Wikipedia

Talk:Felling, Tyne and Wear

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page
Good articleFelling, Tyne and Wear has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 18, 2012Good article nomineeListed


Request

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am not aufait with how to edit articles yet, so while I am working out what to do, someone else might like to add a notable person from Felling - David Almond, author of the award winning children's book "Skellig".

WP:NEE assessment

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've added the WP:NEE template and assessed this as 'high importance' on the basis of the mid importance given by the WPUK project. This is the same rating as Gateshead which is top importance in the regional project. If anyone disagrees feel free to comment, though frankly I think I am the last active member of WP:NEE (sadly). Meetthefeebles (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago37 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Felling, Tyne and Wear/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Felling is one of the geographically largest urban areas... - do we think "geographically" is necessary here? (for instance, if it were population rather than area, would we not have said "most populous" instead?)
Okay, I've removed "geographically". Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
The history of Felling is well recorded and stretches almost eight hundred years. - is it particularly or unusually well recorded compared with other areas?
Actually it is compared to other neighbouring areas of Gateshead (I wrote a few of these over the summer all at once) but it is superfluous so it's gone. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Actually, the opening sentence leaves me a bit confused - is this a town or suburb or...what?
Honestly, I don't know(!). I do know that was a village until 1894, then it became a town and stayed so until 1974, when it seemed to 'lose' its town-status and was simply swallowed up by the new Metroploitan Borough of Gateshead. Hence the rather vague opening sentence. The remnant is now confusing; several documents vaguely refer to Felling as still a 'town' with a 'town centre' but I cannot find anything reliable to state as such and I am fairly sure that it isn't actually a town anymore. I also don't think it is a suburb, either. Any suggestions? Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
How about "Originally three villages (x,y and z) which coalesced in the mid-19th century, the town essentially merged with the larger urban area of Gateshead as the latter has grown in the late 20th century" or something like that......I think this would help clarify what it is very well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I've made some additions at the start to try and clarify this issue. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think we can drop the word "independent" as "three villages" assumes they are distinct.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Under the History heading, I think it is better to have a few sentences or none. You mention it is well recorded - is this noted somewhere and is it particularly better documented than other similar areas around the country? If not I'd leave it out and let the facts speak for themselves.
I have done so. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
"deserted Felling" in - use different word and de-quote..."abandoned"? "left"?
'Abandoned' seems fine. Changed. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
tiny agricultural villages - why not "farming villages"?
Changed. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
the latest of the "established landed family" residing at Felling - dequote and rephrase...
Done. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
and indeed it was imported coal from Newcastle-upon-Tyne saw the development of more extensive industries in salt, glass and chemicals which began to attract workers to the area - a "which" or "that" before the "saw".....
I've added "which". Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Casliber. Thanks for agreeing to review: it's been so long since I nominated this that I completely forgot about it! I've made some changes as suggested and will deal with the others which I am sure you will raise :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Right, now where was I.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
On 19 January 1811 the original, High Main pit at Felling Colliery was closed but by that time the colliery had grown enormously - the comma looks in a funny place to me...I'd be putting one after 1811, and then after "but"...?
Agreed and done. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
link firedamp.
Done Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
of "perfection in the purity of it's air and orderly arrangements" - rephrase and dequote if possible.
I've re-written the sentence. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
"one of the most tremendous explosions in the history of coal mining took place" - ditto - is there any other source for it being one of the biggest in history or was it just very big?
Those are the exact words of the source cited. I'd like to leave this one in– it is verifiable, verified and I think is important for context. I will take it out though if you think it must be removed? Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Fair point - my purpose isn't to expunge any article of quotes, but used sparingly they are good. Ok, point taken. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Grindstone quarries produced stone of excellent quality - somewhat superlative-sounding. I'd just say "high quality" which sounds more objective
Done. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Err...who is John Marius Wilson? An adjective or descriptor noting who he is would help with understanding where the passage of text came from....
He was a historian. I've added this. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
and an "unusually hot sun" later in the day - dequote. "unseasonal heat" might be an alternative was of phrasing
Agreed. Changed. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
and a further 34 suffered minor aliments such as shock - ailments makes me think of influenza etc. agree repeating the word "injuries" a little repetitive. Need to think of a rephrase.
I've changed "injured" to "hurt" which allows the use of "minor injuries" without the repetition problem. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
link areas first mentioned for the first time in the Geography and topography section.
Done. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
"the second most important town in the borough after Gateshead" - dequote and rephrase pls
I've rephrased. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Better to attribute the comments made about the bypass to that person - Bernard Conlan. Somewhat controversial - we should be reporting who is concerned not making it sound like we are....
Done Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
though excellent care and so this too is a good school. - "highly-regarded school" or "held in high regard", also "good care"
I've taken the "excellent care" out. The "good school" description is that given by the OFSTED inspectors (it is one of their grading descriptors) and I've now added this to the article for context. I'd be a little hesitant to change this but will if you think it necessary? Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Overall, coming together well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

spotcheck of refs 116 and 117 - I changed them a tad, gotta be careful of using too many words from the source. This can be tricky....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
No problem, the edits look fine :) Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
this article talks of one tragedy, but doesn't support the text which discusses ongoing danger and accidents (plural). Thus it is an extrapolation (this can be tricky when writing about something you know to be true, missing some extra evidence) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I've added a couple of other references to sources reporting accidents this year to demonstrate the continuing high accident rate on the road. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ok - I guess what I am worried about is Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position. I'll re-read the conlan bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
The information about accidents isn't really that important in the grand scheme of things, so to makes things easier, I've simply removed it. Meetthefeebles (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:  
Manual of Style compliance:  

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:   - a couple of other spotchecks looked ok.
Citations to reliable sources, where required:  
No original research:   - frustrating to remove the bit, but if something turns up, it'd be good to re-add.

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:  
Focused:  

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:  

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):  

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  


Overall:

Pass or Fail:   Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Felling, Tyne and Wear. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 18:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Felling, Tyne and Wear. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Felling, Tyne and Wear. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 15:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Felling, Tyne and Wear. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Felling,_Tyne_and_Wear&oldid=1201964533"