Jump to content

Talk:County Borough of Leeds/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]
  • After a quick couple of read-throughs this article appears to be at or about GA-level; however, the WP:Lead does need a bit of work done on it. I will now go through the article section by section, but leaving the Lead until last.
  • At this point I will be mainly concentrating on "problems", all the good points, etc, will be covered later in my Overall summary. Pyrotec (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Origins -
    • Manorial borough 1207–1662 -
  • Ref 4, which is invoked twice in this subsection and five times in total, is a book. The relevant page or page numbers should be quoted in the citations.
checkY Turns out the book was an edited volume, and the quotes come from chapters by two different authors (one of whom was the editor). Hopefully I have formatted the citations correctly. I wasn't sure if the book should be put in a "Bibliography" section and then format them as "in Fraser (1980)".Lozleader (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • County borough 1889–1974 -
  • The following statement needs a citation: "The borough, while independent of the West Riding County Council for local government, remained part of the county for purposes such as the administration of justice and lieutenancy".
checkY Done with a quote from the legislation. There doesn't appear to be a specific citation template for legislation, or at least I can't find it.Lozleader (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll check them now. Pyrotec (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is intended to act as both an introduction to the article and a smmary of the main points. As such, I consider that it needs, perhaps, a minor copyedit.
  • This article is about the County Borough of Leeds, so the lead should start off along the lines:- The 'County Borough of Leeds was .... That probably means a reordering of the current lead, e.g. The County Borough of Leeds was formed in 1835 from ....(the ancient borough of Leeds).
  • The lead currently starts off: "Leeds was a local government district in the West Riding of Yorkshire, England, from 1835 to 1974." The next three sentences start with, or continue with, an "it"; and it is unclear (sorry about the pun) whether "it" refers to Leeds (the local government district), Leeds (the ancient borough), a government district, or the County Borough of Leeds (I've discounted the West Riding County Council); and whether "it" changes from sentence to sentence.
  • As this article is about The County Borough of Leeds why is the lead almost exclusive talking about a "district", surely it is a borough (Municipal, then County, then County Borough and City)?
  • To labour the point somewhat, the lead needs to be brought into line with the article.

Pyrotec (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


A well-referenced, well-illustated history of the County Borough of Leeds.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Well-referenced.
    B. Focused:
    Well-referenced.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well-illustated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well-illustated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article I'm awarding GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]