Talk:River Tone/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jakec (talk · contribs) 16:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments

This article is currently well below GA standards, but I think it's unfair to nominators to do quickfails, so here goes. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

For criterion 1A

• "The River Tone is a river in Somerset, England, which is about 32 miles (51 km) long" - misplaced modifier. It makes it sound like Somerset is 32 miles long.

• Changed— Rod ^talk 09:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• "It rises at Beverton Pond" I know that some references do use "rises", but it's confusing for non-creek-aficionados (actually even I don't understand why they say "rises"). Anyway, I'd suggest something like "Its source is at Beverton Pond".

• Changed— Rod ^talk 09:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• "The river gradually deteriorated". Does this mean water quality, prominence, navigability, or something else? The lead should explain.

• Changed— Rod ^talk 09:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• "Tolls rose from £321 in 1712 to £1,137 by 1802." Presumably you mean annual profits, not the actual tolls that people had to pay!

• Changed— Rod ^talk 09:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• "was limited to six per cent" - pretty sure percent is one word

• Changed— Rod ^talk 09:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• "During the winter flooding of 2013–14 on the Somerset Levels the River Tone overflowed at new year" - there should be a comma after "levels".

• Changed— Rod ^talk 09:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• "Soon the river reaches French weir, the head of navigation" - does that mean where it first becomes navigable? If so, it should say so.

• Changed— Rod ^talk 09:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• "A disused five-arched railway bridge built in 1863[40] and the aqueduct that carried the Chard Canal over the river, used from 1842 until 1866, still stand, followed by the bridge at Creech St Michael." seems odd, as if it tries to cram two ideas into one sentence. It should be split into two sentences, one involving the disused bridges and one involving the bridge at Creech St Michael.

• Changed— Rod ^talk 09:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• "that "boats were passing at all hours of the night." doesn't need quotes and italics, just quotes.

• Changed— Rod ^talk 09:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Likewise with "Because of the difficulties of navigating past the mill pools, the Conservators of the River Tone decided to buy the mill at Firepool in December 1793 with a view to demolishing it "for the benefit of the navigation","

• Changed— Rod ^talk 10:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Likewise with ""for making and keeping the River Tone navigable from Bridgewater to Taunton, in the county of Somerset"," in the history section.

• Changed— Rod ^talk 09:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

For criterion 1B

• "Milling at Bathpool had a chequered history" cliches like "chequered [sic] history" should be avoided in articles, per WP:CLICHE.

• I have removed that phrase— Rod ^talk 10:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• The 2nd to last paragraph of flood protection jumps back to the 19th century. It should be at the beginning, assuming this section is ordered chronologically.

• Moved.— Rod ^talk 10:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• The course section should really come first and the history section should come later.

• I looked again at the guidelines Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers and noted the differences to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers. I have moved the sections but not sure this is essential.

• They layout I was suggesting is mainly the layout that's worked for my stream GAs for a year or two. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• The watermills section doesn't really belong as a subsection of the course section. It should be split into history (or a geography or watershed section if there are any remaining watermills on the river).

• I've moved it into history.— Rod ^talk 10:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• The watermills section doesn't need both a table of coordinates and a map template. Suggest removing one or the other.

• The map link wouldn't work without the list. Although the list is given in order it doesn't easily make the specific locations easy to identify visually so I feel both of these are useful.— Rod ^talk 10:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Fair enough. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not a big deal, but some of the images could be on the left side instead of the right, for variety's sake.

• I will do this last when I have dealt with other issues.— Rod ^talk 10:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Photos have been added and moved.— Rod ^talk 08:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

For criterion 2B

• The length of the river is unreferenced.

• Added.— Rod ^talk 12:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• That source says 33 kilometers, not 33 miles. A typo on their part, or yours? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• My error, now corrected.— Rod ^talk 08:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 23 comes from a blog

• (now ref 38) Although hosted by blogspot it is a leaflet from the Environment Agency ( a government body and RS).— Rod ^talk 12:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Is that leaflet located on an official site of the Environment Agency? Or is that an official blog of some kind? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• I still believe it is a genuine Environment Agency publication I can't find another source for it so have replaced it with two other refs.— Rod ^talk 08:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Is there a page number for ref 1?

• (Now ref 15) Page added.— Rod ^talk 12:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 5 says 1698, not 1699, and makes no mention of March 24

• (Now refs 19 & 20) It appear that the act was laid before parliament in 1698 (hence the title here) but received Royal assent (making the law effective) on 24 March 1699 (per this ref which is also used in the paragraph) which is also used in that paragraph. It is not unusual in UK law for an act to take several months to pass through parliament and then become law..— Rod ^talk 12:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Refs 5 and 10 appear to point to the same website.

• Reused.— Rod ^talk 12:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• "During the winter flooding of 2013–14 on the Somerset Levels the River Tone overflowed at new year, during the rain and storms from Storm Dirk, with many residents asking for the Environment Agency to resume river dredging" I could be wrong, but I don't see all of this in refs 24 and 25 (certainly not 25, which doesn't even mention River Tone)

• Another ref added which specifically says the Tone overflowed around new year.— Rod ^talk 17:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 31 doesn't actually say anything about the course of the Tone

• (Now ref 2) but it does support the claims about the Clatworthy Reservoir, its ownership and use for walking and fishing.— Rod ^talk 12:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, but it's also supporting some information on the river's upper course. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Added another ref re Beverton Pond & the catchment of Clatworthy Reservoir + fall in the first part of the river.— Rod ^talk 17:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 32 appears to be some kind of wiki

• (Now ref 3) Grace's Guide is used as a reference extensively on wikipedia and I have not seen it challenged before. "Grace's Guide Ltd is a charity (No: 1154342) for the advancement of the education of the public in the subject of the Industrial and Engineering History of the UK." (from their main page. Information is checked by their editorial team before it appears.— Rod ^talk 12:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• You appear to be correct. I imagined there was something I was missing; I only brought it up to make sure. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• From what I can tell, ref 33 only supports a part of the second paragaph of the course section

• (Now ref 4) I have added some references to this paragraph

• I don't see refs 36 or 37 saying when Bradford Bridge was first built

• This source (now ref 7) says " Road bridge over River Tone.C15, restored 1698, and late C19." supporting the 15th century claim. (This source has the same text).— Rod ^talk 12:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, that's what C15 means. Never mind. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• The table of mills needs a reference

• The table seems to be gone. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe you should just use a map as a source for the course section; it would be simpler.

• Two map references added (there isn't one sheet which covers them all.— Rod ^talk 08:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

For criterion 3A

• There is no section for hydrology (water chemistry and the like)
• There is no watershed section (see this as an example of what such a section should look like)
• There is no section for geography and geology
• There is no section for biology (wildlife and plant life)
• There is no information on tributaries. A brief description of the major ones as a subsection of the course section would suffice.
• (I see you've virtually ignored ref 1, a 177-page report that could help you write detailed information on all of the missing sections I mentioned)
• The lead should mention what the river is a tributary of (i.e. River Parrett)

• It said it joins the Parrett but I have changed this to "flows into".— Rod ^talk 19:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm currently looking for sources to write a section around geography, geology, wildlife etc but having problems with sources for water quality. Having got River Parrett to FA without being asked for this I haven't looked before but suspect there is little data on this.— Rod ^talk 16:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've added a geography which hopefully covers some of these areas, apart from water quality where I am still searching.— Rod ^talk 19:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Good work. I see you also added some biology/ecology information, which I moved to its own section. Expanding both of those sections would definitely be helpful. As I said above, ref 1 (which is now refs 17, 18, and 20 [you've duplicated it three times, which should be fixed]) has many pages of information on hydrology, as well as a number of other things I mentioned. It's definitely worth investigating in more depth. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've moved it into bibliography and used sfn for the different page numbers.— Rod ^talk 08:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've added a bit more (and 2 new references) for the otters, crayfish & water voles in the river. I've look again at the NRA document but I'm not sure what else you think would be useful to include.— Rod ^talk 18:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Add anything you can. Biology and geology are better, but still a bit short compared to the other sections. And there's still no hydrology/water chemistry section. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Following further searching I am unable to find anything in reliable sources about the hydrology/water chemistry of the river beyond comments that it is likely to be affected by dredging, therefore I have asked for help on various relevant wikiprojects. There is nothing on this in the article on the larger River Parrett about hydrology/water chemistry which has managed to achieve FA status without it. Perhaps this is not something which is not measured in the same way in the US & UK?— Rod ^talk 17:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Some even deeper searching has come up with this page from the Environment Agency but I'm not sure if anything it contains is what you are looking for?— Rod ^talk 17:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Following some really helpful comments, sources and edits from User:Jokulhlaup, [[User talk:PaleCloudedWhite ]] and User:Harrias I have now added a subsection which hopefully covers the aspects of hydrology and water quality you were looking for.— Rod ^talk 17:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks better now. If you choose to go on to FA, I'd recommend adding more information on chemical hydrology and also expanding the geography section. It's fine for GA though. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

For criterion 3B

• Maybe it's just me, but the history section appears deep rather than broad, discussing three or four events related to the creek in great depth (so much that they could almost stand as articles by themselves) instead of briefly talking about a larger number of events related to the creek.

• I hope the article covers the significant events which are written up in the sources.— Rod ^talk 19:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• ??? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• The point I was making is that most of the significant areas are the development (and decline) of commercial use and flooding which are covered. What other events are you thinking of?— Rod ^talk 08:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know; I haven't read the history books of the area. But as I'm saying, it makes more sense to briefly describe a lot relevant of events (even minor ones) instead of taking four or five and going into painstaking detail on those. Here is an example of what I'm talking about. For instance, that article just says "The stream also experienced bank failure during floods in October 1985 and January 1996. It also flooded homes and trailers in its vicinity." and moves on to something else instead of going on for five paragraphs about the flooding. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but I'm a little confused about what is needed here. I would hope that the significant events (eg development of the navigation and flooding) are given due weight. I've looked at the example you pointed to and feel that most of the sorts of issues at the highlighted article are covered in this one and I'm still struggling to see what else should be included.— Rod ^talk 17:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe it's a bit different when there are five or six centuries of history to cover instead of just two or so. With that in mind, I'll pass this. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• As with history section, the flood protection part should be part of another section or sections (history, geography, and watershed come to mind), and condensed.

• As this is a major factor relating to this river and issues such as dredging are highly controversial (see Winter flooding of 2013–14 on the Somerset Levels fpr a recent example) then I feel it is worthy of its own section.— Rod ^talk 19:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• It's a bit unorthodox to have this kind of section, but I suppose if it really is a defining factor, then it can't hurt to keep it in. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• The course section goes off onto too many tangents e.g. "The reservoir is an important wildlife habitat managed by Wessex Water, and offers facilities for fishing and walking", "with the Dearne Valley Way footpath on its eastern bank. The B3227 road from Wiveliscombe crosses from the east to the west side of the valley at Waterrow bridge, before heading westwards to Bampton, after which a former railway line crossed the river on its way to Taunton.", "constructed in 1895 and including globe lamps which are thought to be part of the earliest electric street lighting scheme in a British town" and quite a few others. Some of this information isn't bad and can be incoroporated into the other sections I mentioned under 3A.

• I've removed some of the "tangents".— Rod ^talk 08:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• It's better, but by no means perfect. I'll let it fly since this is only GA. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

• Well-written
  • The prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
  • It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
• Verifiable and no original research
  • It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
  • It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
  • It contains no original research:
• Broad in its coverage
  • It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
  • It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail:
• Neutral
  • It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each:
• Stable
  • It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
• Images
  • Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
  • Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
• Overall
  • On hold Pass