Talk:East Riding of Yorkshire/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Despite the above comment, I don't start the review until today. Pyrotec (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

After several (well two) quick read-throughs this appears to be a wide-ranging, well-referenced and well-illustrated, article. Despite that, I read in the History section the "teaser" about (in) "the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw first the expansion of canals and then the construction of rail links". Unfortunately, it was only a tease; there was no further mention of canals (merely listed in Places of interest) nor of railways (some post-privatisation, i.e post 1997, operators listed in Transport). I will ponder on this.

I will now carry out a more detailed review section by section but leaving the WP:Lead until last. At this point I will only be dealing with "problems", if any. Pyrotec (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

  • History -
This is quite a good section. The only points that I would make are:
  • Refs 4 to 7, inclusive, are books. The relevant page number of page numbers should be provided in the citations. Done
  • You aught to provide a citation for the claim that "-ing", "-ham" and "-ingham" are "Anglian". The references that I have looked at tend to use the terms "Old English" and/or "Anglo-Saxon" (but this is a talkpage so I don't necessarily have to provide citations for this remark). Done
  • There is discussion of the destruction of the monastries, but their creation and their effects on the landscape seem to have been overlooked. Done
  • There is a "teaser" about canals and railways, but absolutely any detail, other than the last decade or so for railways (in Transport) and canals being "nice to look at" (in Places of interest). Done
  • Nice point about "enclosure", but no date (or date range) provided. Done

Pyrotec (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Geography -
  • Ref 9 is a 23 page pdf report, the relevant page number of page numbers should be provided in the citation.  Done
  • It would be useful to state what the warning is (see ref 11). Done
  • Ref 12 and 13 are 20-page and 23-page pdf reports, the relevant page number of page numbers should be provided in the citation. Done
  • Ref 14 is a book, the relevant page number of page numbers should be provided in the citation. Done Substituted ref as atlas/book returned to library.
  • Ref 17 is a 28-page pdf report, the relevant page number of page numbers should be provided in the citation.  Done
  • Demographics -
  • Ref 34 appears to be a broken link.
  • They appear to have restructured the web site again - I can find the previous years (2006) figures here. Does any one know where the 2007 figures can be found? Keith D (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this the missing link?--Harkey (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Pyrotec (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


A wide-ranging, well-referenced, well-illustrated article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well-referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well-referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well-illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well-illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding GA status. This is possibly a contender for WP:FAC, if you are willing to put up with the "hassle". I suspect work will be needed, there always is. Pyrotec (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)