Talk:Ashford, Kent/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Droodkin (talk · contribs) 22:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will get started with reading this article and hopefully assessing it appropriately within the coming days. I'll leave the template here till then. --Droodkin (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having read up to the Geography section, the article is looking promising. --Droodkin (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finished reading the article, here is my assessment. --Droodkin (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Standard style of sections are present.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Individual pages are cited, which is always a good thing.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Remarkably well-referenced. Though citations to books are present, access to the books is not available so I assume good faith in their accuracy. Web links and all are appropriate.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All good here.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Seems to be all good here.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, this article covers all the necessary material one would expect when searching about Ashford. It is well-referenced and complemented with adequate images. Therefore, it passes. Congratulations.

Thanks for a quick review. I have to say I am a little surprised that you found no issues, which I don't think I've ever seen in a GA review, even with the very best writers there are always more than one way to write something, or possibly alternative sources. That said, Dr. Blofeld has looked over the article already and done quite a bit of copyediting, and I'm confident that what Steve Salter doesn't know about Ashford isn't worth knowing about. Thanks again! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give it a full read a bit later and I'll let you know if I see anything. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Blofeld. Just because I thought it met the GA criteria when I created the nomination, the encyclopedia should not take my word as gospel! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I didn't really get much chance to look at it, I was only getting started and when I looked in a day or two later it was already at GAN! Not to gatecrash the review (which has passed), but some things to further improve:

Lede

*I think before you get to etymology you should state the vitals like distance from one or more nearby major towns, e.g 23 miles south of London and 4.5 miles northwest of Blofville and then state the population, even though it is in the info box. Then go into that. I'll find the distances (now done), can you add the population?

Done, though I'm never really comfortable on distances as they seem to be wrong more often than not. For example, we now have Ashford as being 13 miles from Maidstone - fair enough, it's sourced, but this signpost on the M20, well east of Maidstone says "Ashford 16". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*"and its agricultural market is one of the most significant in the country." -What do you mean exactly by significant, size/income/popularity?

I think the "significant" bit here is just the fact that one still exists, full stop. Reworded. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*A lot of repetition of significant, significant market, significant place, significant local landmark.. I think we gather that the church is notable as we're mentioning it so it isn't needed. You could change "The town has been marked as a significant place for expansion since the 1960s and appeared on several Government plans for growth. " to "The town has been subject to a government development plan for growth since the 1960s" or something.

I've removed most of the "significant", "prominent", "important" words. I think I was just trying to self-justify what facts in the body deserved to go in the lead.

*"a controversial Ringway scheme and construction of the multi storey Charter House building " definite article needed, the controversial Ringway scheme.

I'm not sure that Ringway was its official name, though it appears as such in local history books. I've gone with "a controversial ring road scheme", which uses a common name (most towns have some sort of inner ring road in them these days). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History

*Capitalise iron age.

Done Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*1500BC -add a space between 0 and BC

Done, though I'll point out that One Million Years B.C., the first thing that came to mind when thinking of pre AD 0 naming conventions, doesn't do this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Link Weald in first instance. Delink in geography.

Done. First wikilinks are probably the hardest thing to spot and get right, because they can change completely during copyediting. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Archaeological studies have revealed" -do we know anything about when or the nature of the studies?

If I recall correctly, the source says that verbatim, but I will have look for others. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"By the 1780s, local farmers had begun to hold informal market days, and advertised the town's ideal location between London, Chatham and the Kent Coast.[11] The market was held in the High Street until 1856 when local farmers and businessmen relocated to Elwick Road and formed a market company that is the oldest surviving registered company in England and Wales.[12] There is still a regular street market in the town, although the market company has had to be relocated outside of the town due to part of the 19th century site being demolished to make way for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. It is still used by around 5,000 farmers" -Mmm, this seems problematic in a section named "Middle Ages" which is largely modern history and economy. I'd rather you moved this further down to an appropriate section and continue with pottery in 13th century after mentioning the charter. -Don't worry, I've sorted this.
"Parts of the St Mary's parish church date from the 13th century, including a brass of the first rector, Robert de Derby.[10] John Fogge supervised substantial changes to the church in the late 15th century, including creating the 120 feet (37 m) tower and raising the roof.[12][13] He was buried in the church and a memorial window is dedicated to him." -My feeling is that this mostly doesn't belong in the history section but in a section named "Landmarks ===St Mary's Church, which should really be there with any others worth mentioning. Have a look in Listed buildings in Ashford, Kent and search for some further info on some of the listed buildings in the town which should all have articles on the listed buildings site. Obviously some are worth mentioning more than others but for a town I think you need a decent summary of landmarks. I'd also like to know more about the Repton Manor House there and other interesting buildings.
"In William Shakespeare's Henry VI, part 2, Cade is shown conversing with "Dick, the Butcher from Ashford". Dick looks forward to removing officialdom after the rebeliion, saying "first thing, let's kill all the lawyers."[17]" Really doesn't belong in the town's history, should be put in a footnote. Also is the wrong spelling of rebellion intentional?
"The Army first established a presence in Ashford in 1797 when it built a garrison on Barrow Hill, and storerooms along what is now Magazine Road.[22] The military presence was scaled back during the 19th century, though the town was still considered strategically important in the event of an invasion.[23] The Territorial Army -link army in first instance and remove in second.

The TA is not the same as the regularly army, so linking would not be appropriate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*" The town was targeted again during the Battle of Britain in World War II.[26] The Joint Services School of Intelligence was based at Templar Barracks in Ashford, until the barracks were decommissioned in 1997 and then demolished to make way for High Speed 1.[" - What was the date, year even of the invasiona, do we have dates when it was bombed? Also a paragraph break badly needed with Joint Services...

I've found a specific date and added it. I've done the paragraph break for now, though per the other comments there'll be more in this area later. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"though Repton Manor House remains as it is a Grade II listed buildling" ="though the Grade II listed Repton Manor House remains intact".
Printing and food industry (in detail) really belongs in the economy section.
The paragraph which begins "Food production has been an important industry in Ashford" is really quite convoluted and difficult to read, especially in a history section which should really be outlining general history rather than going into detail on local industry.
Then you go into architecture with discussion of timber and flat conversion which should really go in a Landmarks/architecture section. I think you really need to go through the history section and strip it down to an outline and move a lot of content into more appropriate sections further down.

Geography

" in common with most such towns" - :-) -Don't worry, I've changed it.

"In common with most towns, Ashford has some shops, some schools, and some chavs." ;-) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now the earthquake mentioning for me belongs in history rather that geography!

*(from May to September)day ??

No idea. The source just says "summer days" which could be anything from about 28 March - 28 October, or as little as 21 June - 31 August depending on who's opinion you ask. Removed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

*"private funded " =privately funded?

Changed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I think this section would benefit from much of the material in the lower history section and copyedited and restructured to flow better.

Culture

~~OVERLINK of First World War and inconsistent with earlier World War I. Doesn't MoS advise against linking it anyway?~~

MOS:OVERLINK just says "everyday words understood by most readers in context". I'm not sure that's the case here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section too I think should be renamed "Landmarks" and benefit from some of the material in the history section (on the church mainly). Motto might fit better somewhere in the history section.

Education

Seems a bit jumbled. I think you should state how many school of each first and then go into grammar, secondary and then primary in turn.

Do you mean just move the sentence counting the schools up front? I wanted to put Norton Knatchbull first because it is the most notable school with the biggest coverage in sources, and hence should be up front as it's what readers would more likely be looking for. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sport

*"local athlete Julie Rose" - is she worth linking? Do we know if she was a hurdler, a javelin thrower, a runner or what?

Done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*"Ashford Hockey Club is based at Ball Lane, Kennington and were formed in 1898." -was formed

Done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Football seems more appropriate to discuss first than the others. I think you could remove the subsection and move it to the top, then cover athletics and hockey. Also correct link to Ashford United F.C. and merge/move "The club's grounds are at The Homelands, about 4 miles (6.4 km) south of the town centre." further to the top after mentioning to club. Something like Ashford United Football Club, based at The Homelands, about 4 miles (6.4 km) south of the town centre, was formed in 1891 as Ashford United."

Done. Also has the nice advantage of making the image formatted better. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transport

*Delink Maidstone

Done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this section is too detailed if anything and could be condensed and copyedited to improve flow and focus.

Health

*"replacing an smaller" = replacing a smaller

Done Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*"The hospital is currently unused, after plans to redevelop it into a local health unit in 2012 were cancelled." - try "The hospital is currently unused, since plans to redevelop it into a local health unit in 2012 were cancelled."

I've rewritten this. I took a picture of the hospital last week and all the windows were boarded up and the gates locked, so who knows what's happening to it now. I've also added an entry on the sanatorium, which will expand when I move the information in Simone Wiel into it (see below) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*"named after the doctor who discovered the blood circulatory system." link/name him.

Done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you try to cluster some of the sources in the lower section as the sourcing looks a bit excessive which affects my reading?

Media

"Ashford has had several newspapers, some of which are still in production."- tense here is conflicting and you really use circulation rather than production when referring to them I think. Try "

Ashford currently has three local newspapers in circulation: the Kentish Express, published by the KM Group; yourashford, published by KOS Media; and the Ashford Herald, which has been published by Kent Regional News and Media since July 2009." Then mention what is defunct.

Notable people

Excessive. I don't want to read about all that. Just a name link, B + D dates and profession will do, at the very most one description of why they were notable. Bullet it too.

I really can't agree with bulleting stuff. That's what List of people from Ashford, Kent is for. The entries here are for people who have a prominent and significant contribution to the town, although you might want to have a look at the article before I started improving it to GA status - far more stuff has been removed than retained. As it currently stands, I would make a strong argument for keeping John Wallis, John Furley, Simone Weil and Arthur Charles Evans, as each one has a significant and prominent association with Ashford, as opposed to merely being born or living there. Even Malcolm Sargent has a road named after him, even though he himself said his relationship with Ashford was tenuous at best. What we could do, however, is move each entry to another section. John Furley and Simone Weil can move to "Health" (after it expands to include the history of the TB sanatorium), John Wallis can go in Education. That would make the "notable people" section redundant. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twin

"The association between Ashford and Bad Münstereifel originates from the British occupation of the town in 1919 under the command of Major J Goode, following the end of World War I. John Wiles, brother in law of Major Goode, later became mayor of New Romney in 1946, and subsequently arranged a visit to the Rhineland with Winston Churchill. Wiles was declared an honorary citizen of Bad Münstereifel in 1961, which led to the formal twinning.[169]" Seems a bit trivial and looks odd under the list. Perhaps place it in a footnote where it says "twinned"?

Done. The idea here was to stop this section just being a bland list and to give a bit more information to the relationship with Bad Münstereifel. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also section won't be needed if you create a Landmarks one and link there and a further|Listed buildings at top of section.

Sourcing

*Add publisher to ref 155

Done Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks generally good but I have no idea why you use "Sustrans.org" when you have google. Is it more convenient or something?

AFAIK, Sustrans is the offical website of cycling routes. By "google, do you mean mean searching for a better site, or using Google Maps? In the case of the latter, experience has shown me that Google is a terrible source for cycle and foot paths, which are inaccurate or missing. OpenStreetMap is much better for this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall my feeling is that this needs a pretty major reshuffle still and then a copyedit to ensure that it flows well. There's a lot of material which seems in the wrong place, short sentences, and those which seem jumbled around each other. I have a feeling that the real cause of this from the early editors who worked on it who created problems which weren't fully sorted out during your redevelopment of it Rich. Still needs a lot of work to really be of GA quality IMO, but knowing your abilities, I'm sure it won't be long before it is looking better. Once you've done what you can I'll look at it and see if anything still needs sorting and then it would be good if Eric or somebody could give it a polish. Hope my points help you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, what you've written here looks far more like I'd expect a GA review of an article of this size with this many references to look like. I'm a bit short of time, but for now I'm going to undo the pass on this and put it back on review. And I don't see any harm in dragging @Eric Corbett: in here to get his opinion on stuff. I am strongly of the opinion that GAs should be earned and here is a great opportunity to put my money where my mouth is. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so too. I mean, some articles though you can genuinely find little to complain about, and I don't see the point of being picky for the sake of it, but GAN is supposed to eradicate a lot of issues and genuinely bring about improvement and send it on its way towards development to FA, and you'll find that most articles, even those by greats like Brian or Tim you'll find a lot of things they missed. I think I can help set this on its way this week, but I have a few reviews and that to do right now and aren't all that active on here right now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've gone through the "easy" stuff. The next thing to do is take all the comments about layout and structure, and figure out what goes where. I'll get back to you on that! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]