Talk:Glamorgan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Stemonitis (talk · contribs · count) 09:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with this article in its current state. Some are serious enough to prevent GA listing; most are less serious, but would nontheless improve the article.

• I'm not convinced that the citations are needed in the lead. Each fact should be cited in the main text, which won't need to be repeated here.
• The date ranges in the headings and elsewhere should use n-dashes rather than hyphens.
• You should try to get the map in the Administration section altered so that it reads "Ogmore and Garw" rather than "Osmore and Garw".
• The photograph of Beaupre Castle is overexposed (very difficult to get the exposure right in that lighting); an alternative should be sought.
• Much of the text is unreferenced. For instance, the Rail section has four paragraphs; two of them are entirely without references, and the other two have references, but not necessarily for all the text. Although there is a citation for extending the Gyfeillion line to Dinas Rhondda, for example, the fact that it was "the first viable transport link from the Rhondda coal fields to the ports of Cardiff" is not cited.
• The citations are inconsistent and sometimes incomplete. Some of the Notes cite page numbers as "pg 1", some as "pg1" and some as "p.1"; some include forenames ("D. Gareth Evans, p.17"), while some don't ("Davies, (2008) p.871"); most importantly, some give too little information to work out the source. Is "Davies, p.169" a reference to Davies & Jenkins (2008), to John Davies (1994) or to Wendy Davies (1982)? (And why aren't refs. 8, 24, 26 and 32 formatted like the other books that are cited repeatedly?)
• There are three dead links and one {{citation needed}} tag to be dealt with.
• The prose that I've examined in detail contains some unsuitable language. For instance, you state that the "cargo carried on these lines was of an incredibly high volume", although it must be entirely credible.

For all these reasons, I cannot pass this as a Good Article at the moment, mostly because of the lack of citations (criterion 2). I suggest you also have the article proof-read to ensure compliance with crierion 1 (I've seen at least one glaring error – "Despite the demand the want for the youth" – and I expect there are more). There's a lot of good material, and most of the work has already been done, but it's still a fair way from passing the GA criteria. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)