Talk:Medstead/GA2

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

Reviewer: Bungle (talk · contribs) 07:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Reviewed this version from 26th January 2017
 * I also see there have been changes today (day of review), particularly addressing similar concerns raised on similar articles, so i'll remove those mentions from this review and look at the most recent version

Summary
Nothing overly major found that can't be addressed relatively easily; a number of prior issues seem to have been picked up and addressed during the previous review, though some remain. Once the changes have been made i'll go through again and check the additions/removals are appropriate and that I haven't missed anything else that needs mentioning. I'll give a week from now, but I don't think it'll span that long. Bungle (talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for the review! I've expanded the history and geography sections thanks to other snippets of information I have found. Let me know if I've missed anything. I should have everything else addressed, but unfortunately I couldn't find any new history, which was a shame. Also finished applying the changes at Binsted, thanks for looking at that one too! JAG  UAR   20:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working through the directly suggested improvements that were noted, which you have done to the expected standard. I do however have some thoughts that further expansion would be viable and indeed appropriate, given the population size of the village in question. For instance, Winslade is less than 300 pop and the size of the article reflected this, however this village is over 2000 population, but the article is somewhat smaller and less extensive than Bentworth, a current good article but which has only 25% of the population.
 * I'm not suggesting that this should be 4x the size of Bentworth article but it should be closer towards a similar level of completeness. Perhaps look at expanding demographics by detailing population changes using historical census data to show population growth. A map or two of the area (openstreetmap perhaps) and/or historical maps, as well as additional photos would be useful. Governance can be expanded and placed in its own section, as it doesn't really fit into Geography & Demographics. There is alot of useful tips on the type of info you could get from the Bentworth article (and indeed the wikiproject guidelines) and i'd suggest trying to obtain that level of detail where possible (I am sure it's out there)!
 * Lastly, I feel like there could be additional info on education (schools) as there seems to be at least two primary schools as well as a number of pre-schools. Info on the primaries should be easily obtainable and I guess do not have their own articles, so you wouldn't be repeating info. There also seems to be a line in the "Victorian to present day" section about the relocation that may want to into a separate education section. Whilst it seems like a fair bit of further expansion, I don't feel that it currently and indisputably meets the whole GA criteria given the size of the village and the amount of additional information that can be added, but I am happy to continue holding (within reason) whilst this is developed. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I understand. It should be expanded somewhat reflecting the population, so I'll keep searching for more content. I've already added a Governance section. The bulk of Medstead's contemporary history is mentioned in bullet points on its own website, but I'll see if I can expand it. There is only one primary school in Medstead, I think. JAG  UAR   22:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * what do you think of the article now? I've created new sections on governance, education and activities, although I cut a lot of the manor ownership jargon down in the history section. I still couldn't find much on contemporary history but I managed to put in some helpful snippets of other information. If you still think it needs more of an expansion please let me know. JAG  UAR   19:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll give it another read through though first thoughts are it's looking broader than it was. An observation though relates to the railway, particularly in the "Victorian to Present day" section - the railway is mentioned in the most random of places and doesn't flow at all. For instance, the sentence "Medstead's railway station was first opened in August 1868" comes after info about a bunker and before info about the workhouse, then the last sentence of that paragraph goes back to the railway again? Then again in the 2nd paragraph, the first sentence is totally unrelated to the rest of the paragraph which is just about the railway.. none of it flows at all. My advise is.. take all that rail stuff out of that section together and into a new "Transport" section, together with suitable rail station images which are plentiful on flicker with CC license.
 * Also look at some historical maps (that will have copyright expired) to compliment either history or geography. When that's done hopefully it'll be fine to pass (anything minor I can fix before doing so). Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've moved the railway stuff to a new transport section and have uploaded an image of the parish in 1881. JAG  UAR   13:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I have made a couple of minor changes to save time, though I would ask as a final thing that you add in information about population changes through the years, similar to how the Bentworth article is laid out using this source and this source; you may wish to also split the section in to two separate "Geography" and "Demographics" sections. Following this I think we can box of the GA nom given there is now a much broader range of coverage and an improved overall prose. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've split the geography and demographics sections and have added a table similar to Bentworth's. JAG  UAR   20:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments
"One of the county's high points at 716 feet (218 m), King's Hill, runs through Medstead and Bentworth." This sentence is nonsense and not supported by the reference to OpenStreetMap. How can a hill run through anywhere? As far as I can see Kings Hill is in Bentworth on the minor road between Medstead and Alton.

Refs 5 & 6 are not published by the parish council. If it has a parish council it ought to be mentioned.

Notable landmarks ought to be Landmarks. The Church of St Andrew wasn't mentioned in the Domesday Book, a chapel was. It was rebuilt and enlarged incorporating parts of the chapel. "The church has flint walls cemented to its chancel with stone dressings." makes no sense either. J3Mrs (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * King's Hill runs through both Bentworth and Medstead, on the road between Hussell Lane to Wivelrod (in Bentworth) and Alton Abbey. The peak of King's Hill lies in the parish of Bentworth, but the hill and the road it's named after is divided in between the two. I've changed the publisher field of refs 5 and 6 to work fields and replaced it with "medstead.org", seeing as it's unclear who owns the official website. Rephrased the first sentence of the landmarks section to make it clear a chapel was mentioned in the Domesday Survey, and also rephrased the flint walls sentence to The church has flint walls cemented to its chancel, along with windows dating from the 14th century. JAG  UAR   17:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Whilst input from other editors is not discouraged, I may suggest rather than just posting concerns you have picked up on, you may wish to consider making edits yourself to resolve those concerns? Putting aside any previous disagreements between you and the nominator, I feel it'd be more constructive to assist the process of improvements given you appear to have an interest in this topic. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You may indeed suggest but I prefer to do it my way. This article has been virtually rewritten thanks to your input but I think the nominator would have learned nothing had I rewritten it. J3Mrs (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But you wouldn't have done, you didn't even read this article when you quick-failed it. I don't hold grudges and am always appreciative of constructive comments. JAG  UAR   17:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I read this article very thoroughly and as it was so slapdash I didn't make any changes because then you wouldn't have known how difficult it is to write a settlement article properly. By the way the church had flint walls except for the chancel which has cemented walls. You can see this from the photograph. J3Mrs (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making the suggested change to transport, as well as some of those noted by J3Mrs. I'll give it another read through and let you know my thoughts, though when you compare to how it was before this review, there is a notable improvement; perfection should always be an aspiration, though that is typically left for FA. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Completed
I have passed this as GA; the article has undergone quite an extensive overhaul since the review was started, though it's now a better article for it. Whilst it now covers the most fundamental of sub-sections for a settlement article, it's probably only just scraping through as GA and i'd encourage further future enhancements if/when you identify appropriate information. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)