Wikipedia:Peer review/Eastwood, Nottinghamshire/archive1

===Eastwood, Nottinghamshire===




 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I have rewritten it. It's about a small town in Nottinghamshire. I would like it to be GA after some tweaking.

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  06:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is still open and located at Peer review/Eastwood, Nottinghamshire/archive1.

Please Note: New, improved Eastwood Peer Review Page - now with added sections! Please create a New Section for new comments...and reply 'in-line' to discussions

I've split this into sections, to keep comments and replies grouped. It was getting a bit confusing, putting inline replies, and then new comments being added...hopefully I've done it right - I tried to keep everything. :-) --  Chzz ''' ►  07:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nortonius comments part 1
A few initial thoughts, all but the one about the image are for the History section: Nortonius (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Aes'wood': pronunciation for 'Aes'wood' should be given as an IPA internal link, e.g. as - depending on the actual pronunciation. The template for this is  - you should be able to just copy and paste it directly from here.
 * (Peverel of the Peak): this is a reference to the novel Peveril of the Peak (note different spelling) by Sir Walter Scott, I'm not sure it's relevant here. If you want to keep it, I'd suggest making a separate sentence of it, and giving it an internal link to Sir Walter Scott.
 * There were around 28 houses: there is no mention of this in Domesday Book, but that's what's implied at present: it needs to be placed in the context given by the source cited.
 * Image of Beauvale Priory: in the caption, the word 'Structural' is redundant, and 'Remains' should all be lower case.


 * Nortonius, Could I trouble you for the ISBN of "The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names" that you referenced? (I understand that you use a different citation style, as per discussions in Talk:Medeshamstede, but the ISBN would confirm the version and fit the style in the rest of the artitle.
 * Pronunciation - I'll work on that one. I'm going with - it's subjective, but even within the area, there's a vast range of pronunciations. If I personally try to speak in the broad, local accent, I seem to drop the 'w', spit the 't' and the 'oo' in wood is extremely short, almost to vanishing itself - I guess it'd be, if that's a permitted IPA. But I think  at least illustrates it starts with more of an A than an E, and that's really the point being made. ✅


 * Peveril - I think the reason it's in is because many people (myself included) have heard of "Peveril of the Peak" - not least because it's a famous pub in Manchester. I'll have a think - I need to read up of your ref to fee; I'm sure you're using 'fee' in absolutely the correct way, but it might be confusing to a non-scholar.
 * 28 houses - yes, I wasn't happy with that wording myself. I will try to find the original source of that info, or a bettter citation - then I could perhaps make a sentence out of it. (e.g. xxx records that in yyyy there were just 28 houses).
 * Image caption - agreed and ✅
 * No problem - the ISBN for Ekwall is 0-19-869103-3. I'll leave it to you to format it how you like, it'll be egg on my face if that comes up as a US edition! ;o)
 * Do people go all the way from Eastwood to Manchester for a pint?! Just kidding... I think it's reasonable to mention Peveril, I just wasn't sure how relevant it is to the town. But it does have that manorial connection, so fine, go ahead.
 * You're absolutely right about this meaning of "fee" not being in most people's vocabulary, but it's the proper term ("ward" is actually wrong, and is as meaningless here anyway), and I think the internal link has it covered adequately. Think of it as mind-expansion! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, in http://tools.wikimedia.de/~holek/index.php (which is suggested in WP:CITE), the book DOES come up as "publisher=Oxford University Press, USA" ! Strange. Amazon.co.uk seems to provide more sensible info - "Oxford University Press; 4Rev Ed edition (Dec 1960)", so I will use that. (Aargh - at this rate I'll have to cite the citation to show where I got the book details from!) ✅
 * That's exactly why I don't bother with what I would call 'too much information' - it would be horribly smug of me to say 'I told you so', so I won't say it! ;o) About pronunciation, obviously you'll know best about the pronunciation - but from what you say I would still guess that /ʊ/ is good here, as in 'put', whereas /ʌ/ wouldn't allow that vowel sound to almost disappear...? And, the only problem with /e/ is, it's not shown on its own at Help:Pronunciation, to which it's internally linked (unless I just can't see it!) - does /æ/, as in 'bat', 'pat', not cover it starting 'with more of an A than an E', as you say? And note that the word 'pronounced' is generated automatically by the pronunciation template, so you don't have to type it in yourself. Just my 2p's worth! Nortonius (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Upon further consideration, I think you're right about /ʊ/ rather than /ʌ/. I had the impression that the latter was a shorter sound, but perhaps not.
 * It's not /e/, it's /eɪ/ listed as a dipthong - bay, hey, fate. At least, that's what I intended - to convey the 'ay' nature. Does that make sense? Because /æ/ sounds too hard an 'a' to me.
 * double pronunciation - whoops; fixed.
 * Re. '28 houses' - I can't find the same or similar info from another source - just the rather weak quote, "The original small settlement (about 28 houses) remained as such until about 1830...", which is in a history on the town council site, and repeated verbatim on the LOCAL AUTHORITY PUBLISHING town guide. I am now tempted to remove it althgether; I would welcome your views.
 * Whilst doing that search, I did find another citable bit of info - do you think this should go in? It's..."Eastwood had the greatest increase of any parish in Nottinghamshire during the 19th century in population per square mile." - from an essay about a Lawrence book. Perhaps in the para starting "During the industrial revolution," ? Again, I'd welcome your opinion.

--  Chzz  ►  19:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

✅ - --   Chzz  ►  20:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * About /eɪ/, I see what you're driving at with that, yes I'd use it.
 * About '28 houses': hmm, if it comes from the council, they might well know about this - maybe Mr. Plumb (in the ref) has been ferreting through the rates archive! Or maybe he got this from the sort of documents that are listed at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/e179/, though I'm afraid you can't search them in enough detail online to answer this question. I'd leave it in (but remove the implied connection with Domesday Book pronto), and try to find out more about it (groan!), especially in view of... --  Chzz  ►  20:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed for now, because of complications using the "until about 1830" part of the quote, which sits badly with other dates in the article - I will keep it noted, and research it further from local books (when I go there). Again, in view of...


 * That bit about the 19th century population explosion: this was an amazing phenomenon. It might seem obvious, but mentioning that kind of thing helps people get a handle on the fact that, until really very recently, their modern town was often just a manor house, church, and a few cottages. With the Lawrence connection too, it's got to go in! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ --  Chzz  ►  20:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Re. Peveril - there's a wiki article on the book, so I'm going with (cf. [Pevril of the Peak]) because it gives the reader a way to further investigate and learn about him being the alleged bastard of William the Conqueror, and the "Honour of Peverel" - which I was interested to read about (although there's no wiki article on the latter yet).
 * And I agree, having read up myself, that 'fee' is indeed mind-expanding.
 * I think that means all points up to here have been covered. Many thanks.

--  Chzz  ►  20:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nortonius comments part 2
More comments on the History section:
 * son of Peverel: he needs identifying - the one who lost his estates in 1155, that is.
 * 'Owen Meredith': the bit about his mention of "Eastwick alias Eastwood" needs re-writing, and a citation.
 * Trent Navigation Company: there's no mention of this at Erewash Canal, should it be sourced?
 * frame knitting: should this be replaced with framework knitting?
 * corn milling: maybe this could be replaced with corn milling, if it's a reference to Newmanley Mill, which I imagine was/is by the River Erewash?
 * the Sun Inn: it's mentioned twice, in two paragraphs, but where is it? Eastwood? That needs to be made explicit: it reads like it could be in Langley Mill.

That's all from me for this section for now, but beware, I've found some more bits there that I want to edit, so I'll do that shortly. (later:) Done that.

Nortonius (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * --  Chzz  ►  23:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC) is reading the fascinating history of Peverel the Younger


 * Nortonius (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

--- OK, I'm working through comments from the 'doing' thing on. Not got far, as I got sidetracked by the Peveril business (and I think the links on here are OK now)

"...the Doomsday Survey in 1086 which referred to a small Saxon settlement called 'Estwic'. A later reference by a Minister of Religion (Owen Meredith) corrected this name to 'Eastwick alias Eastwood'. Thus - by this simple act - our current name was born. " It's from a council publication. I will add the citation; if you have any ideas how to improve the wording used in the article, please do so!
 * Re. Nortonius comment about the name, the only quote I have is this;
 * [Thanks for giving that quote - from that, I can see that this is an example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, in the hands of an amateur: the ref to Owen Meredith is worthless here, I'd just drop it completely (sorry Mr. Plumb!) Nortonius (talk) 09:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)]


 * Canal - added a ref to opening date


 * Stocking frame and corn mill - yes, relevant, so links added. ARISTOC Hosiary company started in Langley Mill, by the way. But prob not worth mentioning.


 * Sun Inn location - info added in para "In 1817...". The Sun Inn is a pub at the main crossroads in Eastwood. Does this make it clear and read OK? (If not pls change it)

That covers Nortonius' earlier comments. I'll get on to all the other stuff ASAP.

--  Chzz  ►  06:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Llywrch comments
The history section, which should be the easiest to write in a straightforward narrative, I found was very choppy; up to the 19th century, we are given one incident in this century, another incident in the next. Moreover, you tell very little about the most important story of this place, & most of that obscured in unconnected anecdotes: the history of its coal mines. You never tell when they were first opened -- or at least when they became economically important. And much of their effect on the community must be inferred -- for example, how many people of this settlement were employed by the mines? Did they draw workers from outside the area? When the mines were shut down, what happened to them? (Massive unemployment & depopulation is an important story in itself.) To get an idea of some of the themes this article should serve to introduce the reader to have a look at a couple of English local histories, such as Rowland Parker's The Common Stream (Paladin, 1976), or closer to this town would be W.G. Hoskins' classic, The Midland Peasant (Macmillan, 1965): both might give you ideas of themes & information needed to cover earlier times like the Anglo-Saxon & medieval periods. -- llywrch (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may - basically I agree with llywrch on this, but I have reservations.
 * About choppiness, I had noticed this (honest!), but hadn't got around to mentioning it: I did mention previously that the bit about ... "Eastwick alias Eastwood" needed re-writing, but I was also bothered by the repetitive use of the name "Eastwood" (we already know that's what the article is about: see e.g. the brief paragraph re the 2 world wars, where the name appears 3 times). This does indicate the need for a re-write, in which choppiness should be made to disappear. I haven't got beyond looking at the History section yet, but do bear this in mind for the whole article.
 * It's true that there is limited mention of coal mines - but they are mentioned, including the dated opening of the Moorgreen pit, the connection between demand for coal and the expansion of rail links, etc. I think it would be good to take llywrch's comments to heart on this, e.g. where the industrialisation and population growth of the Eastwood area are concerned, but don't overdo it: the article is about Eastwood, and this aspect of its history should be adequately explained, but remember that the full story of Britain's coal mines belongs elsewhere (I'm guessing llywrch knows where?).


 * "Synthesis" is probably a good word to keep in mind in all of this!
 * Make of all that what you will, I'm sure I and others will try to help by keeping an eye on things as they develop!


 * I agree that some work needs to be done on the readability - I'd like it to sound less boring, for a start. Bit more of a 'story-line' through the history. More on mining, yes, I think. Maybe Lawrence a bit, too. And yes, FAR too many 'Eastwoods' in there. I'm gonna do two things;


 * Keep this in mind whilst editing
 * Try to get some more history info to 'fill in the gaps' in dates.

Watch this space. --  Chzz  ►  07:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nortonius comments part 3
Just one comment specifically for the "Governance" section:
 * Near the beginning of the section, you don't need that mention of parliamentary constituencies, just above the wards table: they're mentioned in the "Parliamentary constituencies" subsection, in a way that makes clear the split between parliamentary constituencies. As it stands, all text between the 3 names of the wards, and the table detailing the wards, is redundant. I'd take it out myself, but that's probably not my decision. Cheers.

Apart from that, llywrch and my comments about synthesis apply here too, but may be limited to some extent by the way the section is broken into subsections: the subsections seem fair enough to me, but others may disagree. Note, though, that I've just saved another revision of stuff like the grammar in this section. Nortonius (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Chzz Comments
--  Chzz  ►  07:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've re-touched the picture. It was [Image:EastwoodShops4.JPG] and is now [Image:EastwoodShops4s.jpg]. I just adjusted the brightness/contrast and stuff, whilst retaining the sky colour.

KC_Panchal Comments
Hi!

I read the article as carefully as possible considering I was tired. Anyway, I couldn’t find the article very absorbing (but that’s to be expected as I’m not affiliated to the place, and nothing “sensational” has been mentioned about the place in the article).


 * The lead is well-written and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines for writing a lead. Though, it would be better to mention the location of Eastwood with respect to the two places mentioned in terms of directions, too. I saw that you’ve done that for Nottingham (Eastwood is to the north-west of Nottingham later in the article), which you can also mention in the lead.


 * A map with Derby and Nottingham labeled would be interesting.


 * It would be nice to label the water body shown in the west side of the map.


 * The note on etymology of "Wood" in Eastwood was interesting.


 * ”D. H. Lawrence was born in Eastwood in 1885. Many of his novels mention the area (especially The White Peacock), against a backdrop of industrialisation, and his birthplace is now a museum.”—this sentence seems very out of place in its current location in the text. May be, you could relocate it to the end of the section.


 * ”At the height of its production in 1963, Moorgreen Colliery produced 1,000,000 tons of coal.[7] The last coalmine in the area closed in 1985.”—it would make good sense to include a note on current trends in vocations of people.


 * ”It is a rural area, surrounded by farmed land, woods and fields. Just half a mile (1km) to the West, the Erewash River forms the boundary between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Alongside, the Erewash canal leads to the River Trent.”—is “It” in the opening of the sentence referring to Eastwood or some other place like “New Eastwood”? Is New Eastwood same as Eastwood? If they’re different, the article does not have a mention of that fact. ‘’’Rural’’’ wouldn’t be a bit of contradiction with calling Eastwood a town in the lead? In India, in English, a town would be more densely populated, urbanized and industrialized than a village.


 * The population growth between 1931 and 1939 was phenomenally high (in spite of the fact that the census was taken at a gap of 8 years instead of usual 10 years. A note on this (in particular the reason) would be very interesting.


 * ”St Mary's Church dates back to the 13th Century, was rebuilt in 1858, and demolished by fire in 1963.”—even though the word “demolished” is alright, I’ve noted it to be used more in reference of a deliberate human act, so was the fire deliberately started? If the fire was an accident, I would prefer “destroyed” instead of “demolished”.


 * I would also suggest that you remove the “expansion” note from the top as I personally feel that the article is of sufficient length.


 * A note on staple food, and what crops are grown (if any) would make the article more complete.


 * A picture of Saint Mary’s church (assuming you live there, and will not find it very difficult to click one yourself) would be great.


 * "The Giltbrook retail park, 1.5 miles (2.5 km) South-west of Eastwood, is currently undergoing a 60M expansion"--I didn't get the meaningo of 60M in the sentence.

I think the article has been written really well, keeping in mind all the Wikipedia guidelines, and all the essential information has been included.

From what I could make out through the pictures, Eastwood is a very beautiful place.

Bye. Take care. Best wishes for this article.

Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

New Comments below please
Nortonius comments part 4

Under the Geography section, there's something wrong with that quote from Lawrence. I could be wrong, but I'd lay money that the comma's misplaced in I was born nearly, forty-four years ago, and should be thus: I was born, nearly forty-four years ago. And, maybe the whole thing should be presented in the same way as the quote from Domesday Book, thus:

I think that would look much neater. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right about the comma, and yes, I think I'll change it to the box. Before I do though - the quote goes on; "...Sherwood Forest district. To me it seemed, and still seems an extremely beautiful countryside, just between the red sandstone and oak trees of Nottingham and the cold limestone, the ash trees, the stone fences of Derbyshire"


 * Do you think it's worth quoting any, or all, of the remainder? --  Chzz  ►  22:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi - hope you had a good break. Good - apart from the comma, I personally didn't like the way the quote looks scrunched... The rest of the quote sounds like good Lawrence. It's evocative, and it's not too long, so I'd put it in. Just my OR, of course! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. Good break; I didn't actually peveril per se, but I did pass by his castle! Pub lunch in Baslow.
 * Thanks for your comment; I'll bung it all in - in the box - for now.
 * I have obtained a couple of obscure books about Eastwood, so more ammunition for improvements.

--  Chzz  ►  23:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you castled peverilly - sorry, I'll try to stop that...! I've tried to address some of the Medeshamstede issues you raised in the "Quiet" section on my talk page - still thinking on the others. Have a look, when you get the chance...? Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

maclean25 comments
This is a good start. Many of the basics are covered. Many of the sections still need to be developed. The one-sentence paragraphs create a choppy reading experience. Integrating some history books into the article would help fill it out. If the statistics are available, consider comparing the town's key demographics with that of the district, county or region. --maclean 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)