Talk:Westhay Moor/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 14:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I will review the main body of the article first, leaving the lead until last. As you fix issues (assuming there are some), please mark them with the {done} template or similar. I am not a fan of using strike-through, as it makes the text difficult to read, and this page is an important record of why GA status was awarded. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

General

There are a number of dead links. You can use the External Links item in the GA toolbox to see which ones.

I did checklinks when nominating a couple of months ago but it is surprising how many had failed since. Hopefully now fixed.— Rod ^talk 15:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The use of units is inconsistent. The lead tends to use Metric (imperial), while most of the article used Imperial (metric) with some the other way round. Can I suggest you decide on which way to present such data and keep the ordering the same throughout.

I hope I've now caught these.— Rod ^talk 15:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There are still two - the length of Galton's Canal and the peat shrinkage.

Thanks - got em now.— Rod ^talk 11:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Location

• Glastonbury Tor is composed of Upper Lias Sand. Is sand the right word here? It suggests granular material composed of finely divided particles (according to Wikipedia), and the article on Glastonbury Tor describes it as sandstone, which is rather different.

• Changed to Blue Lias.— Rod ^talk 16:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Although sea level changes ... led to changes in sea level ... This needs rewording to remove the truism.

• I've had another go at a couple of sentences here to improve the flow as well as removing the truism.— Rod ^talk 16:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• The final paragraph has no references, but makes claims to nationally important grazing marsh and ditch systems. It could do with a ref for this and perhaps for the raising and lowering of the water levels.

• Some reordering & adding refs - (mostly to the SSSI citation sheet).— Rod ^talk 16:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

History

• First paragraph. The second half of the paragraph again has no refs. Also, the use of was displayed without any context reads awkwardly. Suggest "Until its closure in 2009, ..." or similar. There are a number of sites that mention the Centre and what it did, including Heritage Journal

• Reworded and refs added.— Rod ^talk 16:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• it is filled with ... detritus mud, especially in the Subatlantic climatic period... needs rewording or the tense adjusting. Perhaps "mainly dating from the Subatlantic climatic period" or similar.

• Changed to your wording.— Rod ^talk 16:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Further reclamation was carried out in stages between about 1620 and 1740, with the "new Cutts" (or Decoy Rhyne) being built about 1600. Is this date right, since 1600 is not between 1620 and 1740. I am also struggling to find the details in the reference.

• It should have been 1660 - changed & ref added.— Rod ^talk 16:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Over each ditch is series of hoops... Should this be "is a series of hoops?

• Changed,— Rod ^talk 16:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• The combination of ditch and net-covered hoop is known as a pipe. Should this be "hoops?"

• Changed.— Rod ^talk 16:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Peat extraction

• The peat from raised bogs were extensively dug... The verb is wrong here. Either the peat was extensively dug or the raised bogs were extensively dug for peat.

• Revised.— Rod ^talk 08:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• ... as the experimental area for the Avalon Marshes. The wetland on the clay is dominated by Phragmites reed, catstail and open water. This was the term given in the late 1980s to describe the wetland restored from peat workings in the Brue Valley. The second paragraph is really difficult to read and understand. What is the experimental area for the Avalon Marshes? Nor is it clear what the term given to describe the wetland is. Does "This" refer back to "Avalon Marshes"? If so, the middle sentence needs to be moved to somewhere else.

• I've reordered this. The term Avalon Marshes is the new invention (more attractive for tourists possibly) & Westhay was the test/experimental site for trying to hide/restore/cover up the effects of the peat working on the landscape - hope that is clearer now but happy for any further clarification.— Rod ^talk 08:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Much better.

• which remove their rights to remove peat... Should be "removed". I would also change the second remove to extract to avoid repetition, and since the refs mention it, I think the outcome of the appeal should be included to clarify what actually happened.

• I've changed the wording remove -> removed & remove -> dig, but I'm not sure what else you are suggesting should be added in the light of the appeal.— Rod ^talk 08:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• It is unclear from the article whether they successfully appealed, or the appeal failed. The ref says the appeal failed.

• I've added "unsuccessfully". Is that enough?— Rod ^talk 11:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes.

Ecology

• to restore, recreate and reconnect habitat. This doesn't quite make sense. The ref uses habitats in the plural, and goes on to explain that they have become fragmented. A little more explanation would be a great improvement here.

• Made plural and brief explanation added.— Rod ^talk 11:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• The nature reserve, covering 100 hectares (250 acres)... There has been no previous mention of the nature reserve, so it needs a bit of introduction. Also the following sentence says it covers 106 hectares (261 acres). I would suggest going with the latter, which is from the SWT site, whereas the 100 hectares is from a BBC article, and so may well be rounded off.

• Changed— Rod ^talk 11:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• "No previous mention of the nature reserve" is no longer relevant, as the revisions to the Peat Extraction section give it a context.

• Revised a bit anyway.— Rod ^talk 11:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

References

• Where the sources are online, they generally support the text as written, so I have assumed that the offline sources of which I do not have copies are also suitably used.
• There are a number of multi-page web references which really need page numbers or section numbers. These are: ref 4: 76 pages, 7: 40 pages, 10: sections 15: 40 pages, 27: 47 pages, 28: 204 pages 32: 76 pages, 38: 9 pages. Ref 28 is particularly difficult to navigate, as you have to move forwards a page at a time until you get to the contents section.

• I have added page numbers for refs 4, 27, 28, 32 and 38. Ref 15 already includes the page number (119) in the cite journal format. Ref 7 is more difficult as it doesn't have page numbers. Peat is described in several places. Westhay is item 42 but I'm not sure how to put this into the cite web format. Ref 10 flooding is section 3A (which includes special mention of the risks at Westhay & 3.1 - again I'm not sure how to represent these.— Rod ^talk 12:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• You can use the at= parameter, so I have added at=Entry 42 for ref 7 and at=Sections 3A & 3.1 for ref 10.

Lead

• The length of the lead is a particularly difficult task to judge, and seems to be open to different interpretations by different reviewers, but I think this one is about right for the length of the article, and serves well as an introduction and overview of the article.
• The 513.7 hectares (1,269 acres) convert template needs a "|adj=on" parameter.

• Added.— Rod ^talk 11:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• The middle paragraph repeats the phrase further drainage work in successive sentences. I suggest one of them should be reworded.

• Reworded.— Rod ^talk 11:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The formal bit

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See comments above

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

The article is fairly short, but only covers an area of 2 sq miles of mostly agricultural land.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The North Drain image could do with a slightly more informative caption.

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

In view of the speed with which you have addressed the points raised so far, I will not put the article on hold, as I think the review could be wrapped up fairly quickly. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

All issues have now been addressed. I have made a number of minor edits, to resolve another case of convert needing the adj=on param, the use of BC and BCE, and other trivial issues. I am pleased to say that I am now awarding it Good Article status. Thanks for your co-operation in getting the issues fixed so quickly. I know quite a bit about the Lincolnshire levels, but less about those in Somerset, and now I know a little more. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

One final query. Why was the article listed under History, rather than Geography? I have for now kept it in the History Category for GA, but the article is listed as relevant to the Geography project. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at the Wikipedia:Good articles page, and Geography seems a much more logical place to put it. What do you think? Bob1960evens (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy for it to be in Geography (like Somerset Levels) but history would also be OK by me because of the history of peat digging etc.— Rod ^talk 15:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)