This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bentworth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Bentworth has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: page moved. harej 02:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Bentworth, Hampshire →
Bentworth —
1942 is not 70 years ago. I think your picture is copyright, can you remove it? Victuallers ( talk) 19:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Jaguar's revision: Feb 2011 Ukiws's revision: Feb 2012
Have a look. Jaguar ( talk) 18:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I noticed the article has historic populations for 1789 and 1861. The source given for 1861 mentions the population in 1801 and 1831, but perhaps I'm missing 1861. That said, the 1801 and 1831 data tallies with this table at Vision of Britain. Using that table I'm proposing adding the following to the article:
Population growth in Bentworth since 1801 | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | 1801 | 1811 | 1821 | 1831 | 1841 | 1851 | 1881 | 1891 | 1901 | 1911 | 1921 | 1931 | 1951 | 1961 | 2001 |
Population | 425 | 406 | 548 | 592 | 609 | 610 | 558 | 604 | 571 | 586 | 522 | 570 | 614 | 596 | 466 |
% change | – | −4.5 | +35.0 | +8.0 | +2.9 | +0.2 | −8.5 | +8.2 | −5.5 | +2.6 | −10.9 | +9.2 | +7.7 | −2.9 | −21.8 |
Source: A Vision of Britain through Time, and statistics.gov.uk |
The downside is, it doesn't differentiate between Bentworth village, Burkham, Wivelrod, Thedden, Holt End, Ashley, and elsewhere but I think the historic population change is still of interest. Also I can't make out if there's a consistent format for the references, is there one? Nev1 ( talk) 20:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Added, thanks for that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs) 08:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Some miscellaneous points after a first read-through:
I agree, I was considering removing the top part as I couldn't find any sources. I'll have to ask the person who wrote that material.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
LOL! Fixed.!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Please consider these points before we take the review further. Tim riley ( talk) 08:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I have some reservations about some of the images. I am no expert on image tagging, but I am concerned enough about the following to require clarification of their status before considering the article for GA.
Please consider. – Tim riley ( talk) 10:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Good. We progress apace. I don't know that I 100% share your confidence that the Edwardian pictures are definitely public domain, but as I say, images are not my area of expertise, and I'm willing to be guided by you on the point. Common sense says that it would surely be overkill to drag in an image expert for old pictures such as these.
The only other area of serious concern to me was the lack of citations for the administrative section. You have removed the more glaring specimens, and now that I look again at the GA criteria, I am reminded that the requirement is for "in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged", and IMO the few uncited statements remaining are uncontroversial enough that lack of citations need not be a stumbling block to promotion to GA. (Nice if they were referenced in due course, nevertheless.)
One final read-through and we'll be ready to observe the formalities, I think. Tim riley ( talk) 12:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy for you to proceed with it now, unless for some reason you think its not good enough. If you insist, I can remove the historical parish info which at present looks like original research and only restore it once adequate sources are provided. I've honesty looked in google and google books for info for that and Thedden Grange and found nothing. I was lucky to find info about the other grange. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A most interesting and enjoyable article.
Well done, both on text and on splendid new images. I've never reviewed another article with lots of one-day-old pictures in it! Don't forget to add the missing minor refs in the next week or so (I'll be keeping a beady eye open). A great pleasure to review. Tim riley ( talk) 12:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The lead currently states "The village of Bentworth has grown in recent years, with several new houses being built, as well as the post-Second World War development in Glebe Fields." Can we be a bit more specific than recently? The population has declined from 596 in 1961 to 466 in 2001, so is this growth restricted to the number of houses of did these new buildings replace old ones? Nev1 ( talk) 19:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
OK We hope and Jaguar. Where are we? Can we keep track here of what has been checked so no time is wasted?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It's been about 9 years since I last used dial-up. The internet is now more loaded with items that don't work with this type of service. It wasn't too bad to use back then as I waited for my high speed connection but now! My Live Mail wouldn't work right until I was back on high speed and pages took forever to load. We hope ( talk) 17:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Some typo fixes and links to other WP articles. We hope ( talk) 17:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
More additions:
Question-I can't find anything about the children's home that was there from during WWII to circa 1951, when it was said to have burned down. The villages of Bentworth and Lasham both had their part in the war. In late 1940, a children's home was built in Drury Lane in Bentworth for those who had been evacuated from London during the Blitz. [1]
The reference given here is from a 1905 book. We hope ( talk) 19:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
We hope and Jaguar. Can we please do a check list here with all of the sourcing and add a {done} tick by the ref number if checked? That way I can see where we are.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the ref formerly #30-it's from a 1905 book and can't possible tell what happened during the Blitz & WWII. We hope ( talk) 23:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks WH, great start.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Eeks, one problem we have it once removing sources which is common given how many need sorting the ref numbers become different, so some of the above apply to the wrong ones. How to we address that? I suggest for each ref above we add a snippet of the last part of the sentence the ref applies to so when ref numbers change we can still see where everything is and applies to.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
If both of you are in agreement, I can start changing this to harv ref tonight--will only change the revs which have been checked to try to keep things straight. We hope ( talk) 20:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, fine, but not until all of the not dones are fixed because we may have to rid of a lot of dud sources anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to leave refs 20 and 23 alone as I can't access them, maybe they're only accessible in the US? With ref 29, is it referring to the year when the council estates were constructed? That did come up in the FAC but I didn't see it relevant to cite what year some council housing were made. For what it's worth, there is an original plaque of "1946" in Roman numerals on the centrepiece of one of the houses, but is it worthy as a reference? Also, with ref 35 (the elevation), a height of 712 feet is on every Ordinance Survey map, but am I right in assuming that a more reliable source has to be found for that? JAG UAR 17:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Ordinance Survey is a reliable source. I just deleted that though as it wouldn't support "one of the highest points" anyway. A problem in some places we have now is there's unsourced content which doesn't have a citation and isn't backed by the source in subsequent sentences. If the info can't all be verified we'll have to remove those too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The length of this article is hugely excessive for a small village. For example, is it really necessary to go into details of the climate? ---- Ehrenkater ( talk) 14:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This has a lot of links along with census links. We hope ( talk) 23:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Minchams Field near Gaston Grange-mentions Jennie Green Lane. We hope ( talk) 23:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Following the reconstruction of the sources, I have checked out the first 25 citations – at least, those that are available online. A few observations:
Will continue to check, as time permits. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
This is not very encouraging – I was hoping that this article's sourcing issues were resolved, but I am still finding problems with most references I check. It seems that more work – possibly much more – is needed before the sourcing is in order. I repeat what I said earlier: someone must check every reference to see that it actually supports what's in the text. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I had thought I had checked most of them. Obviously I did a clumsy job! Tired of wiki right now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Brianboulton: Thank you for taking a look at the article once again. We hope has completely overhauled the sources and now we have harv style references with a Bibliography section. I've still yet to address two of your issues above (which I will get to tomorrow morning), but can you please take a final look through the rest of the sources before we send this to FAC? Me and Dr. Blofeld have cut a lot of content that wasn't in any of the sources, and I have recently removed all mentions of the children's home from the article as I couldn't find it anywhere. We just need to make sure that everything is correct before re-nominating, and a last overlook of the sources if required beforehand. Thank you for your help so far, and no rush of course! JAG UAR 20:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Jaguar, apologies if it has been said already, but I don't think you can afford to have any more images in this article. In its current state, it looks a bit cluttered; I would even suggest losing one or two, but that is, of course, up to you. Pictures are nice, but they are not essential for an FA. Luckily we have We hope who certainly has her work cut out. I would not add anymore as the article is currently at bursting point. Cassianto Talk 16:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not confident in the cit for this. How reliable a reference is "Johnson, Margaret (March 2013). "Bentworth's River". The Villager: 7." ? Is 'The Villager' a magazine, book or just a self published website with no reputation for fact checking? SovalValtos ( talk) 02:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The Who Was Who (1967) book is essentially redundant to the online edition of the work now maintained by Oxford University Press. I've had a look and it says George Cecil Ives was the adopted son of "Hon. Emma Ives ... widow of J. R. Ives of Bentworth Hall". He was educated "at home". It doesn't say anything about the family being buried in Bentworth, nor does it say anything about the pre-1832 Bentworth Hall. That is obviously an issue, but I thought I'd provide the info to form a citation. It will need to be formatted properly and is available by subscription only:
That might be easier than using the book, but it's up to you, and the other issues remain. — Noswall59 ( talk) 19:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC).
Thankyou Sagacious, I have access to ODNB, but I don't think Jaguar does. I have a feeling that even if it is further improved in the near future it won't stand a chance at FAC until it's been largely forgotten. I think the best thing would be to leave this now for a few months and open a peer review in the new year and come back at it afresh. And next we really must ensure that there's not a single thing mentioned in the article not in the source supporting it. That really has to be double checked, once all source issues have been dealt with. I can deal with people moaning about minor formatting issues, even the prose, but for people to still find unverifiable sources is rather embarrassing and really cannot happen again!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Brianboulton: I've trimmed it, removed mention of the burial because of the contradiction and added a source which says he spent time at the family home at Bentworth Hall. OK?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The text says "the most prominent crops are ...". Is that the case that they ARE, or is it that they WERE in 1911. Oats, Turnips, now? I do not have access to the source. SovalValtos ( talk) 11:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to this source to add it? I have heard it might be relevant. Reports of the Sub-Committee of the South-Western Group of Museums & Art Galleries on the Petrological Identification of Stone Axes. (PPS vol 28 (1962) pp209-266) The Bentworth axe-head has the number 749 written on it. Does the source mention basalt or just spotted slate? SovalValtos ( talk) 07:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Bentworth. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bentworth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bentworth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bentworth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Bentworth has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: page moved. harej 02:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Bentworth, Hampshire →
Bentworth —
1942 is not 70 years ago. I think your picture is copyright, can you remove it? Victuallers ( talk) 19:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Jaguar's revision: Feb 2011 Ukiws's revision: Feb 2012
Have a look. Jaguar ( talk) 18:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I noticed the article has historic populations for 1789 and 1861. The source given for 1861 mentions the population in 1801 and 1831, but perhaps I'm missing 1861. That said, the 1801 and 1831 data tallies with this table at Vision of Britain. Using that table I'm proposing adding the following to the article:
Population growth in Bentworth since 1801 | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | 1801 | 1811 | 1821 | 1831 | 1841 | 1851 | 1881 | 1891 | 1901 | 1911 | 1921 | 1931 | 1951 | 1961 | 2001 |
Population | 425 | 406 | 548 | 592 | 609 | 610 | 558 | 604 | 571 | 586 | 522 | 570 | 614 | 596 | 466 |
% change | – | −4.5 | +35.0 | +8.0 | +2.9 | +0.2 | −8.5 | +8.2 | −5.5 | +2.6 | −10.9 | +9.2 | +7.7 | −2.9 | −21.8 |
Source: A Vision of Britain through Time, and statistics.gov.uk |
The downside is, it doesn't differentiate between Bentworth village, Burkham, Wivelrod, Thedden, Holt End, Ashley, and elsewhere but I think the historic population change is still of interest. Also I can't make out if there's a consistent format for the references, is there one? Nev1 ( talk) 20:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Added, thanks for that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs) 08:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Some miscellaneous points after a first read-through:
I agree, I was considering removing the top part as I couldn't find any sources. I'll have to ask the person who wrote that material.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
LOL! Fixed.!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Please consider these points before we take the review further. Tim riley ( talk) 08:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I have some reservations about some of the images. I am no expert on image tagging, but I am concerned enough about the following to require clarification of their status before considering the article for GA.
Please consider. – Tim riley ( talk) 10:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Good. We progress apace. I don't know that I 100% share your confidence that the Edwardian pictures are definitely public domain, but as I say, images are not my area of expertise, and I'm willing to be guided by you on the point. Common sense says that it would surely be overkill to drag in an image expert for old pictures such as these.
The only other area of serious concern to me was the lack of citations for the administrative section. You have removed the more glaring specimens, and now that I look again at the GA criteria, I am reminded that the requirement is for "in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged", and IMO the few uncited statements remaining are uncontroversial enough that lack of citations need not be a stumbling block to promotion to GA. (Nice if they were referenced in due course, nevertheless.)
One final read-through and we'll be ready to observe the formalities, I think. Tim riley ( talk) 12:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy for you to proceed with it now, unless for some reason you think its not good enough. If you insist, I can remove the historical parish info which at present looks like original research and only restore it once adequate sources are provided. I've honesty looked in google and google books for info for that and Thedden Grange and found nothing. I was lucky to find info about the other grange. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A most interesting and enjoyable article.
Well done, both on text and on splendid new images. I've never reviewed another article with lots of one-day-old pictures in it! Don't forget to add the missing minor refs in the next week or so (I'll be keeping a beady eye open). A great pleasure to review. Tim riley ( talk) 12:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The lead currently states "The village of Bentworth has grown in recent years, with several new houses being built, as well as the post-Second World War development in Glebe Fields." Can we be a bit more specific than recently? The population has declined from 596 in 1961 to 466 in 2001, so is this growth restricted to the number of houses of did these new buildings replace old ones? Nev1 ( talk) 19:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
OK We hope and Jaguar. Where are we? Can we keep track here of what has been checked so no time is wasted?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It's been about 9 years since I last used dial-up. The internet is now more loaded with items that don't work with this type of service. It wasn't too bad to use back then as I waited for my high speed connection but now! My Live Mail wouldn't work right until I was back on high speed and pages took forever to load. We hope ( talk) 17:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Some typo fixes and links to other WP articles. We hope ( talk) 17:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
More additions:
Question-I can't find anything about the children's home that was there from during WWII to circa 1951, when it was said to have burned down. The villages of Bentworth and Lasham both had their part in the war. In late 1940, a children's home was built in Drury Lane in Bentworth for those who had been evacuated from London during the Blitz. [1]
The reference given here is from a 1905 book. We hope ( talk) 19:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
We hope and Jaguar. Can we please do a check list here with all of the sourcing and add a {done} tick by the ref number if checked? That way I can see where we are.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the ref formerly #30-it's from a 1905 book and can't possible tell what happened during the Blitz & WWII. We hope ( talk) 23:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks WH, great start.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Eeks, one problem we have it once removing sources which is common given how many need sorting the ref numbers become different, so some of the above apply to the wrong ones. How to we address that? I suggest for each ref above we add a snippet of the last part of the sentence the ref applies to so when ref numbers change we can still see where everything is and applies to.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
If both of you are in agreement, I can start changing this to harv ref tonight--will only change the revs which have been checked to try to keep things straight. We hope ( talk) 20:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, fine, but not until all of the not dones are fixed because we may have to rid of a lot of dud sources anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to leave refs 20 and 23 alone as I can't access them, maybe they're only accessible in the US? With ref 29, is it referring to the year when the council estates were constructed? That did come up in the FAC but I didn't see it relevant to cite what year some council housing were made. For what it's worth, there is an original plaque of "1946" in Roman numerals on the centrepiece of one of the houses, but is it worthy as a reference? Also, with ref 35 (the elevation), a height of 712 feet is on every Ordinance Survey map, but am I right in assuming that a more reliable source has to be found for that? JAG UAR 17:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Ordinance Survey is a reliable source. I just deleted that though as it wouldn't support "one of the highest points" anyway. A problem in some places we have now is there's unsourced content which doesn't have a citation and isn't backed by the source in subsequent sentences. If the info can't all be verified we'll have to remove those too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The length of this article is hugely excessive for a small village. For example, is it really necessary to go into details of the climate? ---- Ehrenkater ( talk) 14:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This has a lot of links along with census links. We hope ( talk) 23:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Minchams Field near Gaston Grange-mentions Jennie Green Lane. We hope ( talk) 23:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Following the reconstruction of the sources, I have checked out the first 25 citations – at least, those that are available online. A few observations:
Will continue to check, as time permits. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
This is not very encouraging – I was hoping that this article's sourcing issues were resolved, but I am still finding problems with most references I check. It seems that more work – possibly much more – is needed before the sourcing is in order. I repeat what I said earlier: someone must check every reference to see that it actually supports what's in the text. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I had thought I had checked most of them. Obviously I did a clumsy job! Tired of wiki right now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Brianboulton: Thank you for taking a look at the article once again. We hope has completely overhauled the sources and now we have harv style references with a Bibliography section. I've still yet to address two of your issues above (which I will get to tomorrow morning), but can you please take a final look through the rest of the sources before we send this to FAC? Me and Dr. Blofeld have cut a lot of content that wasn't in any of the sources, and I have recently removed all mentions of the children's home from the article as I couldn't find it anywhere. We just need to make sure that everything is correct before re-nominating, and a last overlook of the sources if required beforehand. Thank you for your help so far, and no rush of course! JAG UAR 20:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Jaguar, apologies if it has been said already, but I don't think you can afford to have any more images in this article. In its current state, it looks a bit cluttered; I would even suggest losing one or two, but that is, of course, up to you. Pictures are nice, but they are not essential for an FA. Luckily we have We hope who certainly has her work cut out. I would not add anymore as the article is currently at bursting point. Cassianto Talk 16:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not confident in the cit for this. How reliable a reference is "Johnson, Margaret (March 2013). "Bentworth's River". The Villager: 7." ? Is 'The Villager' a magazine, book or just a self published website with no reputation for fact checking? SovalValtos ( talk) 02:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The Who Was Who (1967) book is essentially redundant to the online edition of the work now maintained by Oxford University Press. I've had a look and it says George Cecil Ives was the adopted son of "Hon. Emma Ives ... widow of J. R. Ives of Bentworth Hall". He was educated "at home". It doesn't say anything about the family being buried in Bentworth, nor does it say anything about the pre-1832 Bentworth Hall. That is obviously an issue, but I thought I'd provide the info to form a citation. It will need to be formatted properly and is available by subscription only:
That might be easier than using the book, but it's up to you, and the other issues remain. — Noswall59 ( talk) 19:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC).
Thankyou Sagacious, I have access to ODNB, but I don't think Jaguar does. I have a feeling that even if it is further improved in the near future it won't stand a chance at FAC until it's been largely forgotten. I think the best thing would be to leave this now for a few months and open a peer review in the new year and come back at it afresh. And next we really must ensure that there's not a single thing mentioned in the article not in the source supporting it. That really has to be double checked, once all source issues have been dealt with. I can deal with people moaning about minor formatting issues, even the prose, but for people to still find unverifiable sources is rather embarrassing and really cannot happen again!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Brianboulton: I've trimmed it, removed mention of the burial because of the contradiction and added a source which says he spent time at the family home at Bentworth Hall. OK?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The text says "the most prominent crops are ...". Is that the case that they ARE, or is it that they WERE in 1911. Oats, Turnips, now? I do not have access to the source. SovalValtos ( talk) 11:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to this source to add it? I have heard it might be relevant. Reports of the Sub-Committee of the South-Western Group of Museums & Art Galleries on the Petrological Identification of Stone Axes. (PPS vol 28 (1962) pp209-266) The Bentworth axe-head has the number 749 written on it. Does the source mention basalt or just spotted slate? SovalValtos ( talk) 07:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Bentworth. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bentworth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bentworth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)