Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Keswick, Cumbria/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keswick, Cumbria[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A town is rather far from my usual GA/FA territory (viz music, lit and theatre mostly), and I am not at all sure how good my current effort is. I should be very glad of any comments to help me improve the article further and to decide whether it has GA or FA potential or neither. Tim riley talk 16:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto comments[edit]

On the whole, good, although not FAC stuff quite yet. I went ahead and fixed some ref formatting issues and left some hidden comments about others I wasn't sure of. I'm sure after the usual suspects have had a pick and a ponder, this will be the usual winning Riley stuff!

Name

Prehistory

  • "There is clear evidence of the presence of prehistoric man in the area" -- personally, I would give "Kewick" again as it is a new para in a new section. We do it for persons, so the same rules should apply here.
  • "The antiquary W G Collingwood, commenting on finds in the area, wrote that they showed that..." -- that/that awkwardness.
    • Yes - lost the second "that"
  • Second para: Would it be correct to finish a para with a cite?

More to come... Cassiantotalk 18:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it. Thanks for the first batch. Tim riley talk 18:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20th century and beyond

  • Last para starts with "the town" as opposed to Keswick.

Historical

  • "The Crosthwaite Free Grammar School was built in 1566, adjoining the churchyard; it had up to 200 pupils, of both sexes." -- I know discipline in schools was strict in those days, but not that strict, surely!?

Modern

Up to here, sorry for the intermittency. Cassiantotalk 20:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, and be as spasmodic as you like. I'm glad of your comments in whatever sized portions. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The others have beaten me to it. I see no other issues Tim, great work as usual. Cassiantotalk 22:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Very nicely done. I could not help thinking about Chincoteague ... I've wandered around England quite a bit in my time, and spent a few hours here once. I remember very little about it, though. Still, I shall make a point of looking around more comprehensively should fate place me back in the area. Only a very few comments.

Lede
Name
  • I should put the cheese lovers together, and the dissenters at the end.
    • Ah, well to tell you the truth I started and finished with the cheese lovers so as to deny the dotty old Flom the last word, having which always carries excessive weight. Not quite utterly neutral? I hope it will squeeze past GAN or FAC reviewers if I get that far. Tim riley talk 19:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Middle ages
18th and 19th
Ownership
Lake poets
That's it. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for these points, Wehwalt. All attended to except my cheesy bit of top-spin. Tim riley talk 19:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cliftonian's thoughts[edit]

Lead

Name

Prehistory

  • "During the Roman Empire" seems slightly odd wording to me; perhaps "During the Roman period", "In Roman Britain" or similar might be superior.

History

  • "against the marauding Scots"—I suspect usage of the definite article here might be taken by some as an undue slight on the Scots as a whole. Suggest losing it ("against marauding Scots" does not have the same connotation). Ditto "with the Scots finding richer ... targets"; perhaps "with Scottish attackers" or similar
  • Why not wikilink Edward IV?
  • We refer to "Wad mining". I know we have made clear in the previous paragraph this is graphite but I think it would be clearer for the reader just to use the modern term.
  • Why not wikilink the River Greta?

Religious worship

Regular events

Later: Done, so far as the Agricultural Show is concerned (and added some new info published this very day, if you please!) Shall rummage for the other dates. Tim riley talk 17:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK —Cliftonian (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Features

  • Remove link from River Greta and link further up
    • Yes.

Lake Poets and other Keswick notables

Overall I think this looks very good—perhaps not ready for FA yet, but I think a GA nomination would be successful with very little trouble. The article is enjoyable, thorough and informative and I enjoyed reading it. I hope these thoughts help. Cheers, and keep well. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this, Cliftonian. Your comment and Cassianto's above chime with my own feeling, viz that GAN is probably the route to take. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Later: all suggestions attended to as above. Tim riley talk 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting: the article seems to be even better now and looking over it I see no reason not to nominate for FA. The article would be a shoo-in for GA and while I see no reason not to go down the GA route as a precursor to FA, I think the peer review has picked up any issues the GA review would normally highlight. So in my opinion having had this peer review going for GA would simply eat up time and not add much to the article. The decision is ultimately yours however. I will just say I preferred the "my good fortune" quotation at the end where it was before, so perhaps consider moving the "culture" section down to the bottom? Well done again Tim on this fine article. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Cliftonian Tim. My comments were based on what I saw as the first reviewer, but having revisited since then, I see that this PR has helped the article immensely. FAC is the way to go as far as I'm concerned! Cassiantotalk 17:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. comments[edit]

Perhaps mention some of the notable landmarks like the museum in the lead?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)#[reply]

Very good idea. I struggle with writing leads, and suggestions like that are most welcome! Tim riley talk 15:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the dissolution of the monasteries, between 1536 and 1541, Furness and Fountains Abbeys - the Furness and Fountains Abbeys? I believe you and Cass prefer to use the definite article.
  • "and at 2014 " ="as of 2014 still continues to be published every Friday"
  • The geography section is rather undeveloped I believe. Nothing about geography, only a bit on geology and climate. I think first you should state where Keswick is located and its distance from four of five other towns, see Aarhus for instance. You can find distances on google here by clicking directions and entering a town. I've added some details myself to help. Then there really needs to be a description of the local terrain, is the area, flat/hilly, are there mountains or hilly areas in the vicinity? Should be OK now with the additions I've made. One thing though can you check the course of the Greta, the channel I mention I don't know if that is it or not. Google maps shows the Derwent river I think passing along the north side of the city and then there's a channel going south to the west of Keswick into the Derwentwater, it might be the Greta. Not keen on the climate table, can you use a more standard one like in Copenhagen?
And now succeeded! Thank you for the suggestion, Doctor. Tim riley talk 12:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue later. I've added a list of listed buildings. You might want to mention the Grade I listed Greta House, now part of the school and give some architectural details from the listed site. I know you mention it already in the notables section. I also think you should add some architectural detail about the Grade II* listed Church of St John and Church of St Kentigern and The Moot Hall in the Landmarks section.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's some terrific stuff here. Plenty to keep me out of mischief tomorrow. The only downside is that your substantial (and most welcome) additions mean you can't do the GAN review which I was rather hoping you might. No matter. Tim riley talk 15:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, actually with a bit of strengthening in places I think you could skip GA and go for FA. Let's just ensure it's as comprehensive as possible first though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost nothing from SchroCat[edit]

Very slim pickings from me: a couple of minor tweaks undertaken earlier: feel free to revert anything you don't like. As to the rest…

16th and 17th centuries

20th century and beyond

All ship-shape and riley-fashion apart from those two really insignificant questions. Pip pip! – SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SchroCat, both for tweaks and suggestions. Tim riley talk 16:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley Miles[edit]

  • " civil parish within the Borough of Allerdale in Cumbria, historically in Cumberland". This sounds clumsy to me. Why 'within' rather than 'in' (ha revenge for you jumping on my 'amongst'!) and I am not sure historically is grammatically correct in that context. How about "civil parish formerly in Cumberland and from 1974 in the Borough of Allerdale in Cumbria"?
  • "The town is situated just north of Derwentwater, and 4 miles (6.4 km) from Bassenthwaite, both in the Lake District National Park." As you mention the National Park, I think you should say whether Keswick is in or just outside it.
  • " Eilert Ekwall (1960) and A D Mills (2011), both for the Oxford University Press, and Diana Whaley (2006), for the English Place-Name Society" This sounds as if these bodies endorsed the theory. Perhaps "in books published by"
  • " prehistoric man" sounds dated. I would prefer prehistoric occupation.
  • Collingwood is far too dated to be RS on the archaeology of Keswick. Searching on "Keswick neolithic" in Google Scholar gives more up to date sources.
    • I've replaced the refs for the two factual statements, and added the date for Collingwood's comment, which is a pleasing quote I'm loth to lose.
  • "The last major influences on the area before reliable historical records began" What is the point of this qualification? I would delete it.
  • "absorbed by the Kingdom of Scotland until 1092" The ref should be Haywood pp. 104-5
  • In the lead you say that Keswick was first recorded in 1276, but this is not stated in the main text, and you say Fountains based a steward in the town in the early 13th century.
  • "The buying and selling of sheep and wool was no longer centred" Should not this be "were" centred?
  • "but evidently that use did not begin until the late 18th century" I would delete "evidently" as superfluous.
  • "During the 18th century and into the 19th..." I got confused in this paragraph as it appears to jump around with dates. McAdam constructed roads - must be late 18th or early 19th centuries but when? It goes on that this made the Lake District accessible by coach, yet a few lines later it says that coach services started in the 1760s, which must be before McAdam. The Grand Tour impossible during war in Europe - McAdam's improvements must have been so late that this means the Napoleanic war, so why link to a list of 18C wars? "Nonetheless, by the middle of the century" Which century? Coach services had not started in the middle of the 18th so presumably the 19th.
  • "bargain prices, such as six shillings" Presumably for the middle classes. Many workers earned less than that a week.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for these points, Dudley: really precise and helpful, and I so glad you were free to look in. I'm looking forward to grappling with your points tomorrow (my last day in Keswick, and able to use the very fine archive in the library, until late September) Tim riley talk 15:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Any prospect of major expansion of the town was ruled out" It might be just me but this has a regretful tone, which I am sure you did not intend! Maybe instead give a very brief summary of the restrictions on development the National Park entailed.
    • The National Park has been surprisingly undogmatic about discreet and fitting development within the town: I could show you probably a hundred new buildings tucked away here and there put up in the half-century that I've been familiar with Keswick. The real no-no is any outward expansion or development beyond the post-war boundaries of the town. I've purged the (unintentional) suggestion of regret. Tim riley talk 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a great picture that panoramic view is!
  • "These fells were formed during the Ordovician period" I think it is best to give a time period as well as saying Ordovician as most people will not know when this was. However I see that the source gets it wrong as Ordovician is 485-443 million years ago and the leaflet says 500 million. Natural England here is a better source, though even this has a typo as it says 495-443.
  • "Climatically, Keswick is in the North West sector of the UK" What does this mean? Is it a Met Office classification?
  • I would make 'Ownership and governance' a sub-section of history. It is all historical.
  • "The first known official record of the town" Was there an earlier unofficial mention? Where does before 1216 come from?
  • "Land to the south and west were part of Greenwich Hospital's forestry and farming estates until the 19th century.[65] In 1925 the National Trust acquired 90 acres of land in this estate, including the foreshore woodland, the gift of Sir John Randles" Did Randles buy it from the Hospital? I would take "acquired" to mean purchased - suggest just saying he donated it.
  • Is it known how long the Crosthwaite Free Grammar School survived?
    • I have an idea that it morphed under Rawnsley's care into Keswick School, but I can't say for certain at the moment. Bott doesn't make it clear, and I'll have to fossick a bit more in the archives. I imagine the Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society will oblige. Tim riley talk 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's it from me. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lake District Louie[edit]

  • I would move the quote box to the left in the Middle Ages section.
  • I removed a stray "e" at the end of the 18th & 19th centuries section. Did this "e" fall off the end of another word somewhere?
  • I added a couple of dates in refs, and I suspect that other refs are missing dates of publication (the access dates are, IMO, of less importance than the publication dates), that can be found in, or divined from, the sources.
  • Landmarks: Why does Grade II* get an asterisk (*) -- but only sometimes -- while Grade I does not? What is the purpose of the asterisk? I can assure you that most American readers will not know anything about the Grade scale for buildings. I would assume that it has something to do with designating it as some kind of historical landmark, but that is all I could guess. Therefore, I think a blue-link would be helpful in both cases.
Thank you for your review and these excellent pointers. Tim riley talk 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor matters from BB[edit]

I'm at the tail end of a distinguished company of reviewers, so not too many points. But:

  • The slogan "Keswick: famous for pencils" makes me want to giggle, but: "evidently that use did not begin until the late 18th century. Why do we need evidently?
  • "at 2014" sounds strange to me, rather than "in". (Late in the article you have "as at")
  • Is it correct to refer to the lake as "the Derwentwater" (as in "from the river to the Derwentwater to the east of Portinscale")? I have only heard of it as "Derwentwater".
    • An error that crept in during multiple revisions, and now corrected.
  • Conversely, I would expect to read: "The River Greta, a tributary of the Derwent..." rather than "River Greta..." etc
  • I assume you will pipelink the various listed grades to Listed Building
  • Moot Hall: "a double flight of steps inside" – I see an outside double-flight. It's more usual to call internal steps "stairs"
    • I reserve my position on this. There are certainly outside steps, as you say, but I shall have to look inside when I'm back up there at the end of this month to refresh my memory of the interior arrangements. Tim riley talk 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Churches: "Until 1838 Keswick had no church within the town boundaries..." but then: "Another parish church, the Church of St Kentigern on Church Lane, is also Grade II* listed. Dated to at least the 14th century...". And what about the Weslyan chapel opened in 1814?
  • "...the chancel windows, designed by Henry Holiday, also date to that year" – not clear what year.
  • "More than 250 barrels of beer, lager and cider are on offer, accompanied by music from live bands." Sounds a trifle promotional. Likewise: "In July one of the town's best-known annual fixtures begins..."
  • "Before the Lake Poets the best-known resident of Keswick was probably Sir John Bankes, a leading Royalist during the English Civil War." I don't think an encyclopedia should offer this kind of conjecture; the language needs to be more neutral, e.g. "Among the well-known residents of Keswick before the Lake Poets was..." etc
  • Education: I'm not clear as to how the schools mention in the historical summary tie in with contemporary provision. For example, does the Crosthwaite Free Grammar School still exist or did it evolve into something else? Twelve day schools in the town by 1833 suggests a very generous provision, but I imagine most of these were dame schools with only a few pupils – can you clarify? Can you confirm there are no private schools in the town, and also say what is the responsible LEA?
    • Dudley Miles also raised the point about the Crosthwaite Free Grammar School, and I reserved my position: I think under Rawnsley's care it morphed into Keswick school, but Bott doesn't say, and I need to do a bit of on-the-spot research later this month.
  • Population: I would like to have a better account of the stages by which the towns population grew from the 1000 mentioned in the 17th century, and the present-day 5000. For example, what was population in the mid-19th century, or at the time of the 1914–18 war (which would give a context to the 117 war dead)? Also, can we have some demographic details. Is Keswick a popular retirement base with an ageing population, is it mainly families, etc? Some idea of the make-up of the poplualtion would definitely help to form an image of the town.
  • The parliamentary constituency that includes Keswick is mentioned in the infobox but not in the text. Might be worth mentioning who the MP is (hee hee hee).
    • Added constituence details; I think I'll omit the name of the MP – WP:DATED again.

That is my lot. Aside from my light reservations expressed above, I found this at least as informative as the "Let's move to..." page which features in the Saturday Guardian. A little further attention should see it safely into FAC territory. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these points, Brian. All grist to the mill and attended to as reported above. Tim riley talk 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Warmest thanks to everyone who has contributed. The article is so much better now than when I put it up for review. With the help of Dr Blofeld I aim to have it up to FAC in a week or two. Tim riley talk 16:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Keswick,_Cumbria/archive1&oldid=1136085090"