Jump to content

Talk:Geology of Somerset

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGeology of Somerset has been listed as one of the Natural sciences 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 22, 2008Good article nomineeListed
September 27, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
September 24, 2021Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Good article

clyst

[edit]

"Many of the latter rivers now have clysts on them to control the sea,". What is a clyst? I'm sure the writer meant sluice, but I'm not even sure that is the right term, and wonder if they meant a word similar to clyst? --Derek Andrews 12:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion on Talk:Somerset Levels Clyst is mentioned in Williams, Robin (1992). The Somerset Levels. Bradford on Avon: Ex Libris Press. ISBN 0948578386. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) it talks about "clyses" (the local name for a sluice) (p72) — Rod talk 13:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Hi! I am going to be reviewing this article for GA, and I should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • The lead should be a summary of the article, with no new information in it. Perhaps start a new section titled "History" or "Background" or "General" or something of the sort, move most of what's in the lead now there, and then summarize the entire article in two to three good sized paragraphs.
      • The lead is good for now. I might like to see it a little bit longer, but this isn't a requirement.
    • The "Brendons" section (and to a lesser extent the "Southern Uplands" section) are very short. Is there any way that they could be combined with other sections?
    • In your section headers, only the first word should be capitalized.
    • The "Main River Valleys" section has a LOT of redlinks. Do all of these have a good chance of becoming articles or redirects? If so, then leave, if not, de-link.
    • There are a lot of short sentences, which tend to make the prose choppy. Take a run through the article and try to combine some of these to make the article flow more.
    • I have not done a complete check of the prose due to the other concerns that are more important. As soon as the other issues (mainly the lead and referencing) have had significant work completed, I will take a run through the article for prose and other nitpicks.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • My main concern in this article is the lack of referencing. Below, I've detailed the areas that need refs:
      • "Rock ages" section, last sentence of first paragraph, all of second paragraph
      • "Coastline" section, last two and a half sentences
      • "Main River Valleys" section, entire section
      • "Levels and Moors" section, entire first paragraph, plus last sentences of second and third paragraphs
      • "Northern Uplands" section, first three paragraphs, plus all but the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, last sentences of first and third paragraphs
      • "Southern Uplands" section, entire section, last sentences of first, second and fourth paragraphs
      • "Quantocks" section, first paragraph, plus last three sentences of second paragraph
      • "Exmoor" section, first paragraph, plus last sentence of third paragraph, most of fifth paragraph and all of last two paragraphs
    • Your book cites should include page numbers
    • What were the items in the "Bibliography" section used for?
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
    • All of your images but one are right aligned. Could you move a couple more to left alignment, in order to make the article flow better?
      • I like what you did with moving some over. I moved a couple of the left aligned images down so that they don't interfere with the headers, per MOS. If you don't like what I did, feel free to re-move - basically, photos aren't supposed to "separate" the header from the beginning of the text by being right under the header on the left.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I have some serious concerns about the referencing quality of this article. There are many paragraphs that are not referenced, and some sections that have no references at all. Also, there are several issues with MOS. I am going to put this article on hold for seven days to allow the editors time to work on these issues. If the editors needs more time at that point, I will extend the hold if I see that work is being continued. If you have questions, you can contact me here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful comments. I have made a start on addressing some of your comments, specifically those about the subheads, short paragraphs, red links, image alignment etc and have added some references where they are needed. Some of the sections which lack references are descriptions of physical features which are clear on maps but it may be difficult to find other references, apart from maps, which include these descriptions.
I will need to return to the library to get the books to be able to include page numbers & this may be difficult as I shall be away for a long bank holiday weekend with no Internet access & than (1-8 Sept) out of the country for work. I will ask editors from the Somerset WikiProject and others for help with meeting your concerns, particularly in relation to copyediting the prose - but may have difficulty meeting the seven day rule.— Rod talk 23:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the article is being improved, I am very willing to extend the hold to allow you extra time. I know that everyone has a real life that can't always revolve around WP :) If a section can only be referenced to a map, just say that in the in-line citation, something along the lines of "See Map of Somerset, drawn by the UK Geological Society, 2004, published by XYZ Company". Basically just to let a future editor know that you weren't just pulling the information out of the clear blue sky. I'll keep an eye on the edits as the progress, and once I see that the referencing has proceeded significantly, I'll start working through the prose. My main reason for not doing the prose now is that I've found in my own editing that I occasionally completely re-write sections when I'm working on adding references to them, and so I don't want to comment on a paragraph that's going to be completely re-written within the next few days anyways! Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to User:Malleus Fatuorum for help with copyediting and User:Pyrotec for help with referencing etc. I hope that between us we have satisfied some of your concerns and I would be grateful if you would take another look and let us know any further areas in which you feel the article still needs work.— Rod talk 21:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am passing this article for GA because it has been significantly improved and now meets GA standards. However, if you are planning on taking this article to FA (or even just wanting to improve the article further), there are several things I would recommend. These include making sure that everything is referenced. There are still several sentences at the ends of paragraphs with no refs, which will be challenged at FA. They're nothing all that controversial, so I am not requiring that you have them for GA. Also, standardize your reference formatting: some of your books have separate URLs, some have URLs that are linked to the title, some of your websites have no publishers and most of your books have no page numbers. If some books are used multiple times you may want to consider moving the full reference into a new section and using a simple short ref in the in-line cite, to make reading the references section easier. Also, there are still many short sentences, which tend to break up the prose. In order to get the professional, flowing prose requirement of FA, you need to do a thorough copyedit which looks specifically for consecutive short sentences. That being said, this is a very good article that is well-written and informative. Dana boomer (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

[edit]

In my view (as a graduate in Geography and Geology) quite a lot of this article would be better moved to the missing Geography of Somerset article in order to concentrate on the geology. Does anyone else agree? Pterre (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had a look in Category:Geography of England by county and whilst this category had sub-categories for quite a few counties, none of the counties had an article entitled Geography of countyX. So the obvious question is why break up a GA-class article? I also looked at your last 500 edits, you've worked on the Geography of Kent, which does not appear in Category:Geography of Kent, and the Geography of Great Britain; and you've added a Geography section to numerous articles. Comparing Geography of Kent with Geology of Somerset, I'm prepared to admit that simply renaming Geology of Somerset to Geography of Somerset would solve your "problem", give or take some minor editing, and give a GA class geography article. Interesting you don't edit many geology articles, with the exception of Geology of Great Britain. Are you offering to do a Geology of Somerset article to replace the current one, should there be some consensus that it could be renamed Geography of Somerset? Pyrotec (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Geography of Somerset to the requested articles at WikiProject Somerset. Can you suggest any guidelines as to what should be in articles for "Geography of X" or "Geology of X". As this has recently achieved Good Article status I would be loath to make massive changes without a clear rationale & idea of what was going to be in each of the articles in future.— Rod talk 19:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rod got in before I saved my response to Pyrotec:
Hi Pyrotec, I appreciate you've put a lot of work in and I'm treading on toes, but you'll be questioning my parentage next! My point is that if this to be a GA on geology, it should NOT be possible to 'solve my problem' (huh?) simply by changing the name to 'Geography of Somerset'. The bits that concentrate on geology are fine, and far better than (say) Geology of Hampshire, which seems to from a book on botany. As to your digressions I'm a bit bemused. (1) my only contribution to Geography of Kent (on a casual visit) was to wikilink existing mentions of Greensand (a geology article to which I contributed 50% of the text and 50% of the photos since you're counting); you've lost me on Category:Geography of Kent. (2) I can't spot any edits I've made to Geography of Great Britain - did you mean Geology of Great Britain? (3) Without counting, I've probably added almost as many 'geology' sections as 'geography' sections to articles; it depends whether there is anything worth saying, and whether I have a reliable reference. I've probably added geology as part of the geography section if there is only a sentence to add. So what? (4) I'm sure you are right that I have done more edits on geographical topics (and various other random subjects) than geology (again so what?), but I don't understand what you mean by 'with the exception of Geology of Great Britain'; the few edits I have made to that article were distinctly trivial, in contrast for example to my being 100% responsible for the substantive text of London Basin and Hampshire Basin. My personal preference is for this type of 'regional' article rather than county articles, but that's just my prejudice. (5) I was not proposing that the article be renamed, so no I'm not offering to replace it. What I am suggesting is that a couple of paragraphs would probably be happier if moved to Geography of Somerset, which could be fleshed out with other stuff from Somerset itself. I'm happy to have a look at any references I have on Somerset to see if I can add anything to the existing Geology article. Pterre (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are not treading on my toes perhaps has much as you might think, I'm just confused as to what you are seeking to do. (1) I quote from above (11:52 am) "....quite a lot of this article would be better moved to the missing ....", which seems hardly comparable with the (20:19 pm) "couple of paragraphs" mentioned above. Removing quite a lot from an article that has just gained GA status to create an non-existing article does appear to be a drastic solution to a problem that you yourself raised. I'm not a geographer nor a geologist, but I do have three degrees (1 BSc and 2 MSc ); and I'm particularly interested in landscapes, so much of the referencing that I added came from "Landscape"-type sources which I have in front of me. I also recognise a link between geography and geology. Like Rod, I have difficulty understanding why you feel the need to remove (rather than copy) material from this article to recreate an currently non-existing article on the Geography of Somerset. To try and work out what you were trying to do I looked at your contributions, e.g. Special:Contributions/Pterre, which is where the Geography of Kent came from. The Geography of Kent is shorter than the Geology of Somerset, but they appear similar in what appears on the pages. You have not yet answered Rod's question regarding what should be in a county Geography article and what should be in a county Geology article; but I have now looked at the London Basin and Hampshire Basin articles that you mention above; and I've relooked at Geology of Great Britain. If your are using you knowledge to advocate those as the type of article that Geology of Somerset should be emulating, then it appears to me that the article currently known as Geology of Somerset perhaps should be renamed as "Geography of Somerset"? You expressed a view (well a view and a question) as a "graduate in geology and geography", so treat it as an exam question if you like, "should the Geology of Somerset article be renamed Geography of Somerset - discuss?" If you don't wish to answer that question, then perhaps you could state what paragraphs you would like to remove and the type of material that could perhaps be used to fill their places? Pyrotec (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To cut to the chase, I would cut back on things that are merely affected by geology and therefore vary spatially (that is geography). This definitely includes the 'Main river valleys' section and probably some of the other stuff on vegetation and archaeology. There could be more on the geological structure, history etc, to which I am happy to contribute, time permitting. Please note I mentioned my education only to indicate that I am coming at this from the perspective of having studied both subjects (a surprisingly rare combination) and don't have a bias for one over the other. I'm not trying to set myself up as some sort of authority on either subject or inhibit anyone else from editing. Pterre (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the clarification and the advice. You are welcome to participate, when you have time. Unfortunately, your first short paragraph could be (was) interpreted as: (1) Problem - no article on Geography of Somerset, (2) Solution - cut text from Geology of Somerset. It was not entirely clear that you were attempting to improve the Geology of Somerset article. I'm not done geology nor geography at degree level, but I did a geography extra mural class at Glasgow University's Geology building nearly 20 years ago and I did a geology class a few months later that was not held in the Geology building; and I'm doing building stones at Cambridge next week. I've no geography references for Somerset, only landscape; but I would like to expand the "extractive industries", e.g. sandstone, limestone, clay, coal, etc, and that might fit in with your suggestion of expanding geological structure. Pyrotec (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

15 months after this discussion Geography of Somerset has now been created and I would welcome thoughts on what should be in this article & what should be moved to the new article so that each adequately covers its own area without too much overlap, although I expect that the two article will refer to each other.— Rod talk 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What else is needed to get this article to FA

[edit]

This article has now been a fairly stable Good Article for over a year and I am looking for ideas about what would be needed to get it to meet the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria? This is one part of the Featured topic about Physical geography of Somerset. The rules about FT's have changed and we need to get one of the GAs included in the topic up to FA status or the whole FT will be demoted to a Good topic. Any ideas appreciated.— Rod talk 21:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for being unpopulated

[edit]

The article currently states

"Because Exmoor was a royal forest, i.e. a hunting reserve, it was unpopulated in Medieval times"

However some Royal Forests were populated - see, for a local example, Royal Forest of North Petherton - so this could not have been the reason for the lack of population. 85.210.207.14 (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geology of Somerset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Geology of Somerset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Geology of Somerset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geology of Somerset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geology_of_Somerset&oldid=1207385996"