Talk:Ambrosden/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

What appears in the article is of GA-standard: it's well-referenced and therefore WP:Verifiable; and the article is well-illustrated.

The article is also well constructed and has a logical sequence.

What worries me is that the article tells me very little about modern day Ambrosden. I've never been there and this article does help in that respect, but I know from the article some pre-20th century history.

Some of the Victoria Histories, but not all, are on line so I looked up Ambrosden.

• History: I regard as of GA standard.
• Parish church: is almost there, but the information on Reverend White Kennett is not referenced - but that presumably could be easily addressed.
• Economic and social history is of GA standard in so far as 19th century, but there is little discussion of anything after that.
• British Army presence possibly OK (but see below).

So what do I think needs to be improved?

• The Victoria History mentions a quarry; and that is mentioned in respect of the stone used in manor house, but there is no discussion of the quarry (AND the brick and tile works) in respect of employment and economics.
• Bicester CAD gets no mention at all other than the railway. It must have provided employment and income.
• There is no discussion of the layout and the development of the village, or its geometry - nucleated village strassendorf, etc.
• There is a statement that the village doubled in size in the 1950s, but no discussion of how that was achieved and what were the consequences.
• There is no discussion of the "look" of the village, or even what the houses or made off (brick, stone, tiled roofs, slate roofs).

I regard this article is non-compliant in respect of Scope only: what is there is referenced and verifiable, so I'm putting the review On Hold for one week.

If it can be brought up to standard that I will give it a GA, otherwise the article can be improved and renominated at a later date.

If its no clear what is expected add comments below. This page, as well as the article, is on my watch list.

I wish you success in improving the article. Pyrotec (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe Nvvchar and I have addressed most of these concerns now. The article now discusses the architecture of the village and notable buildings/materials in a paragraph and then a good coverage of the biggest landmark, the church. A geography section has been added as have some historic details, and also a decent etymology. Given these new details, especially the villagescape, I think this is now comprehensive enough to be listed as a GA, given the sources (or lack of them) readily available. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly looking a lot better. Pyrotec (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed reference to the fact tag.--Nvvchar (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

And the verdict? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That is traditionally given at the end of the review. Pyrotec (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A article has been considerable improved during this review and my concerns about "gaps" in the article have been addressed.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

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:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. It has been considerable improved during the review GA and is substantial at GA-level; but it would benefit from a copy copyedit and a period of stability. Congratulations to the team on bringing this article up to standard. Pyrotec (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)