# Talk:Windy Nook

This review is transcluded from Talk:Windy Nook/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Right. I will make comments below and copyedit as I go. Please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The name Windy Nook derives from "the lofty and exposed nature of the situation it occupies - looks awkward just sitting there out on its own. When does the name date from? Can we tack this onto the next para?
I've joined the sections. Meetthefeebles (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok. I'll have a think about it. I fell asleep soon after starting which is why I stopped so suddenly....now where was I......Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The result is a "very popular area of high demand" in privately-owned and social housing - in general quotes should be discouraged unless the quote itself is memorable or there is no other way of expressing the information without paraphrasing. This should be de-quoted.
Done Meetthefeebles (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Exact boundaries are difficult to identify... - can this be sourced?
I doubt it can be. I'm heading into work shortly and will pinch ten minutes to check when I get there. The difficulty I have found when writing these Gateshead articles is that historical villages like Windy Nook no longer have official boundaries and have simply been enveloped with neighbouring sprawl. This makes finding the boundaries very frustrating. It may be that this section needs a slight re-write. Meetthefeebles (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I've now looked again and simply can't find anything. I've removed the potentially contentious statement and will simply leave the description of the map...Meetthefeebles (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A frustrating aspect of writing articles is watching possible OR issues where maps are being interpreted. I've been ok with what I've read so far but it can be tricky to navigate. Have to keep to a very straightforward description of a map and be wary of analysis as such.
Do you have something specific in mind here? Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
There are three venues today in Windy Nook.- "today" is redundant here as the verb "is" already signifies it is in the present. "Today" is often redundant for this reason, so it is worth checking all instances. Sometimes it is useful as a contrastive.
I've removed that particular 'today' and will have a scan though the rest shortly... Meetthefeebles (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Given the Windy Nook Nature Reserve is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest it'd be nice to expand upon some of the conservation details regarding it. Was it planted with local indigenous plants? What plants and animals are found there? Does it have a weed problem? Given it is unlikely to get its own article it'd be nice to expand upon some of this here.
The dificulty here is that old chestnut, WP:V. I know all of this information, but trying to verify it will be difficult– Gateshead Council are notoriously crap at providing what should be basic information about stuff that belongs to them (I have recently spent a full day trying, and failing, to find an official capacity for Gateshead International Stadium, for example). I'll have another root around when I get to work in a bit... Meetthefeebles (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Heh, yeah, us aussies have done amazing plant censuses of all sorts of remnant fragments of bushland. I am in inner Sydney and have had the benefit of published notes of many great local environmentalists...I figure if you can't find it, then it can't be found and hence is unexpandable (hence can be stricken as a possible improvement...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I've looked again and made some small additions but, incredibly, there is simply nothing about the wildlife that I can see. Typical Gateshead Council: their entire website content is available here and, as you can see, it is a veritable treasure trove of useful information... Meetthefeebles (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
1. Well written?:

Prose quality: 
Manual of Style compliance: 
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: 
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research:  (care is needed in this category, but is often necessary in obscure topics I agree)
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: 
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: 
5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): 
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall: 

Pass or Fail:  - minor tweaks and we're done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Nice development of a article on a local area. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)