Talk:Askam and Ireleth/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

It's been a few years since this article was last reviewed, and glancing at it I can see a few issues regarding layout and images, so I'm going to give it a thorough review to see what needs to be done to ensure it continues to meet current GA criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Article is stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Focus. While the article could be tightened and tidied, I don't see that any section is overly detailed - though the opening paragraph of Ireleth sub-section could be trimmed back to ensure a clear focus on significant and documented history. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• No evidence of bias. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Images and captions are OK. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Query

• The article is media rich, with a large number of images and diagrams. Several of the images are poor quality, and there is possibly some redundancy. This impacts WP:LAYIM and WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE under the GA criteria. Images such as the Askam United football club sign are not adding anything encyclopaedic or helpful to the article. The population information is better rendered in prose per WP:EMBED, another GA criteria. These are minor issues, and can be resolved quite quickly. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• There are some rather small sub-sections in the Environment and the Public buildings sections. Per WP:LAYOUT, this can give the article a cluttered feel and inhibit flow. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Other than the Duddon Estuary booklet, I'm not sure the Askam sub-section is appropriately sourced. Some statements with statistics, such as dates, numbers, etc, appear to be unsourced, and the sources that are presented look questionable. Could this be tightened up? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find a source in the article to support "perhaps most notably 20% of the national Natterjack toad population". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Prose is mainly sound, but occasionally there are some unclear statements: "Askam's history starts much more recently" - more recent than what, and when exactly is "recent"? " in recent times" is similarly vague. "The geological make-up of the area is extremely important; indeed, without it, Askam as a place would not exist" is a bold yet unclear assertion that is not essential. The sentences that follow manage to convey the facts of the geology in less directed and clearer language. A little copy-editing will resolve this. Not a serious issue. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• It is unclear whose opinion is being voiced in the Etymology section. Sources do not support the conjecture regarding the naming. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Fail

• Due to an accumulation of concerns regarding sourcing I feel the article needs more secure inline citation, and more reliable sources to meet GA criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

General comments

• As the image use may well change, I'll do a copyright check on each image when it is decided which images are to be used in the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC) SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• I'm having a problem in the History section working out which statements relate to which sources. The first paragraph, which asserts origins and original locations, appears to be sourced to the map shown to the right of the section (I'm having difficulty accessing the website, but from what I'm reading, I'm assuming that the source holds a larger copy of the map). Maps are primary sources - Wikipedia:Evaluating_sources#Primary_sources, and we need to use WP:PRIMARY sources with care, so we are not drawing conclusions from them. However, I think that while not in-line cited, the bulk of the information comes from other sources mentioned later - such as Mark Maclean's book. However, there is then the question of how much do we regard his book as a reliable source, as it is self-published. We can use it if the book is used as a source by other reliable sources, or if Maclean is regarded as an expert in his field. I found this, but that's the only book I found. Samuel Lewis is a secure source, though doesn't appear to be used to support some of the earlier statements. It would be helpful to be clearer on what sources are being used to support which statement. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• It's always a fine point as to how much of an article should be comprised of a summary of sources, and how much should comprise of directly quoted text. The Ireleth sub-section is over 50% direct quote. This may be a bit too much. See WP:QUOTEFARM. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• The major aspects has not been checked - I haven't done enough background reading yet. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

On hold

I think there are enough concerns regarding how the article currently meets GA criteria for the article's GA listing to be in jeopardy. Much of the work is simply tidying up, and I'll take part in that. I am more concerned by the sourcing. There don't appear to be many sources readily available on the internet, though Maclean gives some sources in his book, which could be checked out. And local libraries usually have good sources on their own locality. I'll put the review on hold for the standard seven days and notify major contributors of the concerns raised, particularly regarding sourcing. We'll see where we are after seven days. I'm always willing to keep reviews open as long as progressive work is being done. The aim here is to improve the article so it meets current GA criteria rather than have it delisted. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I've done a bit more tidying up. Article still needs some work, especially as regards sourcing. I'll inform related WikiProjects to see if anyone is interested in helping out. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There's still been no work done. I'll take another look over the next few days to see exactly what needs to be done, and if I can do it myself in a reasonable time; if not, then I will delist. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delist. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)