Talk:Somerset Coalfield/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gilderien (talk · contribs) 17:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

From a first read through, seems a good article, good use of images, which are all appropriately licensed. However, there were a few minor points;

• Ideally the lead should not contain material not listed elsewhere, nor have citations - could you move/copy the sentence regarding the toal area of the coalfield to another appropriate place within the article?

• I have copied this to the start of the geology section.— Rod ^talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Reference 7 is a dead link, as are references 8, 9, 58, 62, 67, 77, 78, and 81.

• I think I've fixed all of these.— Rod ^talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Reference 2 may cover all of the "Structure" sub-section, but this needs to be made clear, or an alternative source found.

• resued.— Rod ^talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Similar for the "Stratigraphy".

• Ref reused.— Rod ^talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of the "Area Today" section has no reference.

• Refs added.— Rod ^talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of the "Paulton Basin" section has no reference.

• Ref reused.— Rod ^talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of the "East of Camerton" section has no reference.

• Ref reused.— Rod ^talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of the "Writhlington Collieries" section needs to have more references - as above, this may just be repeating the one at the end of the paragraph.

• Refs reused & new ref added.— Rod ^talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. It is amazing how quickly deadlinks creep in as I checked all of these a couple of months ago when I nominated it. I hope I've addressed the queries, but if there is anything else you think is needed please let me know.— Rod ^talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

So that is about it. Congratulations.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)