::{{ping|SkyGazer 512}} Looking into [https://en.climate-data.org/europe/united-kingdom/england/morpeth-6619/ 1]. Am unsure on it's suitability. What do you think (I can't seem to find anything else)? [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d01e1e">'''Jazz'''</i>]] 🎷 <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contributions/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 22:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
::{{ping|SkyGazer 512}} Looking into [https://en.climate-data.org/europe/united-kingdom/england/morpeth-6619/ 1]. Am unsure on it's suitability. What do you think (I can't seem to find anything else)? [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d01e1e">'''Jazz'''</i>]] 🎷 <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contributions/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 22:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
:::Hmm, I'm not really sure. It's certainly not the top most reliable source ever, but it doesn't seem extremely bad either and it might do for a GA.--<span style="font-family: AR BERKLEY; text-shadow: 2px 5px 5px gray;">[[User:SkyGazer 512|SkyGazer 512]]</span> <sup><span style="background: linear-gradient(aqua, #d580ff);">[[User talk:SkyGazer 512|Oh no, what did I do this time?]]</span></sup> 14:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
:::Hmm, I'm not really sure. It's certainly not the top most reliable source ever, but it doesn't seem extremely bad either and it might do for a GA.--<span style="font-family: AR BERKLEY; text-shadow: 2px 5px 5px gray;">[[User:SkyGazer 512|SkyGazer 512]]</span> <sup><span style="background: linear-gradient(aqua, #d580ff);">[[User talk:SkyGazer 512|Oh no, what did I do this time?]]</span></sup> 14:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
::::{{done}} I'll add this source in. If later down the line you (or I or others) think this source is not suitable (and I have not found a replacement) or that this source is not enough, it may be best to remove this statement. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d01e1e">'''Jazz'''</i>]] 🎷 <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contributions/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 19:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
If these concerns can be addressed, I believe this section will clearly meet all of the GA criteria. Nice job!--<span style="font-family: AR BERKLEY; text-shadow: 2px 5px 5px gray;">[[User:SkyGazer 512|SkyGazer 512]]</span> <sup><span style="background: linear-gradient(aqua, #d580ff);">[[User talk:SkyGazer 512|Oh no, what did I do this time?]]</span></sup> 15:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
If these concerns can be addressed, I believe this section will clearly meet all of the GA criteria. Nice job!--<span style="font-family: AR BERKLEY; text-shadow: 2px 5px 5px gray;">[[User:SkyGazer 512|SkyGazer 512]]</span> <sup><span style="background: linear-gradient(aqua, #d580ff);">[[User talk:SkyGazer 512|Oh no, what did I do this time?]]</span></sup> 15:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't have any GA credits myself, but I have participated in multiple peer reviews, have observed a wide variety of good article reviews, and done a bunch of DYK reviews, so I believe I can review for the criteria decently. Hopefully I can do this right!--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Initial checklist
This is a checklist of what criteria the article passed and failed before this review started.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
The article is certainly very interesting and you have made some great improvements to it; however, it definitely needs a lot of work before it can become a good article, particularly with sourcing, writing quality, and some small close paraphrasing issues. I should be able to investigate some more soon and see what can be improved to get it closer to GA status. Hopefully we can work together to get this there!--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, Dreamy Jazz, once I'm done pointing out the issues that I see I'll put this on hold so that you can address them. Thank you for your determination to make this a GA!--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I've added a general subcriteria for the checklist within the 2 parent criterion. This is not in the initial template, but it's entirely possible that this article could fail the verifiability criterion 2, but still pass its subcriteria. For example, including information from other Wikipedia articles without adding the source doesn't fall under 2a, 2b, 2c, or 2d, but still fails the general verifiability criterion. This was a bold action, but it is within the GA criteria, and unless the nominator or anyone else minds, I see no issue with having it there.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pending issues
Here are the current pending issues that need to be addressed before this can become a good article. Once you fix each problem or want to comment on it, you can mark each individual item with {{done}} or {{not done}}, comment on it, or ask me a question. The list is unorganized right now and in no particular order; I may have to come up with some better method of organization if it gets too long.
Lead and infobox
Overall, I'm not sure if the lead necessarily summarizes the article the way it's required at WP:MOS/LEAD. Many important aspects of the article are not mentioned, while there are some sentences that go into detail that is almost a direct copy-and-paste from the article body. For example, the sentence "In 2008 the town suffered a severe flood, which caused damage to 1000 properties and lead 400 residents to be evacuated" is almost directly copied and pasted from the article body with lots of details, but nothing about the town's history, with the exception of the castles built, despite the history section taking up so much of the article.
History
There's no source for "This remained the governing charter until the borough was reformed by the Municipal Corporations Act 1835."
"The town and the county's history and culture are celebrated at the annual Northumbrian Gathering." When I first saw this, I wondered why some random festival would be notable. However, a Google Search shows quite a few independent sources covering it. I'd suggest adding these and expanding this sentence based on the info you find. The sentence as it is makes readers wonder what this event is and why it is notable; anyone can create their own event and claim that it celebrates the town's history and culture.
"The town became a borough by prescription" is there any way that this could be more descriptive, at least describing when it became one relative to other events or an exact year? I'm not too familiar with the "in prescription" term, though, so I'd be curious what your thoughts are on this. Also, I'd suggest adding this source in front of the sentence for clear verification; it's currently several sentences later and after another ref for another statement.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Government
If the above concerns above can be addressed, I believe this section will meet the good-article criteria. However, the second concern is broadly constructed and applies to much of the section.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the issues have been addressed, so this likely meets the GA criteria or is very close now; however, I'm going to do a more thorough search before "officially" marking it as such, which may introduce some minor concerns.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Climate
I believe you could significantly expand the flooding info based off of the sources you have. However, if you don't do this, it will not be held against the GA criteria, as I still would say the section is broad in its coverage, but it would be helpful if you ever want to get this to A-class or something.
No source for "Like the rest of the British Isles, Morpeth has a maritime climate with cool summers and mild winters"--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not really sure. It's certainly not the top most reliable source ever, but it doesn't seem extremely bad either and it might do for a GA.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done I'll add this source in. If later down the line you (or I or others) think this source is not suitable (and I have not found a replacement) or that this source is not enough, it may be best to remove this statement. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 19:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If these concerns can be addressed, I believe this section will clearly meet all of the GA criteria. Nice job!--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Transport
That's all I have for this section for now although a few minor concerns may pop up later; if they don't, then as long as these concerns can be addressed the section should meet the good article criteria.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After the two unresolved issues above are addressed, I believe this section should fully meet the GA criteria. I'm assuming good faith regarding the offline source; it seems reliable, but I can't clearly state that it covers the material in the sentence, as I can't access it.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 23:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The entire "Church of England" section is only referenced to the subject's website. I'd suggest adding a better variety of references, to cover all viewpoints.
The whole United Reformed Church section seems to be worded and arranged weirdly, but it could just be my opinion. If you agree, I'd suggest rewriting it a bit to make it as clear, concise, and so that readers are not left wanting, as possible. In particular, I'd suggest starting with explaining what the church is and where it is located, and then providing clear information about the sequence of historical events and how they are related. Let me know if you need any help with this.
Would also suggest adding independent sources to the United Reformed Church section.
Sport
Nothing in the first paragraph is supported by the provided source except for the very short last sentence.
Partly done Cannot find a source for Morpeth Common that proves it can be used for recreational sports. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Morpeth Town A.F.C., Morpeth RUFC, the cricket, hockey and tennis club and the golf club." I believe what this means is that cricket, hockey, and tennis are in the same club, while all the other sports are separate clubs? It's unclear to me currently, but I'm not sure how to make it clearer, as I'm pretty sure serial commas are generally not a thing in British English.
"the common and the leisure centre" could this be more specific and clarified? Or course, the first step would be to find a source for the sentence the phrase is located in, as mentioned above.
"unofficially considered the smallest park" does the source explicitly state "unofficially?" Maybe this could be more specific? Also, the sources seem to say the smallest park in the world, not just in Britain. But it appears that the Guinness Book of Records say that Mill Ends Park is in fact the smallest park in the world. Maybe you could try to find more sources to break the confusion?
@SkyGazer 512:this source says that people have tried for the Guinness Book of Records, however this does not seem reliable. I think that "lay claim" and "celebrated" suggest that this was never confirmed officially. Also there is a board next to the park could provide more information, but I suspect that using an photograph as a source might be not upto GA standards (the board was co-produced with the scouts, county council and i think a university). What do you think? See the image on pinterest. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 19:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That source might do for a GA. You could use the details in the article that the website says; that is, rather than just saying "unofficially," make it clear that people have tried for it to appear in the book of records.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It supports the "celebrated as the smallest park in the world" and my thoughts is that it says the park was never officially a park. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 19:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable people
Note: All issues responded to
Resolved issues
These are the issues that have been either addressed or the matter has been resolved in some other way. If you have questions or concerns about any of these issues, please feel free to move them back to the pending issues section.
Lead and infobox
All of these issues have been solved, issues with this section that have not yet been addressed are listed in the Pending issues section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No source that the population was 13,833 in the 2001 census.
I know you are working on the lead, so I'm not going to stress too much on this at the moment, but having both "lying on the River Wansbeck" and "It is located at a crossing point of the River Wansbeck" just a few sentences away from each other seems redundant.
The lead needs a lot of expansion. It is currently only 3 sentences long, of which one is very stubby. The main problem is that none of the content in the body is mentioned in the lead. You have a lot of info in the article, including long prose in the history and religious sites sections, so summarize it in the lead. For an article this length, I would say make the lead at least 1 full paragraph long, preferably 2.
Is there a reason why 2011 is italicized in the infobox? I don't think it needs to be.
The lead section says that the population of the town is 14,017 as of 2011. However, the infobox says it's 14,018. The source you provided in both instances says it's 14,017, so you should change it to that in the infobox.
"Two castles were built to defend the river crossing," could you perhaps modify this to explain that it's the river crossing where Morpeth is located, if that's accurate? Currently the phrase doesn't describe its relation to the town itself.
"the river crossing, in 1095 under the de Merlay family on Haw Hill and Morpeth Castle in the 14th century"; I believe this should be and could be worded bit clearer; if you can't think of solutions, I can give you some ideas.
"For the purposes of parish elections, the town is split into 3 wards North, Kirkhill and Stobhill"; I think that's incorrect grammar, and that a comma or colon or some kind of punctuation mark would be needed after "3 wards." However, this may be acceptable in British English; I'm an American. I'll see what you think.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of these issues have been solved, issues with this section that have not yet been addressed are listed in the Pending issues section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Morpeth grew up" perhaps a more specific and clearer phrasing could be used? Did the city grow in population? What exactly? "Grew up" isn't a clear term.
"important crossing point of the River Wansbeck" Important doesn't tell us much. Either explain what exactly happened there that's important, or remove the word important.
Done I have removed important. Although this was historically one of the main crossings over the river Wansbeck, important is a bit too over-the-top. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a less important verifiability issue, but ref number 2 (https://archive.org/stream/ahandbookfortra00haregoog#page/n200/mode/2up) is used to support the phrase "archaically spelt Morepath." It says that it's mentioned on page 186, but it's actually page 185 where the book says "Morpeth, anciently Morepath." You could solve this problem by using a dash (185–186) in {{cite book}}.
"The town was badly damaged by fire in 1215 during the First Barons' War" seems sort of bland and choppy, especially due to the stubby one-sentences around it. You could make this much more descriptive from the source you have, about the fact that it was the barons who set it on fire and that the purpose was to "obstruct the military operations of King John" according to this source.
There are two issues with the sentence "For some months in 1515–16 Margaret Tudor (Henry VIII's sister) and Queen Consort of Scotland (James IV's widow) lay ill at Morpeth Castle, having been brought there from Harbottle Castle." First of all, it's unsourced so if possible, please add a citation to it. The second is that it seems sort of out of place. It is just one sentence in a single paragraph, is unrelated to everything around it, and seems to be more related to Morpeth Castle than the city specifically. I'm not sure the best thing to do about it, however. Remove it? Rewrite it? Expand on it? I'll think about this more.
I have an idea on this one. You could add the stand-alone paragraph to the previous paragraph, incorporating it in the following way, putting aside the sourcing problem, which will also need to be fixed:
Morpeth Castle was built in the 14th century by Ranulph de Merlay on the site of an earlier fortress; for some months in 1515–16, Margaret Tudor (Henry VIII's sister) and Queen Consort of Scotland (James IV's widow) had laid ill there, having been brought there from Harbottle Castle. The only remains of the castle are the gatehouse, which was restored by the Landmark Trust in 1990, and parts of the ruined castle walls.
@SkyGazer 512: Cannot find a reliable source to say when the castle gatehouse was restored. However, it was restored by the Landmark Trust (although the only source is connected to the Landmark Trust, they are reliable and have no reason to lie about restoring a property. Furthermore, I will only use the source to prove that they restored it). Let me know if you are not happy with this source. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The market info is scattered in two places across the history section, without any connection mentioned, which makes it sort of confusing and messy. In the second paragraph, you have "King John granted a market charter for the town to Roger de Merlay in 1199. The market is still held on Wednesdays." Much later in the section, you have "Until the 19th century Morpeth had one of the main markets in Northern England for live cattle. The opening of the railways made transport to Newcastle easier, and the market accordingly declined." Reading the text from this source, "The town was given permission to hold a market in 1199. It probably took place on the site of the modern market place. The market was also especially important for the buying and selling of cattle, and by the mid-18th century it was one of the most important cattle markets in the country. It only began to decline in importance with the building of the railways in the mid-19th century," it appears that both markets are the same.
I personally can think of two options here. You could combine everything in something like King John granted a market charter for the town to Roger de Merlay in 1199. It became one of the main markets in Northern England by the mid 1700s; however, the opening of the railways made transport to Newcastle easier in the 19th century, and the market accordingly declined. The market is still held on Wednesdays., of course adding references as needed. You could also keep the first instance the same, but replace the second instance where the market is brought up with something like The market built from the charter King John granted became one of the main markets in Northern England by the mid 1700s; however, the opening of the railways made transport to Newcastle easier in the 19th century, and the market accordingly declined. If you choose the second option, I'd suggest moving the "The market is still held on Wednesdays" sentence to the second instance. I personally like the first option better. My options could certainly be worded much better, but I'm just sort of brainstorming and thinking of ideas now, not trying to make it worded perfectly. I definitely would suggest adding the info about the fact that it was one of the primary in the 1700s/18th century; you have the time period in your sources, and I personally think it makes the phrase feel more complete, so add it.
Some of the book citations have no page numbers. Page numbers allow for easy verification, so I would strongly suggest adding them. Unfortunately, this may be a bit difficult if you don't have access to the book.
Done All sources that need page numbers have them, except for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The dictionary actually being a journal and each person having an article, page numbers can be sketchy (as different versions of a journal, with the same content for one article, may have different page numbers). Probably cannot get pages for this, therefore, marking as done. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 00:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography has an online version, which is what's cited in the article, and the link goes directly to the page about each individual, so I agree that citing a page number here isn't necessary.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if source #4 is reliable enough for a GA. It looks self-published and written by a single editor, but it's true that the only claim it supports in the article doesn't seem controversial and the editor does seem to be a somewhat reliable writer, based on his work elsewhere. I'll let you respond with your thoughts.
I agree that the source seems self-published. I will look into finding an alternative source Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreamy Jazz: I did a Google Search, and although most of the stuff I found about this fact was either too vague or self-published, I did find this, which appears to be published by a reliable publisher and I don't see why it would be a questionable source. However, due to the uncertainty of the claim, I feel it would be ideal to have more than 1 reliable source supporting this claim.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 22:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SkyGazer 512: I have removed the self-published source (I am nearly 100% sure it is) and added the book as a source instead. Will continue to look for more sources for this claim. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 23:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's certaintly better than it was before. If you could find at least one more reliable source, this issue would definitely be solved; otherwise, I'll have to think on it.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 23:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SkyGazer 512: Not sure if this source is reliable: 1. It's not a wiki, but may not be fully reliable. It could also be a copy from Wikipedia. What are your thoughts? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreamy Jazz: Unfortunately, there's not an "About us" on that website to give details, but it doesn't look extremely reliable, so I would suggest being on the safe side and using a different source. It certainly would be nice to be able to see the publisher, the author, etc. as that would help tremendously when determining if it's a reliable source or not. Btw, I don't think it's copied from Wikipedia, as a lot of the phrasing is completely different, sometimes even factually.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also getting a reliable book to find whether it supports this claim. Will have it in the next few days. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SkyGazer 512: Yep. This is already supporting the second statement (which it currently is next to). Do you think this could support the first statement (and address your concern above)? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Morpeth, archaically spelt Morepath, is recorded in the Assize Rolls of Northumberland of 1256 as Morpath and Morthpath." Morpath and Morthpath are both archaic names as well, so this sentence could be reworded for clarity; currently it flows a bit weird. Maybe something like "Morpeth is recorded in the Assize Rolls of Northumberland of 1256 as Morpath and Morthpath, and was also archaically spelt as Morepath" or something like that? I'm not quite sure.
"There is, however, a local tradition," do the two books state explicitly that it's a local tradition? Both of the online sources cited don't say so, but if you're able to access the books and can confirm that they state it, I'll assume good faith and we can keep it there; otherwise, this could be considered weak original research.
Done (removed) The 1920 book, which I added, just gives the dominant meaning of the town's name, but does say that this meaning describes some long ago "slaying on the road". It does not say that this is a local tradition, however. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 12:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which source says that the motte-and-bailey castle was "built to be the headquarters of the Ward of Morpeth?" Like above, it doesn't look like source 12 says so.
Done (removed) cannot find a source to support. Will place back in if I can find a source later down the line. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"life in Morpeth was disturbed by a garrison of Italian mercenaries" probably doesn't follow WP:Words to watch, particularly the "life was disturbed" part. Should be removed or replaced with something more specific.
The paragraph layout's a bit strange. I'd suggest separating off the Morpeth Castle bit from the second paragraph and combining the third paragraph with it. I provided more details about this particular part above, in the 5th issue. I'd also suggest combining the 6th, 7th, and 8th paragraphs, as they're all short.
Actually, I'd suggest a complete reorganization for the current 1st and 2nd paragraphs. I'd suggest putting the first 3 sentences of the second paragraph first, and then putting the first paragraph directly after that, but merging it into the same paragraph. I'd then suggest separating the "The town was badly damaged by fire" part into a different paragraph. Curious what you'd think about this, Dreamy Jazz.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"In the final stages of the Norman conquest, the military occupation following the Harrying of the North delivered the town into the possession of the de Merlay family" doesn't appear to be supported by source 12.
Done Have removed the unsourced parts. Historic England supports that the barony of Morpeth was granted to the de Merlay family about 1080. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 12:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"and was a notable air-gunnery training school." It's not a good idea to use the word "notable" but only have the source as the mentioned school's website. I'd suggest removing the word notable and also adding an independent source to make it clear why this school is important enough to Morpeth's history to be included in the section.
All of these issues have been solved, issues with this section that have not yet been addressed are listed in the Pending issues section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A lot of the info in the first paragraph isn't supported by the source following it. The only thing the source says that is mentioned in the first paragraph is that the town is divided into three wards. Where did the info about 9 Conservatives, 5 Liberal Democrats and one Green member come from?
Done The information comes from each sub-page linked off of the cited page. On each of these pages for the 3 wards, is each councillor. Counting these up gives the numbers listed. However, I think that the method of counting is weak original research, so should probably be removed (I cannot find a source that backs up this statement). If you think it is fine, let me know, but for now I'll remove it. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 23:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Dreamy Jazz, I personally don't think that counting up the numbers would be considered original research. I should have looked at the subpages before making conclusions; bad me. :-) If you add the information back, I do think you must link directly to the ward subpage rather than just the parent page, so that the information can be verified directly. If you do this, I wouldn't count it against the GA.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 23:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, most of the info in the second paragraph isn't mentioned in source 18, e.g. it doesn't mention any info in the sentence "Previous to this there was an intermediate tier, the non-metropolitan district of Castle Morpeth, which has been abolished along with all other districts in the county."
Done Have been able to add mostly independent sources. Will review all sources again in the future (near the end of this GA). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Climate
All of these issues have been solved, issues with this section that have not yet been addressed are listed in the Pending issues section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No source for Met Office station info.
Done Have referenced the official map for MET Office weather stations and also a dataset containing the year the weather station was founded. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"On 6 September 2008, Morpeth suffered its worst flood since 1963." This isn't very specific. Does it mean the flood that killed the largest amount of people? Injured the largest amount of people? Covered the most area? Had the deepest water? Destroyed the most buildings? "Worst flood" doesn't make this clear.
It was the worst, due to the a large number of evacuated persons (400) and damage to around 1000 properties. Am looking for a source to confirm the "worst" part. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, after thinking about this more, "worst" might work for simply GA, as I don't think it's so vague that it would prevent the article from passing the "clear and concise" criterion. However, you'll definitely need a source that says that it was the worst since 1963, otherwise you could just replace the text with "a severe flood."--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 22:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1 is the parlimenatry debate motion on the flood, where "Mr. Denis Murphy (Wansbeck) (Lab)" describes it the flooding: While other parts of the north-east of England were affected by the most intensive rainfall in living memory, the town of Morpeth was devastated. This does not directly say it was the worst flood and cannot find a source to say the "worst flood" (except sources copying from Wikipedia), so I will change the wording to severe flood. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The flood defences were breached after a month's rainfall fell in 12 hours" appears to be directly copied-and-pasted from this source. Also, the citation following it doesn't support the "flood defences were breached" claim.
"The completion of the Dam was the final part of the Morpeth flood defence plan and reduces the risk of flooding from Cotting burn" I believe "reduces" needs to be changed to "reduced" for correct grammar and/or consistent flow throughout the sentence.
The info about the 2012 flood is within the header "2008 floods," which is a tiny bit misleading, but it's not a big deal and I probably won't hold it against the GA criteria.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Change "An estimated 1,000 homes" to "An estimated 1,000 buildings." The BBC News ref mentions that about 1,000 properties were flooded, which is broader than the term "houses"; it could include churches, restaurants, etc.
When I click the link to the MNKI page, I get a privacy error. Someone found an archive for me, so I'll play around with that some and see what needs to be done.
Yes, it also does not exist on the server (after you connect via http not https). I cannot seem to load the archive on web.archive.org (might by my connection). Will try again tommorow. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 23:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of these issues have been solved, issues with this section that have not yet been addressed are listed in the Pending issues section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sabre-roads.org.uk is an unreliable source. It's a wiki, and although it's a tiny bit harder to edit than Wikipedia is, i.e. Wikipedia literately anyone can click the edit button without logging in, being verified, etc., still on Sabre-roads.org, all you have to do is give a username and password, enter your favorite road, have a valid email address, and you can edit the page. Please either remove this material or use a different source.
The second and third sentences are completely unsourced. More details related to the third sentence are covered at Rail accidents at Morpeth, which contains a number of citations, so you could steal some sources from over there.
Done Cannot find a source for this (and it may not be), but it is still very severe. I think that the fast speed before the curve and then drivers not looking for the new speed limit of 40 is the major cause of most of the crashes. Removing the offending text and replacing with "a sharp curve", as supported by the source I added. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 19:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I (Dreamy Jazz) will need to expand this section as it is only one sentence now... I could move this to another section, but the only section which could possibly take this is the history section.
"The A1 road passes by the town" minor point but I believe "through" is a clearer word. I would also suggest describing very briefly that it's the longest numbered road in the UK, but this is not a requirement and I won't hold this against the GA criteria.
"A non-passenger line still operates between Morpeth and Bedlington" using the word "still" implies a relation to previous info; e.g., that there used to be multiple non-passenger lines going from Morpeth but now there's only one going to Bedlington. Could you describe this relation or remove the word still?
Done Morpeth used to be connected to other stations (such as Rothbury etc.), as mentioned in the next sentence. Whether these were used for freight is another matter. I am going to remove still, as I cannot find the existence of these lines through sources. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Education
All of these issues have been solved, issues with this section that have not yet been addressed are listed in the Pending issues section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I might be being a bit too picky for GA here but "It is included in the list of the oldest schools in the United Kingdom. It gained Beacon and Leading Edge status in 2003 and 2004," doesn't seem to flow well. Maybe include the historical info before, merging it into an existing sentence, or somehow combine each sentence somewhere else in the paragraph so that it flows better overall? I'll try to think of some better ways of organization.
The third paragraph lists a bunch of schools that the city has, but the only references are to each of the school's website. I think it would be better to have independent sources, if possible, though if they don't exist, they don't, and I don't think it would be a sole reason to fail this GAN.
@SkyGazer 512: Northumberland County Council has a list of schools in Northumberland (so including Morpeth) on their website, but I am unsure whether this would be independent. Although the county council are not part of any of the schools directly, they still have a connection. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreamy Jazz: I personally think that would be okay; for something uncontroversial like this, I don't think finding a New York Times quality source would be necessary. However, looking at that, there appear to be many, many more primary schools just in Morpeth than listed on the Wikipedia article, and one more middle school. Also, the source doesn't seem to cover the info about St. Robert's R.C. First School, so you'll have to either add a source for that or remove the text, preferably the former.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, all of the following primary schools are listed on the website as located in Morpeth, but are not in the Wikipedia article:
Amble First School
Amble Links First School
Broomhill First School
Cambo First School
Ellington Primary School
Felton C of E Primary School
Grange View C of E Vol Controlled First School
Harbottle C of E Voluntary Aided First School
Linton Primary School
Longhorsley St Helen's C of E First School
Morpeth Road Academy
Pegswood Primary School
Red Row First School
Rothbury First School
St Robert's RC Voluntary Aided First School
Stannington First School
Swarland Primary School
Thropton Village First School
Tritlington C of E First School
Warkworth C of E Primary School
Walton C of E Aided Primary School
In addition, the following high schools are located in Morpeth, according to the website, but high schools aren't mentioned at all in the Wikipedia article.
James Calvert Spence College - Acklington Road
The King Edward VI School
Also, apparently Dr Thomlinson C of E Middle School is located in Morpeth but not mentioned in the article. We could list the full middle schools and high schools pretty easily; however, the primary school list is huge, and may not be worth including.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SkyGazer 512: Unfortunately, many of those schools are not actually in Morpeth (Dr Thomlinson C of E Middle School is in Rothbury, around 17 miles away (31 mins by car)), so I would doubt the suitability and reliability of the list. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well that's interesting. It seems the website lists a bunch of schools as located in Morpeth, when they are not directly in Morpeth, but rather near Morpeth. I wouldn't say the fact that it includes it solely makes it unreliable, but I'm not sure if it would be suitable for this article; honestly, I'm a bit unsure what could be done here besides just not listing any schools.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 22:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done (nearly) I have been able to prove that all the schools are in morpeth (and Benet Biscop is in bedlington) with references to [www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk], which I feel is independent and reliable. I have still to find a way to link the two catholic schools, but am currently looking for this. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done (removed) I have been unable to find a source to link the schools (only sources seem to suggest that the first school is a feeder school for The King Edward VI School). Because of that, I have outright removed the information (it was not very crucial to the article and is not directly related to morpeth anyway). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 00:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also see 1. Although it is all the schools in Morpeth, it seems self-published, so I won't use this as a source. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest combining the second and third paragraphs and rewriting them somewhat. The current organization doesn't seem to flow well and I'm not sure if it meets the "well written" criteria for GAs. Here is an improvement suggestion, although of course, I'm not very familiar with the subject, so there may be some errors. As you can see, it doesn't include the citations and thus doesn't resolve the citation issues I addressed above.
The town has two middle schools, Newminster and Chantry, which are built next door to one another. It also has several primary schools: Abbeyfields First School in Kirkhill, Morpeth First School in Goosehill, Stobhillgate First School in the Stobhill housing estate, and Morpeth All Saints' Church of England-aided First School in Lancaster Park, which is located north of the town. Additionally, St. Robert's R.C. First School, a primary school for Roman Catholics, is located in Oldgate, Morpeth, with its corresponding high school, St Benet Biscop Catholic Academy, being in Bedlington instead, a nearby town.
Done Will try to find independent sources for this. Have only found County Council source and a self-published source. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is this reliable? I don't know much about it; do you know what it's publisher is? What it's author is? I'm skeptical about the reliability of this.
Done Getting a book for a replacement of this source. It is called "The Story of Morpeth Grammar School" by G Kennedy and has been cited by the morpeth herald and a book about tudor schools. Also added this source which talks breifly about a "charter in 1552". Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 13:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The last thing you mention about the King Edward VI School is that it was called Morpeth Grammar School in 1552. To establish due weight, I would strongly suggest quickly summarizing how it got renamed to King Edward VI School; it doesn't make sense to have the earlier history in more detail, but then just cut off and leave readers wondering what happened to the school afterwards.
The second part of the first paragraph, It was formerly a chantry school, established in the 14th century but which had been abolished in 1547 before its refounding. It is included in the list of the oldest schools in the United Kingdom. It gained Beacon and Leading Edge status in 2003 and 2004., as well as the second paragraph, are completely unsourced.
I have removed the Beacon and Leading edge part, as I have not been able to find a source for this. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have not been able to yet find a source to support being established in the 14th century or being abolished in 1547. I will remove this information for now but might add it back if I can find said source to support. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SkyGazer 512: I have kept the It is included in the list of the oldest schools in the United Kingdom. This is because the school was founded before the 1700s (the list requirements). Would support that? Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreamy Jazz: Imo, that wouldn't need a source, but the thing is, the statement's sort of misleading, as the school's actually about the 120th on the list. The only reason why it's even there is because the Wikipedia list happens to include all schools seventeenth-century before; I do not think of this as one of the oldest schools in the United Kingdom when there are 119 schools older than it, many of which were founded in the 500s, 600s, 700s, 800s, etc. I'd support removing the statement.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have found that on source 9, it mentions that the chantry was used as a school, however, only in passing and does not specifically say when this stopped being the case and which school was there. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first service took place in a tannery loft in the town in February 1693 before a chapel (still surviving as a private house) was built in 1721 in Cottingwood Lane on the Wikipedia article compared to The first service took place in a tannery loft in February 1693 and later, a chapel, still surviving as a private house, was built in 1721 in Cottingwood Lane. on the URL the article is paraphrased from. This should be fairly easy to modify; I can already think of ideas.
The building is in the early English style and includes a stained glass rose window is a direct copy-paste.
The following are also close paraphrasing that probably should be fixed if possible, but are not as important and may be harder to paraphrase further:
The first service in the building was held on 12 April 1860 on the Wikipedia article compared to the first service in the building was held on Thursday 12th April 1860 on http://www.urc-morpeth.org.uk/page1.html
A third church, St Aidan's, was founded in 1957 as a mission church to the Stobhill estate, on the south east of the town on the Wikipedia article compared to St Aidan's is also the youngest building, having been founded in 1957 as a mission church to the Stobhill estate, on the south east of the town on http://www.parishofmorpeth.org.uk/staidan.htm
In the third paragraph, the text St James the Great is an external link. External links should not be in the body of articles, and in this case, it's redundant as it's the exact same link as ref 39. Please remove the link from the prose.
Done Didn't notice that. Have replaced with another reference to the history page for that website. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly any of the content in the third paragraph is supported by the subsequent ref, but I feel like this is a case where the material is actually supported by a subpage of the ref. If so, it should be referenced to the subpage(s) directly, for clear verification.
Partly done The old wording was not very clear, but the information (in my opinion) was loosely supported by the source. I have reworded the first part of the paragraph to be supported by the source more clearly. There were no subpages that I could find which more closley supported the previous text. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreamy Jazz: I have no clue what happened there. I must have accidentally not looked at source 36 by accident, sorry about that! Anyways, most of that paragraph is fine now. However, there's still no source for the fact that it was built by Benjamin Ferrey.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By "20th century building" in the fourth paragraph of the section, I'm assuming you mean that the style and look of the building is like most in the 20th-century? If so, then the source provided doesn't directly support this.
Done removed as I could not find a source and the building has undergone renevations, so that the old extieriors (inc. roof) have been modernised. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's just me being picky, but having "dedicated to St Robert of Newminster" and "dedicated by the Right Reverend" right next to each other seems a bit repetitive. Perhaps you could think of something more descriptive in one of the cases?
Done have changed the second one to "consecrated", as this is the act of making a church sacred and dedicating the church to a saint in churches (including the catholic church) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No source for "Collingwood House is now the presbytery (residence) for the priest in charge of the church."
"It is notable for its octagonal spirelet" - better not to directly call something notable unless an independent source states so per WP:PEACOCK. If it is one of the few churches to contain such, the only, the first, or something similar, say that instead; otherwise, just replace the end of the paragraph "and includes a stained glass rose window and octagonal spirelet," or something like that.
Done Have been unable to find a source to support that it makes it "notable". Have changed to your recommendation. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 13:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"has been restored on a number of occasions" Why did it need to be restored? The phrase is a bit confusing and leaves the readers wanting to know more. I would suggest adding a very brief summary of the fact that the Scandinavian, Scottish and Cromwellian destroyed the church, as covered in this source.
This ref appears to generate a Runtime Error when clicked on.
Not sure/ Done It works for me. I have added archive links for all of the references to historicengland.org.uk, so that if it does fail the backup archive can be used. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 12:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, dunno what was up with that. I asked around on the Discord server and several other people had said it didn't work. However, the original link works perfectly fine for me now. Must have been something temporary.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sport
All of these issues have been solved, issues with this section that have not yet been addressed are listed in the Pending issues section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Sports is popular in the town" is not covered in the sources and is peacocky; it should be removed.
"then back to Grange House Field from 1945..." The source doesn't specifically say it was 1945 when they moved back. Yes, it says they moved back there when the war ended, but it never says right when the war ended; maybe they waited a year after the end to move there.
I would suggest replacing "There was a racecourse where horse racing events were held from 1730" with "In 1730, a racecourse was built where racing events were held," just for the sake of clarity.
I'm not really sure if the "it was still in use in the mid-19th century" sentence from the source is strong enough evidence to clearly state that the racing events were no longer held after the mid-19th century in the article.
Done Have found this source which on the history tab says that the land for the racetrack was bought up by the asylum and that the race track stopped existing in 1854. Will add in. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 12:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Morpeth Harriers cater for those wishing to compete in athletics." I have 2 suggestions from this sentence. The first is that adding a transition word, such as "In addition" would make the paragraph less scattered. Also, this is a minor point, but I think a more neutral wording like "The Morpeth Harriers compete in athletics" sounds more encyclopedic than "cater for those wishing to compete."
I believe "for the two world wars" should be changed to "during the two world wars" for the sake of clarity. I would do this myself, except that I'm not 100% sure that this is what was meant for the sentence so I wanted to bring it up here.
I made a mistake with my last modification suggestion to the final sentence of the section; I forgot to specify "horse racing." Change "built where racing events were held" to "built where horse racing events were held."
"until the mid 19th century and the racetrack was replaced with St. Georges Hospital in 1854" condense that if at all possible so that the prose can be clear and concise. Perhaps change it to "until 1854, when the racetrack was replaced with St. Georges Hospital"? If you carry out that suggestion, remove the comma after "were held" as well.
Carlisle Park is a multi-award winning park in the heart of Morpeth, Northumberland. Situated on the south bank of the River Wansbeck, it contains the William Turner Garden, formal gardens, an aviary, play areas, a paddling pool, ancient woodland, picnic areas, toilets, tennis courts, bowling greens, a skate park appears to be a direct copy and paste of the source. I don't know the license of the source, but if it's copyrighted you must paraphrase it, and if it's public domain, CC-BY-SA, or a similar license, you must give attribution, but paraphrasing it would still be preferred.
Once you figure out the copy-paste issue, you'll need to reference a specific award to independent sources for the park, still not making the bullet point too long.
The bullet point for the third ref appears to be a Wikipedia mirror. This is never a reliable source and needs to be replaced with a better source, or the information removed.
Done changed reference to this source. It only mentions the whalebone arch in passing but is (probably) enough to support the claim that it exists. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 00:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once you have the copy-paste and preferably the sourcing issues figured out and sorted, make sure to add an "A" to the beginning of some of the bullet points. "Nuclear bunker located underneath the former council building at Morpeth County Hall" is poor grammar.
I think that if a bullet point only contains one short phrase which is not a sentence, it shouldn't have a period at the end, but I'm not completely sure.
Maybe you could combine the statue bullet point with the Carlisle Park one?
Not sure@SkyGazer 512: The Carsile Park bullet point is already very large. It may be worth seperating these two bullet points and having them in their own paragraph. What do you think? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 00:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreamy Jazz: I think that's better. However, I still would suggest removing "award-winning," as it seems redundant and even a bit non-neutral to have it instantly in the first sentence.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The historical layout of central Morpeth consists" is "consists" or "consisted" correct here? Historical implies in the past, so I believe it's the latter, but I could be wrong.
Done Bridge Street and Newgate Street still exist along with a few burgage plots, but the sentence seems to talk about when the "historical layout" was still all there, so changed. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 18:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Carlisle Park is a park in the centre of town, having been awarded the Green Flag Award..." doesn't flow well after you rightfully removed "award-winning." I'd suggest making several edits to the paragraph: move the list of awards to the end of the paragraph, merge the "located on the southern bank of the River Wansbeck" with the first sentence, and make the list of features in the park a separate sentence.
At the beginning of the section you have a list of features in the town providing either little description or no description in prose. Then, you go on to talk about more prominent features in detail. However, at the end of the section, you have another list of more features with little or no description, but this time as a list. This makes the section kind of seem all over the place.
Done Moved the first section to the bullet list, as if the landmarks are not talked about in detail in their own paragraph, then I would say they are less notable and so should be placed in the bullet list below. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 19:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem like any of the info in the second paragraph is supported by the source. If a subpage of the source covers it instead, link there for clear verification.
Done Removed as cannot find source and seems less notable than the other landmarks listed in the list. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the Morpeth railway station bullet point is more detailed and rather broad, I'd suggest making it its own paragraph, but this is a smaller point and probably won't be held against the GACR.
Actually, the information may fit better in the transportation section, but I'll leave that decision up to you.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly help to expand that section and also fix the large bullet point issue. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of these issues have been solved, issues with this section that have not yet been addressed are listed in the Pending issues section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'd suggest briefly explaining in the article what Joseph Berry did that's related to Morpeth, as the Berry article doesn't seem to mention anything about Morpeth.
Done (removed) I have found this source which only seems to say that he moved there when he was 3. Not really notable for Morpeth, as then he, at 12, went to school in Alnwick (which is further than Rothbury). I am going to remove this, as although he did once have a connection with the town: a) it seems very non-notable and b) the only source to show this seems to be biased anyway. Furthermore, it seems that (based on the original text) this was some kind of advertisement for the website, performed by Pa3jd (inactive for years now; only made 14 edits) and I suspect they know or are the creator of the website linked. The website no longer exists and archives is what we can go off. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Condense the summary of Cuthbert Collingwood, 1st Baron Collingwood, if possible. His entry is not meant to be a whole biography about him, that's what his full article is meant for; it's better to just very briefly explain what he was and his association with Morpeth.
Done I have removed a chunk of the quotes, which are pretty useless. Will find sources later on. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could probably condense the Emily Wilding Davison bullet point a bit as well
Done I have removed some of the stubby sentences and dates which don't seem to add significantly to the short introduction about her connections to Morpeth. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like I mentioned in the Landmarks section, I don't think bullet points that only contain one short non-sentence phrase should have a period at the end, but I could be wrong
Move the image of Emily Wilding Davison's statue to the Landmarks section where it talks about it. The notable people section mentions nothing about the actual statue, but the Landmarks section explains it in detail.
One thing I've noticed throughout the article overall is that a very large amount of the references used to support large amounts of material are primary or non-independent. For example, there are sections which are almost completely sourced to church websites or the town's website. If possible, I'd suggest trying to get some more reliable, independent sources for as many of the facts referenced to primary sources as possible, so that we can ensure that this meets the 2b criterion. I haven't yet done a double check of all the sources in the article.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 19:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreamy Jazz: I've now organized this page better; the resolved issues are in a separate section from the pending issues section and hatted, so that they are only shown when clicking the "show" button. It took a long time to do that, but it was definitely worth it; I certainly appreciate not having to scroll down through text and text and text of resolved stuff in order to see what issues haven't been addressed yet. If you have any possible questions or concerns about any of the resolved issues, feel free to move them back to the pending issues section.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Current and final checklist
This is the checklist that will continuously change as improvements are made to the article. Once I'm confident that everything here is met, it should be able to become a GA.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
b (citations to reliable sources): 
c (OR): 
Done I'll add this source in. If later down the line you (or I or others) think this source is not suitable (and I have not found a replacement) or that this source is not enough, it may be best to remove this statement. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 19:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Partly done Cannot find a source for Morpeth Common that proves it can be used for recreational sports. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
