Talk:Hengistbury Head/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 10:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to take on this review. On first inspection it seems to be a well-written article and I look forward to reading it in greater detail. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

The lead section is very short compared to the length of the article. The MOS suggests it should briefly cover the aspects of the subject mentioned in the body of the text. It does not normally need to include any references because the facts concerned will be cited in the main text.

Expanded. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

Although the lead mentions the "English county of Dorset", the section called Location could be a bit more specific about its location to help readers from say Australia, who might not be familiar with British geography.

I certainly see your point, but finding it currently rather difficult to phrase it. For the meantime I've added more on its location in terms of nearest settlements and county boundaries. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

"Two ingots discovered at this time revealed importing of raw materials to the area" - This sentence could be improved.

Attempted to reword. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

There is a "citation needed" tag in the "Iron Age" section.

I've removed the comment altogether, it isn't essential for a discussion of the site. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

In the section "17th, 18th and 19th centuries" I think you should introduce the word "quarry" near the beginning of the third paragraph as it is currently unclear that the stone was being removed on a commercial scale.

Attempted to reword. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

In the "Present day" section, there are not many references.

Put in a few more. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

The names of birds should be consistent with regard to their capitalisation.

Skylarks was the only non-capitalised instance I could find, and corrected. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it is a nice, well-balanced article. I have made a few minor corrections, mostly missing words, which you can reverse if you want to. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, and the positive comments—it's been a collaborative effort with a number of people, but I was encouraged to submit for review by an editor more involved than myself. I've addressed most of the points, but will try to finish the rest very shortly. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the all feedback, and thanks to MOHOD for nominating. When I first came upon this article on 13 March, it was quite small and seemed to be missing lots of information. This was my first serious contribution to WP, and it feels like ages ago already! Fwiw, I was conceived in one of the beach-huts, and as such, I consider myself "King of Hengistbury Head". You can often see me there telling people to "get orff my laaand.." -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 08:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Criteria

1a The article is well written.
1b The article conforms with the MOS guidelines and has been recently improved by the enlargement of the lead section.
2a&b After some improvements, the article is now satisfactorily referenced.
2c There is no original research as far as I can see.
3a&b The coverage is broad enough and the article does not include irrelevant material.
4 The article is neutral.
5 The article has been enlarged and improved by a group of editors since early March 2013. There is no edit warring.
6 The images are mostly appropriately licensed but one is in the public domain having been created over one hundred years ago.
7 The images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions.
Overall assessment -
- I now feel the GA criteria are met. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]