Talk:Chapel-en-le-Frith/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 21:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  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.
    Fair representation without bias:
  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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

This article needs quite a lot of work to meet the GA criteria. In my opinion, the amount of work needed is not likely to be achievable in the usual 7 days that reviews are put on hold. I'll outline the main problems by section:

Prose/Manual of style/content issues
  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarise the main points of the rest of the article. This is required at GA. At the moment, the lead does not adequately summarise the main points of the article.
  • With very few exceptions, the lead should not contain anything that is not expanded on later in the article. For example, the lead says "Dubbed "The Capital Of The Peak District"..." - this is not mentioned later, and is unsourced.
  • "on Shrove Tuesday a Pudding Bell is rung at eleven in the morning to remind housewives to prepare their batter." - is this still the case in 2011?
  • "There is a certain amount of industry" - try to avoid vague statements like this
  • The population numbers in the article and in the infobox do not match
  • The "External links" section should not be a directory of any websites related to the village. There is absolutely no need, for example, to link to the website of the golf club. Check if the sites linked to have encyclopedic value to an article about the village. In my opinion, there is only one that should be kept.
Verifiability
  • The article is, at the moment, very short on references. At the very least, you need inline citations for any facts that are likely to be challenged, any statistics and any quotes. There is a great deal in the article that is currently unverifiable
  • The article currently uses exactly 2 sources. This is not nearly enough. Please compare to similar articles that are already GA or FA.
Coverage

At the moment, the article is very short and although I'm not familiar with the village, I'm fairly sure that the major aspects are not yet covered. Please compare to other articles on villages that are already FA or GA. You might also like to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, which provides a guide for how to write about settlements. It also gives you an idea of what sections should be included. Currently, about 2/3 of the article is on the history of the village. This should be consolidated into a larger "history" section (with subheadings as necessary) and pulled together more chronologically. At GA, I would expect to see information on the demographics of the village, the governance, landmarks, education, community facilities etc.

It's difficult to do an in-depth review on such a short article. My recommendations for getting the article are:

I'm not sure if you've actually ever edited the article, but believe me, improving articles to GA level takes quite a bit of work. Let me know if you have any questions. --BelovedFreak 21:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chapel-en-le-Frith/GA1&oldid=412224021"