Talk:Medstead/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J3Mrs (talk · contribs) 19:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I will review this article. My first impression is that it is poorly written and requires a thorough copyedit for sense and also contains some incorrect information. J3Mrs (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• Population figure is incorrect according to the reference

• Corrected to 2036 JAGUAR  20:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

History

• More detail required about the tumuli

• Not much is mentioned about the Tumuli mounds but it's the earliest form of settlement in the village. I tried to expand it slightly. JAGUAR  20:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• "Roman ring fort which dates from approximately 500 BC" Nonsense

• I accidentally listed it as Roman, fixed JAGUAR  20:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Is www.medstead.org a RS? It is NOT the Parish Council site.

• It is still based in the village itself and contains by far the most information on the village JAGUAR  20:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• What about the Romans?

• Added the (correct) Roman remains. JAGUAR  20:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Geography and demographics

• Should be split into separate sections

• Far too short for a split, that's why I included it as one. JAGUAR  20:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Are there no roads?

• None that are mentioned in the any of the sources or would be worth mentioning. There are no main roads running through the village, if that's what you mean. JAGUAR  20:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• What about the railway?

• Added. JAGUAR  20:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• According to the 2011 census, the parish of Medstead had a population of 1796 people. In addition, there are 808 households in the parish with an average size of 2.52 people. "In addition" to what? and the population figure is incorrect.

• Fixed the figure. Removed "in addition". JAGUAR  20:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Religion section could include information about the church, its 1160 info is incorrect

The 1160 info is correct, it's mentioned in two sources. The church is mentioned in the landmarks section. JAGUAR  20:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing about the convent

• What convent? JAGUAR  20:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Does the village have schools GPs a community centre, sports facilities, bus services, shops?

Only a primary school and a village hall, other than that the village is rubbish. I have always disliked this place for some reason. JAGUAR  20:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this has been hastily put together and has so many problems that I don't think it can be sufficiently improved in the time permitted so I think it is a quick fail. J3Mrs (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I have attempted to address all of your concerns. JAGUAR  20:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I gave just an indication of the problems, I didn't list them all, and I'm not going to, but you really should do something about:

"Following the baptism of the King Cynegils in 635 and the re-establishment of the Christian faith in the kingdom of Wessex, Cynegils granted an area of land to the church at Winchester. This became known as the "Liberty of Alresford" and covered parts of present day Old Alresford, New Alresford and Medstead." which is a much too-close copy of

"Following the baptism of the Saxon King Cynegils in 635 and the re-establishment of the Christian faith in Wessex, the King granted an area of land to the Church at Winchester. This became known as the 'Liberty of Alresford' and covered what we know now as the parishes of Old Alresford, New Alresford and Medstead." J3Mrs (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You only quickfailed this because you were frustrated that Portsmouth passed its GAN and you had no reason to send it to GAR because it did in fact meet the criteria. So then you watch my edits for a while and find that I have some articles at GAN and quickfail one, even though it turns out that you didn't even read through this article properly as I corrected two glaring typos you missed. I can't believe you said that I gave just an indication of the problems, I didn't list them all, which is bullshit, the whole point of a GA reviewer is to list all of the problems an article has and use that as reason to quickfail it. I addressed all of your 'issues' in 20 minutes. Please just leave me alone now, you have nothing at all gain by annoying me. JAGUAR  14:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't follow you but I do look at the Geograhy articles at GAN. The four you nominated at the beginning of this month are all the same, badly written, lacking information and thrown together. I picked one and failed it because it did not meet the required standard. Nobody is under any obligation to spoon-feed you through the review of an article that is nowhere near compliant with the criteria. I noticed another editor appears to have removed a second nomination and gave some sound advice but was ignored. You didn't satisify most of the points I made and your response, "other than that the village is rubbish," gives much insight into you approach to the article. J3Mrs (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)