Talk:Bradwall/GA3/progress

GA Review Progress

This text is copied from Talk:Bradwall/GA3 to help facilitate tracking the suggested improvements. Items marked Y have been undertaken, but may need further assessment to see whether they meet a satisfactory standard.

Image check

• File:Bradwall parish.svg is a self-made image by the nominator. Checking WP:OR; "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". Image is therefore probably okay – suggest moving into the infobox as it is rather sitting on its own... (Y move to 1577 map image, two maps looked dull in info box)
• Venables file is okay; seems the creator died in 1895. Suggest adding this to the file to prevent others from trying to delete. Y
• The Bradwall old OS map is okay but incorrectly licensed. Suggest using {{old os}} instead. Y
• The Foden Family image I cannot check as there is no link to the source provided and I have tried a google search and cannot find the source. This will have to be included and checked. (Y Source and permission requested via email), image removed for now.

History section

Some of these are moot, as they have been moved to a new article, "Manor of Bradwall"

• There are a few rather short subsections here which could, and probably should, be merged. Start with the etymology then move chronologically.Y[1]
• The opening sentence is a bit 'journalistic'. Suggest "There is evidence of Roman occupation at the formative Bradwall" or similar.Y Not sure it suggests actual occupation.[2]
• " Beatwall (1326), Broadwall (1415), Bardwell (1438), and, Bradwell (1724)." No reference provided and this is needed.Y[3] But I'll try and find primary sources.Y done.
• "Bradwall is not mentioned in the Domesday Book, completed in 1086 for William I of England, at which time the area was thought to be waste moors between Brereton and Warmingham, that formed part of the southern boundary of the Barony of Kinderton, the historic name of Middlewich." Who thought this? Again, a reliable source is required here.Y[4]
• "Bradwall of Bradwall (13-14th century) --" Per WP:DASH, use "–" instead of "--" This section also needs a reference.Y
• "The Venables of Bradwall arms consist of: Azure two bars Argent, in chief two plates, and crest: A wyvern, with wings endorsed Argent, pierced with an arrow headed Or and feathered Argent, devouring a child proper, sometimes depicted standing on a weir." Again, his needs a reference.Y
• Berington of Moresbarrow and Bradwall (14-16th century). This section is entirely unreferenced. As is the next section.N The two main sources are given in the introductory paragraph before the bullet points [10][12]. Would it be better to duplicate them throughout the families?
• The latter part of the 'Latham' section is unreferenced.N Likewise, [10] is the main source.
• throughout this section there is detailed, technical terminology relating to Coats of Arms. Strongly consider rewriting these and adding blue-links as non-experts (such as me!) will struggle with sentences such as "The Oldfield arms: Or on a bend Gules three cross patée fitchée Or. Crest: A demi-wivern with wings expanded Argent, crined Or, issuant from a ducal coronet of the second". Honestly, I have no idea what that sentence means.Y[5] Details transferred to illustrations
• What happened to the reformatory schools? Is it still operational or, as I suspect, it is closed? If so, when, why and by whom?Y[6]
• The George Burgess section is interesting but lacks context and is arguable trivia. Strongly suggest merging this section with the reformatory section, noting perhaps that "two of the most notable detainees were Peter Barrett and..."Y[7]
• Having re-read twice now, I wonder if the family information should be a separate article. There is a fair bit of information recorded and they might well be notable enough to warrant a split, because that section rather dominates here.Y I've created "Manor of Bradwall" and replaced the family information with a summary table.

Geography

• South and East should not be capitalised.Y[8]
• "Bradwall appears on the Ordnance Survey OS Landranger Map (1:50 000) Stoke-on-Trent & Macclesfield (Sheet 118),[41] and the OS Explorer Map (1:25 000) Wilmslow, Macclesfield & Congleton (Sheet 268).[42]" Per WP:Summary style, this is probably superfluous information.Y[9]
• Again, there are a few small sections here. I don't think a separate section entitled 'waterways' is necessary; simply merge with the section instead.Y[10]
• Suggest removing "The rivers are illustrated on the 1577 map of Cheshire by cartographer Christopher Saxton (illustrated)" as you have included the illustration.Y[11] Changed to referral.
• "In the 16th century, there is mention of a water-powered corn mill there.[48]" This is trivia and suggest removal.N Change wording?
• The rest of the Hamlet section should be merged rather than standing alone.Y[12]
• The climate date is fine, but also suggest providing a text summation of the data. This will assist those who cannot view the images and provide better context.
• WP:UKCITIES suggests using both Template:Compass-table Y and Template:Climate chart Y (the latter rather than the table you have provided). [13]

Geology

• Try to stick to the summary style; there is no need to explain what mudstone is when you correctly provide a blue-link, for example. Suggest removing. Y Simplified
• The soil subsection is very technical and very in-depth; perhaps too much so.Y Simplified

Demographics

• "Since the average distance travelled to work is 18.13 km (11.3 miles), then a proportion will work outside the parish" Possible WP:OR? I would remove the latter part of the sentence as the former doesn't necessarily mean (or even infer) the latter. Simply "the average resident travels 18.13km (11.3 miles) to work, perhaps? Y
• One sentence sub-sections are strongly discouraged. Simply merge the life expectancy data into the larger, first paragraph.Y [14]
• Consider adding, if available, religious disposition of the population. Also consider adding ethnicity data if available (per WP:UKCITIES.Y[15][16]

Economy

• The information here is historical and should be considered as part of that section. This section should refer to the economy of the parish today. What is the economy today, is it still agricultural? Is business thriving or declining along with the population? Are more people travelling to work in new industries than before? Y

Culture and Community

• Tell us more about the village hall; where is it located, when did it open, when was it built etc? Is it an important part of village life? Y Can find no reliable sources on its importance
• Re-write the second sentence, or at least delete "For example". Y
• All three short paragraphs could be merged into a single paragraph (though you may need a second if you add info on the village hall itself). Y
• The 'sport' section can be merged into one paragraph also, as they presently are simply two single sentences with an unnecessary break between them. Y

Landmarks

• "Includes a two-story building with three windows, made with brown brickwork and tile roof. Inside are chamfered oak beams, chimney corner (inglenook) and oak supporting beams (bressumer). The coach house is also oak framed with brown brick and roof tiles." This needs referencing (though I suspec it comes from the National Heritage list description) Y [17]
• Take "Bradford reformatory school is detailed above" out as it is not especially encyclopedic. Y [18]

Government

• Who is the present MP for Congleton? Y [19]

Education

• You could comment more on these schools. Use the OFSTED reports to provide details on cohort, subjects taught, performance, grading etc. These are WP:Reliable sources and will help flesh this section out nicely. Y [20]

Services

• This section is very much optional and, if you intend to keep it, I would strongly recommend converting into continuous prose. Y

References

• What makes refs.23 & 24 reliable? I've had a look through the site and the author claims to be an expert, but does that make this source reliable? I'm not sure. Y Replaced with more reliable source to Burke's Peerage [21]
• Is ref.25 a reliable source? Y Text moved out to new article [22]
• Ref.32 looks like a blog and not a reliable source. Y Removed, even though it seems to include some useful primary sources [23]
• Ref.51; is Weather2 a reliable source? I haven't come across it before and genuinely don't know? Is the data not also available from the Met Office? Y Nearby data from 2003/4 only [24]
• Ref.61 I am fairly sure that GENUKI is not considered a reliable source on wikipedia Y replaced with more reliable source [25]
• Typo in ref.67? 'Well' rather than 'will'? Y [26]
• Is INUKlocal a reliable source? (at ref.75) Y Replaced with a source from the local MP. [27]
• Is a facebook page a reliable source? (at ref.82) Y Replaced with better sources [28]
• Ref.96; why the change in ref style? Almost all of your references are full citations until this one which is almost harvard. Try to be consistent. Y Expanded [29]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
1. Is it reasonably well written?

A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

• Comment
  

Overall writing style is okay but there are areas which could be improved (highlighted above). There are lists which could be continuous prose and the layout incorporataes rather too many short sections/subsections

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:

• Comment

Large number of sources cited but some of questionable reliability and some statements/sections lacks references. One or two small, potentially contentious issues but no real problems with OR.

3.Is it broad in its coverage?

A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:

• Comment

Much improved on previous versions but still some omissions, a rather heavy focus on historical information. Some trivial elements still persist and some sections are very technical and would benefit from a more focused, summary approach.

4.Is it neutral?

Fair representation without bias:

• Comment

No real issues here

5. Is it stable?

No edit wars, etc:

• Comment

No evidence of any edit-warring.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

• Comment

There are some small issues with images highlighted above, but overall these are fine and certainly plentiful.

Overall

Pass or Fail:

Closing comments

The article is certainly improving, but I do feel that there remains work to be done before this reaches GA. The structure is rather bitty and the treatment of the parish is very historically orientated. The article should be submitted for review again once the suggestions made above are considered, but I expect that this will take more than one week, so I'm afraid that I am failing this nomination. Please consider WP:UKCITIES and try to read as many GA and FA articles as you can as these will help in terms of structure, style and content. Feel free to raise any queries here or on my talk page and I will help as best I can. Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)