# Talk:Derwent Valley Mills

Regarding the sentence, 'The site consists of the communities of Masson, Cromford, Belper, Milford, Darley Abbey and Lombe's Mills, and it includes 867 listed buildings', 'Masson' doesn't really name a community but a large hill on which parts of Cromford, Matlock Bath and the hamlet of Scarthin, and further round away from the World Heritage Site parts of Matlock, Bonsall, Winster etc, are built. I'm therefore deleting the word 'masson' from this sentence.

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Derwent Valley Mills/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewing, don't want Nev's book sources to go stale!Pyrotec (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


### Initial comments
This article appears to be somewhere between a GA and an FA, but I suspect that it has insufficient in-line citations for FA; and I can't award FA anyway. Still, as you have Cooper(?) for another week or so I might as well find some 'problems'.Pyrotec (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't considered taking it to FA... that's something to think about. The inline citations would just be a matter of copying and pasting, where for example one reference is given for an entire paragraph, that's the only sourced used for it. Nev1 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


### More detailed comments
Location and coverage
Appears to be OK, if you're going for FA perhaps a map or a stylised map of the WHO site could be helpful. I'm not making this a condition of GA.
History -
It's not made clear in the first paragraph of the article (and I discovered it by following links), but this paragraph appears to be about mechanising silk spinning, not silk weaving, etc.
The rest of the section appears to be satisfactory.
Woops, I've now made it clear early on that Arkwright was involved in cotton production, not silk. Nev1 (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Transport -
Both subsections are compliant with GA-requirements. I would only make the comment that you are using Cooper as a sole source for both canal and railways. This is of course compliant with WP:Verify; but looking at both relevant articles, other sources are quoted and have been used.
Legacy -
Being from the 'west' rather than the 'east', I see some east-bias here. I was taught about Robert Owen and New Lanark an other UNECSO site; that is not too dissimilar to the Derwent Valley mills.
Good point, I also forgot to mention Saltaire in Yorkshire. I think all three were listed at the same session of the WHO. Nev1 (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Second paragraph appears compliant.
Preservation -
This appears to be compliant. However, there is a bit of an information 'gap' between the involvment of the Arkwright Society in 1979 and the 2001 designation as a World Heritage Site (yes you do mention the clean up). Is there any citable information that can be included about the decision to bid, and the bid itself, to obtain UNESCO World Heritage designation?
Some more details about the 1970s and 1980s have been added, although it was easier to find info on why the site was proposed as a WHS. Nev1 (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:Lead -
Your lead is rather 'thin', but it is just about adequate. The lead is intended to do two things: provide an introduction to the subject and summarise the main points of the article.  The two paragraphs provide quite a good introduction, but a very skimply summary. I would suggest that the lead is expanded to three paragraphs and a slightly 'meatier' summary of the site's history be provided.
I've expanded the lead, and it now provides a better summary. Nev1 (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Pyrotec (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

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: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding GA-status. I suspect that you have a resonable chance of WP:FAC, but I would recommend that you use some additional references for your some of in-line citations. Looking at the articles, behind the canal and the reilway sections, there appear to be an aedquate number of canal and railway references that could serve the same purpose as Cooper. This however, has no bearing on the GA-assessment.Pyrotec (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Derwent Valley Mills. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090221113752/http://www.derby.gov.uk:80/LeisureCulture/MuseumsGalleries/Derby_Industrial_Museum.htm to http://www.derby.gov.uk/LeisureCulture/MuseumsGalleries/Derby_Industrial_Museum.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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 13:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the WikiProject Derbyshire Talk Page on the merits of creating a new category to link together different pages and topics relevant to the World Heritage Site. Any thoughts or suggestions would be welcome there. 
. . . And for anyone reading this in October 2017, don't forget Derbyshire Discovery Days are about to kick off from 14th October, visiting many features within the WHS. Full programme of events and details on the Derwent Valley Mills website.
Nick Moyes (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)