Talk:Newton, South Lanarkshire

Newton, South Lanarkshire was nominated as a Geography and places good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 11, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 31 March 2016 by reviewer SwisterTwister (talk · contribs).

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 07:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding comments later. Sounder Bruce 07:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 11, 2021, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: See below. A lot of casual language and dull prose that needs serious work.

2. Verifiable?: Many paragraphs lack citations. Many of the citations that do appear, however, are improperly formatted.

3. Broad in coverage?: Missing a lot of basic sections for places, such as Culture/Arts, festivals, geographic description, demographics, governance, and infrastructure beyond transport.

4. Neutral point of view?: Reads like a promotional pamphlet at times.

5. Stable?:

Pass

6. Images?: Dull images in the "Modern Suburb" sections need to be replaced with better quality versions. Other images are improperly sized.

Clearly not ready for a real try at GAN. Please look at other city and town GAs to get an idea of what is expected of a GA.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Sounder Bruce 07:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments

"the river directly borders the district to the north" is redundant to the preceding fragment - rephrased
"The name is familiar to many in the Greater Glasgow area" is not appropriate - rephrased
The lead only describes the location and transport links, while failing to summarize any of the other sections (including the lengthy history) - added a bit
"Originally lands owned by the Clan Hamilton" should be "Originally on lands owned by Clan Hamilton" - rephrased to 'originally land'
"in Timothy Pont's map" should use "on" - done
"miners’" needs to follow MOS:' (no curlies) - done
"rose on the landscape" is not appropriate - rephrased to 'appeared', can't think of a better word
The Modern Suburb sections contain far too much detail and do not need to be long enough to span two subsections

Sourcing comments

Dozens of uncited paragraphs
Citations from homebuilders are not appropriate
Too reliant on primary sources from the local council government
Consider using book sources from the local library to pad out the history section
Ref 40 has an incomplete title - done
Most of the newspaper citations are missing author and access-date information
- They also inconsistently use the italicized and unitalicized versions of "Daily Record"

Just a handful of the problems I noticed on my readthrough and is by no means a complete assessment. I strongly recommend rewriting the article from scratch and getting a copyeditor to look at it afterwards. Sounder Bruce 07:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC) - yeah maybe if going for a GA but as a standard article it's not that bad to be nuked, I have done the minor wording stuff, fully agree on the inconsistent formatting but that's a dull job to fix. I will communicate with the editor who made the hasty nomination without actually improving the article other than adding the 'dull images' (I wrote 99% of the prose but did not nominate for GA, fully aware it's not strong or precise enough, wasn't consulted on the nomination), hopefully having seen the extent of what would be needed he will see it's basically not worth the effort to get this bogstandard article up to the exacting standards of GA. Thank you @SounderBruce: for taking the time to look at it tho. Crowsus (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]