Talk:Cambridge/GA2

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

Reviewer: Emir of Wikipedia (talk · contribs) 14:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I hope to review this article soon. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Criteria
 Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ;
 * (c) ; and
 * (d).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 <li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>:</li>

</ol>

Discussion
Please add any related discussion here.

Comments by Ritchie333
, I was surprised to see this pass GA, particularly given the extent of reviews Portsmouth and Faversham had, and Cambridge is far more important historically. Amongst the immediate problems I see:
 * There has been no mention of why Talk:Cambridge/GA1 failed, and if any of the issues have been addressed
 * The inline citations in the lead should at least be commented on
 * The Roman history section is quite small. I am sure this should be longer, given its prominent importance to Roman Britain on the Via Devana
 * The medieval history section looks to be too small as well, I would expect more on the city's relationship between East and Middle Anglia, for example
 * The end of the first paragraph of the "Medieval" section is unsourced
 * The town north of the river was severely affected being almost wiped out - "wiped out" is a WP:EUPHEMISM and should not be used in a GA
 * I would expect even a summary of King's College Chapel to contain more than two terse sentences
 * Similarly, In 1209, Cambridge University was founded by students escaping from hostile townspeople in Oxford does not cut it, even as a summary, for the substantial historical importance the university has on the city
 * Personal opinion this, but I'm sure I have seen the college backs onto the Cam described as one of the greatest views in Europe, or something similar. I would recommend researching this and putting something about the backs in the article. It is the lead picture, after all!
 * Following numerous deaths due to plague - is this the Black Death 200 years earlier or something else? This needs to be documented
 * The "Cambridge SUDS Design & Adoption Guide" source is a dead link - this should be at least retrieved via the Wayback Machine if possible
 * The demography in Cambridge changes considerably in and out of University term times, so can be hard to measure - as well as being unsourced, this is not a particularly encyclopedic section of prose
 * What makes Cambridgefutures.org a reliable source?
 * The Transport section makes no mention of the numerous former rail services that ran from it, including the Cambridge to Mildenhall railway, the Stour Valley Railway and the Cambridge & St. Ives Branch Line
 * and the A1303 to Newmarket and beyond to Colchester. - the A1303 is a local road, the historical 20th century road between Cambridge and Colchester is the now-defunct A604, the modern way is probably the A14 / A12 via Ipswich or the M11 / A120 / A12 via Stansted. Either way, this is factually incorrect.
 * The A service continues on to the railway station and Addenbrookes, before terminating at a new Park and Ride in Trumpington. - this sentence is unsourced

I'm sorry, but just from a ten-minute look through the article, it does not appear to meet the GA criteria. We need to sort this out; either the review can be reopened and I'll look at it some more, or we can roll the article back to C-class status, which I think is fairer. I am not inclined to go to a full reassessment via WP:GAR, which I feel is overkill.

Also paging and  for comment. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think Portsmouth and Devon are completely irrelevant to this. The citations in the lead are minimal and are appropriate for both controversial content as well as content that isn't mentioned elsewhere. I think the history sections are adequate for a GA but not an FA. The end line of the first paragraph is non-controversial and can easily be deduced from the borders. I think that if you disagree you should go through with a full reassessment. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. Emir of Wikipedia, I have no doubt at all that you're working in good faith, but GAC isn't just a matter of working through a checklist, and there's no way that this is sufficient as a GA review for a 6600-word article. Just a skim through the end sections, without even looking at the body text, throws up obvious red flags. (What makes this a reliable source, for instance, and what is this section doing there?) I also agree with Ritchie that Following numerous deaths due to plague screams out as something that needs clarification as I'm unaware of any plague outbreak in East Anglia in the early 16th or early 17th century (the 'source' for this claim is a guide to country walks which is immediately suspect given that it claims plague is spread via untreated sewage, and "plague is spread by Y. pestis" is probably the one piece of epidemiology which every schoolchild knows). &#8209; Iridescent 17:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

As a basic rule of thumb, the more popular an article is, the more work is needed at a GA review, which is why minor albums need less overall work than an article like this one, which gets about 1,800 views a day, to the extent the talk page says "Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues". I mentioned Portsmouth's GA because the effort involved there (and it hasn't finished yet!) is orders of magnitude more than this one, which will give you some idea of what's required for something like this. Cambridge is a worthy article to take to GA, and would be an excellent benefit to the project if done correctly. You really don't want to go to GAR - I fully predict the article and review will be torn apart and you'll feel completely disillusioned. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Just catching up, I don't think it's anything to do with popularity, more to do with complexity. Settlement articles are difficult and reviewing then takes some background knowledge. I don't think this article meets GA criteria 3a. I did a bit of copyediting but at no time thought it comprehensive enough to pass a GA. J3Mrs (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * By "popular" I specifically mean a cross between "has more page views" and "has more coverage in reliable sources"; otherwise I agree with what you say. As there is no clear consensus this can pass GA without significant work, I am closing the review as "not listed" for the time being. That's not to say the article shouldn't be improved - of course it should - but it's best to do this out of the spotlight of GAN. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)