Talk:Rainham, London/GA1

Good Article Status Discussion

I think this is a nice, concise, and interesting article. The only issue I see for GA, is that the Lead paragraph could be longer. See Wikipedia:Lead section for suggestions. Is it possible to photograph one of the pre-historic sites? It's not necessary, but given the amount of text devoted to that topic, a picture would be a nice addition (assuming of course there's anything to photograph.) Appraiser 20:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I expanded the introduction slightly, I don't know if anyone wants to refine it further or if it'll do for good article status. Oh, and to be honest I don't think there's much prehistory to photograph. The book I used to source the info had some photos but they weren't good quality and I don't think it would be fair use to use them. Max naylor 11:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Need a source for the 30,000. MRSC • Talk 12:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The 30,000 was made up some time ago. I added it when I first came to Wikipedia, I was told it in a geography lesson. Using the National Statistics from to 2001 census, I found out the actual population of Rainham and Wennington and added to the article with a reference. Max naylor 12:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That's great. MRSC • Talk 16:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have e-mailed the person in charge of the RainhamWeb website, linked at the bottom of article, to see if we can use some of the pictures on the site. I don't know if the guy running the site owns the copyright, but he might be able to help us illustrate the article a little more. Max naylor 12:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Could the references have a last access date? It would neaten it up a bit. RHB 16:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

GAC

1. Well-written: Neutral
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Fail
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Neutral
7. Images: Fail

Images- we start off with a dot next to a splotch in the infobox, I suppose that the splotch is London, but it's hard to tell. From there we go to a gallery(!) of broken images.

Well-referenced- the history section has no references besides the name references until the 20th century, with statements such as "hinted at" and "it is now believed".

Broad- other than the history, there is very little about Rainham. You have some discussion of the various railways and subways that go there, but not much else. What is in Rainham? A few offices and 12000 people, and that's all?

Overall, this article is B-class, but needs some work to get to GA. I see that it's now up for peer review, so I hope that goes well for you. --PresN 04:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)