From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Hayfield was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
March 5, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed


(Copied from Dave.Dunford's talk page)

Dave, I feel we're about to enter an editing war regarding the Hayfield entry. To explain my position, I live in the village and I've been writing for Wikipedia since it first Started. As a resident, I know many local people in Hayfield and am aware of most local references. I regularly walk the hills and know the OS map like the back of my hand. With this in mind:

  • Kinder Scout: This is considered locally as a mountain. Ordnance Survey refer to it as a mountain. Local people are proud that it's a mountain! To edit the Hayfield entry to say otherwise is to insert your own point of view. Please don't do that. Yes, to all intents and purposes it's a big hill. But it's classed as a mountain, even if it's an unimpressive one :)
I won't get into a revert war if you insist on mountain—life's too short and the term too imprecise—but I do think you're wrong. I live in Hayfield too (we might even know each other in the real world!), I do a lot of walking too, and none of my hillwalking friends would refer to Kinder as a mountain. It's a hill. I don't believe it's really high enough to be considered a mountain, it's not prominent enough, and it's too flat (just not "mountainous" enough!). The mountain article discusses the lack of an exact definition, and suggests a minimum height of 2000 feet (610 metres), which Kinder just exceeds. I also think plateau is more informative and descriptive (and surely isn't an overly obscure word). I see the word mountain and I imagine a rocky peak like Snowdon or Mont Blanc—not a flat peaty plateau like Kinder. But as I say, if you feel strongly enough to change it back [Edit: I see you have], then I'll grit my teeth and leave it alone.
I'd dispute your statement "Ordnance Survey refer to it as a mountain" (do you have a citation?) See hill: "In the United Kingdom it is popularly believed that the Ordnance Survey defines a "mountain" as a peak greater than 1000 feet (305 meters) above sea level, a belief which forms the basis of the film The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain; in fact the OS maintains no such distinction today. [1]" That link ([2]) bears examination: "The British Ordnance Survey once defined a mountain as having 1,000 feet of elevation and less was a hill, but the distinction was abandoned sometime in the 1920's...Broad agreement on such questions is essentially impossible, which is why there are no official feature classification standards." I read this as suggesting that in fact mountain is POV, whereas plateau is encyclopedic. I've got nothing against Kinder—in fact I love the place—and I don't feel that it's a slight to deny that it's a mountain.
I've switched "mountain" back to "plateau", for the reasons given above. I have unearthed a citation to support this: Peak Rock Climbs – Fifth Series Volume 2: Moorland Gritstone: Kinder and Bleaklow (ISBN 0 903908 76 X), p.19: "...a certain kind of climber who is attracted to areas such as Kinder and Bleaklow. Although not necessarily mountaineers per se (after all these aren't mountains)..." [my emphasis]. Come up with a counter-citation and I'll reconsider. Dave.Dunford 19:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British and Irish hills for independent support of my position. Dave.Dunford 12:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Lantern Pike: I and many others have not heard of the term "outlier". Indeed, I had to get a real-life dictionary out to find out what the term means. Most online references (including Wikipedia's own) refer to "outlier" in the mathematic sense. Now that I do know what it means, I have to ask you provide evidence that Lantern Pike is actually an outlier. Maybe you can create an entry for Lantern Pike, and cite references? Anything else is, again, point of view editing. I really think you should change this reference in the Hayfield entry to something more easy understood, and more informal, as is the style of the rest of the Hayfield entry.
I remembered the term "outlier" from geography lessons at school, as a (fairly loose) term meaning "a hill separated from a larger range"—but my dictionary (Collins English) indicates a more specific meaning that I wasn't aware of: "an outcrop of rocks that is entirely surrounded by older rocks". I've no idea whether this applies to Lantern Pike so I've changed it to something less specific.
An aside: if you're a long-term Wikipedian I do wonder why you don't use a might just be me, but I tend to be less respectful of edits made by anonymous users, and it makes responding to comments like this harder. As you've (apparently) edited the Hayfield article from three different IP addresses I didn't know where to respond, hence copying this here. Dave.Dunford 11:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Kinder is a mountain (again)![edit]

See ISBN 0903463687, or just click

Fair enough. We now have two conflicting citations: one suggests Kinder Scout is a mountain, one says it isn't. This merely confirms my earlier contention that calling Kinder Scout a mountain is stating an opinion, whereas plateau is a statement of fact. Dave.Dunford 11:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The book really does indicate there's a large body of thought that believes Kinder is a mountain. small>Highpeakster 13:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Dave, I've just had a thought. If Kinder isn't a mountain, why does it have a 'mountain rescue' team? :) (Also, note that I've now created a Wikipedia account to make my edits) Highpeakster 13:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... I wonder if this discussion about is it/isn't it needs to be in the main article?
If anywhere, it should be on the Kinder Scout page (which already calls it a "plateau (and mountain)"; I personally disagree with that definition but I've left it alone) rather than on the Hayfield page where Kinder is just an aside. The same argument applies to Bleaklow, Black Hill and possibly to Dartmoor, Forest of Bowland, etc., so do we put it there as well? Is High Willhays on Dartmoor a mountain? It's only a few metres lower than Kinder (621m vs 636m). As for the "mountain rescue team", I take the point, but I don't think it really proves anything – it's a generic term for upland rescue organisations (though I note that the southern equivalents don't call themselves MRTs).
What's the problem with plateau? I think I've illustrated that calling Kinder a mountain is at the very least claim a "large body of thought" in your support but clearly not everybody agrees (me, the chap at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British and Irish hills, and the climbing book I cited below, for a start). I don't think either side can legitimately claim to be in the majority without some sort of poll, but nobody would deny that it's a plateau. My argument boils down to this: it's definitely a plateau; it's arguably a mountain; so why use the contentious term when there's a less controversial (and more precise) alternative? Dave.Dunford 13:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The book really does indicate there's a large body of thought that believes Kinder is a mountain.
No it doesn't. It indicates that that particular writer considers it a mountain. I've got the book and here are some quotes that while not disproving your contention at least acknowledges that it's not an archetypal mountain:
  • "anything less like the dictionary definition of a peak would be hard to find." (p.15)
  • "In physical terms, Kinder Scout is a 15-square-mile plateau..." (p.17)
  • "In truth, the only places that Kinder remotely resembles Dr. Johnson's definition of a sharply-pointed hill is when it sends out one of its shapely courtiers..." (p.17)
The book uses mountain and plateau more or less interchangeably throughout.Dave.Dunford 14:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Dave, I think we're running the risk of digging down to epistemological level when defining what is and is not a mountain. There are set criteria for what makes a mountain, chiefly its height, and Kinder ticks that box. In appearance it's more like a hill, I grant you. Also, the Kinder Scout: Portrait of a Mountain book is edited by one man: Roly Smith. Its contributors include Geologist Dr Trevor D Ford, National Trust Estate Manager Stephen Trotter, and Peak District National Park Archaeologist Bill Bevan... all these knowledgeable people have given their names and input to a book that declares Kinder Scout to be a mountain. Highpeakster 14:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
There are set criteria for what makes a mountain, chiefly its height, and Kinder ticks that box.
No there aren't, though it's a common misconception. See [3] (which I quoted earlier: "The British Ordnance Survey once defined a mountain as having 1,000 feet of elevation and less was a hill, but the distinction was abandoned sometime in the 1920's. There was even a movie with this as its theme in the late 1990's – The Englishman That Went Up a Hill and Down a Mountain. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names once stated that the difference between a hill and a mountain in the U.S. was 1,000 feet of local relief, but even this was abandoned in the early 1970's. Broad agreement on such questions is essentially impossible, which is why there are no official feature classification standards.") and mountain (which has a link to Encyclopedia Britannica that says categorically "Mountains are considered larger than hills, but the term has no standardized geologic meaning.") This is precisely why I object to the use of the word with reference to Kinder. I'm sorry to bang on about this, but here's another quote that supports my position (from The Pennine Way, Cicerone, ISBN 1 85284 385 1 Invalid ISBN, p.11-12: "Unlike well defined mountains such as are found in the Lake District and Snowdonia, Pennine summits rarely distinguish themselves in a clear-cut fashion. The higher tops may have specific names – Kinder Scout, Great Shunner Fell, Cross Fell – but (with a few exceptions such as Pen-y-Ghent) they are more the culmination of swelling moorland surrounded by rolling ridges or plateaux than individual peaks." Dave.Dunford 15:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally I take these quotes "The British Ordnance Survey once defined a mountain as having 1,000 feet of elevation and less was a hill" and "The U.S. Board on Geographic Names once stated that the difference between a hill and a mountain in the U.S. was 1,000 feet of local relief" [my emphasis] to imply that it's not the height above sea level that defines a mountain, but the height above the surrounding area. Kinder fails to qualify as a mountain on those criteria, which are outdated anyway. Dave.Dunford 15:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Its contributors include Geologist Dr Trevor D Ford, National Trust Estate Manager Stephen Trotter, and Peak District National Park Archaeologist Bill Bevan'
Only one of these (Bill Bevan, the archaeologist) uses the word "mountain" in their chapters. The other two (and I think the geologist's choice of words is the most significant) consistently refer to it as a plateau or as moorland. Dave.Dunford 15:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, this debate has gone on for long enough, and it's not fair to use the Hayfield entry as battlezone! I've edited the Hayfield main article to simply remove the reference to it being a mountain. If readers want to find out what "Kinder Scout" is, they can click on the link, and learn more.Highpeakster 15:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Highpeakster, though I thought it was a sensible discussion, not a battle. Let's agree to disagree. Dave.Dunford 16:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Just for interest (and I don't want to start this off again), The Guardian travel section for Saturday 31st March 2007 has a feature on Kinder Scout, which says: "Despite its reputation, Kinder Scout is an iconic mountain – and before the pedants strike I should say it is a mountain because it just creeps in by being 88ft over the British qualifying mark of 2000ft." Which would destroy my argument – if only that mythical "British qualifying mark" actually existed. Dave.Dunford 14:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Additions as of 7 March 07[edit]

I've made a handful of additions to the main article, largely based on information found in Hayfield in the 19th Century, a pamphlet published by New Mills Heritage Centre. Wherever possible I've corroborated the information provided in the book with online sources. Note that the pamphlet has an ISBN number (ISBN 0952186977) but this doesn't currently show-up on any book search engines (or Highpeakster

Additions and tidying up: 8 March 07[edit]

Just a handful of additions as well as tidying up. Additionally, the History section now has subheadings. I really can't think of anything to add to the entry without going into inappropriate detail (ie not encyclopaedic). I intend to add one or two photos to brighten up the article. Highpeakster 17:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oldest pub[edit]

Although the George Inn has a banner claiming to be the village's oldest pub, the Bulls Head disputes this claim. has this: "The Bulls Head Inn is the oldest pub in the Village starting life as the Brewhouse Inn accommodation for the church circa 1396 became known as the Bulls Head when Henry the 8th took these ecclesiastical Inns out of church ownership (that's why there are many Bulls Heads next to churches)." Architecturally the building looks older too. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the George is the longest continuously running pub in Hayfield, which is to say it hasn't changed its name. But I know of the controversy of which you speak and I'm keeping well clear :) But I would point out that it's Phil Gee, former owner of the Bull, who makes the claim, maybe because being the oldest pub in an area is good for business. Incidentally, I understood the Bull's Head name for a pub comes from the seal of the bishop (called a "bulla") which is why there always tends to be Bull's Head/The Bull pubs next door to churches. This factoid comes direct from the Hedfield to Hayfield book, in fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote " longest continuously running pub in Hayfield, which is to say it hasn't changed its name" I suggest you check when the first King of Great Britain named George began his reign according to Wikipedia: 1st August 1714. If you have ever been in the George Hotel Hayfield you will note that all the downstairs windows are made of stained glass depicting events from the reigns of the various King Georges so what was it called prior to that ?Phil Gee (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Confusion often arrises due to the date stone of 1788 over the door of the Bull. However this dates from when the front was added by T Hobson the then owner to extend the Bull to line up with the the recently completed row of shops. Recent renovations at the bull showed this was a much latter addition to the rest of the building, which may well predate the old Church. Phil Gee who sold the Bull in 2006 is still of the same opinion, members of his family having owned both the George and the Bull and the Grotto House on the river side of the Church. There is no apostrophe in the name Bulls Head it predates its introduction and check out the area and note how many inns/pubs named the Bull or Bulls Heads there are close to Churches —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Gee (talkcontribs) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Domesday Book reference – Hedfelt or Hedfeld?[edit]

Local historians state that Hayfield's entry in the Domesday book reads Hedfeld. Indeed, some books authorised by various Hayfield organisations use this word in their titles. However, both the National Archives website (linked to in the main article) and Domesday Book – Derbyshire (ISBN 085033165X), a translation published by Phillimore in 1978, refer to Hedfelt. The Phillimore book reproduces the printed edition of the Domesday Book, from 1783, created by Abraham Farley, alongside a modern day translation, produced by the book's editor Philip Morgan. Additionally, Morgan checked Farley's edition against facsimiles of the original for the sake of accuracy. Therefore, I'd suggest local historians are wrong, unless d and t are somehow interchangeable in the latin/Norman French used in the Domesday Book. I don't know a lot about this subject but I don't believe this is the case. (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In my copy of the 1809 translation of the Record called Domesday by The Rev William Bawden There is some confusion between Hadfield and Hayfield but if you know the area then it is obvious that 'Hedfeld' is actually Hayfield and 'Hetfelt' is Hadfield which is now known internationally by its alter ego Royston Vasey . Phil Gee (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Phil, in my translation (Philimore, as above) both Hayfield (Hedfelt) and Kinder (Chendre) are mentioned on the same page. Additionally, the translation describes them as Hayfield and Kinder. I don't know if Hadfield is in the Domesday book but it's not mentioned on that page, and wouldn't be anyway because it is some miles away. I am 100% certain that the village as referred to in the Domesday book as Hedfelt, unless the translation is wrong (very, very unlikely). I think that whichever local historian started mentioning it as "Hedfeld" simply made a mistake, or perhaps d and t are interchangable in Norman French/Latin. I don't know. But it is definitely the case that the majority opinion, and the most modern interpretation, is that the village was listed as Hedfelt, and not Hedfeld. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear ?? why not use a real name? I refer to my 1809 copy of Translation of the Record called Domesday by the Rev. William Bawdwen Vicar of Hooton Pagnell, Yorkshire. p295 Based on the 1780 copy by Mr Joseph Jackson printed by Mr John Nichols. The context is important so why not refer to a map? and when a name is embedded within a list and that list relates to a specific geographical area it's a high probability that it is in that area, on this basis it is my contention that whichever is in the list for the Longendale -Glossop area is Hadfield and the one between Witfield and Chendre is Hayfield. What does it say in yoursPhil Gee (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hayfield – Statistics[edit]

National Statistics need the application of local knowledge as Hayfield Parish has two electoral wards: Hayfield Town and Hayfield Sett In the 2001 Census, Hayfield Town Ward had 2,164 residents, across 910 households and Hayfield Sett Ward some 558 electors accross 284 households the 2001 census for the Civil Parish of Hayfield shows a population of 2852 persons 1410 males and 1442 female Dwellings 1253 Households 1205Phil Gee (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC) The High Peak Borough Ccouncil Sett Ward includes the Hayfield Sett electoral ward and the New Mills Sett electoral ward Phil Gee (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC) When you go onto the Office for National Statistics at (1) enter Hayfield you then need to select 'More areas' for (2) and select Parish which gives correct data Phil Gee (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

editwar-ing and signing[edit]

There is a B class Derbyshire article here. Can we stop arguing and find the consensus. thx Victuallers (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I see no evidence of an edit war. I reverted a single edit made by Phil Gee yesterday because it was unclear, and lacked references. I've added a note above asking Phil to provide references whenever he makes additions. I've actually just fixed the addition he made again by looking up the references for him, and adding a note about the difference in the article between Parish and village

Please sign your comments. Its not usual to revert someones contribution unless it is offensive or gobbledygook. If you revert stuff cos you think it is unclear or because you think it lacks references then your contribution above which lacks references and isnt signed would be deleted immediately, by anyone who cares to use that as a reason (albeit I wouldn't agree). I think I can still see an edit war developing... what does Phil say? I think we need to improve the etiquette here and find the consensus. Deleting other peoples contribution rarely leads to a consensus. Signed Victuallers (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Life's too short for an edit war if anonymous Wikipedians don't like the truth or the opinion of someone who family has lived in the area for generations, I can always put information on our local site/s [4] which ranks pretty high on most search engines and is cited as reference in these Wiki pages Phil Gee (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kinder Low – burial site?[edit]

I have a book here called The King's England. Written in 1937, it was intended to be a multi-part "Domesday book", and covers most villages in the UK. I have the Derbyshire book. Under the entry for Hayfield, it says something a little strange: "... Kinderscount, the great tableland wild and savage in rock and ravine.... culminating in the height of Kinder Low, where unknown men are sleeping in a mound 2088 feet above the sea."

I'm not sure if this is just flowery language, or whether he's saying there's a burial site there. What do you think? (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This refers to the (presumed) Bronze Age bowl barrow on Kinderlow End – see Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC) – advert in disguise?[edit]

Somebody has added a link to but this appears to me to be an embellished advert created by the owners of Bridge End/Grumbleys. I don't think it's right that it's linked to from Wikipedia, because it provides very little new information that isn't already in the article, and there are better external sources of information listed (for example, the Parish council website). (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It also appears to steal copy from the Wikipedia page too – see, and compare to the beginning of the main article. I look forward to seeing their GPL compliance notice... (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

I've had a very quick read of this article. I'm sorry but I don't see it as a strong GAN candidate, its not sufficiently bad to merit a "quick fail", but the WP:Lead is inadequate and it appears to be under referenced.

I will now start reviewing the article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. At this point it will be concentrating on the "problems". Pyrotec (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Location and geography -
  • This is mostly unreferenced; and in places suffers from WP:Vagueness, For instance:
  • "Anecdotally it is often described as being "at the foot of Kinder Scout"", by whom?
  • "The bypass was built to ease heavy traffic that once travelled through the narrow main streets of the village", when was it built?
  • I would expect a citation for the annual well dressing ceremony.
  • "Although classed as being in the East Midlands, Hayfield is at the northern extremity of the region and falls more within the influence of Manchester and Stockport in North West England." Unreferenced.
  • History -
  • "Some kind of settlement has been in existence in Hayfield since Roman times, and possibly before.". Unreferenced and Vague, for example want kind of settlement existed and for how long?
    • Early history -
  • Ref 2 appears to be a book (an isbn is given) that is used five times, but no page or pages references are given so it's not compliant with WP:Verify.
  • Ref 4 is not properly quoted. Its listed as "National Archives", but what is apparently being used are two catalogue entries relating to the Domesday book, but Hayfield is not mentioned by name on the web site.
  • Ref 5 is not fully cited (see {{Cite book}} for example of how to cite a book). I found the full listing by following the isbn link, so there is no reason for not citing it in full.
  • The following statement: "There is some dispute as to which is the oldest pub in the village, with both the Bulls Head [sic] (believed to have been established circa 1396[9]) and the George Hotel (believed to have been established circa 1575[10]) vying for the title", is made, but I'm not convinced that WP:RS are being used. Ref 9 is a broken web link, but is stated to be published by the local cricket club and the other (ref 10) is "Sourced from George Hotel publicity material"! Since these are old building, there will be better sources than these, they may even be listed buildings.
  • The Industrial Revolution–present day -
  • The first two paragraphs are quite vague, and the references (one each) is not properly cited. It's basically ref 2 again.
  • The fourth paragraph, on the railway is unreferenced. The following paragraph is also unreferenced, other than by the use of a web site that has a copyright photograph - that merely shows that the photograph exists and that the line crossed the street, not that the photograph was famous.
  • Ref 16 is a book, but its not properly cited, i.e. no author given, nor page number(s) quoted. (see {{cite book}} for information on how to cite books. Since it is a 1937 publication, it will not have an isbn).
  • Its a minor point, but since 17 and 18 are the same reference I don't see the point of making a separate ref 18 and using an "ibid". Use ref 17 twice.
  • The final paragraph (two sentences) is unreferenced.
  • Churches in the area -
  • Ref 20 is a book, whilst the book itself is cited correctly, no page numbers are given, so its not WP:verifiable as it stands.
  • Refs 21, 22 and 23 are not properly cited; the last two using "ibid"s. These citations should be properly cited using either the template {{Cite web}} or in non-templated format.
  • The Mass Trespass -
  • This section is unreferenced.
  • Modern Hayfield -
  • Claims made in respect of the census are referenced through citations 24, 25 and 26, which merely state "Office of National Statistics". That is the "publisher": these citations should be properly cited using either the template {{Cite web}} or in non-templated format.
  • Ref 27 is not properly cited, its another "ibid".
  • The final paragraph is not properly cited, it uses in-line links to web cites.
  • Outdoor pursuits and sports -
  • The various web links are not properly cited. One, ref 31 is just an unnamed web link.
  • Myths and legends -
  • The first paragraph is a direct quotation from a web site which claims copyright. Since the material dates to 1745, I doubt that the web site owns the copyright, but that is hardly the point.
  • The final paragraph is not properly cited, its another "ibid".
  • Famous residents -
  • Ref 36 is a book and it is PROPERLY cited (sorry about the shouting).
  • The lead is intended to both introduce the article and to provide a summary of the main points in the article. This adequately provides an introduction, but makes no attempt at providing a summary.

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Some paragraphs suffer from WP:Vagueness.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    The WP:Lead is non-compliant.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Some provided, but insufficiently referenced. Often, books are used but no page number(s) given, "ibid" citations used, and "raw" web links.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    See above.
    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:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'm not awarding this article GA-status. It is probably a B-class article, but is no higher than that.

Unfortunately, this appears to be one of a series of well-intended nominations of Derbyshire articles by an editor who does not appear to have been a contributor to the article (unless previously using an IP-address, there are a lot of IP edits in the article history) and how does not appear to understand the requirements of WP:WIAGA. These nominations include New Mills (reviewed by me, mid Feb 2011) and Chapel-en-le-Frith (not reviewed by me, but reviewed early Feb 2011), neither of which have been brought up to anywhere near GA standard since "failing". Since all three article suffer from similar problems, I don't regard a "Hold" as being appropriate.

I would, however, like to see all three article reach GA-standard. Pyrotec (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Highgate Hall[edit]

Does anyone have a date for Highgate Hall? Recent IP edits have offered dates of 1565 and 1610, the latter quoting which merely says "C17", unless I'm missing something. Dave.Dunford (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Farlands Booth[edit]

As far as I know (as a local), and according to the Ordnance Survey map, Farlands and Booth are two separate farms. Google has few hits for "Farlands Booth" and those that exist seem to be database-generated. Even if there is a recognised "place" called Farlands Booth, it's scarcely a hamlet and this insertion in the lead seems too prominent to me. I've asked where Wikiphunt got the information from. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"Tightening" lead[edit]

Although some of the changes were useful in reducing verbiage, I've reverted most of Haldraper's edit to the lead (diff) for the following reasons:

  • The fact that Hayfield is a civil parish as well as a village is important. The wording "X is a village and civil parish in..." is exactly as is suggested at WP:UKVILLAGES ([5]).
  • As the article is about the parish as well as the village, the identity of other settlements within that parish is relevant and important.
  • Per WP:OVERLINK "the names of major geographic features and locations" should not be linked. England is a "major geographic location".
  • Per WP:COPYEDIT (Punctuation section) "Location constructions such as Vilnius, Lithuania require a comma after the second element, e.g., He was born in Vilnius, Lithuania, after the country had gained independence." The edit removed the comma.

Basically the lead of the Hayfield article is not overly long and there is no need to "tighten" it. The lead, before Haldraper's edit, was consistent with the guidance at WP:UKVILLAGES, which says "It should not exceed four paragraphs". Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hayfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)