Myosotis Scorpioides (talk | contribs) |
Myosotis Scorpioides (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===[[Navenby]]=== |
===[[Navenby]]=== |
||
I wish to withdraw this nomination for FA. Thankyou --'''[[User:seahamlass|<font color="purple">seahamlass</font>]]''' 21:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC) |
I wish to withdraw this nomination for FA. Thankyou. I do-not intend to waste your time by re-submitting it in the future. --'''[[User:seahamlass|<font color="purple">seahamlass</font>]]''' 21:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
:[[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Navenby/archive1|previous FAC]] (23:41, 8 March 2008) |
:[[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Navenby/archive1|previous FAC]] (23:41, 8 March 2008) |
Revision as of 21:41, 13 April 2008
I wish to withdraw this nomination for FA. Thankyou. I do-not intend to waste your time by re-submitting it in the future. --seahamlass 21:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- previous FAC (23:41, 8 March 2008)
- Check external links
Self-nomination: This article was nominated for FA too early last time, but hopefully this time it might be OK. It has been through a Peer Review and has just achieved GA status after a lot of work over the past few weeks. All concerns with copyright on photographs has been cleared up since last time too, with official permission for all, except the ones taken by me, now held by Wikipedia. I am happy to do whatever work needed to get it through to FA, just tell me what to do! --seahamlass 17:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments
http://www.english-nature.org.uk/404.htm?404;http://www.english-nature.org.uk/special/geological/sites/area_ID22.asp dead links for me.
- Have replaced with cached version.
Who is behind http://www.research-lincs.org.uk/? The County?http://www.swallowsbarn.co.uk/viking_way.htm what makes this a reliable source, it's a bed and breakfast site.The Knight, Charles "Penny Cyclopedia" ref is lacking a publisher (it says 13 right now but the googlebooks link says it was self published? or was he a publisher?)- http://www.lincolncottage.co.uk/ToSee.aspx isn't a very good source for The city of Lincoln was very important at this time, as it was likely the capital of the late Roman Province of Flavia Caesariensis. In fact, I can't even see on that page anything about the roman capital I suspect a footnote got switched around somehow.
- Okay, you replaced with http://www.roman-britain.org but who is behind this new site and what makes them a reliable source?
- Have taken second ref out as well. The fact is actually referenced in the Navenby Archaeology ref after next sentence.
- http://www.knightstemplar-uk.co.uk/Pentagram-Symbol,-Pentagram-Meaning,-Pentagram-Picture/114/Pentagram-Symbol.html what make this a reliable source for some (dubious) information that the Templars used the pentagram? I suggest running that past some of the editors of templar articles.That website's group, no matter what they claim, was not founded in 1118, and is probably just another group trading on the Templar myth. None of my historical books on the Templars mention the pentagram being used by them.
- I looked at your sites, but none of them list the sources where they are getting their information. Just because there are websites saying it doesn't mean they are reliable sites. You're wanting scholarly books on this one, trust me. There is enough cruft out there about the Templars that you need ironclad sourcing for anything about the Templars. May I suggest you just drop second paragraph in the Folklore:Pentagram section as it's really not necessary for an article about a town.
- Dropped it, as suggested.
- What makes http://www.lincsprt.com/investigations7.htm a reliable source for where Lawrence of Arabian wrote something? -
- done Have taken ref out and replaced with newspaper story confirming he was based at Cranwell etc plus book ref.
- Likewise http://www.philosophicfriend.org/discussion2.htm for a quotation from a Lawrence of Arabia letter?:
- Have removed ref and replaced with two book refs
- Current ref 21 "2001 2001 census statistics" says "Government" for the publisher. Which government?:
- British - I've changed it
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/lincolnian/228404924 is a flickr site. Why is this reliable?
- -Removed and replaced
- http://www.oldtowns.co.uk/ looks like a site for company, what makes them reliable?
- Removed and replaced
- http://homepage.ntlworld.com/peter.fairweather/docs/navenby.htm looks like a personal site to me. What makes it reliable?
- Removed and replaced
- And what makes this http://www.high-flight.co.uk/wellingore_lincolnshire_uk.htm a reliable source?: doneRemoved and replaced
- Can ref 25 "The History of the County of LIncoln, published in 1834 by Thomas Allen" needs a page number and probably needs to be formatted like the other books for consistency.done
- http://www.andersonandglenn.com/architecture2.htm is from an conservation architects site. Probably scrapes by as reliable, but might be better.done Second reference added as back-up
- Am I correct that http://oden.co.uk/mrssmith/index.htm is the official site for the cottage?
- Yes you are. However, despite going through the site, I couldn't find any reference to the building being Grade II listed (please feel free to correct me if I've overlooked it!) - hence my decision to cite another website as a reference - http://www.andersonandglenn.com/architecture2.htm .I have now added: http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=192469&mode=quick as well, but again this is not ideal, as it doesn't immediately refer to the building as Mrs Smith's Cottage....
- What makes http://www.timmonet.co.uk/html/home.htm a reliable site?done Removed
- http://www.anjoco.f9.co.uk/sheffrail/may02/cat0502.htm is a list of auction items. What makes it reliable?done Removed
- What makes http://www.accessplace.com/independent-school/lincolnshire/lincoln.htm a reliable site for the fact that independent schools are available in Lincoln?done Removed Changed ref to Independent Schools Council, a recognised body in the private schools sector.
- What makes http://www.schoolsnet.com/uk-schools/schoolsnetContent.jsp?x=16180339&y=0&html_id=ABOUT a reliable site for information that most students opt for this school?done Removed Changed ref to Lincolnshire county Council
- What makes http://www.ukvillages.co.uk/aboutus a reliable source?done Removed
- Current ref 48 "Neighborhood statistics" just gives the author/publisher as "Government" .. which government? Done: Removed
- What makes http://www.templarmechanics.com/templar_detail.asp?templarid=93 a reliable source? I am not sure how to prove 'reliable source' and have asked this question at FAC talk. However, I have just backed this ref up with an additional book ref.
- The backed up ref works.
- St Peter's In Debt gave me a server error.
- Still OK for me
- Is http://www.genuki.org.uk/ like the US websites Rootsweb, i.e. is it mostly done by volunteers? If so, I'm not sure it is a reliable source. It doesn't give the sources of its information.
- Hi, this is my attempt to show Genuki as a reliable source:
- This story http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2004/apr/29/media.newmedia in The Guardian newspaper praises the site as "one of the main centres for genealogical records and is supported by Manchester and Newcastle universities."
- Another Guardian story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/apr/14/guardianspecial4.guardianspecial226 places Genuki at Number 6 in its Top 50 websites and says: "Genuki is the oldest and most comprehensive gateway to online resources for British and Irish genealogy. Its 70,000-odd pages provide genealogical links and information for every county in the British Isles, with pages devoted to individual towns and parishes. There is also general information on UK and Irish genealogy, and a search engine covering all the main UK genealogy sites."
- The site has also been named as a "useful link" by the BBC and The Observer newspaper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jan/14/robinmckie.theobserver and cited by The Times online newspaper: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article624829.ece
- Genuki is mentioned simply dozens of times by reputable sources, which are considered as reliable refs for Wikipedia. Hope this persuades you!
- The Wikipedia description of GENUKI is this: "GENUKI is a genealogy web portal, run as a charitable trust. Its aim is "to serve as a "virtual reference library" of genealogical information that is of particular relevance to the UK & Ireland". The name derives from "GENealogy of the UK and Ireland"." I've seen the site quoted in many, many Wikipedia articles.
- First: The head page for the GENUKI page says "The information provided by GENUKI must not be used for commercial purposes, and all specific restrictions concerning usage, copyright notices, etc., that are to be found on individual information pages within GENUKI must be strictly adhered to. Violation of these rules could gravely harm the cooperation that GENUKI is obtaining from many information providers and hence threaten its whole future." which leads me to believe they are recieving their information from many sources and people, kinda like a wiki
- Two: The page you are using as a citation doesn't give it's sources. There is no author listed, unless it's the bit at the bottom "Last updated Louis R. Mills" who is the author.
- Three: The page isn't designed as a history page, it's designed to help folks researching their ancestry find records.
- Let's look at the specifics that you are using this page to source.
- a) is the fact that there was a Roman's had a base or garrison in the village, or is it that the village was on the Roman Ermine Street? To be honest, you have a better source for both statements in the second ref on the sentence.
- b) You then use it to reference that the town had charters from Edward the Confessor, William Rufus, and Richard II. But what the source says is not that it was MADE a market town by the charters, just that the market town HAD charters.
- c) Your third statement ref'd to the page is "Parish records exist for Navenby from 1681, although Bishop's transcripts go back to 1562. The documents show the village hosted two annual fairs while operating as a market town, one on 17 October for farm animals, and the other a feast on the Thursday before Easter. Another popular event was a Hiring Fair for servants, which was held each May Day. Servants gathered to seek employment and were taken on for a period of one year." This is there as the bare facts on the page, but I don't see anything about the hiring fair being popular. Nor does it give the period of time the servants were hired for.
- d) The next paragraph sourced to the webpage (and one subpage) is "The records also show that care of the poor was taken seriously in Navenby from at least 1772, when part of the parish was enclosed. Such was the significance of Navenby at this time that a workhouse for the parish poor was erected here, although this was later given over to other uses. A Sick Society was also founded in 1811, to provide for the frail and elderly, and a Parish School was built next to St Peter's Church by subscription in 1816. Following the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act, however, Navenby parish became part of the Lincoln Poor Law Union." But the page only gives a bare recitation of the facts, not the "show that the care of the poor was taken seriously from at least 1772". I do believe the first Poor Law in England dates from Elizabeth the First's reign, but I may be wrong. ** This paragraph refers to the Amended Poor Law Act - and, just to be certain, I've checked it out very, very carefully just now! --seahamlass 18:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia description of GENUKI is this: "GENUKI is a genealogy web portal, run as a charitable trust. Its aim is "to serve as a "virtual reference library" of genealogical information that is of particular relevance to the UK & Ireland". The name derives from "GENealogy of the UK and Ireland"." I've seen the site quoted in many, many Wikipedia articles.
- And so forth, I could go on, but the main objection is that there is no source given for where this information comes from. Probably, it is from a local history, but we don't know. It's not designed to be used as a historical reference, it's there to help genealogists find records. It says so right on the front page "Virtual reference library of genealogical information" not historical information. It would probably squeak by for information about what records are still available, since that is its purpose. I'm not opposing the article based on its sources, I"m just commenting. But there is nothing wrong with citing a published book for an article. There will be published local histories that are reliable and would be perfect for use in this article. Try using This source which IS a historical work and is reliable. It is an online database of published histories. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- All Genuki refs now dropped and replaced.--seahamlass 18:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- The Lewis, Samuel and Mills Louis refs (current refs 23 and 24) They need publisher information.done
While we're digging in the article, a recent change at MOS is that the block quotations aren't enclosed in the curly quotes. See WP:MOS#Quotations.Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Curly quotes have gone!--seahamlass 15:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- What makes http://www.raybeckham.co.uk/index.html a reliable site? Looks like a photography business to me.
::** I can't really "prove" that www.raybeckham.co.uk is a reliable site, as Navenby is so small that it rarely attracts press attention and this website therefore hasn't been publicised. It is, however, cited on the official Navenby website, Navenby.net, as a place to go for extra information on the village. I really don't want to lose the information provided by these refs, but I can see the WP problem, so I have backed them up with book references - hopefully that is OK?--seahamlass 19:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, if you check the first page of his Navenby records site http://www.raybeckham.co.uk/village_map.html, you will see that he doesn't sell the pics on the website, but will provide pics if you want them and just asks for donations to charity. He is a local historian, living in Navenby, and this history part of this website is his project. The links in the article link directly to the information cited - not to the more commercial index you have listed.
- To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. It is all based on WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB. Hope this helps some. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- the links all checked out using the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- May I suggest you use the Ray Beckham site as an external ref, now that you have the information sourced to other references? That way you don't have any issues. *Done: Done as suggested.
- And one more. You're still using the templarmechanics site for the bit about the hellfire club. The other usage of it is backed up by a book, but the site is not going to be reliable for information on the Hellfire club connections. Definite progress though! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Done, done, done! Three book refs to replace the templarmechanics site.... Fingers crossed all done--seahamlass 22:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- This site Pastscape might help you with your Grade II building issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Ealdgyth. It didn't help me with one, but I got a great new ref for another that I wasn't even looking for!--seahamlass 19:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comments: OK, I've seen this article emmerge over the last few months from a troubled (but promising) stub to FAC, where we're at today. I really want this to pass FA this time round. Here's my comments/queries/challenges for now:
- Prose: The most striking need of this article is a good copy-edit by someone with fresh eyes; the content is all there in place, it just needs to be written slightly clearer in some cases. I'd recommend the aid of User:Malleus Fatuarum and/or User:Epbr123 (but can't guarantee they will help).
- Agreed: I have left a message on User:Malleus Fatuarum's talk page, and will leave one on User:Epbr123's too.
- Scope: I'm still concerned that the article discusses alot about nearby Lincoln, particularly in the "Sports and recreation" section. Of course it will have an impact upon Navenby, but the cultural/commericial link with the city isn't made clear enough in the article. Would it be accurate (and verifable) to say Navenby is a dormitory village for Lincoln perhaps?
- Done: The fact it is a dormitory village was already mentioned in the 'modern history' section, but I have explanded this slightly.
- Images: Not a barrier to FA by any means, but to my tastes and sensibilities, there are way too many images for the article. Less really can be more! For example, Manchester, a major metropolis has 5 images in History (compared with 6 for Navenby village), 1 vs 2 for Governance, 1 vs 4 for Geography, 3 vs 4 for Landmarks and so on.... Simillarly Neilston and Wormshill, both comparable village articles with FA status, each have just a few images distributed throughout, but retain sound presentation and context. I'd be inclined to reduce the number of images by at least a third, perhaps half.
- Looking into it: Have to admit, I like lots of pics on articles. Have removed one so far, will look at the rest today.
- There are a few gaps in knowledge under Governance. In this section we're missing stuff on how Navenby was governed between the Local Government Act 1888 and Local Government Act 1974; Was it part of a Rural District, Urban District or Municipal Borough during this time perhaps? Also, who was Navenby's first Member of Parliament, and when was he/she elected? These are important bites of information for readers.
- Done: Hope is OK?
- In Governance, we have images of houses that provide little context for the text they accompany. Perhaps this image could go there instead, with a caption that these are the parish boundary markers?
- I'd remove the three sub-headings under Transport. They simply split up three paragraphs that could form a good single section.
- Done
- As above, I think it might be possible to rejig some the Geography section whereby some of the subheadings could go. Oldham tackles Geography well in my opinion, as does Wormshill.
That's it for now. Hope these help. --Jza84 | Talk 01:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Image:Navenbywitch.jpg and Image:Navstation.jpg both need to provide verifiable sources per WP:IUP. The latter, also, does not have adequate reasoning or information to support the claim of public domain. Assertion of "This picture is over 70 years old and out of copyright" is false, as PD is determined by date of first publication (not coming into existence), or, alternatively, by the life time of the author. When was this first published? Who was the author?ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- The image Image:Navenbywitch.jpg has full permission for use in the public domain. This was granted by the Portable Antiquities Scheme and the official headed email with their permission has been lodged with Wikipedia. This is confirmed on the image page with the phrase: "The permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system (2008032410019077)." I don't need a 'verifiable source' to prove this to you - Wikipedia has all the official documentation.
- The image Image:Navstation.jpg is an old postcard. No author given. It was posted in around 1920, dating the card to this time. Copyright expires on photos after 70 years in Britain. The author of this picture is quite obviously deceased, as even if they were 25 when this picture was taken, they would be 113 now. Also, as far as I can be sure, photos are considered in the public domain in America if published before 1923 - so this just sqeaks in. --seahamlass 18:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please read my comments critically. Indicating source has nothing to do with copyright status. Copyright status is not in question for Navenbywitch. You don't have to prove anything "to me"; you do, however, have to be civil and follow image policy.
- Regarding Navstation, that information needs to be articulated on the image page. You're using a US PD tag, so the British criterion is irrelevant. Publishing in 1920 indeed qualifies it for PD, but that information is absent from the image page. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Look, if I sounded a bit tetchy, then sorry. The pics on this page have already been scrutinised from here to kingdom come, and back again. (During a GA review, when an over-zealous editor speedily deleted half and they had to be put back by an admin after emailed agreements for use was provided by all in triplicate...well, virtually). It was your remark: "Assertion of "This picture is over 70 years old and out of copyright" is false," that annoyed me, as it sounded as if you were accusing me of lying. Which I'm not. I have just added what I wrote here to the image pages of the photos. I really hope that makes the WP:IUP thingy OK.--seahamlass 19:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Seahamlass, Elcobbola is very knowledgeable about image policy, and as the author of a featured article, is also anxious to help you succeed at FAC. Whatever went on pre-FAC at GAC, peer review, or anywhere else is secondary here; we must examine all issues at FAC thoroughly. Please work with Elcobbola, as he is most knowledgeable in this area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Seahamlass, apologies if remarks were misinterpreted. "Lying" involves deliberate intent to deceive or misinform, which I certainly did not believe to be the case. "False" only means incorrect; there is no connotation of intent. That notwithstanding,the source has been provided for "Witch" and a date of publication for "station"; that is all that was needed. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Seahamlass, Elcobbola is very knowledgeable about image policy, and as the author of a featured article, is also anxious to help you succeed at FAC. Whatever went on pre-FAC at GAC, peer review, or anywhere else is secondary here; we must examine all issues at FAC thoroughly. Please work with Elcobbola, as he is most knowledgeable in this area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Look, if I sounded a bit tetchy, then sorry. The pics on this page have already been scrutinised from here to kingdom come, and back again. (During a GA review, when an over-zealous editor speedily deleted half and they had to be put back by an admin after emailed agreements for use was provided by all in triplicate...well, virtually). It was your remark: "Assertion of "This picture is over 70 years old and out of copyright" is false," that annoyed me, as it sounded as if you were accusing me of lying. Which I'm not. I have just added what I wrote here to the image pages of the photos. I really hope that makes the WP:IUP thingy OK.--seahamlass 19:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comments. Obviously a lot of love gone into this article, and I've done some copyediting on it myself today. But I do have a few concerns still:
- I agree with Jza84's comment (above) that there are too many images. It would help the article a lot if you trimmed them down to those that really add value to the article. I'd say that about half of them ought to go.
- I'm unhappy especially about the images in Culture and community which seems largely to be an advert for the three public houses in the village. "It ... serves real ale and home-cooked food ... It has a garden and restaurant and the traditional pub game of Table Skittles can be played here.
- From the Folklore subsection: "The pentagram includes the nearby villages of Temple Bruer – which has strong connections with the Knights Templar of the 12th century – as well have nearby Wellingore and Harmston." I've got no idea what that means. As well have? What's the significance of thr pentagram? If there isn't any, then why include it? If there is, then why not explain it?
- There are too many short subsections in Culture and community. Does it need any at all?
- "Navenby, originally an agricultural village, became a market town on receiving charters from Edward the Confessor, William Rufus and Richard II of England, during the Middle Ages." I've been wondering what that means all afternoon. Did it become a market town several times, losing that status between kings, or what?
- "The wide main street, which now doubles as Navenby High Street, is lasting evidence of its market town status." Doubles as Navenby High Street? What does that mean? And why is a wide street evidence of anything other than, well, a wide street?
--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)