Talk:Evesham/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for the kind invitation to review this article. First, let me say that some of the comments that SilkTork posted on the talk page are quite valid, and should probably have been given more attention than the rather dismissive reply they received. Just because they didn't place them on the "official" review page does not mean that they are not valid, and editors should be willing to at least consider all comments in their quest to improve the article. Initial comments shortly...


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The lead should be expanded. For an article of over 30 kb, two large paragraphs or three medium-sized ones are adequate. Not the one medium one and two almost non-existant ones that are currently there.
 * History section - please put this in chronological order! It jumps from 1086 to 1265 to 1149 to 1930 to 1603! Also, did nothing happen between 1645 and 1930?
 * The majority of the article goes into exquisite detail about even the most mundane details of contemporary life, but then gives one sentence to a major battle (Evesham was the site of a major battle—the Battle of Evesham,...) and leaves it at that. Is nothing more known about this battle? The battle has a main article. Some elements have been borrowed and paraphrased, with a link  to  the main  article. The battle section  is not too long because the main battle article is not very long either.
 * (expanded) The latter half of the article is made up almost completely of short, choppy paragraphs and sections that do a disservice to the information they are trying to present. Many of these could (and should) be combined, which will make the article flow better and be more intuitive to read. For example, the Sport and Media section could be combined with the Culture section, and many of the subsections within Culture don't need their own subsections - just use transition sentences to flow between one idea and the next.
 * The tag in the Notable people section needs to be dealt with. Although I have no problem with the format as a list, I would like to see some sort of opening sentence or two tying these people together.
 * The Language section seems to be more of an etymology section or pronunciation section than a section about the language. You say the local dialect is "distinctive", but then go into a discussion of various pronunciations of the town's name. What about the local dialect is "distinctive"? Have there been any linguistic studies on it? What is it related to? How did it develop? Is it similar to dialects used in other local towns, and is it just used in Evesham/the surrounding countryside?
 * No further information  is available from  other sources regarding the accent. I am from 20 miles from the area and I  do  not  find that  it  differs much at all from the genera, local, rural  Herefordshire/Worcestershire accent  that  is spoken  for example in  Malvern, Upton-on-Severn, and Tewkesbury Pershore. (Kudpung)
 * I found and added some citations on the dialect. It does appear that it was distinctive within its local geographic region. However by the time attention was paid to this particular dialect it was already in decline. This fits with my overall impression regarding English dialects, that there was considerably more diversity prior to various developments in transport and related infrastructure (esp road & rail, and - on an international scale - sea and air). Couple this with standardised education, and now with increasing electronic communication, and you have the world we currently live in, where the number of dialects we see is significantly less than ever before in human history. Thus, with dialect as with any other phenomenon, we cannot extrapolate from the world we now observe to the world which once was. We must rely on whatever records we can find from the world that once was to get the context of that world. Palaeontologists and anthropologists are particularly cognisant of this. Wotnow (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There is one dead link (already marked) that needs to be fixed.
 * What is reference #12? It has a retrieval date and part of a link, but no actual web link.
 * Became ref #11 as at this revision.Wotnow (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes ref #22 (Beermad) a reliable source?
 * Replaced Beermad ref (now #21 as at this edit) with Town Council ref. Wotnow (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes ref #32 (Pathetic motorways) a reliable source?
 * Replaced Pathetic motorways ref (now #31 as at this edit) with ref from Motorways Archive. Straightforward descriptive, with research leads for tracking down original documents. Wotnow (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes ref #42 (Steam index) a reliable source?
 * The Steam index ref (now #41) is detailed, very well referenced, looks well researched, and does actually look reliable. Indeed I'm reasonably impressed with it. A hardcore researcher could glean a considerable amount of material from this. Wotnow (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Here are a few of my initial comments. There is a good bit of work that is needed, and so I am putting the article on hold to allow these issues to be addressed. I haven't had a thorough look at prose yet, and more issues will possibly rise to the surface as the ones above are taken care of. Dana boomer (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

More comments
 * History section, "According to legend, Eof went to Egwin, who shared the vision and was moved to establish a Benedictine abbey dedicated to St Mary on the site which was built by 709 A.D." Doesn't the contradict the sentence above, where you say that Egwin followed the vision to Eof? Also, needs a ref (according to legend? says who?), and AD/BC do not have punctuation, per WP:MOSNUM.
 * This is being fixed. It's a similar confusion to  that  of the founding  of Malvern, where there was also  a shepherd or a hermit  credited with either the foundation  of the town or the abbey, and a monk or a bishop who later actually had the monastery built,  from  which  the town  is also  supposed to have developed. Different sources report  the stories differently - I'm  not  sure if it's Wikipedia's job  to sort out the mess of 1,000 year old legend, but we do our best with Englnd where recorded history goes back  over more than  two  thousand years since the Roman occupation.


 * History section, "An entry in the Great Domesday Book..." Some of the names in this list could probably be linked without too much digging.
 * Battle section, if the battle was a massacre, how was the outcome not decisive? Or do you mean that while we know who won the battle, the battle didn't end the war? This should be made more clear.
 * The battle did not end the war, which continued for another two  years.


 * Major issue - Copyright violations, really?!?
 * (removed) Article: "King Charles I stayed in the town in 1644, probably in one of the town houses in Bridge Street that were crown property." Source: "Charles stayed in the town in 1644, probably in one of the town houses in Bridge Street that were crown property."
 * Article: "The town received a royal charter in 1603." Source: "The town only first received a royal charter in 1603,"
 * Article: "After the Dissolution of the Monasteries of 1540 to the end of the 17th century, the town's economy depended on the cloth trade, especially trade in finished articles – caps, collars and gloves." Source: "from the Dissolution of 1540 to the end of the seventeenth century, the town depended on the cloth trade, and particularly the specialist trades in finished articles – caps, collars and gloves."
 * 'removed) * Article: Source:"Along the river were two corn-mills and a mill for extracting oil from linseed. There were two factories making ribbon." "There are two corn-mills, a mill for extracting oil from linseed, and two ribbon manufactories."
 * However, this appears to be  from:  'Everdon - Ewen', A Topographical Dictionary of England (1848), pp. 191-195. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=50952 Date accessed: 18 January 2011.  It's taken online from British  History Online and is out of copyright. The website' offers read-made citations to  use in  Wikipedia per Wikipedia format.

This is from only checking parts of a couple of sources! Every single reference needs to be gone through and checked, and my first instinct is to fail this article right now. However, I will keep it on hold for the moment, to give you some time to respond. Dana boomer (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the current four editors would have knowingly made any copyvios. We did not create the article from scratch and there is a lot of old stuff in it. Assuming good faith, each of us has probably though that one of the others had systematically been through checked all the sources. I will do this now. --Kudpung (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KP, can you make a note here on the talk page of what you remove? There is some good content there that I would hate to lose - although clearly it needs re-writing. Dana, what is the threshold for copyvio? While some of these sections clearly fall foul, others are short, factual sentences (e.g. "The town received a royal charter in 1603."). While we can rewrite them, it tends to generate rather convoluted language. I think AP claim a violation at two sentences (although even this is rather untested). GyroMagician (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct that things like "The town received a royal charter in 1603" are kind of on the edge between copyvio and non-copyvio. However, it's really better to try and reword it even a little bit - "In 1603, the town was given a royal charter" or something or the sort. Many of them that I saw though weren't two sentences, but also were most definitely copyvios - the King Charles I sentence and the Dissolution of the Monasteries sentence above are prime examples. Dana boomer (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How is the reference checking going? Also, please note that I'm not expecting you to just remove all copied sections - just paraphrase them. If you remove all of the copyvio areas, it's going to leave the article rather incomplete. Dana boomer (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is work still ongoing on this? If I don't see any response/work in the next couple of days, I'm going to have to fail the article. Dana boomer (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like it will have to be failed, no work on the page plus no note here. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 15:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * see here. An enormous amount of work was done following Dana's initial comments but RL got in the way and for some reason this page is not registering  on my watchlist. I'll  have to  finish  the improvements alone, and I will  have this done in the next day or two. Kudpung (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, just as long as it gets done soon; article's been under review long enough. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 16:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed sections

 * Sorry, they were on  my  hard disc to  see if I  could do  anything  with  them, I  meant  to  put them  here but I got  side tracked by  a couple of messages on  my  talk  page. Here they  are:

This section:

After the Dissolution of the Monasteries of 1540 to the end of the 17th century, the town's economy depended on the cloth trade, especially trade in finished articles – caps, collars and gloves. The town received a royal charter in 1603. As an important stage on the route from Oxford, it served as a royal garrison during the English Civil War. The town remained in the hands of the Royalists until May 1645 when it was taken and occupied by Colonel Edward Massey with a large force of Cromwellian troops from the garrison in Gloucester and remained in Parliamentary possession for the rest of the Interregnum.

and this section:

During the 19th century market gardens on rich fertile soil were established around the town, and horticulture became the main industry. Asparagus and other vegetables were extensively cultivated. Along the river were two corn-mills and a mill for extracting oil from linseed. There were two factories making ribbon.

Kudpung (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Update
There is still some major work that needs to happen on this article, so I'm wondering about the main editors' thoughts on closing the review and letting the article be re-nominated when the editors have a chance to put more time into it. Currently, the history section is missing the last several hundred years, there are still unreferenced areas, mis-spellings and poor grammar/punctuation are easily found, the lead still needs to be expanded, and these are just issues that I found in a quick scan. This review has been open for more than a month, and the editors don't seem to have the time to devote to it at this point, as evidenced by the non-existent work since the day after I brought up serious copyvios. Dana boomer (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Close it if you wish. The article was nominated in good faith but  unfortunately  RL got in  the way for two of the major contributors/editors as can be seen from  the link  above, and my talk page header; I'm  still editing,  but  on  a stab-and-dab basis from  an Internet connection in  a remote part of Asia that does not  hold for more than a couple of minutes at  a time, and I  won't  be home to  my  broadband until  Saturday 19 Feb. It has absolutely  nothing to do with coinciding with comments about  possible copyvios, and I find the emphasis unfortunate. --Kudpung (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Allright, I'll close the review and the article can be renominated when you all have time. My apologies if you thought I was accusing you of bad faith, but from my point of view, editing stopped completely very soon after I brought up the copyvio comments, with no comments on the page for over two weeks. I wouldn't have blamed you for losing interest in the article after having copyright violations pointed out in what you probably thought was a close-to-GA-status article. I understand that you were not the one to add the violations, but unfortunately, you have been left to clean them up. Dana boomer (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)