Talk:Wookey Hole Caves/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 15:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Images are OK. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
• Article is stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
• Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
• Covers the main points. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• Well cited to a range of good sources. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• No evidence of original research. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• No evidence of bias. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• No section is overly long or overly detailed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Query

• The language appears rather technical for the general reader. "Wookey Hole cave was formed through solution of the rocks in which it lies by the River Axe" is not self-explanatory to someone who does not understand geology. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have attempted to reword that sentence - any better?— Rod ^talk 18:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have reworded it again, and simplified it. Caves tend to be formed by solutional weathering, erosion being the removal of the material. See weathering. Langcliffe (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• We sometimes have Chamber 3 and sometimes Third Chamber, etc. Sources favour Chamber 3, etc. Could we be consistent in the usage? Or use "third chamber" as done in other places. We also have "12th and 13th Chambers" - I suspect these might be typos. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• I remain concerned about some of the language. Not a huge problem, but words like "resurgence" are not clear to the general reader, and words like "whence" and "betrothed" are archaic and non-standard. The Hydrology and geology section is particularly difficult due to an abundance of technical language. And there is "solutional cave" in the lead which appears to be the alternative to "formed through solution of the rocks"; this is switching one unclear phrase for another - the only benefit now being a link, though while a link should be there for additional detail, the wording in the article should be clear enough for a reader to understand what is happening. There was an interleaving edit, "Wookey Hole cave was formed by the waters of the River Axe eroding through the rocks in which it lies", which was a step in the right direction. If "eroding" is seen as misleading, then use dissolving, or whatever is more appropriate. The assumption must be that the reader of the article does not understand geology and so needs to be informed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Fail

• The lead is not an adequate summary of the article perWP:Lead. The lead should be an appropriate summary of the main points of each main section, enough that a reader would get a decent overview of the topic. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

On hold

• This is an informative, attractive, and well sourced article which meets most of the GA criteria. I have a small quibble on the language used, which in places could be clearer, and a more significant quibble on the lead, which does not provide a suitable summary of the topic. Putting on hold for the standard seven days - though I'm quite happy to extend that as needed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• I hope I have addressed some of the issues you have identified, but I have asked User:Langcliffe to check I haven't mucked anything up and specifically to consider your comments about the technical language in the Hydrology and geology section.— Rod ^talk 15:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've now had a bit of a go at the Hydrology and geology section adding links and trying to explain terms. I'm not a geology expert but understood the meaning (I think). Are there still specifics which you feel need further clarification?— Rod ^talk 19:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• At Rod#'s request, have made some changes which I think help simplify the section, including various additional wikilinks. cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Resurgence is a technical word which is wikilinked to spring, which is a more commonly understood word. Sometimes a topic can only be explained by using technical language, and that has to be accepted, but that does not appear to be the case here. We shouldn't be using technical language to hide plain English. This: [[Spring (hydrology)|resurgence]], does not look helpful. See MOS:JARGON and WP:TECHNICAL, and note the bullet point: "Don't use a technical term where a common term will do. If no precision is lost, substitute common terms for technical terms." My understanding of this sentence in the lead: "After resurging, the waters of the River Axe are ...." is this: "After leaving the cave system, the waters of the River Axe are ...." I suspect that with careful editing most technical language can be eliminated from the article, and it would become clearer for more people, and would not make matters any less clear for those who already understand the technical terms - so there would be a benefit with no loss, and the article would meet guidelines and advise. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had another go at some of the terminology, particularly "resurgence" but would appreciate edits or comments from others who are likely to have greater knowledge of geology than I have.— Rod ^talk 17:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You have changed the meaning of a number of the sentences. Exit is not a synonym for resurgence. In the cases of the Ebbor gorge, and the former resurgences above the current resurgence, the water table has dropped, so leaving them high and dry. The expression "a now-blocked spring" indicates an active spring which is blocked with something. This is not the case for Chamber 20. Maybe it would be better to continue to continue to use the term resurgence in its previous contexts, and explain its meaning in the introduction. Langcliffe (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I apologise if I have inadvertently changed the meaning, perhaps you'd be kind enough to correct my errors.— Rod ^talk 18:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be very difficult to keep the meaning whilst trying to avoid the word that is required, which is why I suggested the strategy above. A fair amount of effort was put into the original version to ensure its technical accuracy. As I explained on my talk page, I am not intending to get involved in the rewriting, but you did ask for comments from me. Langcliffe (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

OK I've reverted my mass changes to resurgence. What would you suggest for a definition of the word?— Rod ^talk 19:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

A resurgence is where an underground watercourse reaches the surface. A fossil resurgence is where once an underground watercourse reached the surface. In this case, we're obviously talking about the River Axe, so it's where the River Axe reaches the surface, and where the River Axe once reached the surface. Langcliffe (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we can get caught up on looking at this the wrong way. I don't think we should be attempting to define resurgence; the issue here is describing what is happening: a flow of water, called River Axe. leaving a cave system called Wookey Hole Caves. It leaves the system at a certain point, either by falling or rising or remaining at the same level. The issue here is to describe it in a manner that is clear and understandable to all, not to attempt to define resurgence in this context. In River Axe (Bristol Channel) the description is "The river rises from the ground at Wookey Hole Caves...." Is there a reason why we can't use such clear language in this article? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Wookey Hole cave is a solutional cave formed by the waters of the River Axe". At what point do the waters become the River Axe? This intro makes it sound as if the river is in existence before it enters the cave system. The article on River Axe (Bristol Channel) suggests the river is formed as the waters exit the system. Looking at a few sources, some say the cave system is formed by the river, others say the cave system is the source of the river. Is there any clarity regarding this? It's OK to give both versions if there is some ambiguity about this. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm probably being thick but I don't see that the words "The river rises from the ground at Wookey Hole Caves" do suggest that the river is formed as the waters exit the system. If a worm emerges into daylight, it is still the same worm as it was before it emerged into daylight. Why not with a river? It follows a discrete path through the caves, it then emerges into daylight and follows a discrete path through the landscape. The only difference is that is no longer has a roof. Langcliffe (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I phrased that badly. I didn't mean to imply anything negative about you. I'm just a little unclear on where the Axe is formed, and what is considered the source of the river, and how best to word that. When I took this GAN I hadn't realised the topic would be this tricky! Doing some background reading it appears that the Axe and the cave system are often mentioned together, as the cave system is considered the source of the river - the source is given as Plantation Swallet, which is supported by Bristol University.

I'm looking again at the lead, and at the rest of the article, and comparing it with my background reading, and I'm not sure that the lead is giving a clear enough description based on what is available. The lead paragraph is that it is a show cave, tourist attraction and SSSI, but no mention of it being the source of the Axe, nor that the show caves are only a fraction of the system, nor about the extensive diving (Wookey Hole is the place where cave diving in the UK started when Jack Sheppard (cave diver) made the first dive in 1934); we don't get in the lead, and not clear enough in Description, how many chambers there are, nor the overall size and extent of the cave system, though we get individual chamber and passage lengths in the description section.

I think the bulk of the main information is in the article, but has not yet been made available in the lead. So I still feel that the lead could be developed, and that the article as a whole could be made clearer.

Is there a map or sketch of the cave system available? Or could one be created? I think that would be useful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a survey on page 400 of the book "Wookey Hole. 75 Years of Cave Diving", edited by Hanwell, Price, and Witcombe, which is obviously copyright. An online PDF version of the relevant chapter can be found at http://www.sump4.com/publications/book010.pdf, on the last page. Langcliffe (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I've added a bit more about the source(s) and cited the news source - I couldn't find it in the UBSS paper. I've added to the lead as suggested above. in the archives Talk:Wookey Hole Caves/Archive 1#What else is needed to get this article to meet the Good article criteria in a subsection called "Description" a map was discussed. I believe it was requested from the Graphics Lab, but don't think anything came of it - User:Derek Andrews may be able to update.— Rod ^talk 13:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

These two [1] and/or [2] had been previously identified on the talk page.— Rod ^talk 14:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Listing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)