Talk:Bradley, Hampshire/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Bungle (talk · contribs) 14:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this on, seeing as I have done a few other similar ones from the same region. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed this version from 1st April 2017

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.	Small niggles but nothing significant that can't easily be resolved
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Generally fine
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.	Entire history section based on a single reference, which isn't ideal
	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).	Sources seem reliable enough
	2c. it contains no original research.	None detected
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	History section needs attention - various parts direct copied
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Not that broad
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	May be that there isn't enough info in some parts
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Is neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Is stable
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.	Seems fine
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Summary below

Review Comments
Infobox
Pop should be 202 if adding up the individual nationalities (not 201) Oops, good catch. Fixed! JAGUAR 20:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] You forgot to change it in the prose too - I have done this now. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
"Its nearest town is Alton" - whilst this may be true, it is almost just as close to Basingstoke, the largest town in Hampshire; surely this deserves a mention? Added distance to Basingstoke, which is a little longer but harder to get to. JAGUAR 20:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] "..is Alton, which lies 4.3 miles (6.9 km) southeast from the village" - I don't see this mentioned elsewhere in the article, and is unsourced. How did you work this out, or where did the info come from? I always measure distances in miles by drawing a straight line in Google Earth. I've been using this method for years. I'm sure it's one of those things that don't need sourcing, or at least can be found on any map. JAGUAR 20:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] When I check this on Google Earth, it tells me the distance is 5.37 miles (from each respective centre point), so perhaps if you could find a mapping website whereby you can do the distance then paste the link with it pre-configured (as you can on google street maps for instance)? You put the roughly right 5.4 miles distance in the Geography section, but then did not amend the erroneous figure in the lead; I have amended the latter. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for correcting this, I have pasted a link from Google Maps which measures the distance from Bradley to Alton in the geography section. JAGUAR 20:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] "The parish covers an area of 975 acres (395 ha).." - i'm not sure how up to date this is.. more info on that further below though. I don't have any newer figures, but I compared the modern day parish to a map from 1889 and the boundaries look the same. JAGUAR 20:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] "..first mentioned in a charter.." - wikilink Charter? Linked. JAGUAR 20:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
History
Sub-section (maybe ancient, georgian and victorian) Split into two subsections. JAGUAR 20:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] Wikilink "hides" to Hide (unit) Done. JAGUAR 20:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] any images to repesent how it may have looked? Maps, archive photos etc? Added a map of the parish dating from the 1890s. JAGUAR 20:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] "..into the hands of the king.." - which King? (King is capitals) I'm never sure when to capitalise King. And added King James I. JAGUAR 20:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] "..debt of £1,001" - can we use an inflation calculator? Added. JAGUAR 20:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] I see you manually entered £309,204, yet the inflation calculator returns £172,241 and Bank of England website returns £234,000. To save the grief of someone else asking why the inflation calculator template isn't being used (which is a source for the inflation in its own right), I have changed to this instead. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] "In 1629 the manor.." - should this not form the start of the next paragraph/section as it refers to two centuries later? Split. JAGUAR 20:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] "..divided into ten-twelfths; one-twelfth was transferred to John's son and heir Edward, whereas the remaining twelfth was held.." - the remaining twelfth? What about the other eight-twelfths? I got this wrong, the remaining ten-twelfths were transferred to Sir Pexall Brocas, according to the source. JAGUAR 20:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] "..held by Francis Cotton" - who is this? Why it he mentioned but the owners/gainers of the other parts of land are not? The son in law of Pexall Brocos. I've added this in. JAGUAR 20:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] "..was passed to sir Anthony Henley" - as above, who is this? Also "Sir" should be caps Added caps. The source doesn't say who this is, rather the ownership just jumped to another family. JAGUAR "..succeeded by his brother Robert, the Earl of Northington.." - can we link to the appropriate articles here and here? Thanks, added. I remember looking for these but couldn't find them. JAGUAR 20:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] "..died unmarried in 1786, thus leaving as his sisters...as heirs" - maybe "leaving his sisters" (remove the "as"). Also, it says Bradley was passed down the "following year" (we're lead to assume 1787) to William Drewe, who died in 1972.. nearly 200 years later? Doesn't seem right, or worded badly. Oops, this was my mistake. Fixed both; I've corrected "1972" to "1772"! JAGUAR 20:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] "Upon Drewe's death in 1972, his will left Bradley to his son John, on whose death in debt about 1829.." - re-iterating as above.. the date is clearly wrong. Also, which debt does it refer? Seems a bit vague. Fixed to 1772. The source is vague, it just says "on whose death in debt about 1829 it was sold to Mr. Rumbold". It doesn't say what the nature of the debt was. Should I remove it? JAGUAR 20:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] Wikilink Will and testament in the above Done. JAGUAR 20:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] "The latter sold the estate in 1877 to Lord Templemore.." - can we wikilink at least Baron Templemore or the specific person if known? Linked to Harry Chichester, 2nd Baron Templemore. JAGUAR 20:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] Copyvio detected large parts written like-for-like that may need to be rephrased I've tried rephrasing most parts of the history section. JAGUAR 20:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns about this section mainly is that there is a single reference used for the entire amount, with no other secondary source used (even if it were to confirm some parts of it). Also some parts, particularly ownership transfer, seem to waffle a bit and could perhaps be condensed. Has nothing happened since 1905? The ref was published 1911 so can we see if there is specific info on the widow and what happened to her? Sadly I really can't find any more information on its history, or what happened to its last owner. Bradley even doesn't have a parish website. I've never seen a village with as little information as this! I did add a bit from the Vision of Britain, and there's also some useful census info on there. JAGUAR 21:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Geography and demographics
Split demographics into new section and show population growth using "Historical populations" template Done. JAGUAR 21:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] "The landscape is well wooded" - what period is this based on, as side-by-side maps show some curious woodland changes since the 60s: http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/sidebyside.cfm#zoom=14&lat=51.1722&lon=-1.0820&layers=11&right=osm. Maybe use this side-by-side map in some way to demonstrate environmental changes? Thanks, I've added a mention of some woodland being lost, although I didn't see much change. JAGUAR 21:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] Also as above, the entire text regarding area covered is from the british-history.ac.uk ref, which states a publication of 1911; you translate this into the article as if it's still all up to date info, which it may not be, as it was over 100 years ago. I've added some newer sources, including a Vision of Britain and Hampshire Hub, which runs from the 2011 census. Some map comparisons shows nothing drastic has changed! JAGUAR 21:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] "Notable woods include.." - why are they notable? Also you may want to provide an up to date map to source this info (to ensure it's still correct in contemporary times) It's sourced to OpenStreet Map, which is very recent. I've removed "notable". JAGUAR 21:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] The ref where the pop is from has so much more info you could mention (education levels, full employment figures etc); there may well be 38.4% full-time employed, but lets not forget those part and self-employed, then the figure is 92, or close to half the population in employment. Maybe base this section on how the Bentworth article is arranged Added some more info on employment. JAGUAR 21:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] Axford is a disambig link Fixed. JAGUAR 21:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] The highest point in the parish, and various figures of areas, are given in imperial measurement first, contrary to WP:MOSUNIT. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notable landmarks
"Although the church is medieval.." - I'm not a big fan of em-dashes and I feel this sentence could be restructured to flow more naturally. Rephrased. JAGUAR 20:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] wikilink Broach spire Linked. JAGUAR 20:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] "..and the windows date from the Restoration" - you have wikilinked Restoration (England), but does it mean that exactly, or rather the period when the church was restored aka rebuilt? I can't be sure myself. This is definitely referring to the Restoration period. I've added in the word "period" to the link to make it clearer. JAGUAR 20:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage/settlements criteria
Using the WIkiproject page as a rough guide (the ones I feel are relevant) Infobox Y Lead & image Y History Y Government N (no mention of Governance, for example: local council/elections, electoral information or which constituency it falls under) Added a governance section. JAGUAR 21:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] Geography Y (concerns about how up to date this info is) Demography ? (mentions population, but no mention of ethnic/religious compositions or changes in population over the decades) Culture/community N Landmarks Y Education N (any educational facilities (i.e. schools)?)
Misc
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/localpages/central/alresford/bradley.htm is a dead link Archived. JAGUAR 21:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

Very similar to other articles in this region I have previously reviewed, with similar concerns about broadness, layout style etc. This is a very small village so there may not be a vast amount of info available, but I do have some concerns about the history section as a whole, not just that it doesn't mention anything since 1905, but that it's solely based on a single reference. If the above points are worked through, I can then do a second review to see if I have missed anything or if other issues crop up. If I find anything else in the meantime i'll just add it in to the above review. I'll place on hold and see how much has changed a week from now. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle: thank you very much for the thorough review! I really appreciate it. Hopefully I should have addressed everything, though unfortunately this is a very "off the radar" sort of village and I was lucky to squeeze enough information out of the sources I already had. I copyedited the history section and added another reference, which was sadly the only other one I could find on its history. I also added in a new demographics and governance section. Please let me know if I'm missing anything. Sorry for the delay. JAGUAR 21:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a quick copyedit with some grammar and spelling corrections mostly. I appreciate online material for data sourcing these small villages can be scarce but a lack of easily searchable online data doesn't mean that the last 112 years of history never happened. Sometimes you need to be a bit creative with how you determine change, particularly when it comes to geographical and economical change, whereby historical maps may shed some light on buildings and residential growth that may (or may not) have occured during the 20th century. Perhaps you could see if you can determine from comparing maps (such as the previous side-by-side link I offered earlier) whether there has been any notable change, or even just something you could at least mention since 1905! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle: I've added what I can to the history section, but I really can't find any changes at all! As hard as it sounds I honestly can't find any new buildings with the exception of some woods being cut down and two acres of the parish being transferred to Bentworth sometime after 1913. I've also added a bit about Gay Dog Boarding Kennels which opened in the village in the 1960s. It seems to be the only infrastructure around! JAGUAR 20:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: There are also more older (and dated) maps here, which may offer additional changes not found on the side by side ones? I am of the view that if it's proven from map changes that very little, if anything has changed, it's still best to mention that as otherwise simply leaving a void of information will leave the reader wondering; try and conclude either way if possible, especially when the period in question is a century+ gap! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've discovered that a solar farm was constructed near the village in November 2014, and that the parish was once part of Overton until the late 19th century, so I added those facts in as well as the statement of "nothing has ever happened"! It's nice to know that something has happened in the 21st century at least. JAGUAR 19:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle: If you can quote the Basingstoke distance in the prose with a ref and find another image or two (one perhaps of the village itself, as the only image now is of the church) then i'll pass it as GA. It would probably be a borderline GA, given it's slim pickings on contemporary information, and whilst it could be debated (given some articles can never be GA), I think it'd be otherwise as informative as it can get. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added and sourced the distance to Basingstoke in the geography section. There weren't even any images of the village on Commons, the most interesting one I could find was a track leading into one of the woods. All of the other images were of just fields and I was lucky to get the one of the church and cottages. It really is a desolate village! I checked through the archives of Hampshire Treasures and there was no mention of Bradley on there either. I agree, it's a shame that there's a lack of information but I'm glad to get the article to this size. JAGUAR 17:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although not strictly in my eyes a failable point, it may be useful to look at the suggestion from PaleCloudedWhite and make the units consistent; otherwise I am happy this can be GA thereafter. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the spot height to metric first but have left the acreage and measurements to imperial first as it's standard to use to imperial units for British subjects. I'm not sure if WP:MOSUNIT only applied to height and scientific measurements, but I would strongly disagree with it if it conflicted with MOS:TIES. JAGUAR 13:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I don't think it is strictly a failable concern, but none the less making some amendment can not be a bad thing. I feel given the time elapsed that the amount of data that can be sourced has probably been exhausted (and maps do seem to suggest little changes). I'll tag it as GA on that basis. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's a shame that this couldn't be expanded further, but I'm certain all of the accessible information on this obscure village has been exhausted. The next time I'll nominate a village at GAN I'll make sure it's a large one so it should be more comprehensive. JAGUAR 11:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not standard to use imperial measurements for British article subjects. According to MOSUNIT, in UK-related articles such as this one, "the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units" - apart from the few exceptions listed. Area is not one of those exceptions. Incidentally, while on the subject of honouring national ties and related ENGVAR issues, it should be noted that UK-related articles on settlements should use the section heading Demography, not Demographics, which is an Americanism - see this short discussion. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]