Talk:Milnrow/GA1

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Review by Epicadam (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The are a few flow issues in spots. Nothing egregious, but I would ask the editor to literally read the article out loud. It's probably the best way to spot sentence structure and word choices that could be improved.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   there are still some tags in the article. Those need to be resolved.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   I'm not sure the article is edited enough. By "editied", I mean that there is a lot of information present; possibly too much for a village of Milnow's size. The article size is close to 50k... some cities 100x Milnow's size don't have articles that large. Wikipedia is not meant to be an entirely comprehensive source; it is an encyclopedia. And as an encyclopedia, it should provide the basic who/what/where/when/when/how of a topic and then any particularly noteworthy pieces of information. For each fact given, an editor has to ask him or herself whether or not anybody reading the article would be interested in that information. For example, in regards to the Neolithic artifacts found in Milnow, are they particularly noteworthy? Is Milnow a center for archaeological research? If not, then that information may not be terribly important. Also, little factoids like Queen Elizabeth's visit to Milnow and who operates the waste management systems, etc. Are those truly important? If they are, explain why. If not, consider cutting them out.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I can't recommend GA status yet, but with a little more editing it will certainly be a candidate. I will set the article's review on hold.

I'm slightly confused, is the reviewer saying that the article is too comprehensive? Slow down, have you read the FA criteria? It should be comprehensive, that's the best of wikipedia, something ideally every article should be. That's not to say everything should be included, but what's present is a good summary. Taking the examples you chose, Neolithic artefacts in the North West are an indication of Stone Age activity in the area, isn't that notable? The royal visit? If the Queen had just been passing through, fair enough don't include it, but it was part of a significant event in the town's history: the opening of the motorway. In short, everything in the article is notable and referenced, ie:"if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Also, the readable prose in the article is more like 23kb, not 50 mentioned before or the 44kb of raw data, indicating that it probably isn't too long. Nev1 (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that I've addressed the "" issue. I also share the sentiments of Nev1. That said, I think a copy-edit or proof-read by another would help as I think the article might be suffering from "one-editoritis" --Jza84 |  Talk  11:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Final Passage?

I think the article is pretty much at GA status... I have only one question:

• "During the Middle Ages, the small, scattered community in and around Milnrow was primarily agrarian, with the growing and milling of corn being the main labour of the people." I'm confused. How did England have corn in the middle ages when it was first brought to Europe from the Americas in the early 16th century?

After that bit is fixed, I believe the article is ready for GA status as it is well-written, informative and sourced. Although, if a source says that Milnrow milled corn in the Middle Ages, I'd probably be more than distrustful of other information it provided! Best, Epicadam (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The source given does use "corn" explicitly, but by "corn" it probably means some sort of cereal or grain (British English I'm afraid). I could change it to "cereal" if there's no objection? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold, and made a change with this diff. I hope this helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  00:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. Well, any issues that have been addressed have been corrected and the article is broad, but detailed, informative and well-written. I certainly think it qualifies for GA status. Best, Epicadam (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)