I'm just concentrating on the "bad" points at the moment. The good points will be picked up later in the Overall summary:
History -
Ref 6 is (was) a book and no subscription is needed to read it. However, more interestingly the 1998 (Second Edition) book of Ref 6 does not support the statement that cites ref 6; but it does support the following statement and the next but one statement, "TrefWigan", which cites ref 7. Perhaps new information has come to light?
I thought that reference 6, the dictionary of place names, needed a subscription, are you automatically logged into Athens? The reference isn't used to support the entire sentence, eg: dating from the 6th century, but with reference five should (I'll check again once I've got more time, I'm about to log off) it should be supported. The Mills book is probably the definitive version, but local history societies and heritage and archaeological groups are usually quite good and I don't see the harm in including the information from them, however I would be hesitant to get rid of the Mills book because although it doesn't go into much detail it's a peer reviewed publication.
Nev1 (
talk)
20:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Perhaps I should clarify. Ref 6 is a subscription site so I did not use it. I have a copy of the Mills, A.D. (1998). "Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names" (Second Edition) Oxford: Oxford University Press,
ISBN0-19-280074-4 on my bookshelf, so I'm not using precisely the same reference as the article; but there appears to be a difference.
Pyrotec (
talk)
20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)reply
The 2003 edition says "Wigan Wigan. Wigan 1199. A Celtic name, ‘little settlement’, from a diminutive of Brittonic *wg ‘homestead, settlement’ (later Welsh gwig ‘wood’)".
Nev1 (
talk)
08:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)reply
OK Done. My 1998 version stated: Wigan Wigan 1199. Probably a shorterned form of a Welsh name Tref Wigan 'homested of a man called 'Wigan', but you are not invoking the 1998 version.
The first two-sentance paragraph could do with a reference(s).
Some of that was a relic from a 2007 version of the page. I've added a source for the verifiable material and removed the second sentence.
Nev1 (
talk)
08:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Ref 32 is a 16-page pdf file, you really aught to state that it is(?) page 2 that you are using.
Thanks for the review, I've just come back from a break and should be able to start properly addressing the issues raised tomorrow.
Nev1 (
talk)
20:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Overall summary
The majority of the "problems" noted above hve been addressed and I'm confident that the rest will be addressed soon, so I'm closing this review.
Pyrotec (
talk)
11:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the pass. I'm a bit hard pressed for time, but will try to make sure the remaining points are addressed. While I think the article is there and there abouts as far as GA is concerned, I just don't think it goes into enough depth for FA. Who knows though, maybe in a while, although it's not something I had contemplated.
Nev1 (
talk)
19:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm just concentrating on the "bad" points at the moment. The good points will be picked up later in the Overall summary:
History -
Ref 6 is (was) a book and no subscription is needed to read it. However, more interestingly the 1998 (Second Edition) book of Ref 6 does not support the statement that cites ref 6; but it does support the following statement and the next but one statement, "TrefWigan", which cites ref 7. Perhaps new information has come to light?
I thought that reference 6, the dictionary of place names, needed a subscription, are you automatically logged into Athens? The reference isn't used to support the entire sentence, eg: dating from the 6th century, but with reference five should (I'll check again once I've got more time, I'm about to log off) it should be supported. The Mills book is probably the definitive version, but local history societies and heritage and archaeological groups are usually quite good and I don't see the harm in including the information from them, however I would be hesitant to get rid of the Mills book because although it doesn't go into much detail it's a peer reviewed publication.
Nev1 (
talk)
20:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Perhaps I should clarify. Ref 6 is a subscription site so I did not use it. I have a copy of the Mills, A.D. (1998). "Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names" (Second Edition) Oxford: Oxford University Press,
ISBN0-19-280074-4 on my bookshelf, so I'm not using precisely the same reference as the article; but there appears to be a difference.
Pyrotec (
talk)
20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)reply
The 2003 edition says "Wigan Wigan. Wigan 1199. A Celtic name, ‘little settlement’, from a diminutive of Brittonic *wg ‘homestead, settlement’ (later Welsh gwig ‘wood’)".
Nev1 (
talk)
08:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)reply
OK Done. My 1998 version stated: Wigan Wigan 1199. Probably a shorterned form of a Welsh name Tref Wigan 'homested of a man called 'Wigan', but you are not invoking the 1998 version.
The first two-sentance paragraph could do with a reference(s).
Some of that was a relic from a 2007 version of the page. I've added a source for the verifiable material and removed the second sentence.
Nev1 (
talk)
08:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Ref 32 is a 16-page pdf file, you really aught to state that it is(?) page 2 that you are using.
Thanks for the review, I've just come back from a break and should be able to start properly addressing the issues raised tomorrow.
Nev1 (
talk)
20:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Overall summary
The majority of the "problems" noted above hve been addressed and I'm confident that the rest will be addressed soon, so I'm closing this review.
Pyrotec (
talk)
11:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the pass. I'm a bit hard pressed for time, but will try to make sure the remaining points are addressed. While I think the article is there and there abouts as far as GA is concerned, I just don't think it goes into enough depth for FA. Who knows though, maybe in a while, although it's not something I had contemplated.
Nev1 (
talk)
19:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)reply