Wikipedia:Peer review/Ravensworth/archive1

Ravensworth

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've made substantial improvements to it and I'd like an independent opinion and ideas for where to go next. Source material is my major problem, with a village of 200 people.

Cheers, Farrtj (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Belovedfreak

I can see you've added quite a lot of material to this article, and a lot of references, so good work with that. I don't know if you intend on getting this to GA standard or not; if you continue to struggle to find sources, that could be a problem, but that's no reason not to keep improving it anyway of course! If you live anywhere near the local area, I'd strongly recommend going to a library and checking their local history section as that's your best bet for finding good sources. Even if there's nothing dedicated to the village, you may find some good books that are on the general area and have a chapter or few pages about Ravensworth. I don't know if you've seen WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, but that's the guideline for how to structure UK settlement articles and is very useful to have on hand as you're writing. It will give you a good idea of what other sections to include. I also really recommend comparing the article to other settlement articles that are already GA or FA: check out Category:FA-Class UK geography articles and Category:GA-Class UK geography articles and read as many of those as you can. That's my general advice. I'll now go through each section and point out any issues or suggestions I have.

Infobox *That's a nice image in the infobox, it could do with an image caption saying what it's of.

• The map label "Ravensworth" is slightly obscured by the lines on the map. It will be easier to read if you shift the label to either the top or bottom position. You can do this by editing the | label_position = parameter of the infobox and adding "top" or "bottom". (I tried it in preview, and I don't think "left" was much of an improvement)

Lead

• To meet the good article criteria, the lead would need to be expanded. Try not to think of it as an introduction to the article, but as a summary of everything else in the article (see WP:LEAD). Eventually, you're probably looking for at least two paragraphs, maybe three. It may be easier to leave this to the end though, if you're going to be expanding the whole article. When you get to that point, check to make sure there's nothing in the lead that isn't also covered (and usually expanded on) in other sections.
• You shouldn't need any citations in the lead (other than for particularly contentious statements, quotes or statistics) as everything in the lead should be repeated & cited elsewhere.
• Is wapentake a current term? I'd say it's fine to use in the lead, but you might want to make it clear that it's a former subdivision. You could also give the term hundred at the same time, as that might be more familiar to some readers.
• "J M W Turner made several sketches of the castle." - this is a bit random; as yet I have know knowledge of a castle in the village, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps mention the castle first and then say that Turner made sketches. (This is an example of something that should be mentioned later on!)

History

• In general, it'd be nice if this section was expanded and more detailed, but this will of course depend on what sources you can find.
• Domesday book should have a capital "B" and be in italics. I would suggest putting the year it was published too, to give context. Not everyone will know what it is. (For example, the Domesday Book of 1086)
• "The Lord in 1066..." - I presume you're not referring to The Lord, so lower case L? As you mention lord of the manor further down, I'd put it in full and link it on its first occurrence. Remember, not all readers, especially in other countries, will really know what a lord is in this context.
• Is Thorfin any of the Thorfinns we have articles for? If so, link. What about Bordin or Bardulf? It might help to have a bit more context in terms of the Norman Conquest and how that affected the area, if at all.

No they're not the same. I've added "a" before their names to show that they are not otherwise notable figures. User:Farrtj|Farrtj talk 14:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• "King John is known to have stayed there..." - keep it simple: "King John stayed there..."
• When you mention lords of the manor, does this refer to the castle? Or some other manor house/estate?
• "The village is notable for the remains..." - again, this is a bit wordy, try to simplify
• link listed rather than Grade I, so readers know what to expect when they click on the link.
• Any idea why the castle was abandoned?
• Does the castle have a name?
• Oh look! Oh no... different castle. Anyway, I'm sure a little stub on the relevant castle could be whipped up, I might even do that. I've started a stub on Ravensworth Castle. BelovedFreak 11:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• "In 1779 it belonged to the Legard Baronets" - what did? Village? Estate? Castle?
• "The village hall dates from 1841, when it was built as a public elementary school." - the source doesn't seem to say that the school became the village hall.
• "the village was described as "exceedingly neat"" - by whom?
• Is the church of St Peter & St Felix in the village, or is the village church newer? Even if it's elsewhere, it should probably be mentioned as the old parish church, it would have been the one that villagers attended for many years.

Demographics

• Can you find out any info from the 2001 census? Even if not at village level, there might be something worth including. It's all at ward level Farrtj (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• In a non-scientific article, "per cent" is generally preferred to "%" (WP:PERCENT)
• Any information on what kind of industry the villagers work in, even if outside the village?
• The ONS can be a great source for 2001 census info. It can be tricky navigating & finding the place you want, but have a look. You may need to search by ward or another subdivision.
• A Vision of Britain Through Time is another good source: Ravensworth. Click on the various links, it might take you to a wider area (like Richmondshire) but you might still get some good general info about the area that you can include.

Amenities

• It's subjective, but I'm not hugely keen on the heading "amenities". It sounds a bit like a guide for people moving to the area rather than an encyclopaedic topic. Yes but "facilities" sounds worse Farrtj (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• "Ravensworth boasts..." - not sure "boasts" is 100% neutral or encyclopaedic in tone
• Any info on the church, even who it is dedicated to? Info on the Church will be put in the Kirby Hill page, as that's where it is Farrtj (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Don't think you need to mention pubs not in the village (as we're not a pub guide), although if they are within the civil parish, that'd be ok. They are within the civil parish of kirkby ravensworth Farrtj (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• That image could use a caption to tell us what it's of. Also, it'd probably look better to the right, so tat it's not pushing a header out of the way. Don't worry about it dangling under the infobox, because expansion of the lead and other sections will put it in the right place.
• Watch out for overlinking of common terms. Make sure each wikilink is going to help a reader, either by explaining something unfamiliar, or leading them further into a topic. Things like "British" and "gift shop" probably don't need to be linked.

Notable people

• Generally, it's best to include any notable people in the prose rather than as a list. Also, try to only include who has been a notable part on the village, rather than just people who have lived there. It's a fine line, and different editors may judge it differently, but try to look at some FA articles and see how it's been done. Make sure each one is referenced, too.
• "Local and national media refer to him (ironically)..." - deciding that news reporters are being ironic is original research. Readers will probably realise it's ironic anyway, but it's not up to us to make interpretations.

References

• Right. There are a few issues with sourcing. I can see you've relied on online sources, which is inevitable if you can't get hold of books, but try to make sure each one meets the guideline at WP:RS. Some here look a bit dubious to me. For example, what makes these reliable (not saying they're not, but you need to be able to justify them):
  • members.fortunecity.com/hburdon/ryder.html
  • yorkshire.com
  • Domesdaymap.co.uk
  • CommuniGate
• This may be a better source for the place name in the Domesday book (that actual page, not the PDFs linked from it)
• As far as formatting goes, the references need a bit of work. Some of it cosmetic, to make it look consistent and professional, but some need more info to meet WP:V
  • Try to keep date formats consistent. Eg. you have 2011-05-07 and 16 July 1992. Pick one way and use it for all of them. Personally (just my opinion) I would pick the day month year format as ISO dates (yyyy-mm-dd) can be a bit tricky to understand for those of us that aren't sure which number is the day and which is the year. Up to you though.
  • None of the references should have any mention of google books; google hasn't published any of these sources. You don't even need to provide a link (and many editors actually frown on it) but that's up to you. You don't need retrieval dates for books, even if you found them online. You do need ISBNs where available and page numbers. here's an example.
    • "The Shell book of English villages - Google Books". Books.google.co.uk. Retrieved 2011-05-07. ... should be something more like:
    • Hadfield, John; Willmore Barley, Maurice (1980), The Shell Book of English Villages, Joseph, p. 333, ISBN 0718119002
  • You don't have to use citation templates, but it makes it easier (I think). You do need to include the full book title, author, date isbn if there is one and page number. If it's an old book, Worldcat may have more info than google.
  • The "British History Online" link is actually from A History of the County of York North Riding: Volume 1.
  • Newspaper titles shoud be in italics.
  • Titles in citations shouldn't be in block capitals, even if they are in the original
  • Bare urls need full details added
• You can find more info at Wikipedia:Citing sources and the other guides linked in the "see also" section of that one

What else to include

• It'd be nice to have a section on the geography of the area - any notable physical geography, the nearest larger settlements and how far away they are etc.
• the religion of the village - historical as well as present day. There's a C of E church and a Methodist church, so some more on those would be good. I'm not sure what more you want? Info on the church is under Kirby Hill Farrtj (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Such a small place probably won't have its own media or sports teams, but anything like that should be included.
• There should be something on the governance & how the village fits into the larger area in terms of local government - look at other artices for ideas on how to do this.
• Landmarks - there are quite a few listed buildings in the village, some of which could be mentioned.

I know there's quite a lot here, but hopefully this will give you somthing to get stuck into. I don't usually watch peer reviews, so if you have any questions or comments, feel free to ask me on my talkpage. Hope this has helped. --BelovedFreak 21:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, this was constructive and very helpful. I feel that the article is much better for your input. I will endeavour to get down to t'local museum, library and archives, and I can go geography and governance. Farrtj (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)