Talk:Bradwall/Archive 1

Assessment Report

1. Article needs to be massively expanded using Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements as a guide.
2. It should make use of sections, using Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements as a guide.
3. Infobox to be added (use Template:Infobox UK place.)  DDStretch  (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Photos need to be added.
5. References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. Make sure that as many as possible are "in-line" citations.(See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)

 DDStretch  (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

---

GA Review 1

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bradwall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 15:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am going to have to fail this article's nomination for GA status. There are significant issues, most notably with coverage, that prevent this article from being a GA at this time. Here are my initial thoughts:

• History section - The section is currently a disconnected bunch of facts and quotes that do not come together to give a readable narrative of the history of this village. It also contains far too many quotes which should be summarized and paraphrased. Specifically:
  • 3rd century Roman finds - What does this have to do with Bradwell? Why is it important?
  • Hollins and Hope hamlets - Significance of these hamlets needs to be explained.
  • Has nothing happened in the history of this village in the past 100 years?
• Three sentences is too short for a lead. Especially once the additional coverage that is needed is added, the lead needs to be significantly expanded.
• Absolutely no information on many facets that are integral for the understanding of a village/town/city. Where is the information on demographics, climate, transportation, education, culture, economy, etc. that is included in all GA articles of this type?
• Notable people - what is the criteria for inclusion here? What makes Oldfield notable? Jervis? Latham?
• What makes ref #13 (Local history site) a reliable source? It appears to be a blog.
• See also goes before Notes. There shouldn't be images in the See also section.

Overall a large amount of work is needed on coverage to meet GA's broadness criteria. I am also concerned about the heavy dependence on 19th century sources, which represent the lack of modern scholarship in this article. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your thorough review, and your conclusion, which I accept. I think you highlight the problem with a subject on which there is a dearth of good sources. Bradwall was certainly more important in previous centuries, when it was a local manorial seat, and since then, its importance and notability has declined to the extent that no-one has written about it.
• With regard to information such as demographics, again, because the village is so small, there is nothing specifically on it. Do we assume, for example, that its climate is identical to that of its nearest town/city?
• I think that many of your points can be addressed though, I will spend some time doing so. --Iantresman (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

For my reference, see the guidelines: "How to write about settlements" --Iantresman (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

While I very much understand that it can be very difficult to write about subjects that have very few reliable sources, I really think that more can be found on this subject. For example, there is nothing on how the village itself is administrated. And having the history and economy sections stop in the early 1900s leaves out a large portion of the subject. It is possible that some articles do not have enough written on them to become a GA - I don't know if this is the case with this article (since you have obviously found and added quite a bit since I completed the above review), but it is something to keep in mind. Dana boomer (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You were very kind to review my Good Article Nomination. I've taken on board your suggestions, and think that the article may be ready for another review. I mention it just in case you want to consider another review yourself. --Iantresman (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Declaration of interest

I have added a subsection on the The Probus Club of Sandbach, and added a link to their website. I declare a financial interest, as I produce their website (I am not a member) for which I receive an annual payment. Editors may wish to scrutinise the text for a potential conflict of interest. --Iantresman (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review 2

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bradwall/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 20:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: one found and fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   In the lead: "According to the 2001 census, the population of the entire parish was 166, having peaked at over a thousand at the beginning of the 20th century, and a 1936 boundary change resulting in a sharp decline. " This really doesn't make much sense.

   "From the early 19th century, it became the seat of the Latham family of Bradwall at Bradwall Hall, until its demolition in the 20th, and home to Bradwall Reformatory School for Boys, now a Grade II Listed building." Again confusing prose. Change of subject in the middle of the sentence.

   "Wesleyan Chapel Methodist Church has been the only church since 1882, and the founder of Foden Trucks and Fodens Motor Works Band, Edwin Foden and sons, lived in, or were born in Bradwall." Another change of subject.

   Overlinking: "country seat" only needs to be linked once.

   Confusion of history. Why is the Roman era mentioned last?

   Over-quoting in the Seat of Bradwell section. Only really relevant material should be quoted.

   "the population of Bradwall Civil Parish totals 166 people" - "and it is now well under 200" Inconsistent.

   Culture and Community: Does not need a number of one sentence subsections. Most of the content is trivial.

   Landmarks: Convert into prose, lists are deprecated.

   Transport: This section is mostly concerned with the lack of transport infrastructure, again unnecessary subsections.

   "The current clerk of Bradwall Parish Council is Mrs F C Stops." Trivial and potentially out of date.

   Education: What is the point of listing universities?

   Overall too much trivia.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   "The thickness of the rock is estimated at around 404m," seems curiously precise. Do you have reference for this?

   References appear Ok, spotchecks support cited statements, no OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Far too much trivia as noted above

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Illustrations of postboxes and telephone masts are hardly encyclopaedic. File:Bradwall-green-roads.jpg is incorrectly licensed and doesn't actually represent what the caption says. File:Bradwall parish geology.svg states that the source is a "Computer generate image". The actual data source should be stated and it is likely to be copyrighted.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is a long way from GA quality, too much trivia, which looks like a desperate attempt to scrape the barrel. Much of this material might be OK for a village website but it is not encyclopaedic. Not listed at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to look through the article. I shall take on board your comments, and make some changes in due course. Thanks again. --Iantresman (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've now taken in all the points. --Iantresman (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review 3

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bradwall/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Meetthefeebles (talk · contribs) 15:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll review. Please bear with me as it takes me a small while to read through and my comments tend to be rather long...

Some initial comments

I'll review against the WP:WIAGA criteria. There is strong, consensus guidance provided also at WP:UKCITIES which, although not strictly part of the GA criteria, is an excellent reference point as regards style, structure and breadth of coverage. I also note that there have been several previous reviews, so I plan to make some more in-depth comments, rather than simply reviewing quickly.

Disambiguation links

• None found

Linkrot

• Links seem to be working okay.

Image check

• File:Bradwall parish.svg is a self-made image by the nominator. Checking WP:OR; "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". Image is therefore probably okay – suggest moving into the infobox as it is rather sitting on its own...
• Venables file is okay; seems the creator died in 1895. Suggest adding this to the file to prevent others from trying to delete.
• The Bradwall old OS map is okay but incorrectly licensed. Suggest using {{old os}} instead.
• The Foden Family image I cannot check as there is no link to the source provided and I have tried a google search and cannot find the source. This will have to be included and checked.

History section

• There are a few rather short subsections here which could, and probably should, be merged. Start with the etymology then move chronologically.
• The opening sentence is a bit 'journalistic'. Suggest "There is evidence of Roman occupation at the formative Bradwall" or similar.
• " Beatwall (1326), Broadwall (1415), Bardwell (1438), and, Bradwell (1724)." No reference provided and this is needed.
• "Bradwall is not mentioned in the Domesday Book, completed in 1086 for William I of England, at which time the area was thought to be waste moors between Brereton and Warmingham, that formed part of the southern boundary of the Barony of Kinderton, the historic name of Middlewich." Who thought this? Again, a reliable source is required here.
• "Bradwall of Bradwall (13-14th century) --" Per WP:DASH, use "–" instead of "--" This section also needs a reference.
• "The Venables of Bradwall arms consist of: Azure two bars Argent, in chief two plates, and crest: A wyvern, with wings endorsed Argent, pierced with an arrow headed Or and feathered Argent, devouring a child proper, sometimes depicted standing on a weir." Again, his needs a reference.
• Berington of Moresbarrow and Bradwall (14-16th century). This section is entirely unreferenced. As is the next section.
• The latter part of the 'Latham' section is unreferenced.
• throughout this section there is detailed, technical terminology relating to Coats of Arms. Strongly consider rewriting these and adding blue-links as non-experts (such as me!) will struggle with sentences such as "The Oldfield arms: Or on a bend Gules three cross patée fitchée Or. Crest: A demi-wivern with wings expanded Argent, crined Or, issuant from a ducal coronet of the second". Honestly, I have no idea what that sentence means.
• What happened to the reformatory schools? Is it still operational or, as I suspect, it is closed? If so, when, why and by whom?
• The George Burgess section is interesting but lacks context and is arguable trivia. Strongly suggest merging this section with the reformatory section, noting perhaps that "two of the most notable detainees were Peter Barrett and..."
• Having re-read twice now, I wonder if the family information should be a separate article. There is a fair bit of information recorded and they might well be notable enough to warrant a split, because that section rather dominates here.

Geography

• South and East should not be capitalised.
• "Bradwall appears on the Ordnance Survey OS Landranger Map (1:50 000) Stoke-on-Trent & Macclesfield (Sheet 118),[41] and the OS Explorer Map (1:25 000) Wilmslow, Macclesfield & Congleton (Sheet 268).[42]" Per WP:Summary style, this is probably superfluous information.
• Again, there are a few small sections here. I don't think a separate section entitled 'waterways' is necessary; simply merge with the section instead.
• Suggest removing "The rivers are illustrated on the 1577 map of Cheshire by cartographer Christopher Saxton (illustrated)" as you have included the illustration.
• "In the 16th century, there is mention of a water-powered corn mill there.[48]" This is trivia and suggest removal.
• The rest of the Hamlet section should be merged rather than standing alone.
• The climate date is fine, but also suggest providing a text summation of the data. This will assist those who cannot view the images and provide better context.
• WP:UKCITIES suggests using both Template:Compass-table and Template:Climate chart (the latter rather than the table you have provided).

Geology

• Try to stick to the summary style; there is no need to explain what mudstone is when you correctly provide a blue-link, for example. Suggest removing.
• The soil subsection is very technical and very in-depth; perhaps too much so.

Demographics

• "Since the average distance travelled to work is 18.13 km (11.3 miles), then a proportion will work outside the parish" Possible WP:OR? I would remove the latter part of the sentence as the former doesn't necessarily mean (or even infer) the latter. Simply "the average resident travels 18.13km (11.3 miles) to work, perhaps?
• One sentence sub-sections are strongly discouraged. Simply merge the life expectancy data into the larger, first paragraph.
• Consider adding, if available, religious disposition of the population. Also consider adding ethnicity data if available (per WP:UKCITIES.

Economy

• The information here is historical and should be considered as part of that section. This section should refer to the economy of the parish today. What is the economy today, is it still agricultural? Is business thriving or declining along with the population? Are more people travelling to work in new industries than before?

Culture and Community

• Tell us more about the village hall; where is it located, when did it open, when was it built etc? Is it an important part of village life?
• Re-write the second sentence, or at least delete "For example".
• All three short paragraphs could be merged into a single paragraph (though you may need a second if you add info on the village hall itself).
• The 'sport' section can be merged into one paragraph also, as they presently are simply two single sentences with an unnecessary break between them.

Landmarks

• "Includes a two-story building with three windows, made with brown brickwork and tile roof. Inside are chamfered oak beams, chimney corner (inglenook) and oak supporting beams (bressumer). The coach house is also oak framed with brown brick and roof tiles." This needs referencing (though I suspec it comes from the National Heritage list description)
• Take "Bradford reformatory school is detailed above" out as it is not especially encyclopedic.

Government

• Who is the present MP for Congleton?

Education

• You could comment more on these schools. Use the OFSTED reports to provide details on cohort, subjects taught, performance, grading etc. These are WP:Reliable sources and will help flesh this section out nicely.

Services

• This section is very much optional and, if you intend to keep it, I would strongly recommend converting into continuous prose.

References

• What makes refs.23 & 24 reliable? I've had a look through the site and the author claims to be an expert, but does that make this source reliable? I'm not sure.
• Is ref.25 a reliable source?
• Ref.32 looks like a blog and not a reliable source.
• Ref.51; is Weather2 a reliable source? I haven't come across it before and genuinely don't know? Is the data not also available from the Met Office?
• Ref.61 I am fairly sure that GENUKI is not considered a reliable source on wikipedia
• Typo in ref.67? 'Well' rather than 'will'?
• Is INUKlocal a reliable source? (at ref.75)
• Is a facebook page a reliable source? (at ref.82)
• Ref.96; why the change in ref style? Almost all of your references are full citations until this one which is almost harvard. Try to be consistent.

Overall summary GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
1. Is it reasonably well written?

A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

• Comment
  

Overall writing style is okay but there are areas which could be improved (highlighted above). There are lists which could be continuous prose and the layout incorporataes rather too many short sections/subsections

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:

• Comment

Large number of sources cited but some of questionable reliability and some statements/sections lacks references. One or two small, potentially contentious issues but no real problems with OR.

3.Is it broad in its coverage?

A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:

• Comment

Much improved on previous versions but still some omissions, a rather heavy focus on historical information. Some trivial elements still persist and some sections are very technical and would benefit from a more focused, summary approach.

4.Is it neutral?

Fair representation without bias:

• Comment

No real issues here

5. Is it stable?

No edit wars, etc:

• Comment

No evidence of any edit-warring.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

• Comment

There are some small issues with images highlighted above, but overall these are fine and certainly plentiful.

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

Closing comments The article is certainly improving, but I do feel that there remains work to be done before this reaches GA. The structure is rather bitty and the treatment of the parish is very historically orientated. The article should be submitted for review again once the suggestions made above are considered, but I expect that this will take more than one week, so I'm afraid that I am failing this nomination. Please consider WP:UKCITIES and try to read as many GA and FA articles as you can as these will help in terms of structure, style and content. Feel free to raise any queries here or on my talk page and I will help as best I can. Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time and effort to be so constructive. To help with the progress, see Talk:Bradwall/GA3/progress --Iantresman (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've spotted the new page; will leave you to complete to the end and then offer comments/suggestions. Message my talkpage when you are ready :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've been through all the suggestions, and updated my GA Progress page, with comments. More feedback welcome, unless you have too much on. --Iantresman (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review 4

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bradwall/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Right then - I will make straightforward copyedits as I go (please correct me if I inadvertently change the meaning) and post queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Today, a small number of events take place in Bradwall, including social events at Bradwall Village Hall - two "events" in the one sentence repetitious. change if you can.

A Late Bronze Age axe head dated to 1000-801 BC has also been found near Fields Farm Fisheries in Bradwall. - err, not Roman and predates. Should be before Roman bit. Maybe change header to Pre-middle ages or something so all info can be included.

Better.

of Bradwall into two parts (moieties). - I'd make into prose - take out of parentheses and place after a comma.

You have "Hollins-wood" and "Hollins Wood" - sync up the spelling....

Another notable detainee was one Joshua Tolley... - I don't understand why he was notable from the article.

The school became Bradwall Training School in 1908 - some description of what this means and how it differs from what it was would be helpful. ok

The article switches between metric and imperial. The easiest is to have both with one in brackets.

Worth adding in the Population section why the parish was split and what the population of Elworth is now I think. you tried anyway.

The sections are stubby -I'd put the Bradwall Reformatory School for Boys subsection into the landmarks section to combine mentions. Ok. point taken.

Combine all 1-2 sentence stanzas into bigger paras. Looks choppy otherwise.

Any reserves or greenspace notable in the vicinity?

Thanks for all that. I'll go through your suggestions as I find time, and will let you know when I'm done. --Iantresman (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've made several updates, which I have summarised on the sub-page Talk:Bradwall/GA4/progress. I've also made some comments where I've deviated from the suggestions, please feel free to disagree with any of them. Any more suggestions welcome. --Iantresman (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about delay - I need an uninterrupted stretch of time to see where to from here....hang on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay - you can do the progress thingy on this page. Makes it easier all in the one spot. More to come. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Right - just look at my edit summaries. I'm still thinking about this one....it seems still quite slim and choppy, but then again it is a pretty small entity. I'll post more comments below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

In the Place name section - are these spellings for the village or parish (or both?) The section is slim, so any elaboration here on names/ scope etc would be helpful. -- The source context suggests it is referring to the township, but I suspect that the primary sources are not clear, and could refer to (a) the village (b) the CofE parish (c) The civil parish (d) the manor. I've clarified and added another couple of sentences.

Given the size of the article, I think any extra info on the 1000 roman coins would bolster the section nicely. Also the road. And try to avoid quotes wherever possible (i.e. rephrase if you can) -- Done.

I think I'd take sentence one out of Manor of Bradwall and place in place name as it is more about the naming than the manor, and helps buff the latter section which is slim. Sounds reasonable. Done.

I think you'd wanna cite "Compared to the turn of the early 1900s (see Economic History), the economy of Bradwall, along with the population, appears to be in decline.", given the main reason for pop reduction appears to be boundaries moved..... Reworded and cited. There is a hint of WP:SYNTH, but I think the facts support the explanation?

Does Greg Gnyp chair the local council or the 112 councils? Good catch, restated.

On the ordnance survey map it seems to be called Bradwall Green...? I don't understand that either. Google Maps has "Bradwall"[1], as has "A Vision of Britain",[2] Bing and OS has "Bradwall Green"[3], and the street signs show "Bradwall"[4]. I could contact Ordnance Survey, but their reason would be inadmissible to cite.

Thanks again, will progress through them, and confirm when I'm all done. Updates above. --Iantresman (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, edit summaries look fine, and updates and comments above. --Iantresman (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I just put another tag that should be easy to fix. It is definitely looking better. I am thinking of what else is needed to get this through the process.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorted, and thanks. --Iantresman (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required: tags

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: fourth time looks to be the charm - I can see there's been alot of feedback given and adopted from the first three GANs, sources improved, trivia removed and article balanced. I still feel more can be found but I think the coverage is broad enough to qualify. Just a couple of tags and we're done I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've added the suggested citations. --Iantresman (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)