Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mendip Hills/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 02:02, 24 April 2010 [1].

Mendip Hills

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Toolbox
Notified: YellowMonkey (via IRC), Rodw, listed wikiprojects.

The day this was TFA, there were concerns raised that it was subpar in quality.

1a. Choppy prose. One-sentence paragraphs in "Geology" and "Ecology" sections.

  • I have asked for another set of eyes to look at the prose.

1b. "Demographics" section is only four lines. Could this not be fleshed out?

  • Because it is not a local government district or other census area this is difficult but I could add populations for the specific parishes mentioned if that would be helpful?— Rod talk 21:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1c. Lots of sections lacking in sources:

  • First and last paragraph of "Geology."
  • Refs added
  • "the Latin "EX ARG VEB" stamps on the Mendip lead pigs specify a de-silvering process and cast silver ingots have been found. The silver coinage of the Dobunni and Durotriges is also likely to reflect the availability of silver from the mines." — Unsourced.
  • EX ARG VEB now sourced
  • Second paragraph of "government and politics" is unsourced.
  • Second and third paragraphs of "Transport and communication" are unsourced.
  • Now sourced
  • First two paragraphs of "sport, leisure and tourism" are unsourced.
  • The stock car racing & folk festival are sourced - the others are general activities, rather than anything specific - but lots of stuff about walking atc available if needed?
  • "Walking" section — should this be in list form?
  • Made into prose.
  • "Augustus Montague Toplady was inspired to write the words of the hymn "Rock of Ages" while sheltering under a rock in Burrington Combe during a thunderstorm in 1763." — Also unsourced.

1e. One image was being editwarred over when it was on the main page. I forget which one now.

  • The image in the infobox was replaced per discussion

2a. Lead seems a bit short in comparison to article.

2c.

  • None of the print references cites a page number. Most are also lacking ISBN and Publisher info.
  • Is this a reliable source? What about this?
  • A large number of the sources are primary — from parks associations, the businesses themselves and whatnot. Where are the online news sources?

In short, this is yet another article that got promoted to FA ages ago and continued to rot even as the bar for FA quality increased. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - you beat me to FAR'ing this. One of the books does give a page number, but the other ten(!) do not. The PDFs also need page numbers. Many web references point to mendipsociety.org.uk, which is a primary source. Why was it TFA'd in this state? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The English Heritage source is very reliable, exactly what leads you suppose otherwise? If in doubt, the first line of the Wikipedia article on English Heritage should make it quite clear why works published by them are considered reliable. And yes, the Renewable Energy Association is a suitable source; they work with local government so should be able to get their facts right (see their website), however the page seems to have changed and no longer supports the text in the article. With regards to the demography section, it may be best to dispense with it or merge it with another section (although I'm unsure which). I refute the suggestion that the article fails criterion 1b. In an article a range of hills it's fair enough to talk about the people who live on them, however it is unlikely that there will be more information available than currently in the article. We are not talking about a settlement or a local government area, where there are detailed records from the UK census, so I expect that tracking down coherent data on the demographics of the people who live there will be a fruitless task. Despite TPH's pessimism, the article's in decent nick. There's room for improvement, so let's see what we can do. Nev1 (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I have fixed some dead links and tagged two others which don't appear to be archived from Somerset Council Council. Concur with Nev1 that English Heritage and REA sites are RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maculinea arion by Paolo Mazzei 01.jpg: Incorrect license: now tagged for deletion. DrKiernan (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the system failed but I was not informed as part of the FAR process, until a friendly editor dropped me a line. Therefore can we have a few extra days to work on the areas identified?— Rod talk 08:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rod, FAR is a much slower and more deliberative process. You can have months to work on the article if necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now has a chance to visit the library for the page numbers etc & along with others have added several more references. I have asked for a copy editor to have a look at the prose, but would be grateful for others to review again & specify what else needs doing.— Rod talk 21:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will look to find alternative sources where the PDFs are newsletters from the AONB etc but where they are things like SSSI citation sheets from English Nature, I would argue there are no better sources.— Rod talk 16:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern include prose and referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 18 redirects and does not cover what it cites
  • This has now been replaced with 2 better refs
    • Does ref 46 cover that paragraph?
  • I've added another ref to cover the designation under the act in this & next para
    • Are refs 82, 83, 90 and 91 reliable?
  • With the additions the numbering has changed now:
  • 84 The Ramblers’ Association is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales. Company registration number: 4458492. Registered Charity in England and Wales number: 1093577. Registered office: 2nd floor, Camelford House, 87-90 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TW
  • 85 Monarchs Way Association - a small voluntary organisation, part of the long distance walking association, but does produce a range of maps & books on which their web pages are based.
  • 92 Dr Who locations is a fan site, but does have an extensive & updated list - this bit is trivia so the article wouldn't really suffer if it were removed. I'd be happy to remove it if other think this is appropriate?
  • 93 Worldwide Guide to Movie Locations - The author Tony Reeves has written a book with the same content - but I don't have a copy of this to cite
I hope your points about the references have been addressed - however I don't understand the last citing the page & no link for 89, do you mean it needs a page number from the Le Carre book?.— Rod talk 10:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Also, for current refs 87/88, shouldn't you cite the poem directly and use the link as a convenience? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the trivia related to Le Carre, Dr Who & Hot Fuzz as I can't find suitable RS. I have changed the reference for Thomas Hardy to a book.


  • Strong delist now keep - possible factual errors, citations that don't cover what they claim to, referencing still not up to standard (mostly becuase I just skimmed before)....major problems:
  • What makes Gerry Brooke a reliable source? (ref 3)
  • He is a journalist employed by the Western Daily Press - beyond that I don't know - is every journalist employed by a daily newspaper going to be challenged? I have wikilinked Western Daily Press
  • No, but I don't feel like a journalist is a "high-quality" source for that kind of statement (he's not a language historian or anything like that)
I've removed this one as the claim re Myne-deepes is covered by ref 2.— Rod talk 08:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "student's guide" for ref 9? Not reliable. (ref 9)
  • Why do you think this book may not be reliable? It was published in 1985 by the Nature Conservancy Council (a government funded body) & has an ISBN number supplied - is every published book going to be challenged?
  • Atthill is referenced way more than once; he should be moved into a bibliography and the citations converted to short-style
  • This book is cited 3 times, each with different page numbers (& included in further reading as a key source). I thought this was an acceptable way of citing a book where different pages are cited - could you point me to a guideline saying it is a requirement to cite in other formats, I've looked at Wikipedia:Citing sources & don't see this - I work on verifiability & believe this is shown.
  • Publishing/access dates for ref 17?
  • I've added the isbn. The year of publication (1967) was already included in the citation template.
I think I was talking about "Proceedings of the Royal Society- The Somerset Coalfield, as observed 300 years ago" :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes ref 21 reliable?
  • Weather Online is a company (483 Green Lanes, London, N13 4BS, United Kingdom, Phone: +44 (0) 8458 694748, Director: Dr. Ulrich Römer, Registered in England and Wales No. 4619915) as shown on their About page.
  • Ref 22 does not cover the paragraph it cites.
  • What makes ref 24 reliable?
  • Their About Us page shows a 16 year history, 1.5 million web pages, served over 295 million pages to 110 million unique visitors. Published by Crawbar Ltd, 64 Burlington Lane, LONDON W4 2RR, Tel: 0871 716 2350, or fax 0871 716 2355. I had changed it to this ref because the newsletter of the AONB was challenged previously. I have added another independent ref
  • What makes English Heritage reliable? (refs 28, 43)
  • Publishing location for ref 30?
  • Now ref 31 - I have added location=New Delhi, India
  • What makes ref 31 reliable?
  • Now ref 32 - wide experience of wildlife photography (see about page). A search of Somerset Historic Environment Record (published by the county council) with the Category "Round Barrow (MON)" & Area Designation "Mendip Hills AONB" gives the figure of 286, however I can't find a way to link to the search output URL, without adding 26 refs to pages of 10 results at a time (eg records 1-10) - help appreciated.
  • What makes ref 36 a "high-quality" source? (this question applies to many of the references...)
  • (Not sure if you mean 37 or new 37 here) 36 is an academic journal - see Publications page for more info where it says "has been published continuously since 1959. The Bulletin contains a large body of information on mining history, both in the Peak District and elsewhere throughout the world. It has grown from the original 14 page publication to a professionally produced journal of between 60 and 140 pages, and now circulates throughout the world." Are specialist journals published by experts in a particular field to be challenged? Ref 37 is published by the County Council & I would argue is therefore reliable & high quality. Do you have other examples where you feel journals etc are not "high quality" sources?
  • What makes ref 41 reliable?
  • Now 42 - May not be reliable but ref 43 to a book supports the same claim.
  • Ref 44 only covers part of the paragraph it cites.
  • Several further refs about the transmitter mast added
  • I have replaced all of these with a planning application document published by the district council
  • Ref 46 says that the plant started operating in December 2006, which doesn't jive with the article. Actually, it doesn't support any of the information supplied in the sentence.
  • Now refs 50 & 51 - I've changed the year to 2006 from 2007 (when the report was published) & the output to 60KwH - which I believe may have changed since the original publication (from 75KwH) although my memory isn't that good.
  • That still doesn't follow your refs; one says 50KwH, that other says 55.
  • Ref 52 lacks a publisher etc. and doesn't cover the paragraph it cites.
  • I presume this is Ref 53 (but I'm getting a bit confused on numbering) I've added the Mendip Society as publisher but believe it does cover the claim re 700 members. I've added another ref (a sub page from the same web site) for the date of formation (now ref 53)
  • What makes refs 64, 65 and 66 reliable?
  • I'm now confused (but this may be because of the changed numbers) I presume these are the demographic information which are all published by the Office for National Statistics a government body or local councils - which are relibale because they have statutory duties to maintian information on their populations - all based on the United Kingdom Census 2001
  • This was meant at current refs 70–72.
  • I've added several book ref re the canal & coalfield. For BRLSI see about us where it says "Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution is an educational charity based in Queen Square, Bath. Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution Trustees 16-18 Queen Square, Bath, Bath&NES. BA1 2HN Company number 02857000 Reg. Charity no:304477.— Rod talk 10:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't 67 be citing the book itself?
  • I presume this is the Wrington Vale Light Railway book - if so changed
  • Ref 69 doesn't cover its accompanying paragraph.
  • I presume this is now ref 75 Mendip Quarry producers? if so their about us page says "Mendip Quarry Producers (MQP) is an association of quarry companies with operations in Somerset who have formed a partnership to keep people informed about quarrying issues and to provide a forum to share best practice."
  • What makes refs 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 77, and 78/82 reliable?
  • Again I'm not quite sure which ones are being referred to here (? 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 83 & 84) but: Mendip Society dealt with above. Somerset guide - I would have thought the claims about flora, fauna & activities was non controversial, but I've added another ref (78) from Enjoy England (Corporate Info says VisitEngland is the strategic leadership body representing the public and private sector stakeholders of English Tourism. It works in partnership with VisitBritain, the Regional Development Agencies and local authorities, and the private sector, creating a national tourism strategy, optimising marketing investment, and developing the visitor experience across England). The BMC (British Mountaineering Council) is the representative body that exists to protect the freedoms and promote the interests of climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers, including ski-mountaineers. The site includes suitable terms & conditions & the opportunity to report errors. The Somerset Tourist Guide is a private company promoting accommodation and attractions in Somerset - I have deleted this ref & added one for the official web site of Wells Cathedral. Priddy Folk Festival is organised and stewarded by volunteers. All funds raised by the Festival go to the Priddy Charity Trust.
  • Any publishing dates for most of the web cites? Examples 71, 72, 73, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86?
  • The ones I've looked at don't have dates of publication - which is common for a lot of web sites & I didn't know was required.
  • Thanks you for your comments. I hope I have dealt with them - but I got a little confused about the numbering of refs towards the end. If there are still outstanding issues please say and I will do my best to address them. Another set of eyes to fact-check would always be useful.— Rod talk 11:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had another go at the outstanding issues. I will be out of the country for the next week (with no internet or others sources) so will not be able to respond to any further queries until my return. I will ask for help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset, but would ask for a bit more time. It would also be helpful if you could strike-through any issues you feel are resolved or just start a new list of one to be dealt with as again the numbering of refs has changed.— Rod talk 10:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Designated an AONB ... by which agency? The UN? "The ? has designated it ...".
  • The overlinking was just appalling. I've stripped away most of it. And there were examples of deceptive piping. This alone was worth demoting. Rainfall, sheep, cement? And 50 others. Mining (twice), lead (four times).
  • The prose seems to be OK. Tony (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Mendip_Hills/archive1&oldid=1136094441"