Talk:Bradwall/GA2

GA Review 2

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 20:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: one found and fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   In the lead: "According to the 2001 census, the population of the entire parish was 166, having peaked at over a thousand at the beginning of the 20th century, and a 1936 boundary change resulting in a sharp decline. " This really doesn't make much sense.

   "From the early 19th century, it became the seat of the Latham family of Bradwall at Bradwall Hall, until its demolition in the 20th, and home to Bradwall Reformatory School for Boys, now a Grade II Listed building." Again confusing prose. Change of subject in the middle of the sentence.

   "Wesleyan Chapel Methodist Church has been the only church since 1882, and the founder of Foden Trucks and Fodens Motor Works Band, Edwin Foden and sons, lived in, or were born in Bradwall." Another change of subject.

   Overlinking: "country seat" only needs to be linked once.

   Confusion of history. Why is the Roman era mentioned last?

   Over-quoting in the Seat of Bradwell section. Only really relevant material should be quoted.

   "the population of Bradwall Civil Parish totals 166 people" - "and it is now well under 200" Inconsistent.

   Culture and Community: Does not need a number of one sentence subsections. Most of the content is trivial.

   Landmarks: Convert into prose, lists are deprecated.

   Transport: This section is mostly concerned with the lack of transport infrastructure, again unnecessary subsections.

   "The current clerk of Bradwall Parish Council is Mrs F C Stops." Trivial and potentially out of date.

   Education: What is the point of listing universities?

   Overall too much trivia.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   "The thickness of the rock is estimated at around 404m," seems curiously precise. Do you have reference for this?

   References appear Ok, spotchecks support cited statements, no OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Far too much trivia as noted above

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

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):

   Illustrations of postboxes and telephone masts are hardly encyclopaedic. File:Bradwall-green-roads.jpg is incorrectly licensed and doesn't actually represent what the caption says. File:Bradwall parish geology.svg states that the source is a "Computer generate image". The actual data source should be stated and it is likely to be copyrighted.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is a long way from GA quality, too much trivia, which looks like a desperate attempt to scrape the barrel. Much of this material might be OK for a village website but it is not encyclopaedic. Not listed at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to look through the article. I shall take on board your comments, and make some changes in due course. Thanks again. --Iantresman (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've now taken in all the points. --Iantresman (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)