Talk:County Borough of Leeds/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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".
- 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)
Thanks. I'll check them now. Pyrotec (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- WP:Lead -
- 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)
Overall summary
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A well-referenced, well-illustated history of the County Borough of Leeds.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- Well-referenced.
- B. Focused:
- Well-referenced.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Congratulations on the quality of the article I'm awarding GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)