Talk:Borough of Eastleigh/GA1

GA Review

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

History

Having worked on a few borough articles myself, I know this section to be tricky (I'm always torn with how much detail to put in, how far back in time to go, whether it's appropriate to detail history before the creation of the borough). The history of the borough is given here

Governance

This section does the job it sets out to do, but it might be worth adding that the council is rated as "good" by the Audit Commission [1].

Geography

More sources are needed here; the section covers the subject well enough, but stuff like "the western side of the borough is generally more built up than the east" needs a reference.

Demography

This section needs to be expanded, there's much more to be said than just the population density. There's ethnic composition, marital status, academic qulaifications, etc. There aren't many boroughs to look to for ideas, but I'd recommend Salford#Demography (GA) and Trafford#Demography (FA). A table for stuff like ethnicity is a good way to compare to county and national trends, while the figures in the prose can be the raw data, with any unusual stats highlighted. Statisitcs.gov (already used once in the article) will provide all the necessary information, but do refer to each webpage used. Also, when mentioning religion, it's best to include figures for religions other than just Christianity; it is the main one, but we should aim for neutrality and comprehensiveness.

Population change?

It's not a necessity, and if not included in the article it certainly wouldn't be a reason not to pass the GA, but it might be worth thinking about. VisionofBritain.org provides stats for the population change within the current boundaries of the borough and might be interesting to comment on trends of population increase [2]. However, given that the historic population of the parish is mentioned earlier, this might be problematic. Just to reitterate, whether this issue is addressed won't affect the final outcome of the GA review.

Economy

It might be worth swapping the first and second paragraphs so that the section is in roughly chronological order.

As with demography this needs a bit of expansion using statistics.gov. I think a table like in Trafford#Economy would be good (relevant stats here) as it gives an idea of levels of employment. Less importantly, it might worth adding some info on industry of employment; it gives an idea of what the people in the borough are doing, but isn't essential.

The article mentions that about a third of the jobs in the borough are in retail, however this source states that only about 18% of residents are employed in retail. This needs explaining (the source currently used says just over half of Eastleigh's residents commute out of the borough, this is worth mentioning).

Landmarks

This section is fine in its current state, but it feels a little light. It would be nice to have some more info on Netley Abbey for example.

Transport

This section, while it reads fine, is currently lacking in sources; stuff like "Southampton airport is the 20th largest airport in the UK" needs a source. A history book or two will allow you to add dates for when the Itchen Navigation and the railways were opened, and websites of the companies who run transport in the borough should provide other references.

Education

This section can be expanded with the latest exam results, from those you can say where the borough is rated nationally (see Trafford#Education for an example).
Are there any special schools in the borough?

International relationships

Originally I was fine with this section (although I thought the European flag was unnecessary), then I discovered that

In 1983, to coincide with the twentieth anniversary of twinning with Villeneuve-Saint-Georges, Eastleigh was awarded the European Flag of Honour by the Council of Europe. The Flag recognises the Borough's efforts in promoting European relationships, and was officially presented to the Council by a representative of the Commission at a special ceremony in the Town Hall Centre on the 18 June 1983."

is copied directly from this website. This is unacceptable and is a breach of copyright. It needs to be rewritten before this article can be passed as a GA.

Overall

The article is one of the better borough articles I've come across, but there is plenty of scope for expansion and improvement. I'm hopeful that this can be achieved, so I'll be putting the article on hold for a week; if progress is being made and more time is needed, the hold period can be extended. This is a tough review, but I think it's fair and the improvements are feasible. If you disagree, feel free to raise the issue at WT:GAN. I have some experience working on borough articles, so if you want me to pick up some of the slack, feel free to ask. Nev1 (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for an excellent review; like you, I think every improvement you suggest is achievable. I'll get to work! waggers (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I've not passed this article's GA nomination as after a 4 week long hold period, the improvements have not been implemented. From the looks of it, this is because the main contributor has been pressed for editing time over this period, but I can't extend the hold (which is only really meant to be a week to stop GAN getting clogged up). I hope that over time the article is improved, and when I have some spare time I'll see if I can help. In the meantime, happy editing. Nev1 (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]