Talk:Dorchester, Dorset/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) 15:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll review this. I'll probably add comments piecemeal over the course of the week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't generally go in for templates and tickboxes; I'll just note anything here that stand out as I read through:

The Romans built an 8-mile (13 km) aqueduct to supply the town with water Where did the water come from?

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the later medieval period however the town prospered This use of "however" used to be frowned upon at FAC; I don't know if it still is (and it makes perfect sense to me, but something to consider)

Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the time of Edward III, [...] in the time of James I the years of the monarchs' reigns might be helpful here

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know how many residents left for Massachusettes?

Added more information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of the English Civil War seems thinner than I might have expected

Added a bit, but the Google book I found had various pages unavailable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's as far as the "Government" section for now; I'll make some more progress tomorrow or Tuesday hopefully. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking on the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how it looks on other screen resolutions but it might be worth a {{clear}} at the bottom of the history section; the map forces the "Government" heading over to the right on my screen, though it might look better at other resolutions.

It looked OK on my smallish screen, but I have added it anyway. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The unemployment rate in July 2014 was 0.9% of residents aged 16–64 Is that easy to compare to national average or perhaps the average for Dorset or the south west?

I could compare the 2012 figures but they vary considerably from year to year and it seems pointless to change to older statistics. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any details on the sorts of businesses occupying the industrial estates?

Added a little. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does the ONS differentiate between a dwelling and a household? Might be worth including very brief definitions in parentheses.

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did add it, but it was promptly reverted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the parenthetical definitions as they were incorrect. A household is a social concept whereas a dwelling is an architectural one, and the definitions added muddled this. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dorchester has a private school, (worth naming?) thirteen first schools, three middle schools and an upper school Since first-middle-upper isn't the standard pattern for English schools these days, is it worth specifying the age ranges these schools cater for?

Hmm, added the name of the private school but the age ranges is not in the source given, which in other ways is a veritable gold mine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are fundamental issues and even if they went unaddressed here, the article would still be easily up to scratch for a GA. I presume you're aiming for FAC so I've tried to provide more detailed commentary. FAC reviewers might want a little more detail on the history, but then they might be satisfied with the summary as it is. I'd be surprised if this came completely unstuck there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not intending to take this to FAC, it was improved as part of the West Country Challenge. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please do double-check the handful of edits I made and the edit summaries. Hopefully I haven't cocked anything up! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are fine thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I were in your shoes I'd be thinking about FAC, but it's up to you. It easily meets the GA criteria though so passing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion

Thank you for the review. I would be most unwilling to take to FAC any article that had editors that I think of as "resident dragons", guarding the article and ready to revert improvements I try to make. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted one change of yours and made two other minor adjustments, all of which were made for the sake of factual accuracy (and none of which you challenged). If you believe my conduct to be egregious I suggest you open a thread at a suitable complaints board, and not drop casual snide remarks around other areas of the project. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were not the only editor to revert my attempts at improvement. I have no complaint about your actions, I was just explaining why I would not be taking this article to FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are being disingenuous. For a start, there is no need to explain why you might or might not be taking this article to FAC, so any information you supply as such is purely voluntary, and secondly, you used the term "resident dragons"; if you truly have no complaint about anyone's actions, you would not use such a term. You cannot have it both ways - you cannot be rude to people and then say, 'oh I'm not being rude'. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]