Talk:River Parrett/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- Starting GA review.Pyrotec (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Initial review
[edit]This article appears to have the makings of a GA, it has a wide-ranging scope and is reasonably well referenced; but I suspect that the WP:Lead will need a bit of work to bring it up to scratch.
- I've expanded the lede, but I'm still not sure it summaries the whole article - another set of eyes would be good.— Rod talk 11:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to do the lede last, and it is much improved, but the geometry of your 'course' looks a bit rotated. On a small scale map the flow looks north and then northwest from Dorset to Somerton to the mouth.Pyrotec (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
main review
[edit]Starting the main review now; which I proposed to do section by section. Pyrotec (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Course: This section covers a wide area in a reasonable manner, but I think the prose could be improved. As it is a point-by-point narrative, the junction with the Bridgwater Docks / Bridgwater & Taunton Canal has been missed out; and the King's Sedgemoor Drain appears before Dunball Wharf, not afterwards (see schematic). We aught to have an in-line citation verifying the claimed source of the river and for the Fuller's earth between "Merriott and West Chinnock and Chiselborough" (Grammar !!) I may come back to this section later.
- I think that the latest changes, whilst clearing these defects may have 'muddied the water'. The canal was connected to the Parrett, via locks, at the Docks - although these are no longer in use. The new reference(s) may have been explaining why the canal was connected to the Parrett at the docks (locking down) rather than at Huntworth (on the level), or may be explaining why the locks remain out of use. The canal was connected, but the articles referenced seem to contradict this.Pyrotec (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- The ref I looked at was talking about them not being connected for vessels & restricting tourist use. Another was talking about salt v fresh water & I may have muddled them.— Rod talk 13:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have altered the tenses of the Canal bit, as the Huntworth basin and lock were used from 1827 to 1841, rather than being proposed. I had the same problem on the B&T Canal article of finding a credible reason or ref for the Bridgwater Dock locks remaining blocked up. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've found a possible ref (Murless (1983)) and Somerset Libraries list 26 copies of the original edition and 6 copies of the revised edition - I will attempt to borrow a copy on Monday.18:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have altered the tenses of the Canal bit, as the Huntworth basin and lock were used from 1827 to 1841, rather than being proposed. I had the same problem on the B&T Canal article of finding a credible reason or ref for the Bridgwater Dock locks remaining blocked up. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- The ref I looked at was talking about them not being connected for vessels & restricting tourist use. Another was talking about salt v fresh water & I may have muddled them.— Rod talk 13:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think that the latest changes, whilst clearing these defects may have 'muddied the water'. The canal was connected to the Parrett, via locks, at the Docks - although these are no longer in use. The new reference(s) may have been explaining why the canal was connected to the Parrett at the docks (locking down) rather than at Huntworth (on the level), or may be explaining why the locks remain out of use. The canal was connected, but the articles referenced seem to contradict this.Pyrotec (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- History: First paragraph has no citations. The sentence about Hamstone could do will some expansion, i.e. how did the stone get to the river and were did it go to.
Done citations added + a bit more on Hamstone for churches.— Rod talk 11:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tourism: A reference is need for the Parrett Trail - quick search on google indicates that there is a book and a web site.
- Done several refs now.— Rod talk 11:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- WP:lede: Much better. Possibly a minor mention of the 'bore' and a concise note on the Parrett Navigation and the various canals upstream of Bridgwater.Pyrotec (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Summary
[edit]The article has been considerably improved over the last few days. I'm therefore award GA-status.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A Good, wide ranging, Article
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Thanks to everyone and especially to those whose efforts over the last few days have clear the 'obstacles from the path' of this article become GA-class.Pyrotec (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Can I also add thanks to Pyrotec & everyone else who has helped to improve the article.— Rod talk 09:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)