Talk:Upminster/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll start a readthrough now and post queries below. Feel free to revert any changes to meaning I inadvertently make. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The section Local government is a little "and then this happened and then that happened" - any info at all on how any of these changes impacted on the growth or people of Upminster will improve the section considerably - not an issue for GA, but would be good for FAC (I try to give articles I review a shove in that direction :))


 * Link or explain "parish vestry" - I'm an aussie atheist :/ ✅ linked


 *  Governance section - any notes on traditionally tory or labour leaning? ✅ it is unusual politically that it votes residents; added with reference


 * Rather than see also at the bottom, I'd have a couple of sentences on schools and hospitals if any.

Anyway, nearly there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to review. I'll deal with these points now. MRSC (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Schools and hospitals: There are no hospitals, and probably one school that is notable, but it can also lay claim to be in neighbouring Cranham. For reasons such as this we've organised schools information in articles relating to each of the 32 London boroughs, and I think I'd prefer to leave it that way. MRSC (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay - my knowledge of London is limited to West and South London, so I am not familiar with the area. This explanation satisfies me :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Local government: The narrative is a system of local government failing to keep up with the pace of change (population growth, urban expansion). This is true of much of the Greater London area, and implicit in the article. There are probably sources to be found which explicitly state this. MRSC (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Point taken - I agree that often these changes mean little to the folk at large, but was just wondering that maybe one or more of them may have actually had some real-life impact.

Okay then, graphing it out:

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Images need WP:ALT text.

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Anyway - all good to go now. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)