| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it as a Featured Article candidate, but am not sure how close it is to the required standard. Any feedback towards that aim would be helpful!
Thanks, Johnnaylor (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- It would be nice if you had made a substantial number of edits, or asked those who have, rather than this drive-by request. J3Mrs (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)All t
- My intention was to get some feedback and then start making as many edits as might be required to reach the standard, but am unfamiliar with wikipedia protocol. I do appreciate the substantial number of edits you have made to the article and apologise for not consulting you first. Johnnaylor (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'd say it needs quite a bit of work. Since getting it to GA, I've added bits and bobs but updating to the 2011 census is the most obvious. Probably something on post-industrial regeneration and geography is a bit thin. J3Mrs (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Doing... – writing some extended comments right now, will have them up later today. Runfellow (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comments, Part 1
I'm sure you've already seen WP:FA Criteria, but I'd recommend checking out Category:FA-Class WikiProject Cities articles or Category:FA-Class UK geography articles to see a few related articles that are already featured. I'm guessing you're using articles like Ashton-under-Lyne as a base. But really the process here at PR should be a bit more helpful than just saying how far or close it is to FA status. The process is really more of a general one to push the article up a notch no matter where it is in terms of development. Although I'm more familiar with articles for U.S. cities, here are a few notes:
- Lead
- According to WP:LEADCITE, general information in the lead section need not be cited, especially if it's something like "Bolton is a town in Greater Manchester, in the North West of England." I doubt anyone would challenge that, and thus the citation here isn't really necessary.
- Not sure about the phrase "Bolton has had notable success in sport;" There are two aspects to this: famous athletes who are from the city and teams that play in the city. It's hard to explain, but I don't consider these the same kind of "success".
- Very generally speaking, as per WP:LEAD, the lead section should cover the major aspects of the subject, which usually means there should be some mention of at least every top-level subject. Here, there are a number of subjects not mentioned in the lead, such as religion, demography (with the exception of the population count), economy, transport, education, etc. There need not be an entire sentence devoted to each one, but you'll want at least a mention of every major topic.
- History
- I'd change "for many thousands of years evidenced by a" to "for many thousands of years, as evidenced by a"
Done
- "It is claimed" - by whom? The nearest source links to the Bolton parish church site. Dunno if that'll work as a source.
- "and after 1100 Roger de Meresheys" probably needs clarification with the syntax, something like "and after 1100, Roger de Meresheys owned the land" or something to that effect.
- Done
- "The church in Bolton" - Which one? Also, the rest of the sentence has some rather awkward syntax. I admit I don't know about a few of these concepts, but perhaps the sentence can be broken down a bit.
- "The town was given a charter" - This is me being a bit picky, but I'm a big proponent of active sentences over passive. Rather than "The town was given a charter... by King Henry III of England" it could be "King Henry III of England gave the town a charter..."
- Should "King" be included in that wikilink for Henry III?
- The linked page does not contain the word King in its title so the wikilink is correct. Johnnaylor (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- The phrase "dating from 1251" is an awkward introjection to the rest of the sentence.
- It's very difficult to get a streamlined narrative out of history. The information here, although chronologically sound, is rather haphazard in that narrative, and the structure suffers as a result. Paragraphs especially are pretty much randomly broken up.
- That said, I'm thinking the Toponymy section could be integrated into the later part of the history, in this case.
- I'm curious: It says "Bolton supported Parliament..." Was it the townsfolk who supported Parliament, or the landowners? Maybe some other leader?
- It was the townsfolk, I've added this in. Johnnaylor (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- There should be a link somewhere in the ECW section for the Bolton Massacre. I know it's in the lead, but here's a good place for a link in the article body.
- Done
- "Industry" sounds like a very general subheading, one that could easily be confused with a top heading. I recommend changing it to something like "Industrial conversion" or "change" or something to that effect.
- There's a bit of a gap here in history: Where's everything from the English Civil War to the early 20th century?
- The last three subsections here should probably be restructured. It's good information, but it jumps around quite a bit, and is divided by subject, rather than period, as the other subsections are.
- Governance and Geography
- No major complaints regarding the governance section. The last sentence probably needs to be integrated somewhere within the section, rather than being its own small paragraph at the bottom.
- The geography section could probably be expanded greatly. Things to consider including:
- Coordinates
- Bodies of water
- Size of area in sqkm
- Wikilinks to some of the geological formations you've mentioned.
- Climate and long-term weather information, including major disasters, if applicable
- I don't think that's where the Areas and Suburbs of Bolton template should go, but you may want to get a second opinion.
- Demography
- Any new data on this? 2001 seems a long way off.
- There was a census in 2011, however the data has only been released down to Borough level, not down to urban subdivision level which is what the currently displayed numbers show. This more detailed data is not due to be released until later this year or early next year. Johnnaylor (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- The first reference here seems oddly placed. It's next to the source, rather than next to the claim where it should be.
- Rather than say something like "it should be noted", you could just note it and skip that phrase.
Will finish up in part 2 of comments later. Runfellow (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)