Ebbor Gorge has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Ebbor Gorge is part of the National Trust properties in Somerset series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review edit
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Ebbor Gorge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) 22:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
This article is in generally very good shape. I have some copy-editing quibbles, but nothing that I think is fatal to promotion.
- "It is owned by the National Trust following a donation": This reads rather awkwardly and is arguably ungrammatical. Rewording this to avoid the gerund would probably solve the problem.
- Link Clifton Down Limestone.
- Pipe a link to Coal measures for Lower Coal Measures.
- "and example of Carboniferous Limestone". I assume you mean an.
- Mineral names, such as mendipite, need not be capitalized.
- "are provided with a habitat": Passive mood wording makes it read like the habitat is artificial (or at least does so to my ear). Perhaps reword this sentence more actively: The nature reserve provides a habitat for a variety of flora and fauna...
- Since this is a geological feature, the geology section feels a little thin. I think it addresses the main aspects of the topic, so I'm not going to count this against GA criterion 3, but especially if you want to consider developing this further for a push to FA, you'll want to survey some more of the geology journals here, I think.
- I don't think you need "Specifically" here.
- Does Hope Wood = Hope Woodlands? I am not certain of the answer; if so, link it.
- "Various caves": If the sources provide them, naming one or two might be worth considering. I see you do name a couple caves for the mammal fossils; any idea if these are the same ones?
- "One fine flint flake among several found has been identified": This is a pretty awkward sentence, and I'm not quite sure what you're going for here.
- Actually, I'd reshuffle the History section entirely. You jump from Neolithic people to Devensian mammals, then back to the Bronze Age.
- That parenthetical "presumed"—are the sources unsure about the dating? Why is that here?
- Any sources comment on the ownership history before Mrs. Hodgkinson? I'd guess probably not, but never hurts to check.
- If you have the information, I don't think it would be undue weight to go ahead and list trail lengths, considering its current status.
- You mention the year of its notification in the lead, but I don't see that in the body.
- Any date for its status as a National Nature Reserve?
- A lot of similar articles combine flora and fauna sections into one, often titled "Biology and ecology", then break them into sub-sections if length demands. Worth considering here.
- Dog's mercury / wood anemone / common bluebell: common names of plants (in most cases, anyway, including these) needn't be capitalized.
- Lesser horseshoe doesn't need to be capitalized. For reasons I do not understand, convention appears to be that butterfly species keep their capitals, but I'll try to double-check that with the MOS people.
- Pipe a link to Hibernaculum (zoology) for hibernacular.
- Red deer doesn't need to be linked (because you already have, in history, and doesn't need to be capitalized; it wasn't in its earlier appearance).
- Sources look mostly good, although I'm not sure Real Alternative (#15) is reliable. I think the information is replaceable from Lewis, but you'll want to check to be sure.
- The External Link is already used in the references, but I don't think that's a problem here. I would restyle it to provide more context though. Perhaps: Natural England website for the Ebbor Gorge NNR
Calling this on hold for the moment to give an opportunity to clean up a few of these issues, but I feel confident I'll be able to promote in short order. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Closing comment edit
Reviewer Squeamish Ossifrage hasn't edited on Wikipedia since October 2. As this review has been abandoned, the nomination is being returned to the reviewing pool, where it will hopefully get some attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
GA Review edit
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Ebbor Gorge/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MusikAnimal (talk · contribs) 19:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Six months later... here I am! Sorry you had to wait so long. I'll be taking on this review. — MusikAnimal talk 19:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks - I presume you are aware there was a first review during that time, but he reviewer disappeared.— Rod talk 20:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I did not! Thanks for letting me know. I'm almost done anyway. You'll hear from me very soon! — MusikAnimal talk 20:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citations to reliable sources:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- 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 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Concerns edit
- Infobox
- I'm confused by the use of both the grid reference and coordinates, as they seem to be almost the same. I am admittedly not that familiar with geography-related articles, is this a standard practice? If it is, why when I check the Geohack they have different coordinates?
- The UK still uses the Ordnance Survey National Grid grid reference system for most maps, so a lot of local geography articles include both so that it can be located on UK maps and international systems (eg google maps). The difference (or so I have been told) can be up to a few meters.— Rod talk
- Lead
- First sentence: Wells is linked, but Somerset, England is not. We probably don't need to mention Wells at all. Also “biological Site of Special Scientific Interest” and “notified” link to the same place. I see there is a section entitled “Notification” that perhaps you want instead want to link to. Even so, I’d reword the sentence to something like
Ebbor Gorge is a limestone gorge in Somerset, England, designated and notified in 1952 as a 63.5-hectare (157-acre) biological Site of Special Scientific Interest in the Mendip Hills
.
- Geology
- Last sentence, first paragraph, should Mendipite be capitalized? The link I suppose is optional since it’s already linked in the lead.
- It is a "proper name" of a particular compound and the capitalisation is the same as for Carboniferous Limestone & Clifton Down Limestone in the same paragraph.— Rod talk 21:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- My indication of whether it should be capitalized came from the linked article. In mendipite they don't see to capitalize, where in Carboniferous Limestone and others they do. You would know why more than me, but my bigger point is that mendipite is capitalized in the lead but not here in the Geology section. We should keep it consistent. — MusikAnimal talk 22:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is a "proper name" of a particular compound and the capitalisation is the same as for Carboniferous Limestone & Clifton Down Limestone in the same paragraph.— Rod talk 21:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- History
- Ref [14] is a dead link. The WayBack Machine may contain an appropriate archive.
- Biology and ecology
- I assume you are confident the red links, Bryum canariense and Amblystegiella confervoides, meet WP:REDYES?
That's all I have. The article otherwise looks great. I'm fully confident we can tackle these issues quickly, so I'm placing the article on hold. — MusikAnimal talk 21:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- See my note above under Geography about the Mendipite capitalization. Once we get that addressed I think we're good to go :) — MusikAnimal talk 22:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Great work! This nomination has passed. Congratulations! — MusikAnimal talk 15:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)