Wikipedia:Peer review/Lostock Hall/archive1

Lostock Hall

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because at first had no peer status, until I started some work on it, and it was upgraded to a B-class. On September 16, 2009 I put the article up for GA nomination; however I cancelled the request a few weeks later, as there were a few copyright issues which needed resolving. These have now been fixed, and I'm looking to see if (1) everything is in order; and (2) if the article now is looking good enough to becoming a GA article.

Thanks,

• MOS:INTRO
  says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The existing lead doesn't summarize anything except geography and early history. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a brief mention of the main topics of each of the main text sections. It would be OK to have four paragraphs in the lead for an article this complete, and they should include something about governance, culture, economy, education, and the others.

  The lead I was struggling with a little - I was hoping that a peer review might be able to shed some light as to where I was going wrong with it - your comments and advice have helped me immensely.

  Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Even if some of the text in this section comes directly from a public-domain source, I think any direct quotations should be identified as such and put inside quotation marks or blockquotes and should be clearly attributed to the source. Judging by the language, paragraph 2 might be copied from source 2.

  One of the copyright advisor's on Wikipedia

  Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• "Sadly, Lostock's Hall became destroyed by fire." - "Sadly" is an editorial judgment or interpretation and would be hard to verify. I'd just delete the word. Or perhaps this paragraph is a copy from a source. I fixed the misspelling of "destroyed" before seeing the misspelling of "inherited", but if this is a quote that contains misspellings, fixing the spelling was the wrong thing to do. I can't be sure.

  Couldn't think of any other way to describe this, and used the word "Sadly". Any suggestions on other alternative words to use?

  Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Nothing, just use the bare statement "Lostock's Hall was described by fire" If someone has described this event as sad then you could add, "this was seen as a sad event by . . ." and add a citation. NtheP (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Date ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.
• "gave the Hall and its 6 ½ acres" - All of the imperial measures should be given also in metric units; this one should be 6.5 acres (2.6 ha). I like to use the {{convert}} template for this, but it's OK to do them by hand.
• "During the final months of the hospital existance," - "existence"
• "It wasn't until 29 April 1985, the the first Day Care service took place." - Remove echo "the".

  Will look into these can fix accordingly.

  Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• "The most serious of these attacks to effect the village... " - "affect"
• "was when the Leyland Motors factory came under attack during by a single bomber... " - Use either "during" or "by" but not both. I'll stop noting the individual proofing errors at this point, but it's clear that the whole article needs a thorough copyediting to find and fix errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar.

  Will look into these can fix accordingly.

  Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Wikilink cenotaph?

  I wikilinked

  Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• "Mr." and "Mrs." are not generally used as titles in Wikipedia articles.

  I wasn't aware of this, as I have come across other articles which use the terms "Mr." and "Mrs.". I Shall fix these accordingly.

  Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Is "mayoress" an actual title? Is it a real word? Wouldn't a mayor who was a woman be called "mayor"? If so, her husband would surely not be the mayoress.

  "Mayoress" is indeed word used to describe a female mayor.

  Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• "The climate in Lostock Hall bares similarities to its northerly neighbour, the City of Preston. Both Lostock hall and Preston are situated to the west of the Pennines, which can be clearly visible on both dry, sunny days, as well as dark gloomy ones. During several periods of rainfall, Lostock Hall falls victim to many flooded areas, mainly around the junction of Emily Street and Leyland Road; Lourdes Avenue, just outside the school grounds; Croston Road (under the railway bridge situated beside The Anchor Inn), and also along parts of Coote Lane. Sandbags can be seen outside properties along Coote Lane, as precaution to sudden bursts of rainfall." - This whole paragraph is sourced to the Blackpool climate averages from the Met Office. The problem is that the source data bears little relation to the claims in the paragraph. That the Pennines are visible, that Lostock Hall often floods in certain locations, and that sandbags appear along Coote Lane appear to reflect original research rather than the Met Office data. The sources must clearly support the exact claims; otherwise the text violates
  WP:NOR
  .

  Even though the climate between Lostock Hall, and its northerly neighbour, Preston, are the same, the Met Office data wouldn't necessarily show the finer details about localised flooding in their article. They only point out the flooding in more common areas. There are sandbags outside all the properties along Coote Lane; which is why I included this into the article. People visiting the village often wonder why the sandbags are there, so I was providing detail from a local point-of-view; without making it sound like myself speaking.

  Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• "The 2001 population density for inhabitants per square mile (2,065 /km²) was unknown." - If the density is known for square kilometers, it can be calculated for square miles. I'm therefore not sure what the sentence means.

  the only information given on this was "per square mile"; even though we're suppose to be in metric; most of Britain still uses imperial measures. Metric hasn't been officially brought into force yet over here. I could include an additional column to so conversions between metric and imperial.

  Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• "attained a level 1 as the highest qualification" - Should "level 1" and parallel terms be wikilinked or explained for foreign readers?

  I will wikilink "level 1" to help explain this for foreign readers.

  Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Citation 13, which links to a photograph, is not a source for the claims in the paragraph. I will stop here.

  The source claims in the paragraph (which also uses Citation 13) describes a mill, to which is still used to this present day - I added the same citation to the image, to show what the mill looks like in its present form.

  Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

I hope these comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall, I would like to thank

  Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

I'm afraid I haven't had chance to read through the article, but I see that the "Modern day industries" section is lacking sources, and this is something that will need to be addressed. My biggest concern is with regard to the images used in the article, which appear to have been blindly tagged with {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}:

• File:Lostocks hall.JPG is tagged on Commons as a copyright violation of [1]. Evidence of permission is needed for it's use on Wikipedia, but it should be easily replacable with a free image.
• File:Map of Lostock Hall, 1892.jpg; resolution is too low for the map to be of any real value (you can't read anything on it), and ideally the source of the image should be named.
• File:Lostock Hall, Watkin Lane c1955.jpg; again, the resolution of this image is far too low. The image is also watermarked with Francis Frith Collection, so it's almost certainly copyrighted, and again, you either need evidence of permission or a solid fair use rationale.
• WP:OTRS
  system, but I'm not sure.
• File:Lostock Hall, Leyland Road c1965.jpg; another Francis Frith image (see above).
• File:Pleasant Retreat Inn, Lostock Hall.jpg; tagged on Commons as a copyright violation of [2].
• File:WatkinLaneUMFC.jpg, File:Our Lady of Lourdes and Saint Gerard Majella Church.jpg & File:StJames, lostock hall.jpg; all three are copyrighted and lack evidence of permission. Tagged for deletion here and on Commons.
• File:LostockHallLibrary.jpg; tagged on Commons as a copyright violation of [3].
• File:Lostock Hall 10D MPD 27-07-68.jpg; yet another image tagged on Commons as a copyright violation.

I found a usable photo of the Methodist church on geograph which I have uploaded at

Comments by

Pr3st0n (talk

)

Firstly I would like to start with the images commented on by Small-town hero, if I may.

• File:Map of Lostock Hall, 1892.jpg the source from this is the Ordinance Survey Map people, as the map is prior to the 1923 rule set by Wikipedia, I knew it would be safe to use - however, everytime I tried to add a source to it, I kept getting the "red link" errors, so gave up on it.

• File:Lostock Hall, Watkin Lane c1955.jpg and File:Lostock Hall, Leyland Road c1965.jpg are both images which I purchased in 2007, from the Francis Frith website; the link to purchase any image from them can be found at the top right corner of their website. They posted the images to my home address, and both images have the watermark on them, which is frustrating, which I sure you can understand. The purchased images hang on a wall at my home, and where scanned onto my PC so that I could use them in the article. As I had scanned images which I had purchased, I didn't think I would be in breach of any violations.
• File:Todd Hall, Lostock Hall, c1937.jpg is an image which I purchased from the Lancashire Lantern website; the link to purchase any image from them can be found directly underneath the image of your choice. They emailed the images to me, and again, the emailed image has the watermark on it. I have informed the company of this, as it could be an error on their behalf. As I had scanned image which I had purchased, I didn't think I would be in breach of any violations.
• File:Pleasant Retreat Inn, Lostock Hall.jpg and the Pleasant Retreat group on Bebo are both mine. During my period of employment at the pub, it was agreed that a "group" should be created on a social network site - as most of our regular customers where members of the Bebo and Facebook websites; I created groups on both; and uploaded the image which was also took by myself onto both. You will see, especially on Bebo, that my full name "Gareth Forrest" appears all over it. I left there in December 2008, and passed on the moderator rights to the group to another member of staff, "Thomas Hamilton" also known on his Bebo account as "Phat Tom".
• With regards to File:StJames, lostock hall.jpg, File:Our Lady of Lourdes and Saint Gerard Majella Church.jpg, and File:WatkinLaneUMFC.jpg; I followed the guidelines set out by the Genuki website here. Mr David Hawgood, the person it states to email; ensured me that he was emailing Wikipedia, to give permission for the images to be used, and that it would be fine to use them. Naturally, I won't know if you have received the email yet.
• This image, was taken by myself; and although it looks identical to the photo shown on the website you supplied, I can indeed stipulate that it isn't. Naturally some images can seem identical when taken, especially if they are both shot from the same spot. I'm not to know where previous photographers have stood to take images now am I. This also applies for this photograph, and this photograph. Albeit, all 3 look alike, which is very ironic indeed. And without actually posting the negatives to you; I can't find any other way to back up the fact that I also used my camera to take photos of those 3 places.
• Pr3st0n (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please be aware that the thread

WP:ANI#Copyright concerns, User:Pr3st0n has been opened to discuss concerns about these photos. Additionally, as has been explained at User talk:Pr3st0n, purchasing a photo from a website does not transfer copyright. I have removed File:Lostock Hall, Watkin Lane c1955.jpg, File:Lostock Hall, Leyland Road c1965.jpg and File:Todd Hall, Lostock Hall, c1937.jpg from the article and tagged them for speedy deletion because of copyright infringement. The disposition of other photos are currently being discussed at ANI. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]