Talk:Lealholm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lealholm is currently a good article nominee. An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made in order to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article. Date: 13:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cities     (Rated B-Class) This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments for details. Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the priority scale. WikiProject England      (Rated B-Class) England Portal This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. WikiProject UK geography      (Rated B-Class) This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements. United Kingdom Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (Assessment comments) Low This article has been rated as low-importance within the UK geography WikiProject. WikiProject Yorkshire     (Rated B-Class) Yorkshire Portal Lealholm is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's assessment scale. See comments for details. Low This article has been rated as Low-Priority on the Project's priority scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents 1 Classification 2 Layout 3 GA Review 3.1 Progress on the points made above 3.2 Quote 3.3 "Cityscape"

[edit] Classification

Can we reclassify this article as better than start class? Maniac Pony (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Its in much better shape now than it was when I last rated it in August 2007, well done. I have added some pointers to the comments file as to where to go next with article if you are thinking of a GA nomination. Keith D (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Lealholm worth a reassessment from a B class??? Maniac Pony (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think it is higher than a B then have a look at GA nominations and put it in for an assessment, though some people like to go for a Peer review first but it is not always that productive depends on getting a real review rather than the auto-one that is sometimes produced. Keith D (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick scan gives one thing that needs doing and that is the distances etc. need converting to metric - suggest using {{Convert}} e.g to convert 9 miles use {{Convert|9|mi|km|lk=on}} which will give 9 miles (14 km). Set lk=off for second and subsequent uses in a section to remove the wikilinks. Keith D (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - manual of style?--Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 13:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Which part of the MOS are you refering to? Keith D (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

Any chance of adopting the standard WP:UKTOWNS layout? The quote at the top really ought to be amalgamated with the rest of the lead too! --Jza84 |  Talk  13:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes with this diff. I hope it helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  15:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the changes. I just did a few obvious things before I went on holiday as it had been nominated for GA. Keith D (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lealholm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

I have reviewed this article, and despite it seeming well written, I have raised a number of issues that I believe need to be addressed before the article passed all the WP:GA criteria.

• The history section strikes me as unusual, rather than chronologically dealing with events in the village's history it addresses subtopics such as buildings. It's an interesting approach, not one I've come across on wikipedia before and not one I'd choose when summarising a settlement's history. I believe a more chronological approach would benefit the article as in its current state, the article is lacking some key information such as the toponymy of Lealholm.Y Done I also feel that there is some unnecessary detail, for example is it really relevant to include "The mill had the authority to clean and remove any woodland, earth or rubbish within 40 yards (37 m) of the mill-race 'for upholding the mill and dams', and 'with liberty for all persons that shall grind corn and grain at the mill to sieve and sift on two parcels of ground called Adam Rigg and Ellergates'"? It's not always easy writing a history section, if you consider overhauling it, there are some key points to be addressed such as toponymy, earliest settlementY Done, what happened during the Middle Ages (a note on whether the village expanded or stayed the same would suffice), the impact of the Industrial Revolution and modern history (which seems to be addressed well with the flooding and the air crash). Perhaps information on the history of Lealholm in the lead could be moved down to the history section.Y Done
• Sadly, there is also an issue with referencing. WP:V states that "material challenged or 'likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source". There are whole paragraphs without references throughout the article which is a shame as the history and geography sections show it has been well researched.
• The article is missing sections on governance,Y Done demography, economy,Y Done transport, and educationY Done. I'd recommend looking at WP:UKTOWNS for ideas on how to build these sections, although I do appreciate it is difficult to do for small villages – for instance it's oftne hard to find census data for a demography section.
• For the notable people section I think that the subdivisions could be removed,Y Done and each person needs to be referenced.Y Done
• The Lealholm Village Show section may go into a bit too much detail (for example I don't think a list of "Show Trophies and Prizes" is relevantY Done) but it could be integrated into a culture section.Y Done

Implementing these changes may take more than a week but I am placing this article on hold for a period of seven days in the hope that the editor responsible for creating it will be able to improve it. Good luck. Nev1 (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of minor issues: (a) the smaller text for the quote in the lead is bad form -- use the same size text there. The quote also needs to be cited.Y Done (b) 'Culture, media and sport' really doesn't say anything whatsoever about media. Also, I would recommend not using the multiple 2nd and 3rd level headers in the culture section -- it looks awkward with two different size header texts there. I also think that it would flow better if you could weave everything into one main header.Y Done (c) 'Geography' needs information on the climate.Y Done Again, don't use the 3rd level headers in the geography section; such headers might be appropriate for a more broad category, such as 'climate' or 'cityscape', but the topics that you have there currently are not broad enough and are better weaved into the main geography section. A 'cityscape' section might include information on various neighborhoods and other parts of the town; what's the overall layout like, etc. (d) History section jumps from the 1600s to an airplane crash -- I'm sure lots of stuff happened in between. Use of the subsection header for 'airplane crash' could be seen as violating WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to one single, isolated event in the city's history.

Those are the major issues as I see it. I concur with the other issues raised by Nev1 as well. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Progress on the points made above

Nev1 comments

• Have created a "Governance" section. PamD (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Reorganised the "History" integrating some of the "Lead" text.
• Attempted to put all "Geography" topics together eg floods, river, ice age.
• General style edit.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Added "Education", "Economy", "Culture, media and sport" and demoted "Village Show".--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Added a few Y Done s (not all by me) above. More needed. As mentioned by Nev1 demography is a problem. For statistical purposes Lealholm seems always to have been counted in with a larger area. Will trends suffice?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Cash comments

• Remove blockquote tags & add reference
• Switched "Culture, media and sport" to "Culture and community" and remove sub-sections, rejig text

[edit] Quote

Any idea on the text size problem as the <blockquite> </blockquote> mark up does this? The {{quote}} template does the same thing. Keith D (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would personally recommend getting rid of the blockquote tags. Such indentations don't exactly look right in a lead section, since that section is supposed to be a summary of the article. Dr. Cash (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

OK I have removed the tags, thanks. Keith D (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Cityscape"

This is a very small settlement, approximately 50 dwellings, is cityscape appropriate?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)