Talk:Ebbor Gorge/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) 22:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in generally very good shape. I have some copy-editing quibbles, but nothing that I think is fatal to promotion.

"It is owned by the National Trust following a donation": This reads rather awkwardly and is arguably ungrammatical. Rewording this to avoid the gerund would probably solve the problem.

Reworded.— Rod ^talk 09:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link Clifton Down Limestone.

Done— Rod ^talk 09:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe a link to Coal measures for Lower Coal Measures.

Done— Rod ^talk 09:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"and example of Carboniferous Limestone". I assume you mean an.

Changed.— Rod ^talk 09:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mineral names, such as mendipite, need not be capitalized.

Changed— Rod ^talk 09:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"are provided with a habitat": Passive mood wording makes it read like the habitat is artificial (or at least does so to my ear). Perhaps reword this sentence more actively: The nature reserve provides a habitat for a variety of flora and fauna...

Thanks I've used your wording.— Rod ^talk 09:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a geological feature, the geology section feels a little thin. I think it addresses the main aspects of the topic, so I'm not going to count this against GA criterion 3, but especially if you want to consider developing this further for a push to FA, you'll want to survey some more of the geology journals here, I think.
I don't think you need "Specifically" here.

Removed.— Rod ^talk 09:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does Hope Wood = Hope Woodlands? I am not certain of the answer; if so, link it.

No a couple of hundred miles difference.— Rod ^talk 09:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Various caves": If the sources provide them, naming one or two might be worth considering. I see you do name a couple caves for the mammal fossils; any idea if these are the same ones?

Looking again at the sources, they don't name specific caves and some of the flints were found in areas outside the caves.— Rod ^talk 09:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"One fine flint flake among several found has been identified": This is a pretty awkward sentence, and I'm not quite sure what you're going for here.

Reworded is this better?— Rod ^talk 09:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd reshuffle the History section entirely. You jump from Neolithic people to Devensian mammals, then back to the Bronze Age.
That parenthetical "presumed"—are the sources unsure about the dating? Why is that here?

The dating is not specific and sources say "last ice age" or similar so I have removed the presumed - but I don't think the evidence is there to get any more specific.— Rod ^talk 09:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources comment on the ownership history before Mrs. Hodgkinson? I'd guess probably not, but never hurts to check.

Nothing that I can find in the sources - presumably part of a larger estate of the "landed gentry" but I can't find any specific names of owners etc.— Rod ^talk 09:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One newspaper ref to its purchase in 1931 added.— Rod ^talk 10:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the information, I don't think it would be undue weight to go ahead and list trail lengths, considering its current status.

The longest is 3 kilometres (1.9 mi).— Rod ^talk 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mention the year of its notification in the lead, but I don't see that in the body.

Done— Rod ^talk 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any date for its status as a National Nature Reserve?

After lots of searching I can't find this.— Rod ^talk 19:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of similar articles combine flora and fauna sections into one, often titled "Biology and ecology", then break them into sub-sections if length demands. Worth considering here.

Done— Rod ^talk 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dog's mercury / wood anemone / common bluebell: common names of plants (in most cases, anyway, including these) needn't be capitalized.

Done— Rod ^talk 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser horseshoe doesn't need to be capitalized. For reasons I do not understand, convention appears to be that butterfly species keep their capitals, but I'll try to double-check that with the MOS people.

I've never understood these (or been able to keep up with the changing fashions).— Rod ^talk 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe a link to Hibernaculum (zoology) for hibernacular.

Done— Rod ^talk 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red deer doesn't need to be linked (because you already have, in history, and doesn't need to be capitalized; it wasn't in its earlier appearance).

Done— Rod ^talk 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look mostly good, although I'm not sure Real Alternative (#15) is reliable. I think the information is replaceable from Lewis, but you'll want to check to be sure.

Replaced by ref to Somerset Historic Environment Record.— Rod ^talk 19:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The External Link is already used in the references, but I don't think that's a problem here. I would restyle it to provide more context though. Perhaps: Natural England website for the Ebbor Gorge NNR

Done— Rod ^talk 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calling this on hold for the moment to give an opportunity to clean up a few of these issues, but I feel confident I'll be able to promote in short order. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

Reviewer Squeamish Ossifrage hasn't edited on Wikipedia since October 2. As this review has been abandoned, the nomination is being returned to the reviewing pool, where it will hopefully get some attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]