Talk:Geology of Somerset/GA1

GA Review

Hi! I am going to be reviewing this article for GA, and I should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The lead should be a summary of the article, with no new information in it. Perhaps start a new section titled "History" or "Background" or "General" or something of the sort, move most of what's in the lead now there, and then summarize the entire article in two to three good sized paragraphs.
The lead is good for now. I might like to see it a little bit longer, but this isn't a requirement.

~~The "Brendons" section (and to a lesser extent the "Southern Uplands" section) are very short. Is there any way that they could be combined with other sections?~~

~~In your section headers, only the first word should be capitalized.~~

~~The "Main River Valleys" section has a LOT of redlinks. Do all of these have a good chance of becoming articles or redirects? If so, then leave, if not, de-link.~~

There are a lot of short sentences, which tend to make the prose choppy. Take a run through the article and try to combine some of these to make the article flow more.

I have not done a complete check of the prose due to the other concerns that are more important. As soon as the other issues (mainly the lead and referencing) have had significant work completed, I will take a run through the article for prose and other nitpicks.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
My main concern in this article is the lack of referencing. Below, I've detailed the areas that need refs:
"Rock ages" section, last sentence of first paragraph, all of second paragraph

~~"Coastline" section, last two and a half sentences~~

"Main River Valleys" section, entire section

~~"Levels and Moors" section, entire first paragraph, plus last sentences of second and third paragraphs~~

"Northern Uplands" section, ~~first three paragraphs, plus all but the first sentence of the fourth paragraph~~, last sentences of first and third paragraphs

"Southern Uplands" section, ~~entire section~~, last sentences of first, second and fourth paragraphs

~~"Quantocks" section, first paragraph, plus last three sentences of second paragraph~~

"Exmoor" section, ~~first paragraph~~, plus last sentence of third paragraph, most of fifth paragraph ~~and all of last two paragraphs~~

Your book cites should include page numbers

~~What were the items in the "Bibliography" section used for?~~
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
~~All of your images but one are right aligned. Could you move a couple more to left alignment, in order to make the article flow better?~~
I like what you did with moving some over. I moved a couple of the left aligned images down so that they don't interfere with the headers, per MOS. If you don't like what I did, feel free to re-move - basically, photos aren't supposed to "separate" the header from the beginning of the text by being right under the header on the left.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I have some serious concerns about the referencing quality of this article. There are many paragraphs that are not referenced, and some sections that have no references at all. Also, there are several issues with MOS. I am going to put this article on hold for seven days to allow the editors time to work on these issues. If the editors needs more time at that point, I will extend the hold if I see that work is being continued. If you have questions, you can contact me here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful comments. I have made a start on addressing some of your comments, specifically those about the subheads, short paragraphs, red links, image alignment etc and have added some references where they are needed. Some of the sections which lack references are descriptions of physical features which are clear on maps but it may be difficult to find other references, apart from maps, which include these descriptions.

I will need to return to the library to get the books to be able to include page numbers & this may be difficult as I shall be away for a long bank holiday weekend with no Internet access & than (1-8 Sept) out of the country for work. I will ask editors from the Somerset WikiProject and others for help with meeting your concerns, particularly in relation to copyediting the prose - but may have difficulty meeting the seven day rule.— Rod ^talk 23:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the article is being improved, I am very willing to extend the hold to allow you extra time. I know that everyone has a real life that can't always revolve around WP :) If a section can only be referenced to a map, just say that in the in-line citation, something along the lines of "See Map of Somerset, drawn by the UK Geological Society, 2004, published by XYZ Company". Basically just to let a future editor know that you weren't just pulling the information out of the clear blue sky. I'll keep an eye on the edits as the progress, and once I see that the referencing has proceeded significantly, I'll start working through the prose. My main reason for not doing the prose now is that I've found in my own editing that I occasionally completely re-write sections when I'm working on adding references to them, and so I don't want to comment on a paragraph that's going to be completely re-written within the next few days anyways! Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:Malleus Fatuorum for help with copyediting and User:Pyrotec for help with referencing etc. I hope that between us we have satisfied some of your concerns and I would be grateful if you would take another look and let us know any further areas in which you feel the article still needs work.— Rod ^talk 21:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am passing this article for GA because it has been significantly improved and now meets GA standards. However, if you are planning on taking this article to FA (or even just wanting to improve the article further), there are several things I would recommend. These include making sure that everything is referenced. There are still several sentences at the ends of paragraphs with no refs, which will be challenged at FA. They're nothing all that controversial, so I am not requiring that you have them for GA. Also, standardize your reference formatting: some of your books have separate URLs, some have URLs that are linked to the title, some of your websites have no publishers and most of your books have no page numbers. If some books are used multiple times you may want to consider moving the full reference into a new section and using a simple short ref in the in-line cite, to make reading the references section easier. Also, there are still many short sentences, which tend to break up the prose. In order to get the professional, flowing prose requirement of FA, you need to do a thorough copyedit which looks specifically for consecutive short sentences. That being said, this is a very good article that is well-written and informative. Dana boomer (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]