Talk:Carrière des Nerviens Regional Nature Reserve/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you in advance. Gtaf (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC) alias Christian Cogneaux

Initial comments

I've done a very quick read of the article, but at this stage I've not checked any citations, nor the copyright status of the images.

However, on this basis the article appears to be well referenced and close to GA-standard. Having said that, the lead looks rather "thin" and there are several sections which have single-sentence paragraphs, So some corrective actions are likely to be necessary for this article to gain GA.

I'm now going to work my way through the article section by section: stating at the Geography section and finishing with the WP:Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Geography

• Location -

• The main problem here is that the first, second and third paragraphs are single sentence and these aught to be minimised as per MOS:PARAGRAPHS. The final paragraph (although short) is three sentences long. So it is OK.

• I would suggest that either the first three paragraphs be merged into one, or the first two paragraphs are merged into one and the last two paragraphs be merged into one? I suspect that the latter is grammatically better.

•  Done. Thanks. Gtaf (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Relief & Hydrology -

• These two subsections look OK.
• I like the provision of a map File:Réserve naturelle régionale de la carrière des Nerviens map-fr.svg.

• Climate -

• The first paragraph (two sentences), is a bit vague. It states that "The reserve's nearest weather station is at Cambrai". Well, yes; but looking at my map Cambrai seems to be about 42 kilometres away, inland, to the southeast. That could easily be stated specifically. The second paragraph in the same sentence states "However, the site is influenced by the nearby presence of the Ardennes Mountains", without making it clear which site is affected and how it is affected. Note: I suspect it's something to do with wind and rain fall, as the rest of the paragraph discusses these factors in some detail; and as these figure come from CPIE Bocage de l'Avesnois, I assume that they refer to the nature reserve, but its not specified how these vary from Cambrai's data.

•  Done. I clarified the first sentence. Is it enough? Best regards Gtaf (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Not done Thanks, the first sentence is now OK but the second one is not quite there. I suggest: "The reserve's nearest weather station is at Cambrai, about 42 kilometres away, inland, to the southeast. However, the site [choice of:] weather station / nature reserve is affected by the nearby presence of the Ardennes Mountains,.....", but if you have a better way, use that. Pyrotec (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Done. Thanks. Gtaf (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

....Stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

History

• Quarry & Reserve -

• These two subsections look OK.

Geology

• Untitled first subsection -

• This is just a minor comment: It might to helpful to have a redlink to Mélantois, since that article does not yet exist on en-wikipeida, but it might one day; or perhaps to the French-language article at [1].

• In my articles in French, I hunt the red links. So I created the stub Mélantois. Gtaf (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Excellent. Pyrotec (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Formations -

  This subsection looks OK.

• Nature of the embankments -

  This subsection looks OK.

Ecology

• Plant communities, Flora, Mushrooms & Fauna -

• The four subsections look OK.

• The wildlife corridor

• There is something wrong with grammar / punctuation in: "To the north is Natura 2000 Belgian site Hauts-Pays des Honnelles, a ZNIEFF.[Note 13] Vallée de l’Hogneau et ses versants et les ruisseaux d’Heugnies et de Bavay. The Bellignies quarry with embankments similar to those which filled Carrière des Nerviens is therefore under similar ecological conditions. ". "Vallée de l’Hogneau et ses versants et les ruisseaux d’Heugnies et de Bavay" does not seem to be a sentence (its not English: is it the proper name of a site, or has it just not been translated?

• Yes, "Vallée de l’Hogneau et ses versants et les ruisseaux d’Heugnies et de Bavay" is the name of the ZNIEFF. Gtaf (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• I have changed the text. Is it better ? Gtaf (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, much better now. Pyrotec (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Threats and responses -

• This subsection looks OK.

Management

....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Management

• Protection -

• The first sentence of the first paragraph would read better if the first word "Parcels" was expanded to read "Parcels of land" - I think that is what is being discussed.

•  Done Gtaf (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• The final sentence appears to be a direct translation of "Bavay est une commune adhérente au Parc naturel régional de l'Avesnois, Saint-Waast non (ref 75).", but I don't understand (and the text does not explain) what the significance of adherence / non-adherence means.

• In this case, the adherence of Bavay has no importance on the management of the reserve. I delete this sentence. Gtaf (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Management objectives& Assessment of the activities -

• These two subsections look OK.

• Assessment of the activities -
  • Management of the diversity -

• I almost changed the text: "27 feet and 13 feet" to give the metric equivalents in the following text: "From 2007 to 2012, the number of round-leaved wintergreen footage increased by 50 percent.[82] On the other hand, those of man orchid fall suddenly and continually. Whereas 27 feet 27 feet (8.2 m) were counted in 2003, the number reached a peak of 240 in 2006 with the uprooting of the Wood small-reed, before collapsing to 13 feet 13 feet (4.0 m) in 2012, despite the continued management". On the basis that these were units of length. However, its a direct translation of the words "pieds" and I'm sure that foot / feet is the best English equivalent. I think it might be "plant(s)" ?

• Yes, it is a translation of "pieds".

• • The remaining (unmentioned by name) sub-subsections in this section / subsection are OK.

WP:Lead

This is quite a good lead: it's four paragraphs long, which is within the recommended limit (of 3 / 4 paragraphs); and it makes a good attempt to both introduce the topic of the article and to summarise the main points. However, I think the lead is a bit "thin", especially the second one and the lead could benefit from perhaps a few more details. For example:

• a summary of the climate section, i.e. transition between oceanic and semi-continental climates, leading to biodiversity could be added.
• active management of threats, such as keeping out 4x4s with barriers; and managing Invasive species, such removing Japanese knot weed, but containing brambles, could be added in summary form.

Overall, I'm happy with the article in respect of compliance with WP:WIAGA, so once the lead has been improved I'll award GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, Let me think about this improvement. Already, thank you for these ideas. Gtaf (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Do you want more details ? Gtaf (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra details. I did a copyedit on the lead, if you don't like it you are welcome change it. Pyrotec (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's perfect. Thanks. Gtaf (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm happy to be able to award this article GA-status. Congratulations on getting this Fr.wikipedia into English and up to GA-standard. Pyrotec (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. Gtaf (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)