Talk:Hells Bells (cave formations)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: I'll take this one. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is a well-written article (and a great title), and it is reliably sourced.

The sources are nearly all the Stinnesbecks and colleagues; I guess this is largely unavoidable but it would be nice to have some use made of Ritter's paper, since it's directly on the topic and presumably has something to say in its 20 pages. For instance he mentions pH ...
Um, isn't Ritter the video? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I saw the video but clicked on a DOI link and must have gone back to one of the Stinnesbeck papers.

"Biology and origin of the Hells Bells" - no need to repeat title in this section heading.
Removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As the song is named and linked in the article I'd have thought the hatnote not necessary, though it might be wise to mention the song in the lead also.
I don't think the song is so important to the topic as to merit mention in the lead, but since the cave article is under the plain name it probably needs a hatnote for the people looking for the song. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of HBs in other caves needs to be mentioned in the lead as well.
Added a mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Carbonate deposits (carbonate speleothems)" - no need to repeat carbonate here.
Actually, it should, as AFAIK not all speleothems are carbonatic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The growth of the Bells was unsteady," - tense seems wrong here. If you mean "HBs always grow unsteadily" then I suggest "is"; if you mean "these HBs grew unsteadily (while those in other caves grew evenly)" then I suggest "has been". If you mean something else then it needs explaining.
It could mean either; the studied specimens show unsteady growth and that may or may not be generalizable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"may produce the lamination of the deposits and the deposits resemble" - suggest we remove the repetition: "may produce the lamination of the deposits, which resemble".
Shortened. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Hells Bells howering over a layer of turbid water" - spelling would be "hovering", but the verb is too active (suggests a helicopter or dragonfly, wings whirring). Could just say "Hells Bells above turbid water".
Shortened, although I am not firmly convinced this is necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well the spelling was wrong even if you like the verb.

Yes, I was more referring to removing the "hovering" altogether. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you put ref 13 in Sources also?
Because I only used one page from it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do rather sympathise with the reasoning, but it would look tidier if you put it there all the same.

I don't think it would be tidier to having a mixed-formatting sources list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, ok, but you currently have a mixed-format reflist: you're lucky I'm rather relaxed about such things.

I think we'll stop here. The article is well up to the required standard. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]