Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bentworth/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2015 [1].

Bentworth edit

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  20:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC) and ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC) (taking a back seat on this as I intended taking a break from FAC)[reply]

This article is the sole reason why I began editing Wikipedia. It began with my first ever edit in April 2008 and then the first edit I made with my account in June 2009. Me and Dr. Blofeld finally promoted it to GA in February 2012 after a complete overhaul of the article and ransacking google books and other sources to make it as comprehensive as possible. Now seven years later and after over 600 edits to this article, I'm finally nominating it for FA as I believe the article is reaching the FA criteria.

The article has received extensive comments at its peer review, in which all are now addressed. I never would have dreamed that after seven years this would come close to meeting the criteria! This article is as comprehensive as can be for a small village, and is a prime example of what can be accomplished with the drive and determination of just a few editors. Bentworth is a mythical village, with several large manors and so much history behind all of them. I look forward to any comments and will do everything to address them. JAGUAR  20:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – A fine piece of work by the Doctor and Jaguar. Not sure if this helps: you might link the publishers of references on first occurrence, but this is not mandatory. The only reason behind this is that readers might find it helpful if they want to visit from who the reference is. Aside from that, the article is in excellent shape. Thank you both Jaguar and Blofeld for investing so much of your time and energy on many excellent articles. -- Frankie talk 18:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! I'll see what I can do with those publishers. Although some can't be linked as a few publishers here are genuinely from the 19th century and will likely not have a Wikipedia article, but I think there are a few that can be linked. JAGUAR  21:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers FrB.TG.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A fine article, which is thorough, focused and well balanced. The prose is pleasing, the references are broad and comprehensive, and the illustrations are excellent. Bentworth is lucky to have such a devoted historian and guide as Jaguar, and Dr. B's guiding hand is, as I have reason to know, invaluable. Bravi! Tim riley talk 20:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim, your comments and support much appreciated!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim! I also appreciate your 2012 review of this, which helped this article on its way to FA. JAGUAR  21:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was the last visitor to the PR and am happy with the article in terms of the FA criteria. – SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Schro.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Great article, but one minor quibble. There is a curious lack of data for the 1971, 1981, 1991, and 2 earlier censuses. Is there any specific reason for these omissions? Mattximus (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is strange, but they're simply not sourced! The 1971, 81 and 91 censuses weren't included in the A Vision of Britain Through Time source for some reason, however there was an unofficial 1991 estimate in one of the parish PDF references that is in this article. I hesitated using it as it's not an official reliable source (it came out in 2007 I think, and censuses in the UK are recorded every ten years). JAGUAR  20:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The archeological section & that on the church are not really FA-standard. Too few links, shaky use of terminology, & lists of factoids not cohering into anything much. Is "Because Bentworth lies on higher ground, its temperatures are lower than in the valleys and on the coast. Due to its proximity to the sea, in winds with a southerly component, humidity is higher and cloud bases are lower than further inland. In summer when cumulus cloud is present, in the late afternoon the sea breeze occasionally reaches the area with a consequent change of wind to south and an increase in humidity." supported by the Met office ref? Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attempting to sort this one out... JAGUAR  20:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Thank you for your comments, I think I've addressed everything you mentioned. I copyedited the church and archaeological sections, so the prose should flow a little smoother now. I've also added a few more links for accessibility and removed a few non-essential "list jargon" such as naming every wood/copse in the area. I've finally found the correct Met Office ref I've been looking for, so I used that to source the climate paragraph. I put it at the end of the paragraph as I didn't want to do a citation overkill. JAGUAR  21:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and support by Gerda
I had a long list of points at the peer review which were all addressed. One wish open for FA is "alt =" for all images, explaining to people who can't see the image what they would see, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good thinking, Gerda Arendt! WP:ALT comes in handy for those who have visual impairment or browsers with images disabled. I've added alternate text for every image in the article, with the guideline being that the text should be short and sweet. Let me know what you think? JAGUAR  17:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus (left, in profile, pointing with his right hand) and Nicodemus (facing the viewer, with a turban, with his right hand on his heart) sit at a table, arguing over books
Jesus teaches Nicodemus (seen here in a seventeenth-century painting) was a theme used by both composers and artists.
Thank you for an alt everywhere (but the infobox). Imagine you are blind, - what would you want to have described to imagine the image? The caption will be read to you, no need to repeat that. - Here's an example from BWV 165, I was helped by RexxS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, the alternate text needs to be more detailed in order to benefit those who need them. I think I caught a misunderstanding from WP:ALT which stated that text in "scenery" images needed to be brief - but I was mistaken. I've expanded detail in all instances of alternate text , including the infobox! I hope that this is an improvement. JAGUAR  13:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is an very impressive article overall. There is a few minor errors I noticed when reading the article. Z105space (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 10, 38, 39, 69 and 70 from Bentworth.info are expired domains. Is there any chance of finding a archived link for these sources?
Oof, that's horrible. They shut down the Bentworth.info domain at the end of June, which is quite disruptive. Thankfully the information on that website isn't essential, and I may be able to use the Wayback Machine to archive most of the links, but I haven't had any luck with saving any PDF files on that website. I'm in the process of archiving the links now, and I'll report back when it's done. JAGUAR  13:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Z105space: Refs 70, 69, 38 and 10 are now archived safely. I had to delete ref 39 and replace it with two new references. Bentworth.info domain expired on 15 July - a week ago! JAGUAR  13:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed the support, thanks! JAGUAR  13:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Much improved since the recent peer review during which I played a small part. CassiantoTalk 21:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Cassianto JAGUAR  21:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I don't normally comment at FAC, but the article is well-written and useful, I have found quite a worrying issue with one of the citations which no-one else seems to have spotted. You make the following statement: "To facilitate the growing population in the post-war period, the council estates of Glebe Fields and Glebe Close were built in early 1946. The name "Glebe", meaning "land belonging to the church", was chosen because the land was originally owned by the church." You support this with a citation to Crockford's Clerical Directory from 1826. The book you link to is actually the 1865 edition. Regardless, I am struggling to see how it supports your statements about the 1940s council housing. Perhaps this is a mistake? —Noswall59 (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for bringing that up, Noswall59. I've corrected the 1865 edition and also added a new reference which backs up the claim of the meaning of "Glebe". A Dictionary of Medieval Terms by Professor John James Noel McGurk states that "Glebe" is an "area of land within an ecclesiastical parish used to support a parish priest" (the same text is also in the lead of the article Glebe). In short it means land (typically a farm) belonging to the church, as the term was frequently used in medieval Britain. The two references in that statement support the definition of the word "Glebe" and the name of the council estate - killing two birds with one stone. I hope this is OK. If need be there are no shortages of references for medieval terms. JAGUAR  16:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for replying so quickly and amending the citation. My main concern, however, was that the citation says nothing about the construnction of the Council houses in the '40s. Regards, --Noswall59 (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • The construction of the council housing itself? I wasn't aware they needed to be sourced, I personally think it's too trivial? The two "Glebe" council estates aren't the only ones in Bentworth, there is another row of council houses further up in the village that were also built in 1946. But for what it's worth, there is a stone plaque of "1946" in Roman numerals on one of the houses, but I don't think that would be valid for FA. I'll try to find something to back up the 1946 construction, but I'm not sure if I'll ever find anything. Regards JAGUAR  17:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not familiar enough with the FA criteria to call this, so you may be right. But I would cite it and if there have been other streets built I might be inclined to briefly mention them. As a reader, it looks at first glance like Crockford's is the reference for their construction. But I am not leaning either way. As for sources, local newspapers are normally good for this sort of thing. If not, the Council records may show up plans, payments or notices about it. Anyway, best of luck with this, --Noswall59 (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Image review

  • File:Bentworth_Map_1811.jpg needs a US PD tag, and a more specific source would be helpful
  • File:Bentworth_Telegraph_office_c_1905.JPG: the source image has different licensing, but neither tag appears to be supported by given sourcing - do you have more details about this image's provenance?
  • File:Odiham_Hundred.gif needs a US PD tag and more details about the source
  • File:Bentworth_CP_2012b.jpg: what is the basis of this map?
  • File:Bentworth_Hall_about_1905.jpg: any more details about the source?
  • File:Bentworth_-_Ivalls_cott_from_the_Star_1900.jpg needs a source
  • File:GCIves.jpg: without a known creator how do we know they died over 100 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the portrait of Ives, after a lot of digging I found that the image was given to the authors of The Pink Plaque of London by Jay Landesman, and he was the publisher of The Ives Scrapbook that came out in 1980. There are no credits for who took the actual picture though. Since it is allocated to the first decade of the 1900s it is likely that the photographer died before 1915, but I can't find any proof. It was something of a minor miracle that I could find the Ives Scrapbook itself. JAGUAR  16:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the 1811 map of Bentworth, I've added a PD-US tag and altered the source a bit. The source is actually Old Maps (sounds simple I know) by Ordnance Survey, which is the owner.
  • With the Telegraph office photo, I know User:Ukiws has physical pictures of the village dating from the early 20th century, but he doesn't know how Wikipedia works and he is inactive at the moment, but nevertheless I've contacted him asking if he could help me with clarifying those images. JAGUAR  16:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fleshed out both the Odiham Hundred and Bentworth CP images, adding another PD-US tag and fleshing out the source for the first.
  • Finally, Bentworth Ivalls cottage in 1900 is was another scanned image that was publicly displayed but now belongs to Ukiws. I've added appropriate details

I hope that settles everything? JAGUAR  19:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Jaguar, I'm gathering this is your first FAC? A belated welcome then! In that case, I'd like to see a reviewer carry out a spotcheck of sources, for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- a hoop we generally ask all newbies to jump through -- as well as the usual source review for formatting and reliability that we try to do with every nom; requests for these can be left at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome! This is my first FAC that hasn't been quickfailed, but otherwise this is technically my third. I'll ask around if somebody will be willing to give this article a spotcheck for sources, as I think that's the last thing it needs now. It did receive a smaller source check in its peer review, but a full one is definitely required. Regards JAGUAR  15:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to spot check on printed sources at the British Library once Brian has concluded his general source review. Tim riley talk 20:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources check edit

Not yet a full sources review. I picked this up following a request on WT:FAC, and have been carrying out a random spotcheck (limited from necessity to online sources). I'm about half-way through, and there are concerns:

  • Ref 1: This is cited as the source for the sentence: "The village name has been spelt in different ways, including: Bentewurda or Bintewurda (12th century) and Bynteworth (c. 15th century)". The alternative spellings given in the source are actually "Bintewrde" and "Binteworda", not the versions you give. Incidentally, what is the nature of this source, "Southern Life"?
  • It appears that the first reference was both correct but misplaced. British History online's version of Bentworth gives out the correct versions of the previous names "Bentewurda or Bintewurda (xii cent.); Bynteworth (xiv cent.)" in the source, so I've added that. Southern Life used to be a website that focused on villages and towns in southern England, but it got shut down a few months ago. I could remove that source if you like? JAGUAR  14:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no point in retaining the Southern Life source, as it doesn't confirm the name spellings in your text. Ditch it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 5: Which statement in this source supports the text: "The route between the Roman town of Silchester to the north of Old Basing, and the Roman settlement of Vindomis, just east of the present-day town of Alton, passed through Bentworth (the road today being the A339)"?
  • Do you mean refs 6 and 7? Both of those references were allocated to the sentence given, and they give a detailed history of Roman activity in the area. However, to answer the question of whether or not a Roman road actually passed through or near Bentworth, after a lot of digging I finally found a list of Roman road sites that is found in Bentworth and its neihgbouring parishes. I've added that to the sentence. JAGUAR  14:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I checked, the citations were 5 and 6 – the numbers have since changed. The additional source is a list of archaeological finds, and try as I ca I can't see how it supports the sentence. Can you indicate, from one or other of the three citations, which statement specifically states that the Roman road which you specify passed through or near Bentworth? You make a specific statement; it is not enough to cite sources that merely show there was Roman activity in the general area. It may be that you need to amend your text to accord with what is confirmable from your sources. Brianboulton (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 25: The source gives 1870, not 1890, as the year in which Gaston Grange was built.
  • Oops, fixed. Thanks for pointing that out JAGUAR  14:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also ref 25: Which statement in this source supports the statement: " Later, parts of the Bentworth Hall estate were sold to local farms, and some clearing of trees and hedges produced larger fields that resulted in easier harvests." Also, ref 36, to which the above sentence is also cited, is a mirror of 25, not a separate source.
  • That's odd. Different websites but yet the same content - removed the latter duplicate. The mention of Bentworth Hall being sold in 1982 is mentioned in the source, however I was never too keen on the dodgy sentence referring to clearing of trees resulting in "easier harvests", which isn't supported in that source given. I've rephrased and restructured the entire paragraph so it's reliant on the source. JAGUAR  14:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've removed the offending sentence, but problems remain. What is the source of the information relating to coats of arms, bear carving, etc? Ref 38 – the source merely says that Berens died, not that the property was sold. Also (ref 27), your text reads: "Initially, Bentworth Hall was offered as a single property, then into several, with Bentworth Hall and its outbuildings being divided into a number of separate dwelling units and other parts being sold to local farms, which is the arrangement today". The source says: "After Berens’ death maintenance virtually ceased and the grounds deteriorated. A photograph of the west garden taken at the time indicates the state of neglect. In 1982 the estate, comprising 54 acres (22 ha), was sold and divided up for multiple ownership." Your text shouls more closely reflect what the cited source says. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 30: Text: "In 1942 Thedden Grange was used as a prisoner of war camp until 1944, and was known as "Fisher's Camp". No mention of "Fisher's Camp" in the source
  • It's mentioned on page 15, in a story regarding a German PoW revisiting Thedden Grange ie. Fisher's Camp. I've added the page number in the reference JAGUAR  14:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This new link is to holybourne.com. With no navigation details it is useless as a source Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 31: This is not a suitable source, being a promotional article relating to the sale of the property in 2007. Nor does the source in any way refer to the sentence in the text: "Before the Invasion of Normandy (D-Day), Nissen huts were built in the woods to the south-west of Bentworth Hall and troops were accommodated there before being taken south to embark for the invasion".
  • I'm not aware if the source isn't suitable and I don't know if it's promotional, but it makes a mention of Nissen huts being built: "The garage was the generator house and in our woodland you can see the foundations of the Nissen huts". Anyway, I've removed the source to be on the safe side and added another Holybourne issue that states the Nissen hurts were apparently moved to another village in the 1960s. JAGUAR  14:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's that Holybourne source again! Where does the the title "History of Holybourne Theatre and Nissen Huts" come from? As I said earlier, there are navigation issues with this source, so I can't check its content. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 43: The text contains the somewhat convoluted sentence "The elevation of the ground at St Mary's Church is 574 feet (175 m) and the highest point is 2.5 kilometres (1.6 mi) to the south at the boundary of the civil parish, 0.6 miles (0.97 km) south of the hamlet of Wivelrod is 712 feet (217 m), one of the highest points in Hampshire." The grammar is suspect, but aside from that I don't see how the map of Wivelrod confirms any of these details.
  • Removed the map. On that matter, the map did acknowledge that Wivelrod stood at "217 metres" but I'm surprised it remained in there back from 2012, when I had no idea what I was doing. Done a copyedit too. JAGUAR  15:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 45 and 46: These are the cited sources for the climate paragraph that begins: "Because Bentworth lies on higher ground...". The paragraph gives numerous details of Bentworth's local climate, but I am not able to see where much of this information is found in either of the given sources. For example I see no mention of southerly winds, humidity, cumulus cloud, 19°C or 25.5°C, etc. Can you clarify where these details come from?
  • I'm afraid only precise information regarding humidity, cloud, temperatures etc is only given in the Southern England climate ref. I don't know who added Bentworth's climate information nor where they got the source from, as I've been looking for data and found nothing. I'll look through the article history to see if I can track a source. JAGUAR  15:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh wow. I added the climate section in January 2011! So the blame is on me. I have no idea where I got that from, how embarrassing! JAGUAR  15:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still don't appear to have taken appropriate action. Most of the details in the paragraph are not in the cited sources. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no cases of close paraphrasing. My chief concern is that I found an issue with nearly every reference I spotchecked, which is worrying since I haven't looked at sources that aren't available online. I think the nominators need to carry out a general check on the relationship of source to text, rather than merely responding to the points above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs) 17:31, 8 August 2015

Sorry, forgot to sign Brianboulton (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't noticed, this is a problem I've raised above too, --Noswall59 (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Yes. The problem seems to be more general than you imagined, and needs a response. Brianboulton (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I've been busy with other matters lately but I can finally get to this now. JAGUAR  14:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Thank you very much for your source review and taking the time to spotcheck the article! I've attempted to clarify your concerns above. The only thing that is outstanding is the climate paragraph regarding cloud, temperatures and humidity, where it appears that I added it back in 2010/11 but I gave the source to "Southern England climate", which is still used in that paragraph. Maybe the page gave different data back in 2011? That's the only one I'm not sure to do with, but everything else should be addressed. Sorry for the delay in getting to this. JAGUAR  15:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply and the actions taken. However, in view of the number of issues that arose from my spotcheck, I feel I will need to look at the remaining refs. I won't be able to do this today, but please be patient – I will get to it soon. Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional issues

As part of due diligence I carried out further spotchecks, concentrating on a group of references in mid-article:

  • Ref 18: The source details appear as "Feud. Aids, ii, 1856, p. 314", yet the source is evidently a copy of The Gentleman's Magazine, and Historical Chronicle from 1774. What is the connection?
  • Ref 58: "Modern-Day Explorers" is not a high quality reliable source suitable for a featured article – in fact, it states itself that its content is out of date. Nor can I find in it the information that Jenny Lane "runs west from Upper Wield towards the east end of Alton Abbey"
  • Ref 59: Holhybourne.com again, this time with the title "The Holybourne Village Magazine".
  • Ref 60: This is the source for the statement: "Wivelrod was mentioned in documents dating 1259 and there are tumuli and burial mounds around Wivelrod Hill, near the present-day Alton Abbey", but the source does not mention Wivelrod, Wivelrod Hill, Alton Abbey or the year 1259.
  • Ref 62 is cited for "At the time of the 2011 UK census, Bentworth had a total population of 533. For every 100 females, there were 94.2 males. The average household size was 2.50" The source gives entirely different figures, and relates to 2001.

Once again, I found problems with almost everything I checked, and there are still issues outstanding from my earlier checks. In the circumstances, I can't be confident that there are not further problems with the sources I have been unable to check.

Sadly, I have to oppose this article's promotion, until there has been a thorough overhaul of the sources. I am aware that the article has considerable support, but in my view promotion needs to be delayed. The most urgent requirement is to ensure that the article text accurately represents what the sources say, which in many cases it does not. There are also questions of reliability in a few cases. A minor issue that should be resolved without delay is the error message relating to ref. 79. I am sure the article has much merit, but at present it does not meet the FA criterion relating to sources. Brianboulton (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Brianboulton: for taking a look at it. The problem with the sourcing I think is due to the fact that this was written mainly in 2011 or whenever it was. I'm surprised at the number of problems considering that I wrote a fair amount in the article myself. I think though that this is a wake up call and reminder that when revisiting an old article and bringing to FAC it's always best to re-review the sourcing fully first. That rarely happens these days as most of our articles are written and then taken to FAC after a peer review. All I can remember is that it was difficult to find reliable sources to support the text in places and thought the article would be poorer off if we removed the content. Jaguar any thoughts on whether we can fully address Brian's concerns?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think most can be addressed, but the thing that worries me most are the offline sources (books, journals etc) that we will have trouble to access. The matter of question is that we need more reliable sources to back up the content from this article. It's not as if most of the content here isn't true, but we need to find reliable sources in order for it to comply per the FA criteria. Regarding the climate paragraph, I have no idea where I got it from, but please bear in mind that I was 14 in January 2011 and I had no idea how anything worked back then. I'll try to find some updated Southern England climate information, but in the mean time I'll keep looking. However, I have unstable internet access at the moment as there has been a flood here, so that's yet another issue for me... JAGUAR  16:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear about the flood. In view of what you say, the only reasonable course is for you to withdraw this for the moment, and re-present it when the multiple serious sources issues have been resolved. This may well mean redrafting sections of the article itself, to conform with the sources to which you have access now, rather than four years ago. I'm frankly worried by observations such as "I have no idea where I got it from", in the context of an FAC submission. I don't think that the necessary research and rewriting can be done within the context of this FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me and Dr. Blofeld are already working on a way to address your concerns, and it's not going to be a difficult task rephrasing or deleting content if the sources don't include it. I don't want this to be judged too quickly on my quips on not being able to remember what I was doing in 2011. I don't think it's going to be a major problem for the sources check to be addressed. Suffice to say, we're not going to withdraw the nomination. JAGUAR  16:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that you don't make the same mistake twice. The article was brought to FAC prematurely, without any check by you or anyone else on the validity of the sources. If you feel you can address and resolve the problem quickly, fair enough, but don't underestimate the task. You will need to go through the article on a sentence by sentence basis, and look at every one of the ninety-odd references – including the 30-odd which are not online. There are no short cuts – a quick fix isn't going to work. Good luck – please ping me when you're done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The peer review was kept open a full month I think Brian. There wasn't really this big rush to bring it to FAC at all, but I accept that the sourcing should have all been checked before coming here given that it was written several years ago. We hope and Jaguar have made significant progress in checking but due to connection problems they've not updated me on what they've done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Premature in the sense that, as you acknowledge, the sources weren't checked first. But never fear, it seems that a few hands are on the case now, and I am accordingly optimistic. Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once I was able to work properly again, I started tacking changes to the Bentworth talk page-this is a copy from there. We hope (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Took care of sourcing for the Fishers Camp/Thedden Grange issue. (Will keep adding as I keep looking back).
  • Changed text re: how Bentworth Hall was divided--I couldn't find any RS that went into the previous detail of it.
  • Removed "Feud Aids" source--this is covered with the previous citation from Biritish History Online--the article cites Feud Aids.
  • Added the British History Online citation re: Wivelrod in 2 spots.
  • Added Google Book source re: origin of Benworth name. Caution--the Book may not display fully for those outside of the US, but I read the cited page totally.

Some typo fixes and links to other WP articles. We hope (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More additions:

  • Added details re: how Bentworth Hall was divided into separate housing from a The Guardian" 1983 news story.
  • Added details re: how the local schoolhouse grew over time and how St. Mary's added a clock to the church building to celebrate King George V's coronation-book refs.

Question-I can't find anything about the children's home that was there from during WWII to circa 1951, when it was said to have burned down. The villages of Bentworth and Lasham both had their part in the war. In late 1940, a children's home was built in Drury Lane in Bentworth for those who had been evacuated from London during the Blitz.[1]

  1. ^ Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society (1905). List of houses and former attractions in Bentworth. Vol. 4. pp. 8–20.

The reference given here is from a 1905 book. We hope (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: With all due respect to the nominators, I am of the mind that the problems uncovered by Brianboulton are major and I do not think the nomination will be well-served by remaining open while the article undergoes a major source audit. It cannot possibly be promoted until every citation is checked for accuracy, and this will take time even assuming it is the nominators' top priority.

Had this remained open for at least five more days the references could have been dealt with as it's being worked on by three different people. Now I have to deal with the stress of waiting two extra weeks and contacting all the contributors again to offer their future one-sentence comments which honestly I doubt some will do again. You know this is why FAC is a horrible process because some people don't understand the pace and severity of the situation. I was hoping to have this pay off by the end of August least. We've already had half of the source review checked off at the talk page. JAGUAR  00:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bentworth/archive2&oldid=1138455921"