Talk:Felling, Tyne and Wear/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'll be taking a look at this 'un. comments below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 *  Felling is one of the geographically largest urban areas... - do we think "geographically" is necessary here? (for instance, if it were population rather than area, would we not have said "most populous" instead?)
 * Okay, I've removed "geographically". Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 *  The history of Felling is well recorded and stretches almost eight hundred years. - is it particularly or unusually well recorded compared with other areas?


 * Actually it is compared to other neighbouring areas of Gateshead (I wrote a few of these over the summer all at once) but it is superfluous so it's gone. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the opening sentence leaves me a bit confused - is this a town or suburb or...what?
 * Honestly, I don't know(!). I do know that was a village until 1894, then it became a town and stayed so until 1974, when it seemed to 'lose' its town-status and was simply swallowed up by the new Metroploitan Borough of Gateshead. Hence the rather vague opening sentence. The remnant is now confusing; several documents vaguely refer to Felling as still a 'town' with a 'town centre' but I cannot find anything reliable to state as such and I am fairly sure that it isn't actually a town anymore. I also don't think it is a suburb, either. Any suggestions? Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How about "Originally three villages (x,y and z) which coalesced in the mid-19th century, the town essentially merged with the larger urban area of Gateshead as the latter has grown in the late 20th century" or something like that......I think this would help clarify what it is very well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've made some additions at the start to try and clarify this issue. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can drop the word "independent" as "three villages" assumes they are distinct.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Under the History heading, I think it is better to have a few sentences or none. You mention it is well recorded - is this noted somewhere and is it particularly better documented than other similar areas around the country? If not I'd leave it out and let the facts speak for themselves.
 * I have done so. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * " deserted Felling" in - use different word and de-quote..."abandoned"? "left"?
 * 'Abandoned' seems fine. Changed. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 *  tiny agricultural villages - why not "farming villages"?
 * Changed. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 *  the latest of the "established landed family" residing at Felling - dequote and rephrase...
 * Done. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 *  and indeed it was imported coal from Newcastle-upon-Tyne saw the development of more extensive industries in salt, glass and chemicals which began to attract workers to the area - a "which" or "that" before the "saw".....
 * I've added "which". Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Casliber. Thanks for agreeing to review: it's been so long since I nominated this that I completely forgot about it! I've made some changes as suggested and will deal with the others which I am sure you will raise :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, now where was I.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * On 19 January 1811 the original, High Main pit at Felling Colliery was closed but by that time the colliery had grown enormously - the comma looks in a funny place to me...I'd be putting one after 1811, and then after "but"...?
 * Agreed and done. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * link firedamp.
 * Done Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 *  of "perfection in the purity of it's air and orderly arrangements" - rephrase and dequote if possible.
 * I've re-written the sentence. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 *  "one of the most tremendous explosions in the history of coal mining took place" - ditto - is there any other source for it being one of the biggest in history or was it just very big?
 * Those are the exact words of the source cited. I'd like to leave this one in– it is verifiable, verified and I think is important for context. I will take it out though if you think it must be removed? Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point - my purpose isn't to expunge any article of quotes, but used sparingly they are good. Ok, point taken. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Grindstone quarries produced stone of excellent quality - somewhat superlative-sounding. I'd just say "high quality" which sounds more objective
 * Done. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Err...who is John Marius Wilson? An adjective or descriptor noting who he is would help with understanding where the passage of text came from....
 * He was a historian. I've added this. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * and an "unusually hot sun" later in the day - dequote. "unseasonal heat" might be an alternative was of phrasing
 * Agreed. Changed. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * and a further 34 suffered minor aliments such as shock - ailments makes me think of influenza etc. agree repeating the word "injuries" a little repetitive. Need to think of a rephrase.
 * I've changed "injured" to "hurt" which allows the use of "minor injuries" without the repetition problem. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * link areas first mentioned for the first time in the Geography and topography section.
 * Done. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "the second most important town in the borough after Gateshead" - dequote and rephrase pls
 * I've rephrased. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Better to attribute the comments made about the bypass to that person - Bernard Conlan. Somewhat controversial - we should be reporting who is concerned not making it sound like we are....
 * Done Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 *  though excellent care and so this too is a good school. - "highly-regarded school" or "held in high regard", also "good care"
 * I've taken the "excellent care" out. The "good school" description is that given by the OFSTED inspectors (it is one of their grading descriptors) and I've now added this to the article for context. I'd be a little hesitant to change this but will if you think it necessary? Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Overall, coming together well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * spotcheck of refs 116 and 117 - I changed them a tad, gotta be careful of using too many words from the source. This can be tricky....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, the edits look fine :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * this article talks of one tragedy, but doesn't support the text which discusses ongoing danger and accidents (plural). Thus it is an extrapolation (this can be tricky when writing about something you know to be true, missing some extra evidence) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of other references to sources reporting accidents this year to demonstrate the continuing high accident rate on the road. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok - I guess what I am worried about is No original research. I'll re-read the conlan bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The information about accidents isn't really that important in the grand scheme of things, so to makes things easier, I've simply removed it. Meetthefeebles (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources: - a couple of other spotchecks looked ok.
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research: - frustrating to remove the bit, but if something turns up, it'd be good to re-add.

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)