Talk:River Witham/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 21:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please note that I'm doing some minor tweaks as I go. It won't be anything major, but feel free to revert anything you disagree with.
- I'm a Yank, so excuse me in advance for this and other dumb questions I may need to ask during this review: What do the letter/number codes like SK8818 in the lead mean?
- They are the Ordnance Survey grid references for the place. Keith D (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Would this be familiar enough to a casual British reader that they don't need to be identified as such here? Normally I'd prefer to clarify for an international audience, but in this case it's a small enough detail that I don't think it's needed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have added templates to make them clickable, at least. The whole handling of co-ordinate systems on WP is a matter for religious wars.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Would this be familiar enough to a casual British reader that they don't need to be identified as such here? Normally I'd prefer to clarify for an international audience, but in this case it's a small enough detail that I don't think it's needed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- They are the Ordnance Survey grid references for the place. Keith D (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- "The name "Witham" seems to be extremely old, apparently predating Anglo-Saxon, Roman, and even Celtic influence.[4] The meaning is not known." -- this important detail should be in the body as well as the lead per WP:LEAD. You could probably just copy it to the start of the History of Navigation section
Done. it looked odd there, so I've done some work on it.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Incidentally, This Page gives an etymology for the name that is unreferenced, odd, and unlike anyhing elseI've seen. I wrote for clarificatin but they did not reply.
- "He suggested that the 1744 cut" -- is the "he" here Coppin or Grundy? -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done - it was Grundy--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about some of the italicization in this article. "Witham Navigable Drains" doesn't seem to be italicized at its home article, for example. Witham Drainage General Commissioners, Brayford Wharf , High Bridge or Glory Hole, and Stamp End Lock all seem like phrases that not be italicized in standard usage.
- They are proper names, and more than proper names - some of them are precise and very old and well-known. The practice was already there when I first edited the article. I don't care either way, but someone might, so I left it in the interests of avoiding an editing conflict (lack of editing conflict is a promotion requirement!)--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at this again, it looks like names like "Stamp End lock" are italicized in some places and not in others, further adding confusion. (As a side note, "Stamp End lock" is also inconsistently capitalized.) Since these don't seem to be italicized titles or needed for emphasis, the italicization seems like a minor grammatical/style error. Would you be willing to de-italicize these? On the off chance that an editing conflict does break out over it, I'm happy to put the GA review on hold for an extra few days until it's resolved. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done - don't worry about it. I am naturally cautious. I have added extra photos to the gallery for these important features.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at this again, it looks like names like "Stamp End lock" are italicized in some places and not in others, further adding confusion. (As a side note, "Stamp End lock" is also inconsistently capitalized.) Since these don't seem to be italicized titles or needed for emphasis, the italicization seems like a minor grammatical/style error. Would you be willing to de-italicize these? On the off chance that an editing conflict does break out over it, I'm happy to put the GA review on hold for an extra few days until it's resolved. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- They are proper names, and more than proper names - some of them are precise and very old and well-known. The practice was already there when I first edited the article. I don't care either way, but someone might, so I left it in the interests of avoiding an editing conflict (lack of editing conflict is a promotion requirement!)--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- [1] -- rather than embedding this external link, this should be moved to a reference, or an external media template, or simply omitted.
- Done - most was already in wikimedia. - the 'stored query' seemed broken anyway--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- The lead should better summarize the article's contents per WP:LEAD, at least touching on each major section; for example, the river's history, which forms the bulk of the article, isn't mentioned at all.
- Done with a single sentence which also stops the two mentions of the name following on from each other!--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- A big improvement, but the lead is still a touch short for the length of the river's history. What would you think of adding one more sentence mentioning the construction of the Grand Sluice and its purpose? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. I think it makes sense, and all the facts are referenced in the main body.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- A big improvement, but the lead is still a touch short for the length of the river's history. What would you think of adding one more sentence mentioning the construction of the Grand Sluice and its purpose? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
On first pass, this looks strong and ripe for promotion. Thanks again for your work on it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Checklist[edit]
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Article has a particularly impressive range of images. |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |