Wikipedia:Peer review/Walkden/archive1

Walkden
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to see whether any improvements can be made. I'm eventually hoping that it would get to GA status, but I know it will need improvements before it gets to that status. Also please comment on what class you think it is.

Thanks,  D oh5678 Talk  16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd put this as a C currently. For the information that is there, it is generally all sourced, however it is quite a small article at the moment. To get it to a GA, you should try to expand the sections. Aim for having each section slightly smaller than the current history section; if you don't make it after putting all the information you can then that's fine, but if you're aiming for that length you should hopefully be able to include much more. There are deadlinks and citations needed. It appears that all the references are different styles, so fix them up perhaps using the templates found at WP:CT. Good luck, I'm watching this page if you have questions. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments by Chipmunkdavis
 * First of all, the great needs to be greatly expanded.
 * The History section is currently weird, with just the two sections, one called "Early History". Perhaps make "Toponymy" its own level 2 section, and just have a single level two history section.
 * Done
 * Couple of unsourced statements dotted around, but in general quite well sourced. Statements such as "The Duke of Bridgewater was the biggest landowner in 1786, owning over half the land." definitely need a source.
 * Much of the history section seems to be a description of buildings in the town. Perhaps these should go in their own section, maybe merged with the geography section into "Buildings and landscape"? A geography section for a small town seems excessive, and the current one is obviously quite short, possibly reflecting this.
 * Made "Buildings" section, thought I'd keep "Geography" and expand it.
 * On the note of geography (or whatever that section is renamed), include any information about hills lakes and other features. I'd also suggest making the "Blackleach Country Park" section a subsection of this, rather than having it as a standalone level two section.
 * Done.
 * The education section needs more sourced. Be careful of descending into lists, expand more on each school and how education has developed over time.
 * The transport section too needs more references. It would be useful to include figures for the number of cars or other vehicles in the town, if available.
 * The religion section should be expanded, and should include numbers of people in each religion. Are there any religions besides Christianity in the town? Try to keep a similar level of detail for all the churches if possible.
 * Information about population numbers and growth, age breakdown, etc. would be useful.


 * Thanks for the comments. I'll try and fix the article up.  D oh5678 Talk  17:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)