Talk:Scheduled monuments in Somerset

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scheduled Monuments in Somerset/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 15:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Beginning first close reading. I've amended a few typos, but please check my changes. A first general point: the article is laden down with duplicate links. There are four links to the Mendip Hills, six to Bronze Age, eight to Neolithic and so on. See WP:OVERLINK: you need to reduce all links to one apiece in the lead and one apiece in the main text. (For notes and image captions there is no limit.) There is a very handy and simple tool here that helps enormously. Comments on particular points follow shortly. – Tim riley talk 15:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - hopefully addressed.— Rod ^talk 17:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

References

• General: for printed sources you are inconsistent in giving the location before the publisher's name: cf refs 47 and 48, 57 and 58 etc.
• Ref 1 mentions HMSO, but ref 3 expands this to "Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO)", which would be better moved to ref 1, perhaps?
• Ref 10: link takes one to a picture of the cover: no use for WP:V. Page number needed.
• Ref 14: part of the url is showing in the piping
• Ref 15: we take all cap words down to ulc: MOS:ALLCAPS
• Ref 23: page number?
• Ref 38: page number?
• Ref 56: nothing happens when I click on this link, and the wording is too short to enable one to guess where to look.
• Ref 64: page number?
• Ref 66: as with ref 56 – I infer from spotting ref 57 that this is some form of WP:IBID, but it isn't working here.

More shortly. Tim riley talk 15:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've dealt with some of these. The short form are Template:Sfn copied from other articles, now expanded. A few of the refs will need a trip back to the library so give me a few days.— Rod ^talk 17:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Detailed comments on text

• Bath and North East Somerset
  • "which pales it in the Late Neolithic" – strange verb: is it a typo?
    • Type - done.— Rod ^talk 17:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "hillforts" – I see this links to the WP article "Hill forts" – two words. Any reason why we don't follow suit here?
    • Done— Rod ^talk 17:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Mendip
  • "particularly around the Charterhouse Roman Town and lead mining" – not sure what this means: are the sites around the town and the mining or are the sites and mining around the town?
    • Hopefully reworded to make sense.— Rod ^talk 17:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• North Somerset
  • "You say, but I don't think you mean, that the administrative headquarters has a resident population of 202,566
    • Sorted.— Rod ^talk 17:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Taunton Deane
  • "and serve as a memorial" – either "to serve", "and served" or "and serves", I imagine.
    • Done— Rod ^talk 17:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "is included" – "are included" as you list two things: walls and castle
    • Done— Rod ^talk 17:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "uncertain date; however, the most recent" – I have amended the punctuation, but I question whether you want "however" there at all: it dilutes the prose, to my mind.
    • Done— Rod ^talk 17:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• West Somerset
  • "number of packhorse," - is there a word missing here?
    • The word was bridges.— Rod ^talk 17:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That's all my quibbles on the text. Nothing very serious. This article is an adroit and pretty much ideal overview and is clearly heading to GA. Once you have addressed these points, and those mentioned earlier – most pressingly the overlinking – we can proceed. – Tim riley talk 16:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all comments. I've addressed some but will need a few days for some of the page numbers (and I'm off to a beer festival tonight).— Rod ^talk 17:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No rush. I'll look in again in the latter part of next week. Enjoy the festival! Tim riley talk 17:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting the last couple of page numbers. I have reserved them at the local library but they are having to get them from another branch.— Rod ^talk 06:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I think given your recent FL triumph with List of English Heritage properties in Somerset we can observe the formalities here without further delay, with you tidying up the page numbers once the books arrive from the library. I've included a mention of this in the checklist below. Tim riley talk 09:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced: a bit of agreed tidying up remaining to be done after this review

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

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

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Tim riley talk 09:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've listed the article under Wikipedia:Good articles/Geography and places#Nature reserves.2C conservation areas and countryside routes, but if you think another sub-heading would be more suitable please feel free to move it (adjusting the sub-totals at the bottom of each list accordingly). Tim riley talk 10:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I think "Urban and historical sites" would probably be best.— Rod ^talk 17:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. Please go ahead. Tim riley talk 17:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I've never fiddled with that page & following your comment about sub-totals could you do it?— Rod ^talk 17:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course. Will do now. But that reminds me to invite you to think about reviewing some articles for GAN in future: the mechanics are quite straightforward. Tim riley talk 18:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

What I believe is the final page number needed has now been added. Thanks for the invite to review but I tend to spend my "wikitime" on other work.— Rod ^talk 12:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)