Talk:Marsden Rock/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]Firstly, you have done a great job of tidying up and expanding this article, which is very nearly ready for GA. I therefore have only a few minor comments to make. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- "is a rock formation" -> "is a rock". Formation is a process; the term is used by geologists for subdivisions of the Permian (etc); and popularly to mean pretty much anything rocky, not terribly useful or encyclopedic. Let's avoid it.
- Thank you, I've changed it.
- By the same token, "Formation" is an ambiguous heading - I think you mean "Processes" here, i.e. the processes of sedimentation and hardening that created the Magnesian Limestone (which needs to be mentioned and wikilinked in this section) and then the processes of erosion which have shaped the stack and its arches. It would be clearest to have headings "Creation" and "Erosion" under "Geology" to replace the existing subheadings (Formation, Collapses), but note that "Erosion" begins with the second paragraph of the existing "Formation" section, i.e. a small reorganisation.
- Agree this makes more sense - have changed the subheadings and reorganised the paragraphs.
- The photos from 1990 and 1991 are a bit too similar, maybe lose the 1991 photo. The "A smaller arch" photo needs a date. We are missing a photo that shows the rock in the context of the nearby tall cliffs - an aerial view, or one from the sea, would be ideal. There are some on Commons, of variable quality.
- I've removed the 1991 image and added a date to the smaller arch image (2006). I've also added an image of Marsden Rock taken within the context of the Bay with a caption explaining how it was once part of the main cliff.
- The article immediately looks better.
- I've removed the 1991 image and added a date to the smaller arch image (2006). I've also added an image of Marsden Rock taken within the context of the Bay with a caption explaining how it was once part of the main cliff.
- The 'seabirds' in the photo are mainly cormorants.
- Thanks - I wasn't sure! I have added this into the caption.
- It might be worth downloading and using Thomas Bewick's wood-engraving "Marsden Rock", published 1804 in his A History of British Birds but drawn by 1798; it forms an interesting comparison with Jackson's later (far more refined) engraving, and it shows that the rock had been portrayed repeatedly. It is online at British Museum object 1860,0811.107 and can be put on Commons with the license {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} as it is long out of copyright. If you like I can do that for you.
- Thanks for finding this image, I'll have a go at uploading and adding to the article.
- Good luck!
- I've uploaded and added it to a gallery in the article - I thought that would be the best way to lay out the two images coherently but happy to rearrange if necessary.
- That works.
- I've uploaded and added it to a gallery in the article - I thought that would be the best way to lay out the two images coherently but happy to rearrange if necessary.
- Good luck!
- Thanks for finding this image, I'll have a go at uploading and adding to the article.
- The cultural section is great fun. It actually would benefit from at least one postcard - I'd suggest the Neill C. Woods scenic postcard "Marsden Rock (Avast Behind)" which we could include under the fair usage provisions with a non-free usage rationale as long as you include brief discussion of the topic in the text. The hand-coloured postcard on Google Arts & Culture could be an alternative. The postcard "Marsden Rock and Grotto, South Shields" was published in 1911 by Valentine's of Dundee, so presumably we can use {{PD-Art|PD-1923}} as its Commons license. The Aerial View, The Marine Grotto, Marsden Bay is a historic aerial photo so we could include it under fair usage (with NFUR again), it must be 1930s.
- I had a blast (pun intended) writing this section! I'm not too familiar with NFUR images, so I'm going to do the 1911 postcard first. Could I just check why the template is PD-1923? And can you find any evidence for a publication date? The website only lists the date it was posted (1911).
- Oh, um. Well if it was posted it had certainly been published by 1911. If it was a book that'd be fine but maybe cards are different. Best assume it's in copyright for now. I've uploaded a different image with NFUR, feel free to do as you like with it. I think the article is now easily up to the required standard, good work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for picking this article up for review so quickly and for your help! Much appreciated :) Unexpectedlydian (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, um. Well if it was posted it had certainly been published by 1911. If it was a book that'd be fine but maybe cards are different. Best assume it's in copyright for now. I've uploaded a different image with NFUR, feel free to do as you like with it. I think the article is now easily up to the required standard, good work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I had a blast (pun intended) writing this section! I'm not too familiar with NFUR images, so I'm going to do the 1911 postcard first. Could I just check why the template is PD-1923? And can you find any evidence for a publication date? The website only lists the date it was posted (1911).
