Talk:Askam and Ireleth

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Askam and Ireleth article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Askam and Ireleth was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 24, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
June 11, 2014	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Lancashire and Cumbria Mid‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Galena11, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 28 February 2007.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Askam and Ireleth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

It's been a few years since this article was last reviewed, and glancing at it I can see a few issues regarding layout and images, so I'm going to give it a thorough review to see what needs to be done to ensure it continues to meet current GA criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article is stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Focus. While the article could be tightened and tidied, I don't see that any section is overly detailed - though the opening paragraph of Ireleth sub-section could be trimmed back to ensure a clear focus on significant and documented history. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of bias. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images and captions are OK. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query

The article is media rich, with a large number of images and diagrams. Several of the images are poor quality, and there is possibly some redundancy. This impacts WP:LAYIM and WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE under the GA criteria. Images such as the Askam United football club sign are not adding anything encyclopaedic or helpful to the article. The population information is better rendered in prose per WP:EMBED, another GA criteria. These are minor issues, and can be resolved quite quickly. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are some rather small sub-sections in the Environment and the Public buildings sections. Per WP:LAYOUT, this can give the article a cluttered feel and inhibit flow. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the Duddon Estuary booklet, I'm not sure the Askam sub-section is appropriately sourced. Some statements with statistics, such as dates, numbers, etc, appear to be unsourced, and the sources that are presented look questionable. Could this be tightened up? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a source in the article to support "perhaps most notably 20% of the national Natterjack toad population". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is mainly sound, but occasionally there are some unclear statements: "Askam's history starts much more recently" - more recent than what, and when exactly is "recent"? " in recent times" is similarly vague. "The geological make-up of the area is extremely important; indeed, without it, Askam as a place would not exist" is a bold yet unclear assertion that is not essential. The sentences that follow manage to convey the facts of the geology in less directed and clearer language. A little copy-editing will resolve this. Not a serious issue. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear whose opinion is being voiced in the Etymology section. Sources do not support the conjecture regarding the naming. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

Due to an accumulation of concerns regarding sourcing I feel the article needs more secure inline citation, and more reliable sources to meet GA criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

As the image use may well change, I'll do a copyright check on each image when it is decided which images are to be used in the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC) SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a problem in the History section working out which statements relate to which sources. The first paragraph, which asserts origins and original locations, appears to be sourced to the map shown to the right of the section (I'm having difficulty accessing the website, but from what I'm reading, I'm assuming that the source holds a larger copy of the map). Maps are primary sources - Wikipedia:Evaluating_sources#Primary_sources, and we need to use WP:PRIMARY sources with care, so we are not drawing conclusions from them. However, I think that while not in-line cited, the bulk of the information comes from other sources mentioned later - such as Mark Maclean's book. However, there is then the question of how much do we regard his book as a reliable source, as it is self-published. We can use it if the book is used as a source by other reliable sources, or if Maclean is regarded as an expert in his field. I found this, but that's the only book I found. Samuel Lewis is a secure source, though doesn't appear to be used to support some of the earlier statements. It would be helpful to be clearer on what sources are being used to support which statement. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's always a fine point as to how much of an article should be comprised of a summary of sources, and how much should comprise of directly quoted text. The Ireleth sub-section is over 50% direct quote. This may be a bit too much. See WP:QUOTEFARM. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The major aspects has not been checked - I haven't done enough background reading yet. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

I think there are enough concerns regarding how the article currently meets GA criteria for the article's GA listing to be in jeopardy. Much of the work is simply tidying up, and I'll take part in that. I am more concerned by the sourcing. There don't appear to be many sources readily available on the internet, though Maclean gives some sources in his book, which could be checked out. And local libraries usually have good sources on their own locality. I'll put the review on hold for the standard seven days and notify major contributors of the concerns raised, particularly regarding sourcing. We'll see where we are after seven days. I'm always willing to keep reviews open as long as progressive work is being done. The aim here is to improve the article so it meets current GA criteria rather than have it delisted. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit more tidying up. Article still needs some work, especially as regards sourcing. I'll inform related WikiProjects to see if anyone is interested in helping out. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's still been no work done. I'll take another look over the next few days to see exactly what needs to be done, and if I can do it myself in a reasonable time; if not, then I will delist. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CCHT external link

This link was added to the article after discussion on the WP Reliable Sources Noticeboard. See: WP:RSN exercise. No information from the CCHT link has been put into the body of the article in the form of citations because it has not yet been verified for 100% accuracy by the Victoria County History project for Cumbria. (This will take some years to do). Laplacemat (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Askam and Ireleth. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001001412/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/bound_map_page.jsp?first=true&u_id=10173000&c_id=10001043 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/bound_map_page.jsp?first=true&u_id=10173000&c_id=10001043

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Askam and Ireleth. 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Askam and Ireleth. 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]