Talk:Chatteris/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

Having skim-read this article a couple of times, it appears to be at or about GA level (but see below). The scope seems adequate and it appears to be well referenced. I will therforec arry out a full asssessment, section by section, but leaving the WP:lead until last.

Supprisingly for a UKgeo article it had no weather data, i.e. temperature and rainfull, see any UKgeo Good Article. Pyrotec (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed these on quite a few US articles and the larger city Geo GAs, but not the smaller ones, i.e Coatbridge, Hebden, North Yorkshire. How are these weather/climate charts compiled? Rob (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at Geography of Greater Manchester#Climate, for instance, you will see that they have some prose and a template {Manchester weatherbox} with double braces. You could use that as a "model" and edit it to suit your needs. It looks like your nearest sources of met data is Cambridge (here: [1]); there is also Norwich (here: [2]). Pyrotec (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

•  Done Righto, I've made a template for Cambridge to include here, and then added a few bits and pieces about average climate in the area, although nothing specific for Chatteris unfortunately. Rob (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. Pyrotec (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Detailed comments

At the moment I'm checking statements from the article and attempting to WP:verify them via the in-line citations provided. These are the "problems" so far:

• Location and road network -

• I'm willing to accept the Chatteris is on the A141 and A142, but there is no WP:verification for the claim that these are known as the "Isle of Ely way" and "Ireton's Way".

•  Done I have cited these to Google maps, I *think* that's accepted as reliable, if not, forgive me, I've never cited a map before! Jeni ^(talk) 19:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Government and policing -

• "Clement Freud famously held the seat from 1973 to 1987". Cleament Freud as MP, is a fact; but famously appears to be a mere "point of view".

•  Done - removed 'famously' (although it was more in reference to his existing "fame" as a celebrity before he became an MP).

• The presence of a Police Station is recorded, but having checked the reference its only open on Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday - shouldn't that be stated?

•  Done - Opening times noted.

• History' -
  • Toponymy and early history -

• Reference 7 is a 37 page report, the relevent page number(s) should be provided.

•  Done Page numbers provided for all citations in this report.

• Ref 8 appears to be used to verify the statement "The town was mentioned in the Domesday Book as "Ceterig" or "Caterig"". Ref 8 states: "CHATTERIS in Domesday Book written "Cetriz" and "Cateriz"".

•  Done - Corrected.

• Ref 9 is a broken link.

•  Done - Seemed to work for me (?)

• The one I checked was "Enjoy England"; with ref 8 = Kelly's and ref 10= "The Ecclesiastical history of England and Normandy". As of now Kelly's = ref 10; and 11 ="The Ecclesiastical history of England and Normandy". Pyrotec (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 13 and 14 are identical, appart from 14 quotes a page number, whereas 13 does not.

•  Done - sorted.

• The citation for Ref 13 & 14 contains "xiii + 479 pp.; 8 illustrations". This is not needed and, possibly, suggests that they may have been copied from a search engine, rather than being a proper reference.

•  Done - this was originally copied from the page about Chatteris Abbey, but I have subsequently found a copy of the book in the library.

• • Later history -

• Ref 16 is broken

•  Done - sorted.

• Religion -

• Ref 23 is broken

•  Done - sorted.

• I'm not sure that Ref 24 and 25 provide any verification of what is claimed.
• Ref 26 is broken

•  Done - sorted.

• Education and community -

• Ref 28 - I'm not convinced that this is the most appropriate link

•  Done - link now goes to their official website (I think it was offline before)

• Ref 29 is broken

• This is probably just temporarily offline. Should I link to something like [3] instead?

• I'm not sure that Ref 32 provides any verification of what is claimed.

• I suspect it might be quite difficult to prove that they were featured on Look East (I have a video tape of it, but I suspect might be difficult to cite).

• I'm not sure that Ref 33 provides verification of what is claimed.

•  Done - Clarified this with some CWA minutes confirming closure plan.

• " This appears to be relevant to 2008, I'm not sure that it is current - "Due to a decreasing number of volunteers, a medieval-themed festival replaced the standard festival week in July 2008"

•  Done - yeah, I think that's been there some time. Removed/rewritten.

• Economy and industry -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• ref 35 appears to be WP:SPAM - if its needed it should be in External links.

•  Done I think this has been removed now.

• Ref 48 is broken.

•  Done Sorted

• Ref 50 is broken.

•  Done Sorted

• WP:Lead -

• Looks reasonable.

I've also tidied up that section about the song. Rob (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article; and thanks for promptly attending to my comments above. This article is now GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And thank you very much for your excellent review and suggestions. Rob (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)