Talk:Malvern water/Archive 2 (GAC review)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Working up toward GA status

Hello folks. Long time no interaction. I see Malvern Water may soon be nominated for GA review. This article was my first introduction to articles in the Worcestershire project, and I was impressed early on at the good faith spirit of contributors during an article make-over. For some time since then, I've thought the article shaped up pretty well. But that's my opinion.

I don't know how much contribution I'll be able to make to any further work in this article, but after saving this talk page section, I'll have made one change, which is to relocate the Geo Hack citation from the Springs section to the lead section. The reason is that on clicking the link, I don't find it takes me straight to a page clearly pertaining to St. Ann's Well. I had a bit of a look at a couple of links from that page, but didn't find it. Doesn't mean there isn't a link there. It does mean that the association isn't explicit to a general reader who is not in the know (i.e. who has no implicit knowledge pertaining to X). However, the link looks decidedly useful. So looking for a suitable place in the article, I placed it in the lead section at a sentence where the reader is going to see a relationship between the article text and the citation content. The lead is a general overview pertaining to Malvern Water, and clearly so too is the Geo Hack link.

I did take the liberty of replacing the oscoor template with a straight url, along with a change in the citation content. This is because (a) it's the only way I know to take care of the bare url, which would probably bring comment in a GA review, and (b) I wanted to get the citation content to somehow match that which I found on the webpage in the simplest fashion available to me at this time. Cheers. Wotnow (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now added a citation for the flow rate of springs from the Malvern Hills. This took a bit of effort using a range of search terms. I never doubted the facts, but without a verifiable citation, I couldn't see this surviving unchallenged. Wotnow (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeking a reviewer

Would anyone care if I asked a really good editor, Ruhrfisch, to do a review for FA/GA review? He specializes in this tipe of review and give you directions to help bring it all the way to FA status, if you so desire. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 22:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
For my part I have no strong view. Reasonableness, objectivity, a modicum of flexible thinking, and a minimum of unnecessary pedantism would be all I'd ask. But I'm a bit-player in the Worcestershire project. What do others think? Wotnow (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Jeremy, whatever you think is best, bearing Wotnow's comments in mind. I will be GAC nominating this article based mainly in fact on your encouraging comments after you first heavily criticised it. Apart from having made a basic review, you are not a major contributor to the article - you could even probably review it yourself. Malvern Water is however probably far better known as a geological phenomenon than as a food & drink product. It is my intention sometime or another to create a stand-alone article for Malvern Water, the beverage, such as our articles on Perrier etc, which afre not to be confused with advertising.--Kudpung (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
PS: I would rather see this article pass a GA review with flying colours than fail miserably on an FA review. With all due respects, unless a reviewer feels that this article has a very strong chance of becoming featured, any reviewer, especially those who may be more concerned with the special requirements for FA, should bear this in mind, and not be tempted to apply their customary demands for FA.--Kudpung (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Kudpung. At time of my opening sentence I had in mind the clear good faith demonstrated by Jeremy, in quickly removing the advertising tag once the issues prompting the tag were addressed. This, and the dialogue surrounding that tag impressed me, for the objective, solution-focussed and good faith discussion demonstrated by those involved. So I concur with Kudpung, that Jeremy would seem eligible as a reviewer regarding both neutraity and non-involvement, but also that whatever Jeremy thinks best is fine. I also concur regarding going for an unambiguous GA review rather than a GA-with-view-to-FA review. I understand that Wikipedia needs a continual feed of articles reaching FA status. But I too think it far better, at this stage, to do well, or reasonably well, at GA status, especially if some of us are likely to be sporadic contributors and in need of keeping input bursts at a manageable level. Regards Wotnow (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


I have filed for Good Article Nomination. However, the talk page banner will not accept the sub topic where it is filed (miscellaneous), so I have entered 'drink'. I will stress however, for the benefit of those who have been confused in the past about its category, this is NOT a food & drink article. It's a natural geological phenomenon for which no category appears to exist. The fact that it can be drunk is but one of its properties.--Kudpung (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am working on the GA review. There are some issues I have identified that will need to be addressed. You have 28 days to fix them, beginning from today. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 22:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Malvern Water/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 21:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)


  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    a.  Pass The prose is clear and concise, stating the facts in a way that is accessible to the reader.
    b.  Pass The article follows the manual of style taken from suggestion made on the comments page.
    Comments: Nothing new to add here, the major contributors have taken the time to follow my suggestions made over the past year or so. Good job here guys.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    a.  Pass The citations meet the standards of verifiability
    b.  Pass The citations meet the standards of reliable sources
    c.  Pass There is no original research.
    Comments: Fixed there is a broken link that needs to fixed, number 16. The link is currently broken. Since it is a major part in verifying the purity standards of the water, I would like to have this issue fixed ASAP.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    a.  Pass The article, in whole, covers the major aspects of the subject and areas of interest.
    b.  Pass Each section focuses on the subject of that section and does not veer from it, but several are too narrow in their coverage.
    Comments: The topic is well covered, however several of the sections could use some expansion. I would like to see the art and interest groups sections expanded on as one paragraph isn't enough. Done--Kudpung (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
     Pass No issues here
    Comments: The article easily passes the NPOV standards requirements, again the main contributors have done a good job in ensuring that facet of the article is correct.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
     Pass No issues here
    Comments: It has been stable for more than 6 months as the contributors have worked together to improve the article.
  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):
     Done--Kudpung (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    a.  Pass No issues with the status of the images
    Image 1 - St. Anne's is a verified commons image with no problems
    Image 2 - Holly well is a verified commons image with no problems
    Image 3 - Barnards Green Trough is a verified commons image with no problems
    Image 4 - Spout at St. Anne's is a verified commons image with no problems
    Image 5 - Darwin plaque is a verified commons image with no problems
    Image 6 - Mahlvina fountain is a verified commons image with no problems
    Image 7 -
    Image 8 -
    b.  Pass The images have captions that state what the images are but do not state how the relate to the article.
    Comments: I would like to see an image of the commercial products. Also, I want to see the captions of the all of the images expanded a little to put them in context with the article in order to show their importance to the article in order to clear up any confusion of what they are.
     Done--Kudpung (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: On hold for the following items:


  1. The broken citation needs to addressed. Fixed
     Done The link was broken because the Malvern Town Council had replaced the old data with a new water analysis for 2010. The ref now links to the URL of the new PDF datasheet.--Kudpung (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  2. It needs and image of the products, if available. Fixed
    If by product you mean the water commercialised by Schweppes or Holy Well, this was deliberately left out of the article as one editor already accused us of advertising even without it. Besides which, a separate article is planned later for the commercial product in the same way as the Wikipedia articles for Perrier or Evian appear. At present no FUR image can be provided. This would require a trip to England to make a photo ourselves.--Kudpung (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    Here are some acceptable options: File:Malvern Darwin plaque.jpg - medicinal use, File:Malvern Water Bottling Plant - - 6036.jpg - the bottling plant. Try doing a search with "Malvern Water" on commons for some more, but don't go over board. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 13:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
     Done - nice pun ;) --Kudpung (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  3. Add {{commonscat|Malvern}} to the "external links" section Fixed
     Done All the photos I took of and in the Schweppes bottlng factory with permission in April, will be uploaded to Commons and used in the new stand-alone commercial Malvern spring water article à la Perrier and Evian. The articles will of course be linked.--Kudpung (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  4. The Art projects, Source and Interest groups section need to be expanded a bit. There needs to be a bit more on the sections' subjects.
    Art projects - the Spa association has an annual "well dressing" contest where locals spruce up the well sites. This would be a good area to start. Also look at Rose Gerard's home page for some good stuff. Fixed
    I think we've said all we can about art that is Malvern Water specific. We don't relly want to turn this article in to a promotional page for Rose Garrard. At some time or another I might create a BLP about her, but at the moment, apart from her own autobiographical home page there is very little else about her anywhere, and not much else about water art in Malvern elsewhere.
    If you go to her gallery, and click on the images of her Malvern works a summary page will come up listing some background of her involvement with the area. Also, I am not intoning that you make the section about her works solely, but stating that she has some knowledge of the art work and restorations of the various wells and structures. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 16:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
    I think she has enough mention in the article already. If this article is to become a Rose Garrard fan site, let's let some other editors do it.--Kudpung (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
    Sources - A little research came up with the Malvern Hills Geopark site, good as any place to start. Also try searches under Hydrology and hydro-geology. Fixed
     Done Fixed by Wotnow. Geopark seems to be more of a portal and appears to have nothing specific to Malvern Water that we can use that we haven't said already. I think we have other Malvern articls that treat (or should be treating) the geology or Hydrogeology in greater detail alreaady. I'm not sure the object of this article is to turn it into a scientific treatise.--Kudpung (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)}
    I'm reaching the limits of my time management, but I've covered this as best I could, adding a range of citations to cover the text, while deliberately leaving it compact, and providing 'see also' links for further reading. I also managed to capitalise on the Geopark link. All up, I'd like to think we can pass muster for this section, while at the same time providing the seed citations for future development, either here, or more likely, in other articles. Wotnow (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Indeed, I've now added a further reading section to some articles. It'll be up to other editors to capitalise on it, per DavidCane's initiative from a similar addition to City and South London Railway (he cited it and incorporated it into references). But it illustrates my point, I hope, that we've probably taken this section far enough for current purposes. Wotnow (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
    Interest groups - a little more on the two main groups, you can use their sites for sources, but do try to get some good secondary sources. Fixed
     Done - significantly expanded.--Kudpung (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)They haven't actually got their own sites. The official group has a sub domain on a local government site, the other group has a page that has very little to do with Malvern water, and the site is extremely difficult to read. Like most volunteer associations they have a lot of meetings and big dinners, and talk a lot. Their work is excellent and takes a lot of planning but the visible result boils down to what we have already written. When I tried to meet up with them in Malvern when I was in the UK in April for more background for this article, there was zero interest - all one group wanted was to promote their books. There is some suspected rivalry and one group tried to use the Wikipedia in the past as a political platform. I've added a few more bits, but IMHO it's beginning to look like a collection of trivia. In order to stay out of local politics, I would suggest that this section covers enough. If it's still not enough, we can cut the section completely, then there can be no complaints about its size or its coverage.--Kudpung (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
    I've updated that section a bit, which should go some way to addressing issues noted here. Wotnow (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)  Done
  5. This one has been bugging me and while reading over the article again I feel that the last sentence (length of time the water takes to filter through the rocks) of the first section needs to be cited. Fixed
    Mention removed. This was not OR of course, but intensive searching has failed to reveal where we originally got this info. It may have been from one of the MDC govt pages that their webmaster keeps changing and destroying from his records.--Kudpung (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
    A brief comment so as not to intrude on, or distract from, the efficient and educational dialogue. I too was bothered by the lack of citation, which I tried to address at the same time as the flow rates. The specificity of the statement leads me to think the contributor read it somewhere. Indeed, I'd be a bit surprised if there isn't some study somewhere in which the rate of water seepage has been measured or estimated. Probably the largest part of information finding is knowing the terminology used by those writing on the topic. To that end I found this, on the Hydro-geology of the Malvern Hills, as well as this one, on Geochemistry and the understanding of ground-water systems. On further reading here, I note Jerem43's search suggestions. Thanks for that. Kudpung's action is the most sensible for the purpose of the GA review, given lack of a citation. Nevertheless, I'll add something to the 'further reading' or 'external links' sections to stimulate further research by us or others. I'll also add an 'unanswered questions' section to the talk page, again with a view to stimulating further research. If there is something findable out there, sooner or later, it will be found, by someone, if not us. Regards. Wotnow (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
    Comment update. In the end, I used a citation from the MSA site for the temporal correlation between rainfall and spring outflow. It's just not possible that such observable natural phenomena, with such a long-standing high profile, have not been recorded by not only scientists, but also lay-people. So factually, the citation will be reliable enough for current purposes. Regarding the above links, I took a different tack. I used the hydrogeology link in a reference. I see too that the author of that particular page, Dr Cheryl Jones, is a senior lecturer in Physical Geography at University of Worcester. As for the link for Geochemistry and the understanding of ground-water systems, it doesn't specifically mention Malvern or Malvern Hills, so I placed that in a 'Further reading' section in the article on Groundwater recharge, and created a 'see also' link to the Groundwater recharge article. Wotnow (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  6. Please fix this statement from the Purity section: recent drought has dried out the rock that filters the water... The term "recent" is ambiguous and could end up tagged.[when?] Please change that to a more concrete time frame. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 15:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Fixed
     Done--Kudpung (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I will do a read through Friday, my next day off. I will see how it reads and make any further comments, if there is a reason to do so. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 05:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


Sorry not to finish the review when I promised, a couple of things came up (work, E. Coli), Looking at the work done and the quality of the edits I think it you have succeeded in your quest.

Lets call this a  Pass.

--Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 21:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jeremy! Hope the E.Coli has, ahm, passed! GyroMagician (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Progress notes

Hi folks. I see Kudpung removed the unsourced claim about the water taking 30 days to permeate through the rocks. Cheers Kudpung. I'm glad you did it. I confess I spotted that at the time I found the reference for the flow rates, but I was reluctant to point it out or challenge it without making a serious attempt to find a reference, and I'd have kept revisiting the exercise for some time, albeit off and on. I would be a bit surprised if there is not some study somewhere in which the rate of water seepage has been measured or estimated. However, I've made a few attempts, using various key terms and combinations of key terms, but to no avail. Either the terms were broad enough that I got thousands of results to wade through, or if I tried narrowing it down, I got nothing citable. This doesn't mean nothing exists of course. Just that (a) it's not readily findable via publicly available internet searches, and (b) if it is there, I haven't hit on the right terms or combination of terms to narrow down the search results while not eliminating the result I'm after. At least it can be said that an effort was made. Regards Wotnow (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Update. Per comment above, transcluded from the GA talk page, I have found a citation for the temporal correlation between rainfall and spring outflow, which is good enough for current purposes. If another citation isn't found, it'll do. Meantime, the presence of the sentence serves (a) its own information purpose and (b) as a possible stimulant to further inquiry. There will be records somewhere. That is certain. It pertains to observable phenomena that scientist and lay-people DO record. It doesn't mean it's findable to us via the public internet, or not easily findable. But what's found so far will do for now. It'll at least stop me from spending a disproportionate amount of time looking for information. Wotnow (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Unanswered questions and ideas

This section is intended to generate unanswered questions and ideas on answering them, or just ideas for future additions to the article. This is intended to be over and above anything related to the current GA review (i.e. following on from that process for further development to this or related articles), but from which ideas may of course be generated, as indeed was the first question. Wotnow (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC) See also comment updates above. Wotnow (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

  1. Time taken for groundwater to seep through Malvern Hills to the spring outlets.
What is written on this? Is there a good overview to be found somewhere? Where should one look, and what search-terms will yield sensible results?
Some links to start with:
Malvern Hills Geopark
Hydro-geology of the Malvern Hills
Geochemistry and the understanding of ground-water systems full article
Add next link here
Some terminology used:
Hydrology, hydro-geology. Aquifier
Groundwater recharge

Reversion solution

Firstly, welcome back to GyroMagician. Good to see your input in the work-up to a GA. Something odd happened to some of the citations, with bare urls showing instead of the citation. After a couple of simple experiments and checking the previews, I did not work out the solution. I noted that the version as at GyroMagician's edit of 08:50 11 July 2010 was okay. Given that, I copied-and-pasted from that version back into the article content. After saving this message, I'll try to reinstate Gyro's efforts from there. I'm expecting it to be easier to do that than to work out what went wrong, although perhaps the answer will jump out as I go. Regards Wotnow (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Wotnow (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Structuring for content flow

On further review of the article, I noticed a couple of things I thought I might try a bold approach with. Firstly, I noticed that the 'Art projects' seemed to follow naturally on from the 'Interest groups' section, but was separated by the 'Commercialisation' section, which itself follows naturally on from the 'Medicinal use' section. The self-contained wording of the sections allowed for easy relocation, so I did this, and was initially going to leave it at that.

However, by placing the 'Art projects' section immediately after the 'Interest groups' section, a couple of things became more self-evident. Firstly, some duplication and overlap of text, in relation to the Spring Water Arts Project. Secondly, the fact that the last paragraph in the 'Interest groups' section, which contained this duplication and overlap, belonged more appropriately in the 'Art projects' section. After some consideration, I figured that the text and citations provided allowed for restructuring and integration of the overlapping material. In doing this, I managed to take care of another problem that I had previously encountered. That is, how to allow for the acknowledgement of other art projects, either those we aren't aware of, of new ones, or just ongoing activity. The 2010 projects allowed for this quite nicely, and so I decided to give it a shot. Thus, the 'Interest groups' section has been previously expanded to elaborate on the two primary groups. And now, the 'Art projects' follows on naturally from this, up to the present day, and allows for new material to be added on. I hope I have done some justice to the article via this exercise. Wotnow (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wotnow, well done, I think it looks better after re-ordering. I always enjoy that moment of clarity on recognising a better structure for a piece of text. An thanks for fixing the refs - I've no idea what happened there, but I'd agree with your pragmatism - in this case making it work is more important than understanding why it didn't (and it could be a very tedious search!). You and Kudpung have done good things with this article, it's looking very healthy. I have very little spare time at the moment, so I'm afraid my contributions will be minimal, but I think the article looks ready. We'll see if Jeremy agrees ;-)
BTW - Hi Jeremy, nice to see you reviewing the article. I believe I was rather grumpy when we first met, but fortunately you had the patience to clearly set out how we could improve the article - thanks again! GyroMagician (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
De nada --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 16:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Cheers GyroMagician. Nevertheless your contribution was helpful and well-timed. Thanks for doing the Malvern Water move (Sounds like a new type of dance. "Take your partner by the sash. Move to the right and make a splash...etc"). And now I know what de nada means, although I did have to look it up on de internet. Anada bit of learning for me. Wotnow (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Sir your puns are horrible. Keep up the good work... --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 04:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Editing status re GA updates

I have to tend to other things, but I'm pretty much done for our current purposes. Regards Wotnow (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture Cull

How does everyone feel about deleting a couple of pictures? The article has some good illustrations, so I'd like to thin out a couple of the less-good ones. I'd like to get rid of the Malvern Water bottling plant (some rather forbidding gates and a no-entry sign), and Florence at the bottom (it's not clear why she's there - the article isn't about her, or about Malvern museum). What do you think? GyroMagician (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Florence is there because there was a suggestion that the article was thin in content. I took the picture in the Museum in April so I used it. I thought it would add more 'notability' to the water, but in fact there's absolmutely no shortage of notability of the water, nor of notable people who have used it or consumed it. I have absolutely no objections whatsoever of it being removed. The gate of the Schweppes plant was added on the reviewer's suggestion.--Kudpung (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not mind the removal of some images, but per good and featured article standards there should be images in the sections that help improve the section and expand the article. If you do remove some, please make sure that you do not leave sections devoid of pictures. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 17:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
In principle I have no objection, for what it's worth, especially if it enhances the article overall with regards the GA review. And especially since the suggestion, and agreement with the suggestion, all come from editors with an unquestionable track-record of striving to improve articles. So it has considerable credence.
I could make a couple of observations. Firstly, the bottling plant picture did get me wondering - a key motive for inquiry and learning, in my experience. The building in the photo looks somewhat historical. From the Victorian era? Is it the oldest building on the site? Is it the actual originl bottling plant? What is its history? Are there other comparative photos of it from the Victorian era? That sort of thing. This wondering is from the perspective of a reader intrigued by the article content. The Malvern Water (bottled water) article lends itself nicely to answering such questions, and the answering of such questions may help in development of that article.
Secondly, the Nightingale picture impressed me, for its quality and visual informativeness. If the article suffered from a paucity of relevant pictures, it would be worth leaving there and expanding on the relationship between Nightingale and Malvern - I gather she visited there a few times: I never previously knew that. However, there is no such paucity. I did manage to capitalise on the Nightingale picture by adding it to the article on her, and developing the relevant section just that bit more.
My general philosophical view on the deletion of any information is: "is there somewhere else, and/or some way else, that this inoformation could conceivably play a contributing role to the information environment?" On this count, both pictures have done that, and any deletion from this article can be safely done if the overall consensus is to do so - which it seems is the case. Regards Wotnow (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Photos removed. Both sections still have other, more relevant, photos, so I think we remain well illustrated. For the bottling plant, a photo of the plant itself may still be interesting (what else do you have in your stash KP?) - but the photo I removed was of the gates, and a no-entry sign, with the plant almost visible in the background. It seemed rather foreboding! And while I think Malvern Museum are doing a fantastic job, we have better picture already in the article, and I don't think it added much. I like to keep an article tightly focussed, if possible - I think it enhances the good stuff, of which there is plenty here. GyroMagician (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi GM, I think you've done the right thing. What I have in my stash is not interesting - at least not for this Malvern article. I'm happy to go along with any consensus to prune the pics because I felt the article was getting over illustrated already. BTW, time's up today.--Kudpung (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi folks. While I held no strong opinion either way on the presence or absence of the pics (my opinions pertain more to the question of how useful information can be utilised rather than lost, and that's been addressed), I concur with GM's removal. I see too, per Kudpung, that time is now up. I'd like to think we covered our bases, addressed all the criteria as laid out, and explained ourselves adequately as we went. But that's just my view. Regards Wotnow (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comments:

  1. Please standardize the citations using the {{cite web}} family of templates
  2. The format of the quotes is erratic, please pick a single format for them
  3. Unless there is reason to separate the quotations, they should be inline using italics. The way they are now makes this read like a brochure.
  4. Unless this is a brand name, which it appears not to be, this article should be moved to Malvern water per WP:Common name.
  5. The headings need to be redone per WP:Headings. e.g. The water in medicine should be Medicinal uses or Medicinal claims
  6. The Prominent consumers section really does not appear to be relevant to the article, just added trivia.