Talk:Hayfield, Derbyshire/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've had a very quick read of this article. I'm sorry but I don't see it as a strong GAN candidate, its not sufficiently bad to merit a "quick fail", but the WP:Lead is inadequate and it appears to be under referenced.

I will now start reviewing the article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. At this point it will be concentrating on the "problems". Pyrotec (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Location and geography -

• This is mostly unreferenced; and in places suffers from WP:Vagueness, For instance:

• "Anecdotally it is often described as being "at the foot of Kinder Scout"", by whom?
• "The bypass was built to ease heavy traffic that once travelled through the narrow main streets of the village", when was it built?
• I would expect a citation for the annual well dressing ceremony.
• "Although classed as being in the East Midlands, Hayfield is at the northern extremity of the region and falls more within the influence of Manchester and Stockport in North West England." Unreferenced.

• History -

• "Some kind of settlement has been in existence in Hayfield since Roman times, and possibly before.". Unreferenced and Vague, for example want kind of settlement existed and for how long?

• • Early history -

• Ref 2 appears to be a book (an isbn is given) that is used five times, but no page or pages references are given so it's not compliant with WP:Verify.
• Ref 4 is not properly quoted. Its listed as "National Archives", but what is apparently being used are two catalogue entries relating to the Domesday book, but Hayfield is not mentioned by name on the web site.
• Ref 5 is not fully cited (see {{Cite book}} for example of how to cite a book). I found the full listing by following the isbn link, so there is no reason for not citing it in full.
• The following statement: "There is some dispute as to which is the oldest pub in the village, with both the Bulls Head [sic] (believed to have been established circa 1396[9]) and the George Hotel (believed to have been established circa 1575[10]) vying for the title", is made, but I'm not convinced that WP:RS are being used. Ref 9 is a broken web link, but is stated to be published by the local cricket club and the other (ref 10) is "Sourced from George Hotel publicity material"! Since these are old building, there will be better sources than these, they may even be listed buildings.

• The Industrial Revolution–present day -

• The first two paragraphs are quite vague, and the references (one each) is not properly cited. It's basically ref 2 again.
• The fourth paragraph, on the railway is unreferenced. The following paragraph is also unreferenced, other than by the use of a web site that has a copyright photograph - that merely shows that the photograph exists and that the line crossed the street, not that the photograph was famous.
• Ref 16 is a book, but its not properly cited, i.e. no author given, nor page number(s) quoted. (see {{cite book}} for information on how to cite books. Since it is a 1937 publication, it will not have an isbn).
• Its a minor point, but since 17 and 18 are the same reference I don't see the point of making a separate ref 18 and using an "ibid". Use ref 17 twice.
• The final paragraph (two sentences) is unreferenced.

• Churches in the area -

• Ref 20 is a book, whilst the book itself is cited correctly, no page numbers are given, so its not WP:verifiable as it stands.
• Refs 21, 22 and 23 are not properly cited; the last two using "ibid"s. These citations should be properly cited using either the template {{Cite web}} or in non-templated format.

• The Mass Trespass -

• This section is unreferenced.

• Modern Hayfield -

• Claims made in respect of the census are referenced through citations 24, 25 and 26, which merely state "Office of National Statistics". That is the "publisher": these citations should be properly cited using either the template {{Cite web}} or in non-templated format.
• Ref 27 is not properly cited, its another "ibid".
• The final paragraph is not properly cited, it uses in-line links to web cites.

• Outdoor pursuits and sports -

• The various web links are not properly cited. One, ref 31 is just an unnamed web link.

• Myths and legends -

• The first paragraph is a direct quotation from a web site which claims copyright. Since the material dates to 1745, I doubt that the web site owns the copyright, but that is hardly the point.
• The final paragraph is not properly cited, its another "ibid".

• Famous residents -

• Ref 36 is a book and it is PROPERLY cited (sorry about the shouting).

• WP:Lead -

• The lead is intended to both introduce the article and to provide a summary of the main points in the article. This adequately provides an introduction, but makes no attempt at providing a summary.

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Some paragraphs suffer from WP:Vagueness.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The WP:Lead is non-compliant.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Some provided, but insufficiently referenced. Often, books are used but no page number(s) given, "ibid" citations used, and "raw" web links.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   See above.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm not awarding this article GA-status. It is probably a B-class article, but is no higher than that.

Unfortunately, this appears to be one of a series of well-intended nominations of Derbyshire articles by an editor who does not appear to have been a contributor to the article (unless previously using an IP-address, there are a lot of IP edits in the article history) and how does not appear to understand the requirements of WP:WIAGA. These nominations include New Mills (reviewed by me, mid Feb 2011) and Chapel-en-le-Frith (not reviewed by me, but reviewed early Feb 2011), neither of which have been brought up to anywhere near GA standard since "failing". Since all three article suffer from similar problems, I don't regard a "Hold" as being appropriate.

I would, however, like to see all three article reach GA-standard. Pyrotec (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)