Talk:Holdingham/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Noswall59 (talk · contribs) 18:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kimikel (talk · contribs) 01:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article as part of the January GAN drive. Please expect comments from me within the next few days. Kimikel (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Noswall59: I have left my initial comments below. This is a well-written article; the main issue that I've listed below is the currency of some of the figures. Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns regarding my suggestions. Thank you. Kimikel (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kimikel: thanks so much for taking the time to review this. I have addressed everything you've suggested in-line below. My changes are here, so hopefully all should be in order now. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC).

@Noswall59: Thank you. Sorry for being a pain with all the number-updating. You've done great work here, and there's nothing left to address before promotion. Thank you for all of your work, and congratulations! Kimikel (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Well-written

Lead

• built-up area > you might want to wikilink this, as an American I'd never heard this term

• Done

• Sleaford railway station is on the Nottingham to Skegness (via Grantham) and Peterborough to Lincoln Lines. > Since the article is about Holdingham, a sentence about on which lines a railway station in the next town over is seems out of place in the lead. I would recommend cutting it

• Done

• nursing home – all opened > comma feels more appropriate here

• Done

• The ward had a population of 2,774 in 2011. > 2021 census data is available [1]

• Done - thanks for this, the ward data wasn't available when I first edited this

Geography

• Holdingham Roundabout which connects > comma

• Done

• It is free-draining, loamy and lime-rich, suited for growing cereals and grasses but classified as a nitrate vulnerable zone. > This sentences starts with a discussion on soil but ends talking about NVZs, which, to my understanding, refer to areas of land, not the soil itself. I recommend breaking these ideas up

• I've broken up the sentence

• (when it was separated from the ancient parish of New Sleaford) > use commas instead of parentheses

• Done

• Climate > Every number in the prose of this section is lower than those in the chart.

• Done - apologies, I think the data must have been updated since I prosified it

History

• c. 1202 > this is the only place where the circa template is not used

• Added

• the settlement was arranged into closes > since this is redlinked, it is worth explaining what a "close" is

• Done

Economy

• According to Google Maps, the enterprise park in 2020 > This could use an update

• Done

• According to the 2011 census > 2021 census data should be used here as well

• Done

Demographics

• Again, 2021 census data needed here

• Done, though a few key data categories have not been made available for the 2021 release yet, so I've continued to use 2011 data in those instances

• For measuring deprivation > would be nice to wikilink "relative deprivation" here

• Done

Education

• Eleven plus exam > eleven-plus exam

• Done

Religion

• it has subsequently disappeared > remove has

• Done

Notable residents

• (died 1278) the > comma

• Done

Notes

• I feel that this article's slightly "overnoted" and that some of these could be merged into the prose itself to the article's benefit, particularly: 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, and 11. If it just doesn't fit well then that's fine, but it would be nice to cut down on the number of notes somewhat

• I am of the view that these notes are justified both to support the text but also because their content is quite detailed and would disrupt the summary style of the body of the article

Verifiability

There are some dead/problematic links; if we can archive or replace them, that would be preferrable.

• I have archived every link where possible - a small number of them won't let IA archive them, and a few others are dynamic content like Google Maps where archiving isn't helpful

Spot check:

• 130: Verified
• 92: Verified
• 86: Verified
• 23: Verified
• 44: Verified

Illustrated

• All images are own work or Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0. No issues with licenses, suitability, or captions.

Broadness, neutrality, and stability

• No issues.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.