Talk:Whitburn, Tyne and Wear/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 15:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Initial comments

There's nothing much wrong with this fine article, and the following comments on the prose are offered merely for your consideration rather than as diktats.

• "4 miles (6.4 km) south of the town South Shields" – this looks a bit odd to me without an "of" before South Shields.
  •  Done
• "the place where Saxon nobleman Hwita was buried" – clunky false title – fine for The Sun but a bit tabloidese for an article in formal BrE. A definite article before "Saxon" will set matters right.
  • Thanks for clarifying this,  Done
• "likely from a timber structure" – fine in AmE but a little odd in BrE, where "probably" would be more usual than "likely" (though, as The Guardian's style guide comments, if you put an adverb with it, it becomes idiomatic BrE – "most likely" etc)
  •  Done
• "At this time, Whitburn would have been situated in an important centre" – it either was or wasn't and if you are sure it was, then I'd say so, rather than the woolly "would have been".
  • I've tried to clarify this point more  Done
• "who "hold 40 acres and 1 toft and returns 8s and goes on missions for the Bishop"" – as the second and third verbs in the original quote are plural I wonder if the first was too.
  • That's right, I've corrected it  Done
• "During the First world war" – but you give the Second World War its customary capitals in the next para, and I'd do the same for the First World War here.
  •  Done
• "erected in the village green" – pure cheek coming from an inveterate townie like me, but I'd expect "on" the village green, rather than in it, though I'm perfectly prepared to be told I'm wrong. (But you do say "on" in the picture caption.)
  • I think you're correct!  Done
• "Whitburn had a number of wartime defences" – some editors get agitated about "a number of". I don't, particularly, but I take their point that it's a bit woolly – two is a number and so is a hundred. If firm numbers are not available, you could give a flavour with terms varying from "a few", to "several" to "numerous".
  • I don't think I have exact numbers, but I will go with "a few".
• Governance section: you need to be a bit chary of WP:DATED here. What you say is, I'm sure, true now, but it won't be true forever. I'm sure you and others will keep an eye on the article and keep it up to date, but all the same a few "as at 2022"s or "in 2020"s would be a prudent precaution against becoming dated.
  •  Done
• Notable people – are they in chronological order? It isn't clear. (I have my doubts whether some of your sources for the list are quite WP:RS, but for a section like this it is of minor importance, I think, and I shall not press the point.)

• Yep they're in chronological order. Would birth-death dates help? If they're not necessary I'll leave as is.

• Fine as it is. I just wondered. Tim riley talk 17:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• References – it isn't a condition of GA that the referencing should be consistent, but even so, I can't see why details of some published books (e.g. Mills 2011) are kept out of the "Bibliography" list and squeezed into "Citations" instead.
  • I had reserved the bibliography section for sources with multiple citations, but I'll amend that now to include the other books.  Done

Once you have had time to consider these points I'll continue the review, and I'll put it on hold in the interim. Tim riley talk 15:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Tim riley: Thanks for reviewing the article! I've address all the points and look forward to hearing from you soon. Unexpectedlydian (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

GAN summary

See WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   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:

This is an admirable article, a pleasure to read and to review. Very happy to promote it to GA. Tim riley talk 17:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)