Back

Talk:Puddletown

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Puddletown/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Alright then I will take a look...I will jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • recommend congealing lead into two paras.
Done. I added some extra info in the main text so that it is easier to join the paragraphs in the lead concerning the church and Thomas Hardy. (I was under the impression that 4 paras was normally recommended - is that not the case?) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The recommendation is 2 to 4 paras, depending on the size of article. As this is short I think two is good. The main thing is not to make the text too choppy with too-small paras. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Toponymy...when was it first called Puddletown though?
I don't think anyone knows for certain. The earliest specific use in the sources that I have is 1906, though this doesn't mean it wasn't called Puddletown before that - Ralph Wightman believed it occurred in the Victorian era, though doesn't give a date. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have found an online copy of a 17th-century map that uses Puddletown, and have adjusted the text accordingly. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, great find! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There used to be several small settlements within Puddletown parish, though except for Puddletown village these have all either diminished or disappeared. - I don't get a sense of which is more prevalent, or is it 50/50...? Maybe mention some more examples.
Do you mean that you don't get a sense of which settlement was more prevalent in the past? I think I've listed all the settlements that previously existed, so can't give more examples. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant which ones (apart from Bardolfeston) are deserted and which ones are still extant - so I take it Cheselbourne Ford is abandoned and the others are marked by sole farms? I find this stuff fascinating so any more detail here I think would be great - particularly as none of these I suspect warrant individual pages...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the info on Cheselbourne Ford and restructured the sentences a little, so that it's clearer which settlements have disappeared. I've provided a link to abandoned village, though am unsure if this is helpful, because according to the United Kingdom section in that article, settlements are termed "deserted" if there are now less than four houses, and "shrunken" if there are four or more - this would mean perhaps a couple of the other settlements are also "deserted", though it would be WP:OR to judge them as such. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Terrific, I love that stuff - agree can be tricky walking tightrope with sources. Best thing is to just describe what has happened like with the two you've mentioned...any cool folklore behind Devil's Brook? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No folklore on Devil's Brook yet, though I have added something on its etymology (found by looking up the etymology of a neighbouring village, which is sited beside the brook upstream). Is it possible to coalesce the new ref I've used with the same book - but different page - used earlier in the section? I haven't done that before with refs that link to a page on googlebooks - not sure how to preserve the links to the page scans. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, you mention Puddletown parish...but I have no idea how big it is. Might be good to add so we get some scale... I see it further down. I think it'd be good to place the first para of Geography section into Toponymy as we are defining it.
My understanding is that toponymy deals only with info about the name? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking it was linkng the name/definition with the place - hence the defining of the parish and the hundred would go here...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are watermeadows still used or now obsolete?
The first paragraph of the intro of this source from 1999 states that, in the southern counties generally, "The remains of many thousands of acres of (now-disused) watermeadows survive along most of the chalkland valleys", though to what extent there are remains in Puddletown parish, I am not sure. The 1978 1:25,000 Ordnance Survey map of the area shows several areas of watermeadow in the parish, but they are not shown on the map of 2010. This suggests that they have gone, though the image used in the article is described by the uploader as "watermeadows", though it's possible the area depicted has just flooded naturally. Unfortunately I do not live locally and therefore cannot easily check by visiting. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the conservative approach is to say that the practice in general is not used any more. And source to other document. Without making any conclusions as such. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence saying watermeadows aren't generally used in southern England, and stated what the Ordnance Survey have depicted within Puddletown parish. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has it always generally been conservative? If so, at all levels?
According to our article, the parliamentary constituency has always been Conservative, though it uses an awful lot of refs to establish this - one for every election. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything about the flora and fauna of Puddletown Heath/Forest that can be added?
I have added something. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd consolidate all material on the church into one section - probably best in the buildings section.
Done. I removed the sentence in the history section, as the same info was already in the buildings section and used a more authoritative source. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a fan of see also sections - I'd put a sentence about the Puddletown Hundred in the 'toponymy section after mateial about the parish

More later...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality: nicely written and engaging.
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: (NB: Earwigs copyvio detector was negative/clear
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Overall:

Pass or Fail: - great, well done. I apologise for being so stickly as I was trying to give it as big a shove as possible towards FAC, where I think it has a good chance of being successful. The issue with the Hundred is still outstanding but you've done such a sterling job of the rest of the article I can let it slide...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia · View on Wikipedia

Developed by Nelliwinne