| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bilsby article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Church
editreference to "The church is covered with stucco, and has an 18th century stone tower with brick battlements. The pulpit stem is the bole of a tree, with its steps cut from another." I seen this in a book belonging to my parents and will get details this weekend 23/24th April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panderoona (talk • contribs) 19:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Reassess
edit'Class' looks at quality of article: its writing, its references, and how much it fulfills project criteria and range of information, in this case per WP:UKVILLAGES. 'Importance' concerns influence nationally or regionally, and includes its level of effect on the world and its substance historically, economically, culturally. Bilsby is incomplete (even in the areas touched on), with no economy, education, governance, today's transport, sport, or culture, and has the most minimal to no impact as a place. A demote from 'B' as Bilsby is not "mostly complete". A very generous class 'C' (as everything is well referenced), and 'low' importance.
With much work and research an article such as Bilsby might climb the quality scale, but I doubt there is much to find to help this. But, like many a place article, it is predestined to be low importance. Acabashi (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)