Talk:Hadspen, Tasmania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Places / Tasmania (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Hadspen, Tasmania is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian places.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Tasmania (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other than editorial assistance.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hadspen, Tasmania/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Right - will make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below: cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Lead
Exact units are better than words like "just", so why not just stick in how many km SW of Launceston it is.
I'd congeal all mentions of Entally house into the one spot in the lead.
The two churches have a long history. - this sentence is redundant - let the facts speak for themselves.
the town's centre was bypassed in the 20th century. - clarifying when is good - alot of difference between early and late here...

...fixed this mostly. In fact I reordered and rewrote some of the lead. I changed 20th to "late 20th" as there is no reliable source I've found as to when this was done. The most certain dates are after 1953 and before 1978. Will look at this again soon - Peripitus (Talk) 12:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

  • body of text
town called Beams Hollow. Beams Hollow is named after Thomas Beams - try to avoid "Beams Hollow" repetition here

... fixed. I'd welcome you checking the wording I've used - Peripitus (Talk) 03:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I think comma plus which works better here as could be separate-ish clause....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
An early record of schooling in Hadspen was in 1845, when local members of the Church of England, as part of a petition calling for funding, stated that they had established a new school - can be trimmed to "In 1845, local members of the Church of England, as part of a petition calling for funding, stated that they had established a new school" - let facts speak for themselves.

... your version is better. Changed now - Peripitus (Talk) 03:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Plans have been drawn up, the latest in March 2011, that call for doubling of the town's population over two decades - can we add who by? Is this likely..? any other details?
Cricket features in the town's early and recent history. - sentence unnecessary as facts speak for themselves in following text
The Hadspen Chieftains cricket club was formed in the 1987–88 season and plays as part of the Northern Tasmania Cricket Association - have they won anything - what was going on on the cricket ground for the previous 110 years?
Though close to disintegration, the original architects' plans had been preserved. - the plans were close to disintegration? Need to clarify the two different subjects here.
and the church was finally consummated on 20 May 1961 - consecrated?

...the source—this has worried me as it used more for two churches merging—says consummated. A second source say that construction was finished on that day so I've changed this to completed. Consecration may have happened in the early 1970s but the Anglican Church source I have is unclear. Possibly this is because of the transition from the Church of England to the Anglican Church around that time. Peripitus (Talk) 03:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Today's town
Hadspen is a small town on the South Esk River in the north of Tasmania, just south west of Launceston that functions as an extension of the Launceston metropolitan area - the first bit repeats information said previously, why not just, " Hadspen functions as an extension of the Launceston metropolitan area"?
Hadspen is a growing town that is seen as a "dormitory suburb" for Launceston. - should be able to meld this sentence into previous bit above on being extension of the Launceston metropolitan area
On the town's west, across the river, is the historic property Entally House, former family home of Thomas Reibey who was the Premier of Tasmania from 1876 to 1877. - Entally house has already been discussed, hence description and link are redundant - try "Entally House lies on the own's west, across the river"
  • More
I don't get a sense of what lies around it - is it a suburb now? Is it surrounded by farm, bushland or other suburbs? Are there any nature reserves nearby?

...This is in the geography section. I've added, from one source, that it is in a rural setting. The following sentence broadly covers its surrounds - Peripitus (Talk) 03:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Politically, what areas cover it - local gov't at least?

Anyway, will keep an eye as you go, don't hesitate to ask for clarification...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I have addressed all of the un-struck comments. For the cricket I've added the note about it being played from date x. There appear no divisional records, just newspaper entries reporting scorelines, so there is little I can glean beyond that. Found that I had the electoral division wrong - fixed with a short sentence about this in today's town. There are parcels of other information that I've left out as they are just too sparse—part of the river next to Roeburne Avenue is a designated ski area, the town has a volunteer staffed fire station, the council recently opened a small skate park. I don't think any of these leave significant holes though. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: - two refs checked for fidelity and copyvio - both fine
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: - could you mention in the image of the map what the source of the information was as a full reference? (i.e. map info etc.) Yes check.svg Done
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Overall:

Pass or Fail: almost there - just fix the attribution on the map and we're "Good"....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean attribution at the commons end (done) or in the article ? - Peripitus (Talk) 20:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hence.....(drumroll) Pass or Fail: