Jump to content

Talk:Ebbor Gorge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleEbbor Gorge 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.
Good topic starEbbor Gorge is part of the National Trust properties in Somerset series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 7, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
November 10, 2014Good article nomineeListed
December 6, 2015Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 4, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the head of Ebbor Gorge contains the rare mineral mendipite?
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ebbor Gorge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) 22:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in generally very good shape. I have some copy-editing quibbles, but nothing that I think is fatal to promotion.

  • "It is owned by the National Trust following a donation": This reads rather awkwardly and is arguably ungrammatical. Rewording this to avoid the gerund would probably solve the problem.
  • "and example of Carboniferous Limestone". I assume you mean an.
  • Mineral names, such as mendipite, need not be capitalized.
  • "are provided with a habitat": Passive mood wording makes it read like the habitat is artificial (or at least does so to my ear). Perhaps reword this sentence more actively: The nature reserve provides a habitat for a variety of flora and fauna...
  • Since this is a geological feature, the geology section feels a little thin. I think it addresses the main aspects of the topic, so I'm not going to count this against GA criterion 3, but especially if you want to consider developing this further for a push to FA, you'll want to survey some more of the geology journals here, I think.
  • I don't think you need "Specifically" here.
  • Does Hope Wood = Hope Woodlands? I am not certain of the answer; if so, link it.
  • "Various caves": If the sources provide them, naming one or two might be worth considering. I see you do name a couple caves for the mammal fossils; any idea if these are the same ones?
  • "One fine flint flake among several found has been identified": This is a pretty awkward sentence, and I'm not quite sure what you're going for here.
  • Actually, I'd reshuffle the History section entirely. You jump from Neolithic people to Devensian mammals, then back to the Bronze Age.
  • That parenthetical "presumed"—are the sources unsure about the dating? Why is that here?
  • The dating is not specific and sources say "last ice age" or similar so I have removed the presumed - but I don't think the evidence is there to get any more specific.— Rod talk 09:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any sources comment on the ownership history before Mrs. Hodgkinson? I'd guess probably not, but never hurts to check.
  • Nothing that I can find in the sources - presumably part of a larger estate of the "landed gentry" but I can't find any specific names of owners etc.— Rod talk 09:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have the information, I don't think it would be undue weight to go ahead and list trail lengths, considering its current status.
  • You mention the year of its notification in the lead, but I don't see that in the body.
  • Any date for its status as a National Nature Reserve?
  • A lot of similar articles combine flora and fauna sections into one, often titled "Biology and ecology", then break them into sub-sections if length demands. Worth considering here.
  • Dog's mercury / wood anemone / common bluebell: common names of plants (in most cases, anyway, including these) needn't be capitalized.
  • Lesser horseshoe doesn't need to be capitalized. For reasons I do not understand, convention appears to be that butterfly species keep their capitals, but I'll try to double-check that with the MOS people.
  • Red deer doesn't need to be linked (because you already have, in history, and doesn't need to be capitalized; it wasn't in its earlier appearance).
  • Sources look mostly good, although I'm not sure Real Alternative (#15) is reliable. I think the information is replaceable from Lewis, but you'll want to check to be sure.
  • The External Link is already used in the references, but I don't think that's a problem here. I would restyle it to provide more context though. Perhaps: Natural England website for the Ebbor Gorge NNR

Calling this on hold for the moment to give an opportunity to clean up a few of these issues, but I feel confident I'll be able to promote in short order. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

[edit]

Reviewer Squeamish Ossifrage hasn't edited on Wikipedia since October 2. As this review has been abandoned, the nomination is being returned to the reviewing pool, where it will hopefully get some attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ebbor Gorge/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MusikAnimal (talk · contribs) 19:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Six months later... here I am! Sorry you had to wait so long. I'll be taking on this review. — MusikAnimal talk 19:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I presume you are aware there was a first review during that time, but he reviewer disappeared.— Rod talk 20:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not! Thanks for letting me know. I'm almost done anyway. You'll hear from me very soon! — MusikAnimal talk 20:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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. Citations to reliable sources:
    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:


Concerns

[edit]
Infobox
  • I'm confused by the use of both the grid reference and coordinates, as they seem to be almost the same. I am admittedly not that familiar with geography-related articles, is this a standard practice? If it is, why when I check the Geohack they have different coordinates?
    The UK still uses the Ordnance Survey National Grid grid reference system for most maps, so a lot of local geography articles include both so that it can be located on UK maps and international systems (eg google maps). The difference (or so I have been told) can be up to a few meters.— Rod talk
Lead
  • First sentence: Wells is linked, but Somerset, England is not. We probably don't need to mention Wells at all. Also “biological Site of Special Scientific Interest” and “notified” link to the same place. I see there is a section entitled “Notification” that perhaps you want instead want to link to. Even so, I’d reword the sentence to something like Ebbor Gorge is a limestone gorge in Somerset, England, designated and notified in 1952 as a 63.5-hectare (157-acre) biological Site of Special Scientific Interest in the Mendip Hills.
    Changed.— Rod talk 21:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Geology
History
Biology and ecology


That's all I have. The article otherwise looks great. I'm fully confident we can tackle these issues quickly, so I'm placing the article on hold. — MusikAnimal talk 21:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See my note above under Geography about the Mendipite capitalization. Once we get that addressed I think we're good to go :) — MusikAnimal talk 22:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


checkY Great work! This nomination has passed. Congratulations! — MusikAnimal talk 15:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]