Talk:Pail closet/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

A "shit" article (SORRY, too good to miss): well no, its quite a good one; and generally of GA standard. It looks to be comprehensive, well referenced and well illustrated.

• At this point in the review, my only comment is that the WP:Lead is devoid of dates - to be more precise it has no time frame (well, "tongue in check", I assume it is pre mid-1970s when the historic counties were abolished and the Rochdale area presumably became Greater Manchester - however, the body of the article does give dates).
• It will probably be passed tomorrow after a few tweaks. There is a Bristol meet up tonight, so I may go in which case this could be the last work that I do tonight on this review. Sorry about that. Pyrotec (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

One minor issue I suppose is that the Pail Closet was probably used in more countries than mentioned here, and is doubtless still used somewhere-or-other. Would dating such things make this an England-specific article? Parrot of Doom 20:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead is intended to provide both an introduction to the article and a summary of the main points. I don't consider a lead that is entirely devoid of time (era is another description) is fit for purpose, particularly when the main body of the article contains dates and time frames. My presumption (above) of pre mid-1970s, appears to be based on my knowledge of two reorganistions of the historic counties - you merely say in the lead "historic Lancashire town of Rochdale" - which makes no reference to era. 12:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a couple of xth-centurys to give an approximation. The use of "historic Lancashire" is to avoid confusion as Rochdale is no longer within Lancashire. Parrot of Doom 13:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There are other articles on Dunny and Outhouse, for instance, so I'm not too worried about it being UK(?) specific. However, I think its a bit "lite" on Scotland - I want to check Glasgow as there are similarities with Manchester - I'm not sure whether this will be pre or post GA decision time. 19:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem - the more the merrier so far as I'm concerned. I'm hoping at some point to create Midden closet too. By the way if, in your travels, you find out anything which might improve Gong farmer, well you know where Malleus and me are. Parrot of Doom 20:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• History -

• Looks quite reasonable, but that last statement: "but it was popular in the town of Rochdale, from which the Rochdale system of pail collection took its name." needs a citation - its already in one of those references that are used to validate other statements.

• Scope -

• The information provided about Chat Moss (I reviewed that one as well) seems to be mirrored in what Glasgow was doing; night soil first taken by horse and cart; then by railway to be used as "manure" to improve marginal farm land; and after WWI to an incinerator, but the term "pail closet" is not used in the sources I've seen. So I can't yet add it to this article: but possibly at a later date this article could be extended to cover some of the large Scottish cities and towns.
• The Glasgow system was made legal by the Police Act 1800, and subsequent acts, (in Scotland this was the responsibility of the Police). I also suspect that "town planning" comes in Salford, Manchester, Glasgow, etc, had back lanes and the "night soil" was collected from the back lanes - but I've no sources yet.
• The above is OR at the moment, so I'm not going to make any of this a requirement for GA.

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An interesting article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

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:

   Well-illustrated.

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

   Well-illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

An interesting article. I suspect that there could be additional information out there which would allow of the scope to be expanded outside of the named English and Frence cities; however, I'm awarding the article GA-status as it stands. Pyrotec (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ta very muchly :) Parrot of Doom 17:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)