Talk:Swarcliffe/GA1

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

Reviewer: Meetthefeebles (talk · contribs) 09:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll review...

Comments:

First impressions; well written article, especially the history section, no glaring typographical/spelling errors, coverage is fairly broad (especially for such a small area), lots of in-line citations. Some good illustrations and images (the article might benefit from one or two more, though, perhaps one of Harding (if one is available) or one of the churches?

Lead
 * The lead needs some improvement I think but that might be best left until the below issues are addressed.

History
 * Very interesting section, well written.
 * Might be just me (I don't know Swarcliffe at all) but I think this section would benefit from a little context. As I have read it, it seems that Swarcliffe was essentially nothing save some trees, a lodge and a school replaced by a terrace and that it was part of first Seacroft and then Elmet? Then some houses were built on Templar Lane and a few other streets before a council estate was built which effectively created Swarcliffe estate, now Swarcliffe? Is that right? If so, perhaps a small explanatory note at the start, warning the reader that Swarcliffe itself is fairly new but its history is intrinsically linked with (now) neighbouring Seacroft might assist readers like me who have no background knowledge of the area?

Governance
 * Looks good, would only suggest perhaps that some more specific election data be added to give a reader more info about voting trends: is the ward a Labour stronghold or a marginal seat (I suspect the former)? The % of votes achieved by the most recently elected councillor would do fine I think.

Geography
 * The whole first paragraph is unreferenced.
 * What is Swarcliffe? Is it a village, a settlement, an estate? I think it is a residential suburb of Leeds (from reading the article). If so, this should be stated here (and also in the first line of the lead).
 * Some of the information in the lead should be in this section: distance and direction from Leeds, postcode area (not actually required but as it is here it might as well stay).
 * Per WP:UKCITIES, the distance to London should be recorded.
 * Also per WP:UKCITIES, comment on the topography should be made; is the land flat or hilly? The map in the infobox seems to indicate that there is a river/stream (the 'Cock Beck') very close to Swarcliffe. Some comment on this would be helpful too.

Demography This section is a little sparse by comparison to the rest of the article:
 * The 'hard pressed' figure looks incorrect: is the correct figure not 6,163 (per p.2 of the source provided)? Additionally, whilst I know what 'hard pressed' means (I am from Gateshead, after all!), a blue-link somewhere might help (perhaps here?)
 * That seems like a large proportion of the total resident population. Is Swarcliffe and area of deprivation per the Index of Multiple Deprivation?
 * How many of the residents are male/female?
 * Can information as to economic activity be provided? What are the unemployment figures for Swarcliffe? Is this higher or lower than the national average?
 * WP:UKCITIES suggests that a comparison table be provided. An excellent example of this is provided at Cheadle Hulme.

Education
 * A little more information about Swarcliffe Primary. I see from the references that there is a link to the OFSTED report: where is the school located, how does the school perform and how does OFSTED grade the school?
 * The same would apply to Grimes Dyke School.
 * This might sound odd, but in Gateshead we don't have either infant or junior schools(!) Perhaps consider a blue-link for these to help us ignorant Geordie souls?

Churches This section looks fine

Shops and Public Houses
 * My first comment would be that there is no economy section in the article and I would suggest that this section be renamed economy (again per WP:UKCITIES).
 * I am guessing that there is no major employer in Swarcliffe? If so, this should be noted. Do the shops provide employment to residents or do residents travel to Leeds (or elsewhere) for work?
 * There is a clarification tag in this section which needs to be addressed.

Transport and Infrastructure Generally, this section looks good. Just one comment.
 * The information on nearest roads in the Geography section might be better here?

Media This section is fine as is.

Inhabitants


 * Might this section be better titled Notable Residents? The difficulty is caused by the last sentence, which doesn't sit well with such a title (and I am not sure where else the sentence could go!)

Crime This section looks good.

References
 * Is Ref 4 a reliable source?
 * Ref 5 appears to be dead
 * Ref 7; is GENUKI a reliable source? I am pretty sure it is not considered so for WP:FAC but for WP:GAN I'm not sure. Same applies to Ref 82
 * Ref 10 looks dead
 * Ref 11 takes me just to the 'Old Maps' site. Can the actual OS Maps be cited instead?
 * Is Ref 16 reliable?
 * Ref 19 looks dead
 * Ref 21: who is Nigel Marshall? Is his website a reliable source?
 * Typographical error is Ref 23
 * Are ref 34 – 5 reliable?
 * Link 72 doesn't appear to work for me
 * Refs 106 – 108 would benefit from an author/publisher (in case the links die)

There is a little bit of work to be done here, but overall this article is close to WP:GA status so I'll place the article on hold pending a response to the above. I have added this page to my watchlist to keep an eye out for any response or queries.Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Six days in and no-one seems to be responding to the review. I'll give it one more day then I'll simply review the article as is... Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, a week after these comments were offered there has been no response at all, so I will simply review that which is here:


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) * Lead requires some work
 * 2) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) * Several sources are of questionable reliability
 * 2) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) * Several areas for improvement; no economy section, demography section could be much more in-depth etc
 * 2) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I'd reiterate that this article is close to WP:GA status and would suggest it be renominated if someone is willing to consider the issues I raised previously. But for now, it falls just short. Meetthefeebles (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)