Talk:Thelnetham Windmill/GA1

GA Review

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

• References

Why is ref 1 in capitals, contra MoS

Because that is how it appears on the source. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Still needs changing, MoS requires normal capitalisation of titles

 Done

Do refs 2, 7, 17, 18 have an author?

Refs 2 and 7 have a compiler, but were likely the work of a number of authors. No compiler given for refs 17 and 18. Mjroots

Compilers added to refs. Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(talk) 09:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you add compiler/editor please? You can make the status clear as eg John Smith (editor)

ref 3 does have an author who is not given in the ref

Author added to ref Mjroots (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

ref 6 has no date and the author is not listed first

I've redone the reference. Not sure that a release date was given, as the video was not on general public release, but done on a "to order" basis by word of mouth. Probable dates to c1987 but not 100% sure. Mjroots (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the newspaper articles have the item title or the journalists' names, please add. Are any of these articles available on-line, if so can we have a link?

Newspaper references expanded as far as possible, they appear as cuttings in the various restoration reports. Dating from the 1980s they are not availabe online. Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Some paras lack references, eg History para 2, Restoration para 1

History para 2 now referenced. By Restoration para 1, do you mean the small lead para? Does this really need to be referenced when it is fully explained further down? Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

refs should follow punctuation, not all do, move to next bit of punctuation if necessary

I think I've fixed these where appropriate. Sometimes a ref appears mid-sentence because it refers to that part of a sentence, the remainder is referred to by the next ref, which may be at the end of that paragraph. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced - who sold it in 1974^[4] to Mr and Mrs Humphries,^[7] could be who sold it in 1974 to Mr and Mrs Humphries,^[4][7] which meets MoS and is still intelligible to anyone checking the refs. Even worse is a drawing of the mill^[18] by Wilf Foreman.^[7]

 Done Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• 'Lead' The perfunctory lead does not fully summarise the article per WP:Lead. For example, it says nothing about the structure of the mill

Added a bit about the structure and function (see below).

• Description why does every para need a subsection?

To allow for future expansion of the description of each floor, its machinery and function. See Upminster Windmill for a better example. Mjroots (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Also to allow for the placement of images of each floor. Mjroots (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I would take them out, they can always go back in when necessary, looks odd with lots of short sections

Section restructured, removing sub headings. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Although you have attempted to distance yourself from a project in which you were involved, I think the article is still a bit crufty. If you were writing this as an outsider, would you consider it necessary to list all the volunteers by name and mention £25 donations? While I understand your wish to acknowledge these people, it is non-notable information and a result of COI. Apart from possibly the owners and major donors, these details would not be mentioned by a genuinely uninvolved author. Please review these sections.

Minor donations removed, total incorporated into other donations sentence. In this case, I think that listing all volunteers and contributors shows the scale of involvement. Thelnetham was the first windmill to be wholly restored in this way (Wicken smock mill in Cambs is another, but probably not as well documented). A case of WP:IAR in my opinion. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You could just say that 100 (or whatever the figure is) volunteers participated - the number may be notable, their names are not.

Rewritten, the list has been removed to this talk page. It shows the full scale of involvement to achieve the restoration of the mill. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• some inconsistent/non-standard capitalisation - Patent sails, Death Watch Beetle, Pitch Pine and pitch pine, please check for others

The Patent in Patent sails is a proper noun, and should be capitalised. Death Watch Beetle changed to Death Watch beetle, the one instance of Pitch Pine altered to pitch pine. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• See if you can link stubby sentences, if only to avoid so much repetition of "mill", eg The mill was worked by Stephen Peverett, Richard's son. He inherited the mill on the death of his father in 1875 and leased the mill to Henry Bryant in 1879. could be something like The mill was worked by Stephen Peverett, Richard's son, who inherited it on the death of his father in 1875, and leased it to Henry Bryant in 1879.

Rewritten to remove some instances of "mill". Mjroots (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

More detailed comments to follow later jimfbleak (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Given the obscurity of Thelnetham (I'd never heard of it and I know these counties quite well), is it worth adding "near Diss" or similar?

Diss isn't even in the same county, although it probably is the nearest large town. Not sure about this one. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Although it says it in the infobox, the lead should mention explicitly that the original purpose of the mill was as a flour mill - particularly in East Anglia, not all were. jimfbleak (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead expanded a bit, added a bit about structure and function. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've struck some of the comments above, but I think you have misinterpreted the outstanding MoS issues with eg capitalisation of refs, position of refs, and subheadings. Please give me a link to the relevnt MoS if you still disagree
• Please include compiler editor for the books.

 Done

• GA criterion 3b it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). To me, much of the restoration seems over-detailed, but I accept that an enthusiast would expect that level of detail. I still think that the long lists of every volunteer and donor are too much detail and breach GA criterion 4 it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. The lead para to the restoration team section says all that is necessary except giving the number of volunteers. As I said before, I do not think that someone from outside the project writing the article would consider the two lists to be notable enough for inclusion

The restoration section is detailed, but that's what makes this article different from the others, one of those occasional exceptions to the rule. I agree that I'd not expect to see that amount of detail in every windmill article, but Thelnetham is one of the few that have been restored by amateurs, with as much work done by them as possible. The detail is only possible due to the publication of the restoration reports as the work progressed. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• On a further read, I have no new issues, so it's a matter of getting resolution on the outsatnding points, thanks jimfbleak (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Nice article, I'm happy to pass it now jimfbleak (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)