Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sheriff Hill/archive2


 * 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 23:03, 24 September 2012.

Sheriff Hill

 * Nominator(s): Meetthefeebles (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm bringing this article back for a second crack at getting FA status. This one has been a labour of love, starting from a stub and taking about two years. The last FA attempt only garnered two substantive responses; the first supporting and the second recommending a further peer review. This has since been done and the issues raised there have been dealt with, so I am hoping that I can get this through this time. Comments and suggestions are welcome and I will (hopefully) be around most days to deal with any issues. Meetthefeebles (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Image review File:View frim sheriffs highway.jpg is fine. The "date" field in File:Malcolm3Canmore.jpg is empty (if it's contemporary of that man, the century would be enough, and a better license). File:Pottersfield stone(2).jpg is fine. File:Fanny pit miners.jpg should have the "information" template. File:Blue quarries road sign.jpg is fine. File:View from Sheriff Hill (Westa).jpg is fine. File:View from causeway.jpg is fine. File:Geograph-1687812-by-wfmillar.jpg has two instances of the "Information" template, fix them into a single one. File:P4020179.JPG is fine. File:Sheriff Hill Lunatic Asylum.jpg seems unclear: no author and no date, how do we know it's PD? File:QE foundation stone.jpg is fine. File:Hodkin Park Central Trees.JPG is fine. File:Ye Olde Cannon 2010.JPG is fine. File:Zion gym.jpg claims that Andy Williamson authorized it, but the source site says "The pictures on it are not for sale and may not be used commercially"; commercial use must be allowed. File:St John's Church, Gateshead Fell - geograph.org.uk - 415223.jpg is fine (it requires categories in Commons, but that does not concern this FAC). File:Sheriff Hill Methodist Church.JPG is fine. File:P4020133.JPG is fine. File:P4020143.JPG is fine. Cambalachero (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Nit-pick. There's some unusual punctuation with dashes in this. page ranges have a dash between page numbers, with a space each side of the dash, which is unusual. There's titles where there's a dash with a space on only one side, which I've never seen, and the dashes (where they aren't text based) are actually hyphens. There's one spot where a dash is used, when it should really be a comma. Suggest an editor takes a look at this. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Information template added to Fanny Pit Miners image and duplication removed from geograph image. I have removed the Zion image and replaced it with a different, better licensed image (I also have a modern one of my own which can be used if necessary). Categories have been added to the S John's Church file. The Malcolm image isn't mine; I simply used it when I found it in the Commons so I have no information as to it's source at all. As the lunatic asylum was completely demolished in the 1920's, the photograph must pre-date that time and is part of Gateshead Council public archives, so it is PD Crown Copyright. I've changed the licence to reflect this but if necessary we can simply remove the image.Meetthefeebles (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * [sigh] Me and endashes have a real thing for one another (namely, we share a mutual loathing). I've re-re-read WP:DASH and made some changes so that hopefully this is now fixed. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments in the previous FAC Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick. I rather hope this attempt garners a little more feedback than the last :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Commment - Consider rewriting "The name of the settlement derives from 'the Sheriff's March'; a ancient, biannual procession on the turnpike road held from 1278", it suggests there was a turnpike there in 1278, which is unlikely. Also, 'an ancient' not 'a ancient'.--Ykraps (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done; thanks for commenting! Meetthefeebles (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments - reading through now. I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

...Ye Olde Cannon, was visited bi-annually - why not plainer English "Ye Olde Cannon, was visited twice yearly..."
 * Changed Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Gone Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I was very fond of that quote...rewritten:) Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Rewritten as suggested. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * two public houses, Ye Olde Cannon inn and the Three Tuns inn, were built alongside - do we know when approximately?
 * Sadly not. The Old Cannon must date from the 13th century because it was part of the Sheriff's March, but the Three Tuns is very difficult to date with any certainty at all. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Done Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

active tense will help here too.
 * Rewritten and lots of removals of material. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

actually this could probably be minimised or removed as there is a bit about the view in these bits.
 * I've made fairly sweeping removals in this section to remedy this. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Done.Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * population not economically active  - err, what? link or explain...
 * It is the phrase used by Gateshead Council on the ward factsheet. They aren't kind enough to provide an explanation... Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Dequoted and rewritten. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Now the quoted bits in the Housing  are good and add atmosphere nicely...just saying :)
 * Thanks! :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Does not read neutrally as is.

Does not read neutrally as is.


 * In light of these three comments, I've completely rewritten this entire section, reducing it in size by quite a bit and removing almost all adjectives. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There are a few more quoted bits that could probably go too.
 * There are less than a handful of quotes left; I've essentially removed all but a handful and replaced with paraphrases. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Overall, quite a nice read and will be even better once there are fewer quotation marks jarring the flow. Obviously exhaustively comprehensive. I've not checked the sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to comment. I think I've addressed everything you noted :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Very much enjoyed the article, and liked the history in particular, but there are quote a few problems:
 * Per Casliber, I think the number of small in-line quotations needs to be trimmed in place of paraphrasing. I don't mind them in the history section, though.
 * I've made sweeping changes (see above). Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 1890's - why the apostrophe?
 * Removed Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * footnotes 53 and 54: misspelling of author name in one, problems with the year in both (should be 1827, 1834, or there is a ref missing from the bibliography)
 * Fixed Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Do any other reviewers have any concern about extensive reliance on a book nearly forty years old (Manders 1973) for an article about a place such as this?
 * Sadly, that was the last major, published history of Gateshead; or at least it is according to the staff at Gateshead Central Library. This is a factor in almost all Gateshead articles– despite being a fairly old and large place there is an appalling dearth of secondary source material on the town and it's surrounds. Obviously a new book would be ideal, but if you can find one you are a better soul than I... Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Certainly don't think it is appropriate, in describing the urban geography, to cite a 170-year old source in the present tense: "The spire at St John's Church is a landmark visible for miles in all directions which "gives an aspect of comfort and civilisation to the district"." If the spire at St John's Church really is, right now, a landmark visible for miles in all directions then I think, per WP:CK, you don't need a reference for that. Regardless of that, however, it is not possible for us to use such a dated reference for a description of how the place look now. Given there are too many quotes, I would actually just drop the McKenzie quote altogether and just have "The spire at St John's Church is a landmark visible for miles in all directions."
 * Done. Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I took a quote out of the geog section: "awe-inspiring".
 * No problem. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I edited the economy section to remove a quote - please check my edits
 * Checked and fine. Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "This rental rate actually declined in the preceding years,..." I think "subsequent years" is meant. Can nominator pls check?
 * Your suggestion is better. Changed Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The article has this: "He informed local newspapers that: "…we can build houses, but we cannot build homes. Only the people themselves can do that and I hope that the spirit of ‘esprit de corps’ will prevail and this will be a model estate" " I think in terms of keeping the WP article focussed on its subject and reducing the number of quotes, esp outside the history section, this can be deleted.
 * Not sure if I can agree. The article outlines the initial reluctance of the local council to even build a council estate and I think that this quote nicely dovetails that aspect in that it demonstrates that, even as the building was nearing completion, the man behind the project still wasn't entirely convinced that he was doing the right thing... Meetthefeebles (talk)
 * Ah, i see what you were getting at now. You might consider introducing the quote in that way, along the following lines. "As the project was completed, he still had his doubts:" or something like that. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Considered and done Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "After the initial period of procrastination followed a time of great ambition and pride." doesn't sound very encyclopedic. It also has a ring to it that suggests it may come from a source of the period and lost its quote marks / citation?
 * It isn't from a source, as I would have included quotation marks (as evidenced by my fondness for them elsewhere in the article). I've rewritten the sentence. Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point :-) thnks. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't want to be overly sensitive, but maybe I am. Anyway, health para 1 has this: "Escapes were rare but some incidents were recorded." It was an asylum, not a prison. I know what is meant, but it both not particularly noteworthy, and jarring. Suggest delete. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It isn't important who the doctor was in 1904 or who assisted him. Delete that sentence.
 * Done Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This sentence doesn't work: "First mooted in 1931 when a local governmental survey concluded that hospital provision in Gateshead was inadequate, work began on the Queen Elizabeth Hospital." If it was first mooted in 1931, then the second clause, telling us that work began, has to be in a later year, so we should be told what it is. Otherwise, "first mooted in 1931" doesn't work.
 * I've split it up and re-written. Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the Harrison quote in note 5 is unremarkable as a description of school life, and not particularly "local" or distinctive, and could be dropped.
 * It is eye-witness testimony of conditions over 100 years ago; something rare when it comes to source material on Gateshead. I could be convinced to remove it but I'm not sure... Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that such testimony is often handy. But it should say something distinctive that contributes to the article about Sheriff Hill, whereas it sounds like any eyewitness account of school life anywhere circa a century ago.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If it has to go, I'll delete, but my view is that whilst you and I known about school conditions at that time, many of WP's younger and non-English readers might not, so although quite typical it is still perhaps of benefit? Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If no-one else has a concern, I'm dropping mine. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Described as a "green oasis" - well, yes, by the town council trying to talk it up. An unusual case of POV, but I've edited it out :-)
 * lol Fair enough Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've made some fairly severe edits to the stuff on the parks - i think it was too detailed, not notable, relied on local council news releases for facts, and got down to trivia such as recent pruning. But if other editors think I've gone overboard, happy to discuss.
 * The park is fairly notable - it is locally listed, which I think indicates it's relative importance (though wouldn't justify a seperate listing, certainly). The edits look okay but they are very severe...Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There are a few notability / reliability issues in the article. I've edited one out myself. I also really think the international pie festival thing has to go - it is a one-line reference in a lightweight free mag of a local society in favour of beer. To put it mildly, this ain't a reliable source, nor a notable fact! More generally, editors might want to check the journals etc list in particular and consider whether all of those meet the standards of WP:RS. Nikkimaria, whree are you? :-)
 * Is Canny Bevvy unreliable? Genuine question? If it isn't, I'll remove. Also, just had a quick check and it seems the pie festival was in the local press as well here, for example so perhaps I might simply replace the existing source with this better one? Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Does CannyBevvy look like a magazine written by professional journalists with a reputation for fact checking? Well, before or after they've sampled their beloved ales? I don't think it would come within cooee of being reliable, myself. Go with the local newspaper instead. (I'm still skeptical about reporting a local "international" pie festival:-))hamiltonstone (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your scepticism is unfounded... :) I've left it in because it was notable enough to be reported by a reliable source and it gives some modern information as opposed to the plethora of material beforehand which, whilst relevant, relates to centuries before. I've also addressed the reliability issue as best as I can; several sources and material have been removed 'just in case', the bibliography has been slashed and I am confident that the remaining sources are fine (though a check might confirm). Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't know why this sentence is sitting there on its own: "Sheriffs Hill had a number of Methodist chapels but only one remains along with the Anglican church." It lacks context and isn't really a helpful introduction to the paras that follow. If that was the intention, I would delete it.
 * It has gone Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "the building itself is a neat,..." once again, we can't have the present tense for a 170 year-old source.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see why 'neat' might have to go but 'plain' and 'gothic' are unlikely to change as regards a church, even after 200 years! I'll have a root about and see if there is anything more recent...Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have resourced to the listing at English Heritage, which is obviously a lot more recent. That should be better... Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've addressed the more cosmetic (for want of a better word) of the suggestions above but those relating to the quotations will take a little more time and I will address those of both Casliber and Hamilton when I get home from work. Thanks to both for taking the time to review :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think these are all now addressed. Thank you for commenting, and re-commenting – 'tis much appreciated :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, at least for now. This is like deja vu for me, because only yesterday I completed the GA review of a neighbouring suburb, Carr Hill. Unfortunately though I find many of the same problems with this article as I did with that one. I would have hoped that the nominator would have applied the same fixes to this article as were applied to Carr Hill, but obviously not. Hopefully all of the issues can be addressed within the span of this FAC, but the bottom line for me is that this nomination is premature. Malleus Fatuorum 15:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In my defence, the Carr Hill review and your comment were slightly less than 24 hours apart! per the earlier review, I've added a climate chart, rearranged and added census data to the religion section, addressed your bibliography concern by removing the abbreviations and indeed removing those sources from the bibliography and including them instead in the references using the 'cite web' template, checked and changed all references for consistency (accessed-retrieved etc), removed a possible non sequitor from the lead etc. I've also made some fairly considerable edits to remove material which might have been superfluous. If there are any more specific concerns I would welcome the chance to consider/correct them :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I mentioned in that review that I'd be expecting to see a section on public services in a UK settlement article at FAC, but I can't find one here. I'm not at all convinced that public houses are sufficiently notable to have a section all to themselves. Are any of them particularly notable in some way? Adding the new climate table has pushed File:View from causeway.jpg down the page and created an unsightly block of white, so it needs to either moved or removed. Personally I'd remove it, as it seems overly promotional: "just one of the extensive views enjoyed by residents" looks like it was written by an estate agent. In fact much of the language seems overly promotional: "It is a remnant of Sheriff Hill's rural past, is visually warm and full of character", "The surviving grounds, enclosed by the original stone walls, also add to its character", "local residents are still able to enjoy excellent views of the surrounding locale". The citations in the Notes section should be in with the rest of the references. What does "See Unknown (Unknown)" in note #3 mean anyway? Malleus Fatuorum 14:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree as regards the public houses; one of the (the Old Cannon) was fundamental to the naming of the settlement and the other (the Three Tuns) was a focal point for village life for nearly two centuries. Both are also locally listed and have been commented upon in various published sources. This makes both notable enough in my view. I also think "written by an estate agent" is unduly harsh regarding the offending sentences; they are toned down paraphrases of much more extravagant descriptions in published, reliable sources. The view from Sheriff Hill, an urban area in an industrialised region, is a notable feature and should thus be commented upon. I'm not entirely sure what words other than 'extensive' or 'panoramic' I can use and I wouldn't consider either particularly promotional. I certainly wouldn't equate them as the language of an estate agent. Nonetheless, I have made further amendments where possible. I have nested the references in the notes as requested and I will see if I can put together a public services section. Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Then we'll have to agree to differ and my oppose will stand. Malleus Fatuorum 16:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added a public service section. What words to you suggest to remedy the above impasse? I have taken source material which describes a 20 mile view in three directions as 'fantastic', 'Uncommonly grand', 'stunning' and 'striking' and paraphrased these as 'panoramic' and 'extensive'. I am at something of a loss as to where else I can go without completely misrepresenting the source material...Meetthefeebles (talk)


 * The best option in that case would have been to quote and cite "fantastic" etc. rather than try and paraphrase it, as it looked as if you were giving your own opinion. My last general observation is that you need to seriously review the level of detail being provided here, given that this is supposed to be a general encyclopedia article and not a local guide book. Do I really need to know, for instance, that the Travellers Rest is at 1–2 Southend Terrace, or that "Trees divide the larger, floral section of Hodkin park from the children's play park", with a picture of said trees no less? Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That is what was originally quoted in the article and you described it as the work of an estate agent. In the event, several comments advised me to paraphrase. That is 'estate agent' and 'guide book' have been insinuated in the same day. See above for the reviewer who took the park section to task. If I remove that detail re: Sheriff Hill Park there will be nothing left. Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to take a look at this in the new Public services section: "Sheriff Hill's Distribution Network Operator for electricity is Northern Powergrid. drinking is administered by Northumbrian Water". I very much doubt that Northumbrian Water have the authority to administer drinking. Malleus Fatuorum 19:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * One word missing, as I was out and about, and you didn't feel moved to make an amendment? Says a lot... Meetthefeebles (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What says a lot is that you're not listening to what I'm telling you, and have been telling you for the past few days. Therefore I have nothing to add to what I've already said and will not be revisiting this nomination. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me ask you a serious question. Can you see nothing wrong with this sentence: "Drinking water is provided by Northumbrian Water; water being sourced from Kielder Reservoir"? Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


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