Talk:Aspley, Nottingham/GA1

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

Reviewer: Meetthefeebles (talk · contribs) 08:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll review Meetthefeebles (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be reviewing according to WP:WIAGA and, though not a specific GA criteria, also with reference to WP:UKCITIES which provides comprehensive guidance on how to write about UK settlements and is a very useful guide for structure, content and breadth of an article.

My reviews tend to be very thorough, so please bear with me if I take a little while... :)

Some initial comments


 * Unfortunately, I do not think that this article is quite up to WP:GAN standard as it currently lacks depth and has several 'issues' relating to style and referencing. Whilst a lot of work has gone into the article (and it is no longer a stub, certainly), it still has some way to go before it can be considered a GA. To help you progress with the article, I'll make some comments and suggestions below which I hope will be of some help...

Breadth of the article

As I said, WP:UKCITIES is not strictly part of the GA criteria, but it does provide an excellent guide as to recommended content and structure and these will assist in meeting the fourth of the GA criteria. Additionally; according to WP:UKCITIES, "Articles should almost always conform to the basic structure of a lead/infobox followed by history, government, geography, demography and economy, as those sections contain much of the basic information about any settlement". With that in mind, I'd make the following comments/suggestions:

With that in mind:

Lead


 * The lead is a little sparse. WP:UKCITIES and WP:MOS provide excellent guidance on style and content. Some initial points:


 * Per WP:MOS, it is generally considered that the lead should summarize the article rather than contain new information. Also, suggest removing the naming quotation and adding it to the history section instead; "there should not be anything in the lead not mentioned in the rest of the article (GA criteria) at WP:UKCITIES

Per WP:UKCITIES:


 * Suggest adding the county (Nottinghamshire?) and country.
 * Suggest adding distance to Nottingham itself.
 * Suggest adding population (Aspley seems to be a ward and so this should be obtainable).

There will be more to add when the article develops.

History
 * The quotation in the lead relating to naming should be included in this section.
 * There are chronology issues; suggest starting with the naming quote then working chronologically through the history of Aspley, concluding with the 20th century development.
 * Overall, the section is rather sparse. Obviously Aspley is a council estate and so might not have the most extensive history, but is there any evidence of a settlement prior to the council estate alongside Aspley Hall or was the land simply barren and unused? Did the owners of Aspley Hall develop any industry in the area or work the land in some way? Perhaps more details of Aspley Hall can be provided (date built, size of estate, description etc)? When was the railway station built and did the railways attract any settlers? Did Cinderhill Colliery fall within the boundaries of modern day Aspley and did this have an effect on the early development of the settlement?

Government

This section is missing and should be included. Some of your Politics section can be taken out and used to create this section; in fact, most of your Politics section could be renamed 'Governance/Government' and be moved to come after 'History' (a section on Politics should comply with WP:UKCITIES The section should include, per WP:UKCITIES


 * Unitary Authority or 'County Council and District/Borough Council, plus, if applicable its civil parish(es) / town council(s)? Can you name its wards? Is it a ward? Does it have a mayor or Royal bestowments (charters)? etc.
 * Representatives - only list the numbers for the parties if a large place.
 * Changes in governance made throughout the history of the settlement—what was its former status? its former administrative district and/or county? etc.
 * Parliamentary constituency (both UK and, if other than England (minus London), its devolved/assembly level constituencies). If it is of sufficient importance relative to the constituency then identifying the local MP, MSP, MWA, MLA may be worth including here as well as on the existing page for that constituency.

You have a lot of this already, so it might be a case of simply renaming and moving. I do wonder if the first table is absolutely necessary, though Aspley seems to be quite a large settlement and its perhaps useful. I would also suggest that the subheadings can be removed, as short sections/subsections are generally discouraged. Also, if you are claiming that the ward is a Safe Labour seat (rather than a 'Labour stronghold'), some information on the majority enjoyed in elections might assist?

Geography

There is no Geography section currently included and this should be added. Using WP:UKCITIES, consider adding the following


 * Where the settlement is in relation to others.
 * Include the distance and direction from the constituent country's capital, or London, or both.
 * Include the distance and direction from the settlement's relevant regional or district capital, or county town.
 * A note on the topography of the settlement, including its elevation above sea level, mentions of notable rivers, mountains or natural landmarks.
 * A note on the geology of the territory.
 * A note on the built environment of the settlement, including how the land is used, if there is any notable infrastructure (a heavy rail line, motorway etc.), and a note on how the urban structure of the settlement is shaped and lies in relation to administrative boundaries and its central business district (if any).
 * A note on any divisions or suburbs of the settlement.
 * A note/section on the settlement's climate (where figures are available).
 * Consider using Template:Compass-table.
 * If local data is available, consider using Template:Climate chart.

Demography

Again, this section could be expanded. Per WP:UKCITIES, where available, the following should be included as well as the information you have included:


 * The ethnic composition.
 * The religious composition.
 * The population change over the last century.
 * A note on social class (strictly where citation allows).
 * Consider including a statistic comparison table.

An excellent example of the 'comparison table' can be found at Cheadle Hulme and you could do what I first did and simply copy/paste the table and make amendments for Aspley.

Economy

This section is not currently included. Per WP:UKCITIES, consider adding:


 * A note on major employment sectors.
 * A note on major employers.
 * A note on traditional or former sectors.
 * A note on regeneration/gentrification projects is encouraged here if applicable.

As someone who has written about settlements which are mostly council estates, this tends to be difficult, so you could also consider:


 * Is there any principal retail area which provides jobs and/or generates an economy? A high street or shopping precinct perhaps?
 * Consider moving your economic data from the demography section and including here (only do this if you are struggling to find material to add here)

Amenities

This is more optional material, so the following are suggestions rather than specific guidance:


 * Consider fragmenting this section; at the moment it is a bit of a 'catch all' section. There is enough material in 'Parks and Nature Reserves' and 'entertainment' to create a new section entitled 'Parks and Leisure'.
 * Alternatively, rename the section 'culture and community'. All of your material save the religious material can come under the sub-heading 'community', which leaves you to add material on culture. This could include:


 * A note on any local customs or traditions.
 * A note on any cultural events (such as an annual parade, sport or market).
 * This section could also encompass "cultural references", "landmarks" and "media" where standalone sections are unfeasible (see Wormshill example).
 * A note on twinning arrangements and activities.


 * The subsection on 'places of worship' is too small to stand alone as it does. Consider either adding detail on the churches if appropriate (are any of these listed buildings? design?) or simply merging as a sentence in a new 'culture' sub-section.

Transport

Again, this section is a little sparse. Consider:


 * What is the principal road in Aspley? If none, what is the nearest principal road?
 * Are there any train stations? If not, how far is the nearest and where is this?
 * Any other transport other than buses serving Aspley? (trams, metro etc)?
 * Lists are discouraged (see WP:LIST) so consider creating a table for the bus information. An example can be found at Low Fell.

Referencing

Before I have checked any of your references I note that these are bare url links. The are strongly discouraged and, according to Citing_sources, all references should include the following:

Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include:
 * name of the author(s)
 * title of the article within quotation marks
 * name of the website
 * date of publication
 * page number(s) (if applicable)
 * the date you retrieved it (required if the publication date is unknown)

A quick and efficient way to do this is to use the WP:Cite web template. So, for example, your first reference becomes:


 * (date retrieved 8 August 2012)

You will have to change all of your references using the template if you want to pass GA I'm afraid.

Looking at the links provided, then:


 * Link 2 appears to be a report of some kind. Consider citing the report using Harvard or another referencing system rather than just citing a web-link to help prevent any potential link rot
 * A comment on why link four is a reliable source might help (it looks okay as it seems to be a local council website but it isn't clear initially and I had to have a root about on the site)
 * Is link 6 a reliable source? If so, why?
 * Link 7 is also a report. Consider citing report directly
 * Is link 9 reliable? (I've had a look at it and I'm not sure)
 * Link 10 is another report which would be cited directly
 * Link 32 has tags attached to it which can lead to a quick fail at WP:GAN. This needs to be fixed, preferably with a better source (perhaps Hansard?), as soon as possible.

Verifiability

Per WP:V, any semi-contentious point needs to be verifiable. I won't go through the whole article noting these but I would say that, as a general rule, it is best to ensure that every point you make be supported by a reference to a reliable source. I'll just go through the history section and try to illustrate this point if I can:


 * Your first point gives me reference 2 but a page number would be hugely helpful- the linked document is near 100 pages long.
 * Unless I am missing something, there is nothing in link 4 to verify that the main purpose of the railway was transporting goods from Cinderhill colliery
 * All of the material in the third paragraph up to 'dissolution of the monasteries in 1538' appears to be unreferenced and there is nothing in link 5, the nearest reference, to support it. Because I have checked all of the links I can see that link 3 supports this point, but you therefore need to reference this point with a citation of link 3.
 * Where is link 6 does it state that the Hall was pulled down 'to make way for further housing projects'? That will also need a reference.

You will have to undertake the same painstaking exercise throughout the article if you hope to pass WP:GAN

Additional points


 * The GA criteria require that an article be well illustrated. Suggest adding more images than the two included here to help meet the criteria
 * Be careful with wiki-linking. Common terms such as Europe don't need linking but Dissolution of the Monasteries should be linked. See WP:OVERLINK and WP:UNDERLINK for more guidance.
 * Give the article a good copy-edit. There are some obvious errors (See, for example, "Aspleys estates began in 1920's...")

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality: Comment: generally okay but some small errors
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: Comment: lead requires expansion per above suggestions
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources: Comment: heavy reliance on web links, suggestions re: Harvard where appropriate
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Comment: there are some links which might not be reliable
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects: Comment: detailed suggestions provided above
 * 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: Comment: only two images provided, suggest adding more when new material added
 * 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: Comment: only two images provided, suggest adding more when new material added
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Comment: only two images provided, suggest adding more when new material added
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Overall comments

At this stage, I'm afraid that the article does not meet the criteria for GA status and I have therefore failed the nomination. There has obviously been a lot of work put into the article and it has improved substantially from it having been a stub, but the main 'issues' are that it presently lacks sufficient breadth to be considered a GA and there are several MOS points to be considered.

In my view these will take longer than a week to 'remedy', for want of a better word, and so I have not placed the article on hold and will rather pass it back to the nominator to continue the good work that has gone into the article so far. Please don't be disheartened– a lot of these issues are what I would describe as 'Wikipedia stylistic issues'– and can be corrected with a little time and effort. Once the above suggestions are considered and the appropriate additions made I would suggest that the article be Peer Reviewed; this can be especially useful when one user is the principal editor of an article and no-one else is available to give a second viewpoint on the work undertaken (as is the case with all of my own articles, too, for what it is worth).

If you have any queries relating to this review, please feel free to message my talk page and I'll be happy be help as best I can. I'd also be willing to look over the article again once you have considered my suggestions if you think it would be of assistance. Meetthefeebles (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)