Talk:Ely, Cambridgeshire/GA1

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

Reviewer: Lampman (talk · contribs) 00:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure whats happened to this review, it seem to have stalled ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I have taken too long; I was under the impression, from talk page discussion, that there was no hurry. If you need something to work with, here's a start: cambridgeshirehistory.com is under no circumstances a reliable source – it is a website published by an anonymous. Seeing that the bibliography contains sources like the VCH and other RSs, I don't think there is any excuse for relying so heavily on this for the history. Lampman (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Some books that might cover this:

Just as a suggestion, obviously I don't mean you have to incorporate all of this. Lampman (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Another thing: I think the lead, at five paragraphs, is too long even for an article this size. Some details could be cut, but furthermore, its structure is a bit confused. It seems to me like the following:


 * Location (which is fine) - History, transportation - Geography, economy (fine) - Transportation (which we've already done in part 2) - History (which we've already done), education, misc.

Instead, how about a simpler structure, like:


 * Location - History - Geography, economy - Transportation, education, misc.

Just a suggestion, but I'm sure if you read Lead, you'll agree this one is a bit too long. Lampman (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not crazy about the heading "Saxon roots", seeing how this section covers a 1000-year period from the 7th to the 17th century. I'd go for something more boring, like "Medieval and early modern something, something..." Lampman (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. Thank you. I will get on to the above asap. In the meantime, sorry if there was confusion. My "take your time" was meant to imply no need to review immediately :( but I was getting slightly nervous after a week as my sources need to go back to the library in a week.
 * I see, I'll try to get through it as quickly as possible then. Lampman (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Responses
Striking above as items cleared
 * "cambridgeshirehistory.com is under no circumstances a reliable source"&mdash;Agreed poorly sourced material removed to talk page with the intention of working sourced material back in but this is a lot of work --Senra (Talk) 11:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "I am not crazy about the heading 'Saxon roots&mdash;Agreed changed to "Medieval to early modern" though I think this needs to change again --Senra (Talk) 11:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Lead too long&mdash;Stet for now as this needs careful crafting but it will get done --Senra (Talk) 11:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Lead too long&mdash;Agreed prose re-ordered and length cut to four paragraphs as per above and Lead. I accept that the lead may need further work. For now, I consider it done --Senra (Talk) 19:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Detailed review
Ok, here are my objections. Nothing major, all in all well written and exceptionally well researched.
 * "the 1066 survey" – what is this; was there really a survey in 1066 already, or is it a confusion with Domesday? If there was one, it probably shouldn't say "the 1066 survey", as if it's been mentioned before, but rather "by the time of a 1066 survey" or something like that. Agreed changed to "... by the time of the Domesday survey (1066)" --Senra (Talk) 11:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But surely Domesday was in 1086? Lampman (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * William the Conqueror is occasionally referred to as that, and occasionally as "William I". I think it would be better to be consistent and call him William the Conqueror – the name under which he is best known, and the title of the article. Agreed changed --Senra (Talk) 11:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * William Wolsey & Robert Pygot – some brief context would be good here, I take it this was during Mary's counter-reformation?
 * Stet as I need to work on this. I looked at Counter-Reformation which looks right in this context but as I cannot use Wikipedia as a source am researching sources --Senra (Talk) 11:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have access to Foxe (1838) pp. ii–iii who does not use the term counter-reformation. However, he does describe the Papacy's first effective efforts to re-establish its influence in England following the ascendancy of Mary to the throne. Counter-reformation is probably a modern term. Based on Foxe, I prepended "Following the ascendancy of Mary I of England to the throne in 1553, the Papacy made its first effective efforts to enforce the Pope Paul III initiated Catholic reforms in England.[29] During this time, which became known as the counter-reformation, ..." --Senra (Talk) 12:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a better link would be Marian Persecutions, then you wouldn't need a ref. Lampman (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed done --Senra (Talk) 22:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "chorographic" is a quite unusual word, it should be wikilinked to Chorography . Agreed and indeed it was linked then recently unlinked :( --Senra (Talk) 11:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Liberals finished in third place in the constituency for the first time ever." – there a [citation needed] tag here that needs to be resolved. Agreed done. I think I was ahead of you on this one :) --Senra (Talk) 11:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * John Alcock died in 1500, did he not? Stet his bishopric lasted 1486–1501 according to (1970)[1954] p. 378 (I also checked  addenda p. 559). How should I handle this? --Senra (Talk) 11:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By changing "1501" to "1500" and giving a source for his dates that isn't wrong! Obviously he wasn't bishop after his death on 1st Oct 1500; there was a vacancy until his successor's bishopric began in mid-1501. You can't say "1486-1501" because whilst Pevsner's fine for architectural stuff, it's not first-choice material for dates of bishops when there's a clash between Pevsner and what actually happened. BencherliteTalk 19:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree; here's a source you could use for the 1500 date:


 * Lampman (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed done "" --Senra (Talk) 22:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Ely is the nearest cathedral city to Cambridge, which lies within the same diocese but does not have its own cathedral." – this sentence confuses me a bit. I think it's the "but", since there's really no contradiction between the two propositions: isn't it exactly because it doesn't have its own cathedral that it lies within the diocese of Ely? (I suppose Cambridge is a bit unusual, in that it is a city but not a diocese?) Anyway, I think this could be rewritten a bit clearer. Agreed though unsure exactly how to reword this. For now, I have removed "... but does not have its own cathedral" as confusing and (marginally?) redundant --Senra (Talk) 11:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Lampman (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That's really it. The lead is a lot clearer now, and the use of reliable sources much better. If these issues can be resolved, it should be set to go. Lampman (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that should be it! Lovely article, and lovely place; I've been there a few times (once after getting on the wrong train from Cambridge to London, but that's another story). Good luck if you chose to take it further! Lampman (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Your comments have been very much appreciated. Despite the article, Ely has modernised a lot! We now have a Starbucks, Costa and Caffè Nero as well as a least one good pub :) Thank you again for the promotion --Senra (Talk) 00:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)