Talk:Giffnock/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 15:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments
I've had a quick look at this nomination and it appears to be at, or possibly just below, GA-level. I've seen quite a few single-sentence and two-sentence paragraphs about, some sections are full of them; but I merged a few of these single and double-sentence paragraphs. So the prose is somewhat marginal. There appears to be some WP:OVERLINKING, and some of the statements about railways are historically inaccurate as they use modern-day names, not historically accurate descriptions.

However, the article appears to have a reasonable chance of making GA-status this time round, so I will review it in more depth: starting at the History section and finishing with the WP:Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * History -
 * I would suggest a minor change to the statement in the second paragraph "The first written mention of the area came in 1530, when ....". This use of the word "area" is very vague: the reference used specifically states that Giffnock was a hamlet in the Parish of Eastwood. If the sentence is referring to "area", then is it Eastwood Parish or the hamlet of Giffnock and the surrounding crofting strips? The citation itself is referring to the hamlet of Giffnock and the crofting strips, so perhaps the word "area" aught to read (just) "Giffnock".
 * Done, I simply wrote area from a prose point of view to avoid repeating Giffnock too many times. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 07:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In the third paragraph, liver rock and moor rock aught to be in quotes e.g. "liver rock" and "moor rock", since they are referring to building stones of different colours: one red the other "white" (but sometimes described by estate agents as "blond") . They are both "sandstones", more specifically they are both freestone, sandstones of the Upper Limestone group of the Carboniferous.
 * I need to "strike-through" my comments about "different colours" in the light of new information., in reference to the Busby Railway, states that Giffnock had two quarries. "Liver rock", which came from one Giffnock quarry, was fine-grained whitish sandstone used by builders and carvers; and, "the other quarry yielded "Eastwood pavement" a foliated limestone used for stairs, hearths and above all pavements of Glasgow's streets". I don't know whether "Eastwood pavement" and "moor rock" are the same. But since "Liver rock" was described as "whitish", it possibly not a "redish" - "cream" distinction. Pyrotec (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Liver rock and moor rock now have quotation marks. Regarding the bit about the Carboniferous era, it's briefly mentioned in the Geography section as The underlay is composed mainly of sedimentary rocks and freestone from the Strathclyde and Clackmannan groups of early to mid Carboniferous age (354 to 316 million years). I added and linked 'freestone' as you mentioned above. Is it suitable here alone or should it be mentioned additionally in the history section? Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 07:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The short answer is that the material does not need to be in the article twice, but as I've not yet reviewed the Geography section, I'd prefer to make a final decision later. Pyrotec (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Having new reviewed Geography section, I'm going to "tick this one off". ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The third paragraph has sloppy editing claiming that the Glasgow South Western Line, pipelined to the Glasgow-East Kilbride Railway, was built. The more accurate reference (4), which was not used here, states the Glasgow to Busby railway. This was the Caledonian Railway company's Busby railway, most certainly NOT the Glasgow and South Western Railway, as implied by this article.
 * Changed the pipe, is it ok now? The Caledonian Railway didn't absorb the Busby Railway until 1882 though so I haven't mentioned them in the article there. Thoughts on this? Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 08:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Its better now since the Glasgow South Western Line does have a "red-link" to Busby railway, as does Caledonian Railway, by the way. I checked on the Caledonian Railway. The Busby railway was promoted by local businessmen to exploit the Giffnock quarries (see also, above) and line was run from the start by the Caledonian Railway; but, as you state, the Caledonian Railway did not take it over until later. ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The sixth paragraph claims that Giffnock railway station open in 1854, which is ten years before that railway line opened (see third paragraph), so one of these claims is likely to be a typo.
 * Fixed. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 08:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The seventh paragraph, again, has historically vague claims: Whitecraigs stations was indeed opened in 1903, but it lay on the Neilson branch of the Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway, not on the Neilson branch of the Cathcart Circle Lines, which is a more recent naming convention. That could have been checked quite easily by reading the article Cathcart Circle Lines, which states: The Cathcart Circle Lines are formed of lines built by the Cathcart District Railway (Cathcart Circle) and the Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway (Newton and Neilston lines). These statements in the Giffnock article are unreferenced and wikipedia is not regard as a "reliable source" for citing in other wikipedia articles, but it happens to be more accurate in this respect than the Giffnock article.
 * Changed to the historical name and addded a citation. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 08:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the review thus far Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 08:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Governance -
 * This section looks compliant.


 * Geography -
 * This section looks compliant.


 * Demography -
 * It looks like a possible typo for the median age of females in Giffnock - 43 not 39?
 * Fixed. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 23:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In the second paragraph, a question of arithmetic, where does the "Fifty six percent were married" come from - the ref seems to state: (Married couple household - with dependent children 25.46% + Married couple household - with no dependent children 20.41% ) have I missed something out?


 * link to source - In the Marital Status bit under 'population' it says "% Married (first marriage): 55.97%". I think you may be looking at the household tab rather than the population tab. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 23:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it looks like both ref 27 and 29 are needed here, so I added ref 27. ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In the second paragraph it states: Giffnock has higher proportions of people born outside the Europe, and people over pensionable age.[27] and I'd agree with that, but what it does not say is that there are fewer in the 16-44 (actually, the 16-29 and 30-44) age groups, i.e. school-leavers through to middle-age/working-age people. So, is that reflected in employment statistics?
 * In fact, the third paragraph does have employment/unemployment statistics, but unlike the second paragraph there is no comparison for Giffnock against the average demography of Scotland.
 * I've done some work on these points. How does it look? Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 21:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Transport -
 * Generally OK, but there is no mention of buses, I'd consider them to be a public transport, and presumably pensioners and other groups get bus passes so can travel cheaply or free outside peak hours?
 * Added a bit about the 38 bus Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 07:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Pyrotec (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Made a few minor fixes tonight but I'm heading off so will endeavour to work on the article tomorrow to clear up the demographic section and add busses. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 23:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Education -
 * It would be good if a date could be added for the opening of the lodge house school. Based on sentence-order it appears to be pre-1902.
 * I'll have a flick through the source book when I get home later but, from memory, I don't think a date is given Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 07:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, these dates pre-1902? and 1902 appear to be "rather late", based on what is given in History, but perhaps there was a only small number of local children and at this stage they went to school elsewhere in Eastwood?
 * I can only presume. Again, I'll have another look through the source for any clarifying information Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 07:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As regards education in Giffnock, there is evidence of a small private school which operated at "Ingleneuk", the lodge house to Redhurst House. This school was run by Miss Fardner. In 1902, due to increased population, a public school was opened in the Tower Rooms of Giffnock United Free Church, now known as Orchardhill Parish Church. The school operated under the auspices of Eastwood School Board. In order to fulfill the demands made by the Board as to the minimum number of pupils, two children had to be taken from Ingleneuk School and educated at Orchardhill instead. The younger children were taught in the lower room of the Church and the older ones in the Upper room.

It then goes on to talk about the main school and not much more information is given regarding the lodge house school. Judging by the fact that they had to take some children from the private school to meet the minimum number I'd imagine there wasn't many children in the area or, at least, not that many requiring public schooling. Quite possibly the various merchants had their children educated privately but I don't want to synth this into the article. Thoughts? Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 17:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Looking at History of education in Scotland it seems that the local school board responsible for education was run by the Parish of Eastwood and Giffnock had adequate schooling. I'll "close" these two down. ✅ ✅. Pyrotec (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The web link for the library in ref 37, seems to be broken.
 * Fixed Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 07:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Pyrotec (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, this section looks OK.


 * Culture and Community -
 * This section looks compliant.
 * However, the link in ref 46 for Whitecraigs Rgby club goes to Scottish Rugby. There is a search facility, so I suspect that the link needs a minor tweak.
 * It seems they changed their entire website completely since I last looked. I've dug through it and changed the source. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 17:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Pyrotec (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Public services -
 * This section looks compliant.


 * WP:Lead -
 * This is required to comply with WP:WIAGA clause 1(b) and the more detailed requirements of WP:Lead; and in general it does. At four (short) paragraphs in length, it is compliant with the suggested three or four paragraphs format; and its fairly representative of what is in the body of the article.
 * However, I don't think that in certain aspects it fully reflects what is in the body of the article. In particular:
 * Perhaps "Expansion continues due to several new housing developments; however, much of the land is now urbanised, leaving little room for further expansion." reflects Giffnock as it exists, but reading the body of the article "Giffnock has numerous parks including Rouken Glen, Huntly Park and Eastwood Park where the East Renfrewshire Council offices are based. There remains some ancient woodland in Giffnock which could be as old as 8,000 years"; there is "Greenbank Garden, an 18th century house and garden owned by the National Trust for Scotland is located within Giffnock. The house has a 2.5 acres (1.0 ha) walled garden, ..." and "In 1905 the Whitecraigs Golf Club was founded..... In 1983, Jack Nicklaus visited the club". The body of the article seems to indicate significant "green space", but that seems to conflict with what is in the lead:, i.e. urbanised land with little room for expansion.
 * What I was going for is that the only places really left to build on are parks as the area is contiguous with neighbouring areas now. I see how that wasn't clear so I've added a few words to hopefully clarify. I believe the only thing left to do is the demographics. I'll try get that done tonight Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 17:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I'm putting the review "On Hold", there are few minor "problems" that need to be addressed and some "questions" that I've posted. It would be helpful to me if these could be cleared up Wednesday, at which point I'm likely to award GA-status. I'm on holiday after that. Pyrotec (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I did a minor rewrite of the Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria An informative article on the urban settlement of Giffnock.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Thanks for diligently attending to my requests for minor improvements to parts of the article. I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on getting the article up to this standard. Pyrotec (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing a thorough review and taking an interest in the article Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 20:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)