Talk:Sleaford/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Higgsbozone (talk · contribs) 22:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly say Sleaford is a good article. I have checked all the sources which are reliable. The prose style is good. The only changes I would make would be a fuller list of notable Sleafordians. Also the main picture of St Denys Church could be a cleaner one without cars parked in front of the building. Apart from this it is a great, well resourced, well written and well researched article. Having grown up in the town and studied its history at school I can say that it is a factual, well done piece.--Higgsbozone (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Higgsbozone:, thank you for your comments. I notice that you are a relatively new editor and that you don't appear to have conducted a GA review before. I think it might be beneficial for you to ask one of the GA mentors to have a look over your comments and the article—the page is here Wikipedia:Good Article help/mentor. It's probably best to contact someone on the list who says that they have an interest in geography or places. Kind regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

2p: here's a picture I took for the St Denys' article - File:St_Denys'_Church,_Sleaford.JPG, without cars :) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I chose the picture in use at present because it seems to capture the church and the market place quite well. The picture you suggest is good and shows off the church nicely, but it doesn't show the market place at all. The one in use at the moment was also taken on a sunny day. Obviously, the cars are a downside, but I don't think it's too much of a problem. If it is a big deal, it can always be swapped. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Makes sense. It wasn't the nicest day to take photos. I keep meaning to get out and do some nicer ones. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice photo, which is why it works quite well on St Denys' article. I do think Sleaford could do with some more good quality photographs over at the Commons—there aren't many decent ones of the high street or Northgate, for instance. The recreation ground and the football park aren't covered at all and a decent snap of the Hub on a sunny day would also be a good addition. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note. Because this has now been listed in the report as an "old review" (20th on the list), I thought it best to add a note concerning its review. The original reviewer has not responded and, as per this discussion, User:Ritchie333 has committed to review it, but understandably this may take some time. It should therefore remain open until he closes it. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I've been totally sidetracked with other stuff. I've got to get Talk:Arab street/GA1 closed down as I've been sitting on it for over a week, then I'll see if I can tackle this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, there's no rush. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I suggested at the article's peer review that Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements provides an excellent template for the structure of such an article and think it should at least follow the suggested format if it is to acquire Good Article status. It also needs a copyedit to remove a lot of redundancy. J3Mrs (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Sleaford lies approximately 13 miles above sea level" is quite a claim. J3Mrs (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J3Mrs: I've corrected the miles to metres. Where are these redundancies? If you let know, I can remove them. I've read over this many times and got rid of quite a few; but I think when one is too close to an article, it is easy to read over these things. I believe the article contains all of the relevant sections from WP Geography—what do you feel is missing/different that needs to be changed? P.S. Thank you for making some changes to the article. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I've removed some, use them as examples. As regards WP Geography can you start with the History section? Most other settlement articles do. Its the order of sections that seems rather strange to me, (I've contributed to quite a few settlement articles). The info seems fine, the prose needs a bit of work. For example I'm not sure what "and the town was frequented by the major land-owners, the Bishops of Lincoln." is supposed to convey. I think I'd remove it.J3Mrs (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. I will read over it today and rephrase that sentence. As for the Geography section, I think it makes more sense to explain where the town is before its history, because it is that geographical setting which puts the history in context; I can change this if necessary, but that's my rationale. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I'd say most settlement good articles, and I'm deliberately not pointing to those I've contributed to, start with the History section. I think consistency is a good thing and is why so much effort was put into providing those excellent guidelines. I've read the whole article now and copyedited the Lead. It has a wealth of detail, maybe in places too much, it is only supposed to be a summary, not the sum total of everything written about it. J3Mrs (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't really understand the logic behind the geography vs. history section thing, but I also like consistency and so I will move it. (Perhaps let me know when you are done copyediting and I can do it then—edit conflicts can be a pain!) I also feel that there might be too much detail, but I am not sure what to remove. If you notice anything not worth keeping, let me know. I am very grateful for the copyediting you are doing on the article and I really do appreciate the time you are putting into it. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I'm stopping for now but I'll continue next week. The section on the RAF in Public services is oddly placed, history would be better. J3Mrs (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you once again for this, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I'm suffering from interruptions in my broadband service which is making this difficult. Can I say though that the article is reading like a series of articles not a summary. I can't fault the amount of research you've done but there is way too much detail and I don't know what to leave out. Do the secondary schools have their own articles? If they do the detail would be best moved there and just a linked couple of sentences left here. Just a suggestion. J3Mrs (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J3Mrs, I have trimmed back the section. I think there should be some brief description of each school, because the it seems to conform to Wikipedia:Gazetteer, and it would be very useful for readers. However, I have stripped it right back. Let me know what you think. Thank you again for all the work you are putting into this, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I have also trimmed back the sports and places of worship sections. —Noswall59 (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am aware that the landmarks section is way too detailed. It does need to be trimmed significantly. I am currently working on a list of listed buildings (in my sandbox), so the architecture of the town will be summarised there. —Noswall59 (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Good job on the Education and the rest of what you've done today. I'll leave the Landmarks to you and good luck with your list. J3Mrs (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to the end, at last. I expect you think I've butchered it but it is of a more manageable size for a settlement article now. Good luck with the review, I hope you get a reviewer soon. J3Mrs (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more comments. I mostly pruned material and I see my pruning has received another copyedit and multiple links. I've just moved Geography to be consistent with other settlement articles. It is still very long for a settlement of its size and has a lot of sub headings. Still needs some work and I'd suggest at the very least:

Sleafordians First paragraph should be incorporated into the appropriate History section/s
Heraldry could be incorporated into Local government. J3Mrs (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J3Mrs: Thanks for all this. I have removed the 1st para of the Sleafordians section (it was largely covered in the history section) and moved the heraldry section, though I see you have split the admin section up, which works much better. I have also done away with the "charity" subsection under culture: I am not sure how notable it was and it did not seem to fit awfully well, though it can always go back. The headers under culture and transport seemed unnecessary now that each subsection is only really a paragraph in length. The article is long, but it is also 16k shorter than Peterborough; granted it's a city, but it's also FA and has forked sections for local government, transport and education. Anyway, thanks again, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

It's much better now. I've found it very interesting. Must call in next time en route to Boston or North Norfolk, it looks like a good place to stop. J3Mrs (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's been nearly a month since the above, and Noswall59 and J3Mrs seem to be satisfied that the article is ready for review. Ritchie333, do you still intend to review it, or should we put it back into the nomination pool in the hopes of finding a new reviewer, since the original reviewer, Higgsbozone, is clearly ineligible and inactive besides. Please let us know here. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: just to confirm I am happy for this to be reviewed now - the copyediting done by J3Mrs and some trimming back the pair of us did has got the article to a level I'm happy with. I would welcome a review by @Ritchie333:, but I just want it to get looked at properly; if that means putting it back in the pool, then so be it. A shame, but hopefully someone will come along. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Noswall59: - I'm sorry, I've not had the time to properly sit down and look at this. I know I should have done, but I got distracted by improving articles myself. If I can possibly find time this week, I will. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: that's fine, no worries – I will look forward to hearing from you. Thanks again for taking this up, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over two weeks since the above, and Noswall59 has requested that I close this review and put the nomination back into the reviewing pool. Noswall59, best of luck in finding someone quickly. Ritchie933, if you still want to review it, you can always select it for review yourself if you get there before another reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]