Talk:Midsomer Norton/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I'm sorry that it has taken so long to get this far; real life seems to have got in the way. Pyrotec (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick couple of read-throughs over the last few days and some very minor copyediting, I regard this article is being reasonably close to GA-standard. It's quite likely to get through this time time round, but a bit of work will be needed to improve it in places. I will provide more details latter: but, in summary, the referencing is not too good in places (either lack of or not particularly good sources) and this article needs some "Met" data.

I will now start the detailed review, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. This might take a day or so to complete. At this point I'm only pointing out "problems" that need addressing, the good points will be covered at the end of the review. Pyrotec (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC) - I'd like to see a better source for the name "Norton Canonicorum", its referenced, but is the source reliable?[reply]

I share your concerns about the reliability of the source. I have re-worked this to reflect the fact that NC was used as an alternate name (I've added new citations) but I cannot find any references to the date of its usage. Peteinterpol (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC) - The rest of the claims in the first paragraph are unreferenced (not verifiable).[reply]

I have removed all non-referenced claims and re-worded text accordingly. Peteinterpol (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC) - The first part of the second paragraph is unreferenced; reference 3 is a broken web link (404 error); and ref 4 (flickr) is not a reliable source.[reply]

I've replaced the broken ref 3 URL but other/better sources would be good.— Rod ^talk 14:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know of at least on book on the Bristol and Somerset coal field, I suggest you make use of it (them); for instance Cornwell, John (2005) "Collieries of Somerset & Bristol", Asbourne Hall: Landmark Publishing. There may also be something in the Victoria History (if there is one for the area)
Y Pyrotec (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC) - Ref 6 & 7 are books but no page numbers are given (have they been copied and pasted from elsewhere?).[reply]

I've had trouble tracing copies of these books, so I have provided alternative citations that seem to solve the problem. Peteinterpol (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have both of them to hand. Pyrotec (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) - Claims about the station names are unreferenced.

Added citation. Pyrotec (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC) - The sentence about the obelisk monument, St Chad's well and Norton House is poorly worded. It is not clear from the sentence what has been demolished - the reference makes it clear so why can't the article?[reply]

I've had another go at my mangled prose in this sentence.— Rod ^talk 14:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Governance -

......to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section seems to be quite reasonabe.

Geography-

Y Pyrotec (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC) - That is there is quite reasonable; however I would have expected to see to meteorological tables, giving temperatures and rainfall. I'm willing to accept that the data may not exist for this precise area, but some aught to be available for the "greater Bristol area".[reply]

The nearest data table is from Yeovilton but I've added a paragraph, which is the same as the others used on towns & areas locally.— Rod ^talk 20:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Industry and commerce -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC) - Back in the History section we are told about coal mining in the 18th & 19th century, but this section starts off: "Following the demise of the coal mining industry...."[reply]
Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC) - There appears to be a "hole" in the article, what happened to coal and when did it happen?[reply]

I've added closure of pits (1966) & reasons

A bit more work is needed. I'm not convinced that "Following the demise of the coal mining industry, Norton Hill colliery closed in 1966" is an accurate description. The NCB was still going at that time, and the UK miners' strike (1984–1985) was almost 20 years in the future. Its not particualarly true of the Bristol and Somerset Coal field either. Pyrotec (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I have now added reasons plus a supporting citation. Peteinterpol (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC) - Have "The three disused collieries in the area have subsequently been developed for light industry", or is it the land formerly occupied by ..... that was developed?[reply]

Sites of...— Rod ^talk 20:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC) - I quote: "Following the demise of the coal mining industry, the existing print and packaging firms expanded on local trading estates and in Welton". What existing print and packaging firms, there is no mention of them other than they expanded at some unspecified date?[reply]

I have added more detail and citations on such local industry.

......to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Midsomer Norton"

Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC) - Comment. Midsomer Norton is not a place I know about, other than reviewing this article and also driving over the Mendips (A39/A37) to a certain book emporium at Hallatrow (no advertising on Wikipedia), so I go past the one of the roads to it. This article appears to define what Midsomer Norton is; however, the "History" and "Industry and commerce" sections seem to treat Norton Hill, Old Mills, Springfield and Welton as part of Midsomer Norton (or, they do not explicitly say that they are not part of it). However, on checking Cornwell, John (2005) - Old Norton Hill and Norton Hill were at Midsomer Norton; but Old Mills were at Paulton. I'm not sure precisely where Springfield was, other than it was nearby Old Mills and is now the site of a Tesco. Most of these pits were eventually connected underground, but on the surface they appear to be located at various places such as Midsomer Norton, Paulton (also mines at Farrington Gurney).[reply]

You are right, this was confused. I have removed coal mine references fron outside the town. Norton Hill and Welton are within Midsomer Norton so I have retained and expanded them where necessary. Peteinterpol (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) - So is Paulton part of Midsomer Norton and which names mines were in Midsomer Norton and which were elsewhere?[reply]

See above comment. Paulton is not part of Midsomer Norton. Peteinterpol (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for sorting this, however it may be worth commenting that although the site of Springfield, which is now the site of the big Tescos & Great Mills etc is in Paulton parish but nearer to Midsomer Norton than Paulton village itself.— Rod ^talk 15:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this does cause confusion, e.g. the following statement from the Paulton page: "Although Tesco describes itself as being in Midsomer Norton it lies within Paulton's parish boundaries". I think all this confusion is understandable; Midsomer Norton, Radstock and Paulton, although separate entities historically, have now merged to the extent now that even local residents are not always clear about the actual boundaries. Peteinterpol (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious sites and communities -

Sorry, I'm going to object to reference 31 on the grounds of WP:Spam and (possible?) Reliable Source (?) - a Priory with a secret tunnel (don't they all have one). If I can find an alternative ref I will change them over, otherwise you will need to.

Presumably, this is the building [1], but this reliable source does not appear to support support the 12th century claim. Pyrotec (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised this, keeping the Moody Goose ref to the fact that it is a restaurant, but changing the date to early/mid 17th century per the English Heritage ref.— Rod ^talk 21:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

......to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrotec (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC) - The two sentences about St John's lack verification.[reply]

If you mean the last 2 sentences they do now.— Rod ^talk 21:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to accept that your recent change provides verification that St Johns is part of the Diocese of Bath and Wells (ref 44 & 45); but I'm not convinced that ref 45 ref makes any mention of the claim that "The Patronage vests in Christ Church, Oxford.[45]". It fails to mention Oxford, let alone Christ Church, Oxford. Pyrotec (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to "A church near you" ref 45 and then click on "more info" it says it specifically - I couldn't find a more direct URL.— Rod ^talk 22:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~::::* I have opened ref 45 in both FireFox and IE (but neither will allow be to paste here. Please show me precisely where Oxford appears in [[2]]. Pyrotec (talk)~~

Education, Sport & Notable people -
These appear to be reasonable.

WP:lead-

I'll check this later, but so far it looks OK.

Pyrotec (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help with the review - it has certainly improved the article.— Rod ^talk 22:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A well-referenced, well-illustrated article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
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:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on acheiving the necessary standards. Pyrotec (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]