Talk:Ruislip/GA1

GA Review

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

Co-reviewer: Cucumber Mike (talk · contribs) 17:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Co-reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) 17:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Mike and I'm going to review this article. Since this is my first GA review, Nikkimaria has agreed to co-review with me. We'll discuss things between ourselves and come up with a joint decision. We'll be back later with some thoughts! Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Seems generally good. There are one or two things that could be nit-picked at, however: Early developments section: "The present church was believed to have been built upon the insistence of the Proctor-General, William de Guineville, to serve the growing population under the Bec Abbey's ownership." The growing population was not owned by Bec Abbey, the church was. Consider "The present church was believed to have been built upon the insistence of the Proctor-General, William de Guineville, under the ownership of Bec Abbey, to serve the growing population." (In fact, the whole paragraph would benefit from a little work, since it jumps around from subject to subject quite a bit, but that sentence was the most glaring to me). "By the time Kings' College took ownership..." It should be King's College. Urban development section: "Councillors were also aware that Kings College, Cambridge..." See above. Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Largely agree with the points raised by Mike above. Some others: "Fat Friar" is a proper noun (character name), so should be capitalized as such. The convert template has a parameter to allow for adjective use - there are a couple instances where this should be done. Check for consistent capitalization - for example, "The Orchard" or "the Orchard"? "was required by the University and College's Act to receive payment being as it was the trustee of the land" could be rephrased to be clearer. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I would add that the above sentence has a rogue apostrophe as well: "University and College's" -> "University and Colleges" Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC) These points have now been addressed, and I am happy with the text. Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead seems a bit weighted towards History, and doesn't really cover Government or sports/landmarks. Per WP:W2W, avoid peacock terms like "eminent". Don't use hyphens as sentence breaks - like this - but use dashes instead. Also, while not required, it might be helpful to consider providing modern equivalencies for monetary figures. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Text has been added to balance the lead. Better. Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Good. Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Citations missing for Simon Fisher-Becker and Oswald Morris under Notable people. Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC) FN 21 needs a publisher. It would be helpful (though not required) to combine identical sources like FNs 30 and 49, and to italicize newspaper names. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Also, one of the sources is a dead link: #32, Ruislip Duck Pond Market gives 'Page Not Found'. Personally, if the source can't be replaced, I would remove the information about the market since I don't think it's entirely notable. Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Points addressed. Good. Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	Seems ok to me. Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Spotcheck of 3 online sources found no problems with verifiability or paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article gives a good account of the history, but is lacking slightly on current details. A section on local government could be beneficial. Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Other possible sections to consider would be geography/climate (partially covered by toponomy), demographics (covering things like ethnicity, religion, etc) education and culture. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Sections added to balance article. Better. Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The section on urban development seems a little too detailed, compared to the other sections. For example, the two paragraphs beginning "Together with King's College, the urban district council worked to establish plots of land" have an awful lot of information, prices, dates etc. on what was, ultimately, a failed (or, at least, only partially completed) project. I would be happier if this section could be pruned somewhat. Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Concur with Mike's comments about the urban development section. In general, history seems overemphasized in comparison to the other content. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Now balanced with further info. Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problems noted. Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC) "An outline map was made public on 30 November 1910 with few objections" - were there objections recorded? "saved from demolition" is a bit of a loaded phrase - suggest rewording. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Better. Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Looks fine. Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Mostly good. The image 1907 Ruislip Village is used under fair use, and I don't know if we could say it is truly irreplaceable in this article. Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Given the date on that image, it might actually be PD - might want to check into that. If it's kept under fair-use, you'll need to specify a page number from the source and indicate who holds copyright to the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Following feedback from WP:MCQ I am happy with this. Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The war memorial is pictured but never mentioned in the text. The picture of Pathway through Park Wood is very pleasant, but I'm not sure what it's supposed to show. I suggest removing these two. Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Agree with nominator's comments on this. Changed to pass. Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	Following good work by the nominator on the points above I am happy to rate this as a Good Article. Nice work! Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

We've identified some areas above that could do with some more work to get this article to pass GA review. If you would like to help improve the article, please leave a message here once done so we can come back and run some more checks. Feel free to ask questions as well! Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for a thorough review. Based on your suggestions I have made the following changes:

• The issues with prose have been addressed.

• The lead has been expanded with local government and landmark details.

• The two unreferenced notable people have been removed while I seek out references. The two identical references have been combined and the dead link revived.

• The local government section has been expanded to include council wards and the parliament constituency.

• An education section has been added.

• I'm reluctant to water-down the content relating to the Soutar town plan as it was a significant event which very nearly changed the face of the town (almost) entirely. The history section is the largest, but covers so much that I feel it is at the comprehensive level it should be. Also, the other sections tell you what's in Ruislip, but the history tells you why and how they got there. There haven't been very many really notable events recently to include and I'm reluctant to include High Speed 2 because of the controversy surrounding it.

• I've made changes to the Park Wood and war memorial photograph captions. They are both included as they refer to the text, particularly Park Wood which was placed near the paragraph about the 1931 sale. The war memorial is mentioned in the paragraph beginning "Primrose Hill Farm was demolished...".

• The details for the fair use image have been updated.

How does it look now? Harrison49 (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)