Talk:Salta, Cumbria


GA Review

GA toolbox
  • Copyvio detector
  • Authorship
  • External links
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Salta, Cumbria/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 14:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 14:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This is an enjoyable article, but it isn't yet of GA standard:

  • The lead is too short. See WP:LEAD. A lead should summarise every important point in the main text, and should not contain anything not mentioned in the main text.
  • There are aspects of an article about a place that you don't cover here. You should mention – if only to dismiss if there aren't any – schools, medical facilities and public transport links. Salta is a mile from Mawbray, but in what direction? What is the distance to Holme St. Cuthbert church? Does the road through the hamlet have a number? For GA level I'd like to see some data about the climate.
  • The references are a mess. Plain URLs won't do for any Wikipedia article, let alone GAs. I recommend you revisit refs 3–11, using the reference templates used for refs 13–15. The former refs 1, 4, and 6 needed consolidating, and I have done so.
  • I suspect the Plain People book is at best borderline so far as WP:RS is concerned, but I see it is stocked by booksellers in several far-flung places, and I shall not press that point.

I'm putting this article on hold to give you time to address these points. Tim riley talk 15:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for the feedback! I will work on correcting the issues you have raised.Pitipaci (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously for a hamlet of this size it wouldn't need to have the full sections expected for towns and cities, but this does need a fair bit of work still. I'll try to take a look at this tomorrow, not too far from Keswick eh Tim?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've added what I could and Rosie helped sort out the sourcing. There is virtually nothing about the hamlet itself in sources. Perhaps you'd have to look in local archives up there to find more but I think it's adequate now for GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doctor, that is most generous of you and Rosie. I'll leave the review going till the end of the seven days, for the original nominator to amend/comment further. Regardless of the outcome of this review, I'll look up local material in Keswick library when I'm up there later this month (Christmas opening hours permitting). Tim riley talk 13:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to everyone who has contributed to improving this article! It's really nice to see such collaboration. This is my first time nominating an article for "Good Article" status here, so I hope you'll bear with me. In response to the original points by the reviewer, the closest climate data I can find is for Mawbray, would that be acceptable to put here? For public transportation, there is one local bus route which I will add information for. On the edits made by others (thank you!) I had a couple of questions, too. Firstly, the photo that has been added in the "Geography" section is almost identical to the one at the top of the page. Would it be better to remove this image, or break down the montage image in the infobox and use either the view of the hamlet in the snow or the road leading into the hamlet in the infobox instead? Then we could put the other image somewhere else in the article. Secondly, in the lead section I notice that you changed the "distance from Carlisle" to "distance from Holme St. Cuthbert". It was my understanding that the distance from the county town should be included in that section, especially since H St. C is a very small place. Thanks once again, and I hope we can get this article up to standard! Pitipaci (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's probably best really to not nom small hamlets for GA unless there's something which can be said about the settlement itself. Not to deter you from improving the hamlets of course, but I'd go for the larger towns first. On the photo, it's a different image, looks fine to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with climate data from Mawbray. Doctor, you know more about "place" articles than I do: could you comment on Pitipaci's question about distances – Carlisle-v-Holme St Cuthbert? I am happy with the photographs either way, and they won't affect my verdict. Tim riley talk 16:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed to Carlisle and just mentioned in parish of Holme in first sentence. No idea why this isn't showing as a current nom! Perhaps once it passes it'll be alright!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the bus route and climate information, and made a couple of minor fixes in the text. Pitipaci (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having re-read the article, I am a little concerned about repetition. It seems like we repeat quite a lot of things from the lead section elsewhere in the article. Does anyone else feel the same way? Pitipaci (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, we are supposed to repeat information in the text that is mentioned in the lead. Have a look at the Manual of Style chapter WP:LEAD. All important facts should be mentioned briefly in the lead and expanded on in the main text. Many readers read only the lead and don't bother with the main text, and so it is important that the lead encapsulates the entirety of the subject. Tim riley talk 11:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, Tim! I was a little concerned that we were in danger of repeating too much of the information, but since that's how the leads work then it's okay. The only other thing I've done is changed the caption of one of the pictures, because "Hill House" is actually the name of an inhabited property and I doubt if the owners would want that kind of information publicised on the internet. Pitipaci (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

After the very generous contributions by Rosie and Dr Blofeld, and the further work by the nominator, I think the text as it now stands is of GA standard. I agree with Dr B that for articles about very small places the reviewer is bound to accept that the wealth of sources available for towns and cities does not exist, and that it is necessary and proper to allow reference to the work of local historical societies whose publications may be borderline WP:RS. That being so, in my judgment this article now meets the GA criteria. It covers all the aspects of a small rural settlement that I would expect to see covered, is balanced, promotes no WP:POV, and is acceptably sourced (refs 3 and 13 could ideally do with a little polishing). The images are excellent. [Later: apologies for omitting to sign, now belatedly done, Tim riley talk 18:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Thanks Tim riley. I look forward to seeing if you can find anything further in the local library when you visit the ancestral shack, this Christmas I'd guess. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Tim Riley for your review. Special thanks also to Dr. Blofeld and Rosiestep for getting the article ship-shape! For me this has been an interesting learning experience, definitely a lot to take away as I move forward, but I'm thrilled with the outcome! Thanks again everyone who contributed to the article and the review process! Pitipaci (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Salta,_Cumbria&oldid=1199973678"