Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sheriff Hill/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 05:32, 20 June 2012.

Sheriff Hill

 * Nominator(s): Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been working on this article for two years now. The article was promoted through WP:GAN last year and has been WP:PR twice since and I think it is now ready for an attempt at WP:FAC. Comments and suggestions welcome- thanks! Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for now, mainly as the article contains a fair amount of unreferenced material - almost all of the 'Transport' section and some sentences scattered through the article have no supporting references. While the article is generally sound, it's also too detailed in parts, and some material would be better used in articles on specific buildings, etc. Here are some more detailed comments:


 * Is this really a 'settlement' as the lead calls it? A quick check on Google maps shows that it's a suburb of greater Newcastle (as is stated in the last para of the lead), while the first paragraph of the lead makes it sound like its a discrete township in the countryside. The use of 'settlement' througout the article is really confusing for this suburb-dwelling Australian!
 * This is a tricky one. All of the secondary sources refer throughout to Sheriff Hill as a tiny village, which developed into a settlement, but more recent official documentation tends to lean towards it (there is no consensus among the documents) being a suburb of Gateshead (it is definitely not a suburb of Newcastle, which is a totally different place) as the countryside between Gateshead and Sheriff Hill shrunk and Gateshead expanded towards the settlement/village. I think settlement is best but not sure at all... Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think suburb, and the changes you've made in this regard look good. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "The settlement was once the site of one of Gateshead's largest boarding schools but is now served by Glynwood Primary School." - this doesn't make sense - boarding schools obviously don't serve their local community
 * Okay, changed to something a little better (I think) Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "Gateshead Fell had become a place of considerable notoriety" - what was it notorious for?
 * Both it's 'bleakness' and criminality. I've added a quotation to the footnotes which I hope covers this Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It might be best to say "Gateshead Fell had become notorious for bleak weather and criminality" or similar to clarify this. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "In 1809 an Act was finally obtained" - why the use of 'finally'? Had there been demands for this for a long time?
 * Yes, for centuries in fact. I've made an amendment to reflect this Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "a small number of settlers and at least two public houses sprang forth" - 'sprang forth' is rather awkward in this context.
 * Again, I've amended to reflect this and the sentence now reads better (I hope!) Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "Built on turf by tinkers, these were initially inhabited by a combination of the tinkers themselves and a sizeable mining community." - this is also a bit awkward (mainly due to the repetition of 'tinkers')
 * Agreed and reworded Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The political party who holds the national electorate Sheriff Hill is part of isn't clear from the way things are written at present. The party should be noted before who the MP is.
 * Do you mean Mearn's political party or the present governing party in the UK? I'm not sure which... Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Mearn's party Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the situation is in the UK, but the Australian Electoral Commission publishes the outcomes of elections at the booth level, which allows analysis of how individual suburbs and towns voted. If the same is the case in the UK you could draw on this to discuss Sheriff Hill's political leanings.
 * If the UK electoral commission provides this data, then I do not know how to access it I'm afraid (though I'd be pleasantly surprised if they did to be honest). All the data available relates to results by constituency and turnout Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a shame. I had a poke around and couldn't find anything either. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know what's causing it, but an inline reference is appearing as part of the text in the 'Demography' section
 * Yup, spotted and fixed Meetthefeebles (talk)


 * Can you use Census data to track changes in the population of Sheriff Hill over time? Even the change on the previous Census would be of interest.
 * I'm afraid not. The population figure given is that provided by Gateshead MBC and even that is something of a 'guesstimate' based upon calculations on low-super-output-levels. Sheriff Hill is neither a ward, not a village/town so the data does not seem to be collected specifically anymore. Old OS Maps contain some data (the 1862 Map provides a population of 891) but that is all I'm afraid... Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "Those who do hold positions of employment tend to travel to either Gateshead or Newcastle" - 'travel' is not really an appropriate way of describing what are actually quite short commutes within the same urban area.
 * Okay, I've re-worded Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "Trees would be placed on paths" - is there a reason this is not in the past tense?
 * Not a good reason, no...I've reworded this Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The material on the schools is much too long. The coverage of Glynwood Primary School is particularly lengthy and over-detailed (for instance, what's notable about its hours of operation or lunch prices?). This material also contains a number of platitudes; for instance, what school in the world doesn't seek to "to provide a positive culture of successful learning in a safe, secure environment"? This section should be trimmed to three or so paragraphs.
 * I've made (what feels like) substantive trimming to this section Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks good Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Likewise, the material on Hodkin Park is much too long
 * Again, I've made substantial trims to this section. I do think a separate article will be worthwhile and I'll pop one up in due course... Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The 'Public houses' section repeats some topics already discussed in the article, and is also over-long; I don't think that we need a paragraph per pub
 * I've taken a lot of this out, including all of the material relating to the two pubs which recently closed and simply because I cannot find anything which confirms that both closed and were demolished in 2003 (this is the major problem with wp:verifiability I guess) Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This also looks good Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The section on St John the Evangelist Church and Sheriff Hill Methodist Church is also much too long. It might be worth splitting off separate articles for these and the above topics if they're notable.
 * I've made some more selective omissions but I am loathe to take much more from the St John's section-this church is the principle landmark of the settlement/village and requires (I think) a little depth Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The lead doesn't reflect all the article's content. In particular, it should note that this is currently an economically and socially disadvantaged area; at present this is revealed as the article goes on but never explicitly stated upfront.
 * I've changed the lead to reflect this Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "the demise of heavy industry in the early 20th century left a suburb with no major employer and which now suffers from comparatively high levels of economic and social deprivation" seems rather narrow - this is a suburb in a significant urban area which is within 15 minutes commute of two city centres, so it doesn't necessarily need its own employers to generate jobs for its residents; it might be best to put the suburb in the context of the general urban area and/or not attempt to explain the causes of the disadvantage here. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if the table of current bus frequencies is needed, and if it's retained you should re-check the source: it's now a year old, so may no longer be current.
 * The same comment was made at WP:PR and so I'll take the table out Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've addressed all of these. Let me know what you think and we'll see what can be seen, so to speak... :) Meetthefeebles (talk)
 * Those changes look really good, but there's still some uncited material in the 'transport' section. I've responded to some other points above. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I've addressed all of the remaining points (though I haven't indicated these above as it is getting rather messy up there). If anything else remains please let me know Meetthefeebles (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed; great work with this article. As one extra comment though, please explain what the 'B1296' Sheriff Hill is on is (I presume that this is a major road). Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Not read the article.
 * Reference cleanup needed
 * ref 6: Manders, 1973: 308&endash;9
 * Corrected Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ref 153: Davis, 31 August 2010)
 * unnecessary bracket removed Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * SHCAMP, 2007: para 6.6 (same text for 3 refs): ref 96 is named, but 97, 98 are unnamed.
 * The source is the same. Corrected Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ref 268: McKenzie 1834, p.108 Inconsistent style
 * Changed Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ref 141: Quinn is externally linked here, but information is in "Journals, reports, papers and other sources". Shouldn't the link be in Bibliography?
 * This is where my HTML uselessness creeps in; not sure how to do that! Will have a go...Edit: have figured this out. External link added to bibliography instead Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Reference spotcheck for refs 189-193
 * I couldn't find any ref say "major bus route out of Gateshead"
 * I've taken the 'major' out so that the sentence is verifiable (it is certainly 'a bus route') Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In no ref did I find "Sheriff Hill" mentioned. Is some street or other landmark from Sheriff Hill mentioned in the list of stops?
 * In the route map for the 28 bus, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Travellers Rest and Queens Head are stated. All are in Sheriff Hill and that is made clear in the article. In the 56 bus route map, both the QE Hospital and Sheriff's Highway (the major road in the suburb) are listed. The same are listed in the link for the 57 route map. The QE Hospital is listed again in the route map for the 93 bus. To avoid ambiguity, I have changed the links from the original, bus description page to the pdf.route maps Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Images
 * Infobox image is repeated.
 * I didn;t actually know that this wasn't allowed? I've taken the photo out of the topography section to avoid the repetition Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

-- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think these are all addressed now. Thanks :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to take a look at this please as it is beginning to sink a little! I'm available to deal with any unresolved issues...Ta Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander
 * Link needed for "council estate" (or definition, if no article on it)
 * Link added Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Link needed for " allotment land disputes " or define
 * I'm guessing the word at issue here is 'allotment'? I've linked this but if I've misunderstood, let me know... Meetthefeebles (talk)


 * Define term: First paragraph of "Sheriff's March" section needs to define that term. The link alone is not sufficient, since the whole section is about it.
 * Okay, done Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wording "one of the safest Labour parliamentary seats ..." - Maybe "most secure" or "most reliable" would be better than safest?
 * I think 'safest' is the correct word here; that is the term popularly and routinely used in the UK to define Parliamentary seats which are predictably retained by the same party and with huge voting majorities. I've already included a link to safe seat for those unfamiliar with the term. Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Dash formatting: "5,051[47]–53% of the population ..." - in my browser, the dash is touching the right bracket following "47".  Can you re-word the sentence to avoid that problem?   Maybe put a space in front of the dash?  or move the footnote to the end of the sentence?
 * I've moved the reference to the end of the sentence Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ISBN formatting: in the Bibliography section: both McKenzie sources have their ISBN numbers formatting improperly.
 * I've now corrected this Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wording: " itself is a neat, plain, ..." - Can a better word be found than "neat"? US readers may take that as fun, cool, or exciting.
 * I'm not really sure that the context of the word 'neat' here could possibly cause anyone to misconstrue the meaning intended. Additionally, that is the exact word used by the source cited in the adjoining reference. For those reasons, I'm not overly keen on amending unless absolutely necessary here. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Double quote? - "awarded the title of 'Gateshead Pub of the Year' ..." - Check the MOS to make sure single quotes are okay there; double quotes may be preferred.  Ditto for several other places single quotes are used.
 * I have removed the offending sentence and, I think, any single quotes where inappropriate to the MOS. Meetthefeebles (talk)


 * Number spell-out: "There were two hundred and fifty eight students ..." - Maybe 258 would be beter for readers?
 * After consulting WP:MOS, it seems that numbering is indeed preferred. Changed accordingly. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Commentary? - "An "enormous sum of public money", some seven million pounds, was set aside ..." - Why the quote? The number should speak for itself. If the quote has some special significance, explain its significance in the text.
 * I think that the quotation provides accurate context to that which follows. Ultimately, £7m isn't an 'enormous sum' for building 34 new schools in today's money, but at that time it was considered so by the author. Does this not provide genuine context for younger readers? Had I not included a quote and simply written 'A very large sum of money was set aside' would I not be possibly infringing WP:PEACOCK? I can take it out if required, but I personally would like it to stay... Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Footnote punctuation: "and was graded as "a good school"[131], ..." - Check with MOS to see if comma should be before the footnote.
 * It should be after: amended Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Viewpoint? - "Escapes do not seem to have especially commonplace, ..." - Don't seem to who?  Or just word directly "Escapes were rare ...".
 * Changed as suggested Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Word missing: "Escapes do not seem to have especially commonplace, .." - missing "been".
 * Per above, the sentence has been completely removed Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Italics? -  The entire estate is now part of the Sheriff Hill Conservation Area. Also part of the conservation area is Sourmilk Hill ..." - Check with MOS on the use of italics there.  I think the italics are not correct.
 * I've checked WP:MOS and also WP:MOSTEXT and I'm still not sure whether those italics are right or wrong. On reflection, I tend to agree that they are probably wrong, so I have removed them all from the article (I think) Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Redundancy: "the number of children entitled to, and claiming, free school meals .." - Best if just have "entitled to" or "claiming", but not both.
 * I'm not sure that these are synonymous as you seem to suggest: just because a child is entitled to free school meals does not, per se, mean that s/he will claim that entitlement. I've added the word 'both' to the sentence as there are two points being made here, rather than one, which I think works better? Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not encyclopedic: Pic caption: "The proud workforce pose for a photograph at Fanny Pit, Sheriff Hill in 1921. Photograph taken from Gateshead Council public archive." - The word proud is a bit WP:PEACOCK.
 * Removed Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Cap in quote: "One noted that "We watched the ..."" - Check with MOS to see if W should be capitalized inside quote .. I think it could go either way here.
 * My reading of the MOS here is that where a capitalized quotation forms part of a sentence, it loses the capital letter. Therefore I have removed the 'W' Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In correct section? The Health section includes: "Whilst once considered an affluent suburb of the town of Gateshead,[116] the area is now markedly less so, with almost half of the total working age population not economically active and less than half of the households in the area owning a car.[21] Over one quarter of the adult population of the area are considered clinically obese, ..." -   It looks like the first two sentences should be in some Economics section, not the Health section.
 * Agreed: amendments have been made Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Italics again: - "Ye Olde Cannon is situated at the northern end .... locally recognised: Ye Olde Cannon is one of ..." - I don't think italics are correct; especially if subsequent uses are not italicized.
 * The MOS isn't at all clear, but I have removed all of the potentially offending italics just to be sure Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this article is very close to FA quality, but it should probably go through one more peer review.

Thanks for these comments. I think they are now all addressed. Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.