Talk:Woking/GA1

GA Review

Passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 17:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, ~~fiction, and list incorporation~~:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig shows 29.6%, so violations and plagiarism unlikely
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I will get to this review in the next week. If you have time, please consider reviewing an article at WP:GAN. I will be using this review in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

On criterion 3b: some notes seems unnecessary, and should probably be removed. These include numbers 5 (brick colour), 7 (Woking and Sutton manors), 14 (compensation for lack of commons), 23 (Sherlock Holmes story), 25 (electricity pylon), and 26 (legality of cremation).

Additionally, 9 (King John gives Sutton), 11 (locks on the Wey), 15 (church design/consecration), 22 (crater on Mars), and 27 (picture description) could be incorporated into the text.
Note 17 (Necropolis golfers) I'll allow because it made me laugh.

I have removed the notes requested and incorporated material into the main text where required. Mertbiol (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 1b, I'm specifically considering MOS:LAYOUT, especially MOS:OVERSECTION: Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading.

I do not feel that level-2 sections such as "Notable buildings and landmarks", or "National and local government" warrant so many individual sub-sections.

I have removed all the subheadings from the "National and local government" section and have reduced the number of subheadings in the "Notable buildings and landmarks" section. Mertbiol (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment: the history section says "Woking was held by the Crown until 1200, when King John granted it to Alan Basset.", while the notable buildings section states "The first manor house on the site of Woking Palace is thought to have been built by Alan Basset, who was granted the manor by Richard I in 1189." Please clarify.

Thank you for spotting this. I have checked the sources. All of those published in the past 20 years say that it was Richard I who granted Woking to Basset in 1189. Crosby (2003) follows the Victoria County History (1911) in saying that John was responsible. In my experience, the VCH does occasionally get things like this wrong, so I have gone with the more recent sources. Mertbiol (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting the review on hold for a week. Please ping me when you feel you've addressed the issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Thanks very much for your feedback. I think I have addressed everything that you have raised. Please let me know if you have further comments. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mertbiol, I do rather like what you've done with the notable buildings section. Might I ask you to consider what you feel could be done in other sections vis-à-vis MOS:OVERSECTION: the Parks, Education, and Transport sections especially? Just a recommendation.

I have done this. Mertbiol (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: I don't suppose there is any usable information from the 2021 census? It seems a shame to have everything sourced to a decade-out-of-date survey.

Only very high level data from the 2021 census is currently available (essentially the "top line" population figure for the whole of the borough). The more detailed data is due to be released "in summer 2023" - so we have to rely on the 2011 census. Mertbiol (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I've forgotten to do my usual source spotcheck, so I'll do that soon.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck (10 random citations)

52 fine
79 AGF
102 AGF
139 fine
189 AGF
252 this seems to be for Church of St Mary the Virgin, not St Nicholas' Church in Pyrford

Thank you for spotting this. I have corrected this Mertbiol (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

282 fine
319 fine
320 AGF
372 fine with 371

so that's five fine, four AGFs, and one oopsie. I'll check a couple more accessible sources:

116 page number needed

I have added the page number

226 fine but should have |url-status=dead

I have changed the status to "dead" Mertbiol (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

256 fine

@AirshipJungleman29: I think I have addressed all the points you raised. Please let me know if you have further comments. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Passing now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much @AirshipJungleman29: for your review. Thank you also to @Murgatroyd49: for making a special trip to Woking last summer to take a set of high-quality photos for the article. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.