This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is nearing the quality for a FA nomination. It has had peer reviews in the past (I did one of them) and has recently had the referencing issues sorted and copy editing from others. Another set of eyes to spot anything else which is likely to cause a problem at FAC would be really helpful. Thanks, —
Rodtalk19:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Comments
"Historically in Gloucestershire, the city received a Royal charter in 1155[7] and was granted County status in 1373." I did not understand this until I read the details below. I think it would be better to spell out with something like "The city received a Royal charter in 1155. It was part of Gloucestershire until 1373 when it became a county in its own right."
"Archaeological finds believed to be 60,000 years old, discovered at Shirehampton and St Annes, provide "evidence of human activity" in the Bristol area from the Palaeolithic era." I find statements like this problematic, as they could be interpreted as implying occupation since that time, whereas modern humans did not reach Europe until around 45,000 years ago and Britain has probably only been continuously occupied since the end of the last Ice Age around 11,000 years ago. The paper
here shows that the evidence is of Neanderthals using the Lavellois technique, which is interesting in its own right.
I think Palaeolithic going back 2.6 million years is too broad to be meaningful in this context, so I have changed it to "in the Middle Palaeolithic period". I trust this is OK with you.
"appears to have been founded in c.1000 and by c.1020 was an important enough trading centre to possess its own mint," Surely it cannot have developed in 20 years enough to have its own mint? Perhaps before 1000.
"Traditionally this is equivalent to the town being granted city status, which was granted to Bristol in that year." So Bristol became a county in 1377 and a city in 1542. This needs clarification. I see you say below that Bristol is both, but this could do with spelling out in the history section as it seems confusing as it stands.
"The next [elections] are expected in May 2013." Articles should not be written so that they become out of date. See
WP:Recentism. There are other comments which will become out of date such as "There are two Labour members of parliament (MPs), one Liberal Democrat and one Conservative." Dates should be given when making statements which will become out of date in the future.
It would take up a bit more space, but I think it would be better to have the historical data in single vertical columns rather than 3 horizontal as it would be easier to see the trend.
I don't quite understand this one - I presume this is the population records, but what would each column contain?—
Rodtalk20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Sorry I was not clear. I mean a table with two columns, headed Year and Population (total is superfluous). The technical details above the table could be relegated to a footnote.
I've had a bash at this in
my sandbox. The most recent few years need sorting and updating but I think the main problem is the length. If this were added to the article in the Demographics section this would either create a large amount of white space or push down the pics etc in the subsequent Ecomony and industry section.—
Rodtalk17:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)reply
The whole table is not visible on my screen at the same time. Contrary to my original suggestion, I think splitting it into 3 vertical columns might work better.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
22:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)reply
"In 2004, Bristol's GDP was £9.439 billion, and the combined GDP of Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and North Somerset was £44.098 billion." Maybe a bit pedantic, but as Bristol is a county the higher figure appears to exclude Bristol (and I doubt it tells us anything useful.)
"Since the port was leased in 1991," This needs clarification. Something like: Until 1991 the port was publicly owned, since when it has been leased. (if this is correct).
I am not sure that your reversion of the edit on non-league clubs is correct. The Conference Premier is the top league of the Conference, not separate from leagues below it. Does 'non-league' mean anything with the new set up?
I think the biggest problem with the article is frequent recentism. You need to go through it looking for statements that may look out of date or trivial to someone reading it in ten years.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
19:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)reply