Talk:Poulton-le-Fylde/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments
By now I've completed my initial read-through of the article. It appears to be comprehensive and well-referenced; and therefore of GA-standard. It also means that I will not be "quick failing" this nomination. I'm now undertaking a more detailed review. At this stage I will be concentrating mostly on "problems", if any. So if I have little to say here about a particular section/subsection that means that it is generally OK. This may take a day or so to complete. Pyrotec (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As usual, I'm leaving the WP:Lead until last.


 * History -
 * Early history -
 * Nicely referenced. However, there are are three different references that relate to Farrer, William; Brownbill, J., eds. (1912). I suggest that you distinguish the various citations/references by using, e.g. Farrer & Brownbill (1912); Farrer & Brownbill (1912a); Farrer & Brownbill (1912b); or do something similar. Note: they are the same book, just different pages/chapters/sections with different urls, so another way would be to have a single book reference and more detailed citations. Pyrotec (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to sort this by making the citations more detailed. Perhaps you could take a look and see if they are suitable or if you have any further suggestions? I was slightly thrown to discover that the article isn't currently using one of the Farrer & Brownbill sources referenced in the Bibliography section. I must have used it at one point but not needed it later on. So now, there should just be the two citations, and one book listed in the bibliography.-- Beloved Freak  14:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 19th and 20th centuries -
 * This looks OK.


 * Governance & Geography -
 * These look OK.

Pyrotec (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy that that article, with the sole expection of the "problems" in linking the various "Farrer & Brownbill (1912)" citations to the three "Farrer & Brownbill (1912)" references, is compliant with WP:WIAGA. I will award the article GA-status once that has been addressed. At this point I'm therefore putting the review "On Hold". Pyrotec (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing a fine Good Article. I regard it as a "strong" GA and I consider that it has the potential to become a WP:FAC, but I would recommend WP:PR as the next step in the process. I'm aware that it was submitted to PR in early November 2010 prior to being submitted to WP:GAN, I still think another Peer Review prior to any Feature Article Candidateship would be advantageous. Pyrotec (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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: