Jump to content

Talk:Oakhanger, Hampshire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Happy to take this review.— Rod talk 16:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting article however I think there are a few issues which need to be addressed: (Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements may help with some of these suggestions)

Lead

  • The lead provides context in terms of the position of the village, but doesn't really summarise the article (as suggested by WP:LEAD). We jump from Roman to 20th century military use with nothing about the history of the manor etc.
  • I've expanded the second paragraph somewhat so it now includes the first mention of the village, and the bit about the manor being passed on by several families. JAGUAR  21:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice to give population figures for the village rather than the larger parish, but I recognise that may not be published.
  • Just noticed that User:Bob Henshaw added that today, an hour before you took this review! I hadn't noticed it until now. Unfortunately I can't find specific population figures for the village itself, as the village comes under the a parish of another village. This is an unusual example, as it's uncommon for a whole-sized village to not have its own parish (I don't know many other examples). I've removed the one-liner about the 2011 census. JAGUAR  21:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • The first three paragraphs seem quite comprehensive (largely based on the reliable VCH source)
  • Thanks. Although British History Online takes a while to decipher, it's sometimes usually the only comprehensive and reliable source for English villages. JAGUAR  21:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed very useful but you might want to look at how it is referenced (ie A History of the County of Hampshire: Volume 3 & original publisher is Victoria County History. BHO is just reusing their content etc).— Rod talk 08:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I never thought of that. I've re-formatted the ref. Hope this looks OK. I can't use it as a harvref because I don't have access to the actual journal, and the website doesn't give out the precise page numbers. JAGUAR  15:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth a wikilink for shilling as some non-UK or younger readers may not know what it is.
  • Ref 5 (for the RAF station) is to the BBC Domesday Reloaded site. I tend to avoid using this as it was user generated (even with some editorial control) and may not be considered reliable
  • I didn't know it was user generated, thanks for letting me know. I'll avoid it from now on. I've removed ref 5 and its accompanying sentence. Unfortunately I can't find any reliable sources on the RAF station's history. JAGUAR  21:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 6 (Aviation Week & Space Technology) appears to be a journal so should give details of volume, issue page nos etc (ie Volume 147, Issues 14-24 ) see Template:Cite journal
  • According to this leaflet the village "is famous for its historic finds including Mesolithic implements and the massive Roman hoard (over11,000 silver pieces) that are now held by the British Museum" which might be worth a mention.

Geography and demographics

  • Bordon is wikilinked for a 2nd time here (it is also wikilinked in the last paragraph of history
  • Selborne is described as "large" (here and in the lead) - "large" is a subjective term as there are several larger parishes
  • Ref 7 Maps could link to a specific location
  • I could be doing this wrong as I've never done it before, but I checked WP:UKVILLAGES and it states that "OS" is fully licensed, so I've replaced the Google maps ref with this. It seems even more detailed than Google maps and confirms everything mentioned in the article. JAGUAR  15:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just realised that the map I linked it to is from the 1940s! Which explains why it is no longer under copyright and why the town of Bordon didn't exist! I've instead replaced it with OpenStreetMap, which is open licensed. JAGUAR  15:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Length" and "long" are not both needed in "marking the overall length approximately 3.9 miles (6.3 km) long"
  • Would it be worth adding something on climate?
  • It took a while for me to find this, but I think I might be onto something. I'm not a fan of copy and pasting sections for various articles, but I could re-use the same climate section for all of the East Hampshire villages. This is the climate data for most of the East Hampshire area, albeit from 1981-2010 (though it should be OK as I've used the same data for Portsmouth). I'll add that in the article and see how it goes. JAGUAR  15:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable landmarks

  • The grammar of the sentence "The farmhouse was became a Grade II listed building 18 July 1986." might need looking at.

Additional sections/content WP:UKVILLAGES suggests section on government (eg local authorities & parliamentary constituencies - the Westminster constituency could also be added to the infobox), Economy, Culture, Transport, Education & Sport. These could be added to help give a fuller description of the village.

  • I've added the Westminster constituency and dialling code in the infobox, but I don't think I can ever make an economy, culture or transport etc section for this village. Some villages nowadays don't have a sense of community, and the more seclusive ones don't have bus routes any more. I know that Oakhanger doesn't have a school, a bus route, or a main road of any sort running through it. I'm not sure what I can add? JAGUAR  21:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added, thanks. It was originally in the article but now I know I shouldn't skip things when the article in question is lacking in detail. It's a tiny little shop that sells china ("our huge shopping halls are full of great ideas" is very misleading)! JAGUAR  21:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the church would the Northanger benefice or Diocese of Winchester be worth a mention see here (could go in a religious sites section)
  • I've added a mention that it is in the Diocese of Winchester. Information on the church is sadly short as it is, so I'm not sure if I could make a religious sites section. The church itself hasn't even been restored or anything. JAGUAR  21:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links

  • The link to information about the village from Selborne Parish Council is broken
  • All links to pages within Hampshire Treasures are broken
  • This is terrible. Along with British History Online, Hampshire Treasure was the only other reliable source I could use for any village. I've archived the first linked and made use of it in the history section, but removed the rest as it repeated information already mentioned. Maybe I should write and email and beg them to restore it... JAGUAR  21:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link for stained glass windows is not clear but seems to be from a book about Norfolk
  • Removed. I must admit that I never checked this. The external links were added by another user years ago, and I usually ignore them. I'll be sure to check them from now on, to see if they're broken etc. JAGUAR  21:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

  • The two pictures are suitably licenced but the caption "Space satellite at RAF Oakhanger." could include "dish" or "receiver" or similar as it is not actually a satellite.

I think there is quite a lot which could be added to help make the article meet the GA Criteria particularly: Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic, but I think some of the other criteria are on their way to being met.— Rod talk 16:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodw: thank you so much for the review! I've attempted to address everything. I grew up in this village and have happy memories here, but I realise that the article is shorter than usual due to some lack of coverage. The church for example, has virtually no history and the village itself remains something of a grey area. I wrote this article and nominated for GA as part of a "trial run" to see how well I can write these village en masse, as my ultimate (albeit lofty) ambition is to promote every village and town of the East Hampshire district to GA. There are over a hundred articles in the navbox, but a lot of them are hamlets which I'll be forced to merge as it would be impossible to expand them beyond a two-sentence stub. I'm "learning the ropes" with this one so that I can make future GANs go more smoothly, if that makes sense. From now on I'll check the external links, add climate sections and make everything as comprehensive as possible. I'll probably write the shorter villages first, then save the more complex ones till last, but we'll see. Anyway, thanks again for taking this on! Please let me know if there's anything you think is missing. JAGUAR  21:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I know how difficult it can be to find sources to expand articles on small villages. I think this now achieves the "broad" criteria and I wish you luck with the other hundred.— Rod talk 08:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I'll start improving other articles I find GA worthy. JAGUAR  12:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong king or wrong Richard?

[edit]

"At the time of the Domesday Survey in 1086, Oakhanger was held by Edwin, who had purchased it from Richard I [only born 1157]." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimwight2 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oakhanger,_Hampshire&oldid=1204375517"