Talk:Reculver/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Senra (talk · contribs) 21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article. As this will be the first article I have reviewed against the GA criteria, I have recruited a mentor, Aircorn (talk · contribs) --Senra (Talk) 21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

My review is based on this version of the article. In general, the article is well written and I feel it deserves serious consideration as a good article. I will be judging the article against the Good article criteria. However, I see some issues that need addressing first. Please do not be discouraged by the amount of detail below. Most are simple to fix. In any case, the holidays are close and I have no deadline --Senra (Talk) 18:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

General

• [Criteria 1b]

• Sections: Consider including additional sections and arrange the existing sections according to "how to write about settlements". This is also demonstrated in the following good articles, which we encourage editors to read, listed in order of most recently promoted

• Somerton
• Ditton, Kent
• Sheriff Hill
• Christchurch, Dorset
• Ambrosden
• Widnes
• Hale Barns

• The information is a little confused in places. For example toponymy in the geography section which should be in the history section and is Wildlife really geography? Perhaps it is. SSSI's are a notable sites sub-section within a landmarks section

Noted, e.g. I'll move toponymy to become the first sub-section under "History". Moving SSSIs etc. to a "Landmarks" section is no problem, as you also indicate that this is where much of the church history could go. I note that Ditton, Kent has a main section "Ditton Nature Reserve" - perhaps I could something similar here, merging subsections "Wildlife" and "Country park" into a new main section, "Reculver Country Park"? Nortonius (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• [Optional]

• Block quotes should be in-line attributed as per {{Quotation|quoted material|Author|Title|Publication}}

Looking at quotations of Leland again, of course quotations should be attributed directly to him, whereas he did not publish - this was done by later editors. How about this: {{Quotation|quoted material|John Leland|"Itinerary", ''volume 6''}} (i.e. with "volume 6" in italics)? Anyway I think I'll add Thomas Hearne's 1711 edition of this volume to the Bibliography. Nortonius (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Check for DABs - there is at least one—Romans

Oops I've missed that one - that's something I check carefully when adding stuff myself, optional but I'm keen to fix! Nortonius (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

{{Infobox UK place}}

• [Optional]

• Is the surface area (|area_total_sq_mi= and |area_footnotes=) of the settlement known?
• The grid reference (|os_grid_reference=TR224693) specifies a 100 m square. Is this reasonable for the settlement? If not, consider reducing the accuracy to 1 km (TR2269) or 10 km (TR27). See Ordnance Survey National Grid for the finer detail
• Is there a council web site (|website=) for the settlement?

Not that I've seen - web presence is covered by Canterbury City Council (as demonstrated frequently in the article), and web searches for "Herne Bay council" and "Herne Bay parish council return nothing useful. Nortonius (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• [Criteria 1a, 1b]

• Is Herne Bay the main county town? Consider additionally locating the settlement from the main town/city of the county and/or (especially for international readers) London (e.g. via Boxing the compass: "... 68 miles (109 km) east-southeast by road from London")
• "... a small fort, probably at the time of their ..." is WP:ALLEGED and should be " ... a small fort, at the time of their ..." (providing it is attributed in the body somewhere)
• After carrying out the below non optional changes, the lead needs to be readdressed to ensure it complies with WP:LEAD and especiallyWikiproject UK geography/...#lead

History

• [Criteria mainly 1a]

• Overall, history seems rather long though would be shorter if the church is moved as suggested below
• Watch out for WP:PEACOCK phrases such as "... and a well known Roman fort". Well known by whom? Better is "... a Roman fort". There may be other similar issues in the article
• "Presumably the fort was built at Reculver ..."? Presumed? By whom? Better is "The fort was built at Reculver ..."
• "it is believed from ..."? Believed by whom? Better is simply "... from ..."
• "... abandoned in the 360s". Is that what the source said? Even so, how about "... abandoned circa 360"
• "According to Domesday Book, in 1086 the Archbishop of Canterbury ..." is vague. Consider "In 1086 the Archbishop of Canterbury ..."
• "Reculver remained an unusually large and valuable parish ...". Unusually large by whose standards? For example, "Ely was the 'second richest monastery in England'" (Turner 2003, p. 13)
• "The church was significantly enlarged over time ...". Better is "The church was enlarged over time ..." or "The church was 'significantly' enlarged over time ..." quoting significantly providing it is attributed
• "perhaps originally an open-air preaching cross, like the Ruthwell Cross, around which the monastery was later built.". Perhaps is vague and also this sentence is not clear. Does it mean that "... an open-air preaching cross like the Ruthwell Cross. The monastery was built around the Ruthwell Cross". Consider "originally an open-air preaching cross—similar to Ruthwell Cross—around which the monastery was later built"
• "A map of about 1630 shows ..." better is "A circa 1630 map shows ..."
• "probably in the 1880s". Better is "circa 1880" although quoting "probably" is fine if that is what the source says

• [Optional]

• "(£42.35): this value can be compared with, for example, the £20 due to the archbishop from the manor of Maidstone, and the £50 due to him from the borough of Sandwich, both of which he also held" feels like too much detail. Consider demoting this to a footnote
• Consider moving the Church prose to a religion, landmarks or notable buildings section. It feels in the wrong place in history although leaving some church prose in history is reasonable
• A tourist section within history is rather odd. Perhaps relegate to a culture section

Economy

• [Criteria 4]

• "Seasalter Shellfish (Whitstable) Ltd.," seems like WP:SPAM

Education

[Criteria 1a]

• "Reculver Church of England Primary School is adjacent to the church at Hillborough and ..." seems odd. Why is Reculvers primary school in Hillborough and where is Hillborough? Perhaps "... nearby Hillsborough ..." at least but consider further explanation
• "... pupils.[83] According to a subsequent "Section 8" report,[84] of November 2011, the school had made" is clunky. Consider "... pupils;[83] in a "Section 8" report[84] of November 2011, the school had made ..."

Transport

• [Criteria 3]

• Is Reculver reachable by sea? Now? In earlier times? The Danes invaded but did they land at Reculver?
• Was there a toll road? Is Reculver on any of the 18th century coach routes? If not, what is the nearest 18th–century coaching inn? See for example Cary, John (1817), Cary's New itinerary; or, An accurate delineation of the great roads ... throughout England and Wales; with many of the principal roads in Scotland etc, His Majesties Postmaster General

Legends

[Optional though likely Criteria 2]

• There is no legends section within Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. Is a legends section necessary? Is it encyclopaedic?

Geography

• [Criteria 1a]

• We are not convinced the first paragraph is about geography as history seems to be mixed in with it. Is it possible to move the history prose from here to history?
• "... In ancient times it lay on ..." is vague. Use Bronze Age or whatever
• "clayey"? Fair enough. It is in the OED; in that entry their latest quotation using "clayey" is from an 1878 publication

Images

[Criteria 6a]

• File:Fred_C_Palmer_Reculver_1913_002.jpg and also File:Fred_C_Palmer_002.jpg (contained inFile:Reculver_1800_and_early_1900s.jpg) have weak copyright rationale—"Fred C. Palmer of Tower Studio, Herne Bay, Kent, who isbelieved to have died 1936-1939 ". It should not be difficult to confirm his death date using, for example, [1] or otherwise confirm copyright status via WP:IMAGEHELP. Our understanding is that copyright persists 70 years after the death of the author unless renewed
• All other images in this version of the article are each confirmed to have a valid source and license

• [Criteria 6b]

• Consider putting the date and source of File:OldMapKent.jpg in the caption so the reader does not have to click through to find out
• It is OK and even desirable to wikilink within captions such as Margate
• The caption in File:Reculver 1800 and early 1900s.jpg needs a citation for "have long since been removed". The reader is compelled to ask "when?"
• Carefully consider the relevance of all images. For example what purpose does File:Headstone in St Mary's churchyard - geograph.org.uk - 335135.jpg serve?

• [Optional]

* We suggest that the placement of the images are staggered, right and left, as per the example GA articles listed at the beginning

References

(all relating to this version of the article)

• [Criteria 3] (but this may be a pit picky)

• In general, the article is well referenced with high quality sources, though there are exceptions as noted below. In addition, considerPEVSNER'S (1951–1974) The buildings of England and also British History On-Line which, incidentally leads us to ask whether Hugh de Reculver or Reculverland are significant to the settlement.

There are a few reference issues noticed

• [Criteria 6b]

• Is there a very good reason for including an image in the footnote section?

• [Criteria 2b]

• References [43] & [51] are to a Wikipedia page. Do not rely on Wikipedia—WP:V and especially WP:CIRCULAR. In the second instance, consider using Domesday Book on line
• Are these web sites WP:RS? In the main they seem to rely on user-submitted information: oysterhatchery.com [71], reculver.kent.sch.uk [81], daynurseries.co.uk [85], kindergartenkids.co.uk [81] and hernebayhigh.kent.sch.uk [87]

• [Optional]

• Do not punctuate references such as this one <ref name=Kerr1982>{{harvnb|Kerr|1982|page=194}}.</ref>
• The following book citations have no page numbers (WP:CITEHOW): [8], [28], [29], [37], and [53] etc. We stopped looking after reference [53] so there may be more

Bibliography

• [Optional]

• The bibliography should be ordered alphabetically by |last=. See WP:CITE (under parenthetical referencing)
• Remove periods (e.g. |last=Witney |first=K.P.) as the {{citation}} template being used puts these in or not depending on parameters set

Result

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, andhere for what they are not)

---

A very nice article. This is the current status which is expected to change after above detailed issues have been addressed--Senra (Talk) 18:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Structure, WP:LEAD, WP:VAGUE, minor WP:MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Some WP:RS and WP:CITEHOW queries

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I have marked focus down until excessive religion in history is moved as per above detailed comments

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):

   Two images to check; query non staggered location; captions need a little attention

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I do not watch reviews, so please drop me a short note on my talk page to gain my attention--Senra (Talk) 18:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Some comments about referencing

Just passing through...

Referencing does need improving, definitely. There's a few issues with them;

• (A) There's various bits and pieces that are hanging there, apparently unreferenced. Mostly, at the end of paragraphs - hence they can't be covered by another ref. Such as, Reculver#Bouncing_bombs ends with Others are on display in Dover Castle and in the Spitfire & Hurricane Memorial Museum at the former RAF Manston, on the Isle of Thanet., or Reculver#Parramatta_cathedral ending with A stone from Reculver was presented to St John's Cathedral by the Historic Building and Monuments Commission for England – now English Heritage – in 1990.
• (B) Whilst it isn't essential to add references for every sentence, it is a good idea, because text can get split via later additions. For example, if someone writes Chzz is English. Chzz likes tea.^[123] and later, someone adds another fact: Chzz is English. Chzz is 73 years old. Chzz likes tea.^[123] - it is unclear whether that new fact is covered within the same reference. It might be, but it's hard to tell. So, for example, in this paragraph, I'll indicate where I'd rather see refs;

During the Second World War, the Reculver coastline was one location used to test Barnes Wallis's "bouncing bomb" prototypes.REF Different, inert versions of the bomb were tested at Reculver, leading to the development of the operational version known as "Upkeep".[77] It was this bomb which was used by the RAF's 617 Squadron in Operation Chastise, otherwise known as the "Dambuster raids", in which dams in the Ruhr district of Germany were attacked on the night of 16–17 May 1943 by formations of Lancaster bombers.REF The operation was led by Wing Commander Guy Gibson, for which he was awarded the Victoria Cross.REF On 17 May 2003, a Lancaster bomber overflew the Reculver testing site to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the exploit.[78]

• (C) Also, there is confusion caused by this footnoting style, because some parts only have a footnote, and have no reference; the footnote has a reference (as it should), but it isn't clear whether that is a reference only covering the claims in the footnote, or for the claims within the text. For example,

A story which has been told many times, incorporating varying details, but following essentially the same course, concerns the origin of a byname for the Reculver towers, as the "Twin Sisters".[nb 32]

---

Footnote

^ This byname is also found as "The Sisters" and the "Two Sisters", but the towers are also sometimes known as simply "The Reculvers".[105]

Now, in that case, I'm sure the footnote covers the fact that the byname is used. However, does it cover the fact in the text - e.g. that the tale "has been told many times"?

Thus it is my opinion that everything in the body-text that happens to have a footnote should also have a reference. That's what I've seen elsewhere; for example, see the recently featured article School for Creative and Performing Arts#Background,

...most robust magnet programs in the country.[10]a[›]

...first public school that combined all of the arts in a single program.[12]b[›]

 Chzz  ►  17:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Excellent points though before we give this editor apoplexy, can I check something first please. I did carefully check references against the "good article criteria" (not FA standard) and critically in this context "what the good article criteria are not". In particular [Criteria 2a, 2b & 2c] says, in part, "This standard is higher than the absolute minimum standard set by policy, but noticeably lower than many editors' personal preferences" and also "it provides 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 contentious material relating to living persons" which I thought this article adhered to. I did notice, as you did, that some references within the article are in the middle of sentences but in my opinion, I felt this was acceptable for GA. I do, of course, accept that I may have been wrong --Senra (Talk) 00:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Further comment

I know this is my first GA as a reviewer but I did read up carefully. In particular, I read the following :

Mistakes to avoid

• Imposing personal preference on reference section headings.
• Asking for inline citations beyond those required by the criteria, in particular, asking for "more" inline citations even though all statements in the required categories are already cited. (Inline citations are not decorative elements, and GA does not have any "one citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rules.)
• Not checking at least a substantial proportion of sources to make sure that they actually support the statements they're purported to support. (Sources should not be "accepted in good faith": for example, nominators may themselves have left prior material unchecked by assuming good faith.)
• Requiring page numbers where these are not essential.
• Demanding the removal of dead links, in direct violation of WP:Linkrot and WP:DEADREF
• Requiring the use (or non-use) of citation templates.
• Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. (If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.)

... and I had, for example, required page-numbers but on reading the above I moved the page number requirement to [Optional]. @Chzz, I feel, may be straying into "Asking for inline citations beyond those required by the criteria, ..." but of course, I may be wrong.

--Senra (Talk) 00:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I downgraded [Criteria 2a] to fail on the basis of the comments by Chzz above. This now requires the article to be improved to meet [Criteria 2a] or Chzz reduces the, in my opinion, stricter interpretation --Senra (Talk) 00:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Senra, yes, sorry; I should have made my comments clearer. I was not necessarily saying that any of my comments were required for GA; they were general comments/suggestions for improving the article. I don't tend to separate the two, because I see the primary objective of the GA-review process itself as a way of improving the article and, wherever possible, getting it headed towards FA.

There were three bullet-points in my comments above, which I've just labelled as (A) (B) and (C) for convenience of discussion here;

I'd say (A) was a requirement, (B) certainly is not and is indeed "asking for inline citations beyond those required by the criteria" - mea culpa, but I did say it wasn't essential.

(C) is more debatable; as I said, my opinion is that something that has no actual inline reference but only has a reference on the end of a foontote (such as, in the example, [nb 32]) is not appropriately referenced. But I do accept that others might consider it acceptable.

I agree with some aspects of the essay "What the Good article criteria are not" but, I'd like to imagine it means, "do not fail an article for things outside the GA criteria" - quite right but there is nothing wrong in suggestions that go beyond the criteria, as long as a) it doesn't piss off the author, and b) they're not used in deciding GA pass/fail.

So: What I should have made clear was, that these were passing comments for possible improvement to the article; because I posted them on the GA1 page, I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was judging it against GA-criteria; that wasn't my intent.

Anyway, the article is improving - that's the main thing :-) Keep up the good stuff.  Chzz  ►  07:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That makes it much clearer. I am sorry too if I came across rather more aggressive than I intended. This particular GA1 review is a learning experience for me as well as for the primary editor. I was concerned that your comments were indicating I had badly misinterpreted the GA criteria. I see now that, whilst I have indeed not judged the article correctly against [Criteria 2a] (your A label), the article is closer to meeting the GA criteria than your post initially implied. I do agree that we should aim as high as possible and on that basis, your points B and C are fair and reasonable. I suspect that between us, we have now given the primary editor some clear guidelines to help improve the article within the seven-day (notional in this case) deadline --Senra (Talk) 11:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, you have! About putting inline citations before the end of the sentence (Chzz's point (A), I believe), funnily enough this is a habit which I developed in response to the exact reverse of what Chzz is concerned about (if I understand Chzz correctly), where stuff was added within a sentence, but wasn't supported by the ref at the end! When I've done this, I've placed the ref to cover that part of the sentence which is in most need, with the info "left hanging" at the end also covered, ideally at least, in the expectation that future editing will ultimately be appropriate ("no deadline" etc.). That's not to say that I can't see the concern! No, that's valid - it's just that you're asking me to change existing style within the article, QED. Obviously, though, if your consensus is that it doesn't meet criteria, I'll have to take it into consideration(!) - i.e., just get on and change it! :) Nortonius (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)