Talk:Cullompton/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 13:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. I have read through the article a couple of times, and generally it is looking quite promising for GA status. I will make some more specific comments in due course. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

There has been much more link rot than I anticipated and so this will take some time.--NHSavage (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These need a number of tweaks. Ref 5 has: Grant, W.C.; Henry Overy and James Murray Forster. Grant has surname first, the other two have surname last. If using first=W.C. |last=Grant, I suggest use of first2=Henry |last2=Overy, first3= |last3=, etc, to retain consistency. This also affects ref 7.
 Done (although the convention Smith, J., B. Jones and C. Thomas is used quite commonly).--NHSavage (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 58, 59, 62, 63 and 64 all have bare urls. Suggest use of cite web template.
 Done D'oh!. I usually use this as I add references. must have been having a bad day. Fixed. --NHSavage (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 31, 55, 93, 118, 119 need block capitals changing to normal case.
 Done --NHSavage (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 3, 5, 9, 10, 15, 46, 104, 105, 147, 148 include Ltd. Documentation for cite book says Name of publisher; corporate designations such as "Ltd" or "Inc" are not usually included.
 Done --NHSavage (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 42. The St Regis website has gone. It now links to DS Smith's website. Needs checking that it still covers the cite, and url needs changing.
 Done Now using Wayback machine to get archived link. DS Smith no longer own the mill. Also fixed 41.--NHSavage (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 114: Refers to a 46 page document. Needs page numbers.
 Done This will be the last change for tonight - I will have a go at the dead links tomorrow.--NHSavage (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 119: No longer shows anything relevant. Can the info be found in an archive?
This will need to be rethought - the Wayback site failed to crawl it.--NHSavage (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done removed the info this relates to as it was not very important.--NHSavage (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 129, 133: Link to domain selling site.
Cully RFC have changed their domain name to http://www.cullomptonrugby.co.uk/ but it does not appear possible to get urls to anything but the front page.
 Done Now found a way to hack these. Used Wayback machine where info not on new site.--NHSavage (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 135: Dead link.
Another domain name change http://www.cullompton-rangers-fc.co.uk/index.php/about-our-club should cover most of it (although the ladies side will need reworking)--NHSavage (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Probably last effort for a few days. --NHSavage (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 146: Links to "Sorry this product cannot be found".
 Done Now got Manton from an old dictionary of biography whcih should also be more stable.--NHSavage (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 21, 41, 73, 123, 124, 140: Page not found.
 Done the following: 21, 41, 73, 123, 124, 140--NHSavage (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 118: Site no longer available.
 Done Got this from Wayback archive.--NHSavage (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cullompton.org is down. I am not sure yet if this is permanent.
This has been replaced by the new website at http://www.cullomptontowncouncil.gov.uk - I will replace any links with Wayback machine or the new site.--NHSavage (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New site would be better if the information is still the same. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New site does not seem to have archived the old copies of the Cullompton Crier which I used as references for several bits of information. I will need to rethink these statements (as far as they relate to policy, they may be out of date anyway).--NHSavage (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done These all now are removed, or linked to another source.--NHSavage (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have addressed all of these now.--NHSavage (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saxon Period[edit]

  • The jump from a history of water supply from 1356 to 1962 back to a hanging in 1678 is not obvious. Suggest a new paragraph.
 Done New paragraph added. --NHSavage (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think The Cullompton Company of Volunteers needs a couple of exta words of intro, so it is obvious they were soldiers and not industrialists.
 Done added additional info --NHSavage (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteenth century[edit]

  • Paragraphs 2 and 3 do not seem to flow well. I think a bit of padding may help. So for para 3, something like the following might help:
The gasworks was closed in 1956 and Cullompton was then supplied from Exeter. More recent developments have included the setting up of the Cullompton website in 1998, and in 2000 CCTV was installed in the main street.
I have reworked this section and made it a bit more thematic as well as changing the sentence structure. I don't know if it is any better though.--NHSavage (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Much better. I have made a few more tweaks. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the men acting suspiciously. Since it was in June 2011, the outcome must be known. If they were convicted, it might just be worth keeping. If not, I think it should definitely go.
I am not sure of the current status of this case, but it did make the national press (e.g. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/joss-stone-two-men-remanded-135463) - and even if they were acquitted, it is probably still notable I think. It probably needs a bit of expansion. I need to chase up a bit more though I agree. I also note the following: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-16658478 --NHSavage (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I note that this has been removed by User:DexDor, with a comment of noteworthy/notnews, which I think is justified. It was news, not history. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be removed from here as well? Joss_Stone#2009.E2.80.93present:_Colour_Me_Free.21.2C_LP1_and_SuperHeavy_era. Also if, when the trial resumes next week, they are found guilty does it become noteworthy then?--NHSavage (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at Wikipedia:NOTNEWSPAPER#NEWSPAPER. I think it will probably always be news in relation to an article on Cullompton. Someone else will have to decide if it is notable if the Joss Stone article is ever submitted for GA review. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economic history[edit]

  • Cloth trade: hand weaving was revived needs explaining. When did it cease, so it could be revived, and did it only affect the Fox Brothers factory?
 Done It was a separate iniative - I have tried to make this clearer.--NHSavage (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corn mills: was a steam powered axle works and had a boiler delivered and is labelled as an axle works needs reworking. I'm not sure how to resolve it, but the leat is mentioned here, and not described until the Landmarks section. Could the description be moved here? We also have leet and leat, which should be standardised.
I have changed all to be leat now.--NHSavage (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done This section has been rewritten and hopefully is better. I think that it deserves to be in both places as it was formely an important bit of the industry but is now a landmark.--NHSavage (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paper making: St Regis took over the mill in 1980s here, but has since been taken over by Asia File Corp in Kingsmill industrial estate. Needs rationalising. Suggest all details here, with: "Higher Kings Mill is also located on the industrial estate." or similar if it still needs mentioning there.
 Done --NHSavage (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cabinet making: Mixture of it/they when referring to Luxtons, and sentence on William Broom doesn't read well.
 Done Cleaned this up somewhat.--NHSavage (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other industries: Are there any details of the foundry? Was it processing iron?
I am afraid I am short of detail here - all I have is a passing reference in the book of Cullompton.--NHSavage (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Government[edit]

  • Neil Parish needs a date, to stop the article going out of date at the next election.
I am not clear what you are proposing here - are you saying that the date of his election should be here? I clearly can't say when he stopped being MP, as I don't know yet. :-). There is so much other information that could go out of date at any time, I think that we should just leave it as it is. However, if you can suggest a suitable wording I will consider it.--NHSavage (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I think it just ought to say something like "... and its MP was Neil Parish in 2012". Use of the present tense makes it very difficult to tell if it might be out of date, whereas including a date ensures that it remains correct even if there is an election. (I'm always finding stuff on canal restoration which is written in the present tense but is actually two or three years out of date.) Bob1960evens (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economy[edit]

  • Retail: Second paragraph needs reworking for flow.
 Done --NHSavage (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingsmill industrial estate: see above
 Done --NHSavage (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Culture and community[edit]

  • This reads as bitty. It could do with a little padding to help the various elements flow together.
Anyone out there in Wikipedia land like to help with this (and same elsewhere)? Writing nice prose is not really one of my core skills...--NHSavage (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a go at it. See what you think. Not sure about "Adult Community Learning which had previously been based at Cullompton Community College". I think it needs a couple of words to explain what ACL is, and wonder if it would be better to say "previously based at the secondary school", since CCC is not introduced until further down. I am also not sure about the last paragraph. I think it needs some indication of what Community House is, and I have added a [vague] tag to the "financial grants for various purposes". Bob1960evens (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the final paragraph to resolve the [vague] tag. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I will take a bit more of a look at it later now I am back from my travels.--NHSavage (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have had another go at the United Charities section and tweaked the info on ACL.--NHSavage (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The formal bit[edit]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  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:

I will wait a couple more days for someone to respond. Then I will put it on 7 days notice. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll get cracking on these, it may take a little while as I am travelling for work some of this week.--NHSavage (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that a new citation needed tag has been added - the reference is unfortunately in the first book of Cullompton so I will need to go to the library for that. It might be a while before I get round to it - the library closes before I get back from work.--NHSavage (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Now you have responded I will not put it on hold for a few more days to give you some time. I guess you also have a real life as well as a wiki one. Cheers. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have covered all the points now, let me know here if there is any more.--NHSavage (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All issues have now been addressed. Well done. I am awarding it GA status. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review and the help in the final push.--NHSavage (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cullompton/GA1&oldid=484034420"