Talk:Sheriff Hill

WP:NEE assessment

Hello, this is looking really good. Indeed, if the introduction is expanded to summarise the whole article, this could be a Good Article candidate. I've marked it as "low" importance, largely because it's now an area of Gateshead. Feel free to disagree with me though! I would also suggest that at the moment there are too many images, which makes it look a little messy. Also, for me there seem to be two coordinate templates. Not sure if that's something wrong with my PC though... Bob talk 17:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I found out what the problem with the coordinates was - they were both in the infobox and a separate template at the bottom. 16:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit, and some suggestions

Phew, it's a long article, isn't it?! Some great research work has gone on here, especially in the earlier history sections, and this would certainly be a good article candidate. During a copyedit, I have taken out or revised one or two little bits I felt were rather opinionated, but there are quite a few more bits I feel could still do with a bit of toning down - the pubs section especially. I know this was probably written by a local person who knows which is best, but if the page is going to criticise a pub, it needs to be from a review elsewhere. There are a few similar problems in the politics section; yes, the Tories are awful, but we can't really make it sound so obvious that they'll never get elected here!

Similarly, the park section is almost entirely unreferenced; it's here that I have removed quite a lot of material about "faded tennis courts" and so forth. Do contact me if you want me to give it another look over later/if you have any questions. Bob talk 19:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Images

As mentioned in the GA review, I'm concerned that some of the images are licensed incorrectly and possibly shouldn't be used here at all. I've requested help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Possibly non-free files in Sheriff Hill, so if any contributors would like to weigh in there, that would be appreciated. --BelovedFreak 13:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Some comments

As requested, I've had another read through the article. It's looking really good and is certainly a comprehensive treatment of the settlement. I have noticed some room for improvement, mostly manual of style nitpicks, as I'll list below.

• Watch overlinking of common words and repeated blue links, especially in areas where you already have a lot of blue links - try to link only the articles that are going to provide a useful background for the reader. England probably doesn't need to be linked although some might argue otherwise for a geography article. Other examples are settlement, village... You have two links to coal mining in close proximity (albeit on different terms). Notice the repeated linking of Newcastle upon Tyne in the "Sheriff's March" section, repeated linking of Gateshead in general
• As well as overlinking, check for links to disambiguation pages (you can use this link)
• For units of measurement, it can be helpful to use the {{Convert}} template that will automatically add a conversion for you. Eg. "3 miles", with the template, would be displayed as "3 miles (4.8 km)". The template also automatically adds a non-breaking space, which helps to prevent the number & unit being split across lines.
• I'm not sure that north, south etc. should have capital letters, but I could be wrong.
• I think it is standard to use "18th century" rather than "eighteenth century", but I couldn't find anything to back this up; the guideline at WP:CENTURY is not clear.
• "April 1st" → "1 April" (Per WP:DATE, we don't use ordinal suffixes, and for a UK-related topic, the day should come before the month.)
• It's not clear why you need a citation after the mention of the park in the lead. Since the lead is mostly uncited (which is appropriate) it seems strange to have a citation for such a non-controversial statement
• "When John Wesley arrived in 1785..." - perhaps "When theologian John Wesley arrived in 1785..." just to be a bit clearer for readers not familiar with Wesley
• "In 1809 an Act..." - consider linking Act to Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom or maybe even Inclosure Acts if you think that's appropriate.
• enclosure should probably be linked
• There is quite a lot of bold text in the article, most of which is unnecessary per WP:MOSBOLD - really, only the first mention of Sheriff Hill should be in bold.
• Sod should probably be linked as it has a slightly different meaning in the US, and may not be familiar to younger readers in the UK
• As well as the overuse of bold text, I think italics have been overused a bit too. Generally, italics aren't used for quotations, just quotation marks. In some places you have both and in some, I think you just have italics, so these should be replaced with quote marks.
• In the "Governance" section, you have "(at March 2011) has a population of 8,952" which strikes me as a little strange. The source is dated 2010, for a start. If the statistic came from the 2001 census, then that should be the date mentioned.
• "Mr Mears" should just be "Mears" (or Mearns?) - we rarely use honorific prefixes like "Mr"
• "Representation of the People Act 1945" could possibly be linked to List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1940–1959. Or, just make it a red link, as it is likely to be written about at some point.
• In "Geography", perhaps state which direction it is from Gateshead city centre, as you mention the distance
• "striking topography" - presumably this is a quote (note my earlier comment about italics/quote marks); it needs attribution
• the long quote at the end of the geography section needs attribution
• The population stats in the demography section are presumably taken from 2001? Perhaps say that.
• Try toavoid beginning a sentence with a figure (WP:ORDINAL)
• is proligacy a typo? If it's supposed to be profligacy, could we perhaps find a more common word?
• We have a handy template for sic ({{sic}}) that links the term for those readers who won't be familiar with it

For each of the examples above, please check the whole article as some issues persist throughout. As you'll notice, these are mostly quite superficial WP:MOS-type issues, I'm hoping these will help to improve the article and not be too vexatious! As for the content of the article, I do think it's very close now to GA. Good luck with further developing it.--BelovedFreak 18:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sheriff Hill/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've now done a fairly quick read of the article. It appears to be quite comprehensive and well referenced and well illustrated. In these respects it appears to be be a strong GA-candidate.

On the negative side: It suffers from WP:Overlinking, a comment made in the first review (../GA1), which is quite annoying to the reader and I've removed some of this Overlinking as I read through the article. Surprisingly, Ordnance Survey (as in "maps") is consistently wrongly spelt throughout the article as Ordinance Survey and in some case it is not specified/"made-clear" what the map scale is.

Whilst it is not a mandatory GA required as a UK geography type article, I would have expected this article to the WP UK Geography guide Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements - which is appears to do so. There is no mention of climate, being part of a larger conurbation of Newcastle/Tyne and Wear I might have expect a link or comment to the climate of the conurbation.

I'm, not going to go through the article in a bit more depth section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last, and just note any "problems" that need addressing before GA-status can be awarded. This may take a day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• History -

• Looks OK.

... stopping for now. Pyrotec (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Governance -

• The third paragraph suffers from WP:Vagueness as a result of the the repeated use of "he", i.e. "The present incumbent is Ian Mearns MP, who lives in nearby Saltwell, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear. He was selected by the party in March 2010 to contest the newly formed Gateshead seat ahead of David Clelland, formerly the Labour MP for the now defunct constituency of Tyne Bridge.[22] Formerly the deputy leader of Gateshead Council and a long time Councillor for the Saltwell ward,[22] he replaced former incumbent Sharon Hodgson MP, who successfully campaigned for election in the newly formed constituency of Washington and Sunderland West.[23] In the 2010 UK General Election, Mearns was elected with a majority of 12,549 votes over the second placed candidate, Frank Hindle. The swing from the Labour party to the Liberal Democrats was 3.9%.[24]", Having checked the wikilinks, the first and second "he"'s refer to different people, but they would be interpreted has refering to one person. Pyrotec (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done I have slightly reworded the paragraph so that it is clearer (I hope!) Meetthefeebles (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• The claim "No Conservative MP has been elected in the area since the major changes brought upon the UK Electoral System by the Representation of the People Act 1948." aught to be referenced.

✗ Not done This might prove problematic. I cannot find a reliable source which will confirm this in one, simple statement as Sheriff Hill itself is not a parliamentary constituency but is rather part of one which has changed a number of times over the last sixty years. Hansard provides details of election results but only for each election so I would have to cite every single page for each result! It might be easier then to simply take the statement out? Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is too difficult to verify, I have no objections to the statement being removed. Pyrotec (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done I have removed the statement and replaced it with verifiable data on the 2001 election which supports the statement that Sheriff Hill sits in a safe labour seat Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Geography and topography -

• Y - Pyrotec (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Its not clear what citation 26 "Whellan 1855" is referring to, as this appears to be the only occurrence of Whellan in the article.

 Done Whellan has been added to the bibliography Meetthefeebles (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Whilst it is not a mandatory GA required as a UK geography type article, I would have expected this article to the WP UK Geography guide Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements - which is appears to do so. There is no mention of climate, being part of a larger conurbation of Newcastle/Tyne and Wear I might have expect a link or comment to the climate of the conurbation.

• Housing -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - There is a referenced statement "Prior to enclosure, the few cottages and properties which were available in Sheriff Hill were so poor that in 1713 a total of only ninety-one cottages returned the paltry sum of £8 9s 6d in rent.[78]", so it is verifiable; but £8 9s 6d in 1713 strikes me has being worth a lot of money (a relative of mine was being paid 1s 3d per day in the army in the 1830s). Perhaps that is a value judgement, i.e. a "paltry sum". It would be useful to quote present-day value (The National Archives have a currency converter so the use of, and reference to, their calculation would provide WP:Verification).

 Done Okay, I've run the figures through the converter you recommend and the total amount of rent today would have been £649.10! That is about the market rent for one well apportioned property here today, so I think that Mander's claim that the sum is 'palty' carries sufficient weight to stay. I've added a comment as to today's valuation in the footnote/reference as well as a link to the currency converter. Meetthefeebles (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, much better. Pyrotec (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Health & Education -

• These two sections look OK.

• Religion and places of worship -
  • Historical -

• Refs 167, 171 and 172, quote Ordinance Survey Ordnance Survey map No.45, with two different dates. They are Ordnance Survey maps, not Ordinance Survey, but no scale is given. I first assumed that they were One-inch series, and perhaps they are, but I'm not sure about the numbers. If they are modern reproductions (such as The Godfrey edition or Cassini Historical maps) they will have ISBN numbers; and the by 1950s (at the latest), numbering started in Scotland, so No. 45 would be an Scottish (possibly Mull) rather than a northeast England map. Possibly, as an alternative, they are not one-inch maps, but County Series map, but still a scale (e.g. 1:20,000) or X inch to the mile should be provided.

 Done I think I have corrected this though it may need checking again. Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The 1:10,560 map is approximately 6" to the mile, and of 1864/1919 dates, it's County series so the number (I guess) is something like Durham XXXIV SE, Durham XXXIV NE (my local equivalents would be e.g. Somerset XXXVIII SE (I assume the county was Durham); and the 1:1,250 is about 50" to the mile, so its number is going to be like Durham XXXIV 12. I don't know this area, but there is some info at Alan Godfrey that may help list & map - interestingly, Sheriff Hill appears on Co Durham Sheet 7.05 = Durham VII 5 on the 1895 1:2500 map. Pyrotec (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Culture -

  A number of cited references are given to Listed building. So this section is compliant with WP:WIAGA.

  I would like to make a suggestion: the English Heritage site images of England tends to provide this information in both image and text format and it is regarded as a WP:Reliable Source. It is only a recommendation, not a GA requirement.

• WP:Lead -

• This looks OK.

• At this point there are a few unresolved "problems", but same have been cleared up, so I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A comprehensive, well-reference, well-illustrated article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I've assessed this article against the requirements of WP:WIAGA and, in the light of improvements carried out, I'm awarding GA-status.

I suspect that this article could in due course make WP:FAC, but I've not assessed it against the criteria of FAC (that is not the purpose of WP:GAN) and it suspect that the "ride might be rough", but it could make it on a first or second attempt (possibly the latter). I can see "faults" that are likely to surface during a FAC review and suggest that the next logical step is WP:PR. Having voiced these concerns as a possible FAC, I'd iterate that the article is a strong GA.

Congratulations on bringing the article up to this standard. Pyrotec (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sodhouse

Just a query, I've come across the term before but they got their name from their turf roofs, were these different?

The sod used was more mud than grass, but the combination of both is considered 'sod' up this part of the world :)

Health section

Do I somehow misunderstand the source for the stats offered at the end of this section? They do not match those from the source. Gandydancer (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed text

I think the following is a little OT for this article, as it discusses the constituency as a whole, rather than Sheriff Hill. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Gateshead is one of the safest Labour parliamentary seats in the United Kingdom. Mearns' success in 2010 followed the return of Sharon Hodgson in the 2005 UK General Election after she polled over 60% of the votes whilst in 2001, Joyce Quin was returned with a majority of 53.3%.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sheriff Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319042035/http://www.bpears.org.uk/genuki/Collieries/CollsDG.html to http://www.bpears.org.uk/genuki/Collieries/CollsDG.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402234053/http://online.gateshead.gov.uk/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-6391/Item 10 - Local List of Buildings and Parks Gardens of Special Interest.doc to http://online.gateshead.gov.uk/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-6391/Item 10 - Local List of Buildings and Parks Gardens of Special Interest.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402234053/http://online.gateshead.gov.uk/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-6391/Item 10 - Local List of Buildings and Parks Gardens of Special Interest.doc to http://online.gateshead.gov.uk/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-6391/Item 10 - Local List of Buildings and Parks Gardens of Special Interest.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120817054604/http://www.nexus.org.uk/who-is-nexus to http://www.nexus.org.uk/who-is-nexus

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)