Talk:St Catherine's Hill, Dorset/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 17:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article to help reduce the good article nomination backlog and to gain points in the WP:WIKICUP. Although quid pro quo is not required, if you fancy returning the favor, I have a list of articles in need of review here. — GhostRiver 17:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Infobox and lede

• Comma after "ancient monuments sited there"

  Done.--Ykraps (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Toponomy

• Should specify that it's Catherine of Alexandria in the text, not just the WL, as there are Lots of St Catherines

  Done.--Ykraps (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• probably means 'Great Hill' in what language?

  Old English. Added.--Ykraps (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• "indicates a 'hill'" reads strangely; should either be rephrased as "means 'hill'" or the single quotes around 'hill' should be dropped

  Removed in copy edit (see below).--Ykraps (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Split first sentence of second paragraph after the second parentheses and then begin next sentence with "The latter was located north ..."

  Removed in copy edit (see below).--Ykraps (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• From Harbour to Harbour should be italicized as the name of a book

  Removed in copy edit (see below).--Ykraps (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Obviously Bell clearly believes this, so where is the source to indicate that it is an erroneous belief?

  Hodges discusses the debate but makes no judgement as to whether Richedon and Rishton are the same. He does point to a farm north of the hill called Rishton which he says may be a source of confusion. I have rewritten the sentence.

• Link River Stour, Dorset and Moors River

  Removed in copy edit.--Ykraps (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

History

• Capitalize and link "Ice Age" to the one that's most appropriate (see disambiguation page

  Changed to last glacial period. --Ykraps (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comma after "discovered on the hill"

  Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• "and a few Paleolithic tools" → "and a few from the Paleolithic" to reduce repetition

  Rewritten.--Ykraps (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• "but if they visited the hill, there is no direct evidence remaining" → "but no direct evidence remains of their potential visitation"

  Rewritten.--Ykraps (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• "currently" runs afoul of MOS:DATED

  Removed.--Ykraps (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Used as a lookout post by whom?

  Romans, Tudors, the Royal Observatory Corps. This is explained later in the article. I have rewritten slightly. Please see what you think.

• with its commanding views not neutral

  Removed. Although, I would humbly suggest that as the highest point in the area, its commanding views are undeniable.--Ykraps (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Delink Stour river here, since it should be linked above

  No longer relevant; sentence rewritten.--Ykraps (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Fix passive voice throughout the paragraph beginning Exploratory trenches were dug

  Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comma after "A number of artefacts were found"

  Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• It is said by whom?

  Everyone. It is an often repeated local legend. Added. --Ykraps (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• No comma after "Shore Beacons"

  This is one of a pair of parenthetical commas. I have added the other after Warren Hill.--Ykraps (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• The military has made extensive use of the hill for training purposes When? the Crimean War is one example, I don't believe that qualifies as "extensive"

  The article goes on to explain how it was used for trench warfare in WWI and tank manoeuvres in WWII. The sheer scale of the trenches constructed alone would, in my opinion, qualify as extensive but if you think it ought to be removed, I will comply.--Ykraps (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Removed--Ykraps (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

20th century

• Link World War I

  Done.--Ykraps (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Mixed semicolon/comma use in the list of the first sentence

  @GhostRiver: I read that as if the observation and machine gun posts, dressing stations, latrines etc are part of the second line trench system. Do you think a colon is more appropriate?--Ykraps (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Rewritten to avoid. --Ykraps (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Link Second World War

  Done.--Ykraps (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• "After the war, a nuclear bunker was built into the hill by the Royal Observer Corps." → "After the war, the Royal Observer Corps built a nuclear bunker into the hill."

  Done.--Ykraps (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Sand and gravel extraction has taken place over various parts of the hill When?

  Reliable sources don't indicate when quarrying started but it occurred on an industrial scale in the 20th century. The sentence is in the 20th century section. Does anything else need adding, do you think?--Ykraps (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Added 20th century. --Ykraps (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• is today MOS:DATED

  Changed to 2012.--Ykraps (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comma after "Gravel extraction continued until at least 1933"

  Done.--Ykraps (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• "4,000,000" → "four million" per MOS:LARGENUM

  Done.--Ykraps (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Today

• Section as a whole needs some MOS:DATED qualifications

  Added that the info comes from a 2012 report.--Ykraps (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• "70%" → "70 percent" per MOS:PERCENT

  Changed to per cent (Br Eng).--Ykraps (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Semicolon would be better served as a period, and then "Although prohibited, off-road ..."

  Changed.--Ykraps (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Geography

• The eastern slopes and foot of the hill, an area referred to as the Town Common, is almost Subject/verb agreement issues. Subject is plural (slopes and foot) but is then qualified as a singular, making it a bit of a mess

  Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• "and are believed to have been"

  Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Don't like parentheses in the main text if it can be avoided, as in all others were formed in a marine environment

  Removed.--Ykraps (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• If this is so If what is so?

  That the strata were deposited by a river or estuary. I've rewritten. See what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Mossy Stonecrop" should be lowercase and the scientific name should be italicized

  Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• "provide habitats" {[right arrow}} "provides habitats" (singular "mix" is the subject of the sentence)

  Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

References / Bibliography

Oh boy.

• Use the SFN template on all the "Hodges", "Stannard", and "Hoodless" refs (for an example, see Arthur Guinness)

  Done. All these citations are in a consistent sfn format. It is normally considered unhelpful to add citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Variation in citation methods.--Ykraps (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Most of these sources are from the Management Plan, so that should go in the biography and the SFN template should be used for page numbers

  Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Both [3] (Surrey Record Society) and [4] (Bell) appear to be books, so the titles should be italicized

  Fixed.--Ykraps (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

General comments

• Images all look good
• No stability concerns in the revision history
• Earwig score looks good

Broadly, the prose gives me pause, as there are many MOS:WTW about time (MOS:REALTIME) and the conference of authority (MOS:WEASEL). Most of the latter are caused by passive voice throughout this article. It's going to take some serious work to get into shape. Putting on hold for now. Feel free to ping me with questions, and please let me know when you're finished. — GhostRiver 20:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@GhostRiver: Do you have further comments?--Ykraps (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@GhostRiver: Are you intending to return to this review? --Ykraps (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I will look at this again tomorrow. I have been dealing with some of the uglier symptoms of my bipolar disorder. — GhostRiver 04:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I got pinged to have a look at it since the reviewer hasn't been active for a week. I've done a bit of a copyedit, but other than that I don't think there's any reason it can't pass a GA review now, except to note I have not checked many of the references to ensure the claims in the article are factually accurate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

No more serious concerns. Passing now. — GhostRiver 18:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)