It is now spoken by 22% of the country's population, and as a first language by a majority in some areas; however, most residents of Wales speak English for all or part of the time." I'm not happy with words like "revival", "popularity", or "the remainder predominantly using English". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Fully support something along those lines which explains use. I presume that is to come after the proposed: "It has a population estimated at three million and is officially bilingual; the indigenous Welsh language and English have equal status, meaning bilingual signs for navigation are standard." Is the signs bit needed (i know its true, but its implied by saying its officially bilingual/having equal status and seems an odd explanation to have in the introductions first paragraph)? How about something like.. "It has a population estimated at three million and is officially bilingual with the indigenous Welsh language and English having equal status. The Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture. Its use ......." BritishWatcher (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is very worrying. We agree again. :-0 Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- lol dont worry, we can still disagree on an issue further up this page. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- We still have a "recently" in there - how recent? Last century, last decade, last year, last 5 minutes? It needs to be more precise. --Jza84 | Talk 14:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Would saying "recent years"? be ok? or recent decades? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- The Welsh language article has figures showing an increasing proportion since 1991. I would have thought that "recently increased" is perfectly acceptable for the lede, with a more detailed explanation in the main text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is a guideline against the term, but having not been about for some time I forget its location. I'd say it's acceptable, but not perfectly acceptable, meaning it could be done better. --Jza84 | Talk 15:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- "...increased over recent decades"....? This report says: "Caution must be exercised when comparing the results of the 2001 Census with those of the 1991 Census as such comparison is affected by three factors: Changes in definition..; Changes in the geographic base..; Adjustment for under-enumeration..". We should be careful not to over-interpret the information that exists. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is a guideline against the term, but having not been about for some time I forget its location. I'd say it's acceptable, but not perfectly acceptable, meaning it could be done better. --Jza84 | Talk 15:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- The Welsh language article has figures showing an increasing proportion since 1991. I would have thought that "recently increased" is perfectly acceptable for the lede, with a more detailed explanation in the main text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Would saying "recent years"? be ok? or recent decades? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- We still have a "recently" in there - how recent? Last century, last decade, last year, last 5 minutes? It needs to be more precise. --Jza84 | Talk 14:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- lol dont worry, we can still disagree on an issue further up this page. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is very worrying. We agree again. :-0 Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Fully support something along those lines which explains use. I presume that is to come after the proposed: "It has a population estimated at three million and is officially bilingual; the indigenous Welsh language and English have equal status, meaning bilingual signs for navigation are standard." Is the signs bit needed (i know its true, but its implied by saying its officially bilingual/having equal status and seems an odd explanation to have in the introductions first paragraph)? How about something like.. "It has a population estimated at three million and is officially bilingual with the indigenous Welsh language and English having equal status. The Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture. Its use ......." BritishWatcher (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd prefer: "The Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture. Its use declined before the late 20th century but has recently increased. It is now spoken by 22% of the country's population, and as a first language by a majority in some areas; however, most residents of Wales speak English for all or part of the time." I'm not happy with words like "revival", "popularity", or "the remainder predominantly using English". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- So something like.... "The Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture. Although Welsh experienced a decline in the 20th century, a revival reinstated its popularity, to the point where fluent Welsh speakers were estimated in 2001? to be around 20% of the population, the remainder predominantly using English.".... If you read the present lead it jumps in with a very poorly worded statement about Welsh recentism and doesn't stress its importance why it's in the first paragraph. --Jza84 | Talk 12:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- We agree! =) BritishWatcher (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- We do need to be careful about the words we use. It is true that more people speak English than Welsh, and we should make that clear; but the fact that the two languages have equal official status is important in itself, "in reality", for instance in terms of signs, the official names of places and organisations, legislation, and so forth. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- The "reality on the ground". :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The Welsh Language Board has published this 'statistical balance sheet' which appears to show that more people speak the language than in the 1990s, but fewer do so fluently.[1]--Pondle (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- That study is an excellent find. The problem is, it doesn't give us a simple answer, and (surprisingly) there don't seem to have been any news items about its publication, summarising it or commenting on it, which would have helped. My assessment of the figures is that the numbers and proportion "able to speak Welsh" have risen since the early 1990s, but the numbers speaking fluently, particularly of older people, have fallen, as have the numbers of entirely Welsh-speaking households. At the same time, bilingual classes, Welsh language theatre performances and so forth seem to have increased. As a first step, I'll check to see if that source is ref'd on the Welsh language page, add it there if not, and see if there are further comments here. It may, in my view, be a neutral position that Welsh usage overall has stabilised in recent years, rather than either risen or fallen. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I've just been incredibly bold and enacted much, but not all of the matters raised above. I've done so on the basis that there seems to be a fair bit of acknowledgement that some of the wording could've been improved. I am conscious that leads for such huge and beloved articles are very close to people's hearts so I'm treading boldly but diligently.
The changes are illustrated in this diff. In addition to some (but not all - there are a few issues unresolved) of the matters above, I've altered some of the wording in respect of "many", "today", "recently" and "Welsh population" (Welsh people could be resident outside of Wales). Hopefully all is good, but please tweak away. --Jza84 | Talk 23:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I went on to remove the bit about the signs and added with / having, the sentence flows better like that in my opinion and see no need for the example of the signs, which is implied by having equal status. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I kind of understand that, but I think the following sentence ("the Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture"), reads out of place as a bit of unscientific filler. Although I personally agree with the "truthfulness" of the statement, it may need tweaking/revisiting/removing as per consensus. --Jza84 | Talk 23:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- May be rearrange it so its at the end of the first paragraph. "'and remains an important element of Welsh culture'. after mentioning the decline / fluent speakers rather than the single sentence which does look a bit out of place. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- It seems to me that what is important is to set out the details and refs in the main body of text, and then summarise that in the introduction - see WP:LEADCITE, though I defer to Jza84's greater experience in GAs. I do think it's important to mention the cultural importance of the language in the lead - as well as, in the text of the article, making a ref to the road signing (see Road signs in Wales, a newish stubby article). I would oppose BW's use of the word "remains..." - that implies an unwarranted degree of surprise at the situation (perhaps it should be worded "English is still spoken in Wales in spite of devolution..." ;-) ) Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Given the role of the language in the history of modern Wales (The Welsh not, the bilingual road signs campaign, S4C arising from a campaign of civil disobedience, growth of Welsh language teaching in ares of Wales etc. etc.) its important that it is in both the main body and the lede. Its unique among the celtic nations in this respect. I agree with Ghmyrtle that "remains" is unfortunate language). While historically the language was simply a part of the ideation culture of Wales, in the modern day its preservation and the campaigns and activities around that have been a more explicit aspect of its identity. Linked to this we have the dialectic between a nationalist, welsh speaking rural north and an industrial, socialist, internationalist south. Something well reflected in the novels of Emyr Humphreys (and article crying out for some work by the way) as well as elsewhere. I say dialectic, as in the modern age there has been a growing together of the nationalist and socialist traditions. I need to hunt around for some sources on this --Snowded TALK 07:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well just "and is as important element of Welsh culture". I agree that it is very notable and needs to be in the introduction, i just think a single sentence on it in the current position looks a little odd, adding it to the other sentence, so the first paragraph ends with that flows better in my opinion. Just needs rearranging a little. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the way forward should be to ensure that the article sets out a full, balanced and referenced story, and the introduction should then summarise that. Changing the intro without making sure it complies with the main text (as often happens!) seems to me like putting the cart before the horse. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- When I came to the article, it struck me immediately that, unlike any other country article on the rest of WP, Wales jumps straight in about how one of its languages is spoken fluently by about 20% of its population. OK, Wales has some brilliant and unique qualities, but imagine: "France is a country in western Europe. French is an important element of French cultur. It is currently estimated that French is spoken by about X% of the French population."... It's a little odd. Clearly, consensus and past editting has converged to place the Welsh language in the first paragraph - if that is the case, then surely we should stress why? The alternative is to adjust its position. --Jza84 | Talk 10:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- We need to have a balanced view, which takes into account the needs of a global readership. Some exposition is needed in the introduction, as readers coming to this article will not necessarily know whether everyone in Wales speaks Welsh, or whether everyone speaks English. Unlike in, say, France, there is likely to be some uncertainty. The explanation of the history of the current situation can, in my view, come later in the article if it has the potential to become unduly weighty in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- My view is just a nudge different - yes have a balanced view for global readership, but principally go with what other reputable sources do; ambiguous wording that is open to interpretation should be eliminated/minimised wherever possible, including the lead. I suppose I didn't make that entirely clear - that the lead in its present format is good, but typically Wikipedian in its unorthodoxy in promoting some facts without explaining their context. In that spirit I have the following extracts which may help us get a more clinical wording that I was thinking would advance the article:
In 1997, 21 per cent of the popluation in private households said that they spoke Welsh. In much of the rural north and west, Welsh remains the first language. Welsh is now more widely used for official purposes, and is treated equally with English in the work of the Assembly. It is also used quite extensively in broadcasting, while most road signs are bilingual.... The National Assembly has assumed the main responsibility for enchancing Welsh culture and developing greater use of the Welsh language.
— Britain 2001, ONS, p. 32- Not sure if you good guys can extract anything of use? --Jza84 | Talk 15:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- We need to have a balanced view, which takes into account the needs of a global readership. Some exposition is needed in the introduction, as readers coming to this article will not necessarily know whether everyone in Wales speaks Welsh, or whether everyone speaks English. Unlike in, say, France, there is likely to be some uncertainty. The explanation of the history of the current situation can, in my view, come later in the article if it has the potential to become unduly weighty in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- When I came to the article, it struck me immediately that, unlike any other country article on the rest of WP, Wales jumps straight in about how one of its languages is spoken fluently by about 20% of its population. OK, Wales has some brilliant and unique qualities, but imagine: "France is a country in western Europe. French is an important element of French cultur. It is currently estimated that French is spoken by about X% of the French population."... It's a little odd. Clearly, consensus and past editting has converged to place the Welsh language in the first paragraph - if that is the case, then surely we should stress why? The alternative is to adjust its position. --Jza84 | Talk 10:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the way forward should be to ensure that the article sets out a full, balanced and referenced story, and the introduction should then summarise that. Changing the intro without making sure it complies with the main text (as often happens!) seems to me like putting the cart before the horse. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well just "and is as important element of Welsh culture". I agree that it is very notable and needs to be in the introduction, i just think a single sentence on it in the current position looks a little odd, adding it to the other sentence, so the first paragraph ends with that flows better in my opinion. Just needs rearranging a little. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Given the role of the language in the history of modern Wales (The Welsh not, the bilingual road signs campaign, S4C arising from a campaign of civil disobedience, growth of Welsh language teaching in ares of Wales etc. etc.) its important that it is in both the main body and the lede. Its unique among the celtic nations in this respect. I agree with Ghmyrtle that "remains" is unfortunate language). While historically the language was simply a part of the ideation culture of Wales, in the modern day its preservation and the campaigns and activities around that have been a more explicit aspect of its identity. Linked to this we have the dialectic between a nationalist, welsh speaking rural north and an industrial, socialist, internationalist south. Something well reflected in the novels of Emyr Humphreys (and article crying out for some work by the way) as well as elsewhere. I say dialectic, as in the modern age there has been a growing together of the nationalist and socialist traditions. I need to hunt around for some sources on this --Snowded TALK 07:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- It seems to me that what is important is to set out the details and refs in the main body of text, and then summarise that in the introduction - see WP:LEADCITE, though I defer to Jza84's greater experience in GAs. I do think it's important to mention the cultural importance of the language in the lead - as well as, in the text of the article, making a ref to the road signing (see Road signs in Wales, a newish stubby article). I would oppose BW's use of the word "remains..." - that implies an unwarranted degree of surprise at the situation (perhaps it should be worded "English is still spoken in Wales in spite of devolution..." ;-) ) Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- May be rearrange it so its at the end of the first paragraph. "'and remains an important element of Welsh culture'. after mentioning the decline / fluent speakers rather than the single sentence which does look a bit out of place. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I kind of understand that, but I think the following sentence ("the Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture"), reads out of place as a bit of unscientific filler. Although I personally agree with the "truthfulness" of the statement, it may need tweaking/revisiting/removing as per consensus. --Jza84 | Talk 23:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Interesting that the ONS quote contains one big ambiguity, in the use of the words "more widely used" - more than what, English, or use in the past? (I do know the answer, by the way.) How about:
Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, bordered by England to its east, and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west. It has a population of about three million. The English and Welsh languages have equal official status across Wales, and English is the most widely spoken language. An estimated 21 per cent of residents speak Welsh fluently; it is the first language across much of rural north and west Wales and is an important part of Welsh culture.
The last part, about being "an important part of Welsh culture", will need to be expanded with refs in the article text (as may other parts of the statement). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I like it!--Pondle (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Date formats
One of the first things that gets checked during a review is the date format of the citations. In past GA articles I have used dd-month-yyyy as the format (e.g. 6 September 2010). Although the majority are of the American standard (e.g. 2010-09-06), I feel as a British article we should use a British format. Any thoughts. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, the British way is also so much clearer rather than a horrible bunch of numbers all jumbled together. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I expected nothing less BW, but it is appreciated none the less. But we are using several formats at the moment which is of course unacceptable. Which ever format is decided upon, I will change the cites to the agreed format. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) As a fan of the YYYY-MM-DD system, I feel obliged to point out that it's not American - they use that 'orrible MMM DD, YYYY system. YYYY-MM-DD is an ISO format, typically used to keep machines (and masochists like me) happy. That said, you should probably use DD MMM YYYY everywhere, even in the odd places (like accessdate) that only machines look (humans still look occasionally, and may need to change dates etc). TFOWR 22:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Apologies for the mistake, but now it is nameless I can really state how much I dislike it. Again, what is the preferred format? FruitMonkey (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Heh! You're wrong, it's great ;-) Seriously, though, I'd recommend sticking to UK dates ("6 September 2010"): I'm not aware of any reason why we'd need to use ISO dates (or any other date format). TFOWR 22:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is this just about possible Bot uses TFOWR, or are there live bots that use accessdate? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I was actually thinking less about bots, and more about the mediawiki software - I think there used to be an idea that we should use ISO dates for, e.g., accessdates because then the server software could render the date easily into whatever format the reader wanted (American readers would get September 6, 2010; Commonwealth readers would get 6 September 2010, etc). That's been deprecated, and we all get whatever date the page uses. But I guess bots should be smart enough to work out what's going on. I'm sure there's a template somewhere that says "use this date format" or similar, maybe bots use that? TFOWR 22:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry to come late to the party. One of my article reviews recommended the 6 September 2010 format (using a non-breaking space between the number and the month), rather than using DDMMYYYY (or variations thereof). It is completely unambiguous and I have used it ever since. Daicaregos (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd second that - DD MM YYYY and MM DD YYYY are both evil. 1 2 2010 - 1st of February or 2nd of January? Who knows! Spell out the month and the Atlantic language barrier disappears (well, as far as dates are concerned. "Pop" is always going to be the noise my colour television makes, not some paternal figure...) TFOWR 13:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I thought pop came in a bottle! We live and learn! -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd second that - DD MM YYYY and MM DD YYYY are both evil. 1 2 2010 - 1st of February or 2nd of January? Who knows! Spell out the month and the Atlantic language barrier disappears (well, as far as dates are concerned. "Pop" is always going to be the noise my colour television makes, not some paternal figure...) TFOWR 13:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry to come late to the party. One of my article reviews recommended the 6 September 2010 format (using a non-breaking space between the number and the month), rather than using DDMMYYYY (or variations thereof). It is completely unambiguous and I have used it ever since. Daicaregos (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I was actually thinking less about bots, and more about the mediawiki software - I think there used to be an idea that we should use ISO dates for, e.g., accessdates because then the server software could render the date easily into whatever format the reader wanted (American readers would get September 6, 2010; Commonwealth readers would get 6 September 2010, etc). That's been deprecated, and we all get whatever date the page uses. But I guess bots should be smart enough to work out what's going on. I'm sure there's a template somewhere that says "use this date format" or similar, maybe bots use that? TFOWR 22:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is this just about possible Bot uses TFOWR, or are there live bots that use accessdate? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Heh! You're wrong, it's great ;-) Seriously, though, I'd recommend sticking to UK dates ("6 September 2010"): I'm not aware of any reason why we'd need to use ISO dates (or any other date format). TFOWR 22:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Apologies for the mistake, but now it is nameless I can really state how much I dislike it. Again, what is the preferred format? FruitMonkey (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) As a fan of the YYYY-MM-DD system, I feel obliged to point out that it's not American - they use that 'orrible MMM DD, YYYY system. YYYY-MM-DD is an ISO format, typically used to keep machines (and masochists like me) happy. That said, you should probably use DD MMM YYYY everywhere, even in the odd places (like accessdate) that only machines look (humans still look occasionally, and may need to change dates etc). TFOWR 22:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I expected nothing less BW, but it is appreciated none the less. But we are using several formats at the moment which is of course unacceptable. Which ever format is decided upon, I will change the cites to the agreed format. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
History section
We've discussed the inadequacies of the history section before, but it's more pressing now that we're going for GA. The coverage here is pretty idiosyncratic: most of Welsh social and political history gets short shrift. We have a lot on 18th & 19th century economic history, and a very detailed section on the rise of nationalism in the 20th century. But there's nothing at all on cultural or demographic changes, or even Welsh politics before the foundation of Plaid Cymru. I think we need a radical re-write. Any thoughts?--Pondle (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- There do seem to be several notable absences from the history section, most importantly, the important labour/trade union history of 19th and 20th century, the coal strikes, etc. Currently also no mention for example of Tonypandy which is surprising. Strangely absent also is David Lloyd George (apart from one mention - he introduced the love of daffodils!). I would also have put in some more recent things such as the Aberfan disaster (absent) and more than just an undabbed mention of the investiture in the nationalism section. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I notice that in the history section there is no mention of the Welsh Marches which played an important role in medieval Welsh history. A paragraph or two should be added to remedy this lack. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Quite right. It should be noted. Though sadly, a sentence or two is all that could be devoted to it, rather than a paragraph or two. Daicaregos (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actioned, hopefully to an acceptable level. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Won't be needing this then: "Within four years of the Battle of Hastings England had been completely subjugated by the Normans. William the Bastard established a series of lordships, allocated to his most powerful warriors along the Welsh border, the boundaries fixed only to the east.[1] This frontier region, and any English-held lordships in Wales, became known as Marchia Wallie, the Welsh Marches, in which the Marcher lords were subject to neither English nor Welsh law.[2] The area of the March varied as the fortunes of the Marcher Lords and the Welsh princes ebbed and flowed.[3] The March of Wales, which existed for over 450 years, was abolished under the Acts of Union in 1536.[2]". Oh well, Daicaregos (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yours is better. Replace it with your research. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is up for discussion. Any disagreement/amendments anyone? Daicaregos (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think your version sufficiently covers Welsh Marcher history, Daicaregos. Any reader seeking more details on the subject can link to the Welsh Marches article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Please feel free to make any improvements. Daicaregos (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- I made just one change. Bastard sounded too perjorative, and he's probably better known to history as The Conqueror.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- I guess history is written by the winners. He'll always be William the Bastard to me. Daicaregos (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but the Saxons treated the Welsh no better. Look at what King Harold II of England did to this girl's husband. Killed Gruffydd then forced her to marry him!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- I guess history is written by the winners. He'll always be William the Bastard to me. Daicaregos (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- I made just one change. Bastard sounded too perjorative, and he's probably better known to history as The Conqueror.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Please feel free to make any improvements. Daicaregos (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think your version sufficiently covers Welsh Marcher history, Daicaregos. Any reader seeking more details on the subject can link to the Welsh Marches article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is up for discussion. Any disagreement/amendments anyone? Daicaregos (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yours is better. Replace it with your research. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Won't be needing this then: "Within four years of the Battle of Hastings England had been completely subjugated by the Normans. William the Bastard established a series of lordships, allocated to his most powerful warriors along the Welsh border, the boundaries fixed only to the east.[1] This frontier region, and any English-held lordships in Wales, became known as Marchia Wallie, the Welsh Marches, in which the Marcher lords were subject to neither English nor Welsh law.[2] The area of the March varied as the fortunes of the Marcher Lords and the Welsh princes ebbed and flowed.[3] The March of Wales, which existed for over 450 years, was abolished under the Acts of Union in 1536.[2]". Oh well, Daicaregos (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actioned, hopefully to an acceptable level. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Quite right. It should be noted. Though sadly, a sentence or two is all that could be devoted to it, rather than a paragraph or two. Daicaregos (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- I notice that in the history section there is no mention of the Welsh Marches which played an important role in medieval Welsh history. A paragraph or two should be added to remedy this lack. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Modern Wales
The section entitled 'Modern Wales' has very little to do with modern Wales, it only focuses on the rise of Modern Welsh nationalism. I agree that the flooding of the Tryweryn valley is of importance, but there is nothing of the World Wars, the Depression, the ruination of areas casused by the Beeching Axe, etc. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, it's very unbalanced. In the discussion section above I proposed a rewrite; we need to decide how we treat the whole history section - do we adopt a chronological narrative or focus on themes, e.g. industry, nationalism, etc etc.? Either way I think it should be much shorter. --Pondle (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think it should be essentially chronological, summarising the key points in the History of Wales article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think the Welsh Nationalism section is so large (and not really about Wales) that it warrants it's own article. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- See Welsh nationalism....? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- And Welsh independence.--Pondle (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- See Welsh nationalism....? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- It does seem like overkill and some of it would be better placed in the two main articles mentioned above. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think the Welsh Nationalism section is so large (and not really about Wales) that it warrants it's own article. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think it should be essentially chronological, summarising the key points in the History of Wales article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- At the moment, the history section is half as long (3,500 words) as the main History of Wales article (6,500 words) - probably is room for some trimming down. The nationalism section contains mostly notable elements, it and other sections probably just need some simplification. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Also, that section would be best not called "Modern Welsh nationalism" - to fit with the rest of the main history section, it would be Modern Wales, with a subsection on "Welsh nationalism" or similar. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Completely agree, find a better title. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Also, that section would be best not called "Modern Welsh nationalism" - to fit with the rest of the main history section, it would be Modern Wales, with a subsection on "Welsh nationalism" or similar. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Colonisation
Not sure that "colonisation" is the right title for the Roman >> onwards section. Most debate amongst professional archaeologists and historians these days focuses on continuity of populations and culture - I suppose the title refers to incoming Roman, Anglo-Saxon and Normans, but maybe a better title would be "Roman and Early Medieval" or something. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. We could also improve language like "The Romans were ... busy ..." (!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well spotted, yes, I've modified that. One had a picture of lots of little Romans frantically keeping themselves busy in and around Gwynedd. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
If nobody objects then, I will change the titles discussed here and in the related section above with Modern Wales and Roman and Early Medieval. Let's do that tomorrow if no further points at issue. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Good thinking Guiltlessgecko (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Wales/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for potential GA status. My review should be posted shortly. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I feel this article is not GA at this time. I encourage you to re-nominate once the below issues have been addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Writing and formatting
- The following sentences exist two times in 10.7.1 Music: "The BBC National Orchestra of Wales performs in Wales and internationally. The world-renowned Welsh National Opera now has a permanent home at the Wales Millennium Centre in Cardiff Bay, while the National Youth Orchestra of Wales was the first of its type in the world. The BBC National Orchestra of Wales performs in Wales and internationally. The Welsh National Opera is based at the Wales Millennium Centre in Cardiff Bay, while the National Youth Orchestra of Wales was the first of its type in the world.[222]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lzwiki (talk • contribs) 21:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Removed duplicate wording. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Headings should generally not repeat the title of the article
- Changed sub heading. Done
- Per WP:LAYOUT, footer boxes should not appear mid-article
- Moved footer to foot of article. Done
- "It has a population estimated at" -> "It has an estimated population of"
- Changed as suggested. Done
- Article needs some general copy-editing for grammar and clarity
- Numbers under 10 should be spelled out
- I have made one brief glance through and have yet to find an numbers in numerals ten or under. There were a few under Demographics, but as there were comparable numbers used frequently within the sub-section which used numerals (e.g. 72%) I thought best to leave as is. Though all percentages are now % rather than a mix of 'per cent' and % as per WP:MOSNUM. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Check centuries - this rule also applies to things like "7th" and "5th"
- WP:MOS#Numbers says "Show centuries in figures (the 5th century CE; 19th-century painting)" Daicaregos (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Check centuries - this rule also applies to things like "7th" and "5th"
- I have made one brief glance through and have yet to find an numbers in numerals ten or under. There were a few under Demographics, but as there were comparable numbers used frequently within the sub-section which used numerals (e.g. 72%) I thought best to leave as is. Though all percentages are now % rather than a mix of 'per cent' and % as per WP:MOSNUM. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Don't link the same term multiple times, especially not in close proximity
- Removed overlinks of all those I could find Done Daicaregos (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Why is that text in the middle of the Roman section a pull-quote? First, not all of it appears to be quoted (although the quotation marks are unclear), and second it's not long enough to warrant blocking
- This has cropped up before here. Academic opinion is needed as to why Offa's Dyke was built. We seem to have 3 options: 1. delete the quotes; 2. add quotation marks around the quote box; 3. replace the quote box with a précis. My choice would be option 2. Any précis would be likely to be derivative and we would be unlikely to explain it any better than John Davies anyway; better to give him full credit. What's your thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know the discussion history here, but I would argue for keeping the quote but not the box the quote is in.
- Done Daicaregos (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know the discussion history here, but I would argue for keeping the quote but not the box the quote is in.
- "Following the successful examples of Cornwall in 722 and Brittany in 865, the Britons of Wales made their peace with the Vikings and asked the Norsemen to help the Britons fight the Anglo-Saxons of Mercia to prevent an Anglo-Saxon conquest of Wales. In AD 878 the Britons of Wales unified with the Vikings of Denmark to destroy an Anglo-Saxon army of Mercians. Like Cornwall in 722, this decisive defeating of the Saxons gave Wales some decades of peace from Anglo-Saxon attack. In 1063, the Welsh prince Gruffydd ap Llywelyn made an alliance with Norwegian Vikings against Mercia which, as in AD 878 was successful, and the Saxons of Mercia defeated. As with Cornwall and Brittany, Viking aggression towards the Saxons/Franks ended any chance of the Anglo-Saxons/Franks conquering their Celtic neighbours." - phrasing is confusing here, especially the seemingly interchangeable use of Anglo-Saxon vs Saxon
- Yes confusing, and not only that it overlaps with the next category, Medieval Wales. Cutting back and adding a cite. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Some of the shorter paragraphs should be combined to improve flow
- Done Daicaregos (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- "via the Additional Member System via regional lists" - "via...via" is repeptitive
- Switched first via to through. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Climate section should be made into prose and expanded
- Completed by Daicaregos Done
- Be consistent in using First World War vs World War I/One (and Two)
- British article so all mentions of the two World Wars now state First World War or Second World War. Done
- Be consistent in using % vs percent vs per cent
- Addressed, all now %, as is recommended at WP:MOSNUM. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- 72% Christian + 1.5% non-Christian + 18% no religion does not add up to 100% - what are the other people?
- Corrected and linked to Census data. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Don't include links in See also that already appear in the main article text
- Addressed Done
Accuracy and verifiability
- See here for a list of problematic links Done
- Please address the citation needed tag Done
- Don't mix citation types in the infobox Done
- Citations needed for the following:
- They endured, in part because of favourable geographical features such as uplands, mountains, and rivers and a resilient society that did not collapse with the end of the Roman civitas.
- I found evidence of Gwynydd having good defensive geograpic features, but nothing regarding the other kingdoms or the fact that the Welsh kingdoms had a more resilient society. Have reworded the best I can with citeable sources. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- The Welsh continued to call themselves Brythoniaid (Brythons or Britons) well into the Middle Ages, though the first use of Cymru and y Cymry is found as early as 633 in the Gododdin of Aneirin. Done In Armes Prydain, written in about 930, Done the words Cymry and Cymro are used as often as 15 times. However, it was not until about the 12th century, that Cymry began to overtake Brythoniaid in their writings. Done
- each competing for hegemony over the others
- Probably true to an extent but can't cite. Removed Done
- allegedly having the Law Codes blessed by the Pope
- I found evidence of a (supposed) pilgrimage to Rome but not about a meeting with Pope. It does not add any more weight to the fact that he codified Welsh Law. Adding cite to earlier work and removing the Pope blessing. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Beaumaris, Caernarfon, and Conwy were built mainly to overshadow the Welsh royal home and headquarters
- In 1404 Owain was reputedly crowned Prince of Wales Done
- The Wales referendum, 1979 in which the Welsh electorate voted on the creation of an assembly for Wales resulted in a large majority for the "no" vote. However, in 1997 a referendum on the same issue secured a "yes", although by a very narrow majority Done
- This referendum is likely to take place in March 2011.
- Removed statement as it's predicting a future attempt and is already mentioned in a previous paragraph. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- form a stable government with the "historic" One Wales agreement.
- Removed the word 'stable' as that implies stability was not present beforehand, plus I have cited and removed historic, as so far only Plaid Cymru, Labour and the First Minister appear to be using the term. We will let history determine what is historic. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- the ancient and historic Wales and Chester court circuit was also disbanded
- It appears it was not disbanded with devolution, but the areas actually split in 2007. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Its area is about 20,779 km2 (8,023 sq mi) Done– about the same size as Massachusetts, Israel, Slovenia or El Salvador and about a quarter of the area of Scotland. It is about 274 km (170 mi) north–south and 97 km (60 mi) east–west. Done Daicaregos (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Wales is bordered by England to the east and by sea in the other three directions: the Môr Hafren (Bristol Channel) to the south, Celtic Sea to the west, and the Irish Sea to the north. Altogether, Wales has over 1,200 km (746 mi) of coastline. Done
- The highest mountains in Wales are in Snowdonia (Eryri), and include Snowdon (Yr Wyddfa), which, at 1,085 m (3,560 ft) is the highest peak in Wales. The 14 (or possibly 15) Welsh mountains over 3,000 feet (914 m) high are known collectively as the Welsh 3000s, and are located in a small area in the north-west. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- The highest outside the 3000s is Aran Fawddwy 905m (2,969 ft) in the south of Snowdonia. Done The Brecon Beacons (Bannau Brycheiniog) are in the south (highest point Pen-y-Fan 886 m/2,907 ft, and are joined by the Cambrian Mountains in Mid Wales (after which the earliest geological period of the Paleozoic era, the Cambrian, is named). Done
- After much dispute, the next two periods of the Paleozoic era, the Ordovician and Silurian, were named after ancient Celtic tribes from this area
- Assuming (maybe incorrectly) that the facts being queried are the naming of the two periods. If the 'much dispute' is a problem it can be removed without impacting on the strength of the sentence. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest doing that, if the dispute isn't sourced
- Done
- The coastline of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast, the Gower Peninsula, Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire, and Ceredigion is particularly wild and impressive. Gower, Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire and Cardigan Bay all have clean blue water, white sand beaches and impressive marine life. Despite this scenic splendour the coast of Wales has a dark side; the south and west coasts of Wales, along with the Irish and Cornish coasts, are frequently blasted by huge Atlantic westerlies/south westerlies that, over the years, have sunk and wrecked many vessels.
- Re-write of the first two sentences of the paragraph, getting rid of the peacock terms and opinion, plus two cites added. Hopefully this is now addressed. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- On the night of 25 October 1859, 114 ships were destroyed off the coast of Wales when a hurricane blew in from the Atlantic; Cornwall and Ireland also had a huge number of fatalities on its coastline from shipwrecks that night. Wales has the somewhat unenviable reputation, along with Cornwall, Ireland and Brittany, of having per square mile, some of the highest shipwreck rates in Europe.[citation needed] The shipwreck situation was particularly bad during the industrial era when ships bound for Cardiff got caught up in Atlantic gales and were decimated by "the cruel sea".
- re-written slightly and cites added. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- In 2002, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Wales was just over £26 billion ($48 billion), giving a per capita GDP of £12,651 ($19,546). As of 2006, the unemployment rate in Wales stood at 5.7% – above the UK average, but lower than in the majority of EU countries.
- The population of Wales in the United Kingdom Census 2001 was 2,903,085, which has risen to 2,958,876 according to 2005 estimates
- Cite given. Done
- Today there are very few monoglot Welsh speakers, but individuals still exist who may be considered less than fluent in English and rarely speak it
- I am able to cite the monoglot statement, but not that some Welsh speakers rarely speak English. As there are communities in Wales that speak Welsh as a first language (which is addressed in the Language section), then there must be people who are more fluent in Welsh than English. First Language infers that you speak it at home, think in that language, etc. I have therefore removed the 'rarely speak' statement unless someone can cite it. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- FYI, the most up-to-date survey of Welsh language use is this. Ghmyrtle (talk)
- Had a good look at it, but it gives no real further info past the 2001 census. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- This phenomenon is almost exclusive to urban Wales. Code-switching is common in all parts of Wales, and the result is known by various names, such as "Wenglish" or (in Caernarfon) "Cofi".
- Referenced Done
- The Roman Catholic Church makes up the next largest denomination at 3% of the population. Non-Christian religions are small in Wales, making up approximately 1.5% of the population. 18% of people declare no religion.
- Rejigged a bit and cites given Done FruitMonkey (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Many of the present-day Pentecostal churches in Wales claim to have originated in this revival.
- This appears to be an unfounded statement. Evan Roberts may have revived this charismatic style of Christian worship in 1904-05, but Pentacostalism did not really set hold in Wales until it the 1970s. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- it is likely that one of the symbols came to be used due to a misunderstanding for the other one, though it is unclear which came first.
- This was originally attributed to the leek/daffodil argument. Now cited. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- had very successful careers as portraitists
- Cites added Done
- Perhaps the most famous Welsh painters
- Switched to a less opinion orientated statement to a more factual statement without damaging the original authors message. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Today much art is produced in Wales, as elsewhere in a great diversity of styles.
- Very difficult to cite, as the statement does not mention quality, so we can assume that art of all types is happening in a country. Removing. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- The most popular sports in Wales are rugby union and football.
- Removed statement and added a line about rugby union being a national symbol of Wales (plus cite). Done FruitMonkey (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- However, some 500–600 titles are published each year in Welsh.
- Removed line and replaced with a valid statement regarding Welsh publishing houses. Done
- About 80% of the land surface of Wales is given over to agricultural use
- Needed a bit of maths, but we are there, 78% in 2004. cited Done FruitMonkey (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- The world-renowned Welsh National Opera now has a permanent home at the Wales Millennium Centre in Cardiff Bay, while the National Youth Orchestra of Wales was the first of its type in the world.
- Removed world-renowned (peacock) from WNO and added cite to the NYOoW being world's first. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Use a consistent formatting for references
- Why is the other Davies book not in Bibliography? Done FruitMonkey (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- All sources should have publisher
- All web sources should have retrieval date
- All web sources now have a retreival date. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Broad
- How did the World Wars affect Wales? Did its citizens serve in the British army? How many? Was it bombed?
- Hopefully this has now been addressed under the Modern Wales section. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Did anything else unrelated to nationalism happen in the 20th century?
- I have added the effects of the two World Wars, the fall of the Liberals and rise of Labour plus a small section on the move away from industrial to manufacturing jobs in the later half of the 20th century (without trying to overlap with work already covered in the economy section). FruitMonkey (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Any information on education in Wales? Is there schooling in Welsh? Is the school system/curriculum Wales-specific or shared with the rest of the UK? Are there any universities?
- Education section added. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Climate should be expanded. Done Daicaregos (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Healthcare should also be expanded - how many hospitals are there in Wales? Any further statistics for public healthcare? Is Welsh medicine particularly innovative in any field?
- Have expanded as requested adding present number of hospitals (
though I'm not sure if Ysbty Cwm Rhondda (2009) comes under district hospitals so there could now be 18 district hospitalsNo, its one of the 7 new community hospitals.) plus statistics on general health and well being. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Have expanded as requested adding present number of hospitals (
- Under culture - Museums? Festivals? The National Library? Dance? Literature?
- Literature section has now been added, Done FruitMonkey (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC). Museums and National Library Done. Festivals Done. Dance Done.
- Information on national symbols is replicated under culture
- Removed. Done
- Under Transportation - any more information on naval transport? Welsh ports?
- All four Welsh ports are mentioned at the end of transportation, and to be honest I believe the two sentences sum up the links very clearly. There's not much else to say. Although having a large coastline Wales does not have a great history of naval transport outside the export of freight during the industrial revolution. And that is mentioned in detail in the history section. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Neutrality
Stability
- There is not sufficient instability to fail on this criterion. However, that being said...please no edit-warring, especially not over language issues. Continue to discuss on the talk page whenever issues arise.
Images
- Avoid sandwiching text between images, either vertically or horizontally Done Daicaregos (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Source link for flag image is dead
- Great spot. Now repaired. Done FruitMonkey (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- "the last native Welsh person to hold the title Prince of Wales." - source?
- Prince of Wales for Glyndwr was self-titled, and therfore not recognisied officially. Difficult to state that he was the last native Prince of Wales when it is contested by some historians and is not noted in some very heavy Welsh tomes. Switching to a neutral caption. DoneFruitMonkey (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- NorthWales2.jpg missing description on file page
- Added description to file. Done
- Source page for Ironworks image seems not to be loading properly
- Does it need to? The image is correctly free use, unlike text cites that back up a view point or fact. An image when captured is its own proof. Does it mean that if an image is removed from the web, we too must dealt it? I'm just unsure about what to do here? FruitMonkey (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- An image proves its own existence, but does not prove its own copyright status. If you can update the link to point to a working page, that would prove its status. If not...well, I'm not going to bother deleting the image over that, but if you try renominating the article you may or may not run into a problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- The image does exist on other sites, but what if it's not the same byte size? Is that then an issue? FruitMonkey (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not an issue - so long as there's enough of the image present to make it obvious it's the same image, then you can use another site to prove the image's copyright status. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Great, hopefully that's now actioned. Done
- Not an issue - so long as there's enough of the image present to make it obvious it's the same image, then you can use another site to prove the image's copyright status. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- The image does exist on other sites, but what if it's not the same byte size? Is that then an issue? FruitMonkey (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- An image proves its own existence, but does not prove its own copyright status. If you can update the link to point to a working page, that would prove its status. If not...well, I'm not going to bother deleting the image over that, but if you try renominating the article you may or may not run into a problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Does it need to? The image is correctly free use, unlike text cites that back up a view point or fact. An image when captured is its own proof. Does it mean that if an image is removed from the web, we too must dealt it? I'm just unsure about what to do here? FruitMonkey (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- FUR for Cymdeithas needs to be re-written - this article is not about the logo
- I have replaced the image with one that is open source. Done
20th Century Wales
As mentioned before the review, the section 20th century Wales has historically only mentioned Welsh nationalism, which to be honest is a far too big a slant on the history of the country. I am presently expanding the section to include the economic switch around of Wales plus the countries involvement in the two World Wars. Would anyone have any objections to replacing the Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg logo with the Welsh Dragon Memorial Mametz Wood picture? The Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg logo is non free use, while the Mametz Woods memorial is. I also feel it would balance the chapter to have a picture not relating to the rise of the Welsh langauage. And a final point is that I am really proud of that monument. FruitMonkey (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I like what you've done so far. There's some interesting stuff in all that GA review material as well, but no mention of Wales' most important 20th Century politician, Lloyd George and not much about the pivotal role of South Wales in the union and labour histories. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- There are some strange balances in this article. The Music and Art section name drop important figures all the time, but then like you say, where is Lloyd George, or Aneurin Bevan. Who do people outside Wales expect to find when they open a Welsh article? Dylan Thomas, Richard Burton, John Charles, John Dee or Michael Sheen? The England article sells Shakespeare, Churchill and Newton. I suppose the Welsh article can do the same. FruitMonkey (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, also the nationalist material is too lengthy compared to other issues, unduly raising its relative notability and needs to be reduced in this main Wales article. A good example of a sentence in it that could come out altogether is this one: "In 1966 the Carmarthen Parliamentary seat was won by Gwynfor Evans at a by-election, Plaid Cymru's first Parliamentary seat.[72] In the following year the Wales and Berwick Act 1746 was repealed and a legal definition of Wales, and of the boundary with England, was stated." Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I've shifted some of the political talk out of History and into politics. I have then added a big chunk to the Modern History regarding the political landscape of Wales. By flicking through the article I had noticed that there is much about the recent Welsh Assembly, but there was no mention that for the greater part of the 20th century Wales has been a red Labour landscape, with many areas being a 'stick a red rosette on a donkey' seats. Hopefully that is now addressed. I'll start adding cites soon.FruitMonkey (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Roman and "post-Roman"
I wasn't sure about "post-Roman" as a replacement section title, but I am pretty sure we don't need a large text about Macsen Wledig's prophecy and Magnus Maximus filling out the whole section - it's mostly mythical apart from (one sentence?) in Gildas. There is lots of better material about Roman Britain and Roman Wales we could use. Is there any chance of it being discussed? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that those sections need a considerable improvement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- ...and I'll be happy to help out when the real world allows me some time. Not "huffing and puffing". Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Rugby competitions
I've just updated the Anglo-Welsh Cup sponsor's name (from EDF Energy to LV Cup) and it occurred to me that only rugby followers would know what it meant. There is a case for calling the competitions by their original names and referring to the sponsor name too - perhaps something like ".. the Anglo-Welsh Cup competition (LV Cup) ...". Thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Its been discussed before on Rugby sites - controversy over Celtic League v Magners League. Determination is by common use I think, so Anglo-Welsh better here, but Magners for the main one --Snowded TALK 16:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Introduction, second paragraph
It says: "In the 13th century, the defeat of Llewelyn by Edward I completed the Anglo-Norman conquest of Wales and brought about centuries of English occupation. Wales was subsequently incorporated into England...." Are the words "and brought about centuries of English occupation" really necessary or helpful? I'm not sure what they are supposed to mean, in that context. Clearly the English monarchy sought to control Wales, and English people settled parts of it (such as the Gwent levels), but is that clause supposed to reflect that, or make a longer-term point about English settlement more generally, or political control, increased use of the English language, etc. as might be implied by the word "occupation"? The words seem to me to be unnecessary in that paragraph, and reading the History section (which the Introduction is supposed to summarise) doesn't really clarify it for me. Can those seven words simply be deleted? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- The last few days I've been going at the article like a blind surgeon with a meat cleaver; I don't think losing seven words will cause any more harm. But 'occupation' is a very touchy word and is probably unhelpful. The initial 'conquests' were peasemeal and the main invaders were probably the Normans rather than 'English'. And like you say 'occupation' conjures up thoughts of standing troops rather than the actual top down control, mainly held by ancient Welsh families. Get rid. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Royal Badge of Wales
Why isn't the royal badge of Wales featured next to the Welsh flag at the beginning of this article? It used to be, and I think it should be again. It was approved in May 2008 and is used on all Welsh Assembly Government measures. Therefore how is it different to any other coat of arms, seal or badge used in articles on other countries and regions. In the article for England the English royal banner is featured next to its national flag. I am a Welshman who has lived in England all my life and I have never once seen that banner flown. I do not know if that banner has any official status in modern England and I suspect it does not, it is merely cultural. If that banner is featured on the England article then why isn't the Royal Badge of Wales featured on the Wales article? Especially as it is common for the badge or coat of arms to be displayed next to the national or regional flag in Wikipedia articles on nations and regions. I'm sure there is probably some reason why it was taken away but could someone explain to be why it was and why it shouldn't be restored. Because I think it should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterCheifz (talk • contribs) 22:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- The subject has been discussed before. Most recently here, but also here, here and here. There is no consensus for which standard to show, if any, that represents Wales. Daicaregos (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Image for Climate subsection
Any opinions as to whether or not this image would be appropriate for this article (at Wales#Climate):
Daicaregos (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say not - it shows weather rather than climate, over a much wider area, and extreme weather at that. I'll see what else I can find. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- A couple of possibles from Geograph here or here. "Climate" is not easy to illustrate photographically, but these are certainly pertinent (and pretty). Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Take your point about climate v weather. Problem with showing extreme weather is that unless you see a before and after (or during) shots, you can't tell it is extreme. I prefer the second image, and Aberystwyth is mentioned in the text - as the latitudinal mid point. I suppose any 'normal', or everyday, outdoor image would be an illustration of Wales' climate. Rather than an extreme weather shot. Daicaregos (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- The flooding would illustrate the wetness factor! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- If it were wet all the time, there would be no floods! Daicaregos (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- The flooding would illustrate the wetness factor! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Take your point about climate v weather. Problem with showing extreme weather is that unless you see a before and after (or during) shots, you can't tell it is extreme. I prefer the second image, and Aberystwyth is mentioned in the text - as the latitudinal mid point. I suppose any 'normal', or everyday, outdoor image would be an illustration of Wales' climate. Rather than an extreme weather shot. Daicaregos (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Changes to explanation of principality in the Lead
Firstly, the statement “although this has no modern geographical or constitutional basis.” was placed in the lead as a direct response to a 'drive-by Tagging', as discussed here and, therefore, has consensus. Secondly, the citation quotes the Counsel General for Wales saying “in relation to Wales, Principality is a misnomer”. We chose to use our own words to sum this up, followed by a direct quote placed in the reference section, which adequately conveys the meaning and explains the reason for it. That the Principality of Wales is not the same size or shape of the modern country does not need a direct citation, and neither does the fact that no prince has a constitutional involvement in the country, per WP:BLUE. And thirdly, you must have realised the changes you made would be controversial. Please explain why you chose not to discuss them on the Talk page first. Daicaregos (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Use of references in lead
This edit was reverted with the request to bring it to the talk page.
The essential issue I see is that the following statement is not supported by the given reference: "...although this has no modern geographical or constitutional basis."
The reference appears instead to indicate a debate around the use of the term (specifically with the UK central govt. using it in a UN report and a Welsh Assembly member raising a concern over it). "Some politicians would say there’s nothing wrong with the term", the reference says, "Others recoil in horror". Fair enough. But that is a long way off from supporting the statement that the term "has no modern geographical or constitutional basis".
The first part (no modern geographical basis) would also appear to be at odds with references given immediately before (Reader's Digest:1999, Oxford Illustrated Dictionary:1976), which describes Wales as a "principality" in modern times. (Not the mention the submission to the UN, which gives "principality" in the definition section.)
There is also the relatively trivial use of the definitive article (the), where the supporting references use no article or the indefinite article (a). --RA (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure what's happened to your post RA, but when you repair it would you mind looking at the previous section which refers to the same point. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- ^ Davies p. 99
- ^ a b Max Lieberman (2010). "The Medieval March of Wales: The Creation and Perception of a Frontier, 1066-1283". Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 6. ISBN 052 176 978 7. Retrieved 4 October 2010.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help); line feed character in|title=
at position 29 (help) Cite error: The named reference "Lieberman 1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). - ^ Chapter 6: The Coming of the Normans. BBC Cymru/Wales. 2008. Retrieved 4 October 2010.
{{cite book}}
:|work=
ignored (help); Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help)