Talk:Blackdown Hills/GA1

GA Review

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial skim through

Looks good so far. Quite a few red-line locations; and the in-line citations sparse in some sub-sections.Pyrotec (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination – on hold

Article is substantially compliant but there are a few areas needing attention, mostly the need for citations. Points needing attention are:

History section: what appears to be an unfinished sentence regarding Annales Cambriae.

Geography section. No reference to support statement referring to water extraction from the Otter valley.

Climate section. Mostly unreferenced, however ref 11 is a "home page" and its sub-pages could provide referencing for possibly all the statements made in these two paragraphs.

Geology: both references 5 & 6 are long, could page numbers be provided?
Ecology, first sentence is unreferenced, but possibly ref 6, which appears later, also supports the first sentence.

History. Middle ages iron working at Hemyock unreferenced. Chain of Elizabethan beacons unreferenced. Ditto wool and yarn production at Cold Harbour; Robert Polhill Bevan; and RAF bases (but I can fix this one tonight).

Government and Politics: no ref for AONB, but this is covered elsewhere so the ref can be reused.

Overall a good article.Pyrotec (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Malleus Fatuorum

I'm uncertain that this article is correct in generally considering the Blackdown Hills to be plural, as in "The Blackdown Hills are a sparsely populated area". The lead tells us that it is the name of a range of hills, which would surely make it singular?

This sentence doesn't make sense: "River valleys cut into the landscape which together support an extensive range of wildlife leading to the designation of 16 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)."

Points of the compass are not given consistently: "unique in south west England .."; "The predominant wind direction is from the south-west."

It should be consistently "Iron Age", not "iron age".

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments. Thank you both for your comments which have helped to improve the article. I believe all issues raised above have been dealt with except the singular v plural concern. Looking at Quantock Hills which is already a GA and a close neighbour with similar characteristics, the range of hills is described in the plural - but I am willing to bow to expertise on which is correct. Please let me know of any further areas which you feel need improvement.— Rod ^talk 20:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Congratulations and thanks for all your hard work. I've now assessed the article as GA class. Pyrotec (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]