Talk:Reading, Berkshire/GA1

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

Reviewer: Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm impressed with the article. If it weren't for the "a copyedit may be needed" tag, I'd probably pass it now. That being the case, I feel obliged to defer to someone with some copy experience (my own articles suffer). I'm away next week, so I'm placing the article on hold for 10 days. That should be long enough to find someone or ask the Guild to look it over. The lead is also not quite representative - there are new ideas about 'the bs' accent and demonym not described in the article. In my mind, it's probably a case of finding them a place, or ditching them. The space then can be used for a better summary of other sections, with a more systematic treatment of the history, culture, religion and sports sections. On all other criteria, which in my mind are somewhat weaker than the "clear prose" requirement, the article passes. However, since the goal of Wikipedia would be to go beyond GA, there are some things I've noticed about the article: Good work on the summary sections, the article feels balanced and a reasonable length. These first six things are strictly voluntary, falling well outside GA requirements. Referencing is generally good, and I'll have a check of image licensing now, although usage seems good. [Edit: image licensing checks out, although some of the descriptions aren't perfect if you want to go on to FA.] Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "Reading and its surrounding area is currently divided between the parliamentary constituencies of Reading East and Reading West. The whole of the town is within the multi-member South East England European constituency." ~ lacks a reference, which I can't imagine would be too difficult to find.✅
 * 2) The present tense in the "boroughs" feels wrong. (Copyedit issue.)
 * 3) "The application for city status is politically controversial, with some groups of residents strongly opposed, while others support the bid." is vague. Every plan has its opponents, and so the reader is left thinking: 1% of people, 10%, 70%? Is there some sort of local poll or even discussion which could give some indication? If so, this would be an improvement.✅
 * 4) The second part of the "definition" section is unreferenced. In fact, if you read the article top to bottom, we find discussion of this issue in part a few times, might be worth having a look at the way it's presented.
 * 5) This issue is complex with the town and borough separate but merged into one article. Could not find any references defining the areas. BaldBoris 03:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Does Reading only have four twinned towns? Seems quite low. Worth fleshing out perhaps.✅
 * 7) See if you can update the "Districts of South East England" Navbox with the article's current location, so it goes black and bold rather than becoming a self-redirect.✅
 * 8) The "misquotation" section on the talk page. Please address in some way.✅
 * I'm afraid you're out of time. Articles are only supposed to be on hold for a maximum of 7 days; any later was discretionary. It is now over two weeks, and I do not yet believe the lead represents a suitably summary; similarly, some of the concerns raised on the talk / during the copyedit are still hanging. Please consider renomination when everything is done and dusted. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)