Somerset Coalfield edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on it for five years! would appreciate comments before nomination an GAN. I am aware that quite a few page numbers are still needed but otherwise I think it is getting close to GA quality. In particular the structure of dividing the detail into the collections of collieries and the collapsible drop down list of detail for each group would be appreciated. Thanks, — Rod talk 09:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: This looks an impressive gathering of information, of considerable interest to social and economic historians. There is a huge backlog in the peer review system that needs shifting, and for this reason I am unable to provide a detail prose review, but I have highlighted some significant points for your attention, and have done a little copyediting in the lead:-
- Weak opening: to say that "The Somerset Coalfield included pits in the North Somerset, England, area..." is imprecise. Do you mean "comprised"?
- The single-sentence opening paragraph looks isolated and should be combined with the next.
- Lead, second paragraph, second sentence: "It stretched..." Does this "it" refer to the wider coalfield or to the Somerset coalfield?
- The "Early surveys of William Smith" subsection has one citation near the beginning, but is otherwise unreferenced. First paragraph of the "Stratigraphy" subsection is likewise uncited. Reading on, it seems this is a general problem; there are uncitated statments (including direct quotations) throughout the article. Likewise, the information in the various tables is only sporadically cited.
- The "Coal seams" subsection might be clearer if the information was presented as a table or list
- So far as I am concerned the collapsible lists are a good way of presenting this information. But why are the latitudes and longitudes of each pit considered necessary? I don't imagine one would need a compass to find these locations?
- A few format problems with the refs. There are "page needed" tags in place; hyphens are used in page ranges rather than ndashes; italicisation of non-print sources (43 is an example but there are possibly more), etc
- In the bibliography, the Coombes publication year is misplaced. Also, for consistency, publisher location information should be given for this book. ISBN formats should be standardised. What are the physical forms of the Gould, Hanley and Williams sources (book, leaflet, report, etc)?
I hope you will find these points useful. I am sorry not to have provided more. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)