Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:07, 27 June 2024

	Leeds Country Way has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 24, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Yorkshire Low‑importance Leeds Country Way is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Hiking trails (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hiking trails, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Hiking trailsWikipedia:WikiProject Hiking trailsTemplate:WikiProject Hiking trailsHiking trails UK geography Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Leeds This article is within the scope of WikiProject Leeds, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Leeds on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LeedsWikipedia:WikiProject LeedsTemplate:WikiProject LeedsLeeds Backpacking (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Backpacking, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BackpackingWikipedia:WikiProject BackpackingTemplate:WikiProject BackpackingBackpacking

GA assessment

Unfortunately, I had to fail this outright, simply because the style wasn't very good, mainly in the route section. 1-2 sentence paragraphs a GA does not make. Fix these and you can certainly resubmit it for consideration. Wizardman 01:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-looking it again and after discussion, I'd like someone else to have a look at it. Wizardman 19:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion

This is a nice article, very close to GA. I don't see that the short sentences in the Route section are at all a matter for concern; they map nicely onto the route itself. There are a few minor MOS issues, but they're easily fixed.

I do have a very few other comments though:

• "... the path was relaunched on 26 September 2006". I'm not sure about this. How can a path be "launched"?
• "The Leeds Country Way is a circular long-distance footpath ... It follows footpaths ...". So it's a footpath that follows a footpath?
• "Here there is a glimpse of a small village, not marked on any map, which is the set for the TV series Emmerdale ..." I'm left dangling with that. Is it a real village, or a set for Emmerdale?
• "The river is followed downstream ...". Best to keep it all active I'd suggest: "The path follows the river downstream ...".
• "The path from Carlton ..". Perhaps better would be "From Carlton, the path ..."?
• "celebrated maypole" sounds like POV without a supporting reference.
• "From here the path skirts south of West Ardsley, and reaches Woodkirk with its historic church, on the A653. The ruins of Howley Hall (built 1590 for Sir John Savile) are passed before dropping down to reach Scotchman Lane." I think this bothers me because the first sentence is written from the point of view of the path, but the second seems to be taking the point of view of the walker. I'm probably being too picky about that though ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuarum (talk • contribs) 22:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Overall, I think this article well deserves to be listed as a GA once those few small issues are addressed.

--Malleus Fatuarum 22:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we've between us addressed all these points (I hit an edit conflict at one point while we were both acting on it). Thanks for the comment about the maypole - I found a good ref and a non-POV description! How does it look now? (Will get back to it tomorrow - no more for now). Thanks for your help and kind words. (I thought the ref re Emmerdale clarified the status of the village, but have made it clearer now.) PamD 22:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Blimey, you don't let the grass grow under your feet! It's such a pleasure to work with a committed and responsive editor like yourself, on what can sometimes seem to be an unnecessarily stressful review process. I've got absolutely no hesitation at all now in listing this article as a GA. I look forward to reading many more of your contributions in the future. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I know it's probably a nit-pick but the route specifically follows public Rights of Way (in rural areas) and footpaths/roads in urban areas. A Public Right of Way is deemed different from a footpath in that the ROW may be a Bridleway (with horse & bycycle access) or may indeed be a route open to all traffic.

The reference to 'launched' should really be re-launched as the route was changed (as mentioned in the article) to fall entirely within the Leeds Metropolitan boundry. Rather confusingly the Ordnance Survery Explorer Maps of 2006 show both the old & new routes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac.hawk (talk • contribs) 20:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Leeds Country Way/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 10:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Leeds Country Way. 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/20070209004114/http://www.leeds.gov.uk/Environment_and_planning/Parks_and_open_spaces/Nature_reserves/page.aspx to http://www.leeds.gov.uk/Environment_and_planning/Parks_and_open_spaces/Nature_reserves/page.aspx
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130209183510/http://www.wymetro.com/HowToGetTo/LCW.htm to http://www.wymetro.com/HowToGetTo/LCW.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) 21:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

GA concerns

After quickly skimming the article, I am concerned that the article does not meet the good article criteria anymore. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• There are several uncited paragraphs.
• The history section is quite short. Can this be expanded upon?
• Any commentary about the reception of this footpath? What do people think about this route?
• The lede is quite short. I would expect it to be longer.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? If not, it might be nominated for WP:GAR. Z1720 (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Geography and places good articles
• GA-Class Yorkshire articles
• Low-importance Yorkshire articles
• WikiProject Yorkshire articles
• GA-Class UK geography articles
• Low-importance UK geography articles