Talk:Bolton/GA2

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

Article listed over four years ago. Some minor issues noted on a quick look, so opening a GAR to have a closer look to see what needs to be done to ensure it continues to meet current GA criteria.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  03:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Tick box
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

 * Pass
 * Has an appropriate reference section.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  03:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is stable.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  03:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Images are OK.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  03:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No section seems overly long or overly detailed. Seems to be a decent balance of information - though some of the statistic tables need to be summarised in prose per Manual of Style (embedded lists).  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Query
 * Bias. Language is assertive at times. The statement "Bolton was the target for one of the first aerial offensives in history" is inaccurate and misleading. This may just be a matter of some simple copy-editing.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  03:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * changed to During the night of 26 September 1916, Bolton was the target for an early aerial offensive. J3Mrs (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But it wasn't even "early" - there had been a considerable campaign of bombing the east of Britain, including London, for over a year before Bolton was bombed.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The source describes the attack on Bolton as part of the first strategic bombing offensive in history (i.e. the Zeppelin raids). The first raid of this offensive was on King's Lynn in January 2015 (it says).  The Bolton raid was in September 2016.  Here we see the difficulty in imparting important information in summary style.  Bolton was bombed as part of the Zeppelin offensive; the Zeppelin offensive was the first strategic bombing offensive (so it says, anyway); so how to summarise in one sentence?  Mr Stephen (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Bolton is home to one of North West England's largest Field Hockey Clubs" - there seems to be an attempt here to aggrandise even the smallest piece of information by looking for some kind of very narrow superlative - it's not the UK largest, not even one of the largest, so we go down to not just the North of England, but even more narrow, the North West, to get, not the largest, but "one of the largest" - and then when checking the source, it doesn't even say that! Our aim to to produce neutral facts, not to make vague semi-impressive tabloid claims. We are not The Sun or The Mirror, we are an encyclopaedia! :-)  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I've removed most but I'm keeping pdmhs.com as it isn't a blog and publishes useful material on mining. I do know about libraries and use them a lot, unfortunately I don't live near Bolton and my local library doesn't carry stock relating to Greater Manchester.J3Mrs (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC) thisislancashire.co.uk is a local newspaper and reliable as any other. J3Mrs (talk) 09:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed.
 * Looking at sourcing. Are these reliable sources: bolton.org, Lovemytown, megalithix.wordpress, pdmhs.com, thisislancashire.co.uk, historyworld.co.uk, manchester2002? They appear to be blogs or commercial sites. It is likely that those sites would have got their information from reliable sources. In general it is considered better to skip blogs and commercial sites and use more reliable sources, though there can be times when blogs do carry useful information not found elsewhere. If good quality online sources are hard to find, then try local libraries as they tend to keep good sources on the history of the local area.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Fail
 * Prose is not clear, and use of punctuation is sparse. "A tradition of cottage spinning and weaving and the mechanisation of the textile industry by local inventors, Richard Arkwright and Samuel Crompton led to rapid growth in the 19th century." Rapid growth of what? There is also occasional assertive language, and several short paragraphs. This is not a major thing, and can be sorted with a copy-edit.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  03:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Mos issues.
 * Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  03:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Layout. Some sub-sections would be better merged into the parent section.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  03:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you say which? J3Mrs (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll do a bit of copy-editing. See what I can do.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Lists. Information in the tables may be better summarised in prose.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  03:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again can you say which? J3Mrs (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll do a bit of copy-editing. See what I can do.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * A tradition of cottage spinning and weaving and the mechanisation of the textile industry by local inventors, Richard Arkwright and Samuel Crompton led to rapid growth in the 19th century. changed to A tradition of cottage spinning and weaving and improvements to spinning technology by local inventors, Richard Arkwright and Samuel Crompton, led to rapid growth of the textile industry in the 19th century.

General comments

 * Are all the External links needed? Some look as though they are already used as sources within the article so don't need listing unless they are the official sites of the topic, and some do not appear to meet WP:EL.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  09:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * removed most. J3Mrs (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

On hold
This is a decent article. A reasonable amount of information has been collected and presented in a useful manner. There are no significant problems, and most readers would find the article to be helpful, readable and informative. There are areas which need tightening, but nothing that a stiff copy-edit wouldn't sort out. I've not done enough background reading to establish if coverage is broad enough, though I do note that 20th century history is sparse, or scattered through the article so it is difficult to find. Be good to see some stronger sources used to support the information, especially to replace some of the commercial sites and blogs. I'm putting on hold for the initial standard seven days to allow the issues to be debated or addressed. I'm quite happy to help out on basic copy-editing.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  09:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Have all the issues not been addressed now? Eric   Corbett  17:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  17:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I still have issues regarding the short sub-sections and short paragraphs, and that history stops with the Zeppelin raids. I'll do a copy-edit later, and see if I can find some more recent history worth including. The issues are not serious and are easily resolvable, so the listing is not in jeopardy. I'm OK with finishing it off myself.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  17:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The history section could do with a little more 20th century history than the Zeppelin raid; and the lead could be further developed, but I'm not going to delist the article for these small things. The article meets GA criteria on significant points, and is currently looking reasonably clean and tidy. Keep listed.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  15:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)