Talk:Bridgwater Bay

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bridgwater Bay/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 08:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll review this one in detail over the next few days. Just for the record, I, too, am a Wikicup participant, but I do not believe it will affect my judgement in this matter. Vanamonde (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Issues addressed

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   No issues

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   No issues with source formatting

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   All sources appear to be acceptable for the things they are used for.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Issues have been addressed

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No issues found: Earwig's tool only flags youtube descriptions that seem to have been lifted from here. Duplication found Issues addressed.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Issues addressed

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No tangential material

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No issues

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No issues

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Images seem appropriately licensed.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   No issues

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Passing shortly.

Specific comments

Geography

• The level of detail in this section is good, but for those of us unacquainted with the area's geography, it would be helpful to have a more general sentence at the beginning, like "Bridgewater Bay forms a portion of the coastline of Somerset on the southern bank of the severn estuary" or something like that.
• "There are steep cliffs" Odd prose: perhaps "It is bounded by steep cliffs..."
• Sentence beginning "There is evidence" is rather long
• What are "field systems", since these are not linked?
• Sentence about Marconi is not sourced, and it would also be interested to read where he transmitted to.
• The sentence about the hovercraft appears unsourced: even if it is supported by a later source, I would suggest duplicating the ref
• Shouldn't "man-made" be hyphenated?
• It would be really nice to have a map of the bay that shows some of the features described in the prose, but of course, this is not mandatory at this stage.
• If it is not possible to provide a map, I think it might be necessary to describe in some way how the various features you describe in the Geography section relate to one another.
• "red brick retort" should be either linked or explained.

Thanks for your comments. I have tried to address them as suggested except for the map which is beyond my capabilities. Which specific relationships of the features need to be further explained?— Rod ^talk 17:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Would the map at File:Map of Somerset Levels.png be useful?— Rod ^talk 20:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that map would hurt, but I do not think it addresses my comments. Here is the issue: in the "geography" section, you mention Brean Down, Hinkley POint, Burnham-on-Sea, the Steart Peninsula, Watchet, East Quantoxhead, and Kilve (and maybe a couple of others). Apart from the first of these, it is difficult for an unfamiliar reader to figure out what these places are in relation to each other. A map would do this: lacking a map, one could say something like "major features along the coastline, running from east to west, include the following." Does that make any sense?

Ecology

• There's a few problems with links in the ecology section. A single taxon should be linked once, and the link should be at the title of article, which is sometimes the scientific name and sometimes the common name. Occasionally it may be necessary to link a taxon broader than a single species. What we should not have is multiple links for the same taxon, even if one or both of these is red.
• Since grazing is mentioned with respect to its impacts on flora, it would be appropriate to say what is doing the grazing, and why (as in, is this pasture land, intentionally grazed, or state land, with deer?)
• There are several unsourced statements in both the flora and fauna section. As somebody with a good many GAs (certainly more than me) surely you knew this would come up?

• I have attempted to address some of these, but limited time availavble at present and will not be able to work further on this for a couple of days.— Rod ^talk 17:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• That's quite okay, let me know when you are ready for me to resume. I think we're nearly through this, anyhow. Vanamonde (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your understanding. I'm now back & despite being busy at work ready to respond to any further comments you may have.— Rod ^talk 18:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• I realised rather belatedly that " A Nature Conservation Review Grade 1* site" does not mean anything to most people. Can you perhaps provide a parenthetical explanation?

• I've added a short explanation & wikilink.— Rod ^talk 18:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Lede

• The Oil Spill plan is not mentioned anywhere but in the lede.

• I have added this to Ecology.— Rod ^talk 08:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede is rather confusing at the moment.

• I have attempted to reword this. Is it the mention of "Pawlett Hams" local terminology? If so it is explained at Pawlett, Somerset.— Rod ^talk 08:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• I've copy-edited it for flow, which included removing the mention of Pawlett. If you still feel it necessary, you could incorporate it: but the confusing bit is the repetition of "including".

• How did you choose those particular species to mention in the lede? Are they the most threatened, or prominent?

• I don't have a logical rationale for this selection (possibly what was first in the article) and would welcome advice (or edits) as I'm not an ornithologist.— Rod ^talk 08:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• I would suggest mentioning those, typically rare or otherwise notable species, which are given prominence in the sources.

• The various rivers are also not mentioned in the body.

• I've added these to geography.— Rod ^talk 18:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• Okay, I began to spot-check the sources, and the very first ones I checked do not support the text they are used for: 41 and 42 make no mentions of vagrants, harriers, or pippits. This means that I'm going to have to check more of the sources, which is going to take longer than I had originally expected. Vanamonde (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• I added those two when short of time. I will look for others to support those claims which have been in the article for over 5 years.— Rod ^talk 08:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Okay: in that case, I will hold off for a few days, to let you check and add citations. Let me know when you've added them. I would strongly suggest that you recheck every claim that you did not personally add to this article. Vanamonde (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• I believe all the species listed are now supported by one or more of the references given. If I have missed any let me know, but some of the rarer birds may not be particularly well recorded as may have been few sightings.— Rod ^talk 16:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Rodw, I will begin to check, but I would strongly suggest that you go through all the species listed here and source them, or remove them. It is quite okay for us to have an incomplete list, because we cannot practically list every species here: but a falsely listed taxon is a series problem. Vanamonde (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• I am now certain that every birds species included is supported by at least one source (and in most cases several).— Rod ^talk 16:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• I just checked citation number two, this, and found extensive amounts of text that are identical between them. this tool might be useful I am going to assume good faith that you were not aware of this, but I'm afraid the problem is serious enough that unless it is rapidly addressed, I will have to fail this nomination. I'm just mystified as to why Earwig's tool did not catch it.

• I've tried the dup detector & you are right it doesn't show anything. On a visual check I'm not seeing the large sections you mention - can you give a me a hint as to which sections? I was not aware of this and will try to address.— Rod ^talk 18:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps I wasn't clear: Earwig's tool doesn't flag anything. The duplication detector, does. If it's not working for you, download the source as a pdf (which should be quite easy) then use the "advanced" option which lets you upload a pdf. Vanamonde (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks I see the matches now - I will have reworded them by end of tomorrow but have to go out very soon.— Rod ^talk 18:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• I have now reworded these. The exceptions where 3 or 4 words are the same are species names.— Rod ^talk 21:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• To address the question of comprehensiveness, I'm wondering if there is any substantial coverage of the human history of the bay: or indeed, of the geologic history

• Bristol Channel floods, 1607 is mentioned & linked. I have been meaning to write an article on 'mudhorse fishing' (see here) but not sure there are significant sources. The geology is varied (from mendip limestone to shingle & mud flats + tidal range) but to the best of my knowledge and sources all included in the geography section.— Rod ^talk 10:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• All of my concerns have been addressed, and so I am now passing this. If you wish to take this further, I would recommend going into the history in more detail. Thank you for addressing my suggestions promptly, and I hope you found the review helpful. One comment: this article was clearly not meeting the criteria when nominated. Things such as prose clarity, occasional sourcing issues, comprehensiveness, etc, are the stuff of a GA review: but duplication of text, and unsourced text, are things that should be cleaned up before. Just something to keep in mind. Vanamonde (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bridgwater Bay. 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/20080910045332/http://www.english-nature.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1001145.pdf to http://www.english-nature.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1001145.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121007090148/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=265166 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=265166

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) 18:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bridgwater Bay. 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/20121104205859/http://www.english-nature.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1003155.pdf to http://www.english-nature.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1003155.pdf

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) 12:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)