My main reason for holding the GA is the culture section. It is far to bloated for something that's supposed to be in Wikipedia:Summary style, and is probably the worst offender for not using paragraphs (though other sections also suffer from this) and for using bad prose. I've been trying for years to cut it down, but it just grows and grows again when I'm not looking. It could do with a complete rewrite from scratch to comply with the SS guidelines and the compelling writing criterion.

Other things that need changing but which won't neccesarily make me fail the GA nom:

• Famous people: the standard header is "Notable people", and it should be in prose with context and references. Many articles dispense with this section altogether and use a category, while scattering references to famous people throughout the article in the relevant sections: see how Bristol deals with Brunel in the history section, actors and artists in the culture section, and scientists in the education section.
• Politics seems to have crept into every section, even where it's not really that relevant or doesn't establish the relevance/notability in that context. The end of the history section for example, is duplicated material from the politics section/pages.
• Ecology is very short -- either expand it if there's enough notable to say, or it would perhaps be better to merge it in with the information on landscape, thus keeping it in context.
• There's a further reading item with no evidence of notability or relevance to the actual article.
• Flag section is full of weasel words and lacks references.
• Physical geography section could do with references. I'm not that bothered at this stage, since a quick glance at it doesn't reveal any dubious claims, but at FAC stage this would be a problem.

Joe D (t) 11:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of this GA? Have concerns been addressed? It's been on hold for over two weeks. Chubbles 15:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite surprisingly, given the number and scope of edits since 25 April, most of them weren't! Overall I could also find some more issues with the article, so I feel fully entitled to fail it given the 7-day hold date passed long ago. Before attempting at renominating it, I would make sure all the above concerns are fully addressed, and the article has no problem clearing ALL of the Good Article criteria, and basic WP rules such WP:NPOV. Poor organization of content (repetitions, information in irrelevant sections etc.) and straying from the topic discussed to delve into some details more relevant to articles on other subjects would be among the most evident issues here.

Given the relative "weight" of the topic, as well as the size of the article, I would consider skipping GA altogether and going for a Peer Review and then Featured Article status, taking care to address all the points raised by the reviewers along the way. Good luck to all the editors! PrinceGloria 04:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]