Talk:Southampton Castle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

I'm sorry for the five-day delay. I've not been editing on wikipeida for most of that time, but I'm now working on this review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Having read through the article fairly quickly a couple of times my initial impression is that in general of article is at or about GA-level. The article seems to be well referenced and well illustrated, but the WP:Lead is rather poor and will probably need to be improved.

I'm now going to work my way through the article section by section, but leaving the Lead until last, and just highlight any "problems" that need addressing. However, I will return briefly to the lead: the words town and city tend to be used randomly/alternatively, I'm not sure which. The problem starts in the Lead and is (briefly) apparent in the 11th–13th centuries subsection, so I will comment on it there.

It help me if comments/question/objections, etc, about a particular subsection/section are added immediately below (and signed) those comments of mine to which they refer, rather than "lumped together" at the end. Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• History -
  • 11th–13th centuries -

• There seems to be confusion over town and city. The first sentence clear states that Southampton was an relatively large town and in the second that it probably had a town hall. By the third sentence Southampton has become a city and "and the castle was built on rising ground in the north-west corner of the city" and for the rest of the paragraph its a city: well according Wikipedia (not a reliable source) Southampton became a city in 1964 (which is not 11th–13th centuries). I also suspect that the city of Southampton is considerably larger that the medieval town.

• • 14th–15th centuries -

• In the first two sentences of the first paragraph Southampton is now a town again, but in the third and fourth sentences it has become a city!!!

• • 16th–19th centuries -

• Looks OK.

• WP:Lead -

• I've somewhat changed my mine over the lead. Its intended function is to both introduce the article and summarise that main points; and in general it achieves that aim. In my opinion it has two minor "faults", both of which fall into the general category of WP:Vagueness, but they are quite easy to fix.

• "Southampton Castle was located in the town of the same name in Hampshire, England." tends to suggest that the name of the town is Southampton Castle - the wikilink leads to Southampton. It would be easier to state Southampton Castle was located in the town of Southampton, Hampshire, England.
• The first sentence is contracted by the second sentence: "Southampton Castle was located in the town of the same name in Hampshire, England. Constructed after the Norman conquest of England, it was located in the north-west corner of the city overlooking the River Test, initially as a wooden motte and bailey design." Fairly trivial perhaps but this alternating use of town/city starts in the Lead and continues through the article.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through and corrected the "city" "town" distinction. It seems to be a problem in some of the literature too! I've added a note into the article to explain the transition, in case I've offended any Sotonians in the process.

Many thanks for the review, Hchc2009 (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. There is an intermediate history of County Borough, Town and County Borough, etc, which possibly could be added to the note; but historically Southampton was not a city for most of the duration of this historical structure. Pyrotec (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   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:

   Well illustrated.

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

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an interesting and informative article. Pyrotec (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)