Talk:Aldermaston

Order of sections

I've changed the order of the sections to put the History section below sections that deal with the present. I think this will better suit the readers. Alan Pascoe 22:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aldermaston/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arctic Night 00:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am taking this one. I will provide some general comments here and then an adjudication at the end. Arctic Night 00:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

History

• While this is not grammatically incorrect, I have noticed the presence of quite a few ndashes throughout this article. Sometimes the use of ndashes can disrupt flow - you might like to try removing these as far as is practical.

 Done to a certain extent, rephrased and changed punctuation to mix it up a bit. matt (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• "During the remainder of the reign of William, and later his son William Rufus, Aldermaston was owned by the Crown. There is no evidence of there being a large house at that time." - this really should be sourced. This is a brilliant article, and a lack of sourcing would spoil it!

 Done. Sourced where possible, removed unsourced sentence (will replace when I find the source, I can picture reading it!) matt (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• "In the 11th century, Henry I gave to Robert Achard (or Hachard[6]) of Sparsholt." - if we remove the references here, we basically get "At X, character Y gave something to character Z". We need to know exactly what this 'something' is - although it is clear in context, this doesn't really make sense if taken apart.

 Done – just a missing word. matt (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I would recommend that this section be split into sub-sections, as it seems a little large to be read as a whole.

 Done, but I'm not too happy with the section names. Also, this has meant that some of the images need juggling around. matt (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The manor passed through the Forster family until 1752, when the Forster lineage ended and the estate was inherited by Ralph Congreve – the husband of the last Forster's grand-niece." - this is unsourced.

 Done. matt (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that the first known Ealdorman of Berkshire, Aethelwulf, fought the Danes with Ethelred of Wessex at nearby Englefield in 871." - this should be sourced.

 Done. matt (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Architecture

• This section is a little bit short, and should be expanded or merged into another section if possible.

In short, this article is fantastic, and I would really like for it to be taken to FA status after a little bit more work. Taking all of these issues into account, I am ready to pass this article for GA status today. Many articles have similar issues at GA status, although I would recommend that this small collection of issues (especially to do with sourcing) be looked at as soon as possible. I think a 'hold' would be a little over the top in this case, considering that the only problems are with sourcing, which isn't a problem under the GA criteria. Arctic Night 00:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Removal of citations

As this article uses Harvard referencing (see WP:HARV), over time some footnotes have become orphaned. The removed ones are here:

• {{citation|last=Caiger-Smith|first=A|title=Our Station|publisher=Aldermaston Parish Council|place=Aldermaston, Berkshire|year=2009|url=http://www.aldermaston.co.uk/images/stories/station.pdf|accessdate=16 April 2011}}
• {{citation|author=Church Plans Online|title=ALDERMASTON, St. Mary the Virgin (1952–1953), Berkshire|publisher=Lambeth Palace Library|issue=221|place=London|year=2006|url=http://www.churchplansonline.org/retrieve_results.asp?c=Berkshire|accessdate=16 April 2011}}
• {{citation|last=Dibblee|first1=Martha|title=Organ Pipe Metallurgy|publisher=American Chemical Society|place=Portland, Oregon|year=2002|url=http://www.hevanet.com/dibblee/pipe_metallurgy.pdf|accessdate=16 April 2011}}
• {{citation|last=Dutton|first1=G|title=The Historic Parishes of Basingstoke & Deane|publisher=The North Hampshire Tithe Map Project|place=Basingstoke, Hampshire|year=2003|url=http://www.dutton.force9.co.uk/tithes/parishes.htm|accessdate=16 April 2011}}
• {{citation|author=FreeCEN|title=Coverage for Berkshire (19th Century UK Census Transcription Project)|year=2009|publisher=FreeCEN|place=Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire|url=http://www.freecen.org.uk/coverage-BRK.html#1871}}
• {{citation|last=Garvey |first1=J |title=Village uproar over gravel extraction |publisher=Newbury Weekly News |place=Newbury, Berkshire |year=2008 |url=http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=6057 |accessdate=16 April 2011 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110719194745/http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=6057 |archivedate=19 July 2011 }}
• {{citation|author=Genes Reunited|title=Maria Hale in the 1871 Census|publisher=Friends Reunited|place=London|year=2011|url=http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/search.page/results/census_1871/hale/maria?yearofbirthrange=5&yearofbirth=1791|accessdate=16 April 2011}}
• {{citation|author=Heritage Open Days|title=The Church of St Mary the Virgin|publisher=English Heritage|place=London|year=2010b|url=http://www.heritageopendays.org.uk/directory/HOD008519E|accessdate=11 September 2010}}
• {{citation|author=National Rail|title=Live Departure Boards (National Rail Enquiries)|place=Plymouth, Devon|year=2010b|url=http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/en/s/ldbboard/dep/AMT|accessdate=16 April 2011}}
• {{citation|author=Thames Valley Police|title=Brimpton neighbourhood (Your neighbourhood)|place=Newbury, Berkshire|year=2010|url=http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/yournh/yournh-tvp-pol-area/yournh-tvp-pol-area-n117|accessdate=16 April 2011}}
• {{citation|author=Whitechapel Bell Foundry|title=Identifying Old Whitechapel Bells|place=London|year=2004|url=http://www.whitechapelbellfoundry.co.uk/identify.htm|accessdate=16 April 2011}}

matt (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

ERA changes

Changes to the ERA format, made against Wikipedia policy were effected some time ago. I reversed them, but they have now been put back. Use of the alternative notation is not a good look in this article. Apart from anything else, they are minority use and many people are not familiar with the format - hence links were provided. I suggest restoring the original format again, unless there's valid reason not to do so. That the current format has been used for about 10 years is not a valid argument for retention, I would suggest. In any event, era notation is not required at all when talking about specific centuries post AD 999. Thanks, MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are you claiming the original change was made against Wikipedia policy? The fact that the change has been uncontested for 10 years would indicate that editors are generally happy with it. I would also dispute that the use of BCE and CE is unfamiliar these days. It is in general use in historical and archeological publications, both academic and those aimed at the general public. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The policy states that changes to era notation should not be made without consensus. The changes from BC to BCE were made without any discussion over several edits. If everyone knows what BCE means, why is there a need to provide a link to the BCE article? England is a Christian country and as such we should adopt the Christian dating convention - try using BC/AD in an article about a Jewish subject and see how long that lasts. The BCE style used in a Christian context is nothing more than an attempt to impose 'political correctness' on an article. MidnightBlue (Talk) 10:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Setting aside that it is debatable that England is still a "christian" country, the original change was made 10 years ago and obviously wasn't contentious then. Note that in the 2021 Census the number of people in England and Wales claiming to be christians was 46.2%. (Data from ONS). Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)