Talk:Ashtead/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 10:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. Comments to follow a.s.a.p.  Tim riley  talk   10:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you I look forward to receiving your feedback. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Review
This is heading rapidly towards GA, meeting all the criteria, as far as I can see, but before I promote it, may I make a few minor suggestions, all of which you are entirely free to disagree with? Nothing of any great moment in that little list. I shan't bother to put the review on formal hold (unless you wish me to) while you consider these few quibbles. Let me know your thoughts on them and we can proceed to the ribbon-cutting ceremony. Meanwhile, your boozer-cum-bastille has made my day. –  Tim riley  talk   12:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "reaching a peak in the 1930s, however future expansion" – If you must use "however" (usually a woolly synonym for a plain "but") it isn't a conjunction and needs a stronger stop than a comma in front of it. Likewise for "Ashtead does not have a parish council, however stakeholder engagement" and "built on the site in the 1950s, however part of the old clay pit is now the Floral Pond".
 * "The historic core of Ashtead is known locally as 'The Village' … known as 'Lower Ashtead'" – the Manual of Style requires double quotes, here and for any other single quotes later – 'Henry the Tyler of Asshstede' and so on.
 * "Edward Aston returned the manor to the crown" – as the former Librarian of the Crown Estate (long retired) I raise my eyebrows at an uncapitalised "crown" here.
 * "Two common fields, together comprising 194 ha (479 acres)" – strange use of "comprising": you use it in the usual way later ("Today the Common comprises approximately 200 ha"), but here I think you mean something like "constituting" or "totalling" or some such.
 * "During WWI" – I can't find any dikat in the Manual of Style, but "WWI" looks a bit offhand to me in formal prose. I should prefer "the First World War", but it's entirely up to you.
 * "several hundred men from the 21st Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers were billetted in the village – the OED prescribes "billeted" rather than "billetted", and I see you use the single-t form later.
 * "The interwar years" – the OED hyphenates "inter-war".
 * "during the Battle of Britain and The Blitz" – peculiar capitalisation – one "the" and one "The": looks odd.
 * "the Leg of Mutton and Cauliflower public house doubled as the village prison" – [how absolutely wonderful!]
 * "St Giles' Church" – loses its possessive apostrophe between the heading and the text.
 * "The brick building was designed by Sir Arthur Blomfield" – not by him personally in 1905-06, presumably, as he died in 1899: by his practice, perhaps?
 * "the whig politician, William Feilding" – it is customary to capitalise Whig when referring to the political party.
 * "their son, Lawrence was killed in World War I" – not WWI, I see, and is Lawrence's death actually relevant to the article?


 * Hi, thanks very much for reviewing the article so thoroughly. I appreciate that this was a relatively long one to read through. I think I have addressed all your concerns, as indicated in the table below.
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Reviewer’s recommendation !! Nominator's response
 * Incorrect use of "however" || Four sentences rephrased to avoid using "however"
 * Replace single quotation marks with double quotation marks || Done
 * Capitalise 'crown' || Done
 * Incorrect use of "comprising" || Rephrased as recommended
 * WWI and WW2 || Replaced with "the First World War" or "the Second World War"
 * Spelling of "billetted" || Corrected
 * Hyphenation of "interwar" || Hyphenated as per OED
 * Capitalisation of "The Blitz" || now "the Blitz"
 * Apostrophes in "St Giles' Church" || Missing apostrophes added
 * Arthur Blomfield || I have rechecked the sources and it would appear that St George's Church was designed by Arthur Conran Blomfield, and not his more famous father, Sir Arthur Blomfield! I have added an explanatory note (with ref).
 * Capitalisation of 'whig' || Done
 * Death of Lawrence Boustead || Removed as no direct relevance to Grey Wings house
 * }
 * Please let me know if you have any further concerns. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Capitalisation of "The Blitz" || now "the Blitz"
 * Apostrophes in "St Giles' Church" || Missing apostrophes added
 * Arthur Blomfield || I have rechecked the sources and it would appear that St George's Church was designed by Arthur Conran Blomfield, and not his more famous father, Sir Arthur Blomfield! I have added an explanatory note (with ref).
 * Capitalisation of 'whig' || Done
 * Death of Lawrence Boustead || Removed as no direct relevance to Grey Wings house
 * }
 * Please let me know if you have any further concerns. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Capitalisation of 'whig' || Done
 * Death of Lawrence Boustead || Removed as no direct relevance to Grey Wings house
 * }
 * Please let me know if you have any further concerns. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please let me know if you have any further concerns. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, that was quick. I have no remaining reservations, so:

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:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I enjoyed reviewing this article. The referencing seems to me impeccable, the sources well chosen. There are excellent illustrations, the prose is balanced, neutral and, if I may say so, a pleasure to read. If you decide to take the article to FAC, which I think it merits, be warned that there are those who get sniffy about Local History Societies and whether they are a WP:Reliable source. One can take such purism too far, in my view, and I am quite willing to accept that Jackson, Stuttard and Vardey et al know their stuff, and where else can one turn for local info anyway? Be that as it may, if you go to FAC please ping me and I'll add my two penn'orth. Meanwhile, congrats on a fine piece of work. –  Tim riley  talk   14:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your very thorough review. Thanks also to  and  for their input and encouragement in helping to prepare the article for nomination. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice! Well done . Polyamorph (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on another GA, where next? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)