Talk:Leeds Country Way

GA assessment

Unfortunately, I had to fail this outright, simply because the style wasn't very good, mainly in the route section. 1-2 sentence paragraphs a GA does not make. Fix these and you can certainly resubmit it for consideration. Wizardman 01:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-looking it again and after discussion, I'd like someone else to have a look at it. Wizardman 19:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion

This is a nice article, very close to GA. I don't see that the short sentences in the Route section are at all a matter for concern; they map nicely onto the route itself. There are a few minor MOS issues, but they're easily fixed.

I do have a very few other comments though:

• "... the path was relaunched on 26 September 2006". I'm not sure about this. How can a path be "launched"?
• "The Leeds Country Way is a circular long-distance footpath ... It follows footpaths ...". So it's a footpath that follows a footpath?
• "Here there is a glimpse of a small village, not marked on any map, which is the set for the TV series Emmerdale ..." I'm left dangling with that. Is it a real village, or a set for Emmerdale?
• "The river is followed downstream ...". Best to keep it all active I'd suggest: "The path follows the river downstream ...".
• "The path from Carlton ..". Perhaps better would be "From Carlton, the path ..."?
• "celebrated maypole" sounds like POV without a supporting reference.
• "From here the path skirts south of West Ardsley, and reaches Woodkirk with its historic church, on the A653. The ruins of Howley Hall (built 1590 for Sir John Savile) are passed before dropping down to reach Scotchman Lane." I think this bothers me because the first sentence is written from the point of view of the path, but the second seems to be taking the point of view of the walker. I'm probably being too picky about that though ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuarum (talk • contribs) 22:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Overall, I think this article well deserves to be listed as a GA once those few small issues are addressed.

--Malleus Fatuarum 22:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we've between us addressed all these points (I hit an edit conflict at one point while we were both acting on it). Thanks for the comment about the maypole - I found a good ref and a non-POV description! How does it look now? (Will get back to it tomorrow - no more for now). Thanks for your help and kind words. (I thought the ref re Emmerdale clarified the status of the village, but have made it clearer now.) PamD 22:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Blimey, you don't let the grass grow under your feet! It's such a pleasure to work with a committed and responsive editor like yourself, on what can sometimes seem to be an unnecessarily stressful review process. I've got absolutely no hesitation at all now in listing this article as a GA. I look forward to reading many more of your contributions in the future. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I know it's probably a nit-pick but the route specifically follows public Rights of Way (in rural areas) and footpaths/roads in urban areas. A Public Right of Way is deemed different from a footpath in that the ROW may be a Bridleway (with horse & bycycle access) or may indeed be a route open to all traffic.

The reference to 'launched' should really be re-launched as the route was changed (as mentioned in the article) to fall entirely within the Leeds Metropolitan boundry. Rather confusingly the Ordnance Survery Explorer Maps of 2006 show both the old & new routes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac.hawk (talk • contribs) 20:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Leeds Country Way/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

. Photographs along the route would be useful  Done Map/diagram would be useful Requires inline references adding using one of the {{Cite}} templates Keith D 11:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Map - difficult, but have added grid refs Refs - added. PamD 08:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 10:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Leeds Country Way. 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/20070209004114/http://www.leeds.gov.uk/Environment_and_planning/Parks_and_open_spaces/Nature_reserves/page.aspx to http://www.leeds.gov.uk/Environment_and_planning/Parks_and_open_spaces/Nature_reserves/page.aspx
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130209183510/http://www.wymetro.com/HowToGetTo/LCW.htm to http://www.wymetro.com/HowToGetTo/LCW.htm

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) 21:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

GA concerns

After quickly skimming the article, I am concerned that the article does not meet the good article criteria anymore. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• There are several uncited paragraphs.
• The history section is quite short. Can this be expanded upon?
• Any commentary about the reception of this footpath? What do people think about this route?
• The lede is quite short. I would expect it to be longer.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? If not, it might be nominated for WP:GAR. Z1720 (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Z1720 I will have a crack at this, but as real life gets in the way, is there a specific time-frame, as my editing revolves around work/home etc? Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@The joy of all things: I won't nominate this for GAR if work is ongoing. If there aren't improvements when I check back in a couple months, I will nominate to GAR. If the article meets the GA criteria, feel free to ping me. Z1720 (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Z1720 I have done as much as I can with the resources I have, which isn't much to be honest. Can't find any opinions or reviews on the walk (at least no reliable ones). I was hoping to get into the main library at Leeds, but haven't been able to do so, but even then, there may not be much in the way of sources there. I have digital newspaper access that covers a broad range of publications going back a long way, and even this hasn't produced much. Sorry, but I don't think it fits GA criteria, unless someone else can offer something? Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@The joy of all things: If you don't think this article fits the GA criteria, you can nominate it for WP:GAR where it might get more attention. This process might also result in the article getting delisted as a GA. Z1720 (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)