Wikipedia:Peer review/Chew Valley/archive1

Chew Valley

This article tries to bring together disparate bits of information about the people, places, buildings, geology etc. of the Chew Valley (just south of Bristol, England). I'm not sure that I've got the general structure right or the content of some of the sections (I'd also like to illustrate it with a map & some more pictures - but I'd value your comments. If you fancied commenting on any of the listed village articles that would also be great but I shall probably have to do them individually later. Rod 20:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request on the PR talk page. The article is good and appears well researched. A few issues: 1) Too list heavy. That will be a very consistent objection if you take this to FAC. Move the lists out to daughter subarticles and/or replace them with prose about the ones that are important enough to cover. Keep in mind prioritizing, you should only cover material that is important enough to the subject and the space for each topic should be relative to it's importance. Check out what topics other FA's on geographic entities have for some guidance, though they may not be perfect either. 2) Too many short paragraphs break up the flow of the prose. They should either be merged with related material, expanded to a full idea worthy of a paragraph of it's own, or removed. 3) At least one of the images doesn't have copyright/license information. Make sure all of those are under free licenses or have proper fair use rationale. Some of the other images would seem much more appropriate for the lead than the satelite image. 4) Not enough about economic activity and demographics/population, especially relative to the amount of material on sport and leisure. That should be enough to get you going. If you would like another review let me know and I'll see if there's anything more that needs to be done before you have a FA on your hands. The writing seems quite good, though I didn't pick apart the grammar as some of the rest is higher priority and will change the text. - Taxman ^Talk 17:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why there are "Grade II* listed" and "Grade II listed" sections; they probably should be merged, as the former is simply a list and the latter is just a short paragraph. "The name Chew" should probably be renamed etymology. "People" is rather short; the famous people could probably be moved down to be similar to a "See also" section, while the section itself could be converted to an Industry section. There is only one image without a license, and that would be Image:Smriver chew.JPG; for some reason the uploading information doesn't show up, but since there are already so many images in this article, that one isn't particularily needed. Thanks, AndyZ _t 19:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your comments - I've revamped the page taking on board the poiints you've made (removing or reducing lists, combining paragraphs & the image licensing) There isn't much to say about economic activity - it's largely rural & commuter vilages. If you (or anyone else) had further comments I would appreciate them. Rod 08:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All very good changes, still needs the rest though. The famous people list still needs to go and be replaced by sourced text about them, there still needs to be economics/demographics/population information, even if it is fully rurul, there's still economic activity. What % is farming, commuting elsewhere, etc. And listed buildings is a concept not known to everyone so it could use a bit of added context even though we have an article on it. - Taxman ^Talk 13:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've had a further go at demographics etc & put the famous residents as narrative in that section - also done a bit on listed buildings. Rod 18:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks really good now. The only thing I can see left is the demographics never gives a number of people living in the area, nor the number of towns/villages. If that information is available it should be included. Also I didn't get a chance to survey the other FA's on geographic entities. Before FAC you should to see if there are any additional important missing topics. Other than that, great work. - Taxman ^Talk 19:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all comments- I've now added in some more population details & having looked at some geographic FAs have added in Natural History, climate & an info box. Further comments still appreciated. Rod 10:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. Looks ready for FAC to me. They may come up with a few more things, but you seem well suited to handling them. When you're ready, delist it here and list it there. - Taxman ^Talk 13:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]