Wikipedia:Peer review/Neilston/archive1

Neilston
I've listed this article (about a village in Scotland) for peer review because I have some experience in obtaining GA and FA for articles about British settlements, though find WP:PR invaluable in furthering these articles. I believe this article would meet the GA standard, and it is WP:UKCITIES compliant, but would like some additional feedback and input as to improving some of the prose and referencing.

Thank you in advance,

-- Jza84 · (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good images here: they are relevant and provide good context. Provide more context in the intro paragraph, like "...a village of 5,000 people..." - a village for me is less than 1,000 people. What kind of agriculture are they involved with? Avoid single-sentence paragraph - sounds like the "Toponymy" sub-section would make a better paragraph than section. The "History" section is weak and generalized. I'm sure its history is not earth-shattering but the story of its development would better illustrate what the village is. The best History sections I've read are written as narratives (the story of the village). Clarify the local government part: is it governed by its own mayor and council? or by a regional authority? Or to put it differently, who do the people elect? A map of the town (with roads, rail, parks, water courses, etc) is invaluable - I had success approaching government offices for them (eg. Image:PouceCoupe BC map.PNG). Can we get a demography tables that compare the settlement to the regional area and/or country. Any historical population data available? That is useful to illustrate the good times and bad. You may contact me for a copyedit when you get to the FAC stage. --maclean 01:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is fantastic advice - exactly why I love the peer review process! Thank you for these pointers. I will endevour to make these changes asap. Some however will be harder to fulfull due to Neilston's banality, but in time.... Thanks again, -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Some points (mainly from the start of the article): ✅ - per the infobox rollout, this is reserved for official governmental sites only I'm afraid. ✅ ✅ - hard to say. I've quoted the source almost word for word. Certainly the next couple of sentences discredit this theory. ✅ ✅ - I've purchased a new book which should help; I'll take a look asap. - I'd be interested to know too. Struggling for source material, but will see what I can find now the challenge has been set. ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ - the 1895 map which I have to hand is A2, and I have an A4 scanner. I have approached a local history group for historic photographs, illustrations or maps that could be added though.
 * The infobox picture manages to have most of the town in shade with the sky being the really striking thing. Would it be possible to lighten the bottom of the picture a bit so it was easier to pick out detail?
 * The infobox has a website option, you could put the Neilston.org website in here.
 * I don't think it should be "Neilston" in the History section. Possibly Neilston though.
 * 'Over his grave a burial mound, according to the custom of the age, was erected, and called Neilston, from which, according to this theory, the locality ultimately received its name' - this is very clunky! How about 'According to the custom of the age a burial mound named Neilston was erected over his grave and the locality ultimately received the same name'.
 * You put a citation to each theory apart from the one about the 'supposed Highland chief, name Neil' (which should be 'named' anyway) which together with the 'supposed' and 'allegedly' makes it look very weak. Is it?
 * I don't think that you need to link the 2nd Neil. Check for more of these ('football' for example).
 * 'Neilston's earliest history is unknown' - is this needed given we've just been told about pre-recorded history in the previous section
 * Is there any info about what was farmed or done in the village pre-industrial revolution, particularly if unusual
 * though evidence attests that the settlement is much older than its larger neighbour Barrhead' - it would be nice to know what this evidence is or have some vague explanation. Maybe mention the age of Barrhead.
 * 'The first known recorded mention' - this is clunky too, is there any reason to expect unknown recorded mentions or could 'known' be cut?
 * Link dun. Maybe doun should be in italics but I'm not sure.
 * 'prefix perhaps implying' - is this your speculation or the sources? Why not just a physically cold dun?
 * 'Neilston was the most important settlement in its region' - how large a region are we talking about here?
 * 'Despite this distinction of central importance' - apart from this being a fairly meaningless set of words I'm not sure that you've established any central importance. It had a chapel, it may have had a fort or watchtower. How many people lived there? How did this compare to other places in the area at the time?
 * I would link calico
 * 'one whole connected village' - does it really need both of these?
 * just scanning quickly through the rest there's a bit of stray capitalisation on links, you might as well link things like 'Primary school' as school systems may be a bit different in the part of the world that the reader is from.
 * Can we have a scan of the 1895 map of Neilston? Are there any older maps?


 * That's all I've got time for for now. I'll come back to it later. JMiall  ₰  18:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Fantastic feedback! Thank you ever so much. It just shows me exactly how sloppy my text can be. I've added done and not done tags (at the time of this sig) to your points to keep track of my progress. I hope you don't mind. I will try to fix the outstanding points asap. Hope you do get chance to return! Thanks again, -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconds away, round 2... This seems to be the standard of all place articles within the remit of WP:CITIES and WP:UKGEO. Certainly all UK FAs have them both. ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ (not sure I've explained this to what you had in mind) ✅ - I think I've cleared this up, but this may need checking. ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
 * 'Lying within the county boundaries of Renfrewshire from a very early time, from 1845 until 1975, Neilston formed its own parish.' - I would rewrite this as it can be read that 1845 to 1975 was the very early time which I assume is not the case. Plus how is the 2nd half of the sentence related to the 1st? Split into 2 sentences maybe?
 * Is the coor template needed at the start of the article and the Geography section?
 * link Loam, Turnpike
 * 'Amongst the hilly areas of the village, the soil is of less fertility, whilst in all other parts, the land is moorland and mossy' - 'is less fertile'? also the land is moorland doesn't sound good and this sentence started talking about soil and finishes talking about land, has a bit been missed out maybe?
 * 'rising to a height of from' - this doesn't work, rising to the highest height maybe or reword if you want to give the range.
 * 'Long loch' - capitalise
 * "Aboon the Brae" - this needs explaining
 * I'm not sure that it is worth mentioning the population density figure unless you say whether this is high / low etc.
 * 'There was no Roman Catholic church or chapel in Neilston between 1560 and 1861; there was no Roman Catholic community' - was there one prior to 1560? if so what happened to those Roman Catholics? Also presumably there was some community pre-1861, surely the church wasn't erected at exactly the instant the 1st Catholic arrived?
 * 'stretching back more than 170 years' - can we just say what date it started then it will never need updating!
 * Why 'Midge Hole'?
 * The M77 gets 2 mentions. 1 is probably enough.
 * Can you get a ref for the 2nd O’Brien sentence?
 * The employment percentages might look better in a table or as bullet points JMiall  ₰  18:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Again, my eternal thanks go to you. This kind of critique is fantastic constructive feedback. I've marked some of your points again with dones and not dones (at the time of this signature). I will endevour to work on the remaining outstanding issues that are either unmarked or not done. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)