Talk:Bradwall/GA1

GA Review 1[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 15:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I am going to have to fail this article's nomination for GA status. There are significant issues, most notably with coverage, that prevent this article from being a GA at this time. Here are my initial thoughts:

History section - The section is currently a disconnected bunch of facts and quotes that do not come together to give a readable narrative of the history of this village. It also contains far too many quotes which should be summarized and paraphrased. Specifically:
- 3rd century Roman finds - What does this have to do with Bradwell? Why is it important?
- Hollins and Hope hamlets - Significance of these hamlets needs to be explained.
- Has nothing happened in the history of this village in the past 100 years?
Three sentences is too short for a lead. Especially once the additional coverage that is needed is added, the lead needs to be significantly expanded.
Absolutely no information on many facets that are integral for the understanding of a village/town/city. Where is the information on demographics, climate, transportation, education, culture, economy, etc. that is included in all GA articles of this type?
Notable people - what is the criteria for inclusion here? What makes Oldfield notable? Jervis? Latham?
What makes ref #13 (Local history site) a reliable source? It appears to be a blog.
See also goes before Notes. There shouldn't be images in the See also section.

Overall a large amount of work is needed on coverage to meet GA's broadness criteria. I am also concerned about the heavy dependence on 19th century sources, which represent the lack of modern scholarship in this article. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your thorough review, and your conclusion, which I accept. I think you highlight the problem with a subject on which there is a dearth of good sources. Bradwall was certainly more important in previous centuries, when it was a local manorial seat, and since then, its importance and notability has declined to the extent that no-one has written about it.
With regard to information such as demographics, again, because the village is so small, there is nothing specifically on it. Do we assume, for example, that its climate is identical to that of its nearest town/city?
I think that many of your points can be addressed though, I will spend some time doing so. --Iantresman (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For my reference, see the guidelines: "How to write about settlements" --Iantresman (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I very much understand that it can be very difficult to write about subjects that have very few reliable sources, I really think that more can be found on this subject. For example, there is nothing on how the village itself is administrated. And having the history and economy sections stop in the early 1900s leaves out a large portion of the subject. It is possible that some articles do not have enough written on them to become a GA - I don't know if this is the case with this article (since you have obviously found and added quite a bit since I completed the above review), but it is something to keep in mind. Dana boomer (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were very kind to review my Good Article Nomination. I've taken on board your suggestions, and think that the article may be ready for another review. I mention it just in case you want to consider another review yourself. --Iantresman (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]