Wikipedia:Peer review/Cliburn/archive1

Cliburn
This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because…


 * There is a lot more still to be said about this village, like the school
 * Cliburn Moss and St. Cuthberts church, Cliburn should definatelly be split into separate articles and Cliburn Hall may warrant being split into a separate article
 * The sections on Cliburn Bridge and Cliburn Mill Bridge could be expanded

Cliburn Moss

 * Google book results
 * Google search
 * Note there are related searches like Cliburn moss national nature reserve, Cliburn moss nnr etc

St. Cuthberts church, Cliburn

 * Google search
 * Google Books

Cliburn Hall

 * Google search
 * Google books

Cliburn Bridge

 * Google search
 * Google books

Cliburn Mill Bridge

 * Google search
 * Google books

Cliburn School

 * Google search
 * Google books

Other

 * http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=43520

Thanks, Crouch, Swale   talk to me   My contribs  14:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I don't understand the purpose of listing all these google links. A quick glance at the article leads me to think that it is not yet ready for the peer review process, a sentiment clearly shared by others on the article's talk page. It has less than 400 words of text and is very much a stub/start-class at present. Peer review is for quality articles that have already undergone extensive development; this clearly does not qualify. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm also a little confused; the nominator seems to be putting forward suggestions on how to improve the article. Wouldn't it be better to follow your own suggestions and come back here when you've exhausted them? -- Beloved Freak  18:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment


 * Odd request - note on further information
 * I expanded the article ~4 months ago using web resources - I don't think there is much more significant information online about the civil parish. If someone wants to expand the article further I think they will need to go to a local history library somewhere in Cumbria to get more information.
 * The exception is cliburn school which I assumed wasn't notable - it may be - note gives a interesting piece of trivia regarding the school.
 * Agree with above - purpose of peer review seems to be have misunderstood - if editor sees room for further expansion they should really do that themselves first. The list at Category:Geography and places peer reviews shows that this request is rather atypical - usually articles have become substantial first before peer review.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are other civil parishes in Cumbria see Category:Civil parishes in Cumbria - many of the articles have not been expanded, and are unreferenced (eg Bolton, Cumbria - I'd recommend avoiding giving this article undue weight and expanding the others.Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also articles such as Clifton, Cumbria of similar size, lack an infobox - which would be something an editor who knows about those could do. I've got to say that this emphasis on cliburn isn't really helpful when other articles could be so much easily expanded, and the current article contains a good summary of the civil parish.Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)