Talk:Bentworth/GA4

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 08:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Some miscellaneous points after a first read-through:

• Links
  • You need to disambiguate Alton, Bells, Geoffrey of Anjou, Alresford and Henry Windsor

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Lead
  • "…until its closure…" – unclear if it was the station or the line that closed

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Medieval times
  • King John is mentioned by name in three successive sentences. The second could be "he" without ambiguity.

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • "Magna Carta – blue link wanted at first mention

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • "to the Archbishop of Rouen, and they are documented" – either plural archbishops or singular pronoun and verb
• Elizabethan to Georgian times

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • "wealthy" and "wealthiest" in successive sentences – perhaps "rich/richest" for one of them?

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • The long quotation in the first para would benefit from quote formatting {{quote| …. |}}, though that would necessitate some rearrangement of the adjacent pictures

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • rash of red links – do we really expect articles on all the people in the second para to be created in the foreseeable future?

Red links never a problem with Herr Blofeld.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Post-Second World War
  • "Director" – unnecessary capital letter, surely?

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Duplicated info about the children's home (already given two paras earlier)

Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Geography and climate
  • "By road, Bentworth lies 9.4 miles south of Basingstoke, 16.7 miles…" It lies the same distance from these places whether you go by road, helicopter or cross country. If you mean that the road route is 9.4 miles, you should say so.

Eh, haven't I done that with By road, Bentworth lies 9.4 miles south of Basingstoke? By air it is a shorter distance and google maps won't calculate that.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • "Due to Bentworth lying on higher ground…" "Due to" should be "Owing to" or better still, "Because B lies on higher ground…" There is only one citation for the whole of this paragraph. Does that source cover all the statements in the para?

Climate is covered.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Administration
  • The web page to which the single reference for the first para links does not justify any of the statements in the para, unless I'm missing something

Removed, quite right.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Reference 35 – most unusual to drag the name of the printer in, surely? HMSO was the publisher.

Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • General – the whole of this section is seriously short of references. There are unreferenced statements in the sub-sections on Villages and hamlets, Ashley, Burkham, Holt End and New Copse, Thedden and Wivelrod.

I agree, I was considering removing the top part as I couldn't find any sources. I'll have to ask the person who wrote that material.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Notable landmarks" – can one have an un-notable one?

Yes of course. Several of the listed buildings are barns or lesser houses and therefore not as notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• St Mary's Church – you need to be consistent whether the church has a possessive apostrophe or not.
• War Memorial
  • "The War Memorial in Churchyard" – definite article missing, and unneeded capital letter present

It is the official name for it as a listed building, given in capital letters.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • "doulting" – a word unfamiliar to me, and I'm sure, to most readers. A blue link or a word or two of explanation is wanted

I believe it refers to Doulting Stone Quarry limestone.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • "was formerly dedicated" – I think you mean "formally"

Fixed!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Quotations – why single rather than double quotes?

Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Bentworth Hall
  • "…at Garraway’s Coffee House, 3 Change Alley, Cornhill, London…" – is this information really notable?

Address no, but auction house, yes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Last sentence of sub-section needs a citation, and a comma before "Emma" unless he had more than one mother

Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Education and activities
  • "In the fall of 2010" – bizarre incursion of American! Moreover, we avoid "spring", "autumn" etc where possible, as it upsets Antipodean readers. You should give the name of the month.

November!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Notable people
  • "author, criminologist and gay right campaigner" – only one right? Seems a bit mean

LOL! Fixed.!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• References
  • Capitalisation – some of the book titles are given in sentence case rather than in the title case used in the published book. See, for example, the covers of the Mrs Fitzherbert book at ref 14, and the railway book at ref 72, to which you link (you can't always go by Google's upper and lower casing, which is often arbitrary). And I certainly don't buy "united kingdom" at ref 63.

Neither do I, but I use an instant ref making tool which makes up the citations for me, so hadn't noticed. I do know that sometimes they don't capitalize them. Fixed!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Titles of web pages: be careful that you give the actual titles of the web pages to which you link. For example the page you have called "About south-east England" is actually headed "Southern England: climate"

I agree, this is what you get from mass cleaning up an article, always miss something. Should be fine now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please consider these points before we take the review further. Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Images

I have some reservations about some of the images. I am no expert on image tagging, but I am concerned enough about the following to require clarification of their status before considering the article for GA.

• File:Bentworth - Hooker the Carrier.jpg
• File:Bentworth Telegraph office c 1905.JPG
• File:Hall Place front.jpg
• File:Bentworth - Ivalls cott from the Star 1900.jpg
• File:GCIves.jpg

I'm not sure that the image tags of any of the above stand up to scrutiny. For the claimed {{PD-old}} to be valid, the photographer would have had to have died before 1912, and there is no reason to suppose that he or she did so.

• File:Ben & Las stn 1905 & 2012.jpg

As above, so far as the 1905 image is concerned.

• File:Bentworth vill green 1905a.jpg

This one looks OK-ish to me: the "Bentworth" label at bottom left indicates pretty clearly that this was published in the UK before 1923, but I reckon it has the wrong copyright tag: there is no evidence that the photographer died before 1912, but {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} would be appropriate, I think.

• File:Bentworth Hall about 1905.jpg

{{PD-US-1923-abroad}} tag wanted here, too, I think

Please consider. – Tim riley (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

PD-US-1923-abroad should cover them. I didn't upload them. But I'm adamant that they're public domain, besides PD-old in the commons is 70 years I believe not 100. Thanks for the review! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrapping up

Good. We progress apace. I don't know that I 100% share your confidence that the Edwardian pictures are definitely public domain, but as I say, images are not my area of expertise, and I'm willing to be guided by you on the point. Common sense says that it would surely be overkill to drag in an image expert for old pictures such as these.

The only other area of serious concern to me was the lack of citations for the administrative section. You have removed the more glaring specimens, and now that I look again at the GA criteria, I am reminded that the requirement is for "in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged", and IMO the few uncited statements remaining are uncontroversial enough that lack of citations need not be a stumbling block to promotion to GA. (Nice if they were referenced in due course, nevertheless.)

One final read-through and we'll be ready to observe the formalities, I think. Tim riley (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes that was the only section I couldn't find sources for. I have notified the writer. If he fails to come up within anything within 3 days I will remove it if its OK by you. Generally I am confident about images and text pre 1920 and usually freely upload them to the commons, without problems. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you feel happier if we waited that time before completing the GA formalities? I'm content to proceed now or then, as you prefer. Tim riley (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to proceed with it now, unless for some reason you think its not good enough. If you insist, I can remove the historical parish info which at present looks like original research and only restore it once adequate sources are provided. I've honesty looked in google and google books for info for that and Thedden Grange and found nothing. I was lucky to find info about the other grange. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, GA isn't that prescriptive. Nothing that is now unreferenced is dubious. Compare and contrast with the earlier drafts put up for GA. I shall have one final read through. More tomorrow. Tim riley (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A most interesting and enjoyable article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

A few uncontroversial statements are unreferenced; the nominator has undertaken to address this point, and the unreferenced statements are not in the categories that the GA criteria require to be referenced.

1. Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

My concerns over image tagging have been addressed.

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

   Well illustrated.

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Well done, both on text and on splendid new images. I've never reviewed another article with lots of one-day-old pictures in it! Don't forget to add the missing minor refs in the next week or so (I'll be keeping a beady eye open). A great pleasure to review. Tim riley (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)