Talk:Ilkley/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

This is quite a reasonable article which should make GA. The main problem is lack of in-line citations in some sections and that {verification needed} flag in the Culture and attractions sections. It's not clear to me why the article was submitted for WP:GAN with a {verification needed} flag. I'm putting the article On Hold, so that these problems can be addressed.

Going through the article section by section, but leaving the WP:lead until last:

• History - a good section, but:

• In the second paragraph, Roman Altars unreferenced. - now referenced
• The last three paragraphs are entirely unreferenced.  DonePyrotec (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Governance -

• The section is entirely unreferenced.

• Geography -

• The statement in the second paragraph about the four bridges is unreferenced.
• The paragraph about railways is unreferenced.
• The claims about "Olicanian" in Demographics is unreferenced.

• Transport -

• This is referenced, but it only mentions trains and buses. There is nothing about roads/motorways, and I seem to remember an airport at Leeds/Bradford, which I assume is nearby (and commutable?)? DonePyrotec (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Culture and attractions -

• The last paragraph is unreferenced.
• Note: I've removed the Swastika Stone para from Culture, since it seemed mainly to be a vehicle for Terry Deary's odd speculation on its meaning, which could be more appropriately discussed on the Swastika Stone page. This gets rid of the verification required tag. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Schools -

• A rather '"thin" section. There is a cited reference to a school established in 1608, then an uncited list of current schools. I would have expected some intervening information, for instance the list includes a Grammar school, a CofE school and a RC school, there must be some information about them, date of formation, etc?

• Breadth of Scope -

Ilkey, from the article, appears to be a 17th century planned town and this is mentioned in History', but not in the WP:lead; and is hardly elaborated in the article. The WP:lead makes much about the "spa town heritage" and and there is a paragraph on this is History. Wells house is mentioned in History and again in Higher Education, but it is not clear if they are the same Wells house, or if the various editors of the two sections know either.

• WP:lead -

.....to be continued.Pyrotec (talk)14:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Main review

The article has been improved in parts, I'm therefore going to concentrate in the main on the parts that need further work. The main problem remains lack of WP:verify. As before I'm leaving the WP:lead until last.

• History - a good section, but:

• The statement "Tourists flocked here to 'take the waters' and bathe in the cold water spring." was claimed to be taken from ref 9, which was mis-cited, but no page number was given. I'm not convinced, so I moved the citation, as it does provide a reference for earlier statements.
• A citation is need for "Wheatley today is called Ben Rhydding after the Hydro, which has since been demolished."

• Governance -

• Final paragraph is unreferenced.

• Geography -

• The statement in the second paragraph about the four bridges is unreferenced.
• The claims about "Olicanian" in Demographics is unreferenced.

• Culture and attractions -

• There is no citation for "The town was also a location for the 2003 British comedy film Calendar Girls"; and I'm not convinced from wikipedia that the statement is completely accurate. It was only one of several locations used.

You're right, it was *one* of several. That's why I wrote "The town was also *a* location". In other words, I think the sentence makes this clear already. Of course, a citation is still needed. Thanks for your reviewing. :-) --Richardob (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

The lead is rather short. The lead is intended to do two things: provide an introduction to the article, which is does reasonably well; and to summarise the main points of the article. I would suggest that the lead needs to be expanded to about twice its present size - perhaps by adding a third paragraph which includes a bit more summarised information on Ilkley.

On Hold -

• This article has been "On Hold" since 27 June 2009, for improvements to be made. This is normally one week, but my Initial comments were left incomplete so I am extending this hold. I will be reviewing the article early next week and a decision with be made then on whether to pass or fail the article.Pyrotec (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Overall Summary

This article is quite close to GA-status, but very little, if any progress, has been made in fixing the oustanding problems. I'll therefore closing this WP:GAN. The article, can of course be resubmitted to WP:GAN preferably after the problems highlighted above have been addressed. I wish you well in your effects to improve this article.Pyrotec (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)