Talk:Lealholm/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lealholm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

I have reviewed this article, and despite it seeming well written, I have raised a number of issues that I believe need to be addressed before the article passed all the WP:GA criteria. Implementing these changes may take more than a week but I am placing this article on hold for a period of seven days in the hope that the editor responsible for creating it will be able to improve it. Good luck. Nev1 (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The history section strikes me as unusual, rather than chronologically dealing with events in the village's history it addresses subtopics such as buildings. It's an interesting approach, not one I've come across on wikipedia before and not one I'd choose when summarising a settlement's history. I believe a more chronological approach would benefit the article as in its current state, the article is lacking some key information such as the toponymy of Lealholm.✅ I also feel that there is some unnecessary detail, for example is it really relevant to include "The mill had the authority to clean and remove any woodland, earth or rubbish within 40 yards (37 m) of the mill-race 'for upholding the mill and dams', and 'with liberty for all persons that shall grind corn and grain at the mill to sieve and sift on two parcels of ground called Adam Rigg and Ellergates'"? It's not always easy writing a history section, if you consider overhauling it, there are some key points to be addressed such as toponymy, earliest settlement✅, what happened during the Middle Ages (a note on whether the village expanded or stayed the same would suffice), the impact of the Industrial Revolution and modern history (which seems to be addressed well with the flooding and the air crash). Perhaps information on the history of Lealholm in the lead could be moved down to the history section.✅
 * Sadly, there is also an issue with referencing. WP:V states that "material challenged or 'likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source". There are whole paragraphs without references throughout the article which is a shame as the history and geography sections show it has been well researched.
 * The article is missing sections on governance,✅ demography, economy,✅ transport, and education✅. I'd recommend looking at WP:UKTOWNS for ideas on how to build these sections, although I do appreciate it is difficult to do for small villages – for instance it's oftne hard to find census data for a demography section.
 * For the notable people section I think that the subdivisions could be removed,✅ and each person needs to be referenced.✅
 * The Lealholm Village Show section may go into a bit too much detail (for example I don't think a list of "Show Trophies and Prizes" is relevant✅) but it could be integrated into a culture section.✅


 * A couple of minor issues: (a) the smaller text for the quote in the lead is bad form -- use the same size text there. The quote also needs to be cited.✅ (b) 'Culture, media and sport' really doesn't say anything whatsoever about media. Also, I would recommend not using the multiple 2nd and 3rd level headers in the culture section -- it looks awkward with two different size header texts there. I also think that it would flow better if you could weave everything into one main header.✅ (c) 'Geography' needs information on the climate.✅ Again, don't use the 3rd level headers in the geography section; such headers might be appropriate for a more broad category, such as 'climate' or 'cityscape', but the topics that you have there currently are not broad enough and are better weaved into the main geography section. A 'cityscape' section might include information on various neighborhoods and other parts of the town; what's the overall layout like, etc. (d) History section jumps from the 1600s to an airplane crash -- I'm sure lots of stuff happened in between. Use of the subsection header for 'airplane crash' could be seen as violating WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to one single, isolated event in the city's history.

A fair point, although from knowledge, Lealholm could be considered a "sleeply little village" where nothing much happens(!) - we are referring to a small settlement here, not a town or city. I will see what I can dig out from the history books to expand the history, although the air crash should not be underestimated, as it does stand out as one of the biggest (clearly documented) events in the history of the village due to the potential damage and loss of life it could have caused. As you will have noted, the drowning has been removed due to a lack of written evidience. Maniac Pony (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Those are the major issues as I see it. I concur with the other issues raised by Nev1 as well. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Progress on the points made above
Nev1 comments
 * Have created a "Governance" section. PamD (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reorganised the "History" integrating some of the "Lead" text.
 * Attempted to put all "Geography" topics together eg floods, river, ice age.
 * General style edit.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Added "Education", "Economy", "Culture, media and sport" and demoted "Village Show".--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Added a few ✅ s (not all by me) above. More needed. As mentioned by Nev1  demography is a problem. For statistical purposes Lealholm seems always to have been counted in with a larger area. Will trends suffice?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Cash comments
 * Remove blockquote tags & add reference
 * Switched "Culture, media and sport" to "Culture and community" and remove sub-sections, rejig text

Quote
Any idea on the text size problem as the mark up does this? The quote template does the same thing. Keith D (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would personally recommend getting rid of the blockquote tags. Such indentations don't exactly look right in a lead section, since that section is supposed to be a summary of the article. Dr. Cash (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I have removed the tags, thanks. Keith D (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Cityscape"
This is a very small settlement, approximately 50 dwellings, is cityscape appropriate?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Final passage?
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * ✅ added refs to show schedule and whitby gazette.Maniac Pony (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * ✅ added refs to show schedule and whitby gazette.Maniac Pony (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * ✅ added refs to show schedule and whitby gazette.Maniac Pony (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Progress on the above (I thought I'd edited this into the above, but it's not appearing - obviously some complex syntax I'm not understanding!) I have added a link to map which illustrates that the river dog-legs through the village. Can't find anything about pool / swimming / drowning. Can anyone else? Perhaps local hard-copy publications? PamD (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What does anyone think to this for Lealholm Show ref ? It points to a commercial pay site yet gives some info without having to pay.--Harkey (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The lealholm show article appears to have been hijacked steaight out of the Whitby Gazette. ISTR seeing a very similar text in the paper either last year or the year previously about the show. I'm sure that must be on the whitby gazette website. Much info about Lealholm show has been taken direct from the show schedule, so I'll try and get round to referencing this this week. I originally put the information about the drowning in, and have been trying to track down hard evidence since, but have been unable to find anything on-line - the Whitby Gazette archives are probably the best bet, but it is too old to be on their website, and I can't remember the exact date. Maniac Pony (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The reference above points to the Whitby Gazette archives, they are on a pay site so cannot be used. I think, as it is such a small newspaper, there must be some sort of company that archives their stuff and sells on the information; so possibly it's all on the pay site archives, including the drowning. I've looked high and low for it. I was hoping that you might come up with the show schedule. It is a published source and probably the most informative one.--Harkey (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)✅ Added ref to show schedule, and links within paragraph to the actual online version of the arcive direct from the Whitby Gazette Website.Maniac Pony (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S.Are there any references for the new passage about the local media? I know the Parish Council had a discussion about TV and radio reception etc., and included something in their action plan. Is there a local listings mag or web site?--Harkey (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)✅ added refs.Maniac Pony (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The article looks reasonably good from a manual of style perspective, but several sections are very, very short, like economy, demography, and education. This indicates issues with the broadness/comprehensiveness criterion at WP:WIAGA, so passing it may be a bit premature at this stage. Other than that, like I said, the writing and prose looks good, and it appears very well cited. I just have doubts that this article is "comprehensive". Dr. Cash (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that this is a small village, where there is a limited amount of verifiable written material, I doubt it can ever be made as comprehensive as articles about towns and cities that have achieved Good article or feature article status, especially without wishing to plagerise the one history book which covers the village in detail! What is the best way to comprimise and meet the requirements of GA status when such detailed evidence is not avialable, or may be only by OR? Maniac Pony (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think the article is almost ready for GA status. A lack of information is better than information without valid sources. For a town of this size, I think the information provided is informative and useful. My only main concern is that paragraph about the "Grand Duck Race" remains without citations. If it can be included as one of the events mentioned in one of the preceding paragraphs, then great. But if it is going to remain as is with the level of detail present, then it has to have a source; otherwise, its just complete OR and has to be removed before GA status. I'll leave any of those options up to the main editors. Best, Epicadam (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unforuantely, I don't think a picture of the event qualifies as a source. Because, in all honesty, I couldn't tell you what was going on in that picture except that the townspeople might be dumping Big Bird into the river! It may be best to just leave that event out to gain GA status. Then, if in the future a reliable source that describes the event comes available, then the info could be re-added. But it's up to you guys. Best, Epicadam (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion
The article reads very well, for the most part, and is quite close to meeting the GA criteria. The concerns I currently have are with comprehensiveness of some sections, and with organizations. First, 'Demography', 'Economy', and 'Education' are very short. While this is a small town, it seems like these two sections could nonetheless be expanded. Also, the infobox does not include the current population of the town, either (the population= parameter is blank).

The 'Culture, community and media' is not very well organized, or written. It's mostly listing various activities and events in prose form, and does little to tie these together into a description of the town's culture. Since there's a good amount of information on media, perhaps it would make sense to separate that into a 'media' section, which is more or less common practice in city articles. You could probably also move the 'produce on display' image up an expanded 'economy' section to further disperse the crowded right margin of this section as well.

I notice that there's a good number of external links at the bottom of the article. Perhaps some of these could be used as sources to expand content of this article?

Other than these issues, I think the article is very good. But these should be addressed prior to GA. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Fail
I have gone ahead and (painfully) failed Lealholm for GA for the following reason: There are still issues with the article that would prevent it from achieving GA status (as mentioned above Dr. Cash). Even though this article has been sitting in the GA review queue since May 1, and "On Hold" since May 28, the article's main editors (including the nominating editor) have not made any edits to the article for several weeks. I appreciate the work that other editors have done with the article trying to fix it up to GA standards as much as possible; however, from what I understand, none of the current active editors are familiar with the town/area and are unable to provide the type of information required to get the article up to GA standards. Hopefully, if the article's main editors are able to continue their progress, Lealholm can undergo a speedy GA renomination. Best, epicAdam (talk)

Fail Comments
Lealholm is a small village; including Lealholmside, I would estimate the population at around 150 people max. As has previously been stated population figures are not available for the village itself given its size, and this also explains the lack of available data for sections such as education without decending into original research. I am disappointed reviewers don't seem to have taken this into account when judging the article. I may be able to delve into the (one) village history book to find out some background to the school for example, but otherwise in sections like this which cover contemporary details, there's not much more which could be said! Maniac Pony (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I, too, am disappointed that the size of the village seems not to have been appreciated. However, I wondered if some of the bumph that comes from the National Park and the Council Tax people might have info that could be used eg police, refuse, planning. I know what Maniac Pony means about original research, though.--Harkey (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I too would have to agree that there appears to be a problem with the interpretation of the Good article criteria which indicates Broad coverage as opposed to Comprehensive which is a requirement for Featured articles. Some of the reviewers comments mention Comprehensive which is not a criteria for good articles. We can only give details that are available and not seek to expand just for the sake of expansion. Keith D (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I would have to agree that for a town of this size, it may not be possible to get the amount of information necessary that would normally be expected in an article about a larger city. However, Dr. Cash is a regular and experienced reviewer on WikiProject Cities and so I deferred to his opinion on matters of content. And, just as a practical matter, I wouldn't want any GA pass to simply be quick-reversed either. However, I did have other issues with the article that still need to be addressed as well:
 * As per WP:LEAD, any statements made in the lead have to be sourced directly or mentioned later in the article. The following pieces of information are not:
 * "A large part of the community is involved in farming due to the high fertility of the slopes in Eskdale" Besides missing a citation, this doesn't seem correct, either. High fertility rates are usually associated with farming areas because family farms need extra workers, but it seems odd to say that because of high fertility rates people became farmers.
 * "This led to the economy of the area being hard hit by the 2001 UK foot and mouth crisis." Again, besides missing a citation and being an awkward sentence, I'm not sure how people working in Middlesbrough had anything to do with making the foot-and-mouth epidemic worse in Lealholm.
 * I still have issues with the "Culture and community" section. The sources provided don't appear to provide anywhere near the level of detail about the activities mentioned in the Wikipedia article, and most of the information appears to be O.R. For example:
 * The Festivals and events guide only provides the date of the festival, not any other information.
 * There is no citation about the food-and-mouth outbreak canceling the show.
 * The main source Lealholm Farm Produce and Horticultural Society Schedule of Prizes offered... wouldn't seem to provide information like "Children's sports and a fancy dress parade are held on the cricket pitch and are always well supported, although there usually has to be a lot of persuasion for entries into the adult's "Twice round the field" competition." or "In the past few years the village show has been expanded to feature displays of steam engines, fire safety and brass band performances, demonstrations by St John's Ambulance and a bouncy castle."
 * The part about the Duck Race also seems mostly OR where a picture of the event is used as the citation for almost the entire paragraph, even though that picture doesn't provide any of that information.

So, in short, while I don't agree 100% with Dr. Cash about the article's length, there are other issues that still need to be addressed before a GA pass. Best, epicAdam (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * --Harkey (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)