Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abberton Reservoir/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 July 2021 [1].

Abberton Reservoir edit

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of water, many ducks, some naval mines and the "Dam Busters". Thanks to Gog the Mild for help with the milhist stuff and to aa77zz for help with the rest Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 10:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D edit

This is an interesting article which covers its topic pretty well. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "large pumped storage freshwater" Is it really large? It's smaller than most of the several dams that serve Canberra where I live, which is a smallish Australian city. Not sure how to word this, but I think that what you're getting at is that it's large by the standards of the UK (a country which reliably gets lots of rain, unlike Australia where we need to store lots and lots of water for dry years). The second sentence says this, so I'd suggest omitting this from the first sentence.
  • "Plans to increase the capacity of Abberton reservoir to 41,000 megalitres (9.0×109 imp gal) by raising its bank height were completed in 2013" - were the plans completed, or the project to undertake these works?
  • The lead should note when the reservoir was established
  • "the RAF's 617 Squadron" - add a "No." in front of 617
  • Can anything more be said about the establishment of the reservoir? The material on this seems rather thin.
  • It's hard to know how much detail to put in, but I've added another para to History. In the process, I spotted an incident involving a Heinkel bomber that I've added to the WWII section Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's still a bit thin. It would be good to discuss how the reservoir came about, how it was funded, who it was built on behalf of, etc. Is it possible to access newspaper archives or similar? (In Australia, the Trove service would likely be very useful for this, for instance). Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nick-D, I don't have access to newspaper archives, but I'm not really sure what you are asking anyway. In the UK water companies have a (regulated) monopoly for their areas, and they identify the need for infrastructure improvements, as I've said in the text, plan the works, as I've also said and provide the funding themselves. They have customers who pay for the water, and shareholders who invest in the companies, but I would have thought both those facts are a bit trivial to mention Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my reading of the article, as someone totally unfamiliar with how water supplies are run in the UK, that wasn't clear to me to be honest. Can you draw on sources to state that it was the local water provider who oversaw the construction of the reservoir?

Nick-D (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nick-D, I've added a new paragraph summarising the enabling legislation for the reservoir and its associated infrastructure. Basically, parliament gives approval for the scheme and the rest is up to the water company Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reservoir's current owners, Essex and Suffolk Water, part of the Northumbrian Water Group, recognised that its capacity was insufficient to meet growing local demand,[6] and initiated a £140 million project to increase the capacity by 58% to 41,000 megalitres (9.0×109 imp gal) by raising its banks." - when was this recognised?
  • The relevant public document is dated 2007, so I've used that, although it's likely that the water company was aware of a growing problem for several year before that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there any opposition to expanding the reservoir? (for instance, from environmentalists or local famers). Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find anything, and it's unlikely. The reservoir was enlarged by deepening, so no impact outside the reservoir's existing land usage, and the changes to the banks were designed to make it more wild-life friendly as it says in the Ecology section Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Thanks for your work on this article. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D, thabnks for your comments and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Interesting read. Some comments:
  • In the lede, the sentences about WWII and about the 2013 expansion are about the history of the site, yet they are separated. You have room in the lede for a paragraph basically historical in nature.
  • Reordered Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of "history" seems to deal with the present state of the reservoir, yet it is in a history section, with paragraphs on either side dealing with the history of the site.
  • I've reorganised this section which had accreted material based on previous comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final, brief paragraph of "History" is still a bit of an anachronism, as is "but most of its water is pumped in from the River Stour "
  • I've moved that sentence to start Ecology. What's wrong with "most of its water is pumped in from the River Stour"? I thought the text was clear that that's been the case from the start? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the contents of a body of water measured in imperial gallons, or in cubic feet or some other measure?
  • I thought that I'd consistently given volumes in metric megalitres (as does the main source), with a conversion to UK local units in imperial gallons. Areas are in ha/acres and depths in m/ft. Have I missed something or done something inconsistent, I can't see what's wrong here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the bridges referred to in the History section the same as the causeways referred to later on?
  • Essex Wildlife Trust is not linked on first use. It also strikes me that the World War II section, being history-related, should be adjacent to or part of the historical account. The latter half of the article is for the most part for the birds and it seems ill-placed there. Ecology and Protection seem to contain related matter and could also benefit from a merger or being adjacent.
  • linked EWT at first use, moved WWii after History, made birds and protection subsections of ecology; I think protection has to follow birds since they are the main reason. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems comprehensive, but I'm not certain everything is ideally arranged.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt Thanks for further comments, all done, I think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

A remarkable article – from the Dambusters to a weevil specialising in fungi. I have tried hard to find something to quibble about, but have failed. "Bitterns regularly occur" looked a bit odd to me, but if it's OK with ornithologists it's OK with me. Is it intolerably picky to mention that "teal" is blue-linked twice? That apart, I have nothing but applause for this most interesting article. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 15:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, thanks for the kind words and support. I've corrected the two infelicities you picked up Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Amakuru - Support edit

(This is the reviewed version)

General
  • Refs 4 and 5: these could really do with page numbers; particularly ref 5, as the source listed has a 20-page range. Use {{sfn}} if necessary, or separate links I suppose...
  • I'm not convinced by ref 4, since half the pages have no real content, but nevertheless, I've done as you wish and broken it down to five separate refs. I'm not convinced with ref 5, it normal practice here and universal elsewhere to give a range for a journal article. In this case, virtually everything in this 18 (not 20) page range is used in the article, and it makes more sense to read it from beginning to end rather than bit-and-bob about Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need consistency in whether we're italicising or not. Ref 7 has "Imperial War Museums" in italics, while ref 19 "Sites of Special Scientific Interest" is not italicised. In fact, 19 to 21 mix and match with the same publisher.
  • Ramsar and JNCC are linked, whereas other sources with Wikipedia articles are not. Is there a reason for this?
  • Ref 10: behind a paywall, so please mark as such
  • Refs 17-18: JNCC is abbreviated in 17 and spelled out in full in 18. Suggest spelling out in full for both.
  • Refs 22 and 23: Both point at the same page
  • That's about all for now. I'll do spot checks once the above are addressed. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amakuru Thanks for review, I think I've responded to all your points except ref 10 (now 12), where I'm obviously not seeing what you are seeing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jimfbleak: thanks for the responses. Re the Washington Post thing I was presented with a subscription options dialog when I followed the link, although in fact one of them is "free with a limited number of articles available" so I guess that's OK. On the journal article page numbers I have to say I'm a bit surprised... as you say yourself, this source has 18 pages and it makes it more difficult me to verify individual facts in the article if I have to plough through an entire article to do find one fact. (I don't have access to the article, so I don't know in this case how much I'd have to look at). I think I'll ping just a note at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources to get a third opinion on this, and we can take it from there. Will do spot checks after that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amakuru thanks for that. As the responses at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources indicate, it's certainly not mandatory to indicate specific page numbers. Even I can see the logic giving a page number to identify a single fact in, say, a 100-page range, but that's a rare occurrence. As the responses indicate, this is a relatively new Wikipedia-specific trend which hasn't applied for most of the 17 years I've been writing FAs, and which I'm not about to adopt now, since it's contrary to normal practice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jimfbleak: well, actually the discussion is quite split, with no consensus as to whether individual page numbers are required, and for what length of article. Certainly many people have expressed concern that page lengths of 12+ present verification difficulties. As such, with no clear guideline in operation it comes down to a case-by-case decision. In this case, I've gained access to the article in question in digital format, and it looks like despite the large page range, the actual number of words is not huge once the maps, pictures and bibliography are taken away, so I'll let this one go. I'll proceed to the spot checks later on today hopefully. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Amakuru, just checking if this is a pass or a fail for the source review, or if it is still ongoing? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild: still ongoing. I've completed the general check, but I should do some spot checks before signing off. Hopefully later today or tomorrow. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks

This is the reviewed version for the spot checks.

  • [1] - confirmed both.
  • [2] - (the link was redirecting somewhere non-useful, so I inserted an archive URL for it).
    • Driest county in the UK: the source says it is the driest county in the UK, while the article says one of the driest'. This is probably fine though, because other sources do list Essex as just one of the driest, with maybe no clear winner between it and, say, Cambridgeshire.
    • Culvert under the road (causeway) - confirmed.
  • [3] - confirmed.
  • ? [4] - confirmed, although it should probably be pp 6–7 rather than 4, assuming the page numbers are those written in the doc rather than the PDF page numbers.
  • Changed pp.
  • [5] - confirmed.
  • [6]:
    • ? "on a site that was formerly farmland with a couple of small woods" - does the source say this?
    • "The scheme was completed in 2013" - confirmed
    • ? "The reservoir has a current maximum area of 700 ha (1,700 acres)" - is this in the source? I can see a mention of a surface area of 500 hectares, but I'm not seeing the maximum of 700 figure...
    • Sections and areas - confirmed.
    • Location - confirmed.
    • ? "Suffolk Water" - the source actually says "Essex and Suffolk Water", which obviously matches what's written higher up in the article too.
    • Bird info - mostly checks out, although I didn't check absolutely all of them!
    • Other wildlife - confirmed.
  • [9] and [10] - confirmed.
  • [12] - confirmed.
  • [14] -? I've just noticed the formatting of the title is a bit odd here, it should have some separators between the three parts
    • All other bits confirmed.
  • [15] - see [2]
  • [16] - see [2]
  • [17] - confirmed.
  • [19] - confirmed.
  • [22] - confirmed.
  • [25] -? the opening hours appear to have changed to "7 days a week 10.00am-5.00pm". Probably this should be caveated with an {{asof}}, to comply with MOS:CURRENT.

That's about it. I've marked all my queries above with a ? symbol. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

  • Perhaps link "wintering" to the "Birds" section of "Overwintering"?
  • Template:Infobox body of water states "date-built": date construction the body of water/reservoir started, if man-made. You have when it ended. Perhaps add "date-flooded"?
  • "Abberton reservoir was first filled just before the start of World War II". Perhaps state when this was for those not fully up to speed with 20th C history. Or who suspect it began with Pearl Harbour.
  • "a full dress rehearsal" → 'a full-dress rehearsal'.
  • "dress rehearsal" is a composite down, and "full" is acting as normal adjective, not an adjective-noun modifier like "three-year plan". this suggest that "full-dress rehearsal" is obsolete. The source for this was your James Holland book, what does that have? If it's problematic, I can always just have "rehearsal"Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edersee Dam" and "Eder dam". Perhaps standardise the name and capitalisation.
  • "25,000 megalitres" increased by 58% is not "41,000 megalitres". Was there an interim increase?
  • "The scheme was completed between 2010 and 2013". I assume it was completed in 2013?
  • "allowing the water level in the western sections to be retained independently of the main body of water." Is "retained" the best word here?
  • "Abberton was designated a Special Protection Area". Why the upper case initial letters? Similarly for "Site of Special Scientific Interest".
  • These are always capitalised, in the sources and elsewhere because they have legal weight, like the Children Act". A ssi designation would look very strange, and I've never seen terms or their abbreviations lc Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS says "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence.[a] Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." SSI seems to be running at 70%+ of usage and SPA about 74%, so fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

Yes Jim, you may open a further nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jim, looking to close this but I notice you tend to refer to "Abberton reservoir" in the text -- I'd expect "Abberton Reservoir" as its proper name and only the all-lower-case when writing "the reservoir" or some such. Did you have a particular reason behind the way you present it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, thanks, you'd think I'd know better by now; I've searched and replaced all the incorrect lc Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Abberton_Reservoir/archive1&oldid=1032999518"