Wikipedia:Peer review/Thelnetham Windmill/archive1

Thelnetham Windmill

 * 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 July 2009.
 * 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 July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a Good Article. I'd like some feedback on what needs doing to achieve FA status as WP:MILLS currently lacks a featured article.

Thanks, Mjroots (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Fascinating article, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC. As someone who has written about wooden covered bridges of roughly the same age, I am impressed with (and slightly jealous of) how much detailed history is known about the mill and its restoration. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would try to expand the lead a bit as I do not think it really does justice to the article. My rule of thumb is to try and at least mention each section in the lead somehow (even if only a word or phrase). Perhaps it could be three paragraphs: a general overview paragraph, then one summarizing the history and one on the restoration?
 * The two images in the article are nice, but I wish more could be added. For example could a map showing the location Thelnetham be included? Or is there a general diagram of the interior of windmills that would help a layperson undertand what all the parts mentioned are better? I also wonder if there could photos taken inside the mill today, so if the section is on restoring the millstones, there could be a photo of them, that sort of thing.
 * I wonder if there could be a bit more context added for the reader in places - for example I am not sure what tailwinde / tailwinded means (the first may be a typo in The mill was tailwinde c1920, and as a result one pair of sails was removed. If a brief expalantion of this is / involves could be added, I think it would help. See WP:PCR Ditto with some of the machinery / parts - so if it were The new windshaft[, which transfers power from the sails to turn the millstone,] was fitted on 16 July 1832.[5] that might be clearer.
 * I think some terms could be linked that are not now - for example polythene is known as polyethylene in the US, so linking the term would help for readers less familiar with the name (or the Beatles song Polythene Pam)
 * The 1985 section could really be 1985—1987 as it decribes work done over three years. It seems a bit odd that so much detail is given in previous years and then the final three years are described so briefly. Is there not much information avaiable?
 * I would also like to learn more about the current operation of the mill - the fact that flour ground there can be purchased is only in the lad and should be given again here (and cited). Who runs it? Does someone have to live there to adjust the sails year round?
 * The last several sections are quite short anbd might benefit from either being expanded or combined with other sections.
 * For example, the list of Millers could be a table in the history section (and I would use ? or unknown for the unknow dates, so "ebecca Button 1837-?" or "Richard Button unknown-1860"
 * "Culture and media" is one sentence on the video of the restoration - could this be combined with the 1985 ssection (end of restoration)? The video ref should have the year of the video if known.
 * Restoration team could perhaps also be combined with 1985-1987 section as a sort of summary. Was there a dedication ceremony or Grand (Re)opening?
 * Are authors or page numbers known for the newspaper articles?
 * I liked the amount of detail given - it might be seen as excessive by some reviewers in FAC. Notsure on this. As noted above it does seem odd to have so much detail on some years and so little on the last three.


 * Reply by Mjroots
 * Lead - this has been expanded.
 * Images - I've added a third image.
 * Context - Tailwinded has been explained. Windshaft is explained in the Mill machinery article, per hatnote at top of section.
 * Links - will go over the article and add more links
 * 1985 - has been renamed
 * Current use - I will expand the article to cover this.
 * Later sections - Millers and Culture and Media sections are per WP:MILLS suggested structure for articles about individual windmills. I think there was a grand re-opening but I wasn't there. I can only work with the resources I have available to me. That said, I may give the Suffolk Mills Group a shout to ask if their members can expand the article and correct any mistakes I may have made. The Restoration team was much larger originally, but was removed per GAR.
 * Newspaper articles - I've included all info I have, from cuttings reproduced in the restoration reports. Original papers should be available via Norfolk Libraries or Suffolk Libraries but I'm over 100 miles away now.
 * I think that there wasn't quite as much material produced over the last few years as the owners naturally concentrated upon the completion of the restoration. Again, SMG members may be able to expand the article.

Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)