Wikipedia:Peer review/Poulton-le-Fylde/archive2

Poulton-le-Fylde

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested to see what would need to be done to get this to FA standard. No substantial changes have been made since its GA review at the end of last year, and I've pretty much reached the limit of what I can see to be improved. I'd really appreciate and comments/suggestions/criticism, bearing in mind the FA criteria. (I'm aware that a couple of reference links need to be updated.)

Thanks, BelovedFreak 14:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

I had a look through (not really delving into the sources) and it looks pretty good to me. A few comments:

• "The town is the borough's administrative centre, with its offices in Poulton Civic Centre."

  Source?

  I'll try to track one down.--BelovedFreak 11:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• I understand the demarcation of England, but what is the North West?

  You're right, this should be explained. I presume you mean its use in the demography section?--BelovedFreak 11:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, that is the section. Jappalang (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have some uncertainty about Demography. A bit of additional caution(?) may be advised. Except for the urban population data, the rest is all about the borough of Wyre.

  Do you mean it would be better to lose this information, or to add a note reminding readers that it applies to a wider area?--BelovedFreak 11:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

  As I see it, if it were excised, then the section would be left with only one sentence and a sub-section. But, a borough's demography may not match a town's (the borough's is a larger area that encompasses other settlements). The information may well be more relevant for Wyre. I think it best to move Wyre's data to its article and seek other studies for relevant data on Poulton-le-Fylde. Unfortunately, if they cannot be found, Demography would be a very skimpy section. By the way, http://www.wyrebc.gov.uk/404.php?request=Page.aspx?PvnID=62022&PgeID=966&BrdCb=1-1447-1448 is no longer available online. Jappalang (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Flax importation was vital ..."

  Why not "Imports of flax were vital ..."?

  Indeed. Changed. --BelovedFreak 11:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• There seems to be a disconnect between the ending of the first paragraph and the start of the second in Economy. One talks about 1850 and jumps into 2001 without any description of what 2001 was like.

• It seems a bit strange to me to not elaborate the background/context for the Market Town Initiative on first mention (in Economy), instead doing so in Culture and community.

• "... town's war memorial ..."

  To which war?

  I'll check this.--BelovedFreak 11:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, a bit more polish would give it legs to test the waters at FAC. Jappalang (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your helpful comments. I'll get started on addressing them.--BelovedFreak 11:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional comments. I'm just waiting to get the chance to get to a library that might help me address the points you've raised. I don't know if I'll be able to fleash out the demography any more, but I agree with what you've said and it's worth a try. --BelovedFreak 13:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from RJH – Nice job. I have just a couple of observations:

• I think this article tells of the recovery of a Bronze Age human cranium from near Poulton that has been dated to 1250-840 BCE.
• This source suggests that there was a wider application to the suffix "le Fylde" than to just Poulton.

Regards, RJH (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for those leads RJH - much appreciated. I know I've been neglecting this since I asked for the review, but I've been very busy and waiting to get to a library. I will check those sources out though, thankyou.--BelovedFreak 10:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)