Talk:Binsted

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Binsted. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bentleyvillage.com/binstedhistory.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bentleyvillage.com/telHouse.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bentleyvillage.com/binstedpages.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110302084744/http://southernlife.org.uk:80/binstead_church.htm to http://www.southernlife.org.uk/binstead_church.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Binsted/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bungle (talk · contribs) 22:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Reviewed this version from 5th January 2017

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Minor issues that is easily addressed; some iffy uses of commas after "and"
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issue here of particular concern
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Some information in climate needs sourcing
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Generally ok, but need to check once the above climate info is sourced
	2c. it contains no original research.	Nothing obvious
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None detected (quote from "John Marius Wilson" is appropriately referenced/attributed)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Needs expansion in some areas as detailed below
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Is neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Is stable
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No issues
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Would benefit from a broader/general image in the infobox
	7. Overall assessment.	Improvements required as further detailed below, particularly points #3 and to a lesser extent #2a Update: Failed due to referencing data related to Binstead. Requires a rewrite in fundamental parts.

Review Comments
Lead
Link Hamlet to Hamlet (place) Linked. JAGUAR  17:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC) "quarries was dug up" > "quarries were excavated" Rephrased. JAGUAR  17:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC) "were not documented" > "is not documented" Thanks, fixed JAGUAR  17:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
History
"the manor of Binsted was held by Tovi, the king's thegn" - which King? Could we determine who was on the throne and link to the person? The King in 1086 would still have been William the Conqueror, so I've mentioned him in the sentence. JAGUAR  17:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC) "At the time of the Domesday Survey the village name at the time" - don't need to repeat "at the time" twice, so can remove the 2nd occurence and reword possibly to: > At the time of the Domesday Survey, the village was named "Benested", meaning "holding of the land" Rephrased. 18:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC) "different variations on the spelling of the name;" - why a semi-colon here? It's not appropriate as the text after is directly related, rather than even partially independent. A comma would suit better. Replaced with comma JAGUAR  18:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC) "held by the King of Wessex" - do we know who this is and could we link to him? If not, could we link to List of monarchs of Wessex? The King of Wessex at the time was Egbert, so added him JAGUAR  18:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC) "Henry I fell into dispute with the then Bishop of Winchester and the monks of St Swithun's over Binsted" - why? Any further info? Can we elaborate on the reason(s)? "but he eventually allowed" - use of eventually suggests the dispute lasted some time, but this can't be determined from the article. If it was brief, then you can drop "eventually", though perhaps elaboration as suggested previously could clarify this "is not documented, with some sources maintaining" - I see 1 source only; 'some' implies multiple, unless you can find more than 1? If not, it needs to be clear that it's 1 known source suggesting this. Maybe also substitute "maintaining" for "suggesting" if it can't be proven Changed to "A likely explanation is that the village remained a "simple agricultural community" and was not involved in any controversial activity, due to its isolation". It reflects the source better this way JAGUAR  18:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Geography/demographics
"eastern central part of Hampshire, in South East England, 4.1 miles (6.6 km) east of Alton, its nearest town" - drop the "in" before "South East England"; substitute the comma for "and is" before "4.1 miles" Removed "in" and added "and is" JAGUAR  18:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC) "The landscape is dominated by farms and woodland" - the reference doesn't directly link to this part of the map, or any map at all; linking to the google maps article is inadaquate Linked to the open-sourced OpenStreetMap. JAGUAR  18:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC) "According to the 2011 census, the parish of Binsted had a population of 1596 people" - this section says 1596 people, but the lead & infobox says 1817 people? Correct the erroneous figure(s) Changed to 1817. JAGUAR  18:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Climate
"Binsted receives winds with a southerly component, higher humidity and lower cloud bases than further inland settlements" - can't see this referenced anywhere Removed (will remove this in future articles from now on). JAGUAR  18:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC) "In summer a temperature of 30 °C (86 °F) can occasionally be attained, particularly in more sheltered spots." - where is this referenced/sourced from? Removed (will remove this in future articles from now on). JAGUAR  18:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC) "The average maximum temperature in July is 21 °C" - should be 21.9 to keep consistent if the minimum is mentioned as 12.5 (rather than 12 or 13) Fixed (will fix this in future articles from now on). JAGUAR  18:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Landmarks
"extended by the action of Richard de la Bere" - who was Richard de la Bere? Maybe a brief sentence establishing why he is notable enough to be mentioned for his actions Can't find much info on him. A simple Google search suggests that he was a holder of Kinnersley Castle, but none of the sources were reliable. I've removed him from the sentence. JAGUAR  18:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC) "In its churchyard..." - does this need its own sentence or can it form part of the former? It starts with "in its" but sounds odd in a different sentence. Consider merging or using a semi-colon Merged. JAGUAR  18:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC) "Mill Court, another Grade II listed building, is a large dating from" - a "large dating"?? A large what? Maybe a word is missing here. Oops, fixed. JAGUAR  18:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC) "It became a listed building on 15 August 1985" - why not "and became a listed building on 15 August 1985" to form part of the previous sentence? Thanks, rephrased. JAGUAR  18:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Coverage/settlements criteria
Using the WIkiproject page as a rough guide (the ones I feel are relevant) Infobox Y Lead & image Y (minor improvements as noted above required; is there a more general photo of the village which represents it more broadly?) History Y (changes should be implemented as suggested above) Government N (no mention of Governance, for example: local council/elections, electoral information or which constituency it falls under) Geography Y (acceptable coverage including climate) Demography ? (mentions population and comparison to 2001, but no mention of ethnic/religious compositions or changes in population over the decades) Culture/community N Landmarks Y Education ? (any Libraries? Mentions a school but is there more info on it? Any other schools?)

Summary

Similar type of interesting article as Winslade but with many of the same niggles/issues that can be easily addressed. Also have the same concerns about broadness, particularly regarding demography, culture/community and education which can be added and/or expanded upon. Will allow for an initial week for improvements but can be extended if editing is still ongoing by that time. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment

Is the reviewer aware that reference 2 refers to an article on Binstead, a place with a similar name on the Isle of Wight? J3Mrs (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

When I looked at the reference, it mentions about the history of Hampshire which is where the article in question is, however on closer reading, it does indeed appear to be referencing to an almost identically named town? It may well throw the article integrity into question as alot of the content is based around this reference. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jaguar: In light of the discovery by J3Mrs and given a vast amount of the history section, as well as other parts relying on this incorrect reference for content, it doesn't seem appropriate to keep the article in hold as large amounts will require an entire rewrite. With it being an article of modest size, I was inclined to keep it on hold until correct data had been found, but then fundamentally it'd be a different article and as such should be subject to a new review. I'd be happy to undertake this if you correct the data and renominate, as well as addressing the other points I raised which were not connected to this reference error. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bungle: I hadn't realised this; upon a closer look it appears that Binsted (mainland Hampshire) doesn't have an entry in British History Online. I'll still address the non-related issues in this review, and will let you know once I have found an alternative source. Thanks for taking this review! JAGUAR  17:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed anything related to the incorrect source in the article now and will try to implement alternatives. JAGUAR  17:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bungle: I think I've managed to address all of your concerns—would you mind taking a look? Unfortunately I couldn't find an entry on Binsted in the Hampshire Treasures collection, but I managed to expand it somewhat using the existing source from the parish council's website. I've also expanded and improved the geography section, using the correct figures this time! The parish covers far more than I previously thought. I'll renominate this straight away. I think the Isle of Wight was part of Hampshire when the source was published, so no wonder I got confused with "Binstead"! JAGUAR  18:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Binsted/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 02:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I am Reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   I think the large quote from A Vision of Britain Through Time/Imperial Gazetteer of England and Wales needs to be trimmed, it is taking too big a piece of the article-space. Shearonink (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

   I agree—I only add it in when I get desperate for more content! Hatted as a note. JAGUAR  16:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

   The present placement is a big improvement. Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Copyvio tool gives an all-clear. Shearonink (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Hurrah for no edit-warring! Shearonink (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

   Images all have the proper permissions, etc. Shearonink (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

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

   Relevant & captioned appropriately. Shearonink (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @Jaguar: So far as I can tell the previous issues with confusion between the two villages/parishes with similar names has all been apparently cleared-up. Im going to do a few more profreading runs to make sure there isn't something I've missed. Shearonink (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

   With the most recent edit, I think I will be able to finish up this Review sometime today. Shearonink (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

   This article is now passed to a GA status - it's a factual article about a settlement in the country where maybe large events of note didn't take place but people lived their lives and built their buildings throughout the centuries. Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: thanks for the review! I've addressed the quoting issue in the history section by hiding it under a note. Sadly most of the content had to be removed in the previous GAN when it was discovered that there was an identically named village in Hampshire at the time. Let me know if you find any more issues. Thanks again for looking this over. JAGUAR  16:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That looks much better within the article, preserving the content and the information - well-done. And yeah @ the "other Binsted/Binstead"... I looked over that GA Review in the course of doing this one and have been trying to keep the two different places straight in my head ever since. Shearonink (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

So there's:

• Binsted in Hampshire (with Monty's gravesite at Church of the Holy Cross),
• Binstead on the Isle of Wight (with nearby quarry, Holy Cross Church-Binstead, & Quarr Abbey), and
• Binsted in West Sussex (with St. Mary's Church - a church largely re-done from the 12th through the 20th Centuries but with a Saxon origin & extant Roman materials).

And these are all different places? The only way for me to possibly keep things straight is to attach each one to its church & its individual local landmark. Going forward & thinking about improving the encyclopedia/forestalling readers' possible confusion between the different Binsted/Binsteads, I think that there should be a central disambiguation page and that hatnotes of some type should be placed on each individual article. Shearonink (talk)

They're all different places. The Isle of Wight was part of Hampshire until 1890, and the main source I used for this article was published before then and was entitled "History of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight". I assumed that Binstead was a different name for this village back then and wasn't aware of the settlement of the Isle of Wight, to add more confusion. Thankfully that's been cleared up now. I had no idea that there was a Binsted in neighbouring West Sussex, I'll go have a look and see if I can create an article on it. Thanks for checking! JAGUAR  21:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Questionable statement

The history of Binsted from the 11th to 19th centuries is not documented, owing to its isolation and non-involvement in controversial activity.

I am surprised this Good Article should contain an uncited assertion like this about an English place (in summary lead). I would have thought being documented is not reserved for places that have been venue of historic events or developments, but something that depends on the requirement for records to be kept or made and if such records survive to be published, and also on the existence or not of people interested in publishing histories of the place. Binsted is a church parish, so there would have been compulsory parish registration from 1538 and attendant diocesan records for the church (in this case Winchester) and the land ownership would have been charted given the legal documentation attending it.Cloptonson (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)