Talk:Thelnetham Windmill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThelnetham Windmill has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 1, 2009Good article nomineeListed
August 3, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 23, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Thelnetham Windmill was completely restored from dereliction to working order by amateur volunteers?
Current status: Good article

COI Statement[edit]

Although I was involved in the restoration of the mill, I do not believe that there is any Conflict of Interest issue here. I took part in two of the work-ins, in separate years. My small contribution should not be seen as affecting my ability to write the article, all of which is from published sources. Mjroots (talk)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thelnetham Windmill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
  • References
Why is ref 1 in capitals, contra MoS
Because that is how it appears on the source. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still needs changing, MoS requires normal capitalisation of titles
 Done
Do refs 2, 7, 17, 18 have an author?
Refs 2 and 7 have a compiler, but were likely the work of a number of authors. No compiler given for refs 17 and 18. Mjroots
Compilers added to refs. Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 09:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add compiler/editor please? You can make the status clear as eg John Smith (editor)
ref 3 does have an author who is not given in the ref
Author added to ref Mjroots (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ref 6 has no date and the author is not listed first
I've redone the reference. Not sure that a release date was given, as the video was not on general public release, but done on a "to order" basis by word of mouth. Probable dates to c1987 but not 100% sure. Mjroots (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the newspaper articles have the item title or the journalists' names, please add. Are any of these articles available on-line, if so can we have a link?
Newspaper references expanded as far as possible, they appear as cuttings in the various restoration reports. Dating from the 1980s they are not availabe online. Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some paras lack references, eg History para 2, Restoration para 1
History para 2 now referenced. By Restoration para 1, do you mean the small lead para? Does this really need to be referenced when it is fully explained further down? Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
refs should follow punctuation, not all do, move to next bit of punctuation if necessary
I think I've fixed these where appropriate. Sometimes a ref appears mid-sentence because it refers to that part of a sentence, the remainder is referred to by the next ref, which may be at the end of that paragraph. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced - who sold it in 1974[4] to Mr and Mrs Humphries,[7] could be who sold it in 1974 to Mr and Mrs Humphries,[4][7] which meets MoS and is still intelligible to anyone checking the refs. Even worse is a drawing of the mill[18] by Wilf Foreman.[7]
 Done Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Lead' The perfunctory lead does not fully summarise the article per WP:Lead. For example, it says nothing about the structure of the mill
Added a bit about the structure and function (see below).
  • Description why does every para need a subsection?
To allow for future expansion of the description of each floor, its machinery and function. See Upminster Windmill for a better example. Mjroots (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Also to allow for the placement of images of each floor. Mjroots (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would take them out, they can always go back in when necessary, looks odd with lots of short sections
Section restructured, removing sub headings. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although you have attempted to distance yourself from a project in which you were involved, I think the article is still a bit crufty. If you were writing this as an outsider, would you consider it necessary to list all the volunteers by name and mention £25 donations? While I understand your wish to acknowledge these people, it is non-notable information and a result of COI. Apart from possibly the owners and major donors, these details would not be mentioned by a genuinely uninvolved author. Please review these sections.
Minor donations removed, total incorporated into other donations sentence. In this case, I think that listing all volunteers and contributors shows the scale of involvement. Thelnetham was the first windmill to be wholly restored in this way (Wicken smock mill in Cambs is another, but probably not as well documented). A case of WP:IAR in my opinion. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could just say that 100 (or whatever the figure is) volunteers participated - the number may be notable, their names are not.
Rewritten, the list has been removed to this talk page. It shows the full scale of involvement to achieve the restoration of the mill. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • some inconsistent/non-standard capitalisation - Patent sails, Death Watch Beetle, Pitch Pine and pitch pine, please check for others
The Patent in Patent sails is a proper noun, and should be capitalised. Death Watch Beetle changed to Death Watch beetle, the one instance of Pitch Pine altered to pitch pine. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See if you can link stubby sentences, if only to avoid so much repetition of "mill", eg The mill was worked by Stephen Peverett, Richard's son. He inherited the mill on the death of his father in 1875 and leased the mill to Henry Bryant in 1879. could be something like The mill was worked by Stephen Peverett, Richard's son, who inherited it on the death of his father in 1875, and leased it to Henry Bryant in 1879.
Rewritten to remove some instances of "mill". Mjroots (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed comments to follow later jimfbleak (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given the obscurity of Thelnetham (I'd never heard of it and I know these counties quite well), is it worth adding "near Diss" or similar?
Diss isn't even in the same county, although it probably is the nearest large town. Not sure about this one. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it says it in the infobox, the lead should mention explicitly that the original purpose of the mill was as a flour mill - particularly in East Anglia, not all were. jimfbleak (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lead expanded a bit, added a bit about structure and function. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck some of the comments above, but I think you have misinterpreted the outstanding MoS issues with eg capitalisation of refs, position of refs, and subheadings. Please give me a link to the relevnt MoS if you still disagree
  • Please include compiler editor for the books.
 Done
  • GA criterion 3b it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). To me, much of the restoration seems over-detailed, but I accept that an enthusiast would expect that level of detail. I still think that the long lists of every volunteer and donor are too much detail and breach GA criterion 4 it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. The lead para to the restoration team section says all that is necessary except giving the number of volunteers. As I said before, I do not think that someone from outside the project writing the article would consider the two lists to be notable enough for inclusion
The restoration section is detailed, but that's what makes this article different from the others, one of those occasional exceptions to the rule. I agree that I'd not expect to see that amount of detail in every windmill article, but Thelnetham is one of the few that have been restored by amateurs, with as much work done by them as possible. The detail is only possible due to the publication of the restoration reports as the work progressed. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a further read, I have no new issues, so it's a matter of getting resolution on the outsatnding points, thanks jimfbleak (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Nice article, I'm happy to pass it now jimfbleak (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration team[edit]

For interest, the restoration team involved in the restoration of Thelnetham windmill was:-

Individuals
  • Mark Barnard, Peter Dolman, Charles Dolman, David Pearce and Chris Seago (owners).
  • Andy Abbott, Sharon Abbott, Peter Adderhead, Claude Aldridge, Paul Annetts, Chris Armour, David Atkins, Sandra Atkins, Nigel Bacon, Chris Baker, Bill Bickham, Hervey Benham, Stephen Binns, Gordon Baker, Jack Barnard, Chris Bell, Diane Bell, Andrew Barnett, Tony Brandon, Pat Brookes, Russell Brown, Phillipa Bryan, Michael Bryant, Sheila Bynser, Eric Burrows, Paul Clark, Alan Clarke, Des Clover, Des Codd, Gavin Codd, Viv Codd, Adrian Colman, Laurie Corbett, Paul Curtis, Brian Davey, Kay Davidson, Fred Davis, Arthur Dolman, Freddie Dolman, Richard Duke, the Duke of Grafton, Ian Elliott, Michelle Ellis, Ken Farries, Martin Field, Sylvia Foreman, Wilf Foreman, George Garrod, Michael Garrod, Jonathan Goode, Bill Griffiths, Karen Hamilton, Piers Hanmore,Trevor Harris, Martin Harrison, Tony Hart, Daniel Haskin, Andrew Haylett, Rick Hesketh, John Holdaway, Annemiche Hoogenboom, John Hoogenboom, Mark Howard, Peter Humphries, John Infield, Chris Hullcoop, Stephen Kay, Robert Kemp, Delphine Laws-Lovett, Colin Lammin, Phillip Lennard, David Lewis, Elain Lewis, Alan Lloyd, Alan Loseby, Paul Lovelock, Cliff Lovett, Paul Lucas, Caroline Mackley, Helen Marks, Neville Martin, Adam Milne, Peter Moran, David Newman, Nigel Moon, David Newnham, Joscelyne Nurse, Trevor Nurse, Mike Organ, Vincent Pargeter, Catherine Parker, Don Paterson, Liz Pearce, Karen Prestelle, Mr Petrovich, Martin Pickering, Don Porter, Philip Ridout, Jo Roberts, Neville Rogers, Michael Roots, Ron Round, Kevin Rutterford, Richard Seago, Bob Sharp, Michelle Skinner, Rob Shorland-Ball, Richard Slaughter, Basil Smith, Roland Smith, John Snowdon, John Spencer, Benjamin Stopford, Elizabeth Stopford, Vicky Stopford, Janet Swain, Richard Tyler, Bob Tyrell, Alan Wallis, Ralph Ward, Liam Warren, James Waterfield, Kim West, Helen Whitfield, Chris Wilson, Michael Wolf, Karl Wolf, Linda Wooston, Bernard Wouters, Jane Wymer.
Organisations

Automated Peer Review[edit]

(copied from here)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 02:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mjroots[edit]

  • Lead - lead length is consistent with MoS for length of article (2 or 3 paras).
  • Links - all relevant terms are wikilinked.
  • Images - one free image and one fair use image are used. It may be possible to add further images if they can be located.
  • Numbers - how does one add a non-breaking space when using a {{convert}} template?
  • Spelling - meter appears to be part of "diameter" which is spelled correctly throughout. -isation in in the article, -ization appears in the text a bottom which is from the Wikimedia Floundation. There is a difference between a curb (track on which the mill's cap rotates) and a kerb (edge of pavement at side of road). These are two separate words with two separate meanings. Programm(me) - British spelling of programme is used throughout.
  • Copyediting - this has been asked for.

Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thelnetham_Windmill&oldid=1208390977"