# Talk:Bentworth

1942 is not 70 years ago. I think your picture is copyright, can you remove it? Victuallers (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I added the photo in 2011 when it was 69 years old. It is now 2012 so it's 70 years old. To be honest what's the point removing it when it was a few months from being 70!? Jaguar (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Jaguar's revision: Feb 2011
Ukiws's revision: Feb 2012
Have a look. Jaguar (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The article's current layout is somewhat unconventional, especially when compared to high-quality articles on settlements and WP:UKTOWNS which has a recommended structure. For instance I'm curious why there's a section on St Mary's Church before Bentworth's history is discussed; I would have thought doing it the other way round may have provided some context and that the history is more important because it relates to the settlement as a whole rather than a single building. The lead is supposed to summarise the article, and I wonder if Bentworth's elevation above sea level is really so important as to belong there.
I'm also concerned that there are problems with the article's sourcing. In this version of the article reference #50 (David Charles Douglas (1940). William the Conqueror: the Norman impact upon England. pp. 2.) doesn't mention Bentworth at all, while 27 to 31 are links to maps which don't seem to support the statements they're meant to. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Ukiws, it's clear a lot of time and effort has been invested in this article but I don't think it's ready to be assessed as a Good Article yet, particularly because of the referencing issue. I'd recommend removing the nomination. Not that it can't get there eventually, but the article still needs a fair bit of work. Moving forward, is there any chance you could explain why you think the article's current layout is preferable to that suggested at WP:UKTOWNS? The latter is a guideline rather than written in stone, but has been adopted by many successful articles such as Worsley, Sale, Greater Manchester, and Ashton-under-Lyne. Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree; I stored those two revisions there just in case anything went wrong. Ukiws' currennt revision definately has more local knowledge and we would like to keep that, but the other version has an easier layout and it is more likely to pass another GAN. If Ukiws wants to, I can copy edit the article again soon so it has a better chance to pass a GAR. I'll also take a look at the sources, thanks for pointing that one out. :-D Jaguar (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
From Ukiws.  I looked at the first page as at 14 Feb (mainly my editing) and that which is now on Wiki.  I would simply say that, for the non-specialist reader, the earlier version is better and more interesting.  It is an "executive summary" of the village backed up with clear headings and interesting photos, before more detail is given later.  It also has cross-references to other relevant web pages (such as the Parish Council, The Mummers, Cricket Club, etc).  In contrast, the current first page (to me) looks boring and is unlikely to inspire people to read further.  If changes like this are needed for a GAN, then forget it and please revert to the version of 14 February, which in the village has had some praise and will be mentioned in next month's Parish Magazine with a request for comments to come to me.  BTW, I have an extensive file on Bentworth history from a number of sources and can supply more references to the previous text if required.  However, it's the first page that I am most concerned about because it is that that makes the first impression on a reader and either gains interest to read further, or not.   Ukiws (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.191.97 (talk) 

I noticed the article has historic populations for 1789 and 1861. The source given for 1861 mentions the population in 1801 and 1831, but perhaps I'm missing 1861. That said, the 1801 and 1831 data tallies with this table at Vision of Britain. Using that table I'm proposing adding the following to the article:

The downside is, it doesn't differentiate between Bentworth village, Burkham, Wivelrod, Thedden, Holt End, Ashley, and elsewhere but I think the historic population change is still of interest. Also I can't make out if there's a consistent format for the references, is there one? Nev1 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Added, thanks for that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bentworth/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 08:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Some miscellaneous points after a first read-through:

Links
You need to disambiguate Alton, Bells, Geoffrey of Anjou, Alresford and Henry Windsor
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Lead
"…until its closure…" – unclear if it was the station or the line that closed
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Medieval times
King John is mentioned by name in three successive sentences. The second could be "he" without ambiguity.
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
"Magna Carta – blue link wanted at first mention
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
"to the Archbishop of Rouen, and they are documented" – either plural archbishops or singular pronoun and verb
Elizabethan to Georgian times
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
"wealthy" and "wealthiest" in successive sentences – perhaps "rich/richest" for one of them?
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The long quotation in the first para would benefit from quote formatting {{quote| …. |}}, though that would necessitate some rearrangement of the adjacent pictures
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
rash of red links – do we really expect articles on all the people in the second para to be created in the foreseeable future?
Red links never a problem with Herr Blofeld.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Post-Second World War
"Director" – unnecessary capital letter, surely?
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Duplicated info about the children's home (already given two paras earlier)
Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Geography and climate
"By road, Bentworth lies 9.4 miles south of Basingstoke, 16.7 miles…" It lies the same distance from these places whether you go by road, helicopter or cross country. If you mean that the road route is 9.4 miles, you should say so.
Eh, haven't I done that with By road, Bentworth lies 9.4 miles south of Basingstoke? By air it is a shorter distance and google maps won't calculate that.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
"Due to Bentworth lying on higher ground…" "Due to" should be "Owing to" or better still, "Because B lies on higher ground…" There is only one citation for the whole of this paragraph. Does that source cover all the statements in the para?
Climate is covered.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Administration
The web page to which the single reference for the first para links does not justify any of the statements in the para, unless I'm missing something
Removed, quite right.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Reference 35 – most unusual to drag the name of the printer in, surely? HMSO was the publisher.
Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
General – the whole of this section is seriously short of references. There are unreferenced statements in the sub-sections on Villages and hamlets, Ashley, Burkham, Holt End and New Copse, Thedden and Wivelrod.
I agree, I was considering removing the top part as I couldn't find any sources. I'll have to ask the person who wrote that material.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"Notable landmarks" – can one have an un-notable one?
Yes of course. Several of the listed buildings are barns or lesser houses and therefore not as notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
St Mary's Church – you need to be consistent whether the church has a possessive apostrophe or not.
War Memorial
"The War Memorial in Churchyard" – definite article missing, and unneeded capital letter present
It is the official name for it as a listed building, given in capital letters.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
"doulting" – a word unfamiliar to me, and I'm sure, to most readers. A blue link or a word or two of explanation is wanted
I believe it refers to Doulting Stone Quarry limestone.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
"was formerly dedicated" – I think you mean "formally"
Fixed!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Quotations – why single rather than double quotes?
Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Bentworth Hall
"…at Garraway’s Coffee House, 3 Change Alley, Cornhill, London…" – is this information really notable?
Address no, but auction house, yes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Last sentence of sub-section needs a citation, and a comma before "Emma" unless he had more than one mother
Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Education and activities
"In the fall of 2010" – bizarre incursion of American! Moreover, we avoid "spring", "autumn" etc where possible, as it upsets Antipodean readers. You should give the name of the month.
November!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Notable people
"author, criminologist and gay right campaigner" – only one right? Seems a bit mean
LOL! Fixed.!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

References
Capitalisation – some of the book titles are given in sentence case rather than in the title case used in the published book. See, for example, the covers of the Mrs Fitzherbert book at ref 14, and the railway book at ref 72, to which you link (you can't always go by Google's upper and lower casing, which is often arbitrary). And I certainly don't buy "united kingdom" at ref 63.
Neither do I, but I use an instant ref making tool which makes up the citations for me, so hadn't noticed. I do know that sometimes they don't capitalize them. Fixed!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Titles of web pages: be careful that you give the actual titles of the web pages to which you link. For example the page you have called "About south-east England" is actually headed "Southern England: climate"
I agree, this is what you get from mass cleaning up an article, always miss something. Should be fine now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Please consider these points before we take the review further. Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Images
I have some reservations about some of the images. I am no expert on image tagging, but I am concerned enough about the following to require clarification of their status before considering the article for GA.

File:Bentworth - Hooker the Carrier.jpg
File:Bentworth Telegraph office c 1905.JPG
File:Hall Place front.jpg
File:Bentworth - Ivalls cott from the Star 1900.jpg
File:GCIves.jpg
I'm not sure that the image tags of any of the above stand up to scrutiny. For the claimed {{PD-old}} to be valid, the photographer would have had to have died before 1912, and there is no reason to suppose that he or she did so.
File:Ben & Las stn 1905 & 2012.jpg
As above, so far as the 1905 image is concerned.
File:Bentworth vill green 1905a.jpg
This one looks OK-ish to me: the "Bentworth" label at bottom left indicates pretty clearly that this was published in the UK before 1923, but I reckon it has the wrong copyright tag: there is no evidence that the photographer died before 1912, but {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} would be appropriate, I think.
File:Bentworth Hall about 1905.jpg
{{PD-US-1923-abroad}} tag wanted here, too, I think
Please consider. – Tim riley (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

PD-US-1923-abroad should cover them. I didn't upload them. But I'm adamant that they're public domain, besides PD-old in the commons is 70 years I believe not 100. Thanks for the review! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


### Wrapping up
Good. We progress apace. I don't know that I 100% share your confidence that the Edwardian pictures are definitely public domain, but as I say, images are not my area of expertise, and I'm willing to be guided by you on the point.  Common sense says that it would surely be overkill to drag in an image expert for old pictures such as these.
The only other area of serious concern to me was the lack of citations for the administrative section. You have removed the more glaring specimens, and now that I look again at the GA criteria, I am reminded that the requirement is for "in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged", and IMO the few uncited statements remaining are uncontroversial enough that lack of citations need not be a stumbling block to promotion to GA. (Nice if they were referenced in due course, nevertheless.) 
One final read-through and we'll be ready to observe the formalities, I think. Tim riley (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes that was the only section I couldn't find sources for. I have notified the writer. If he fails to come up within anything within 3 days I will remove it if its OK by you. Generally I am confident about images and text pre 1920 and usually freely upload them to the commons, without problems. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Would you feel happier if we waited that time before completing the GA formalities? I'm content to proceed now or then, as you prefer. Tim riley (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy for you to proceed with it now, unless for some reason you think its not good enough. If you insist, I can remove the historical parish info which at present looks like original research and only restore it once adequate sources are provided. I've honesty looked in google and google books for info for that and Thedden Grange and found nothing. I was lucky to find info about the other grange. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, GA isn't that prescriptive. Nothing that is now unreferenced is dubious. Compare and contrast with the earlier drafts put up for GA. I shall have one final read through. More tomorrow. Tim riley (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

 A most interesting and enjoyable article.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

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

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Well referenced.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
A few uncontroversial statements are unreferenced; the nominator has undertaken to address this point, and the unreferenced statements are not in the categories that the GA criteria require to be referenced.
Well referenced.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Well illustrated.
My concerns over image tagging have been addressed.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Well done, both on text and on splendid new images. I've never reviewed another article with lots of one-day-old pictures in it! Don't forget to add the missing minor refs in the next week or so (I'll be keeping a beady eye open). A great pleasure to review. Tim riley (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The lead currently states "The village of Bentworth has grown in recent years, with several new houses being built, as well as the post-Second World War development in Glebe Fields." Can we be a bit more specific than recently? The population has declined from 596 in 1961 to 466 in 2001, so is this growth restricted to the number of houses of did these new buildings replace old ones? Nev1 (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Glebe Fields and Glebe Close are new and did not replace any houses; it's a bit strange that the population of the villages has declined? Jaguar (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I did know a lot of people moved to France. Jaguar (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry that's not helpful! Jaguar (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
40 years is a long time, so it's possible we're missing a trough in between so that the 2001 may be higher than 1981 for example. One option might be to say that "While several houses have been constructed recently, as well as the post-Second World War development in Glebe Fields, the populatino declined from 596 in 1961 to 466 in 2001." One concern is that the 2001 population is mentioned at the end of the first paragraph, just a few sentences before. Nev1 (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

OK We hope and Jaguar. Where are we? Can we keep track here of what has been checked so no time is wasted?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I won't be able to check what I did until my internet connection gets fixed. Right now, I'm on dial up and it's very slow.  The network is primarily a business one and they're very prompt about taking care of things after an outage report.  All should be well again later this morning. We hope (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Same here! There was a flood here the other day and the internet has been too slow and unstable for me to edit. It seems to be working for the moment, so I can begin to look through the comments at the FAC now. JAGUAR  13:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Me too! I've been having connection problems the last two days!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Well if you get post try to indicate what has been checked to date so if there's any remaining I can help.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm dying to make a start, but nothing outside of Wikipedia and Google is loading for me. It won't let me open a thing. I can only access most of the existing sources, so I'll rephrase whatever I can't find. I don't know what has happened to the internet - it's taking me ten seconds to load a page on Wikipedia... JAGUAR  16:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It's been about 9 years since I last used dial-up.  The internet is now more loaded with items that don't work with this type of service. It wasn't too bad to use back then as I waited for my high speed connection but now!  My Live Mail wouldn't work right until I was back on high speed and pages took forever to load. We hope (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Took care of sourcing for the Fishers Camp/Thedden Grange issue.  (Will keep adding as I keep looking back).
Changed text re: how Bentworth Hall was divided--I couldn't find any RS that went into the previous detail of it.
Removed "Feud Aids" source--this is covered with the previous citation from Biritish History Online--the article cites Feud Aids.
Added the British History Online citation re: Wivelrod in 2 spots.
Added Google Book source re: origin of Benworth name.  Caution--the Book may not display fully for those outside of the US, but I read the cited page totally.
Some typo fixes and links to other WP articles. We hope (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
More additions:

Added details re: how Bentworth Hall was divided into separate housing from a The Guardian" 1983 news story.
Added details re: how the local schoolhouse grew over time and how St. Mary's added a clock to the church building to celebrate King George V's coronation-book refs.
Question-I can't find anything about the children's home that was there from during WWII to circa 1951, when it was said to have burned down.  
The villages of Bentworth and Lasham both had their part in the war. In late 1940, a children's home was built in Drury Lane in Bentworth for those who had been evacuated from London during the Blitz.

The reference given here is from a 1905 book. We hope (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the children's home, I too can't find anything reliable that states it was burned in a fire (along with the Moon Inn), however they were both destroyed in 1951. Either way, demolished or intentionally destroyed, they were next to each other and aren't here any more, so I changed it to "destroyed". Also done a bit of copyediting and clarified the stuff about elevation. JAGUAR  17:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
We hope and Jaguar. Can we please do a check list here with all of the sourcing and add a {done} tick by the ref number if checked? That way I can see where we are.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the ref formerly #30-it's from a 1905 book and can't possible tell what happened during the Blitz & WWII.We hope (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Need to stop chasing refs for today-before my eyes cross. ;) We hope (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks WH, great start.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Eeks, one problem we have it once removing sources which is common given how many need sorting the ref numbers become different, so some of the above apply to the wrong ones. How to we address that? I suggest for each ref above we add a snippet of the last part of the sentence the ref applies to so when ref numbers change we can still see where everything is and applies to.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You would not have that problem if the references were in a separate section, sorted by author and date to refer to, rather than by ref number which changes with every move of material or addition of a ref. Example BWV 199. Better: harv refs, example BWV 22. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
We could move all of the references that were in the article at the time of making this list into a sandbox so that they won't be disrupted by our changes. Or maybe try out Gerda's suggestion as I'm not sure the sandbox idea would work! JAGUAR  18:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you make sure that a sentence snippet or key word is next to the "done" on all so we can fully verify what has been checked? Don't forget to remove the ? once checked too. Making good progress...♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
If both of you are in agreement, I can start changing this to harv ref tonight--will only change the revs which have been checked to try to keep things straight. We hope (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, fine, but not until all of the not dones are fixed because we may have to rid of a lot of dud sources anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Now the list is finished, can we start fixing all the not dones and if we need to remove any of the references, will it affect the list? JAGUAR  10:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld I can't get an archive link for ref 77 (Gaston Grange) from the Wayback Machine, but for ref 69 I clicked on the link and it seemed to work, is that definitely the correct ref? JAGUAR  10:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've approved that one then.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Re: #73-the Guardian article.  There is no way to read it without a subscription.  I've read it and I believe you have also, Dr. B. We hope (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to leave refs 20 and 23 alone as I can't access them, maybe they're only accessible in the US? With ref 29, is it referring to the year when the council estates were constructed? That did come up in the FAC but I didn't see it relevant to cite what year some council housing were made. For what it's worth, there is an original plaque of "1946" in Roman numerals on the centrepiece of one of the houses, but is it worthy as a reference? Also, with ref 35 (the elevation), a height of 712 feet is on every Ordinance Survey map, but am I right in assuming that a more reliable source has to be found for that? JAGUAR  17:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Ordinance Survey is a reliable source. I just deleted that though as it wouldn't support "one of the highest points" anyway. A problem in some places we have now is there's unsourced content which doesn't have a citation and isn't backed by the source in subsequent sentences. If the info can't all be verified we'll have to remove those too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right about refs 20 & 23.  They're from HathiTrust and full view is denied to anyone not in the US.  Many times, this is the only place I can get full view of some of these sources.  There are a lot of things that haven't been uploaded to Internet Archive and one's not able to get full view at Google even if you're in the US. We hope (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't find any archived versions of the Gaston Grange PDF which is quite annoying, so I'll have to remove some content if it still can't be found. One more thing, can we use Ordnance Survey maps to cite the height of the village? If not the sentence "The elevation of the ground at St Mary's Church is 574 feet (175 m)" will have to be removed - no problem there. JAGUAR  18:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I tried everything I could think of last night to get a copy of that PDF.  It looks like the website is no longer online.  Went to where the current applications are kept and went through about 22 pages of them-nothing.  Also went to Wayback Machine, who has 90 other PDFs archived from the site, but this one isn't among them.  Didn't find anything else that described the interior in that detail either. We hope (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Me too! I'm surprised that the Wayback Machine had a lot of other PDFs but not the one we needed. Doesn't matter too much, I think the Gaston Grange section should be fine now. At any rate, I think we have now checked off all of the references. Before renominating I'm going to go over the article one last time and make sure that there is no margin for error. JAGUAR  19:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Jaguar, we have a new citation needed re: the axe head found in October 1935.  The "remains" [http://documents.hants.gov.uk/landscape/historic-settlement/BentworthHistoricRuralSettlementpublication.pdf PDF should take care of this.  Page 4 of the PDF identifies the axe head as artifact #21.  The map on page 11 shows where artifacts 18-21 were found-about mid-left on the map.  It looks like this is a bit out of town--am sure you can describe this better than I can. We hope (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added the location in the prose. It's actually closer to some council housing, but they weren't around in 1935 so I didn't include them. JAGUAR  11:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Jaguar I cannot understand from where the location Miller's Farm is derived as I cannot find it in the ref given [http://documents.hants.gov.uk/landscape/historic-settlement/BentworthHistoricRuralSettlementpublication.pdf PDF. The grid ref is given and the location in Alton Museum in the PDF, but not Miller's Farm. The grid ref looks secure enough, but if a named location is required the tennis court shown on the map is the nearest. Weller's Place Farm is shown on the PDF and both Weller's Place Farm and Wellers Place Farm are shown on my 1:25000 OS map in different places. SovalValtos (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The length of this article is hugely excessive for a small village. For example, is it really necessary to go into details of the climate? ----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, comprehensiveness is arguably the most important part of the FA criteria. The village has a long history, significant manors and a large parish. It would be erroneous to suggest that the article is excessive. JAGUAR  16:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with User:Jaguar that being comprehensive is a good thing. Agreed with User:Ehrenkater that details of climate are not appropriate, particularly as in this article those not sourced. Such statements such as 'the sea breeze occasionally reaches the area' may be difficult to source, but good luck if sources can be found. In general I think climate best covered at regional level, rather than settlement level. SovalValtos (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd thought actually that the climate might be expanded a little.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

This has a lot of links along with census links. We hope (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Minchams Field near Gaston Grange-mentions Jennie Green Lane. We hope (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Following the reconstruction of the sources, I have checked out the first 25 citations – at least, those that are available online. A few observations:

Something is wrong with Ref 10. The source page appears to be  the same as that for ref 2, although the two refs are formatted differently. But I can't find any of the multiple information cited to ref 10 in this source. Have you used the wrong link? Please check this out.
I see the problem. Simply the matter of a duplicated link - fixed. JAGUAR  19:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ref 14: Source does not mention the relationship of Maria Fitzherbert to William Urry's daughters. Also, your text refers to a "Mary Fitzherbert": is this the same person as Maria?
This was confusing - I searched the book for both "Maria" and "Mary" Fitzherbert and they were two different people. A search for "Maria Herbert William Urry" didn't come up with any results in the book, but it might be something similar to this. JAGUAR  19:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ref 18: Does not support the atatement that the London and SW Railway opened in 1852, merely that the company was tendering for the building of stations at Alton and Richmond in that year. Our own WP article suggests that the line opened in 1840.
Corrected the date and added a new source JAGUAR  19:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ref 21: Add page number.
Added JAGUAR  19:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ref 22: Text diverges from source:
Article text: "The Bentworth Hall Estate was then offered for sale by John Wood & Co in 1924 and again in 26 June 1930, when an A. Willis purchased it. Shortly after Willis' purchase, Major John Arthur Pryor lived at Bentworth Hall..."
Source: "Arthur d’Anyers Willis bought the estate and lordship of the manor in 1924 and it was sold again in 1932 to John Arthur Pryor..."
Thanks, I've rephrased this JAGUAR  19:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ref 24: How is this a high-quality reliable source? In any case, your text diverges from the source, which says that the airfield destroyed much of the avenue of memorial beech trees, whereas you say the airfield was built "between the nearby village of Lasham and a historic avenue of trees..."
Ref 25: This only supports the information that Thedden Grange as used as the site of a POW camp. None of the information in the paragraph up to "...used it as transport to Lasham Airfield" is sourced. I notice that the previous paragraph has a "citation needed" tag, which suggests that more work is needed around this area.
Will continue to check, as time permits. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ref 29: Text: "Bentworth was awarded a gold postbox in 2012 after Peter Charles, a resident of the village, won a gold medal in the equestrian event of the 2012 Summer Olympics. A postbox in Alton was incorrectly painted gold in Charles' honour, until the Royal Mail painted Bentworth's postbox after complaints from locals." The source does not mention complaints from locals. But the whole text is very clumsily worded; basically, this sort of trivia isn't worth including, and you'd be well advised to delete it altogether.
Removed the bit about "complaints from locals". I remember there being complaints in local newspapers back then, if I do find something on that I'll add it later. I would disagree about the trivia, I think a gold medal winner in the Olympics and a gold postbox in the village are notable as there are only a number of them in the country. JAGUAR  17:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Added a ref from Heart, Hampshire. We hope (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Ref 30: "Google maps" is an online source. Link required to the relevant map.
Ref 31: The source says the northern source rises "near Alton", not "on the west side of Alton". The source does not mention that "The lower ground to the south-east of Bentworth and to the south of the nearby villages of Lasham and Shalden drains towards the River Wey..."
Ref 32: Does not appear to include any of the information in the paragraph which cites it.
The phrase "and Tickley to the north" appears unsourced
It's on pretty much any map; Google Maps and Ordnance Survey too. I trust your judgement, so if you want I could remove that sentence? Tickley is a tiny hamlet and won't be missed if it gets cut! I've found that there is also another hamlet nearby that doesn't have its own Wikipedia article (it's not even this article). JAGUAR  17:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Ref 36: Take a look at p. 18 of this source, which is cited three times in your text. The page is part of a projected list of works for Home Farm; how does it support the information in your text?
The Woodland Trust PDF is source #37-the description of the property & size is on page 5-planting of new trees was done in 1993-PDF doesn't specify where on the property on page 9.  As per page 14, there presently are very few "hard" paths on the site.  Have edited this section to reflect what's in the PDF--I think the next job is to go to Harv ref to try keeping all of this straight. We hope (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
This is not very encouraging – I was hoping that this article's sourcing issues were resolved, but I am still finding problems with most references I check. It seems that more work – possibly much more – is needed before the sourcing is in order. I repeat what I said earlier: someone must check every reference to see that it actually supports what's in the text.  Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I had thought I had checked most of them. Obviously I did a clumsy job! Tired of wiki right now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld Any editor who puts in so much effort as you do is appreciated by those of us who do not. Thank you. SovalValtos (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I know I'm appreciated but this really should be largely sorted out now, it's disappointing and a little embarrassing. There's sources above which even I checked and have problems! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I too am having trouble keeping motivation up to edit anything lately. I'm a bit baffled on how we checked every source and yet some issues remain - it takes me around twenty minutes each to search for a snippet of text within a source/book! We shouldn't give up though. It may be gruelling but our hard will pay off soon. JAGUAR  17:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Thank you for taking a look at the article once again. We hope has completely overhauled the sources and now we have harv style references with a Bibliography section. I've still yet to address two of your issues above (which I will get to tomorrow morning), but can you please take a final look through the rest of the sources before we send this to FAC? Me and Dr. Blofeld have cut a lot of content that wasn't in any of the sources, and I have recently removed all mentions of the children's home from the article as I couldn't find it anywhere. We just need to make sure that everything is correct before re-nominating, and a last overlook of the sources if required beforehand. Thank you for your help so far, and no rush of course! JAGUAR  20:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

ref #97 A Guide to the Steam Railways of Great Britain "Watercress Line" information-can't find in snippet search.
ref #98 Who was who Can't find Ives family buried in churchyard in snippet search. We hope (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Jaguar, apologies if it has been said already, but I don't think you can afford to have any more images in this article.  In its current state, it looks a bit cluttered; I would even suggest losing one or two, but that is, of course, up to you.  Pictures are nice, but they are not essential for an FA.  Luckily we have We hope who certainly has her work cut out.  I would not add anymore as the article is currently at bursting point. CassiantoTalk 16:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I replaced an existing picture today because I thought the old image was out of focus, but after looking through it again I see that the article could lose one or two non-essential images. There's probably too many of the church and one of the field in the geography section could also be cut. I'll see what I can do. JAGUAR  19:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Right, I've gone through and removed ones that I think are not needed. If you disagree, come back and we'll have a chat about them.  You also like to duplicate the refs too I've noticed.  I've removed a few, but you may want to check for others.  Generally, the only time a duplicate ref is needed is after a quote and at the end of the paragraph.  Talking of which, I've left a couple of {{cn}} tags.  I normally avoid doing this, but I know you'll fix them when you can. CassiantoTalk 20:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! The images should be fine now, and I'll check for any duplicated refs there are out there. The geography section affecting some of the layout in the administration section, but that could just be my monitor. The images look great now. I'll get to adding more citations throughout the day. JAGUAR  16:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not confident in the cit for this. How reliable a reference is "Johnson, Margaret (March 2013). "Bentworth's River". The Villager: 7." ? Is 'The Villager' a magazine, book or just a self published website with no reputation for fact checking? SovalValtos (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Further investigation suggests that the 'source' was an opinion piece by an environmental enthusiast (aren't we all} in the Parish magazine 'The Villager', which gives no confidence for its fact checking. Looking at old maps has not come up with any evidence for the stream's existence either. I think we need a more reliable source to justify the material's inclusion.  SovalValtos (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The Villager is a monthly magazine/journal that is circulated in four villages - Bentworth being the main one. It's written by councillors, vicars, community people etc, so I took the entry for Bentworth Stream in the March 2013 issue as the only reliable source. I have long lost the issue, and the pdf file on Bentworth's website has been taken down (the whole domain is offline). I've looked high and low for more sources on this, but other than water extraction plants located where the stream used to be, I can't find anything else. I have two minds to remove it from this article, but it would be a shame to lose it. JAGUAR  15:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed it would be a shame to lose it, but I suppose it will still be in history to be followed up in due course. More of a shame to include such dubiously sourced material, so I will remove it now. SovalValtos (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, yep I agree the FAC has to come first. Still very interesting that it used to have its own stream! JAGUAR  22:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The Who Was Who (1967) book is essentially redundant to the online edition of the work now maintained by Oxford University Press. I've had a look and it says George Cecil Ives was the adopted son of "Hon. Emma Ives ... widow of J. R. Ives of Bentworth Hall". He was educated "at home". It doesn't say anything about the family being buried in Bentworth, nor does it say anything about the pre-1832 Bentworth Hall. That is obviously an issue, but I thought I'd provide the info to form a citation. It will need to be formatted properly and is available by subscription only:

"Ives, George (Cecil)". Who Was Who. A & C Black, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing plc, 1920–2015; online edition, Oxford University Press, 2014; online edition, April 2014 (retrieved 6 Sept 2015).
That might be easier than using the book, but it's up to you, and the other issues remain. —Noswall59 (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC).

Nor, as I pointed out during the recent FAC, does the Who Was Who entry mention that Cecil Ives was a "gay rights campaigner". It wouldn't: the term relates to a much more recent era than Ives's pre-1950 lifetime.  What is the evidence for the assertion that Ives was active in this way? Brianboulton (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I've just added his ODNB entry as a ref for this as it does state: "campaigner for homosexual law reform". The sentence seems to have been added without a ref way back in 2011. I've only had a very quick skim through his ODNB entry but with a slight tweak to the family burial bit (as I'm not seeing that info in it), it may be possible to remove the Who was Who ref? Are you able to access the ODNB, Jaguar? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou Sagacious, I have access to ODNB, but I don't think Jaguar does. I have a feeling that even if it is further improved in the near future it won't stand a chance at FAC until it's been largely forgotten. I think the best thing would be to leave this now for a few months and open a peer review in the new year and come back at it afresh. And next we really must ensure that there's not a single thing mentioned in the article not in the source supporting it. That really has to be double checked, once all source issues have been dealt with. I can deal with people moaning about minor formatting issues, even the prose, but for people to still find unverifiable sources is rather embarrassing and really cannot happen again!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The ODNB entry says that Ives was cremated at Golders Green crematorium, rather than buried with his family. Personally, I think all this information about Ives is marginal to an article about the village of Bentworth, and barely worth the effort of searching for sources. When the article is revived I'd be inclined to drop it. I agree with the doctor that so far as the article's development is concerned, a period of around three months should elapse, followed by a thorough peer view in which I will be pleased to participate. Brianboulton (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: I've trimmed it, removed mention of the burial because of the contradiction and added a source which says he spent time at the family home at Bentworth Hall. OK?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, fine if you wish to keep this info in. Brianboulton (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, you'd expect a notable people section for settlement articles. If there were more notable figures I'd favour just a list with birth and dates dates and occupation, but seems as there's little anyway I think just stating the connection with Bentworth Hall without going into detail is OK. The most important thing is that it is verifiable in the source given ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The text says "the most prominent crops are ...". Is that the case that they ARE, or is it that they WERE in 1911. Oats, Turnips, now? I do not have access to the source.SovalValtos (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not suggesting getting rid of the 1911 info, just changing the tense and hopefully someone will find more recent info to include. SovalValtos (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The source should be accessible if you place the cursor over the ref number and then click on the blue link that appears in the box. The source dates from 1911 and hence is not usable for statements about today, so I have adjusted the sentences about crops and woodland. However the area of the parish needs checking as well, as it may have changed since 1911, and it would anyway be preferable if the 1911 info is incorporated into the history section. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to this source to add it? I have heard it might be relevant. Reports of the Sub-Committee of the South-Western Group of Museums & Art Galleries on the Petrological Identification of Stone Axes. (PPS vol 28
(1962) pp209-266)
The Bentworth axe-head has the number 749 written on it. Does the source mention basalt or just spotted slate? SovalValtos (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Can't help on that one. Speaking of axe-head refs, can anyone shed light on why it's not possible to follow the link of the "County of Hampshire" ref that's used in the article to support the statement "indicating occupation in prehistoric times"? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I cannot help with regards to the "County of Hampshire" ref, other than to say there was a period of beneficial frenetic editing a month or so ago when at least one other ref got lost. Perhaps going back to mid August might find the link? SovalValtos (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The "County of Hampshire" ref was inserted by We hope with this edit; I've never formatted refs in that way, so cannot say why it isn't functioning properly, but it obviously wasn't functioning from its first insertion. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bentworth. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bentworth.info/parish/pdf/Bentworth%20Parish%20Plan%202008.pdf
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.durley.hampshire.org.uk/dhspages/images/no16a.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bentworth. 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/20081202002638/http://www.durley.hampshire.org.uk/ to http://www.durley.hampshire.org.uk/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bentworth.info/newsletter/newsletter-archive-right.php?file=text%2Fpublished%2F2010-03-23%40s20100323093518%40p20100323094039%40k20100430235959_Stella_Strachan~NMB.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bentworth.info/newsletter/newsletter-archive-right.php?file=text%2Fpublished%2F2010-10-23%40s20101023172641%40p20101023175309%40k20101130235959_Steve_Clarke~NMB.html
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) 08:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bentworth. 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/20120301122003/http://www.roman-britain.org/places/neatham.htm to http://www.roman-britain.org/places/neatham.htm
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) 08:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)