Wikipedia:Peer review/Chew Stoke/archive1

Chew Stoke
I'd appreciate comments on this article about the village of Chew Stoke - it has been extensively reworked recently & I'd like to suggest it as an FA in the future. Rod 20:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hope these are helpful, I don't have time to immediately finish this peer review, but I'll finish it later. Thanks, AndyZ t 00:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Some issues I found with this article:
 * I suggest a citation be found for tributory of the River Chew, possibly called Strode Brook,
 * Chew Valley School for secondary pupils and its associated leisure centre is less than a mile away What is it less that a mile away from?
 * Is there other information about the history outside of just the temple and single family? For example, the founding, recent events, etc. (this might be difficult because it is a small village, but perhaps other information can be found)
 * Is a bridge a building?
 * Prose should be added to Grade II listed buildings (I'm assuming that you'll do that soon).

Okay, here it continues: Again thanks, AndyZ t 00:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Chew Stoke Church Primary School has approximately 170 pupils between 4 and 11 years old should have a citation. And plus, what happens after a pupil goes beyond the age of 11?
 * and is said to be waterworks marker. I think it should be changed to and is said to be a waterwork marker.
 * Industry should be expanded, and trivia removed and possibly incorporated into history.
 * Preferably, over 4 WP:FOOTNOTEs should exist in the article- nearer to ten would be better.
 * There are several 1-sentence paragraphs in the article- preferably these should be expanded/merged.
 * Overall, I think comprehensiveness should be worked on most out of the FA criteria. There is plenty about the buildings, but what about any government structure?

Thanks for your helpful comments - I've tried to take most of them into account in the latest edit - what other areas do you think should be included to aid comprehensiveness? Why are more footnotes required? (I think I've consulted just about everything which has been written about the village) Rod 07:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They aren't required, but if you're looking to bring this article up to featured article status, readers should be able to determine that the article is verifiable. Thanks, AndyZ t 19:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)