Talk:Basingstoke/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

It's been a few years since this article was last reviewed, and glancing at it I can see a few issues regarding layout and that there are some cite needed tags, so I'm going to give it a thorough review to see what needs to be done to ensure it continues to meet current GA criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

Images are OK. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article is stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Layout is a little cluttered, but quite minor. I'll clean up as I go through. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be an excessive amount of intricate or low interest material in places. I have removed some of the cultural references as either unsourced or of low interest, or both. The transport section when put together as one is clearly disproportionately large for the article, taking up more space than the entire history of the town. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cut down on the transport section, added references and also cleaned up its prose. I've also removed some low interest trivia in the article.
Prose. The writing style consists of a number of disjointed and short paragraphs. This inhibits reading flow, and gives a poor impression to the reader. I don't think it's a significant problem, but the article would benefit from a a good copy-edit, with someone going through the whole article to unify it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've copy edited most parts of the article and cleaned up the references as well. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

There are some citation needed tags in place - some of these have been in place since April 2012. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed all citation needed tags and replaces them with newer and more reliable references. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cleaned up the lead and also copy edited it. It mentions most of the basic facts, for example how it is an economic centre, brief history and geography (closest cities etc). I'm regretting not mentioning some of the transport section in the lead as other UK cities/large towns do not mention this either. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

There have been concerns regarding potentially dated statements going back to August 2007. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

I think there are enough concerns about sourcing, layout, and MoS issues for this article's GA listing to be in jeopardy. There are still aspects of the review to be completed, but I'm putting this on hold for now, as there are more issues than I can deal with quickly and easily myself. I'll notify significant contributors to see if there is interest on working together to address the concerns and keep the article listed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No progress has been made. WikiProjects have been informed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll attend to this review, SilkTork. It's my hometown, I think it's my duty to save it! I'll start with some of the comments you have mentioned shortly. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with keeping this GAR open, as I'd rather see the article improved than have it delisted. However, if you feel that you don't have the time to deal with the issues at the moment, I'm also cool with delisting, and you can do the work to bring it back up to scratch in your own time, and then renominate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]