Talk:Derwent Valley Mills/GA1

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


 * Reviewing, don't want Nev's book sources to go stale!Pyrotec (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments
This article appears to be somewhere between a GA and an FA, but I suspect that it has insufficient in-line citations for FA; and I can't award FA anyway. Still, as you have Cooper(?) for another week or so I might as well find some 'problems'.Pyrotec (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I hadn't considered taking it to FA... that's something to think about. The inline citations would just be a matter of copying and pasting, where for example one reference is given for an entire paragraph, that's the only sourced used for it. Nev1 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

More detailed comments

 * Location and coverage
 * Appears to be OK, if you're going for FA perhaps a map or a stylised map of the WHO site could be helpful. I'm not making this a condition of GA.


 * History -
 * It's not made clear in the first paragraph of the article (and I discovered it by following links), but this paragraph appears to be about mechanising silk spinning, not silk weaving, etc.
 * The rest of the section appears to be satisfactory.
 * Woops, I've now made it clear early on that Arkwright was involved in cotton production, not silk. Nev1 (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Transport -
 * Both subsections are compliant with GA-requirements. I would only make the comment that you are using Cooper as a sole source for both canal and railways. This is of course compliant with WP:Verify; but looking at both relevant articles, other sources are quoted and have been used.


 * Legacy -
 * Being from the 'west' rather than the 'east', I see some east-bias here. I was taught about Robert Owen and New Lanark an other UNECSO site; that is not too dissimilar to the Derwent Valley mills.
 * Good point, I also forgot to mention Saltaire in Yorkshire. I think all three were listed at the same session of the WHO. Nev1 (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Second paragraph appears compliant.


 * Preservation -
 * This appears to be compliant. However, there is a bit of an information 'gap' between the involvment of the Arkwright Society in 1979 and the 2001 designation as a World Heritage Site (yes you do mention the clean up). Is there any citable information that can be included about the decision to bid, and the bid itself, to obtain UNESCO World Heritage designation?
 * Some more details about the 1970s and 1980s have been added, although it was easier to find info on why the site was proposed as a WHS. Nev1 (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:Lead -
 * Your lead is rather 'thin', but it is just about adequate. The lead is intended to do two things: provide an introduction to the subject and summarise the main points of the article. The two paragraphs provide quite a good introduction, but a very skimply summary. I would suggest that the lead is expanded to three paragraphs and a slightly 'meatier' summary of the site's history be provided.
 * I've expanded the lead, and it now provides a better summary. Nev1 (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Pyrotec (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 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:

Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding GA-status. I suspect that you have a resonable chance of WP:FAC, but I would recommend that you use some additional references for your some of in-line citations. Looking at the articles, behind the canal and the reilway sections, there appear to be an aedquate number of canal and railway references that could serve the same purpose as Cooper. This however, has no bearing on the GA-assessment.Pyrotec (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)