Talk:Stembridge Mill, High Ham/GA1

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

Reviewer: Biblioworm (talk · contribs) 16:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * 2) It is verifiable.
 * 3) It is broad in its coverage.
 * 4) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * 5) It is stable.
 * 6) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * 7) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comment by Mjroots
, has asked me to comment. I would be against the removal of the Machinery section. Many mill articles across Wikipedia have such a section, including GAs such as Thelnetham Windmill. The named items in italics have an entry in the mill machinery article. It is arranged in such a way so that those who are not familiar with windmills and terminology linked thereto know to refer to the linked article. Jargon is unavoidable here, so needs to be explained somehow. Better this way than having notes on every individual windmill article. Mjroots (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2015
 * Very well. However, would you be opposed to merging the two sections, as I have suggested? Also, what is your opinion concerning the improvements I have proposed for the "Millers" section? -- Biblio worm  15:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be opposed to the merge. The history of the mill as a building and its technical aspects as a machine are separate things. The millers section is in chronological order. I've made a small tweak to address issues mentioned above. Mjroots (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggested merging the Machinery section with the Architecture section, after which the merged section could be renamed to "Description", as seen in the article you gave as an example. I did not suggest merging it with the History section. -- Biblio worm  16:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be fine. Mjroots (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. In the light of this I have merged machinery and architecture. Could you check that the machinery description etc still makes sense.&mdash; Rod talk 15:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it reads fine to me. Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)