Talk:Brean Down

Brean Down has been listed as one of the Art and architecture 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.

Brean Down is part of the National Trust properties in Somerset series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 13, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
December 6, 2015	Good topic candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 8, 2014.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Brean Down has been designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest due to both its geology and its range of plants?

Current status: Good article

Somerset Mid‑importance

	Somerset portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

British and Irish hills

This article is within the scope of WikiProject British and Irish hills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the hills and mountains of Great Britain and Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British and Irish hillsWikipedia:WikiProject British and Irish hillsTemplate:WikiProject British and Irish hillsBritish and Irish hills articles

Military history: Fortifications / British / European / Roman & Byzantine / World War II C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force
	World War II task force

Untitled

The large arrow mentioned is, in fact, made of concrete (not painted as stated) and still exists. See this excellent picture on Geograph by Hywel Williams: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1931583 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandererjon (talk • contribs) 19:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What else is needed to get this article to GA quality?

What else do people think is needed to get this article to meet the Good article criteria?— Rod ^talk 17:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Article passed - 13 July 2014.

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

Reviewer: TLSuda (talk · contribs) 18:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I know you've waited a few months for a review, but I have good news! I'm stuck in a tin can for 5 hours tomorrow late night UTC, so I'm going to use that time wisely to review this article. I expect to have the review posted in the early morning hours UTC the following day. (Approximately less than 36 hours from this post.) I look forward to reading and reviewing this article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Very minor things. See prose review.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
One issue. See prose review.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Just a few small things left to do! Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review

Lead

"...it is a continuation of the Mendip Hill" should end the sentence, and start the next sentence with "Two further..."

Changed.— Rod ^talk 08:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...Bronze Age and there remains..." replace "there" with "includes"

Changed.— Rod ^talk 08:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History

"Probably" see WP:ALLEGED. Either need a different word, or remove the word, or find a source that claims probably.

The Athill book which is used as a citation says it is "extremely likely". I don't think a definitive answer will ever be given so probably reflects the source unless you have a better word.— Rod ^talk 08:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would end the sentence at "...mid-4th century." and start the next sentence: "According to at least one source, it is extremely likely this temple succeeded..." and make sure that source stays at the end. TLSuda (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done— Rod ^talk 17:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Shooting rights" does not need quotes.

Removed— Rod ^talk 08:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spell out and convert 6" (see Wikipedia:CONVERT#Single value

Done— Rod ^talk 08:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know what the results of the proposals to construct a Severn Barrage are? I assume they are obviously not successful, but do we know?

See Severn Barrage. The proposals which go back over 100 years have never been successful so far, however Peter Hain and others are still working on further proposals and trying to persuade the government to fund either the barrage or tidal lagoons. (As an aside and this is personal speculation - the development of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station will mean that a lot of the infrastructure will be put in place making future development of a barrage more likely). I'm not sure how to word it - perhaps say that previous proposals have been unsuccessful but future developments are awaited or similar.— Rod ^talk 08:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you word it exactly how you just worded it to me: "The proposals which go back over 100 years have never been successful so far, however Peter Hain and others are still working on further proposals and trying to persuade the government to fund either the barrage or tidal lagoons." Thats really good writing there. This is why I like to ask open ended questions: you do the work in your response. TLSuda (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done.— Rod ^talk 17:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology

Why is "small heath" the only name that is not capitalized?

Changed.— Rod ^talk 08:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. As soon as we get these little pieces cleaned up, I will be happy to promote. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments. I have addressed most but see comment re barrage proposals above and the use of "probably" for 4th century building.— Rod ^talk 08:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to both. Let me know, TLSuda (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both changed as suggested.— Rod ^talk 17:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to promote this to a Good Article! Congratulations, TLSuda (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete arrow

We have a picture, with the caption "Concrete arrow", but nothing in the text to explain this, or say where on the Down it is. Can someone fix that, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brean Down. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100218145015/http://www.theheritagetrail.co.uk:80/piers/birnbeck%20pier.htm to http://www.theheritagetrail.co.uk/piers/birnbeck%20pier.htm

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) 18:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brean Down. 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) 18:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brean Down. 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) 01:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]