Talk:Wellingborough/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Will review tomorrow, onwards. Pyrotec (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've had a quick couple of reads; and in general the article appears to be about GA-level, so I will not be quick-failing the article.

At this point, the article appears to have all the material that I would have expected of a "UK Places" GAN: however, the prose could do with a bit of attention in places (I may do minor fixed myself as I go through it) and the WP:Lead looks a bit weak. Otherwise, its probably OK: we will know by the end of this review.

I will now start the detailed review, but leaving the lead until last. I will concentrating most on problems at this stage; the good points will be covered in the overall summary, so if a section or subsection is not mentioned here its probably OK. Pyrotec (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• History-

• The "Golden Hind" paragraph has a citation merely confirming that there is a hotel of that date and name. Claims about Sir Christopher Hatton are currently not WP:Verifiable.

• Y I corrected this one myself as it has not been done. Pyrotec (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC) - Having checked a WP:Reliable source, [1], it seems that the hotel was formerly known as "The Hind". I suggest you modify your text and change your reference (the current one is almost WP:SPAM) to a Reliable Source. Pyrotec (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Neither the Christopher Hatton nor the Francis Drake articles carry any WP:V references either and should therefore be flagged with cn tags. We need to look for external sources. if none can be found, the mention will have to be cut. --Kudpung (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Christopher Hatton is not a WP:GAN, but you can tag it if you wish; and Francis Drake failed WP:GAN. Pyrotec (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done - mention cut as Wiki article on Golden Hind does not carry a reference as to the ship's renaming. --Kudpung (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

•  Not done Pyrotec (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC) - The following paragraph is referenced merely by road map containing street names. It does not verify any of the statements in the paragraph (other than the road is called Winstanley: other streets could in my opinion be named after towns, engineers and soldiers; possibly footballers, etc).

• This refers to reference No 17, which is just a Google map. We need to incorporate more text to demonstrate that the naming of the roads follows the explanation in the article, and to find a more appropriate source. If nothing is available on line, and if we want to keep this sentence in the text, it will involve a visit to the local library in Welly or the nearest town.--Kudpung (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Y I corrected this one myself as it has not been done. Pyrotec (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC) - The final paragraph is a bit of a mess. I think the first sentence should be stating that Wellingborough had two stations, the first one being "Wellingborough London Road" and the second station being "Wellingborough Midland Road". I can't find any verifiable evidence that Wellingborough had one station called "London Road", let alone two. Dates of opening should be properly stated: a sentence refers to the 1857 station - which one (I know because I looked it up, but its not possible to know from the article which one that is)?

• Have you read the reference that you added it clearly states Wellingborough London Road, yet you continue to insist that it is called London Road? Please provide a reference confirming that it is called London Road. Pyrotec (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done - fixed.--Kudpung (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Putting to one side the diversion over Wellingborough London Road/London Road, can the statement: "Originally the town had two railway stations called Wellingborough London Road[18]" be justified? (passive voice :-)) Pyrotec (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No idea, I don't have local knowledge and the original editor is not available for comment. There is no obligation to discuss railway history per se, so I'll just cut the confusion out and stick to current transpoprt facilities.--Kudpung (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)  Done --Kudpung (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• I suggested a solution above. The statement is not confirmed by the reference added during this review. I suspect that it is a typo, but there appears to be an element of knocking the reviewer's comments. You are doing a good job at clearing up non-compliances, but I assumed that was one of the functions of the nominator. Pyrotec (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

ASFAIK anyone can nominate an article for GA. I can't actually find any guidelines that suggest the nominator is solely responsible for any ensuing cleanup. In my experience GA cleanups were mostly always teamwork - but unfortunately not always a pleasant or rewarding collaboration. I've helped out here because i'm a member of its mother project. Naturally I would like to see the article pass its GA, but it's not the only work I do around here ;) --Kudpung (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• What does this loud red comment refer to? I might well have missed something, but I have gone through all the edits since before the review was started and can find no other name than Wellingborough London Road, to which page the name also links. Who is meant by you - dozens of editors have contributed to this article - and where are the diffs for any eventual disruptive editing?--Kudpung (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• I believe its refers to me, but the thing is my user name is not 'you'. I never insisted its just London Road and of course I read the ref I added it. I linked London Road to Wellingborough London Road I see no problem in shortening station names were reasonable, as most links to 'London' stations have been shorted to without the word 'London' and instead of just writing in bright red letters, I cant see why 'you' couldn't just edited it to just add 'Wellingborough' to the link London Road. Likelife (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• "The second station, Midland Road, is still in operation with trains to London and the East Midlands. Since then the 'Midland Road' was dropped from the station name". When is "then"?
• Reference 19 (The Northants Evening Telegraph, 'Millennium Memories') appears to be a newspaper pull-out or newspaper article, as a specific day is given (date of publication?); but it has an ISBN, which suggests that it is a book. I can't find it by searching Amazon and other book catalogues. Pyrotec (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy of this, it is a the Northants ET (a newspaper) to mark the 2000 millennium, yes it also has a ISBN I'm not sure why.Likelife (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Local economy and amenities -

• Most of the statements in the first paragraph are not verifiable by any citations. The only citation given refers to Planning application WP/2007/0750, which I assume is the 'Town Centre Action Plan'. Done
• The paragraph also refers to the decline of the former traditional industries (footwear and engineering). Well OK, but they aren't mentioned anywhere else, so there is no information on when they started, their importance, etc. Done

• • Cinema -

• This subsection is totally unreferenced, in addition it fails to answer a number of obvious (if unasked) questions:
• "At one time, the town had four cinemas in the town centre" - When?
• "The Art Deco Lyric" - was that its name, or should it be "the Art Deco Lyric"?
• "The town no longer has a cinema, with the longest lasting one being The Palace" - how long and when?

 Done - unsourceable material removed. --Kudpung (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC) ....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Theatre -

•  Done - possible spam link removed. --Kudpung (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sport

• Ref 46 (Leasure centres) appears to need a new web link.

 Done - Link is OK but has been removed because centre already has own Wikpedia article.--Kudpung (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

•  Not done I suggest that the last change be undone. Firstly, it was not the reference I was referring to; and, under WP:Circular, wikipedia articles do not (in general) provide WP:Verification. The broken web link is currently No 47. Pyrotec (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done - The town council webmaster moved the page. New URL provided.If this is still not the ref you mean, then please be more precise.--Kudpung (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Demography -

• Only the second sentence is covered by reference 2. The first sentenced aught to have a citation to support it, otherwise it is likely to be regarded as an unsupported opinion.  Done - Removed possible POV.--Kudpung (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Education -

• I'm quote happy for ref 56, "Northampton University About Us" to remain in, but ref 55, "Northampton University Course" finder appears to be WP:SPAM - Wikipedia is not here to provide free advertising.

 Done - ref removed.--Kudpung (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Notable Wellingburians -

• Ref 60 (Wellingborough Grammar school) is a broken web link.

 Done - fixed. --Kudpung (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC) --Kudpung (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ref No.60 is to the Northants Air Ambulance and is not broken.--Kudpung (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Geography -
  • Geology -

• Ref 68 appears to be merely a link to a documents download page [2].

• Ref No.68 is to the Oxford University Press web site site and is not broken.--Kudpung (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Cites move around as material is added and removed. That is why I (helpfully) provided a link above; but the reference in question could also have been discovered from diffs. Ref 68 is (at this moment) correctly pointing to a Wellingborough geography download page and working. I would have hoped that it would have been obvious from the url that I was not refering to a Oxford University Press web site. Pyrotec (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Iron ore -

• Most of the paragraph is uncited.
• The sentence that is cited has a reference (ref 70) to a page written by a named author and institution, but you don't have the courtesy to add his name and institution to the citation - I suggest you use {{cite web}} and provide the necessary courtesy.

• Who is 'you'? many editors have contributed to this article.

 Done - 'courtesy' provided.--Kudpung (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• That information can be found by looking at the diffs: it is of no interest to me. The reference is not properly cited, compliance will be acheived by citing it correctly. Pyrotec (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether it interests you or not, perhaps the use of the passive form would sound more courteous when pointing things out on a GA review. We're all volunteers here ;) --Kudpung (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Twin towns -

• Ref 72 (twin towns) is a broken web link.

• Ref No.72 is to a geology site and is not broken.--Kudpung (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• I checked it two minutes ago. It [3] gives: "Sorry, this document is no longer available". Pyrotec (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done - The town council webmaster moved the page. New URL provided.--Kudpung (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• This looks quite reasonable.

• At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a few suggestions: If the order of sections followed more closely the order in [WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements] the "flow" of the article would be improved.

• The sentence, "The 20th-century Church of St Mary was built by Ninian Comper" seems oddly placed in the History section. Maybe that paragraph could form a separate Religion section

• Twin towns moved out of Geography (end perhaps)  Done

• Demography section needs some population data, Vision of Britain comes to mind. Done

• Transport, Governance, Local economy and amenities, Education and Emergency services all would look better minus the sub headings, just paragraphs.  Done

• Are there no local landmarks? Listed structures?--J3Mrs (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)  Done --Kudpung (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Kudpung suggested on my talk page that I should be bold and do it. I did the moves and removed the headings. The Demography section is a bit thin with no population data. There must be some landmarks, parks, listed buildings, or something. I think it flows better, others might disagree. :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been able to help a lot on this article like before, I've just been quite busy recently and to be honest I can't think of many landmarks in the town apart from the war memorial and the 'silver ladies' statues on Harrowden Road seen here: [4]. The All Hallows church can also be considered as a landmark. Likelife (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What about something from here. [5], not all just a couple. :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)  Done --Kudpung (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Unable to find a free use image for the Silver Ladies.--Kudpung (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

How about this, [6]--J3Mrs (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)  Done--Kudpung (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the last contrib I can do to this article for a while. Other editors feel free to be bold and make further improvements. --Kudpung (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   The WP:Lead is not particularly "strong" in respect of its summary function, but as an introduction is OK.

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:

   Well illustrated.

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

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This nomination appears to have "died" in respective of corrective actions. It was quite close to being a GA and I and several other editors have recently made some small improvements. I'm therefore closing this review and awarding the article GA-status.

Pyrotec (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)