Wikipedia:Peer review/Aldermaston/archive2

Aldermaston
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it has seen substantial change since the last review, with a major section (focused on during the last PR) being removed and merged into a different article.
 * Previous peer review

Regards, matt (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Review in progress --Senra (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Consider reading wikipedia GA-class articles for places similar in size to your own such as Evanton, Cranham, Chew Magna, Little Thetford. There is a lack of references throughout. There should be a reference for every sentence or paragraph that may be challenged. See WP:CITE.  Section headings are not per WP:CITIES. Use the automated toolbox that comes along with the review. There are recommendations there which should be carried out, such as non-break spacing ; abbreviations in conversions and other problems. Also there are some bad links in the references.


 * ''' Needs area so pop. dens. can be automatically calculated. Subjectively, I do not think the pair of images say anything. Consider using a better image here. Perhaps the watercolour by G. Shepherd (Shepherd,  George Sidney  (1784–1862) – ODNB)?


 * Lead Needs work as per WP:LEAD but leave till last as content may change


 * Toponymy should be part of History section as per WP:CITIES. Perhaps reference Domesday Book entry and or A Dictionary of British Place-Names. A. D. Mills. Oxford University Press, 2003?


 * History Lack of references, particularly at end of some paragraphs. Consider consulting 'Parishes: Aldermaston', A History of the County of Berkshire: Volume 3 (1923), pp. 386-395. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=43231&strquery=Aldermaston  Date accessed: 05 July 2010.  Lists should be avoided as per WP:MoS. Convert list to prose. Consider organising similar to Chatteris (I would say similar to Little Thetford but then I would be accused of bias)
 * World War I This is an orphaned sub-section heading. In general, a section should have some sub-sections or non at all. As it stands, this history section needs no sub-sections


 * Church Not as per WP:CITIES. Consider Church as part of Religious sites section or Architecture section


 *  Governance Weak. What do parish councils do? Who governs the parish councils? Who governs them? What parliamentary ward is the village in?


 * Demographics This sub-section is well cited. The sub-sub-sections may be an overkill. Perhaps another editor can cast an eye on this. Are there any historical population figures for the village?


 * Geography Well cited
 * Geology Needs a reference


 * Economy and local industries "There have been numerous farms in Aldermaston parish." needs a reference.  "Various sources cite ..." is woolly. Who are the various sources? Needs references.  The lead of the economy section needs an historical context and needs restructuring. It first discusses 1919 then goes back to 1760's schooling. It is not clear what the main economy of the village is


 * Transport As a general rule, if sentences have references and then no reference for following sentences, the reader wonders if the information is accurate. Is there a reference for "...the station serves First Great Western services between Reading, Newbury and Bedwyn. The nearest stations to Aldermaston station are Midgham to the west and Theale to the east. Journey times approximate 17 minutes to either Reading or Newbury."?


 * Education Who established the 1830 school? State or guilds/feoffees?


 * Culture well referenced
 * Sport again, well referenced although I feel again, that The Cricket Club is the oldest sports club in the village so this section should lead with the cricket club then go on to mention RFC and AFC

Given the above; generally a good article. I enjoyed reading it. --Senra (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Struck done items. The version of your article before my comments was this one. I was using this version of your article to strike the above. From 78 to 120 references! Nice. Well done. Let me know on my talk page when you are finished and I will give it another look --Senra (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As an aside, using the toolbox, dablinks found 4 wikilinks going to disambiguation pages
 * David Kaufman
 * Henry I
 * Henry IV
 * Jacobean

Altviewer found no alt text whatsoever on any image in the article. These all need fixing ahead of WP:GAN. Nevertheless, nice progress. --Senra (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are still some dead references :) Other than that, most seems to have been done. I still think the economy section could be ordered by date, but it is better now than it was. I suspect the sub-sub-section heading "3.2.1 July 2007 floods" is really redundant. In any case, the auto-review in the toolbox is recommending that contents list is too long, probably due this extra deep sub-sub-section. Consider also reviewing WP:Lead. Well done on the continued improvements --Senra (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)