Talk:Ravensworth/GA2

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

Reviewer: Meetthefeebles (talk · contribs) 17:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll review over the weekend. Will have a good read through and leave a detailed review tomorrow... Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's get started...

Disambiguation links: One found (woodchip). Suggest woodchips instead. Links: I'll come back to these when I look at the references. Image Check: All seem to be from Geograph, which is fine, and licensed accordingly.

I'll be reviewing against the GA Criteria. Although not strictly part of those criteria, excellent guidance on settlements is provided by WP:UKCITIES. This offers guidance on structure and content which is very much relevant to c.3 of the GA Criteria (breadth) and will therefore form a large part of the review.

Opening Comments Structure looks good at first glance. Reads quite nicely. Illustrations are appropriate and add to the article. The article doesn't look especially long, which is not especially surprising on a village with less than 300 inhabitants.

I'll work through each section and add comments as I go...

Lead
 * Looks fine; well written, flows nicely and nothing obvious missing. Infobox is generally fine too but the link to ref.1 is a bare url and I can't seem to open it when I click on the link. This needs correcting.

History
 * What makes ref.2 a reliable source? I had a root about and see that the author appears to be a historian but it might be worth adding a note to the reference to show this as it is not clear from the link provided. Also, be careful with close paraphrasing: the sentence "Originally called Ravenswath, "wath" was the Old Norse word meaning "ford" and would suggest that the Holme Beck that passes through the village was forded in Viking times." is very close to a word for word copy of the source material. Suggest a slight rewrite to avoid possible copyright infringement.
 * Done Farrtj (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Bizarre. Done. Farrtj (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Bizarre. Done. Farrtj (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Was the population of the village in 1086 21 persons or 21 households? The source indicates the latter. Suggest slight rewrite to reflect this?
 * Done. Farrtj (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Is ref.7 supposed to look as it does? It looks a bit odd and I can't check it because I have neither a title nor an author for the source.
 * It's a reputable source. Farrtj (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ref.8 is another bare url: suggest either using the cite web template or even citing the text itself directly (this looks like a scanned pamphlet of some kind)
 * doneFarrtj (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't get the link in ref.9 to work.
 * I can't check ref.11 as it appears to be behind a paywall. As you appear to be citing a textbook, suggest removing the link (if someone really wants to check, they can use the book).
 * Done.Farrtj (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Following his death, it passed to his son, a minor, William Parr, 1st Marquess of Northampton by which time it was "ruynated" (ruined), largely as a result of being quarried for local building materials, before passing to the Crown Estate in 1571 after Parr died without issue." This seems a fairly complex sentence; suggest splitting into two sentences instead?
 * Done.Farrtj (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Is ref.15 reliable? I seem to recall that the GENUKI sites are not considered reliable on Wikipedia, but if you can show me otherwise, then that would be fine and dandy.
 * removed. Found alternative sources. Farrtj (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ref.21 is another GENUKI source, though this appears to be a transcript of a published text. Consider citing the text directly instead?
 * "The cleric and historian John Dakyn was rector of the parish from 1554 until his death four years later. In 1556 he established the Kirby Ravensworth Free Grammar School (free from external control rather than free at the point of use) and an almshouse, and his benefaction continues to fund charitable causes for the parishioners." This sentence is unreferenced.
 * Done.Farrtj (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, I can't check ref.23 (paywall) and would like to, because "As with many English villages, much of the housing stock consists of Grade II listed buildings, dating from the mid to late 17th century onwards." certainly needs a reference as it reads as somewhat suppository.
 * Paywall sources are OK, especially if they are excellent resources, like the ODNB. Farrtj (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless I am reading wrong, I cannot see anything on p.208 of the book cited in ref.26 relating to Thomax Lax?
 * Done. Farrtj (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Do we have a reference for "The publisher Effingham Wilson was born in the village in 1785."?
 * We do now. Farrtj (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The 20th century section is a little sparse and two thirds of it is entirely unreferenced. Did anything else happen in the previous hundred years of note? It may be that nothing has actually happened, but the detail provided earlier is a little missing by comparison here.
 * I really can't find anything. Perhaps nothing happened. Farrtj (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Overall, this is a very nicely written section (I can't see any glaring typographical errors) but there are issues of referencing and a few unsupported statements which require attention.

Government
 * This section contains all of the appropriate info indicated by WP:UKCITIES and references are fine :)

Geography
 * Do we have a reference for the sea-level statement?
 * Similarly, does "It is the middle of a wide valley formed by the Teesdale glacier during the last ice age." have a reference?
 * removed. Farrtj (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I noticed from ref.39 that there is lead, coal and stone in the area. Consider adding a note on this?
 * That reference is 100 years old. I don't think those resources remain, and I can;t find a source for it. Farrtj (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Most of the land around the village is arable farmland, but animals such as horses and cows are reared as well. Sheep graze on the more rugged sides of the valley. Crops grown include wheat, barley and oil seed rape." This sentence also needs a reference.
 * There is no reference for this. It's hardly a contentious statement that requires citation for GA status anyway. Farrtj (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ref.43 appears to be some kind of holiday home website. I doubt that this can be considered a reliable source purely by reference to the nature of it's business.
 * removed Farrtj (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless I've misread the source, the sentence "Dry stone walls are traditional to the area, and are still commonly found. Sandstone continues to be quarried on the outskirts of the village. The old Roman road of Dere Street formerly skirted the north eastern outskirts of the parish and provides much of the northern boundary of the parish." is not corroborated by ref.46 and, without proper corroboration, this looks like original research.
 * The wildlife sentence is also unreferenced and needs supporting.
 * Cited now. Farrtj (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The climate information looks solid, but there is a strange tag in the data table which needs to be removed.
 * I'm having trouble removing it. Farrtj (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:UKCITIES suggests that you consider adding the compass table, and this might be useful in light of Ravensworth's rural surrounds?

Demography
 * "Approximately 20 per cent of the village are of pensioner age..." suggest slight rewrite to 'villagers'?
 * "There are 10 people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance." This sentence is fine but would benefit from the context of a year, bearing in mind that this will fluctuate regularly and people find work.
 * WP:UKCITIES also suggests that you include details on the current population and where the figure is taken from (this is in the infobox but not this section), the ethnic composition of the village and the religious composition.
 * Consider using a statistical comparison table, also per WP:UKCITIES?

Economy This section is missing and needs to be added. Use WP:UKCITIES for guidance on what to include.

Amenities
 * Where does the information on the school cohort come from? This will need a reference.
 * "As with many British villages..." Whilst this is arguably WP:Common knowledge, there is an argument that you should support this statement with a reference. It might even be easier just to take it out and leave the information about the post office closure?
 * "There is a decommissioned red telephone box and a Royal Mail post box." Without a reference, this looks like original research. As does "There are regular community events held on the green, around the village and in the village hall throughout the year."

Transport
 * This entire section is unreferenced and needs support.
 * "thus giving it excellent road links." This is borderline WP:PEACOCK.

Ravensworth Nurseries
 * The principal issue I have here is that this section reads a bit like an advert. Part of me thinks that if the nursery is sufficiently notable it should perhaps have it's own article. If not, I would strongly suggest condensing the information and including it in an economy section as it would appear that this is the largest local employer.

Famous Sportsmen
 * What is here is fine, but are there any other notable residents who could perhaps 'filled-out' this section? You mentioned a few in the history section and these could perhaps be added here? If one is available, a picture of Botham or his house might also add to this section?

Other comments
 * I was a little surprised to find no section on culture/landmarks. I am guessing that there are a lot of listed buildings and places of historical interest in Ravensworth and a section on these might also be useful?

Reference
 * Notwithstanding specific issues highlight above, my main comment here would be that the references are very inconsistent. Using the cite web template would be very beneficial; it would help protect against link-rot, add consistency to the list, prevent citing bare-urls etc.
 * Taking ref.78 as an example, the cite web template would make it look like this:

Overall Comments

Per WP:WIAGA Criteria

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

Reviewer comments
 * Prose is fluent and engaging. Some small errors and suggestions but nothing major. No issues with lists, WP:LEAD or any other obvious WP:MOS issues.

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

Reviewer comments
 * There are some issues of possible WP:OR (comments above). Referencing is inconsistent throughout and recommendations for improvement have been made. Several sources are possibly unreliable and fall foul of WP:V. There are several areas which lack reliable sources.

3.:
 * (a)
 * (b)

Reviewer comments
 * The scope is reasonably broad but there needs to be an economy section added (though much of the required info is scattered throughout the article). Some sections can be improved upon perhaps and a culture section could be considered.

4..

Reviewer comments
 * No real problems here though one or two possible peacock terms and the nursery section is a little 'advert-y'

5..

Reviewer comments
 * No evidence of edit wars.

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

Reviewer comments
 * Images are suitably licensed and certainly add to the article. One or two possible suggestions for additional images made above.

Final comments This is a very nicely written and engaging article on a lovely little village, but at this stage I do not feel that the article meets the GA criteria; notably c.2 and c.3. There are quite a few things to consider and I do feel that a week might not be enough time, but I'll put the article on hold and give the nominator a chance to respond. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have the page on my watchlist and note the amendments being made. Rather than risking confusion by re-commenting when work is still ongoing, I'll allow Farrtj (talk) to continue and will take another look when they are complete... Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, this one has been ongoing for a week or so now. I can see that amendments have been made but some of the larger and important changes, such as the adding of economic data to that new section, are not yet complete. Do you think we are likely to have this info in the near future? I am conscious that articles should only really be placed on hold for a week or so and that timespan is now up... Meetthefeebles (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Closing Review
Having spoken via our respective talkpages to the nominator, it is agreed that the review should be concluded as per the present condition of the article:

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:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:

There remains a few issues relating the reference format, reliability of some sources and one or two statements which would benefit from a reference (highlighted in comments above)
 * Comment

3.Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:

There are some sections which are either omitted or which are included but could be much more fulsome in their content (again, highlighted above).
 * Comment

4.Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:

Broadly fine but there are a couple of pieces which read a little 'adverty', such as the information on the nursery.
 * Comment

5. Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:

No evidence of any edit-warring.
 * Comment

6. 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:

These are all fine.
 * Comment

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Closing comments The article is certainly improving, but I do feel that there remains work to be done before this reaches GA– most notably in respect of breadth of coverage and some referencing issues. Once the nominator is able to find enough free time to address the issues raised above, I would expect the article to be very close to the standard required and would advise renominating then. Good luck! Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)