Talk:North Devon's Biosphere Reserve/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jetstreamer (talk · contribs) 01:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC) I'll be reviewing the article soon.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	So far, I've found that this section has content that is not directly supported by the references provided. This is against WP:VERIFY.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Likely WP:OR in the ″Geography″ section.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

The date format for the references is unclear. Please use a single one throughout the article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

The last sentence in the section's first paragraph is unsourced. I've marked it with a {{fact}} template.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section is backed by just two references, 1 and 2. It's hard for me to find some claims in the section included in these two references provided. For example:

It is said nowhere in the two references that the reserve is located in North Devon, Southwest England. Should the reader click on any of these two links to find the location of these two places? Either the article assumes the reader knows (or should know) these places, or the content included in this very first sentence of the paragraph is built from the links in references 1 and 2. This last option borders original research. I suggest including at least a reference where the location is clearly visible. I'll try to do it on my own, though.
″There are no cities within the reserve, but the towns of Barnstaple, Bideford, Northam, Ilfracombe, and Okehampton contain the greatest proportion of the 155,000 people living in the area.″ The first two cities are mentioned in ref 2, the rest are not. This is not in agreement with WP:VERIFY.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A reference that was added after the comments above were drawn includes a large number of maps. If this reference is useful, I suggest to direct the reader to the specific page(s) of the document that better fits the topic of the article. My comments above regarding the presence of unsourced claims in the section still stand.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Jetstreamer for all of the contributions in terms of fixes, and you will see I have tempered mention of settlements to readily accessible verifiable source table supporting a simpler statement. I have reworded or deleted some of the worst weasel which is unencyclopedic but agree there is quite a few items still to go, some of various reviewer's examples in GA1 blatantly amount to at best clunky administrative-ese, at worst plagiarism. - Adam37 Talk 11:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I will continue with this soon. The nominator is away until mid-August, so I'm just taking my time to review this article. I'm actually checking every piece of information, that's why this might take a little more time than expected. I'll try to fix as much as I can. Thank you for your contributions to it.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History

I'm failing the nomination as per these comments at my talk page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]