Talk:Deptford/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

This is a superb article - well-researched, well-written, well-referenced.

Nonetheless, a few quibbles before I pass it:

The "Christopher Marlowe's murder" section seems in a strange position in the article, in between "landmarks" and "transport" - is this on purpose?
It would be nice to have a source and a couple of sentences of detail under "economy" regarding the economic decline of the area - at the moment, this is merely covered by the unsourced sentence "Deptford's economic history has been strongly connected to the Dockyard - when the Dockyard was thriving, so Deptford thrived; with the docks now all closed, Deptford has declined economically."
The modern history is a little bit weak - it doesn't really cover the closure of the docks and such Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on the history and the economy are quite pertinent. Before nominating it I felt that if I were reviewing the article those would be the points I would raise. The difficulties with presenting history of a place is in selecting from a lot of information the most notable, interesting and important points and then dealing with that in a brief manner; finding appropriate sources that have published the modern history; and deciding how much of the modern history to collect in the "history" section and how much to leave in scattered form throughout the rest of the article. Most of the reliable published history of Deptford deals with the older stuff. And the Docks, unfortunately, closed gradually, and direct coverage of it is not readily available on the net - though would be there in the archives of the local Deptford libraries. I'll have another dig on the net - I have come across information, but didn't make a note of it at the time. SilkTork *^YES! 09:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:MRSC and I have made some alterations along the lines you have suggested. I particularly appreciate the prod to get the more recent history done, as it wasn't that hard to do when I got down to it. It can be improved, of course, but the bare bones are now there. SilkTork *^YES! 11:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay - dealing with this whole BLP mess has meant GA reviewing has had to go on the backburner for a bit.

I think this is worthy of GA status The history section could still do with a clearer/more detailed explanation of the closure of the docks, and more on the redevelopment, and the Demography and Economy sections could probably do with some more data, but I think that's more of a FA than a GA requirement at this point. Will pass now. Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]