Talk:Binsted/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 02:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am Reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
I think the large quote from A Vision of Britain Through Time/Imperial Gazetteer of England and Wales needs to be trimmed, it is taking too big a piece of the article-space. Shearonink (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree—I only add it in when I get desperate for more content! Hatted as a note. JAGUAR 16:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The present placement is a big improvement. Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Copyvio tool gives an all-clear. Shearonink (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Hurrah for no edit-warring! Shearonink (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Images all have the proper permissions, etc. Shearonink (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Relevant & captioned appropriately. Shearonink (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
@Jaguar: So far as I can tell the previous issues with confusion between the two villages/parishes with similar names has all been apparently cleared-up. Im going to do a few more profreading runs to make sure there isn't something I've missed. Shearonink (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With the most recent edit, I think I will be able to finish up this Review sometime today. Shearonink (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is now passed to a GA status - it's a factual article about a settlement in the country where maybe large events of note didn't take place but people lived their lives and built their buildings throughout the centuries. Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: thanks for the review! I've addressed the quoting issue in the history section by hiding it under a note. Sadly most of the content had to be removed in the previous GAN when it was discovered that there was an identically named village in Hampshire at the time. Let me know if you find any more issues. Thanks again for looking this over. JAGUAR 16:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That looks much better within the article, preserving the content and the information - well-done. And yeah @ the "other Binsted/Binstead"... I looked over that GA Review in the course of doing this one and have been trying to keep the two different places straight in my head ever since. Shearonink (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So there's:

Binsted in Hampshire (with Monty's gravesite at Church of the Holy Cross),
Binstead on the Isle of Wight (with nearby quarry, Holy Cross Church-Binstead, & Quarr Abbey), and
Binsted in West Sussex (with St. Mary's Church - a church largely re-done from the 12th through the 20th Centuries but with a Saxon origin & extant Roman materials).

And these are all different places? The only way for me to possibly keep things straight is to attach each one to its church & its individual local landmark. Going forward & thinking about improving the encyclopedia/forestalling readers' possible confusion between the different Binsted/Binsteads, I think that there should be a central disambiguation page and that hatnotes of some type should be placed on each individual article. Shearonink (talk)

They're all different places. The Isle of Wight was part of Hampshire until 1890, and the main source I used for this article was published before then and was entitled "History of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight". I assumed that Binstead was a different name for this village back then and wasn't aware of the settlement of the Isle of Wight, to add more confusion. Thankfully that's been cleared up now. I had no idea that there was a Binsted in neighbouring West Sussex, I'll go have a look and see if I can create an article on it. Thanks for checking! JAGUAR 21:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable statement

The history of Binsted from the 11th to 19th centuries is not documented, owing to its isolation and non-involvement in controversial activity.

I am surprised this Good Article should contain an uncited assertion like this about an English place (in summary lead). I would have thought being documented is not reserved for places that have been venue of historic events or developments, but something that depends on the requirement for records to be kept or made and if such records survive to be published, and also on the existence or not of people interested in publishing histories of the place. Binsted is a church parish, so there would have been compulsory parish registration from 1538 and attendant diocesan records for the church (in this case Winchester) and the land ownership would have been charted given the legal documentation attending it.Cloptonson (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]