# Talk:Morpeth, Northumberland

Can I nominate the following paragraph for the most out-of-place sentence ever.
Today the town is a thriving local centre. It is a commuter town for Newcastle upon Tyne, and benefits from excellent transport links ... its railway station has direct trains to London taking a little over three hours. Several fatal rail crashes have occurred at Morpeth. The school facilities are also highly rated, ...
Tyrhinis 21:25, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Fair comment - I came across the page about the rail crashes but it was previously not linked from the Morpeth article, which of course it needed to be. At the time, I didn't have much time to do anything other than include a quick link - and the most obvious place was next to the only mention of railways.  Reading all the positive stuff before and after, it does look a bit out of place.  I'll look at including it in a slightly less "sudden" manner! Halsteadk 11:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Added a photo Farmer erik 01:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Surely the most out-of-place sentence ever is this cheesy specimen: "It was a very sad/bleak day in the history of such a prestigious old town but it showed the courage and love that this community has for one another and has made everyone more friendly towards each other."93.158.79.70 (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Why is Cuthbert Collingwood, 1st Baron Collingwood, the victor in Battle of Trafalgar, not mention in the paragraph "People associated with Morpeth"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.177.253.226 (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Morpeth, Northumberland. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.durham.gov.uk/durhamcc/K2P.nsf/K2PDetail?readform&PRN=N13457
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402092402/http://www.landmarktrust.org.uk/our-landmarks/properties/morpeth-castle-9471 to http://www.landmarktrust.org.uk/our-landmarks/properties/morpeth-castle-9471
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130210040322/http://www.parishofmorpeth.org.uk/stjames/index.html to http://www.parishofmorpeth.org.uk/stjames/index.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050905052453/http://www.morpethmhc.com/ to http://www.morpethmhc.com/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917125714/http://www.genuki.bpears.org.uk/NBL/Morpeth/index.html to http://www.genuki.bpears.org.uk/NBL/Morpeth/index.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) 13:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Morpeth, Northumberland. 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/20090615094443/http://www.gmdt.net/index2.php?id=62 to http://www.gmdt.net/index2.php?id=62
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) 21:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I will be making improvements to this article so that it can meet the GA article criteria. I have already created an image montage and removed some unsourced claims. Please message me if you are planning to review for GA. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Morpeth, Northumberland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: SkyGazer 512 (talk · contribs) 00:15, 7 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 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


### 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)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):  (failing this for now due to close paraphrasing issues) general (free of other verifiability issues): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Comments
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 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@SkyGazer 512: Thanks for reviewing! I will be on to the issues later today. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 07:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
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 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
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 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


#### 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.
 Partly done Added more about the history to the lead (around 3 sentences) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done? @SkyGazer 512: What do you think now? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
It's definitely better, but although I hate to be picky, I still don't think it adequately summarizes the article overall; the first paragraph seems to just pick off a few scattered points in the article and explain them in detail rather than summarize the whole article as a whole. I'll try to write a new lead for you and see what you think of it, and if you like it replace the current lead with such in the article; I think it will be easier this way.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 22:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm working on this in my sandbox.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


##### History
Note: All issues responded to Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I believe I'm very close to done with this section. It still seems a bit all over the place, but that's out of scope here; once these concerns are addressed, the section should almost meet the GA crtieria.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
A few more:

Minor point but would suggest replacing Another possible meaning is that the name derives from the Old English pre-7th-century compound morð-pæð or Morthpaeth ("murder path") in remembrance of "some forgotten" slaying on the road.[10][11][12][13] This meaning has been suggested to be "fanciful" by some sources.[9] with Another possible meaning is that the name derives from the Old English pre-7th-century compound morð-pæð or Morthpaeth, meaning "murder path", in remembrance of "some forgotten" slaying on the road,[10][11][12][13] although some old documents suggest that this meaning is a falacy.[9] Not quite sure this is the best way to do to fix up the sentences but the structure currently doesn't seem very clear/concise.
 Done Thanks for the wording. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 14:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Do you happen to know the relationship between Ranulf and William de Merlay? I think that's something readers might be left wanting but if you can't find it anywhere it's not a dealbreaker or anything.
According to 1, William was the father of Ranulf. Looking for a more reliable source. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 14:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done Found 1 and 2. Adding now Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 14:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks, I think it's helpful for readers to display the connection.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
on the site of an earlier fortress Any chance this is referring to the motte-and-bailey castle that was previously built?
 Done (removed) per 1 the castle on Haw Hill was first castle in Morpeth. The source which accompanies this does not seem to support this either, so I have removed this statement. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 14:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The arms were the same as those of Roger de Merlay Perhaps change "of" to "granted by" for clarity?
 Done assuming you mean "granted to" Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 14:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, typo.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Ref 17 needs a page number.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 12:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


##### Government
Note: All issues responded to Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
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 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

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 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
There are more minor improvements that could be made to it, but all of them are beyond the scope of GA. Spelling and grammar are fine, prose is clear with the possible exception of what I mentioned directly above, sufficient references/verifiability except for the possible exception of what I mentioned above about being a civil parish, sources completely consist of either the BBC News or verified government-hosted websites so reliable enough, no copyvio, decent length/detail, no POV, stable, no images... should be good to go other than the concerns above; I've made a few very minor copy-edits to this section.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


##### Climate
Note: All issues responded to Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
If these concerns can be addressed, I believe this section will clearly meet all of the GA criteria. Nice job!--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
That should be everything. Same as the above section, everything seems to check with the GA crtieria with except for the concerns mentioned above; again, improvements could be made but they are out of the GA scope. I have made a few minor copy-edits to the section.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


##### Transport
Note: All issues responded to Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
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 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Concerns met and completed moved. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I believe that's all; the section is short and easy, but I still believe it's broad enough for GA. Besides the one concern above, everything seems to check out when compared to what's necessary to satisfy the GACR.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


##### Education
Note: All issues responded to Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
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 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 23:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Addressed all comments above. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 18:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
That's all for GA; there are numerous prose improvements I could suggest but they would fall outside the scope of "clear and concise."--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 19:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

SkyGazer 512, good for GA for this section? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 12:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I meant by "that's all for GA."--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 18:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


##### Religious sites
Note: All issues responded to Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I have a few more to come, but just wanted to go ahead and post the main issues here.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 19:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


##### Sport
Note: All issues responded to Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Who's the publisher of this source or is it affiliated with the government or anything? I'm a bit skeptical about its reliability, but I'm not too concerned as it doesn't support anything controversial.
According to their about page it is run by a "Pete" and a small group with help from others. I can't find anything else to establish reliability. If needed this source could be used as well. It is run by the council as a way to publish their archives. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 23:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Since you do have a better source fortunately, that would be preferred to have instead, yes.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@SkyGazer 512: After looking further, I see that this new source does not support the information that the old source supports in the article, specifically until 1854, when the racetrack was replaced with St. George's Hospital in that the new source supports the existence but not the replacement and a date for the closure of the racetrack. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


##### Landmarks
Note: All issues responded to Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Do you know the publisher for The Great North Road: The Old Mail Road to Scotland? It looks decent at first glance and it isn't being used to support anything contentious, but it still would be nice for determining reliability to know who published it, if possible.
Per the archive.org version of the book, it seems to be published by Cecil Palmer. They don't have a wikipage, but have published several other books after searching for the name in Google. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
That seems like most of it, this section appears to be in pretty good shape at the current moment, but I haven't done a thorough spot-check.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 02:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


##### Notable people
Note: All issues responded to Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


##### External links
Note: Section deleted Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


#### 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
##### History
##### Government
##### Climate
##### Transport
##### Education
##### Religious sites
##### Sport
##### Landmarks
##### Notable people
##### External links
#### Overview
As I look deeper into this article, I'll be adding some more stuff here. Good luck with improving the article!--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I've now organized the list by section. Hopefully this will work.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
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 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 19:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@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 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
This article is starting to come along now. The review has been up for over a month now, which is much longer than most reviews; however, this was mostly due to the amount of unsourced content to begin with, which for many reviewers would be a cause for quick fail and was something I was close to doing, but most of the content is sourced now so a lot of what's left is stuff that's easy to fix. If possible, I'd appreciate it if you to try to address the issues as quickly as time permits (although, of course, real life events have priority and it looks like you've been addressing them pretty quickly already) and in return I'll try to point out the remaining issues as quickly as I can. Don't worry; this review won't go on forever. :-)--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Will do. Will try to tackle the remaining problems today. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Have been able to respond to the issues today. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Nice job; thanks for being so quick. I believe once I take my final checks after every section I'll be almost completely done, but I will be looking back at the History section before passing this because of how large and complicated it is, and I haven't yet checked it extremely thoroughly.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 22:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'll have a lot of time to work on this review this week. We're very close to done, currently I'm doing a few final checks against the criteria and writing the minor issues down on my computer; I should be finished in a few days. After that, I'll work on the lead some in my sandbox. Then, this should be good to pass. Apologies for not getting to this sooner.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

My list is almost finished, but I've been a bit more busy lately and therefore had less time to review this than I'd hoped. I am almost done with the final list, so I should be able to post it within the next few days. I believe that once I've done so, I'll place this on hold for you to address the issues as soon as possible during which time I'll finish tweaking the lead in my sandbox.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


#### Final issues
I'm working to get everything that would be needed to get this to GA to be addressed. I've been a bad reviewer and procrastinated way too much so I'll try to do as much as I can in these next few days when I have more time.  The issue list is quite long and more will likely be coming, but I would like for you to try to get this done in a week. If you can't get these addressed within that period of time, that's understandable but if these aren't addressed for too long, it may have to be failed. If it is failed, please don't worry; the article has come a very long way since before you started editing it. Quite honestly, it probably would've probably been better if I'd quick failed this to begin with, but I haven't so we might as well try as hard as possible to get it to GA. I've been putting this off for too long!--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@SkyGazer 512: thanks. I will get onto these issues now. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@SkyGazer 512: all issues dealt with, except from two which I have asked advice for. Thanks for the help so far. It has been appreciated.  Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Wow, thanks, that was quick; you're way ahead of me. I'll do a few replies in a few minutes.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 21:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz: Apparently a few minutes turned into 6 days, so apologies for that, but regardless, I've made several replies as seen in this edit.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
SkyGazer 512. Dealt with replies, so all issues dealt with. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 18:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
SkyGazer 512 Any more issues? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz: I am sorry, I've been procrastinating terribly! I am going to try to get a lot done with this tomorrow; I've really been putting this off for too long...--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 02:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Working on the lead in my sandbox now.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 04:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you could explain how Newminster Abbey relates to Morpeth?
@SkyGazer 512: What do you mean specifically? The history section already talks about how Newminster Abbey was founded by the Lord of Morpeth. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, is it located in or near Morpeth or something?--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
SkyGazer 512, yes it is. It is located on the outskirts of morpeth. I have added , located on the outskirts of Morpeth,.  Done? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that should work.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I still feel like the sentence "The town became a borough by prescription" comes out of nowhere. If it really is "time immemorial", why would you include it in between the information about Newminster Abbey and the information about the market charter?
 Done I have moved this information to the second last paragraph, as it is better suited with the charter of incorporation from Charles II, as this confirms Morpeth's borough status.
Thank you, that's better. But remove the comma in Morpeth, was a borough by prescription; that's grammatically incorrect.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
How do you know the market still held on Wednesdays is the same?
@SkyGazer 512:. These sources 1 and 2 in conjunction prove so, but might be unreliable. The other name for the Wednesday market is the market charter. On the first page, it says Morpeth received its Market Charter from King John in 1199, and so celebrated the 800th anniversary of the market in 1999 and on the second page it says Wednesday Market Morpeth Charter Market is held every Wednesday from 9am till 4pm on Morpeth Market Place. Also 3 which is more reliable in passing mentions Morpeth ... has a Royal Market Charter going back to 1199.. Do you think the first 2 sources are good enough for a GA and is the third source enough, if the first answer is no? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 18:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the first 2 sources are reliable but the second option with the third source should do.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
SkyGazer 512, Ok.  Done. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
During the 1543–50 war of the Rough Wooing... Rough Wooing says that it ended in 1551
 Done
Any particular reason why you italicize the Hervey quote? Not saying it's definitely bad or anything, just curious.
 Done (kept). The formatting was there before I first started editing the article, but I don't mind changing the style either way.
I would suggest removing it, it's inconsistent and I don't see a reason to keep it there.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok.  Done (removed) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
controlled by seven companies or trade guilds is a bit unclear to me. Do you mean that some of them were companies and others trade guilds? Are you not sure if some of them are companies or trade guilds? Looks like the source just mentions "companies" and nothing about "trade guilds," so I'd suggest just cutting out "or trade guilds".
 Done
Although technically allowed, I really don't think it's a good idea to directly copy all of the Northumbrian Gathering page onto this (you actually did it vice versa, Morpeth --> Northumbrian Gathering, but essentially the same thing). I'd suggest doing a brief summary of the gathering's relation to Morpeth.
 Done
Having a dam with a storage reservoir was built on the Mitford Estate and then in May 2017, works on building a £27m dam were completed is very unclear. If these dams are the same, which I presume they are, merge these two phrases.
 Done (however, not your suggestion). These are two different dams and to clarify I have reworded the second and third sentence.
What exactly is Cotting Burn? A city? A body of water?
 Done A burn is a watercourse and the name of the burn is "Cotting". I will wikilink this to save confusion.
Minor point but Burn should still be capitalized, as all of the sources seem to agree that the name is Cotting Burn, not simply Cotting.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok.  Done Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Nitpick but "later" in later in the 1970s lost its grammar school status seems very redundant
 Done removed.
Like the Northumbrian Gathering, I don't think it's a good idea to have a substantial paragraph duplicate of St Mary's, Highchurch
 Done.
What is Highchurch and where does the source mention it?
 Done "Highchurch", per the source, is [t]he part of Morpeth on the south bank of the river. The source mentions this at the start of section 4.1 (which is what the source references to in the |at= parameter of the cite template). This section includes St' Mary's church as a subsection and as the section is about the "South of the Wansbeck" I would say that this shows that the church is in Highchurch (on the south side of the river).
Maybe you could explain that in the article? Apologies for not noticing that; because it wasn't in the normal prose of course doing a control+G didn't work.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
SkyGazer 512,  Done. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 18:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The oldest remaining parts of the structure belong to the Transitional Early English style seems strange, how about use "are in the" instead of "belong to"?
 Done changed to your suggestion.
The foundation stone of St George's URC Church was laid down should be reworded. It could either sound like only stone was laid down then and other parts of it were built up later or not at all, which is obviously incorrect, or just a non-encyclopedic version of St. George's URC Church was built, so use that.
@SkyGazer 512: The foundation stone is when the construction started, being literally the first stone placed, so I think that your suggestion may not be the best idea here, as was built could suggest that the church was completed at this date (which is not the case). The church was not built in a short period of time, most likely being finished just before the first service took place. It may have been that construction was on/off in this period (however I don't know this for sure). Perhaps something like The construction of St. George's URC Church started in 1858? I would appreciate your input. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply; I see what you mean but I'm still not a fan of the wording. How about The construction of St. George's URC Church began in 1858 or something?--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done as suggested. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 18:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
In addition the Morpeth Harriers complete in athletics... in American English, a comma would be needed after "in addition", but not sure what it is in British English so I'll let you respond.
 Done added comma. British english is the same on this matter.
I think replacing after the war until 1958 with after the war until its end in 1958 would be a bit clearer; right now it makes it seem like it moved after 1958 and we only known it didn't by reading a preceding sentence
 Done as suggested.
Would suggest replacing where horse racing events were held which for horse racing, but this is not a requirement; it's more of a personal preference so I won't hold it against the GA criteria
 Done does seem unnecessarily wordy.
Like the others, not sure I feel about having the information about Mafeking Park and Carlisle Park duplicating their own pages
 Done reworded and slimmed the text for both
Clarify that Mafeking Park is not actually the smallest in the world and the attempts to have it listed as such were unsuccessful, maybe was unsuccessfully put forward by locals to be listed
 Done per your suggestion.
Delete "notably" before the park has one of the only four floral clocks in England
 Done removed.
Link A free-standing 17th century clock tower to Morpeth Clock Tower
 Done now is Morpeth Clock Tower, a free-standing 17th century clock tower.
I'm going to contradict what I said earlier about the {{commons}} template; sorry about that. Per WP:Wikimedia sister projects#Where to place links, I think it would be better to create an external links section for the Commons link, but use {{commons-inline}} instead.
Ok.  Done.
The portals didn't need to be switched to an inline template; they were fine the way they were, I think.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok.  Done Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 18:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
MOS:ALSO says As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. The see also section for this article consists almost entirely of subjects discussed in detail and linked many times in the body.
 Done removed all duplicate links, except the portals per WP:Portal guidelines#Linking to portals and because navboxes can't be seen by mobile users, for more than half of readers the link would not be there.
Current political makeup Any idea as of when? WP:RELTIME
 Done Since May 2017, and added source.
Could you add the website parameter for ref #3?
 Done.
Nitpick, but sometimes you link to Morpeth Herald in the ref section and other times you don't. How about just link it for the first ref and not at all for the rest?
 Done. Also done for The Journal (newspaper), Northumberland County Council and Historic England. All pages should only linked from the page by at max 5 times.
In some of the refs you have text in the publisher field when it should be in the website/work field (refs 13, 14, 15, 20, 22, 27, 39, 44, 45, 46)
 Done as suggested.
I'd suggest just removing 32 and the material it supports
 Done removed as suggested
14 February 2019:

Any reason why "Churchyard" in St Mary's Churchyard is capitalized? Churchyard is not a proper noun and I don't think St. Mary's Churchyard is either.
 Done decapitalized. No reason for capitalization. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 14:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The third paragraph seems to be written strangely: first castle destroyed, bridge built in 13th century, another castle built in 13th century. I'd suggest grouping the info about the castles together and putting the bridge info afterwards, unless there are sources that make it clear that the second castle was built after the bridge.
@SkyGazer 512: I am unsure about this. The way it is written currently allows it to flow nicely into more information about the castle (which definitely happened after the bridge was built). By splitting these statements it would then still jump (if it needed to keep to chronological order), as it would then go "castle castle bridge castle". I don't mind changing it to be this way, but I would say the reasons you want to change it would counteract your idea too. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 14:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz: Well, is there a source that states that the castle was after the bridge? You could mention that it was after very briefly, I suppose.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
SkyGazer 512, I don't think there is any source that would day either way. However, the wording from keys to the past does say that it was "probably 13th century". What I'll do is follow your suggestion now. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 Done Split up the info about Morpeth Castle into the building and post 1500s stuff. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Can you supply a page number for ref 30?
Not too sure if I can. I didn't add it, but I have a look to see if I can find it.
 Done Found it on archive.org. Will add page number and link. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 14:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Not a fan of how the first part of the Climate section is written. First you talk about the weather station, and then there's suddenly a table about the weather of Morpeth without prose about it. How about add to the first paragraph: The following table shows the data from 1971–2000, recorded at 95 metres (312 ft) elevation: and remove the caption from the table? I feel like that would be better. Also, this is not a requirement, just a personal preference, but I'd suggest replacing the first sentence of the Climate section with Cockle Park, located slightly north of Morpeth, contains a Met Office weather station, founded in 1897. If you go with the second suggestion, you'd have to change the second sentence I suggested to The following table shows the climate data of the station from 1971–2000, recorded at 95 metres (312 ft) elevation:
 Done I can't remove the caption completely as {{Weather box}} has the top caption as a requirement, so I have left it with only "Morpeth, Cockle Park"
Thanks, that should do
I'm a bit skeptical of this for reliability.
 Done I have removed this source in favour of the keys to the past, which is used elsewhere.
3 March 2019:

Take a look at User:SkyGazer 512/sandbox. I've rewritten the lead so that it hopefully does a slightly better job summarizing the article as a whole. You know more about this subject than I do so if you want to skim through it to make sure there aren't any errors before replacing the lead in the main article with that, that would be much appreciated.
 Done looks great. I'll paste the new lead in. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
"Another possible meaning is that the name" sounds a bit jumbled. Can you think of a better way to word this? Honestly, I'm not sure the best way to word it and if you can't think of a better wording either I think we can just leave it; not a deal-breaker.
 Done (not changed) I can't think of a better way to word it.
Nitpick but "over the years" in the Transport section seems redundant
 Done (removed) It does seem a bit extra to requirements for the sentence.
A former line ran west, any idea when this former line was? Having the exact year isn't a requirement, but it would be nice to know whether it was a few years ago or centuries ago.
I have found the wiki pages for both parts of the line which this sentence talks about. They are Border Counties Railway and Wansbeck Railway. I'll look into this now
Can't find any sources (except books without pages), so I don't think I can find anything. However, [1] does mention about the rothbury line closing in 1952, but I'll continue to look.
Found [2] which is about the rothbury branch line ::::: Done Crucially [3] which says Wannie Line, which opened in the middle of the 19th Century and saw its last train run in 1966 and It ran for 25 miles through rural Northumberland from Morpeth to Reedsmouth, near Bellingham.. Basically in this news article, it says that the Morpeth to Redesmouth line (which is the Wansbeck Railway) closed in 1966. Because the line which terminated at Hexham used the Wansbeck Railway, it cannot have run after 1966, so this is when the former line closed. I'll add this in now. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
renamed to King Edward VI Grammar School before the 1940s The source uses the current term in 1947, not 1940 or before. So how about, for accuracy, change it to "by 1947" if you can't find the exact date anywhere?
 Done thanks. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
A little bit unclear about "Stobhill housing estate"; a housing estate is a group of houses or sometimes other buildings... is the school located in such a housing estate? Based on what the rest of the article says, Stobhill is actually a section of Morpeth and not just a housing estate.
 Done The estate is actually called "Stobhillgate" so corrected it. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The church is mostly in the 14th century style and was the main Anglican place of worship in the area until the 1840s These two don't seem related at all, so probably shouldn't be in the same sentence. How about make the first paragraph The ancient Church of England parish church of Morpeth is St Mary's at Highchurch, which was the main Anglican place of worship in the area until the 1840s. The church is mostly in the 14th century style. The grave of Emily Wilding Davison lies in St Mary's graveyard. or something like that, of course adding the refs as necessary?
 Done as suggested. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Roman Catholic Church and Methodist Church have "church" capitalized in the headings but not in the prose below them. Consistency, maybe?
 Done capitalized Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
until its end in 1958 in the Sport section should probably be clarified to "until the end of the games", as it was not the end of the war
 Done as suggested Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
In 1730, a racecourse was built for horse racing, until 1854, when the racetrack was replaced with St. George's Hospital I think I suggested this wording originally, so apologies for requesting a modification now, but I would suggest somehow clarifying that it didn't take 124 years to build the racecourse!
 Done changed to which was used until 1854 as this says that the racecourse was used. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
In the Landmarks section, move the Mafeking Park info to the end of the second paragraph, just to group related info together.
 Done as suggested Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Demanding consistency for every single ref would be out of the scope of GA and against WP:GACRNOT, but would you consider at least making the references for a single website consistent? Right now, multiple sources on the same website vary from having the base URL as the website and the site name as the publisher, just the base URL as the website, just the site name as the website, or having the website name in the title.
 Done I have removed the website when not needed and done other improvements. Ref's for a website should be consistent which each other in terms of formatting etc.
Do you know anything about the publisher, owner, etc. of bookings.landmarktrust.org? Since the website is no longer up and only archived, it's hard for me to find this info myself, but it would be nice to know for reliability.
@SkyGazer 512: it looks like it is the old website URL for [4], similar information is found at [5] but not enough to replace this source (as the archived source talks about how she was ill). I'll look for other sources now. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Found [6] (which may not be too reliable, but I am unsure). Found [7] and [8] and [9]. I'll replace the archive with some of these. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done (replaced with other sources) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Ref 81 seems to support "High Church", not "Highchurch"
 Done changed all occurrences to "High Church". Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
A bit skeptical of the reliability of this
 Done (replaced) found [10]. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 13:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
A bit skeptical of the reliability of this
 Done (replaced) found Keys To The Past entry [11] Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 13:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The issues are dwindling down a lot, really the only reason this review is taking as long as it is is because I am slacking too much, which I apologize for. I'll really try to pick this up for the next week or so. I'm almost done rewriting the lead in my sandbox and I fixed the inconsistent date formats on this page and made a few copy-edits. Will do a few more prose and source checks.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 04:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

SkyGazer 512, thanks. I'll keep a eye on my watchlist for when you post more issues. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
And of course, as soon as I finish the issue list on my computer, I discover the next morning that somehow it was deleted from my computer or not saved or something and I can't seem to recover it... that's annoying. So now I have to try to remember whatever I can of what I had on there and then re-read the whole article again. I apologize for that happening.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
SkyGazer 512, its fine. I accidentally delete things all the time...  Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 15:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, I think this is just about everything now. I'm going to put this on hold for you to address the March 3 issues and this probably could pass (although I may do one or two more quick spot-checks). Excellent job addressing the issues so far Dreamy Jazz! This should be pretty much all that's required to meet the GA criteria, although again, I may do a few spot-checks. Also, I am very sad to hear that you are semi-retiring; you have done spectacular work for Wikipedia and are a wonderful person to work with. But I understand that real-life issues happen.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the reason the file got deleted was because my computer does a weird automatic-restart thing every month or so and I must have not adequately saved the file. The settings on my computer have now been changed so that it doesn't do that!--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 04:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz: Looks much better now, especially the references section. I've looked over the article and I do not see any issues that would prevent this from passing GA besides the possible unreliable sources I pointed out. So once those are fixed, this should be able to pass.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 20:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
SkyGazer 512, thanks. I'll get onto that now. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 13:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Dreamy Jazz. Just curious if you saw the bookings.landmarktrust.org bullet point, I know it's kind of buried in between others so you may have simply not noticed it.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 19:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
SkyGazer 512, I have noticed it, but I ran out of time yesterday. I should be able to deal with it today. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 07:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
That's absolutely fine, Dreamy Jazz, I just wanted to make sure you saw it.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
SkyGazer 512, all issues responded to. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz: Thanks! Let me do a quick look over this to make sure I didn't miss anything obvious and then I'll pass this.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 @Dreamy Jazz: Alright, I've looked over this and made a few minor edits. There are still two things, however: the website is actually the Northumberland website, is it correct to have such a general website for specific towns in Northumberland? Also, I'd suggest replaying the 2nd and 3rd to last sentences in the last paragraph of the lead with Two middle schools and seven primary schools are situated in Morpeth, as well as several churches of Anglican, Roman Catholic, United Reformed and Methodist denominations. There are already quite a few short, choppy sentences in the lead. When these are addressed, I will pass this.--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 15:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@SkyGazer 512:  Done. 1: Removed the website (there is not really a website for the town per se) and 2: Changed as suggested. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz: All the criteria appear to be met now, so I believe I'll pass this now. I'm sorry it took so long for this to happen, part of the reason behind that was having to check as many sources as I possibly could to make sure they supported everything, but part of it was just me procrastinating. I know you said that you're semi-retiring (which like I said, I'm sad about), but if you ever decide to come back, which I really hope you do, and improve another article to GA status, I'd suggest you try to get it as close to meeting the criteria as possible before nominating it; this will just make things easier for both you and the reviewer. :-) You worked very, very hard on getting this to GA status, so thank you!--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 14:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I have now passed this. Congratulations on your first GA!--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 15:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
SkyGazer 512, thank you for sticking with it. I've enjoyed working with you on the improvements to this article. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 07:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


### 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 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):  (free of other verifiability issues): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Hello Morpethists! Obviously I'm thinking of people like SkyGazer 512 and Dreamy Jazz but all comments are welcome, natch. Yes, this is offtopic for here but I think you might be the right people to ask ... please have a quick look at Cockle Park Tower and its recent edit history and let me know – perhaps at Talk:Cockle Park Tower rather than here? – if you think I have been stupid there? Or, even better, if not stupid!? – Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: Hi, I don't really know much about this Cockle Park Tower, but I've taken a quick look over your edits and the sources and your edits look very helpful to me. Dreamy Jazz may know more about this. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks SkyGazer 512 for the helpful response. Much appreciated. Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, sorry for the late reply. Looks good. I have seen it before, but don't know about it. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 12:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Hoping to go and have a look at it over the Easter holiday ... our great, great, great grandfather was born there in 1772 so might be interesting. Maybe he left us a note or something? Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there any good reason why the lead image for this article is a road sign pointing to a property 12 miles distant from Morpeth? @Dreamy Jazz: - your work? What's the story here? --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, i think it was because it was an interesting image to me which was taken in morpeth (the sign is on one of the main roads in morpeth) and there wasn't many suitable images allowing the lead image to be licensed freely (had to be landscape and an image which would still look fine a lot smaller). No particular need for it to be this image (I could change it using the original project files I used to create the image, in a couple of days time when I am back to my computer). If you have any suggestions, feel free to suggest them. If not, I'll see what I can find to replace it when I'm back at my computer. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks DJ. I see the issue; Morpeth isn't over-blessed with a collection of images, other than yet another building the same colour as the last building. Perhaps File:Morpeth, Northumberland (14447107850).jpg by way of colour & impressing on the reader that the town has a river? Poor unphotographable town; it must look at Category:Alnwick and seethe ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Tagishsimon, I could probably take some more photographs of the town given some time. I'll go with your suggestion; the rowing boats in morpeth are a particularly important thing to some of the locals. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Tagishsimon done. Also now is a PNG image for better quality. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Good job, DJ; thank you. Much improved. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Caption/explanation for the rowing boats in lead image perhaps for non-Morpeth people, e.g. "Wansbeck river at Carlisle Park"? Helmardine (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, and done - also the imagemap extended to provide a link beneath the boat image ... DJ, please feel free to amend any and all of this should you wish. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)