Talk:Upton, Merseyside

Upton, Merseyside was nominated as a Geography and places good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 3, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Upton, Merseyside received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

UK geography Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Merseyside Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Public house#Beer Houses and the 1830 Beer Act|beer house]] The anchor (#Beer Houses and the 1830 Beer Act) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Upton, Merseyside/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TLSuda (talk · contribs) 23:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

A good article is—

1. Well-written:
1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
2. it complies with the
   list incorporation
   .
2. Verifiable with no original research:
1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
   the layout style guideline
   ;
2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and
3. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
   audio
   :
1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
2. media are
   relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
   .

• 1a:
• 1b: There shouldn't be any references in the lead of the article. The lead should summarise content in the rest of the article - material in the lead should be referenced elsewhere.
• 2a:
• 2b: - Some of the sources do not appear to be reliable. Particularly, the references to timetables appear to be primary sources.
• 2c:
• 3a:
• 3b: - Perhaps goes into unnecessary detail in the Buses section. Additionally, the Upton, Merseyside#Leisure section may contain more information than necessary.
• 4:
• 5:
• 6a:
• 6b:

--Adam Black ^{talk • contribs • uploads • logs} 11:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adamblack93, thanks for the preliminary review. I'll get on with fulfilling the points which you've specified as time allows (probably within the next couple of weeks). Please advise as to whether or not the review needs to be put on hold while the points specified are brought up to standard.EP111 (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1b has been fixed. EP111 (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point 2b has been fixed, primary source timetable references removed. Point 3b Buses section has had unnecessary detail removed. EP111 (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point 3b has been fixed as much as possible. I've removed the minutiae of detail, whilst maintaining the main points. EP111 (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamblack93: @EP111: what is the status of this GA review? TLSuda (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TLSuda: Thanks for the movement on this. I'm not sure what the status is, as this is the first time I've nominated something for GA. However, I've done everything I can in the request to bring the article up to GA standard on the questioned points listed above. EP111 (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to take over the review if necessary (I can take it next weekish) if Adamblack93 is done with it. I'd like to give them a chance to respond first. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamblack93:, I see you don't edit much, and if you haven't responded in a further 2 days (7 days from initial ping), I will take this GAR over to finish. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EP111:; @TLSuda: - sorry, I haven't had an internet connection recently. As it's now been 7 days, I've assumed you took over the GA review. I've tried to help, though, making some edits I felt were necessary. I apologise for not being able to give this my attention. --Adam Black ^{talk • contribs • uploads • logs} 23:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TLSuda: @Adamblack93: That's OK. I'd be happy if TLSuda could continue the review at the earliest opportunity, as it's been more than four months since I've nominated the article. EP111 (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-review

I only have a few concerns. See below.

• The first sentence of the lead is extremely long and run-on. Split it up into two sentences.
• There are no sources for the last two paragraphs of the Early modern section.
• There is a "citation needed" tag in the article, which is basically a quick-fail for GA review.
• Most of the "Services" section is unsourced.
• Most of the "Schools" section is unsourced.
• All of the images captions need to be more descriptive.
• There is not a single source in the "Notable people" section.

Normally most of these issues are enough to quickfail the GA review. It still needs some major work. I'll give you another week if you want to try to clean it up. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TLSuda: You may consider the article as either an immediate fail, or on indefinite hold. I'm unlikely to get around to fixing those points within the week. Thanks for your review. Regards, EP111 (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EP111: Checking to see if you have any desire to address the review. If not, I will close this. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]

@TLSuda: I'm busy with other pages at the moment, so you may close the review. I'll get back to fixing the points at a later date, when I'm ready to focus on it. Thanks, once again, for your time reviewing the article. EP111 (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, at this time the article does not meet the standards of being a Good Article and this review has failed. TLSuda (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Over chuch. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Reyk _YO! 08:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Over-church. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]