Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Berkhamsted/1: Difference between revisions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Article is over 11,000 words and could be summarised more effectively. Demographic information is from 2011 and needs to be updated. “Sites of interest” section seems to have a promotional tone. Z1720 (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, There’s a lot of work to be done on this. I will chip in as soon as I’ve finished getting another UK delisted GA done (currently waiting on the reviewer’s close). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already given the lead a very brief CE, and updated the Wikilinks. However:

• It is verbose, the language is not sufficiently succinct

• It contains too much detail that should be in the body (the lead should summarise what is to come in the article)

IMO this probably reflects much of the style of the rest of the article. See a snapshot of its its listing as GA in February 2019. A further 539 new edits made since. Although the article has not been delisted, the scope of the work to be done is possibly as much as a full GAN. I’m not the assessor but for anyone who also wishes to help out, I’m posting this basic GAN checklist of possible items to be addressed. If you make any improvements, to avoid duplication or edit conflicts please add a {{done}}, or {{fixed}} or a {{doing}} template, plus a brief description and your signature (~~~~). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 There is massive duplication in the lead and the main sections. There is so much detail in the history it would be preferable to split it off into a separate page History of Berkhamsted, and leave a shorter, summarised history in the parent article. There is no miniumm size requirement for GA and with a little bit of work this article will retain its GA status. As a consequence, I have removed the huge history from the lead and redistributed its parts to the relevant history sub sections. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added citations to most of the previously uncited statements. Dormskirk (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dormskirk, thank you enormously for addressing all those sources and updating them. The demography section is proving to be quite a challenge because first of all it is vastly over-detailed for a Wikipedia article and I’m not sure all the house price information is strictly relevant. – what do you think?

Secondly, the ONS has changed their format of reporting census information and in their endeavour to make it more transparent, and providing new tools, they have made it harder to use. I am working offline on completely rewriting the section which I will add as soon as possible but RL is getting in the way at the moment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]