Talk:Little Thetford/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've had a quick read through and the article looks very reasonable: I expect that it should make GA without too many problems.

Two minor items caught my attention: the WP:Lead states that it is a bronze age village, perhaps it is but the photographs seem to suggest otherwise - I think this statement needs a rethink; the other one was a direct quotation, with a cite in the middle of the quote, that appears to be unreferenced.

—removed Bronze Age from first sentence. Created new 2nd sentence. I suspect lead will change a few times so for now  Done --Senra (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

—moved ref of quote to end of sentence where it belongs  Done --Senra (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I will now start the detailed review. At this point I will be mostly listing "problems"; if I don't find any that I can't fix this part of the review might be "thinly" documented. I also tend to leave the Lead until last. With luck it might be finished today, but that is not a guarantee. Pyrotec (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• History -

• In general this appears to be quite a good introduction. However:

• • Y Pyrotec (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC) - The Fens appears without explanation in the second paragraph, presummably the reader is expected to know that? The Fen Line appears in the lead and Fens are discussed later in Geography as being "around the village". Its does not become clear until later in this article what the relationship the two is: perhaps this needs to go into the Lead?

—Your analysis is correct. Need to rethink how to correct this, so for now stet --Senra (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

—Had a quick rework of lead in light of your comments above so for now  Done --Senra (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC) - Much of the paragraph commencing "Enclosure is the modern spelling for a process of establishment-led land division which was previously called inclosure", particularly "...establishment-led land division..." and "... and was often associated with violence ...." appears to be political correctness and bias opinion/commentary preceding some village specifics which are referenced by Notes. The paragraph should either be corrective cited or the WP:POV material removed.

—Really not sure what to do here. Even the wikipedia article on enclosure struggles to maintain an un-biased perspective. Still, taking a lead from you I have struck the offending words. I feel this paragraph will need more work but for now?  Done --Senra (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Y Pyrotec (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC) - The final paragraph contains an unreferenced quotation with a citation in the middle - and some "hidden" commentry; however the paragraph is written in such a manner that it is unclear whether when the local historian made those comments, i.e. in 1941 or 2010?

—Referenced and qualified historians comment as occuring in 2010  Done --Senra (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Geography
  • Drainage and the Fens -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC) - You have a claim for Roman Lodes, "certainly Soham Lode", supported by ref 18 (Astbury, A.K. (1958)). More recent work (Hall, The Fenland Project 10, 112) reported by James Bond in 2005 - I can provide a full ref if required - suggests that there is no satisfactory evidence for such a claim. Pyrotec (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

—Hall is Hall, David (1996). "The Fenland project, no.10 : Cambridgeshire survey, The Isle of Ely and Wisbech". Cambridge : County Council: 239. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)? Saw that today. Also saw: "Prehistoric and Romano-British occupation exists in the vicinity of Little Thetford but was not formally represented in the village." Gdaniec, Kasia (1994). "Archaeological investigations at Watson's Lane, Little Thetford, Ely, Cambs". Cambridge Archaeological Unit. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help). Need to rework this section though slightly concerned that we will always be able to find references that refute other references. Especially in archeology (from what Mike Petty has told me). For now stet --Senra (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

—Included counter argument for balance so  Done --Senra (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Economy -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC) - "The last public house in Little Thetford was the Fish and Duck" - did the village have more than one?

—Agreed. Need to rework. Incidentally, I have documented work in progress on a number of things, including tracking down village public house closure dates, in to-do-list. Not sure I can get the information needed during the review process unfortunately. Anyway, for now stet --Senra (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

—Two former public houses, April Thatch was the Rose & Crown and Horseshoes was the Three Horseshoes, are listed in notable buildings. I do not have exact closure dates for these. Not mentioned in the article is the former post-office, a listed building, now a private residence. Again, no closure date can be found. Local historian believes that newspaper cuttings exist for the village in the Cambridgeshire Collection (archives). Before retiring, he managed the archive. He is unsure if the cuttings have the closure dates. The site of the Seven Stars PH was shown on a 1903 OS map. A photo exists of the last PH, the Fish and Duck (I took the photo myself). Some information is contained in The Lost Public Houses of Little Thetford. However, given the lack of citable knowledge, not sure how I can word the article. Still thinking. For now, stet --Senra (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Added referenced prose. I hope this is good enough as one of the sentences is using a self-published source. For now anyway,  Done --Senra (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• The Horseshoes appears here: [1] it is regarded as a WP:Reliable Source. Pyrotec (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

— added heritage ref to Horseshoes so  Done --Senra (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Community facilities -

• "The village has an ongoing issue with alleged offences against Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, Chapter 16, Section 55, subsection 3(a) which repealed and replaced Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996.[36]" - Ref 36 provides a link to the regulations, however the claim about the ongoing issue is not WP:verifiable.

—Agreed. Struck.  Done --Senra (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Public services -
  • Energy -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC) - I learnt something new by reading this section, I now know what a type G plug (socket ?) is. Its the bog standard British Standard 13 Amp three-pin "square" plug. I've never seen this in a UKgeo article and I'm not sure what is notable about it - Little Thetford has the same plugs as I have at home, so I don't need to bring adapters when (if) I visit (I have been to Cambridgeshire quite a few times). I'm sure that this falls into WP:WIAGA 3 (b).

—Agreed. Struck  Done --Senra (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A well-referenced, well-illustrated article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

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:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)