Talk:Ebbor Gorge/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MusikAnimal (talk · contribs) 19:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Six months later... here I am! Sorry you had to wait so long. I'll be taking on this review. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I presume you are aware there was a first review during that time, but he reviewer disappeared.— Rod ^talk 20:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not! Thanks for letting me know. I'm almost done anyway. You'll hear from me very soon! — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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

B. Citations to reliable sources:

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:

Concerns

Infobox

I'm confused by the use of both the grid reference and coordinates, as they seem to be almost the same. I am admittedly not that familiar with geography-related articles, is this a standard practice? If it is, why when I check the Geohack they have different coordinates?
The UK still uses the Ordnance Survey National Grid grid reference system for most maps, so a lot of local geography articles include both so that it can be located on UK maps and international systems (eg google maps). The difference (or so I have been told) can be up to a few meters.— Rod ^talk

Lead

First sentence: Wells is linked, but Somerset, England is not. We probably don't need to mention Wells at all. Also “biological Site of Special Scientific Interest” and “notified” link to the same place. I see there is a section entitled “Notification” that perhaps you want instead want to link to. Even so, I’d reword the sentence to something like Ebbor Gorge is a limestone gorge in Somerset, England, designated and notified in 1952 as a 63.5-hectare (157-acre) biological Site of Special Scientific Interest in the Mendip Hills.
Changed.— Rod ^talk 21:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

Last sentence, first paragraph, should Mendipite be capitalized? The link I suppose is optional since it’s already linked in the lead.
It is a "proper name" of a particular compound and the capitalisation is the same as for Carboniferous Limestone & Clifton Down Limestone in the same paragraph.— Rod ^talk 21:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My indication of whether it should be capitalized came from the linked article. In mendipite they don't see to capitalize, where in Carboniferous Limestone and others they do. You would know why more than me, but my bigger point is that mendipite is capitalized in the lead but not here in the Geology section. We should keep it consistent. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now capitalised in lead for consistency.— Rod ^talk 06:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History

Ref [14] is a dead link. The WayBack Machine may contain an appropriate archive.
My dodgy internet connection is having problems with the archive site at present - I will try again tomorrow.— Rod ^talk 21:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've now managed to do the archive URL.— Rod ^talk 22:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biology and ecology

I assume you are confident the red links, Bryum canariense and Amblystegiella confervoides, meet WP:REDYES?
There are hundreds or thousands of these plant species, but as these two are considered nationally rare I suspect they are worthy of articles (and might get them one day).— Rod ^talk 22:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. The article otherwise looks great. I'm fully confident we can tackle these issues quickly, so I'm placing the article on hold. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See my note above under Geography about the Mendipite capitalization. Once we get that addressed I think we're good to go :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Great work! This nomination has passed. Congratulations! — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]