Wikipedia:Peer review/Bentworth/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bentworth[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I have been recommended to take this to peer review before building this to FA quality. Bentworth was the first ever article I edited and is the sole reason on why I edit Wikipedia today. This will be the largest project I have ever done and am in all seriousness ready to build this to FA. It took me three years to bring this to GA, and thanks to Dr. Blofeld we finally made it so in 2012. Pinging @Dr. Blofeld:, @Cassianto: and @Gerda Arendt: who might have some comments for this, anything at all will be appreciated. I'll ask a few other people too who might be willing to comment. Thanks! JAGUAR  18:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad timing Jaguar, as I was telling Ian Rose recently I don't intend working on another featured article for quite some time, although Streep and Kubrick perhaps later in the year!! Last time I read it after fully expanding it back in February 2012 I thought the prose was still rather rough but I definitely found as much as I could about it. If you're up for it though I wish you the best of luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry to hear that, Dr. Blofeld! It seems that I have been getting into a lot of bad timing lately. Getting Bentworth to FA would be the culmination of my Wikipedia career, it would mean everything to me and I'm prepared to do whatever it takes. Would you know anyone who would comment here? I could ask Rationalobserver. In the mean time I'll do a copyedit and fix Ukiws' mess! JAGUAR  21:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, perhaps some of those who commented in some of my peer reviews would be interested in looking at it. The important thing is that this is comprehensive, but not too sure on the quality of prose.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're dead set on promoting this to FA Jaguar then I guess, given that I've written a fair bit for it too, I'll go for it with you, but I'm taking a back seat on it and will let you deal with most of the comments! I doubt much more could be found on the village in books anyway, so that at least makes the task easier. Perhaps a few people could give it a copyedit? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you, Dr. Blofeld! We did bring it up to GA three years ago so you can take a back seat if you want to? I've set every fibre of my mind to bring this up to FAC, as this article means a lot to me. Thankfully its bargaining chip at FAC is its comprehensiveness, but I can only attempt a full scale copyedit once I get enough comments before the FAC. Maybe it would be helpful for anyone uninvolved with this so far to offer a second opinion... JAGUAR  15:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerda[edit]

This is the first English village I visit more closely ;)

  • Lead
    • is there a more recent census? (just asking)
      • Censuses in the UK are recorded every ten years, the 2011 census is the closest we'll get JAGUAR  12:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should we link Saxon and Roman?
    • I did some copy-editing, revert if you don't like it.

Interrupted, will get back. General hint: not so many pictures, choose the best, and take a new lead picture, the flowering tree is pretty but could be anywhere ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments so far! I was thinking of making a montage like major city articles have, but I'm not sure if it is discouraged for villages. I'll update the images whenever the weather turns out well. JAGUAR  12:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a friend of montage but like individual images where they belong in the context. If you like to make one I won't object, though. Speaking of images, alternate texts are one of a few accessibility aspects you will want to check, mentioned here and here. More to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about it, but it might seem unnecessary to make one for a village of 500 people. I'll keep that in mind and I'll replace the infobox image before nominating this at FAC! JAGUAR  17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (added:) We will probably see in the very end what is lead material and what not. I don't need the name of an inn of the past there, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistoric

  • The first sentence about the road: even after the time I didn't get from where to where the road goes. Brackets are sometimes good within a sentence, but here I would simply start a new sentence for the present road number, or have it in the beginning, like "A road, today ...".
  • I'm not sure on how to re-word this one, I think it sounds clear? The present-day A339 road is at the end of the sentence. How would you want me to re-phrase it? JAGUAR  17:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what an impleplement implement (sorry for the typo) is but that may be my lack of English ;)
  • I didn't see an "impleplement" in the prehistoric section, maybe it's been corrected? JAGUAR  17:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval

  • Link Normandy (at the time)?
  • Ref for death 1340 legacy?
  • Got it. I even found the pages, publisher etc JAGUAR  17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was succeeded by his son until his death"?
  • I re-worded that today but it still sounds unclear, you're right. His son took over the manor until his death (his son's death). Very confusing as his son is unnamed but his grandson is... anyway, re-worded to make it clearer JAGUAR  17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Melton family, because it is mentioned among his possessions" - family - his?
  • Ah, re-worded to "their" JAGUAR  17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • consistent name for the person, second time without given name, Sir possibly the first time
  • Sorry I don't understand this part, is it the confusion with the Meltons? I hoped I made it clear as two of them are called John Melton! JAGUAR  17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one hundred and fifty years" or 150 years?
  • Changed to 150 JAGUAR  17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabethan

  • "In 1777 the Urry descendants were his daughters", - they were his descendants also the next year, no?
  • I rephrased to "In 1777 the Urry descendants were William Urry's daughters Mary and Elizabeth" - I hope that's clearer? I didn't understand the concern? JAGUAR  17:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that the ladies were always his descendants, not only in 1777, but don't know how to express better what you mean. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, I have rephrased it to "In 1777 William Urry's daughters Mary and Elizabeth, married two brothers" - I hope that's clearer? JAGUAR  13:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19th c

  • Bentworth Hall has an article, I don't think we need the details on its location.
  • Oops, removed. That shouldn't have been in there at all! I've also removed a large detail on its location by merging two paragraphs JAGUAR  17:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Ives family later included the author George Cecil Ives", - don't know how to fix, but reads as if he was adopted.
  • Rephrased to "shared ownership" JAGUAR  17:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for an abbreviation of the railway if it is never used
  • True, removed JAGUAR  17:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poor Emma dies twice?
  • I done some researching and I've discovered that George Ive's mother was a Spanish baroness and Emma was his paternal grandmother, so the first mention of Emma could not have been George's mother! I've removed her in the first instance and elaborated later. JAGUAR  17:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to World War I?
  • Image: no need of mentioning Inn which is not on it, no?
  • Which image did you mean? Almost all old pubs in England have "Inn" in their names, and as with Bentworth, the're both called the Star Inn and Sun Inn JAGUAR  17:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that the Star Inn is mentioned in a caption where it is not pictured, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, re-worded JAGUAR  13:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WWII

  • "play a role" sounds a bit too playful, sentence doesn't say much anyway
  • When this was GA I mentioned that the neighbouring village of Lasham had its own military airfield but it did not seem relevant to put in this article, so you're right. I have re-worded this JAGUAR  17:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post war

  • Glebe means what?
  • Glebe means "land belonging to the church" or "land that provided income". I've elaborated this in the article JAGUAR  17:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Break, - learned a lot! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the comments! JAGUAR  17:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for many responses, will read later, off to rehearsal, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto, go ahead. Back from rehearsal (Haydn mass), but not able to concentrate. I read to the end and confess that details of hamlets and buildings tend to make me sleepy. I wonder how much detail we need. - Remembering Kafka: the works were thrown out in the process to a separate article. Perhaps a list of buildings as a list with images would be good idea? - Generally to images: look which are really good illustrations and give them meaningful captions, explaining why they are there, connected to the text. Example: I moved Henry to where he is mentioned. - Style: I prefer to have no image left under a header, and no squeezed text between two images right and left, but that may be just me. Will look again tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I agree with you. Text squeeze, particularly, looks very unprofessional. CassiantoTalk 21:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the last FA reviews I took part in, it was the images that caused most discussion, see Carl Nielsen, for example. - The easiest way to limit that is just a few images, placed exactly where they match the text. If there are others which you want to keep in the article, consider a gallery or more, as in Hildesheim Cathedral. Example: the image of the War memorial is a stunning photo but doesn't really show the memorial. - I am out of details for about a week (writing GAs with a "deadline" ;) ), - usually a PR is open for a month, - way to go.
I agree with you regarding the detail with the hamlets and buildings - that may stem from previous personal obsession with the place! I don't mind cutting down on a few images. In fact if the weather is nice tomorrow I can go out and take updated images of Bentworth's manors and scenery (excluding Bentworth Hall itself, which is very private). What type of information do you recommend cutting down? I'm slightly worried on cutting down too much content as this article's bargaining chip for FAC so far is its comprehensiveness. I've been comparing the prose to Keswick and it seems like a good role model, despite Bentworth only being a small village in comparison. Gerda, do you have any more comments? JAGUAR  16:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't cut right now, but be prepared that the request may come, - for Kafka it came in FAC. I am busy - for about a week - and will wait for new pictures ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reading and looking again: I am impressed, excellent new photos and arrangement. Minor styling concerns:

  • Some FA reviewers are allergic to images over more than one paragraph, and to squeezed text between images, as in memorials. Possible help: drop header "war memorial" and that image, discuss the tomb last.
    • I agree, tight squeeze does look awkward. I've sadly removed the two images that caused the problem - but I think the problem is the long image of the plaque. I don't think the Hankin family tomb was essential, but the war memorial image was a sad loss. Anyway, no matter, the text is no longer squeezed! JAGUAR  16:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the two maps under administration - which are not exactly related to each other, no? - might be better split.
    • I think it's good to keep as it shows the boundaries of the Bentworth civil parish, and how little it has changed since medieval times! But on the other hand, a lot of English villages haven't changed since then. I would prefer to keep them together for comparison, but if there is an objection I could split it. JAGUAR  16:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can the caption explain that better? It wasn't obvious to me, and other may have the same problem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hall Place in 2012 with the remains of the 14th century chapel on the right" - sorry, don't see the remains, not even in bigger, - take another pic?
    • I tried taking a picture of Hall Place two weeks ago but I was being watched by a lady opposite and I felt suspicious walking around with a big camera! I'll try to take another picture when I get the chance. The chapel is barely visible to the right, but it is awkward to see. I've changed the caption for the mean time. JAGUAR  16:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bears image: similar, needs explanation to recognize what's on it.
    • I've changed to the caption to make it clearer - the bears are the family arms of the Berens JAGUAR  16:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other houses" seems not the best of headers. How about having all names in one, to be a little more flexible with the images?
    • That would mean the header would be renamed "Ivalls Cottage and Holt Cottage"? Would some FAC reviewers like that? I've changed it to that, but I'll remain nervous for when I nominate this anyway! JAGUAR  16:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get nervous if possible ;) - nothing worth can happen than that it isn't accepted, so what. In all reviews I took part in, all involved did their best to improve the article. Read that of Carl Nielsen, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You made me curious if a little bit more could be said about the Blues Festival.
    • Not as exciting as Glastonbury Festival, but it did attract some 2000 people. It was held from 2000-2014 but there are no reliable sources on the internet that I can find to expand it more. I've expanded it a little to make it sound more informative - but I've removed the red link as it doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. JAGUAR  16:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can also quote offline sources, such as newspapers. Good to remove the red link, - something I noticed that FA reviewers don't like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks promising to me, from the start with the collage! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again for the comments, Gerda! We hope very kindly created the montage as I wasn't sure how to fix the borders. I plan to nominate this at FAC this week, but before I do that I plan to expand the hamlets as much as I can. I'm not sure if anyone would have anything else to say at this peer review before I nominate this for FA, as I'm concerned what will happen at the FAC. It has been known for some candidates to go down hill even if reviewers spot the most minor of inconsistencies. Anyway, thanks again JAGUAR  16:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course people look differently at a newcomer than someone who wrote 100 FAs, a sources spot-check may be requested (was for my first). Try to see comments as helpful: that helps!

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Gerda, sorry to intrude; Jaguar, please let me know when Gerda has finished and I will duly pick up the baton. My initial thoughts are that the prose needs a lot of work and there maybe one too many images. I'll read away in the meantime. CassiantoTalk 18:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll let you know when all of Gerda's comments are clarified. I agree that the prose will need some work, but I'm confident I can do it if I receive enough feedback before nominating for FAC. User:Ukiws destroyed most of the prose back in 2012, the doctor can back me up on that... JAGUAR  18:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask in the meantime that you compared the prose and layout of the Bentworth article to that of Keswick, a recent FAC, authored by the ever-excellent Tim riley. He may even oblige with a review, who knows. CassiantoTalk 19:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make a point of looking in tomorrow, though in truth the Keswick article got to FA through Dr B's skill and drive more than mine. Tim riley talk 21:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassianto: I think I'm ready for your comments, if that's OK with you? Gerda said she won't be able to leave comments for another week, so I'll be willing to address anything you or others might have to say. As I said above, I have been comparing this to Keswick and I'll do what I can to clean up the prose. Bentworth's bargaining chip for FAC so far is its comprehensiveness - so I'll be grateful for any comments regarding the prose. Please feel free to be brutal! JAGUAR  16:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would combine the "Name" section with the "History" section for two reasons: (1) It's current length makes it look a bit ridiculous. (2) History could include history of name. Either flesh it out or combine it I would say.
  • I agree, I done some research and I couldn't find anything else to add on the name, otherwise I would have expanded it as much as possible. I've merged it with the beginning of the history section JAGUAR  15:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The route between the Roman town of Silchester to the north of Basing, and the Roman settlement of Vindomis, just east of the present-day town of Alton, passed through the Bentworth area (the road today being the A339)." -- Redundant use of "area". Can we reliably say it was through Bentworth?
  • It passed through the parish but not through the centre of the village itself, I've re-worded JAGUAR  15:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prehistoric remains found in the parish of Bentworth..." -- redundant use of "the parish".
  • Implement/implement used in close succession. Is there another word?
  • I removed the whole sentence as suggested below JAGUAR  19:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The implement is now featured in Newbury Museum." -- not really relevant here.
  • Removed the sentence JAGUAR  19:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "uncertain nature" in quotes?
  • I took it directly from the source as it said "uncertain nature", but you're right, it would look fine without the quotes JAGUAR  19:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Ivall's Cottage notable enough for a red link?
  • I didn't see a red link there, perhaps it got removed? JAGUAR  19:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although "Prehistoric and Roman times' is passable for a subheading, it's not preferable to Prehistoric and Roman era or similar; or maybe simply "Prehistory"?
  • I took your advice and changed it to "Prehistory"! JAGUAR  19:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole section seems to have very little to do with the Prehistoric and Roman period and has more to do with archeological finds. How was the village founded and by whom? Were there any notable periods? We're there any notable people?
  • There are no records of Bentworth prior to 1086, so the archaeological finds are the only things to suggest that the area of inhabited before the Domesday Survey. The only notable people in the village were only born after the Elizabethan era (George Wither, etc). I've merged the name section with Prehistory, so it should appear longer. If I can find any more information on the prehistory I'll flesh it out JAGUAR  19:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

At first read-through I thought this admirably comprehensive. Second read-through for prose quality follows soon. Tim riley talk 22:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the end of the History section:

  • Lead
    • "Bentworth has a long history which can be traced to Saxon times, despite Roman remains also being found in the area" – Not sure what this means. The main text doesn't seem to me to suggest that there is any stronger Saxon than Roman connection. I'd prefer something on the lines of "Bentworth has a long history; Bronze Age and Roman remains have been found in the area and there is evidence of a settlement in Saxon times." But that needs to be substantiated in the main text, and I see no specific mention of Saxon history there.
      • You're right; the only mention of Bentworth in Saxon times is the church itself, as the church section says "There is evidence to suggest that a Saxon church was located here and was rebuilt". I've changed the sentence to something along the lines you suggested: Bentworth has a long history; Bronze Age and Roman remains have been found in the area and there is evidence of a Saxon church in the village. I hope that sounds better? JAGUAR  20:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Medieval times
    • "the Domesday entry for the Hundred of Odiham mentions that it had a number of outlying parishes including Bentworth" – not in the cited example it doesn't. There's no mention of Bentworth that I can see.
      • Got it. I removed that citation and replaced it with the correct one from British History Online JAGUAR 
    • King Henry I is linked twice in successive paragraphs
    • Piping: "King Henry I" or "King Henry I"? (Ditto for Henry II and John). Consistency needed. Edward II, later in the section, doesn't get his job title mentioned at all.
      • I've used the consistency of putting "King" before their names, in order to make it clear for readers (possibly non-British readers at that) JAGUAR  20:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The manor was returned to the Archbishops of Rouen" – if they were archbishops, wouldn't that make Rouen an archdiocese, two paragraphs above? (I merely ask the question – my knowledge of French ecclesiastical matters of the 12th century is not extensive.)
      • Never thought of that! I've done some research and discovered that Rouen is an Archdiocese, according to this article. My knowledge of mediaeval France isn't great either, so I've changed Archbishop to Archdiocese JAGUAR  20:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Today it is known as Hall Place" – I know it's unlikely to change its name, but "today" is usually best avoided. WP:DATED, you know. Better to write something like "Since XXXX it has been known as Hall Place", or "Since the XYth century it has been known as Hall Place".
      • Since 1832, changed JAGUAR  20:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "can be seen today" – I think this "today" is fine.
      • I think it should fine too, I've kept it in if that's OK JAGUAR  20:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "mentioned among their possession" – either "mentioned among their possessions" or "mentioned as in their possession"?
      • Changed to "mentioned among their possessions", as it seems likely that the Meltons had more than Bentworth under their belts JAGUAR  20:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The manor of Bentworth remained in possession of the Windsor family" – you need a "the" before "possession". Moreover, I struggled with this: haven't we just said the Meltons held it for most of the period? Were they merely the Windsors' tenants?
      • I've checked up on the source given and it seems that the Windsor's inherited the manor after the Meltons, which leads me to believe that they might have been related. Either way, it is clear that it was somehow passed down to the Windsors, so I re-worded the sentence to make it clearer JAGUAR  20:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I've just found out that they were related, as a sentence says "The ownership of the manor of Bentworth was then passed by marriage to the Windsor family" JAGUAR  20:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elizabethan to Georgian times
    • "in 1705" – awkward in the middle of the sentence: better at the beginning or the end, I'd say
  • 19th century to the Second World War
    • "an auction at Garraway’s Coffee House" – is the venue of the sale notable?
    • "in the 1914–18 war" – clearer if you call it the First World War
  • Second World War
    • If you're going to link to the WW2 article (which to my mind is WP:OVERLINK) you should do it at the earlier mention of the war, in the preceding section.
    • "as many other country houses" – you need "were" after houses
    • "out-station" – the OED does not hyphenate this word
    • Fisher's Camp – double not single quotation marks are specified by the Manual of Style
  • Post-war
    • Another MoS thing: after his first mention, Major Behrens should be just "Behrens"
      • Removed Majors after the first mention JAGUAR  20:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Berens family crest" – I think you almost certainly mean The Berens family arms.
    • "the Moon Inn on Drury Lane" – seems odd to use the Americanism "on So-and-so Street" for such a English article. I think "in Drury Lane" would be more suitable.
      • I never realised that! Now I know why they say "in Ten Downing Street" for example... JAGUAR  20:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More soonest. I'm enjoying this article very much so far. – Tim riley talk 10:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second and concluding batch:

  • Administration
    • "the area of the later Hundred of Odiham were included – subject-verb agreement
      • Attempted to fix this (I hope I got it right) JAGUAR  21:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burkham
    • a 'berewite' – more single quotes that should be double
  • Thedden
    • 'Fisher's Camp' – ditto
  • Wivelrod
    • "Standing on 712 feet (217 m) above sea level – I don't think we want the "on", surely?
  • War Memorial
    • "World War I" – as we call the 1939–45 war "the Second World War" earlier in the text, I suggest a consistent form here, "the First World War".
      • Corrected. I tend to keep the consistency of "First/Second World War" throughout the article JAGUAR  21:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bentworth Manor and Hall
    • The MoS bids us not to sandwich text between two pictures left and right of the prose. Moving the one on the left to sit above or below the one on the right would fix this.
      • I think I've fixed this. I removed the picture of the church (as there are too many of them in this article) and moved the pictures Hall Place and Bentworth Hall up and down. The trouble is that I love most of the pictures in this article and think the ones of the 16th century cottages are notable enough to be in here, but I can only choose so many to remain! JAGUAR  21:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mulberry House
    • I wouldn't capitalise a generic term like "rectory"
  • Other houses
    • More sandwiching of text between two images, as above.
      • I've (sadly) removed the picture of the 1503 cottage to fix this JAGUAR  21:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Public houses
    • Earlier (end of history section) you refer to "pubs". I think the more formal term "public houses" is appropriate for an encyclopaedia article, and I suggest you use it instead, there and in para two of this section.
      • I've replaced all instances of "pubs" with "public houses", except from "There was also a third pub in the village called the Moon Inn". Public house redirects to Pub, but do you think I should replace it with "public house" anyway? JAGUAR  21:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and the Sun Inn that sits..." – as this is what grammarians call a non-restrictive clause (describing rather than defining), this would be better as "and the Sun Inn, which sits…"
  • References
    • Ref 11 – title of article and name of author if given should be added here
      • I'm afraid I couldn't find an author for that edition, but I fleshed it out as much as I can JAGUAR  21:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 18 – unexpected square brackets, and no publisher or ISBN/OCLC number. WorldCat is ideal for such info: see here.
      • Thanks, the ref was incorrectly formatted so I've started it from scratch and included full details JAGUAR  10:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 24 – may come under scrutiny at FAC on grounds of WP:VER
      • Ukiws... it's my fault too for not cleaning up his mess! Removed JAGUAR  10:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 29 – doesn't stand a chance at FAC! How can anyone verify it?
      • Ukiws added that in! I can't believe I left that one in. Removed JAGUAR  21:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 30 – we are not allowed to use other Wikipedia articles as citations: you'll have to find another source to cite.
      • Removed, I'll try and find something to replace it with JAGUAR  10:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 31 – another citation that will be gunned down at FAC
      • Removed and replaced JAGUAR  15:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 40 – formatting problems, with bare url and square brackets
    • Ref 52 – link or better access information needed
      • Got it, I've fleshed it out JAGUAR  15:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Hope it's useful. Tim riley talk 11:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the comments, Tim riley! They were very helpful. I think I've addressed everything. JAGUAR  15:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images

I'm afraid I have more wet-blanket comment for you, but you need to know what is going to face you at FAC.

  • I went out and took that photo of the gold postbox the other day, but looking back on it now I wonder if it would be better to replace it with the photo of the red postbox... I'm still unsure on what would make a good lead image as I've never seen a montage for a village before? JAGUAR  11:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We hope most kindly provided the montage for the Keswick article, and may perhaps be willing to guide you on this. Tim riley talk 13:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jaguar, I started with the Photomontage template which you can vary according to how many photos you want to include, their size and position. The main editors told me which photos were wanted, so I worked with the template & photos in my sandbox until I had a nice result. I then did a bit of enlarging of the template and took it from the sandbox as a screen capture which I cropped. The photos for it were at Commons; some came from Geograph UK while others were user taken photos. (You might want to have a look to see if Geograph has anything you like that's not at Commons and upload it.) I then uploaded File:Keswick montage 2.jpg listing and crediting all the photos in the montage and released it to Commons as CC-BY-SA-3.0 (see the file details). If you want some help with this, let me know and I'll give you a hand. We hope (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, We hope! I've never attempted making a montage before so I'll experiment it in one of my sandboxes before I publish it. If I get stuck I'll let you know as I have all the images I want to put in on hand. I take it that all of the photos in one montage have to be modern (ie. nothing in black and white from 1910 etc). I would love to take a picture of Bentworth Hall today but I can't get close to it. I've asked permission if I can visit but I doubt I'll be allowed to photograph it... JAGUAR  16:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't have to be modern photos; the only requirement is that all images used in a montage are in the public domain, so go where your imagination takes you! :) We hope (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@We hope: I've made a draft montage at User:Jaguar/Sandbox/5 but most of the images appear to be oddly formatted and the images to the left have black borders along them. I'm not sure on how to fix this and I think a couple of the images are likely to change as I went out the other day and took some more photos! Once it's ready I can easily screen capture it and crop it JAGUAR  19:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jaguar-I've worked with it in my sandbox and experimented with changing the positions of photos, etc. The border for these templates is set to black and this looks to be added by the template. Here's a try at one with transparent border--you'll see that there is a slight difference in the double sets of photos--that those on the right are slightly taller than the left. Not sure how to overcome this because I don't see any option for setting height of each image in the montage, but with the transparent background, it's much less noticable. I can't seem to get the template to display here without it creating the montage. I will copy the template into your sandbox so you can see what you think. We hope (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Csisc[edit]

Dear Mr.,

First, I thank you for your excellent work about Bentworth. You had cited many important details. However, try to expand the part about the administration. You have to include some important details about the governmental division and the public institutions in this important town.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I think that the Administration section summarises the parish council quite well as the village only has a population of 500. You said it was an important town? I don't know if Bentworth has anything to do with a "governmental division"? JAGUAR  11:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little village! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

A couple of comments on this (it's a good article, nice and readable, a good level of big picture with some detail in there too). I've made a few tweaks, but please feel free to re-tweak or revert if you don't like it, or if I manage to cock something up!

Prehistory

  • Does the Roman info belong in "prehistory", which tends to go to the end of the iron age. It also jars to see the Roman references before stone age and bronze age references. Go chronologically on this, and perhaps tweak the title of the section to cover Roman too
    • There was a Roman section, but I got recommended to merge it with the "Prehistory" and "Name" sections because it was too short. I see what you mean though, so I've renamed this section "Prehistory to Roman times" JAGUAR  15:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible try and avoid the stubby paras, either by expansion or merging.
    • I agree, the last thing I need to do before I nominate this at FAC is to expand some of the hamlet sub-sections, but I'm finding expanding the "Ashley" section impossible because there is nothing else to talk about! I've expanded/merged some short paragraphs here and there JAGUAR  15:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow... (Done to the end of the Georgians - and sorry for the delay in getting here!) - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments so far, SchroCat! I look forward to any future comments. JAGUAR  15:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

  • There are a few unsupported sentences I've flagged up. Any paragraph without a reference at the end should be looked at, so worth a spin through to make sure I've not missed any (I see there are a few in the Villages and Hamlets section, for example).
  • I've finally removed Ashley's sub-section from this article as I find it impossible to even write a paragraph about it! I've also sourced all claims that were flagged up and currently in the process of checking if anything else needs sourcing before the FAC. JAGUAR  10:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post-war

  • "The name "Glebe" was chosen because the land was originally owned by the church, with "Glebe" meaning "land belonging to the church"": the repetition makes this awkward – it needs re-phrasing
  • Rephrased this JAGUAR  10:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

  • May be worth keeping the section chronological, and put the 2011 census after the Domesday book and the rest of the population growth paragraph.

Done to the start of Notable landmarks – more to follow. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: you done or do you have more? I think it can be nommed as soon as you're done. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should be finished today. RL is a bit hectic at the moment! - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing off...

Transport

  • "The problem was that": this is a bit lumpy and could be done more elegantly
  • I agree, I've rephrased the whole sentence. I hope that' OK. JAGUAR  16:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Today": avoid. They {{As of}}

Notes

  • Note A needs a full stop
  • Note B could include a link to the Memorials section to aid navigation
  • I've added a link JAGUAR  16:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • FN82 (Star Inn, Bentworth) needs re-formatting
  • Huh, when the owners left the pub this year it seems they took the website down! I've used an archived link for this. JAGUAR  16:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 87 has " pp. p16.", which needs sorting
  • Oops, fixed this. JAGUAR  16:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SchroCat! I've addressed all of your comments. It's off to FAC tonight. JAGUAR  16:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Bentworth/archive1&oldid=1138559980"