Talk:Yeovil/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing (tomorrow morning). Pyrotec (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I've had a reasonably detailed read of this article and corrected a few thinks as I went through it. I will now dow a detailed review.

At this point the article looks quite reasonable, but I've seen a few problems: References don't always appear to be fully specified; some of the material was written in the present tense, but has not been updated; and in some cases information is vague. As I prefer, I will be discussing the WP:Lead last. Pyrotec (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC) - Ref 2, used three times, is a 44 page pdf file the relevant page or pages numbers should be provided in the citations.[reply]

Done

Y Pyrotec (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC) - Ref 3 is specified as a (well known) author, title and page numbers - I assume that it is a book, but this is not adequate for a potential GA.[reply]

Done

Ref 5 is a book, the relevant page or pages numbers should be provided in the citations.
Y Pyrotec (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC) - There are, also, several editions of this book - the reference fails to provide a year, an edition, or an ISBN[reply]
What makes Ref 7 (used once), 8 (used four times) & 11 (used once) a reliable source? All three appear to be identical, hence my lack of the plural "sources".

I think I've removed or replaced all of these now - but may have missed some as the numbers have changed.— Rod ^talk 09:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC) - There is a problem with: "Babylon Hill across the River Yeo to the south east of the town was the site of a minor skirmish, the Battle of Babylon Hill, during the English Civil War, which resulted in the Earl of Bedford's Roundheads forced back Sir Ralph Hopton's Cavaliers to Sherborne."[reply]

Hopefully done - should be "forcing back"

Y Pyrotec (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC) - The article vaguely states that in 1853 Yeovil was "connected to the rest of Britain via railway", yes but what railway company?[reply]

I've added a para on this but it is confusing - I have asked for help from an expert.

I would have accepted the first one, but I think you've added them all. I do have references to hand, but not the one you've used. Pyrotec (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that: "in 1856, the town gained borough status and was given a mayor" is unreferenced.

Done

The "dreaded" Ref 7, 8 & 11 (see above). Pyrotec (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to 1854 in line with reference from the town council.— Rod ^talk 09:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The 2006 fingerprinting scheme, dated 2006, was written in the present tense before I altered it. I would have expected some progress update.~~

I can't find any mention since 2006

Y Pyrotec (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC) - The planning system can move quite slowly, but is the information on the 'Yeovil Sports Zone' still uptodate?[reply]

Updated (latest April 2010 - still consulting)

Governance -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ref 20 & 21, despite their different tags, are identical links to the same website.~~

I'm confused as refs have been renumbered but this and this have the same top of the page but the content lower down is different - one about history & the other about roles & responsibilities - were these the ones you were referring to?— Rod ^talk 16:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I must be suffering from "reviewers blindness". Sorry about that. Pyrotec (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography & Demography -

Looks OK.

Economy -

The second paragraph appears to be a Point of view, it should be removed or properly cited.

Landmarks -

Rather "bitty" - consists mostly of one-sentence paragraphs.

Short paragraphs reorganised & combined.— Rod ^talk 09:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious sites -

Nice ref about the bells. I assume that ref 44 also verifies the first part of the paragraph, which is currently unreferenced?

Yes - clarified

The WP:Lead -

It appears to form its first function, i.e. to act as an introduction to the article, not its not all the good and the section function, i.e. summarising the main points of the article. It perhaps aught to be twice its current size.

I've expanded the lead - is there anything else you feel is needed?— Rod ^talk 09:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. I don't anticipate too much trouble in correcting these problems. Pyrotec (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An informative, 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:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

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:
Well illustrated.

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

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on yet another GA. Pyrotec (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, comments & edits which have helped to improve the article.— Rod ^talk 10:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]