Talk:Bradley, Hampshire/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bungle (talk · contribs) 14:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll take this on, seeing as I have done a few other similar ones from the same region. Bungle (talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Reviewed this version from 1st April 2017

Summary
Very similar to other articles in this region I have previously reviewed, with similar concerns about broadness, layout style etc. This is a very small village so there may not be a vast amount of info available, but I do have some concerns about the history section as a whole, not just that it doesn't mention anything since 1905, but that it's solely based on a single reference. If the above points are worked through, I can then do a second review to see if I have missed anything or if other issues crop up. If I find anything else in the meantime i'll just add it in to the above review. I'll place on hold and see how much has changed a week from now. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you very much for the thorough review! I really appreciate it. Hopefully I should have addressed everything, though unfortunately this is a very "off the radar" sort of village and I was lucky to squeeze enough information out of the sources I already had. I copyedited the history section and added another reference, which was sadly the only other one I could find on its history. I also added in a new demographics and governance section. Please let me know if I'm missing anything. Sorry for the delay. JAG  UAR   21:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have done a quick copyedit with some grammar and spelling corrections mostly. I appreciate online material for data sourcing these small villages can be scarce but a lack of easily searchable online data doesn't mean that the last 112 years of history never happened. Sometimes you need to be a bit creative with how you determine change, particularly when it comes to geographical and economical change, whereby historical maps may shed some light on buildings and residential growth that may (or may not) have occured during the 20th century. Perhaps you could see if you can determine from comparing maps (such as the previous side-by-side link I offered earlier) whether there has been any notable change, or even just something you could at least mention since 1905! Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added what I can to the history section, but I really can't find any changes at all! As hard as it sounds I honestly can't find any new buildings with the exception of some woods being cut down and two acres of the parish being transferred to Bentworth sometime after 1913. I've also added a bit about Gay Dog Boarding Kennels which opened in the village in the 1960s. It seems to be the only infrastructure around! JAG  UAR   20:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There are also more older (and dated) maps here, which may offer additional changes not found on the side by side ones? I am of the view that if it's proven from map changes that very little, if anything has changed, it's still best to mention that as otherwise simply leaving a void of information will leave the reader wondering; try and conclude either way if possible, especially when the period in question is a century+ gap! Bungle (talk • contribs) 12:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've discovered that a solar farm was constructed near the village in November 2014, and that the parish was once part of Overton until the late 19th century, so I added those facts in as well as the statement of "nothing has ever happened"! It's nice to know that something has happened in the 21st century at least. JAG  UAR   19:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can quote the Basingstoke distance in the prose with a ref and find another image or two (one perhaps of the village itself, as the only image now is of the church) then i'll pass it as GA. It would probably be a borderline GA, given it's slim pickings on contemporary information, and whilst it could be debated (given some articles can never be GA), I think it'd be otherwise as informative as it can get. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added and sourced the distance to Basingstoke in the geography section. There weren't even any images of the village on Commons, the most interesting one I could find was a track leading into one of the woods. All of the other images were of just fields and I was lucky to get the one of the church and cottages. It really is a desolate village! I checked through the archives of Hampshire Treasures and there was no mention of Bradley on there either. I agree, it's a shame that there's a lack of information but I'm glad to get the article to this size. JAG  UAR   17:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Although not strictly in my eyes a failable point, it may be useful to look at the suggestion from PaleCloudedWhite and make the units consistent; otherwise I am happy this can be GA thereafter. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed the spot height to metric first but have left the acreage and measurements to imperial first as it's standard to use to imperial units for British subjects. I'm not sure if WP:MOSUNIT only applied to height and scientific measurements, but I would strongly disagree with it if it conflicted with MOS:TIES. JAG  UAR   13:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As I say, I don't think it is strictly a failable concern, but none the less making some amendment can not be a bad thing. I feel given the time elapsed that the amount of data that can be sourced has probably been exhausted (and maps do seem to suggest little changes). I'll tag it as GA on that basis. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's a shame that this couldn't be expanded further, but I'm certain all of the accessible information on this obscure village has been exhausted. The next time I'll nominate a village at GAN I'll make sure it's a large one so it should be more comprehensive. JAG  UAR   11:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not standard to use imperial measurements for British article subjects. According to MOSUNIT, in UK-related articles such as this one, "the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units" - apart from the few exceptions listed. Area is not one of those exceptions. Incidentally, while on the subject of honouring national ties and related ENGVAR issues, it should be noted that UK-related articles on settlements should use the section heading Demography, not Demographics, which is an Americanism - see this short discussion. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)