Talk:Bolton/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jhbuk (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Generally very good: just a few things (I may add to this, but I think this contains the main areas)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Possibly a few areas that could do with some minor copyediting, but generally fine.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   A few places need cites

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Right number of decent images with good captions that illustrate the text well

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I've added a few cite needed tags that should be replaced
• Cite 90 "Dunne" needs a pg ref
• Odd places have slightly awkward phrasing/punctuation
• A few 1-2 sentence paragraphs that should be combined (eg "Sport")
• Possibly some areas read a bit like a list?
• "a local eccentric" - is that really the best description of someone who founded a school?
• "In the Mass-Observation project Bolton was Worktown resulting in a photographic record of the town by Humphrey Spender" What does this mean? I removed the link as it links back to the article.
• Link to disambiguation page "Sleepers" that I don't know what to do with
• "Notable People" - this should really be expanded; give some of the most notable examples. The language here is quite vague and unspecific as well
• Could probably cut down on the external links - make sure they are properly formatted with no bare urls as well

• On the subject of the notable people section, it's not a requirement in WP:UKCITIES to have one at all. There's nothing particularly contentious about stating what's said at the moment. The problem is, what do you consider to be notable example of notable people from Bolton? Surely all of them as that the name of the section. And in what way is the person notable? Are we talking about Wikipedia's guidelines or something else? How tangible must their connection to the town be? Was it enough for someone to have been born in Bolton, to have spent the night in a B&B or must they have some other credentials; a significant part of their life spent in Bolton? The problem with notable people sections is that you can't guarantee completion; anyone who is genuinely worth mentioning can be included elsewhere in the article. Not just that, but defining what is "notable" in this context. What has been done here is turn the section into a see also link with a sentence or two of explanation. I have no problems with how this has been done. Nev1 (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a major complaint, but I just don't really see the point of it how it is now - I think it would be better to just have a link in the see also section, but the editor clearly wants a separate section, and I think that if it is there, it shouldn't just be that sentence - it's very vague and could be applied to almost any major town or city equally, so doesn't really add anything to an article about Bolton in itself. If it does need explanation, I was thinking of summarising from List of people from Bolton and making it more specific - actually state what people have done - nobel prize winner, olympic gold medalists etc, rather than just listing some professions and saying "They have all made a mark". I agree that there are problems with who should be included, but the list of people from Bolton seems generally like a good enough source to make this distinction. Jhbuk (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have provided references where you asked. The notable people are mentioned in the text.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There are still two "Most views northwards are dominated by the Winter Hill TV Mast on the West Pennine Moors above the town.", and "The University of Bolton, formerly Bolton Institute of Higher Education gained university status in 2005." but good job. There are still a few 1-2 sentence paragraphs though, and can you sort out that link to "Sleepers" and clarify "Bolton was Worktown". Once that is done I will pass the article.

How about something like this: "In addition to those already mentioned who have made contributions in sport and entertainment, notable people from Bolton include a winner of the Nobel prize for chemistry, X olympic gold medallists, Y England footballers among other significant figures in the arts and science." This makes the sentence more specific but it is still a summary. Jhbuk (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to clarify "Worktown" hope it reads better --J3Mrs (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me where the link to sleepers is? I can't find it --J3Mrs (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The film doesn't have an article (as far as I can tell). I've added a reference for the University of Bolton. Nev1 (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked a ref for the University. I have removed the Sleepers Link and that sentence until I find a source.--J3Mrs (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, the only real problem I can see is that there are a few 1-2 sentence paragraphs, which do slightly disrupt the flow of the article. They ought to be combined with other paragraphs, but most of these have fairly distinct information that wouldn't really work elsewhere, so I'm not going to let that stop the article from being listed. Jhbuk (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to address most of what you suggested. I know it doesn't always flow but I think that's the result of some drastic "pruning" I did earlier. I will go through it again.--J3Mrs (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Jhbuk :-), I must admit you rather took me by surprise as I didn't expect a review so soon after I listed it and to begin with I didn't realise you were actually reviewing it!:-( --J3Mrs (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I was probably being a little bit leniant, but it's clearly at a good enough standard for GA as most of these problems are very minor. I've made a couple of minor copyedits to improve this slightly, but nothing too significant. Jhbuk (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)