Jump to content

Talk:Yeovil/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing (tomorrow morning). Pyrotec (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

I've had a reasonably detailed read of this article and corrected a few thinks as I went through it. I will now dow a detailed review.

At this point the article looks quite reasonable, but I've seen a few problems: References don't always appear to be fully specified; some of the material was written in the present tense, but has not been updated; and in some cases information is vague. As I prefer, I will be discussing the WP:Lead last. Pyrotec (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • History -
  • Done
  • Done
  • Ref 5 is a book, the relevant page or pages numbers should be provided in the citations.
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC) - There are, also, several editions of this book - the reference fails to provide a year, an edition, or an ISBN[reply]
  • What makes Ref 7 (used once), 8 (used four times) & 11 (used once) a reliable source? All three appear to be identical, hence my lack of the plural "sources".
  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC) - There is a problem with: "Babylon Hill across the River Yeo to the south east of the town was the site of a minor skirmish, the Battle of Babylon Hill, during the English Civil War, which resulted in the Earl of Bedford's Roundheads forced back Sir Ralph Hopton's Cavaliers to Sherborne."[reply]
  • Hopefully done - should be "forcing back"
  • I've added a para on this but it is confusing - I have asked for help from an expert.
  • The statement that: "in 1856, the town gained borough status and was given a mayor" is unreferenced.
  • Done
  • The 2006 fingerprinting scheme, dated 2006, was written in the present tense before I altered it. I would have expected some progress update.
  • I can't find any mention since 2006
  • Updated (latest April 2010 - still consulting)
  • Governance -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 20 & 21, despite their different tags, are identical links to the same website.
  • I'm confused as refs have been renumbered but this and this have the same top of the page but the content lower down is different - one about history & the other about roles & responsibilities - were these the ones you were referring to?— Rod talk 16:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geography & Demography -
  • Looks OK.
  • Economy -
  • The second paragraph appears to be a Point of view, it should be removed or properly cited.
  • Landmarks -
  • Rather "bitty" - consists mostly of one-sentence paragraphs.
  • Religious sites -
  • Nice ref about the bells. I assume that ref 44 also verifies the first part of the paragraph, which is currently unreferenced?
  • Yes - clarified
  • It appears to form its first function, i.e. to act as an introduction to the article, not its not all the good and the section function, i.e. summarising the main points of the article. It perhaps aught to be twice its current size.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. I don't anticipate too much trouble in correcting these problems. Pyrotec (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


An informative, 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:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on yet another GA. Pyrotec (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, comments & edits which have helped to improve the article.— Rod talk 10:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]