Wikipedia:Peer review/St Albans Market/archive2

St Albans Market

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because, whilst I think that is competently written and well sourced, it has only had one editor.

Thanks, NorthSentinel (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from duplicate PR

Moved from Wikipedia:Peer review/St Albans Market/archive1

– —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because... I believe that the subject is significant enough for an article, thoroughly researched, and sourced but I am the only editor. Thanks, NorthSentinel (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthSentinel: No need for the self-doubt; the notability of the article has been clearly established, implicitly by the strong collection of sources you have cited and explicitly by the statement: "St Albans is England's second oldest market after York's Shambles Market as well as the oldest English street market and the oldest market in England that is still held on its original site." I did a quick review of the article's prose, formatting, and citations; the prose and formatting are good, but I noticed a few paragraphs were missing citations, so that should be remedied. Overall, I believe that the article is in-between C- to B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale, arguably closer to B-class. There are no issues related to notability. Yue🌙 22:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Yue. If you could let me know any particular paragraphs that need addressing, I’ll get right on it NorthSentinel (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthSentinel: I am not sure if you are aware, but you opened two peer reviews for St Albans Market and two other editors have left you feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/St Albans Market/archive2. There should only be one request per editor at one time. Consider closing this request and moving the discussion to the other (archive2). Cheers, Yue🌙 01:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up. Long time Wikipedia editor but very sparingly and not engaged with peer review before. I shall attempt rectify the double request NorthSentinel (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, here is some feedback from me:

Overall , nice article, good to see some attention to medieval markets
I think it would help to have context on why markets mattered, eg, as a way for landowners and towns to establish sources of taxation and revenue
The Abbey benefited from St Albans Market; how long did it take them to establish it (if we know)?
Can you relate the narrative history of the market to the history of local agriculture and industries a bit more, to develop the context better? eg "Sale of horses, carriages, carts, harness, implements was transferred to the St Albans Wednesday Cattle Market from Harpenden in 1890"; was this because these industries were growing, or for some other reason?
Or In the spring of 1872 Town Councillor Edwards was active in promoting the change of the cattle and corn markets to Wednesdays. Councillors and farmers all agreed. - was there a reason for this change?

Specific minor issues

WP:MOS asks that citations are kept out of the lead MOS:LEADCITE
Pragraphs should not be so short. A few sentences or more is normal. Sometimes these feel like they're pulling facts out of other sources, rather than building your own description of the market's evolution.
A lot of "cheaps" existed within the market, it's worth explaining what a "cheap" was
Likewise, what a "shambles" is

Jim Killock (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

I'm afraid the article as it stands would not have any chance at FAC. It seriously lacks citations. There are more than a dozen paragraphs that end with no citation.
I agree with Jim Killock, above, that there are too many short stubby paragraphs: compare your text with, e.g., the featured article on Covent Garden.
You should avoid mentioning people without explaining who they are/why they matter. Readers will see, e.g. "By 1815 the plait market was being described by Shaw as “one of the largest in England" and wonder who Shaw is. You can't expect readers to check your citations: you need something like "An 1815 history of St Albans describes the plait market as ...". Similarly, John of Berkhamsted appears with no explanation of who he was.
Short quotations like that at the end of the Return of the Wednesday market section should be inline rather than block quotes, which are used for quotes of more than about forty words.
It is unclear why the last sentence of the Recovery section is indented.
Keep capital letters under control. There is no reason to capitalise "the Council", for instance, or "the Borough".
Italicising clerk of the market is odd.
"found himself on the wrong side of the bench" strikes rather too informal a note for an encyclopedia article.
Why have two different spellings of medieval/mediæval in the article?
We don't usually write "twentieth century": the standard form is "20th century": see MOS:CENTURY.
Eleanor Cross or Eleanor cross? We have both.
"large parts of Market Place" but then "stalls in the Market Place", with a definite article.

I hope these few suggestions are of use. Tim riley talk 10:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]