Talk:Leigh, Greater Manchester/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments
This looks like a comprehensive, well-referenced (and well-illustrated) article, so its probably GA-class. However, I will now do a detailed section by section review, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: The "Townships" subsection in History appears to be in out-of-date-sequence as it is followed by "Early history" and then the "Industrial revolution", but perhaps it is intended to serve to introduce the geometry of the area. I will leave making any decision on this until much later in the review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary
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:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. I think it has a fair to reasonable chance of making it through WP:FAC, but (there is a BUT!):
 * In my oppinon, in the History section, the sequencing and the subsection titles will need some minor attention at FAC level:
 * The "Early history" logically aught to come before the "Township" subsection.
 * The Early history section contains Neolithic, bronze-age and Roman material; but it also contains 17th Century English Civil War material which post-dates some of the 16th material in the following "Industrial revolution" subsection.

This is rather "nit picking" at GA-level; so I'm not taking it in to consideration in granting GA-status. Congratulations on acheiving GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Pyrotec, I wouldn't have done it without Fingerpuppet & Malleus :-) I have been watching you put in the wikilinks!. I see what you mean about the Early history, it's the neolithic sentence I don't know what to do with :-( --J3Mrs (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Malleus will clean it up so as to get it through FAC if that is the decision (but being "modest" we might see objections from him to this comment of mine). Pyrotec (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, GA is nerve wracking enough for me, I've eaten half a cake and started on the red wine:-) --J3Mrs (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's only due to lack of practice. After a few more you'll get by on a glass of tap water and a thin sliver of raw carrot (not carrot cake). :-) Pyrotec (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)