Talk:Forestry in the United Kingdom/GA1

GA Review

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

I come to this as an intelligent but ignorant reader, and it is my habit to comment on the article as I read it the first time.

I'll thus expand this review over time. I imagine it will take a few days to review it fully. I'll make what I consider minor, uncontroversial copy edits, but feel free to revert them. Other suggestions for copy edits I'll list here.

Reviewer: Si Trew (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now completed the review and placing it on hold to be addressed. It didn't take me as long as I expected because half the article is in fact a list.

Review now completed, and most issues addressed, with the exception of the ~~elephant in the room~~ large list in the middle of the article, which I think really deserves a separate article (or merge into one of the several already in existence). But that can be addressed after the revew.

Pass, congratulations and thank you for your hard work. Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Lead: The lead section fails to mention the subject. See WP:MOSBEGIN.
Done.

I also feel the last paragraph is perhaps too detailed for the lead. Nothing in the lead mentions threats.
Done for threats; OKish about the para as a whole – it is fine to have something like it in the lead but perhaps is too detailed.

On the whole, though, it is written in clear, concise and correct language.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): (OR):
Some of the Web references could have been fuller – I've checked them and augmented them. Some people prefer Web references in a separate group – see Botanical garden for an example. I've put them into {{cite web}}.

::The section "Ancient semi-natural woodland" could do with a couple more references (detailed below).

Refs added to Forestry Commission report.

I've put all the references into {{harvnb}} templates and so on, so that the citations can link to the bibliography.

For et al. there was a mix of "Smout et. al" and "Nix et. al" i.e. the abbreviation stops were wrong and the italics differed. I've changed them all to "et al." ("et" is not an abbreviation so doesn't need a stop). It might be better in italics as a foreign word, but I am not too concerned providing it's consistent.

For books with more than one edition, it could be clearer which edition is being referenced (it's always the latest one, as far as I can tell). It may be clearer not to mention the date of publication of the first edition, since then looking for e.g. James 1966 one sees James 1955 (and further down the citation 1966).

Hibberd was wrong in saying 1993 (revised 1991), unless he has a time machine, so I've just put 1993 (11th ed). which is what the ISBN refers to.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It doesn't really talk about forestry in the United Kingdom. It talks about forests in the United Kingdom. Not much is mentioned about the timber industry and so on.
Section "Timber industry" added, although it's not very long.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No problems here.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Mostly the work of one author, with occasional contributions from others. Not much on talk page.
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):
However, I feel that there could be a couple more images towards the end of the article, e.g. a map showing the amount of afforestation in different parts of the UK/Britain/British Isles, or perhaps just illustrative examples of threats/diseases (e.g. Dutch Elm Disease).

An image of White Rot Fungus has been added, however I would love a map showing the density of afforestation e.g. per-county. Alternatively perhaps a good satellite photo could show this.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Tempted to fail because of the lead and the fact it doesn't say much about forestry, but I'll hold it for now. Si Trew (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these have now been addressed.

Lead

As mentioned above, the lead does not conform to WP:LEAD.

This is fixed now.

The {{see also}} is not allowed in the lead.

This has been removed; it could have just been moved to the "see also".

Throughout the article, care should be taken with the terms British Isles, Britain and UK. (I've changed UK to Britain in one place.) While I think the author of the article is being careful to distinguish, our readers might not. For that reason I have also linked England and Scotland at first use. In particular, in the lead, a greater distinction from the first mention of the British Isles (presumably geographical) to Britain (presumably political) is too subtle.

Footnote added.

I've knocked down the precision of 2,300,000 hectares to km². If undesired, write "2.3 million hectares (5.7 million acres)" since all these zeros imply a precision that is not there.

History

"For reasons already described", what reasons? I think this refers to "The country's supply of timber was severely depleted in the ... Wars" (in the lead) but that's not a reason, it's a fact.

Removed.

According to England Rural Development Programme 2000-2006, the Woodland Grant Scheme was replaced by the English Woodland Grant Scheme in 2005.

Added.

In the last sentence we're back to the British Isles, after being in Britain in the lead.

I think the footnote in the lead now clarifies this.

Ancient semi-natural woodland

Need references for definition of ancient semi-natural woodland, and for broadleaf forests containing indigenous species.

These have been added. Though the reference is to a blog in name, I don't think it's what most people would describe as a blog.

Native and historic species

"Thirty-one species" is spelled out here whereas "32 species" is not in the lead. I can be easily swayed whether this is a problem or not since I can see reasons for spelling out in one place but not the other.
I'm a bit concerned that this list takes up almost half the article space (excluding references etc). It might be better to put it into a separate article.

Threats

I've added a few links, but otherwise I think this is fine.

See what you think now. :)—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think that's enough to mark it as a pass. I still think the list in the article is rather a long intermission, and would suggest you consider moving it to another article. Looking around, though, I see that there seem to be competing lists with this (as rather unencylopaedicly stated at Trees of Britain, which I was tempted to suggest sarcastically this article should be moved to). Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]