Talk:Hednesford/GA1

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

Reviewer: Annwfwn (talk · contribs) 13:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hiya @Annwfwn,
 * Thank you for your precise and helpful feedback. I've gone ahead and made some changes. If you'd like to give it another read over, and let me know if anything else needs a tweak or a redo, I'd be grateful! Cheers. -Asheiou   (they/them • talk)  00:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Asheiou Wow! You've made some great improvements! I did some updates below; I'll finish looking at it again today or tomorrow.  Annwfwn (talk)
 * @Annwfwn Thank you for the additional feedback. I've gone ahead and given it a bit of a shuffle around, as well as adding a short section on governance. I've also rewritten that paragraph on redevelopment more completely. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to change! -Asheiou   (they/them • talk)  16:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey @Annwfwn, there's no deadline, but I'm just wondering when you'll finish looking at this? Absolutely no rush, I'm just asking for myself really. Thanks! -Asheiou   (they/them • talk)  19:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Asheiou the reviewer of the article has been inactive for 32 days, if this makes it to 35 days, I am going to take over the review to get you your GA. Cherrell410 (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cherrell410 Hi, thank you! > Asheiou   (they/them • talk)  15:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the remaining sections and I am placing the article on hold until they are finished. Great article btw! Cherrell410 (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll work on it tomorrow. > Asheiou   (they/them • talk)  17:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems the demographics links are just completely broken. I don't know if it's going to be possible to find replacement sources for all of them, but I'll do my best. I hadn't really looked at them as the sourcing looked okay and they were already here when I started working on the article. > Asheiou   (they/them • talk)  23:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cherrell410 The demographics data is still accessible from the public internet, but it now requires the use of the Office for National Statistics' lovely Nomis. This means the only way to access it is through directly querying their database, meaning you can't just create a link to the direct results without self-hosting and therefore running afoul by making a WP:SPS. The information remains available and WP:V but the method of verification isn't exactly intuitive. What would you suggest I do in this situation? To generate queries, you can go to the link for the dataset, for example QS113EW and then click the Query data button hidden on the left hand side. > Asheiou   (they/them • talk)  00:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am going to request a second opinion because I didn't comprehend half of what I just read. Cherrell410 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * c. (OR):
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Passed copyvio.
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Pass/fail:

Lead

 * I'd appreciate a link to market town. ✅
 * "Cannock Chase is to the north, the town of Cannock 1 mile (1.6 km) to the south and Rugeley 5 miles (8.0 km) to the northwest." I would like to see this restructured to emphasize the relevance to Hednesford. Two examples I thought did a good job of this were Neilston and Portsmouth which emphasized where Neilston and Portsmouth were. ✅ Excellent rewrite, using Birm and London were good choices for the non-UK reader who may not be as savvy about geography.

History

 * What was going on Hednesford prior the 20th century? ✅
 * "Hednesford was a coal mining community for over a century." What century? I'd like to see this whole section expanded.  My understanding is that coal mining was huge in this area from the 16th century till the 1950s.  Valley coal mine and Cannock Chase Coalfield may have some additional references that could be used to expand this. ✅
 * Excellent rewrite. The second sentence "This is commemorated in the town centre, where a large model of a Davy lamp has been erected, surrounded by a wall with individual bricks giving the names of former miners." is mentioned under economy and again under the landmark heading. I'd combine the duplicates under landmark.
 * "Between 1914 and 1918 two army training camps were built in the area, and over half a million British and Commonwealth troops passed through destined for the Western Front." I'd like to see it more clearly stated that we are talking about World War I? ✅
 * "In 1939, a Royal Air Force training camp was opened to train technicians in the maintenance and repair of airframes and engines. No. 6 School of Technical Training became better known as RAF Hednesford."
 * Same with this one, it should explicitly state we are talking about World War II. ✅
 * I struggled with the lack of name in the first sentence. Can you reword it so I know why it's relevant that No. 6 School later became RAF Hednesford? My thoughts would be "In 1939, a Royal Air Force training camp was opened under the name No. 6 School of Technical Training to train technicians in the maintenance and repair of airframes and engines.  This training camp later became known as RAF Hednesford." ✅ Much better!
 * Some thoughts, obviously RAF Hednesford closed, but maybe we could expand that they operated until 1956? ✅
 * "The camp was later used for the resettlement of Hungarian refugees fleeing from the Russian invasion of Budapest in 1956." I think this would benefit from a link to Siege of Budapest. ✅
 * "A £50 million regeneration of the town centre has taken place, with an 80,000sqft Tesco store being the centrepiece." There is no source. ✅
 * "A £50 million regeneration of the town centre has taken place, with an 80,000sqft Tesco store being the centrepiece. Also, a new drill hall for the local Army Cadet Force Detachment, shops and bingo hall were constructed in 2012. The Tesco site is known as Victoria Shopping Park and the Bingo/Aldi site as Chase Gateway."  This section is problematic, centrepiece is a bit of puffery, but you can substitute anchor tenant. Conversely, I'm not so sure this development is relevant, my suggestion might be to simplify. Example: "In 2012, a regeneration of Victoria street and the town centre was completed, during which Victoria Shopping Park and Chase Gateway were built."  I'm still not satisfied with this section.
 * "The urban area of Hednesford now spreads across a swathe of the northern fringe of Cannock, from Pye Green across to Heath Hayes, and is the southern gateway to the Cannock Chase AONB." Good sentence, it's very relevant to geography heading.

Demography

 * Merge paragraphs 1 & 2
 * Merge paragraphs 3 & 4
 * Merge paragraphs 5 & 6
 * Wikilink civil parish
 * Otherwise, it's pretty good
 * Cherrell410 (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Transport

 * I like the prose. It's not necessary to list all the various bus routes, see selection criteria. ✅

Education

 * Same as transport, the list of primary schools is not usually appropriate (especially if there are more than three); although a total number of how many may be useful. ✅

Sport

 * There are no sources here. ✅

Notable People

 * None of individuals listed under sport have sources. I'd also like to know how each individual is connected to Hednesford. Were they born there? Did they play for Hednesford Town F.C.

Finally, I'd like to see a section on geography, economy and landmarks. Wikiproject UK has some really excellent ideas on this. ✅
 * Great! Just move them around to match the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography's settlement guidelines: history, governance, geography, demography and economy. The additional headings are based on what you think works best for the settlement in question.

Geography

 * Lovely, I have no suggestions for improvement.

Economy

 * Looks great, you've got major employment sectors, major employers and traditional or former sectors.
 * "as well as an Amazon fulfillment centre located in Rugeley which employs 1000 permanent staff members." I'd either remove this or note why this is relevant to Hednesford's economy.

Landmarks
Good. Cherrell410 (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Can I help?
Hi and I saw that there was a query about the references in the demography section. I think the best thing to do is to focus on the 2011 data from the civil parish, rather than adding together the numbers for each of the wards. (Ward boundaries tend to change more rapidly than civil parish boundaries, so are less useful for tracking changes over longer time periods.) The reference that you need for the civil parish data (from NOMIS) is: One other comment - the article does seem a little on the short side for a settlement of 17,000 people. In particular, I think the history section needs expansion (particularly the pre-20th century history). As coal mining seems to have been important in the local area, I'd also suggest a more extensive discussion of the local geology. The following books are available to consult in Hednesford library and might have useful material: I haven't read either book but, from the library database, Anthony Hunt seems to have published quite a few books on Hednesford local history. Phillimore is a well known publisher of local histories and, in my experience, their books are very good and provide lots of useful information for Wikipedia articles. I hope this helps. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I have placed this on hold for the time being until the references are fixed. Sorry for the wait, I have been on holiday.  Cherrell410  (t · c) 14:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cherrell410 I am on holiday myself until the end of August. If you'd like to just fail this GA I think that's probably the best choice, as then I can work on the changes at my own pace once I'm back and then renominate it. Thanks! 2A01:CB08:1FF:2E00:DC9E:162E:5B56:136E (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)