GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Bungle ( talk · contribs) 16:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Article version being reviewed:
3 January 2017, 12:55
Note: Detailed feedback is below this summary table
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Generally well written; some sentences could be reworded/moved and use of commas after "and" should be rectified |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Generally fine, with the exception of that mentioned above |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | None that is obvious; |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | None apparent |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Is neutral |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Is stable |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Seems fine |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Review Comment |
---|
Infobox |
|
Lead |
|
History |
Bungle ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Generally well written (prose), but doesn't really tell me that much beyond the manor/land and its owners which whilst noteworthy, seems a bit narrow. No contemporary history from the last 109 years is mentioned. Some reordering/sectioning may be appropriate. |
Geography/demographics |
|
Landmarks |
|
Coverage/settlements criteria |
Using the WIkiproject page as a rough guide (the ones I feel are relevant)
|
Referencing |
|
Interesting article that puts alot of focus on its many listed buildings and manor/land ownership, but in my view does this excessively, to the point that the article feels less about the parish itself and more a glorified list of listed buildings and manor ownership. Primary concerns on criteria #3 as noted. I am left wondering what the parish is like in contemporary times (such as what amenities/facilities are available, how it is run, the type of people that live here and how they live their lives). I appreciate it's an article about a very lowly populated civil parish, but at present I don't feel it's broad enough and would benefit from further expansion. Over half the references support information on the many listed buildings, so could be misviewed as being a well referenced article (although in saying that, the referencing is otherwise fine).
I'll give a week from the date of review for improvements to be made and expansion to take place, though if there is clear evidence of improvements once this time lapses or a message showing willingness to improve, then i'll be prepared to extend the time. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if I should leave comments in the table as it might break it, so I'll write down what I've done in bullet points:
<comments have been moved to the respective original feedback>
More to come... JAG UAR 16:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Jaguar: Well done on working through the improvement suggestions swiftly and efficienty. I'll let you find some info on local schools to add in, but otherwise I think after that I can pass it as GA (as I appreciate very small hamlets/villages won't always necessarily have alot going on)! Obviously if you find other relevant info down the line then i'm sure you'd give it a mention. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Bungle ( talk · contribs) 16:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Article version being reviewed:
3 January 2017, 12:55
Note: Detailed feedback is below this summary table
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Generally well written; some sentences could be reworded/moved and use of commas after "and" should be rectified |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Generally fine, with the exception of that mentioned above |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | None that is obvious; |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | None apparent |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Is neutral |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Is stable |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Seems fine |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Review Comment |
---|
Infobox |
|
Lead |
|
History |
Bungle ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Generally well written (prose), but doesn't really tell me that much beyond the manor/land and its owners which whilst noteworthy, seems a bit narrow. No contemporary history from the last 109 years is mentioned. Some reordering/sectioning may be appropriate. |
Geography/demographics |
|
Landmarks |
|
Coverage/settlements criteria |
Using the WIkiproject page as a rough guide (the ones I feel are relevant)
|
Referencing |
|
Interesting article that puts alot of focus on its many listed buildings and manor/land ownership, but in my view does this excessively, to the point that the article feels less about the parish itself and more a glorified list of listed buildings and manor ownership. Primary concerns on criteria #3 as noted. I am left wondering what the parish is like in contemporary times (such as what amenities/facilities are available, how it is run, the type of people that live here and how they live their lives). I appreciate it's an article about a very lowly populated civil parish, but at present I don't feel it's broad enough and would benefit from further expansion. Over half the references support information on the many listed buildings, so could be misviewed as being a well referenced article (although in saying that, the referencing is otherwise fine).
I'll give a week from the date of review for improvements to be made and expansion to take place, though if there is clear evidence of improvements once this time lapses or a message showing willingness to improve, then i'll be prepared to extend the time. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if I should leave comments in the table as it might break it, so I'll write down what I've done in bullet points:
<comments have been moved to the respective original feedback>
More to come... JAG UAR 16:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Jaguar: Well done on working through the improvement suggestions swiftly and efficienty. I'll let you find some info on local schools to add in, but otherwise I think after that I can pass it as GA (as I appreciate very small hamlets/villages won't always necessarily have alot going on)! Obviously if you find other relevant info down the line then i'm sure you'd give it a mention. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)