Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Started review. Polargeo (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article obviously contains a lot of good information/images. However, it is more than a small bit away from GA as it stands. I don't want to complete a review and fail the article straight away as I would like to give at least some chance to improve this. The biggest problem is a lack of inline citations for many points where they are needed. This is throughout much of the article. I started tagging some bits to highlight this but gave up after the first few tags as there are many more needed. Also I feel the geology section will need more information as the peak district is famous for its geology. Caving and rock climbing are a bit under-represented, although I see that there is a link to rock climbing in the Peak District this also isn't a good coverage though. Importantly, where is all of the history of mining and quarrying? There is a huge history of this. There is a tendancy to just think it is a modern issue of spoiling the landscape, and the history is all about other things. Quarrying in the peak district was a major part of the British economy (My great grandfather and great great grandfather worked in those quarries), some of the towns were built on this industry. Of course if this was just an article on the national park this information wouldn't be needed as much. Polargeo (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the comment above, it appears that it is soul searching time. So can I add a few points which may or may not be relevant. This is a top level article so one wouldn't expect more than a précis of each topic. I have concerns about Textiles, and Mills in general. Mining yes, and the significance of the Longdenden chain. The purpose of all the reservoirs- ie to drive the mills and as headers for canals. Coal. Alderley edge? Canals themselves. In fact nothing on rivers. The economics of early industrial life. The Cotton famine. Child labour and Litton Mill Scandal. Illustrations being judged by quality of image rather than notability of content. The references though given are not from notable sources, too vague lacking page numbers. There appears to be no mention of High Peak Borough Council in any of the references. Sorry if this sounds like a long whinge- but we do need to get this into the open. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree with much of this but I will add

1. It wouldn't fail GA on images. Although I do broadly agree with ClemRutter on this
2. Most of the sources used are notable but I have a particular concern about over relying on the internet movie database, I had already tagged one of these but we must be able to get better than that. Yes there are several other web cites, particularly toward the end of the reference list where the sources could be improved but these sources are not terrible and GA criteria states that reliable sources are required 'for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons' most of the sources don't really need to be much better than what they are. If ClemRutter could point out any particular inline citations that are inadequate to back up the statements then this would be helpful. I will go through them in detail but as I said above many more citations were needed when I last looked at this.
3. As to the specific sections, I don't think we need to mention the child labour for GA but it may be something to add in future. ClemRutter backs up and expands my request for more on the industrial history and I hadn't thought of it before but I agree purpose of reserviors Canals/Rivers should be at least mentioned. All this together will probably need at least two more sections from the current state, but that is up to whoever does the edits to decide how to incorporate it.

I don't think all this is impossible as the article is most of the way there. I have dwelt on the negatives. Positives include the article is nicely formatted and well written. However, editors should perhaps ask themselves if they think they can do all this in the next few days. Polargeo (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the input here guys. I have delt with the inline citations which Polargeo originally brought up, and expanded the geology section. I think they were the smaller things to deal with. The history of mining and quarrying, plus info on canals and rivers are going to take a little longer I feel, unless we can encourage more editors to help. I will place a notice on WT:Derbys, maybe the possibility of another GA will get some help :) Is there a specified limit the nomination can be placed on hold for while the improvements are made? Thanks again, Schumi555 13:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be to have it on hold for another 5 days, I would do the final review on 30th or within a day or two of that (1 week+ from start of review). If you think this is unrealistic it may be better to take the time pressure off and edit the article at leisure, make it a really good standard and renominate after the points have been addressed. I will try to look in and help out if I have time. Polargeo (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added text to rivers, reservoirs, rewritten mills mentioned canals. I have my link to Child Labour- now will some one please copyedit my mods as I cannot see my own spellling mistakes which will be many.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some good additions. I will do a bit of a copy ed when I do a final review (but don't rely on me my spelling is terrible), it is coming along well. Polargeo (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, thanks for all the input guys :) I've copy edited the additions from the past couple of days, and made sure the layout matches what was already there. Feel free to make corrections if I have done anything wrong. Thanks, Schumi555 22:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That leaves- mining and quarrying from a commercial POV and then rockclimbing and potholing (both of which can be built up from existing Wiki articles). What do you feel about inline linking to Sub categories of Peak District? Is the technique too wacky?--ClemRutter (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As so much work has been done on this I think everyone needs another 2 days (including myself) to check this over and see how it stands. Polargeo (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some initial remarks. Where is the reference for the size of population in the Geobox/Infobox? The bgs website was down (ref 34) when I checked it just now. Must do that again later. I assume all of the waterways info comes from ref no. 16. It needs an inline at the end of the info about rivers. Inline needed after the following phrase 'Coal from the eastern mines was used in lead smelting, and coal from the western mines for lime burning.' Polargeo (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inline refs needed for Transport/History last paragraph. Polargeo (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The refs for the infobox are currently hidden because when I added them it messed up the automated conversion between metres and feet etc. Is there a way to display them correctly? Schumi555 15:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref added to the Rivers section, and I've also moved a ref further down the paragraph in the Mining section as it mentions 'Coal from the eastern mines...' Schumi555 15:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to unhide the refs in the infobox but I am running out of time now, it has taken me 30 mins already just to attempt this. This does need addressing though so any help welcome. Polargeo (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind on this. the refs are in there and it seems that although some articles manage to get inline refs in these places many featured articles don't have inline refs in the infobox. If it can be done then great. Polargeo (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

After the additions this article now meets GA criteria. I urge you to improve some of the references (particularly the internet movie database ones) but these do not fail the article. I also urge you to improve the use of images along the lines suggested by ClemRutter but again this is not essential. If anyone can get the inline refs to display in the infobox then that would also be good but as I mention above many FAs do not have these refs displayed. I am not a good copy editor so keep working on improving the text, however, the article reads well to me and is clear and so passes GA on this. Well done everyone. Polargeo (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]