Talk:Preston, Lancashire/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 17:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll start the review tomorrow. I'm impressed at first reading to find only one typo, which I think "Brredon Books" probably is. More tomorrow. Tim riley (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Second preliminary comment: there are five links to disambiguation pages that you need to link directly to the intended articles, viz Culloden, Kirkham, Edmund Calamy, Fort William and Paschal lamb. Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have read this article twice through with a critical eye and find very little indeed to quibble at. I don't think I shall have to linger long before passing it for GA. The images are good, but lack alt text, which I should like to see before cutting the ceremonial tape, though this is not a prerequisite of GA. Tim riley (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Alas, no response. Tim riley (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

On inquiring into the strange silence I see that the nominator had been indefinitely blocked from editing. I think the article is of GA standard, and I am happy to make the few changes suggested above, but I should like another reviewer's comments first. Tim riley (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Request for second opinion
 * I suggest that you contact WP:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria to see if anyone is interested. If not then the decision is up to you. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest I don't think this is at GA standard yet. There are six citation needed tags present and they were there when the article was nominated. This is a sure sign that it was not well prepared before nomination. A link is also tagged as being dead. Other statements are lacking citations that should have them, in particular the History section. While the final decision is yours I think this currently fails on sourcing issues alone (Criteria 2 of WP:WIAGA). AIR corn (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Another opinion
 * I have found refs for most of the bus-related citation needed tags, and have deleted a few words to resolve the other. I'm not sure where to look for the football-related one. Using the External Links toolbox option, there seem to be 7 dead links, and at least 2 other potential link problems. While I would normally request that these be resolved when conducting a review myself, I notice that this is not a requirement for GAN (See What the Good article criteria are not mistakes to avoid in the Factually accurate and verifiable section.) Bob1960evens (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It really depends on what the dead links are referencing. If they link is available in another form (newspaper, journal, book etc) then they are just convenience links and not required at all. However, if the link is a website and it falls under the "quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons" banner then it can fail criteria 2b. AIR corn (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have fixed a number of bare urls, and some of the broken refs, but there seem to be several that point to newspapers where the link is no longer active, and there are insufficient details to know which edition of the paper contained the story. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Taking account of the views expressed above, I accept that a little more work is needed before the article is of GA standard. I am therefore minded to fail it this time round, on the basis that though on the whole it meets the standard for references there are enough exceptions to disqualify it. I'll leave this page open for a day or so for any further comments. Tim riley (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to see whether I can bring the article up to Good Article standard, it seems a shame to fail it, when it is apparently so close. Give me a couple of days. --Iantresman (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine Tim riley (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Having started on the "Early development" section, I found that the first paragraph on the Roman road was quite contrived (eg. use of the word "forded", now replaced). I suspect that this is either because the text has been closely copied, or not reworded as well as it could be.
 * The second paragraph in "Early development" begins discussion on Ripon, which has nothing to do with Preston. Sources suggest that this is somewhat muddled.
 * Having spent over an hour on this now, I can now see that there is too much work to do to bring it up to Good Article status in a reasonable amount of time.
 * I recommend that the GA nomination fails, as I don't have the necessary time at the this stage to complete the work. --Iantresman (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all for contributions, above. I have failed the nomination. I think it is clear from the above what needs to be done before a second nomination in due course. Tim riley (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Failing GAN