Template:Did you know nominations/North Radworthy

North Radworthy

 * ... that North Radworthy and South Radworthy, neighbouring Devon hamlets, were valued at £3 in 1086?
 * Reviewed: 2013 Fonterra recall

Created by Matt r baker (talk), Matty.007 (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 08:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC).



I have changed the wording, addding South Radworthy. However:
 * Is the fact totally accurate though as the £3 includes the hamlet of South Radworthy?
 * Suggested rewording: ALT1: ... that the small Devon hamlets of North Radworthy and South Radworthy were valued at £3 in 1086? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt r baker (talk • contribs) 08:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Alt 2: ... that North Radworthy has previously been valued at under £3? Mat ty. 007 11:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by nominator: I am away for a few days until Wednesday 14 August, so please be patient, I will not reply until then. Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 14:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Length and date are both fine. The article is well referenced throughout and the hook is appropriately referenced to an online, reliable source. Spotchecks reveal no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing. I would comment, aside from this review, that the penultimate sentence in the lead: "Despite North Radworthy's size, it has a farm (pictured right), but no schools, or banks." Is a little weird, as no mention is actually made of the specific size, and in fact, given it is described as a hamlet, I would expect it not to have a school or a bank, while a farm is pretty common-place for such locations. But as I say, that it very much outside the remit of this review.  Harrias  talk 16:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note for reviewer: I quite like Alt 3: ... that North Radworthy and South Radworthy were valued at £3? Mat  ty  .  007  18:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I will try and remember to fix that soon (next few days). The tick is for alt 3, isn't it ? Thanks for the review, Mat  ty  .  007  16:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)