Talk:New Mills/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

There is some good material in this article and if that was the sole criteria, then this article would be a GA. However, there is also a requirement of WP:Verifiability and this article falls down on verifiability - sometimes for what appear to be "trival errors". I'm going to list them, so I'm sorry, but this is going to be a somewhat negative stage of the review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• History -

• Ref 1, used to verify "Bowden Middlecale" claims to be the English Placenames Society Data Base, but it is merely a web link to Nottingham University - [1] - there is no evidence that it belongs to the English Placenames Society; and ref 2, used to verify "New Mylne (New Mills)", is to a broken web link, but stated to be New Mills Local History Society. As such this first paragraph is not WP:Verifiable. I checked the claims against A.D. Mills, Oxford Dictionary of English Place-names, 2nd edition, and there are some minor differences over dates and spellings, but there is a 3rd edition which I don't have (and I beleive an electronic version). I suggest that a WP:Reliable Source such as Mills is used, or if websites are used, then they are fully described using {{Cite web}} to include title, publisher, access date, etc.
• Ref 4 should be fully described using {{Cite web}} to include title, publisher, access date, etc. Note: Pigot was a publisher (a real person) and these were originally published in book form; they are now out of copyright which is why they are are on Genuki. If you don't understand the requirements, please ask.
• Ref 5 is a reasonable (but not a "good") example of what I'm looking for; but again it was originally published as a book and the name of the publisher does appear on the digitised image, but is absent from the citation.

• Ref 6, a web site, has a publisher (but its not listed).
• The statements regarding railways and stations are unreferenced. I checked dates: my two references state that the Stockport, Disley and Whaley Bridge Railway was opened by the L&NWR on 9 June 1857 and New Mills (SD&WD) station opened 9 June 1857 and was renamed New Mills Newtown on 2 June 1924. New Mills (S&M) station opened on 1 July 1865 and was renamed New Mills Central on 25 August 1952. My dates might be wrong, but they are verifiable - Butt, R. V. J. (October 1995). The Directory of Railway Stations: details every public and private passenger station, halt, platform and stopping place, past and present (1st ed.). Sparkford: Patrick Stephens Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85260-508-7. OCLC 60251199. OL 11956311M. & Awdry, Christopher (1990). Encyclopaedia of British Railway Companies. Sparkford: Patrick Stephens Ltd. ISBN 1-8526-0049-7. OCLC 19514063. CN 8983.
• Ref 7, a web site, is not properly cited.

• Governance -
• Ref 9 and 10, a web site, are not properly cited: both have a publisher and accessdate are needed - 10 is little more than a raw web address.

• Geography -

• The first two paragraphs are uncited, but they don't appear to be controversial so I won't insist.
• Ref 13, a web site, is not properly cited.

• Transport -

• This is entirely uncited, it does not appear to be controversial, but a whole uncited section stands out somewhat in a (potential) GA. Since, most of the material is readily available and thus referenceable, I'm, going to regard this section as failing on WP:Verifiability.

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Education -

• Ref 14, a web site, is not properly cited.

• Economy -

• Refs 15, 16, 17 & 18 are web sites, and are not properly cited.
• There is a {{Citation needed}} flag apparently dating back three years.

The opening of the Millennium Walkway is unreferenced.

• Landmarks -

• Mostly unreferenced.

• Religious sites & Culture and community -

• Refs 20 & 21, web sites, are not properly cited.

• Sport and leisure -

• Unreferenced.

• Notable residents -

• Ref 22, a web site, is not properly cited.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• As none of these actions have been addressed, I'm closing this review. This article will not be listed as a GA. The article is close to being a GA and hopefully someone will care enough to bring the article up to standarsd and renominate it at WP:GAN. Pyrotec (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)