Talk:Montpelier, Brighton/GA1

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

Reviewer: Meetthefeebles (talk · contribs) 09:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll review...

Opening Comments

Have now read through the article. It is impressively written and at first read I cannot see any obvious drafting errors. The article appears well illustrated and well referenced.

You have dispensed with the guidance provided by WP:UKCITIES for structure, which should usually be followed "for quality and standardisation". The quality of the writing here is sufficiently high that I do not believe the "quality" is necessarily adversely affected by deviation from the guideline. Standardisation, on the other hand, does deviate (though I note that you have drafted several other Brighton articles in this manner, so arguably these are standardised themselves). That said, the guideline provides that it "is not written in stone" and can be adjusted in the interests of "common sense" (per WP:IAR). I am not entirely convinced myself that Montpelier necessarily should 'be different', but that guideline is a guideline and not a rule and it is anyway not a requirement of WP:WIAGA.

I would suggest, in future, that you consider using the guideline for structure, content and standardisation purposes.

Okay, I'll add comments here as I go, so please be patient, as I tend to be fairly thorough...

Image check
 * All fine and properly licenced (most belong to the nominator). Images are of a good quality and the captions are sound.

Disambiguation
 * Dablinks shows no disambiguation links.
 * Lots of blue-linking but justified. Some sensible red-linking (which is encouraged per WP:REDLINK).

WP:WIAGA Criteria

1. :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

Reviewer comments
 * This is possibly the most well-written article I've read on Wikipedia. The prose is fluent, rich and engaging. No obvious Manual of Style issues. Lead contains citations, which is a little unusual in such articles but is fine per WP:LEADCITE. No lists used. My only comment would be that some of the material contained in brackets might be better placed in a note (namely where this occurs at the end of a paragraph) but that is personal preference and has no bearing on the GA criteria.

2. :
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ;
 * (c)

Reviewer comments
 * Can't see any WP:OR. Referencing is consistent and bibliography is provided and is also consistent. Just one issue; "The Anglican St Michael and All Angels Church has been a centre of Anglo-Catholicism and High church worship since it opened in 1861". I couldn't find anything in ref.58 to support this statement and it therefore requires a reference.

3.:
 * (a)
 * (b)

Reviewer comments
 * By dispensing with the WP:UKCITIES guideline for structure and content, there are pieces of information 'missing' that I would expect to have found in an article about a settlement. Suggest, for example, inclusion of the following:


 * Where is Montpelier (latitude/longitude)?
 * How close is it to the centre of Brighton and Hove?
 * How far is it from London?
 * Is there information as to the geology of the area?
 * Is any climate data available?
 * What is the population of Montpelier?
 * How is that population broken down demographically? Male/female? Ethnicity? Age?
 * What is the economic activity of residents? It is obviously a prosperous area, but it a place for wealthy retirees, businessmen/women etc?
 * What is the political leaning of Montpelier? What Parliamentary constituency is it part of? Who is the incumbent MP? How is it governed locally?

These issues give breadth to the article as required by WP:WIAGA. At present, the article paints a vivid picture of what Montpelier is but it does not perhaps give a picture of who lives in Montpelier.

4..

Reviewer comments
 * No problems here

5..

Reviewer comments
 * No evidence of edit wars.

6.
 * (a) ; and
 * (b)

Reviewer comments
 * Images checked and are fine; most belong to the nominator and all are suitable licensed and appropriate. Captions are perfectly suitable.

Overall comments This article is very close to GA but at present it lacks a little breadth; specifically regarding the people of Montpelier. Some suggestions for expanding upon this are provided above and by WP:UKCITIES. Once these are considered I will look again at the article. I cannot imagine that this will take too long, so I will place the article on-hold and await a response. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comprehensive review. This page is on my watchlist now, so I will see any further comments you make.  I have only had time to do some quick drive-by additions today, and I am unlikely to be online again until tomorrow evening.  These changes address some of the points relating to demography, although I expect they need to be tidied up.  I also added a ref for St Michael and All Angels (sorry, that was unintentionally omitted).  Certain points under 3a/3b relating to breadth may be difficult to cover in relation to Montpelier specifically, mostly because such data would either exist only at a higher level (e.g. citywide) or because it would be difficult to source reliably (to me, Montpelier = rich retired people, "arty" people and wealthy families with young children, plus students and young adults in the flats around the fringes; but I may struggle to find anything to cite that with).  Anyway, have to log off now, but more to come tomorrow.   Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  13:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As someone who spends most of his wiki-time writing about small urban sections of a much larger place, I can appreciate that demography data can be a little tricky to find. I wonder if the 2001 census included Montpelier as a 'super output area'; you could perhaps try this link and see if the data is here? Let me know when you are happy for me to look at the article again. Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I spent a while looking at Neighbourhood Statistics again yesterday in relation to Super and Lower Layer Super Output Areas; unfortunately the area covered by Montpelier is split across three LLSOAs, which are in turn part of two SOAs (specifically, Brighton and Hove 027B, 024B and 024C). (Also, the odd street here and there is in none of these three, and vice versa, if that makes sense!)  I fear trying to extract stats from these and summarising them may make for some unreadable prose, so I am inclined to stick with the Regency Ward figures with the caveat that the area covered is larger than Montpelier as a whole.  I will continue to add material today and probably tomorrow, and will leave another message when I am ready for you to re-review.   Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  11:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * More additions made, attempting to address the 3a/3b points. I have left a note at Meetthefeebles' talk page accordingly.   Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  18:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 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. 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:

In light of the additions made, I am awarding GA status – well done! Please consider reviewing an article under the Good Article criteria. Meetthefeebles (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)