Talk:Wigan/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

This looks like a "GA" so I will do a more detailed review, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just concentrating on the "bad" points at the moment. The good points will be picked up later in the Overall summary:

History -

Ref 6 is (was) a book and no subscription is needed to read it. However, more interestingly the 1998 (Second Edition) book of Ref 6 does not support the statement that cites ref 6; but it does support the following statement and the next but one statement, "TrefWigan", which cites ref 7. Perhaps new information has come to light?

I thought that reference 6, the dictionary of place names, needed a subscription, are you automatically logged into Athens? The reference isn't used to support the entire sentence, eg: dating from the 6th century, but with reference five should (I'll check again once I've got more time, I'm about to log off) it should be supported. The Mills book is probably the definitive version, but local history societies and heritage and archaeological groups are usually quite good and I don't see the harm in including the information from them, however I would be hesitant to get rid of the Mills book because although it doesn't go into much detail it's a peer reviewed publication. Nev1 (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should clarify. Ref 6 is a subscription site so I did not use it. I have a copy of the Mills, A.D. (1998). "Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names" (Second Edition) Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-280074-4 on my bookshelf, so I'm not using precisely the same reference as the article; but there appears to be a difference. Pyrotec (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 2003 edition says "Wigan Wigan. Wigan 1199. A Celtic name, ‘little settlement’, from a diminutive of Brittonic *wg ‘homestead, settlement’ (later Welsh gwig ‘wood’)". Nev1 (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK Done. My 1998 version stated: Wigan Wigan 1199. Probably a shorterned form of a Welsh name Tref Wigan 'homested of a man called 'Wigan', but you are not invoking the 1998 version.

Ref 12 is now a broken link.

Fixed. Nev1 (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Governance -
- Civic history -

The first two-sentance paragraph could do with a reference(s).

Some of that was a relic from a 2007 version of the page. I've added a source for the verifiable material and removed the second sentence. Nev1 (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 32 is a 16-page pdf file, you really aught to state that it is(?) page 2 that you are using.

Agreed and done. Nev1 (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Ref 33 a full reference or should there be a matching entry in the Bibliography subsection?

I think it is, but as I'm not the one who added the reference I've asked for help with the page numbers etc. Nev1 (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geography -

Appears to be compliant.

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demography -

Refs 44 & 48 appear to be broken.

Fixed 48, still working on 44. Nev1 (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economy -

Appears to be compliant.

Landmarks -

Three full paragraphs followed by four bullet points looks a bit odd; but perhaps I'll let this one through.

Sports -

The "speedway" paragraph is unreferenced.

Added a reference. Nev1 (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Education -

Unreferenced.

Culture - Done Pyrotec (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first para in Music is unreferenced.

WP:Lead -

Appears to be acceptable.

Pyrotec (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I've just come back from a break and should be able to start properly addressing the issues raised tomorrow. Nev1 (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

The majority of the "problems" noted above hve been addressed and I'm confident that the rest will be addressed soon, so I'm closing this review. Pyrotec (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive, wide ranging, well-referenced article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
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:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Well illustrated
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA-status. Presummably another potential WP:WikiProject Greater Manchester WP:FAC ? Pyrotec (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pass. I'm a bit hard pressed for time, but will try to make sure the remaining points are addressed. While I think the article is there and there abouts as far as GA is concerned, I just don't think it goes into enough depth for FA. Who knows though, maybe in a while, although it's not something I had contemplated. Nev1 (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]