Jump to content

Talk:Medstead/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Bungle (talk · contribs) 07:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed this version from 26th January 2017

I also see there have been changes today (day of review), particularly addressing similar concerns raised on similar articles, so i'll remove those mentions from this review and look at the most recent version
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Minor issues but nothing significant that can't easily be fixed
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Generally fine
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Referenced
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Seems "ok".. some non "official" sources but are acceptable
2c. it contains no original research. None detected
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. One area needs to be reworded/paraphrased from an almost direct copy (noted below)
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Can be expanded as noted below
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Some text could be trimmed or removed entirely as being unnecessary (noted below)
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Is neutral
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Is stable
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Seems fine
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Only 1 image that would be suited in a sub-section, meaning a main image is required that is broad
7. Overall assessment. Some areas for concern, nothing major; comments below


Review Comments
Infobox
  • Image ideally needs to represent the area more generally; the church image can go into landmarks
Lead
  • Inappropriate commas after "and"
  • "The road between Medstead and Bentworth runs over King's Hill" - what road is it? If it's notable enough for a mention then it must have an identifier or name
  • "Roman remains have been found in the area as well as Tumuli burial mounds which date from 1000 BC." - The sentence suggests that the date of 1000BC also refers to Roman remains, but the Roman Empire was only formed some time around 27BC. The sentence erroneously makes it sound like both refer to the same time period. Rome itself was founded around 753BC.
  • The lead mentions about the restored railway station at the end of the first paragraph, but then the second paragraph starts talking about features from the 12th century and earlier. Consider putting the contemporary info at the end, perhaps in its own paragraph and expanding so it broadly covers more of the article
  • Good catch; I've moved the sentence about the railway station to the end of the second paragraph. At the moment I don't have enough content to warrant another paragraph JAGUAR  17:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • Section starts "Medstead has a known history going back 3000 years", I assume referring to the burial mounds, but the reference puts this as being anywhere between 1000-500BC. Whilst the ref itself does state "3000 years", it's own dates make this ambiguous. Perhaps rephrase to clarify the history dates back up to 3000 years (or between 2500-3000 years) and remove the "known" because it isn't proven.
  • I agree, the source was a bit ambigious so I've rephrased it to Medstead has a history dating back up to 3000 years, if that's OK? Let me know if you think it's best to remove it altogether. JAGUAR  17:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first 2 sentences of the second paragraph starting "Following the baptism.." to "..New Alresford and Medstead" are detected as being a very close like-for-like match to the reference it uses. It should be wholly reworded and suitably paraphrased
  • "kingdom of Wessex" - should Kingdom not be capitalised? Maybe also wiki-link "Christian faith" too.
  • "the church was built".. "the" church? What church? Could assume is the one mentioned in lead but may not be. Should be referred to directly.
  • "original chapel was enlarged" > "were enlarged"
  • "however ownership had passed to Richard Houtot in 1346" - who is this and why he is notable/deserving of mention?
  • Do we need to mention all these instances of ownership transfer? What value does it add to the article? If some or all of these were notable people/families or undertook actions that had lasting effects then that would need explaining, otherwise it comes across as a written list with no added value. On the one hand, some owners are mentioned yet on the other, a line states "although the manor had changed ownership a few times until then"; what makes the mentioned owners any more noteworthy than those not mentioned?
  • I understand your point. It's just the fact that most of the time the articles on British History Online are the only comprehensive source for these villages, and the bulk of their content just consists of who held the manor and when etc. I do find them useful as they also mention some key facts about the parish's size and sometimes population, so it does have a plus side. In this case, it doesn't add much value to the article and seems to be a list in prose form, you're right. If I remove all of the instances of ownership transfer then it wouldn't leave much to the history section, so I've cut the bulk of the jargon to try improving prose flow. JAGUAR  19:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section can likely be sub-sectioned, as the first paragraph mentions ancient remains/identity, the 2nd-4th paragraphs ownership (which can be condensed I reckon to 2 paragraphs), then you can have a third paragraph which has contemporary history (i.e. the railway paragraph can be expanded)
  • Any other contemporary history/activities in recent times?
  • I've added a bit about the reestablishment of the railway (1980s) but haven't had much luck finding anything newer than that. It's really disappointing when the comprehensive sources only detail history in the pre-1900s. JAGUAR  20:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Geography/demography
  • Expand population to show population changes and info on the type of people living here (employment figures etc)
  • Clarify road name as per lead mention
Landmarks
  • "There is also a 13th century bracket which once supported a statue next to the east window, although the statue has been moved next to the south door." - do we need to know this? Doesn't seem relevant/noteworthy.
  • "The church was restored in the 19th century." - seems a bit short/brief. Either merge into one of the previous sentences or expand a little (restored how?)
  • "in addition to 20th century restorations" - addition to what? It may make more sense if it were worded something like "and has undergone 20th century restorations" (or words to that effect). Also seems a bit vague.. is there a more specific date/time period?
  • " It consists of two storeys and an attic, five windows and three hipped dormers." - like before.. is this noteworthy? What value does it add?
  • Could merge the listed designation into the prior sentence rather than being standalone
Coverage/settlements criteria

Using the WIkiproject page as a rough guide (the ones I feel are relevant)

  • Infobox checkY
  • Lead & image checkY (minor improvements as noted above required; is there a more general photo of the village which represents it more broadly?)
  • History checkY (changes should be implemented as suggested above)
  • Government ☒N (no mention of Governance, for example: local council/elections, electoral information or which constituency it falls under)
  • Geography checkY
  • Demography Question? (mentions population, but no mention of ethnic/religious compositions or changes in population over the decades)
  • Culture/community ☒N
  • Landmarks checkY
  • Education ☒N (educational facilities (i.e. schools) should be mentioned)
Links

Summary

[edit]

Nothing overly major found that can't be addressed relatively easily; a number of prior issues seem to have been picked up and addressed during the previous review, though some remain. Once the changes have been made i'll go through again and check the additions/removals are appropriate and that I haven't missed anything else that needs mentioning. I'll give a week from now, but I don't think it'll span that long. Bungle (talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle: thanks for the review! I've expanded the history and geography sections thanks to other snippets of information I have found. Let me know if I've missed anything. I should have everything else addressed, but unfortunately I couldn't find any new history, which was a shame. Also finished applying the changes at Binsted, thanks for looking at that one too! JAGUAR  20:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar: Thanks for working through the directly suggested improvements that were noted, which you have done to the expected standard. I do however have some thoughts that further expansion would be viable and indeed appropriate, given the population size of the village in question. For instance, Winslade is less than 300 pop and the size of the article reflected this, however this village is over 2000 population, but the article is somewhat smaller and less extensive than Bentworth, a current good article but which has only 25% of the population.
I'm not suggesting that this should be 4x the size of Bentworth article but it should be closer towards a similar level of completeness. Perhaps look at expanding demographics by detailing population changes using historical census data to show population growth. A map or two of the area (openstreetmap perhaps) and/or historical maps, as well as additional photos would be useful. Governance can be expanded and placed in its own section, as it doesn't really fit into Geography & Demographics. There is alot of useful tips on the type of info you could get from the Bentworth article (and indeed the wikiproject guidelines) and i'd suggest trying to obtain that level of detail where possible (I am sure it's out there)!
Lastly, I feel like there could be additional info on education (schools) as there seems to be at least two primary schools as well as a number of pre-schools. Info on the primaries should be easily obtainable and I guess do not have their own articles, so you wouldn't be repeating info. There also seems to be a line in the "Victorian to present day" section about the relocation that may want to into a separate education section. Whilst it seems like a fair bit of further expansion, I don't feel that it currently and indisputably meets the whole GA criteria given the size of the village and the amount of additional information that can be added, but I am happy to continue holding (within reason) whilst this is developed. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I understand. It should be expanded somewhat reflecting the population, so I'll keep searching for more content. I've already added a Governance section. The bulk of Medstead's contemporary history is mentioned in bullet points on its own website, but I'll see if I can expand it. There is only one primary school in Medstead, I think. JAGUAR  22:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bungle: what do you think of the article now? I've created new sections on governance, education and activities, although I cut a lot of the manor ownership jargon down in the history section. I still couldn't find much on contemporary history but I managed to put in some helpful snippets of other information. If you still think it needs more of an expansion please let me know. JAGUAR  19:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar: I'll give it another read through though first thoughts are it's looking broader than it was. An observation though relates to the railway, particularly in the "Victorian to Present day" section - the railway is mentioned in the most random of places and doesn't flow at all. For instance, the sentence "Medstead's railway station was first opened in August 1868" comes after info about a bunker and before info about the workhouse, then the last sentence of that paragraph goes back to the railway again? Then again in the 2nd paragraph, the first sentence is totally unrelated to the rest of the paragraph which is just about the railway.. none of it flows at all. My advise is.. take all that rail stuff out of that section together and into a new "Transport" section, together with suitable rail station images which are plentiful on flicker with CC license.
Also look at some historical maps (that will have copyright expired) to compliment either history or geography. When that's done hopefully it'll be fine to pass (anything minor I can fix before doing so). Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the railway stuff to a new transport section and have uploaded an image of the parish in 1881. JAGUAR  13:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: I have made a couple of minor changes to save time, though I would ask as a final thing that you add in information about population changes through the years, similar to how the Bentworth article is laid out using this source and this source; you may wish to also split the section in to two separate "Geography" and "Demographics" sections. Following this I think we can box of the GA nom given there is now a much broader range of coverage and an improved overall prose. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bungle, I've split the geography and demographics sections and have added a table similar to Bentworth's. JAGUAR  20:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

"One of the county's high points at 716 feet (218 m), King's Hill, runs through Medstead and Bentworth." This sentence is nonsense and not supported by the reference to OpenStreetMap. How can a hill run through anywhere? As far as I can see Kings Hill is in Bentworth on the minor road between Medstead and Alton.

Refs 5 & 6 are not published by the parish council. If it has a parish council it ought to be mentioned.

Notable landmarks ought to be Landmarks. The Church of St Andrew wasn't mentioned in the Domesday Book, a chapel was. It was rebuilt and enlarged incorporating parts of the chapel. "The church has flint walls cemented to its chancel with stone dressings." makes no sense either. J3Mrs (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

King's Hill runs through both Bentworth and Medstead, on the road between Hussell Lane to Wivelrod (in Bentworth) and Alton Abbey. The peak of King's Hill lies in the parish of Bentworth, but the hill and the road it's named after is divided in between the two. I've changed the publisher field of refs 5 and 6 to work fields and replaced it with "medstead.org", seeing as it's unclear who owns the official website. Rephrased the first sentence of the landmarks section to make it clear a chapel was mentioned in the Domesday Survey, and also rephrased the flint walls sentence to The church has flint walls cemented to its chancel, along with windows dating from the 14th century. JAGUAR  17:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@J3Mrs: Whilst input from other editors is not discouraged, I may suggest rather than just posting concerns you have picked up on, you may wish to consider making edits yourself to resolve those concerns? Putting aside any previous disagreements between you and the nominator, I feel it'd be more constructive to assist the process of improvements given you appear to have an interest in this topic. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may indeed suggest but I prefer to do it my way. This article has been virtually rewritten thanks to your input but I think the nominator would have learned nothing had I rewritten it. J3Mrs (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But you wouldn't have done, you didn't even read this article when you quick-failed it. I don't hold grudges and am always appreciative of constructive comments. JAGUAR  17:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read this article very thoroughly and as it was so slapdash I didn't make any changes because then you wouldn't have known how difficult it is to write a settlement article properly. By the way the church had flint walls except for the chancel which has cemented walls. You can see this from the photograph. J3Mrs (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar: Thanks for making the suggested change to transport, as well as some of those noted by J3Mrs. I'll give it another read through and let you know my thoughts, though when you compare to how it was before this review, there is a notable improvement; perfection should always be an aspiration, though that is typically left for FA. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completed

[edit]

I have passed this as GA; the article has undergone quite an extensive overhaul since the review was started, though it's now a better article for it. Whilst it now covers the most fundamental of sub-sections for a settlement article, it's probably only just scraping through as GA and i'd encourage further future enhancements if/when you identify appropriate information. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medstead/GA2&oldid=1085917313"