Talk:Lealholm/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

I have reviewed this article, and despite it seeming well written, I have raised a number of issues that I believe need to be addressed before the article passed all the WP:GA criteria.

  • The history section strikes me as unusual, rather than chronologically dealing with events in the village's history it addresses subtopics such as buildings. It's an interesting approach, not one I've come across on wikipedia before and not one I'd choose when summarising a settlement's history. I believe a more chronological approach would benefit the article as in its current state, the article is lacking some key information such as the toponymy of Lealholm.Y Done I also feel that there is some unnecessary detail, for example is it really relevant to include "The mill had the authority to clean and remove any woodland, earth or rubbish within 40 yards (37 m) of the mill-race 'for upholding the mill and dams', and 'with liberty for all persons that shall grind corn and grain at the mill to sieve and sift on two parcels of ground called Adam Rigg and Ellergates'"? It's not always easy writing a history section, if you consider overhauling it, there are some key points to be addressed such as toponymy, earliest settlementY Done, what happened during the Middle Ages (a note on whether the village expanded or stayed the same would suffice), the impact of the Industrial Revolution and modern history (which seems to be addressed well with the flooding and the air crash). Perhaps information on the history of Lealholm in the lead could be moved down to the history section.Y Done
  • Sadly, there is also an issue with referencing. WP:V states that "material challenged or 'likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source". There are whole paragraphs without references throughout the article which is a shame as the history and geography sections show it has been well researched.
  • The article is missing sections on governance,Y Done demography, economy,Y Done transport, and educationY Done. I'd recommend looking at WP:UKTOWNS for ideas on how to build these sections, although I do appreciate it is difficult to do for small villages – for instance it's oftne hard to find census data for a demography section.
  • For the notable people section I think that the subdivisions could be removed,Y Done and each person needs to be referenced.Y Done
  • The Lealholm Village Show section may go into a bit too much detail (for example I don't think a list of "Show Trophies and Prizes" is relevantY Done) but it could be integrated into a culture section.Y Done

Implementing these changes may take more than a week but I am placing this article on hold for a period of seven days in the hope that the editor responsible for creating it will be able to improve it. Good luck. Nev1 (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of minor issues: (a) the smaller text for the quote in the lead is bad form -- use the same size text there. The quote also needs to be cited.Y Done (b) 'Culture, media and sport' really doesn't say anything whatsoever about media. Also, I would recommend not using the multiple 2nd and 3rd level headers in the culture section -- it looks awkward with two different size header texts there. I also think that it would flow better if you could weave everything into one main header.Y Done (c) 'Geography' needs information on the climate.Y Done Again, don't use the 3rd level headers in the geography section; such headers might be appropriate for a more broad category, such as 'climate' or 'cityscape', but the topics that you have there currently are not broad enough and are better weaved into the main geography section. A 'cityscape' section might include information on various neighborhoods and other parts of the town; what's the overall layout like, etc. (d) History section jumps from the 1600s to an airplane crash -- I'm sure lots of stuff happened in between. Use of the subsection header for 'airplane crash' could be seen as violating WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to one single, isolated event in the city's history.
Those are the major issues as I see it. I concur with the other issues raised by Nev1 as well. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Progress on the points made above

Nev1 comments

  • Have created a "Governance" section. PamD (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reorganised the "History" integrating some of the "Lead" text.
  • Attempted to put all "Geography" topics together eg floods, river, ice age.
  • General style edit.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Added "Education", "Economy", "Culture, media and sport" and demoted "Village Show".--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Added a few Y Done s (not all by me) above. More needed. As mentioned by Nev1 demography is a problem. For statistical purposes Lealholm seems always to have been counted in with a larger area. Will trends suffice?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Cash comments

  • Remove blockquote tags & add reference
  • Switched "Culture, media and sport" to "Culture and community" and remove sub-sections, rejig text

[edit] Quote

Any idea on the text size problem as the <blockquite> </blockquote> mark up does this? The {{quote}} template does the same thing. Keith D (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would personally recommend getting rid of the blockquote tags. Such indentations don't exactly look right in a lead section, since that section is supposed to be a summary of the article. Dr. Cash (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
OK I have removed the tags, thanks. Keith D (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Cityscape"

This is a very small settlement, approximately 50 dwellings, is cityscape appropriate?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)