Wikipedia:Peer review/Sheriff Hill/archive2

Sheriff Hill[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi folks. I've been working at this article for over a year now and would like to see it progress from GA to FA. If someone could have a review and offer any suggestions for any changes/amendments which might help prepare the article for a FA nomination I'd be most grateful...

Cheers, Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, this article went through quite a thorough peer review when it was nominated for GA, so if I were you I would just go for FA; FAC is a horrible process, but whatever the outcome, it will definitely be more of a peer "review" than waiting months at peer review. Bob talk 17:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bob...I'll give this a few more days and, failing anything substantive, I'll take your advice Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This article was reviewed by Ruhrfisch in March 2011. That review contains no acknowledgement or details of your responses. It would be very helpful to have a summary of how you have responded to Ruhrfisch's points, in particular the important one about copyright violations.

Done All of the material at issue related to William Clarke; an industrialist who lived in Sheriff Hill. There is very little written about Clarke, so I simply took everything out Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree at all that this article is ready for FAC, where it will be judged against much sterner criteria than at GA. My first reaction on looking at it was surprise at its length, for a small town with just 5000 people (8720 words). The article is longer than those for Newcastle (8041), Manchester (8547) and Birmingham (7733), and more than twice that of Durham (4213). The amount of information you have is impressive, but perhaps overdetailed. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be summaries rather than exhaustive repositories of minutiae.

I am open to suggestions as to what might be removed. Prior to GA I removed a lot of material after an earlier, similar comment but from here I am honestly loathe to remove material simply because the article is longer than some others. What information do you think is superflous? Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through the lead, and found a few issues:-

Are the names listed in the first paragraph all towns/villages?

They are all villages Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"City of Durham" or "city of Durham"?

The former is preferred by convention in academic texts Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 2001 census is 10 years in the past, so "had" rather than "has"

Done Had is better, I agree. Changed Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "pottery" would be better than "potting"; I had to use the link to check on what "potting" meant

✗ Not done Not sure I agree with this- the correct term is potting and I have linked the word in the article to assist those who do not know what it means Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A regular haunt of bishops and judges..." Hmmm. Bishops aren't that numerous a species, and in those days, travelling around was not easy, so it's hard to envisage how a group of bishops could fetch up at a local country inn. Also, you don't mention bishops in the main text. Another point: if the town's name ultimately derives from the marches of the judges and bishops, what was it previously called?

Both the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Durham are mentioned in the history section of the text under the section 'Sheriff's March'. Whilst you might find it hard to envisage that these chaps 'fetched up at a local country inn', there are reliable sources (cited in the text) to demonstrate that this was so and was why the village was named 'Sheriff Hill'. The village was one half of Gateshead Fell prior to it's official naming. I had included details on this originally but took them out and placed them in a new, seperate article instead to reduce the length of the article Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"principle landmark" → "principal landmark"

Done Indeed... Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Once the site of one of Gateshead's largest boarding schools, Sheriff Hill is now served by Glywood Primary School." This wording suggests that the latter replaced the former, but of course they are two entirely different kinds of school.

Done The former was demolished and replaced, on the same site, with the latter, but the point is valid and I have reworded this slightly.

The word "entire" towards the end is unnecessary.

Done Removed

Looking a little further down the article:-

Ruhrfisch's point: you need to say clearly what "Gateshead Fell" was, rather than forcing readers to use the link.

DoneI've added some extra detail which (I hope) remedies this issue Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Ruhrfisch point - lack of date information in the History section. The Sheriff's march and Sodhouse Bank/Sheriff's Highway sections are particularly short of years, so the historical scale is difficult to grasp.

✗ Not doneThe 'Sheriff's March' section contains a starting date, an end-date and confirms that the march took place bi-annually. I'm not sure what other dates are required? As for the 'Sodhouse Bank' section, I presume you want a date for the name change but I am afraid I do not have one: there is no reliable source to state when this happened so far as I can tell! Anicdotal evidence from residents gives me an idea of when the name changed but this is certainly not reliable for WP purposes, whilst the change is evidenced on OS Maps but as these were not taken annually I cannot provide an exact date Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Governance section: here is a clear example of what I meant by overdetailing: "The 2010 council election turnout was 50.5%, an improvement on the lowly 27.7% turnout at the 2008 election which was achieved in spite the introduction of postal voting in an attempt to increase voter turnout. The British National Party polled over 10% of the vote in 2008,[18] but their vote fell to 7.6% by 2010.[19] Likewise: "The present incumbent is Ian Mearns MP, who lives in nearby Saltwell, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear. Mearns was selected by the party in March 2010 to contest the newly formed Gateshead seat in place of David Clelland, formerly the Labour MP for the now defunct constituency of Tyne Bridge who stepped down in January 2010". I really don't see how this level of detail is necessary in a summary encyclopedia article about Sherrif Hill.

Done Okay, I have removed the superflous material Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an images expert, and I think you will need to check the licencing of each image carefully with someone who is. One I looked at was File:QE foundation stone.jpg; I can't see how this is going to be PD in the United States.

All of the images are either mine or are Gateshead Council PD images. They are available online and are available for use on WP as UK crown PD images Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to look through any more, but to summarise, my chief concerns are (1) length/overdetailing and (2) lack of specific responses to the last peer review, and evidence that some points raised there have not been addressed. I'll be happy to look again, when you have given some consideration to these points. Please ping my talkpage when you are ready. Brianboulton (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is very helpful: I'll have a good look at the points raised over the next day or so... Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]