Jump to content

Talk:Dunster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Questionable contributions

[edit]

These contributions seem questionable to me.

From Special:Contributions/TurnedWorm(talk) - Conygar Tower, is a folly used as a landmark for shipping. It is situated on the top of Conygar Hill and overlooks the village. It was designed and built by Richard Phelps in 1776 and was commissioned by Henry Fownes Luttrell. It has no strategic or military significance.
If the tower has no strategic or military significance why is it mentioned in the article? Also whose folly it was, and why, is not explained. If the reason for the folly is because the tower had no strategic or military significance then it is perhaps better reworded as Conygar Tower, was commissioned by Henry Fownes Luttrell, and designed and built by Richard Phelps, in 1776. Though situated on the top of Conygar Hill and overlooking the village, it has no strategic or military significance and is only used as a landmark for shipping. Its construction is considered to be a folly by historians because Luttrell and Phelps ...' then describe whatever its design faults are, as well as delusions of grandeur, fraud and wasted public money or fortunes when into its construction. I might well let this pass, except the edit was made by a new editor who has been contributing to completely different topics and subsequent edits to the article shed a different light on things.
From LambOfDog(talk) - Some of the structures last to this day. Most noteable are the Pill Boxes on the foreshore of Dunster Beach. These are strong buildings made from pebbles, taken from the beach, and from which soldiers could hold their ground if the Germans ever invaded. For decades after the war these structures were used by the locals as latrines for which we were very grateful. Now they have been sealed. Probably as a measure to reduce the number of flies.
There is some truth in this tale, though not all of the detail is accurate or well expressed. Fortifications are generally consructed from concrete, not just beach pebbles, though making the concrete from pebbles, sand and cement is the usual formulation for concrete. To be accurate this needs further explanation. The use of the fortifications for other less hygenic purposes is also not unheard of, nor is their sealling up. However the use of the second person "we" in this context is not appropriate and calls into question the value of the whole contribution. Re-writing is needed.
Also From LambOfDog(talk) - , though the station is over a mile from the village. It is in what is known locally as the Marsh.
These are unverified facts, which might well be true, but are better said a bit differently. As currently stated, it sounds sarcastic.

Unfortunately, I do not know this place well enough to edit reliably. -- Cameron Dewe 04:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dunster/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 22:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this article and be back shortly with comments. Montanabw(talk) 22:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Has dead links that need fixing
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. A few more minor tweaks, see below
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Some sandwiching of text in my browser, may want to consider restructuring layout in "landmarks" section
7. Overall assessment.

"Reviewer's comments': What a lovely town! Nice comprehensive article but needs some fixes:

  1. lots of dead links, need to fix those.
    Links fixed (Don't know how I missed that many).— Rod talk 15:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Tor (a rocky outcrop)" Meh, perhaps just link to Tor (rock formation), I think that will do fine, even us Yanks have a rough notion that a "tor" is not a proxy network!  ;-)
    Done.— Rod talk 15:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Green tickY}[reply]
  3. Ditto " annual precept (local rate)" - link to an article that explains this, I have no clue even what a "local rate" is - I'm not from the UK ... is this a property tax, an income tax, a per-capita tax...?
    Linked to Rates (tax)Green tickY}
  4. "There are in Dunster a range of heritage sites and cultural attractions", wordy. Perhaps "Dunster has a range of..." or "Dunster is home to" or something bit less passive voice?
    Done.— Rod talk 15:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Green tickY}[reply]
  5. COnsider expanding the first paragraph of the history section and rewrite "There was a similar earthwork on Grabbist Hill[9] and another at Long Wood Enclosure.[10][11][12]" - as a reader, I am asking, why does this matter at all, and are these places in Dunster??"
    Reworded to show they demonstrate important early history in the immediately surrounding area.— Rod talk 15:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Green tickY}[reply]
  6. William de Mohun, William I de Moyon, and William de Moyon confusing, same person or two/three different people? Add "the de Mohuns" Are they related to one another, perchance?
    Changed to William I de Moyon (alias de Moion, also de Mohun) - after the Norman Conquest many of the families of the French nobility changed their names over the next few hundred years to more English sounding names - so yes all part of the same dynasty of Lord of the manor.Green tickY
  7. Perhaps link "Grade I listed building"
    Done.— Rod talk 15:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Green tickY}[reply]
  8. Maybe briefly touch on why the harbour is gone... was it silted in, hence the swamps of today, or...? Particularly as there still seems to be a beach? What happened here, geologically?
    New land was laid down which became the marshy area between the village and the beach - I've added a bit to try to explain this.— Rod talk 16:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  9. "Somerset County Council is responsible " Hmm, I'd want to start the paragraph with "The" - except all the preceding ones are. Maybe to a copyedit to smooth things out.
    Reworded.— Rod talk 16:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  10. First paragraph of Geograph section has the same sentence twice with different footnotes: "During the early medieval period the sea reached the base of the hill, close to the mouth of the River Avill, offering a natural defence and making the village an inland port.[41][42][43] During the early medieval period the sea reached the base of the hill, close to the mouth of the River Avill, offering a natural defence and making the village an inland port.[43]"
    Removed duplicate.— Rod talk 16:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  11. Perhaps link "dry heath" - or simply heath, that's just British English enough that some folks won't quite be sure what that is.
    Linked.— Rod talk 16:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  12. Why is "The assemblage of beetles" of national significance? Is that a good thing (variety or something?) or a bad thing (bug problem?)
    Good for biodiversity there are lots of different types so classified as "of national importance".— Rod talk 16:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Green tickY[reply]
  13. "Azores high pressure": I presume it's a warm weather pattern, but any way to link or clarify?
    Linked to Azores High.— Rod talk 16:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Green tickY[reply]
  14. I'd link "convection" but unlink "clouds"
    Done.— Rod talk 16:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Green tickY[reply]
  15. Economy section very, very small. I suggest either expand it or merge it into one of the other sections, preferably the former. We have no idea what actually makes the town tick, is it just retail, or tourism or...? Also, is the community richer or poorer than that national average?
    I've expanded this - but yes it is mostly tourism.— Rod talk 18:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I'd also expand the Education section. I realize there is only one school, but how far away is the secondary school, and has it "always " been this way? (At least for 50 years o so...?)
    The article did already say "Secondary education in the area is provided by The West Somerset Community College in Minehead" I've added a reference. The village is too small to have had its own secondary education (at least since World War II & there wasn't much secondary education for most people before that).— Rod talk 18:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY50-50 better - On on hand, "college" threw me - we call the schools for the 11 or 12 and up crowd middle schools and the 14 and up kids go to high schools,Red XN but on the other hand, I see a gap - where do the 10 to 13 year old kids of the town go to school? You could also expand it a bit by noting that about 143 kids attend, that's cute and quaint; also, I was impressed that they have a swimming pool, that's probably not common for elementary schools in general!  ;-)
    I've added in as suggested and that Middle school provision is also in Minehead.— Rod talk 20:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Landmarks section has some unsourced material.
    I've added some references but if there are other contentious claims which needed citations please let me know.— Rod talk 18:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  18. Transport section is only about trains. I presume there are also roads... and where would be the nearest airport?
    I've added the roads. There are no international airports nearby but I've added the two nearest.— Rod talk 18:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Green tickY[reply]
  19. The religious sites section could be moved up to be a subsection of the Culture section, IMHO
    I've done this but was following the guidelines at WP:UKCITIES.— Rod talk 18:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Green tickY[reply]
    Sometimes really small sections are an IAR situation, and maybe UKCITIES might want to look at a more logical ordering of sections, but that isn't my battle, it's all good now. ;-) Montanabw(talk) 19:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I see no section on demographics, ethnicity, aging, etc... perhaps add that?
    I've put this with the economy section.— Rod talk 18:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Red XNCould use a copyedit; Starting the paragraph "West street is the oldest; though quieter... huh? Missing a few words there and maybe some introductory phrasing. Also, good improvements on ethnicity and democraphics, but curious if the population as a whole is richer or poorer than the national or regional average; I see that unemployment is lower and population is older, but if there is an overall stat, that would be helpful - not required for me to pass this GAN, but nice if you can find it.
    I've had another go at this paragraph. I'm unable to find the income data suggested.— Rod talk 20:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. More comments may be forthcoming. 1 am here, gotta go. Montanabw(talk) 07:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you will be able to address these issues. Montanabw(talk) 07:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all comments so far which have definitely helped to improve the article.— Rod talk 18:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked a couple things myself that were minor but bugging me; feel free to revert or alter, as they don't influence the GAN significantly. You've got about 95% of what I pinged all taken care of - I've put a Green tickY at what's good to go and a Red XN where I'd like a couple more tweaks; it's all fixable and mostly minor, then I should be able to pass this. Montanabw(talk) 19:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{[y}} Good to go, passed GA! Congrats! Montanabw(talk) 02:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dunster. 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) 21:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Dunster. 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) 17:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dunster. 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) 13:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dunster&oldid=1207060827"