Talk:Sheriff Hill/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I've now done a fairly quick read of the article. It appears to be quite comprehensive and well referenced and well illustrated. In these respects it appears to be be a strong GA-candidate.

On the negative side: It suffers from WP:Overlinking, a comment made in the first review (../GA1), which is quite annoying to the reader and I've removed some of this Overlinking as I read through the article. Surprisingly, Ordnance Survey (as in "maps") is consistently wrongly spelt throughout the article as Ordinance Survey and in some case it is not specified/"made-clear" what the map scale is.

Whilst it is not a mandatory GA required as a UK geography type article, I would have expected this article to the WP UK Geography guide Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements - which is appears to do so. There is no mention of climate, being part of a larger conurbation of Newcastle/Tyne and Wear I might have expect a link or comment to the climate of the conurbation.

I'm, not going to go through the article in a bit more depth section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last, and just note any "problems" that need addressing before GA-status can be awarded. This may take a day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History -

Looks OK.

... stopping for now. Pyrotec (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Governance -

The third paragraph suffers from WP:Vagueness as a result of the the repeated use of "he", i.e. "The present incumbent is Ian Mearns MP, who lives in nearby Saltwell, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear. He was selected by the party in March 2010 to contest the newly formed Gateshead seat ahead of David Clelland, formerly the Labour MP for the now defunct constituency of Tyne Bridge.[22] Formerly the deputy leader of Gateshead Council and a long time Councillor for the Saltwell ward,[22] he replaced former incumbent Sharon Hodgson MP, who successfully campaigned for election in the newly formed constituency of Washington and Sunderland West.[23] In the 2010 UK General Election, Mearns was elected with a majority of 12,549 votes over the second placed candidate, Frank Hindle. The swing from the Labour party to the Liberal Democrats was 3.9%.[24]", Having checked the wikilinks, the first and second "he"'s refer to different people, but they would be interpreted has refering to one person. Pyrotec (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have slightly reworded the paragraph so that it is clearer (I hope!) Meetthefeebles (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim "No Conservative MP has been elected in the area since the major changes brought upon the UK Electoral System by the Representation of the People Act 1948." aught to be referenced.

✗ Not done This might prove problematic. I cannot find a reliable source which will confirm this in one, simple statement as Sheriff Hill itself is not a parliamentary constituency but is rather part of one which has changed a number of times over the last sixty years. Hansard provides details of election results but only for each election so I would have to cite every single page for each result! It might be easier then to simply take the statement out? Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is too difficult to verify, I have no objections to the statement being removed. Pyrotec (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have removed the statement and replaced it with verifiable data on the 2001 election which supports the statement that Sheriff Hill sits in a safe labour seat Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geography and topography -

Y - Pyrotec (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Its not clear what citation 26 "Whellan 1855" is referring to, as this appears to be the only occurrence of Whellan in the article.[reply]

Done Whellan has been added to the bibliography Meetthefeebles (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it is not a mandatory GA required as a UK geography type article, I would have expected this article to the WP UK Geography guide Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements - which is appears to do so. There is no mention of climate, being part of a larger conurbation of Newcastle/Tyne and Wear I might have expect a link or comment to the climate of the conurbation.

Housing -

Y Pyrotec (talk) - There is a referenced statement "Prior to enclosure, the few cottages and properties which were available in Sheriff Hill were so poor that in 1713 a total of only ninety-one cottages returned the paltry sum of £8 9s 6d in rent.[78]", so it is verifiable; but £8 9s 6d in 1713 strikes me has being worth a lot of money (a relative of mine was being paid 1s 3d per day in the army in the 1830s). Perhaps that is a value judgement, i.e. a "paltry sum". It would be useful to quote present-day value (The National Archives have a currency converter so the use of, and reference to, their calculation would provide WP:Verification).

Done Okay, I've run the figures through the converter you recommend and the total amount of rent today would have been £649.10! That is about the market rent for one well apportioned property here today, so I think that Mander's claim that the sum is 'palty' carries sufficient weight to stay. I've added a comment as to today's valuation in the footnote/reference as well as a link to the currency converter. Meetthefeebles (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much better. Pyrotec (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Health & Education -

These two sections look OK.

Religion and places of worship -
- Historical -

Refs 167, 171 and 172, quote ~~Ordinance Survey~~ Ordnance Survey map No.45, with two different dates. They are Ordnance Survey maps, not Ordinance Survey, but no scale is given. I first assumed that they were One-inch series, and perhaps they are, but I'm not sure about the numbers. If they are modern reproductions (such as The Godfrey edition or Cassini Historical maps) they will have ISBN numbers; and the by 1950s (at the latest), numbering started in Scotland, so No. 45 would be an Scottish (possibly Mull) rather than a northeast England map. Possibly, as an alternative, they are not one-inch maps, but County Series map, but still a scale (e.g. 1:20,000) or X inch to the mile should be provided.

Done I think I have corrected this though it may need checking again. Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 1:10,560 map is approximately 6" to the mile, and of 1864/1919 dates, it's County series so the number (I guess) is something like Durham XXXIV SE, Durham XXXIV NE (my local equivalents would be e.g. Somerset XXXVIII SE (I assume the county was Durham); and the 1:1,250 is about 50" to the mile, so its number is going to be like Durham XXXIV 12. I don't know this area, but there is some info at Alan Godfrey that may help list & map - interestingly, Sheriff Hill appears on Co Durham Sheet 7.05 = Durham VII 5 on the 1895 1:2500 map. Pyrotec (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Culture -
A number of cited references are given to Listed building. So this section is compliant with WP:WIAGA.
I would like to make a suggestion: the English Heritage site images of England tends to provide this information in both image and text format and it is regarded as a WP:Reliable Source. It is only a recommendation, not a GA requirement.

WP:Lead -

This looks OK.

At this point there are a few unresolved "problems", but same have been cleared up, so I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive, well-reference, well-illustrated article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
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've assessed this article against the requirements of WP:WIAGA and, in the light of improvements carried out, I'm awarding GA-status.

I suspect that this article could in due course make WP:FAC, but I've not assessed it against the criteria of FAC (that is not the purpose of WP:GAN) and it suspect that the "ride might be rough", but it could make it on a first or second attempt (possibly the latter). I can see "faults" that are likely to surface during a FAC review and suggest that the next logical step is WP:PR. Having voiced these concerns as a possible FAC, I'd iterate that the article is a strong GA.

Congratulations on bringing the article up to this standard. Pyrotec (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]