Talk:Somerton, Somerset/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look and start to leave some comments within the next few days. I am taking on board a batch of reviews, so it may be some time before I start to comment. I am also by nature a fairly slow and thorough reviewer who likes to check out sources, so this is unlikely to be quick. However, I am always willing to help out on the editing, and will make direct minor adjustments myself rather than list them. I always welcome discussion, and see the review process as entirely collaborative. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Initial review

Tick list GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Is it reasonably well written? A. Prose quality: B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: Is it factually accurate and verifiable? A. References to sources: B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: C. No original research: Is it broad in its coverage? A. Major aspects: B. Focused: Is it neutral? Fair representation without bias: Is it stable? No edit wars, etc: 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: Overall: Pass or Fail: Comments There's some nice images, though there are also some questionable ones. The radio station image is dark, with a lot of scruffy foreground. This won't impact on the GA criteria, but if better qualities images can be found, that would improve the overall look of the article. The captions are acceptable, though a little terse: "Butter Cross" for example could be expanded a little. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Copyvio? When looking up the Butter Cross I came upon this which uses the exact same wording as our article. Copying and pasting sentences is not acceptable, though sometimes websites copy us. Can I have some clarification of what has happened here. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC) It appears I added that sentance with this edit in Sept 2007. The wayback machine machine on Internet Acrchive shows the page on the Somerton Web Museum back to Jan 2009 but not back any further, so I can't show definitively which came first. I will revise the sentence.— Rod talk 08:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC) I appreciate that. 2007 is a long time ago, and I wouldn't be able to remember the origin of all edits I made back then. If the website doesn't go back further than 2009, it is highly likely the website has copied your wording. This happens more often than people realise! SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC) The castle. What's the story here? The text says there was no castle, and that people may be confused with a castle in Lincolnshire, but the source indicates there was a castle. This source also indicates that there was a castle, though one writer (presumably because there are no visible remains) felt that there was no castle. There's more evidence here that the castle existed and has some recorded history. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC) I think the text currently in the article may be too strong for a "possible" or even "probable" castle, although I would agree that the possibility has been mentioned in some sources should be included. I can find no record for this being a castle on Pastscape - English Heritage's National Monument Record. I have seen the site "castle Facts" challenged as not being a reliable source in the past. I have asked a castle expert for help or an opinion.— Rod talk 15:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Having now looked at English Heritage Extensive Urban Survey. An archaeological assessment of Somerton & Dunning's book "Somerset Castle" the evidence is strongest for the gaol between 1280-c.1371 rather than a castle. The gaol had a "an old tower embattled about castle-like" in 1579.— Rod talk 16:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC) I think Castle Facts have taken their text from the Gatehouse Somerton Castle article; Gatehouse rates the site as a "probable" castle site. In terms of the various other authors, as far as I'm aware...: King doesn't think there was a castle in this Somerton. Dunning doesn't think was a medieval castle, but notes that there was a later building called (unhelpfully) Somerton Castle. Prior doesn't list Somerton as a Norman castle, and I can't find any references in Pounds or Creighton, who are usually pretty extensive in their coverage. I'd be inclined to say in the main text that the existence of a medieval defensive castle is uncertain, observe that a later building was called certainly called a castle (causing some confusion), and then footnote some the respective claims. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Good to see that people are working on this. I suggest people apply references and amend text directly on the article, so everyone can work on an agreeable wording. I have made some amendments, and would be very happy to see people edit and change my wording. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC) There is a lot on wiki-linking. This is not part of GA criteria, though as part of the ongoing development of the article the linking could be reduced. WP:OVERLINK. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC) I've reduced some of the overlinking - is more needed?— Rod talk 07:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC) The prose of the article is on the edge of meeting GA criteria; it conveys information, though it is fairly limited, and not a pleasure to read. It is dry and dull - simply stating lists of facts, with little detail, and going from one fact to another. It reads like a series of bare, disjointed notes gathered with the intention of writing up an article - but the article has not yet been written. As part of ongoing development the facts could be fleshed out, and an attempt made to put details in context, so that the information is conveyed in a pleasant manner that encourages the reader to engage with the text. If all else in the article is acceptable I wouldn't let the quality of the prose hold up a listing, but if there are other issues in the article, it would be a contributing factor to not listing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Several editors have been working on improving the prose.— Rod talk 07:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC) The article mainly meets the MoS and formatting requirements, though the lead need work per WP:lead. It is not an appropriate summary of the article,it contains details not in the article (most of the second paragraph) and does not contain anything from the History section, nor make mention of "The town's most noted feature...." SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC) I have moved most of the second paragraph to history and written a new paragraph trying to more adequately summarise the article.— Rod talk 07:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC) OK I'm back and very sorry for my long absence (Y11). I have looked through the review thoroughly and although I had nominated the review, I'm a bit confused with its prose. For example in the lead: "The town of Somerton has a long history, dating back to the Anglo-Saxon era." This is confusing as it really suggests that Somerton has only had a history in the Anglo-Saxon era. Also the lead does not mention Somerton Court or any other points of interest. I'll do a copy edit on the lead now. I think all of the points have been taken above but I'll finish the article off if that's OK. Since I've been absent from the review, I'll do anything I can to help. Jaguar (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC) On hold I haven't yet checked sources for accuracy and coverage, etc. I am putting this on hold for an initial seven days to allow contributors time to work on presentation and formatting issues. The prose needs developing to make the article more readable - this may entail doing more research to flesh out the bare bones. The lead needs building so it is an appropriate overview of the article. It would be helpful to also deal with the overlinking issue. Articles on discrete topics such as small country towns with limited history are not too difficult to get listed as Good Articles, so I think that with a bit of effort on polishing the prose and fleshing out the facts, this should get listed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Railway The reference currently labeled "Somerton Railway Closure" links to "A Brief History of Somerton" by Tim Lambert, which does not mention the railway station that "was closed in 1962". Folklore1 (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC) There are more sources mentioned in Fritwell & Somerton railway station. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Fritwell & Somerton is in Oxfordshire, but there is a short piece (uncited) at Langport and Castle Cary Railway#Somerton.— Rod talk 06:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC) I've sorted the ref & added another one for the station closure - although I did spot the sentence is duplicated in history and transport sections.— Rod talk 07:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC) The road section is pretty inaccurate- two B roads run across Somerton (B3151 and B3151), one runs into the town (B3156) and three A roads are about 1.5 to 2 miles south (A303, A37 and A372). I'd edit it, but I don't have any ref apart from the Google map, or any idea what should be included. Ning-ning (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Lead and history Well done on the work so far. The lead, however, still needs building - it doesn't fully convey the history of the town; there is no mention, for example, that the town was once the county town for Somerset, nor that it gave its name to the county. And a little more attention needs to be paid to the history - there is no mention of King Ina for example. I'll extend the hold for another 7 days, and try to get back before then to help out where I can, and to - at least - give a little more concrete advice regarding where the article is meeting or missing GA criteria, and what can be done to improve it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC) I've added a bit to the lead mentioning its role as county town and giving its name to the county. I'm not sure about adding Ine of Wessex the source you point to is highly speculative and is not mentioned on the (FA class) article about him. The unknown farmers son is less credible than connections to Cenred of Wessex and Ceolwald of Wessex within the House of Wessex.— Rod talk 16:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC) This "plateau" on which Somerton is situated- is this not a part of the Poldens? Ning-ning (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC) The Polden Hills are just north of Somerton but separated from it by the River Cary. Whether it still counts as part of the Poldens I'm not sure.— Rod talk 08:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Littleton, mentioned here as being part of Somerton, is mentioned in the Compton Dundon article as being a hamlet within the parish of Compton. Maybe the ref to Littleton, and its SSSI, should be removed from this article. Compton lies between Somerton and the Poldens, so I suppose Somerton's not in the Poldens. Ning-ning (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC) I'm away this weekend, taking part in the Beachy Head Marathon. I'll take a close look at the article next week with a view to closing this GAN. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Refresh

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   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:

Comments

Wiping the blackboard to make a fresh list so we can see where we are. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Pass

• Images. Images are copyright tagged and have captions. The quality is acceptable, though if images with less shadow, or better quality can be found that would useful. The layout in Religious sites needs adjusting, though that comes under MoS - Layout. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Stable. No edit wars. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral. No indication of bias. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Original research. Article is factual and based on sources. There are plenty of inline sources to enable fact checking. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Prose. The prose can be understood and meets GA criteria. As part of ongoing development the writing can be improved. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Major aspects. Article appears to give an acceptable overview of the town and its history. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Borderline

• Sources. There are plenty of inline cites, and the sources generally support the article and are of an acceptable standard. I have tagged one statement which is an opinion that the Butter Cross is Somerton's most noted feature. That needs a source, or to be removed. I have also tagged the Religious sites section. What I think has happened there is that some of the cites have got mixed up, and are not supporting the statements that they should. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fail

• Focus. There is a tendency to put in information, merely because it has been found. A judgement needs to be made as to which information is important or interesting, and which is simply padding. The Climate section is rather long and contains some very trivial information - why was it felt important to mention: "In December 1998 there were 20 days without sun recorded at Somerton"? And the general comments on how rainfall happens does not belong in an article on a rural town, but in the article on rain. Some of the detail in Governance can also be cut back - though that is not as critical as the climate section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The bit that says "In December 1998 there were 20 days without sun recorded at Somerton" was a mistake - the climate section are copied (not copy and pasted) but are based from other articles. The climate section in Somerton was copied from either Cheddar or Yeovil which aren't that far away, so either of those two articles included that wrong sentence. I'll delete this sentence right away. It is probably not even true! Jaguar (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• MoS. The MoS aspects are often the hardest to pass. This doesn't miss by much though. The two images in Religious sites should not squeeze the text - see Wikipedia:Image layout. There are some very short sections, and these make the article look untidy and cluttered - see WP:BODY. Some thought could be given to either merging the sections (Culture and Landmarks for example), expanding upon them (is it possible to write more in the Economy section?), or even removing them - is the Culture section needed? or the Transport section? It would help, where possible, to reduce the number of very short paragraphs. The Economy section could be one paragraph, making it look neater. The WP:Lead is often a problem as well. An easy rule of thumb is that each major section should have a summary in the lead. If it seems that information in the section is too trivial to be summarised in the lead, then consideration could be given to if the information (or section) should be in the article at all. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed these points (hopefully). I've expanded the Transport section, merged the Economy section and fixed the layout in the Religious sites section but I think that the culture section might be needed as the television series that was set in Somerton is definitely notable - not quite sure what to do with this one though. Jaguar (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hold

We're almost there with this article. I don't think this will pass with flying colours, but I think that the article collects together the basic information on a small town in a rural area. The information is clear and well supported by inline cites. Deal with the cite tags, trim back at least the Climate section, and perhaps the Governance as well, and then tidy up the appearance, the short paragraphs, short sections, and the squeezed text; and finally build up the lead a bit more by summarising the sections not already covered. I'll put on hold to allow the work to be done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look tonight with the aim of closing this. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• The Lead still needs attention. Ina has two sentences in the lead, but nothing in the main body. The second paragraph is mainly history, then appends some landmark information which should be in a different paragraph. The opening paragraph does not really state the notable information about the town - see WP:MOSBEGIN.

To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go at the lead and expanded it - hopefully this version should look better. I'll include King Ina in the main body somewhere. Jaguar (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• There are still two citation tags in the Religious sites section. I suspect the information is contained in one of the sources given in that section, but the cites have got mixed up, and the present inline cites lead to the wrong place. That needs sorting. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think one of these sites has changed since it was used as a reference. I have moved/replaced the citations so that they support the text. NB "soldiers who camped in the church in 1646 before the Battle of Langport" is a copyvio from Somerton Web Museum page on the church and needs rewording.— Rod ^talk 18:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• The Climate section contains information relative to the South West, if there is nothing specific that can be found relating to Somerton, then reduce to a brief summary and link to the main article: "Somerton's climate is typical of the climate of south-west England which is usually cool winters with warmer summers and precipitation all year round, with more rain experienced in winter." The detailed weather lesson is inappropriate for the section, statements such as "In the summer the Azores high-pressure system affects the south-west of England. Convective cloud sometimes forms inland, reducing the number of hours of sunshine..." are excessive and lack focus as they do not apply specifically to the subject of the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Climate section shortened as you recommend.— Rod ^talk 18:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• The Square. This is mentioned twice, but I don't see The Square on a map of Somerton. The Butter Cross is located in Market Place. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• The Square is mentioned in this source but referring to the 17th century so may have been renamed. I have not changed this in the article— Rod ^talk 18:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The name of the location is Market Place, but it appears that locally it is called the square, and sometimes market square, and some sources say Market Square or Square, which is fine for the source, but is not acceptable for us as it is grammatically incorrect. I have put in Market Place. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Check the source for when the brewery closed. It appears to have ceased brewing around 1935 rather than 1985. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Changed to around 1935 - the confusion may have been as it says the site was derelict until 1985.— Rod ^talk 18:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• These are only minor details and can be done quickly. It would be good to put this GAN to bed. I'll hold for another 48 hours and then close this GAN as fail or list. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• That Somerton gives its name to Somerset is notable enough for the lead. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Pass

All the quibbles have been dealt with. Listing as a Good Article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)