Talk:Newton, South Lanarkshire/GA1

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

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 07:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding comments later.  Sounder Bruce  07:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 11, 2021, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: See below. A lot of casual language and dull prose that needs serious work.
 * 2. Verifiable?: Many paragraphs lack citations. Many of the citations that do appear, however, are improperly formatted.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Missing a lot of basic sections for places, such as Culture/Arts, festivals, geographic description, demographics, governance, and infrastructure beyond transport.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Reads like a promotional pamphlet at times.
 * 5. Stable?: Symbol support vote.svg Pass
 * 6. Images?: Dull images in the "Modern Suburb" sections need to be replaced with better quality versions. Other images are improperly sized.

Clearly not ready for a real try at GAN. Please look at other city and town GAs to get an idea of what is expected of a GA.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.—  Sounder Bruce  07:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Prose comments
 * "the river directly borders the district to the north" is redundant to the preceding fragment - rephrased
 * "The name is familiar to many in the Greater Glasgow area" is not appropriate - rephrased
 * The lead only describes the location and transport links, while failing to summarize any of the other sections (including the lengthy history) - added a bit
 * "Originally lands owned by the Clan Hamilton" should be "Originally on lands owned by Clan Hamilton" - rephrased to 'originally land'
 * "in Timothy Pont's map" should use "on" - done
 * "miners’" needs to follow MOS:' (no curlies) - done
 * "rose on the landscape" is not appropriate - rephrased to 'appeared', can't think of a better word
 * The Modern Suburb sections contain far too much detail and do not need to be long enough to span two subsections


 * Sourcing comments
 * Dozens of uncited paragraphs
 * Citations from homebuilders are not appropriate
 * Too reliant on primary sources from the local council government
 * Consider using book sources from the local library to pad out the history section
 * Ref 40 has an incomplete title - done
 * Most of the newspaper citations are missing author and access-date information
 * They also inconsistently use the italicized and unitalicized versions of "Daily Record"

Just a handful of the problems I noticed on my readthrough and is by no means a complete assessment. I strongly recommend rewriting the article from scratch and getting a copyeditor to look at it afterwards.  Sounder Bruce  07:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)  - ''yeah maybe if going for a GA but as a standard article it's not that bad to be nuked, I have done the minor wording stuff, fully agree on the inconsistent formatting but that's a dull job to fix. I will communicate with the editor who made the hasty nomination without actually improving the article other than adding the 'dull images' (I wrote 99% of the prose but did not nominate for GA, fully aware it's not strong or precise enough, wasn't consulted on the nomination), hopefully having seen the extent of what would be needed he will see it's basically not worth the effort to get this bogstandard article up to the exacting standards of GA. Thank you for taking the time to look at it tho.''  Crowsus (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)