Jump to content

Talk:Barrhill, New Zealand/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Winner 42 (talk · contribs) 23:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a whack at this review. Seems like a decent article at first glance, but I'll try to be thorough.

Overall comments

[edit]

Seems like a good article in general, I would like to see some expansion in the areas of demographics and the economy of the area though. I know this information may be hard to find so I won't require it. Below are some things I generally noticed. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent; thanks for starting the review. Yes, you've been thorough, and I much appreciate it, and I do appreciate in general for other editors taking the time and energy that is required for these reviews. I'll work through the items listed below one by one and report on progress. Regarding demographics, the information that is available comes from census data, and that is already given, including the limitation that you don't get any data below meshblock level. So whilst the meshblock is much bigger than Barrhill itself, there's nothing we can do about it. Schwede66 18:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, usually that type of information can be found in articles about large cities, but I can see why it can't be found here. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sectional analysis

[edit]

Lead

[edit]
  • I'd like to see more information in the infobox such as area, elevation, or other relevant information if possible.
  • I've never heard the term 'unincorporated area' before, and looking at that article, it mentions that some countries don't have those, including the UK. Much of the system in New Zealand was taken from the UK, so I very much suspect that I didn't know that term because we don't have unincorporated areas. Administratively, it belongs to Ashburton District, as it's stated in the infobox. @Gadfium:, is there a more appropriate term for a small settlement than 'locality'? Schwede66 19:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly wouldn't use the term "unincorporated area" as that has no relevance to NZ. NZ History calls it a farming locality, and Te Ara calls it a (former) town. I think "locality" is the best term for it in the present day and "town" in the 19th century.-gadfium 20:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence should have a comma after "the Canterbury Plains" because it is the first prepositional phrase in a series.
  • The use of "some" in the second sentence doesn't flow very well, consider replacing it.
  • The third sentence is a bit of a run-on and could probably be split in two.
  • "initiated a downturn" of the economy? the population? the quality of life?
  • I tried to clean up the next sentence, thoughts?
  • "giving the setting a charming appearance" doesn't read too neutral to me perhaps a quote, change of wording, or moving it to another section would suit the article better
  • Fair enough - that was missing from the body of the article. I've added it including a reference, and as such, I think it's appropriate in the lead. It really is charming; it is what prompted me to write the article in the first place. Schwede66 19:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three circles of Trinity, does this really need to be in the lead? Doesn't seem to be an important point that needs summarizing.

Location and layout

[edit]
  • Possibly rename to "Geography"?
  • An image would be fantastic for the Trinity trees if possible

History

[edit]
  • "In mid-Canterbury, he bought the Lendon sheep run (Run 116)" the meaning of this isn't clear in the context
  • Perhaps just mention the February 1869 date as it appears to be more reliable
  • I'm reluctant to omit this uncertainty given that Acland even mentions the month of the transaction. Just because the other date is mentioned in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography doesn't give it more credibility; I've given them heaps of feedback on errors in their biographies. I know that Acland went to great length to research The Early Canterbury Runs. Who knows, maybe the deal wasn't formalised until April 1870 because Wason had to have money transferred from England, which took half a year back then. Maybe I should tone down the 'less likely' bit. Your thoughts? Schwede66 18:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first all paragraphs could use additional wikilinks to unclear places and organizations that readers not from New Zealand might not be familiar with such as the New Zealand Historic Places Trust.
  • The 2nd paragraph is unsourced
  • "Wason called the village after his old home in South Ayrshire, Scotland" called or named?
  • "Barrhill flourished until about 1885, when a recession set in across New Zealand, but also the effects of the Methven Branch railway attracting people to move to settlements near the stations. Population in the village itself had peaked at 50 in the mid-1880s. Wason began to gradually sell of parts of his land holdings around that time." This flows poorly and in generally unclear in its meaning.
  • I have census data for four years only, so is it worth using such a table? Note that the 1885 population does not relate to the modern census data, as that was for the village itself, whereas census deals with a large surrounding area. Schwede66 19:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section doesn't appear to discuss where the 1876 founding date came from
  • The section also appears to lack any information about the place during the 20th century

Notable buildings

[edit]
  • Gatehouse likely doesn't need a second wikilink, and section probably doesn't need one at all.
  • I've removed the gatehouse wikilink, but propose for section to remain linked. It's a term that is not universally used, and I've been asked in a previous GA review to link it. Ok? Schwede66 19:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like some of the information here could be merged into the history section such as all that 20th century history
  • Hm, what is discussed here is relevant to each individual building. I'd be reluctant to have that disjointed. I did add some 20th century history to the history section and would like to suggest that it's ok as it now is. What do you think? Schwede66 19:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barrhill Cemetery

[edit]
  • Does this really need its own section? Couldn't it just me merged into Notable Buildings and that section renamed "Notable Places"?

Notable People

[edit]
  • All seems well here, but it could use expansion if there were ever any more notable people there (though this seems unlikely given the population)

References

[edit]
  • No deadlinks so that's a good start
  • Note 18 has a CS1 error

Going to continue tomorrow and check through for the reliability of sources

All sources given appear to be reliable and accurately support the information in the text so I will put this on hold until the above issues have been addressed. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Winner 42: Sorry, I didn't ping you when I was done for the time being. Schwede66 18:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, must have missed you finishing this review in my watchlist. Passing now, Congrats! Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused (see summary style):
  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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barrhill,_New_Zealand/GA1&oldid=1034239980"