Talk:Blackburn Meadows/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for offering to review the article. I am afraid I am on the road this week (until Friday 7 December), and am not sure if I shall have internet access. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No problems for me. Snow is apparently forecast, so I shan't be on the road. Pyrotec (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments
On the basis of a quick read, this article appears to be well referenced (but I've not checked any at this stage), the prose looks fine and its well-illustrated so I would expect the article to make GA-status during this review. So, at this stage of the review I'm going through the nomination in more depth and mostly I'll be commenting here on "problems" that I find: some minor ones I might fix myself rather than list. However, everything else including the formal assessment against WP:WIAGA will be covered by the end of the review.

Firstly, this is not a GA-requirement, but to me the article would read better and be more logical if the Nature Reserve & the Power Station sections were moved so that they appear after Sewage Treatment Works, with the Nature Reserve last. However, the sentence "Blackburn Meadows is the lowest point within Sheffield City Council area. The River Don flows out of the city under Templeborough railway bridge past a benchmark set at 96 feet (29.27 m) above sea level.[2]" probably needs to stay where it is, so that would mean that it would need to be moved into the Sewage Treatment Works section.
 * ✅ I have moved the sections, reworked the first paragraph to include the lowest point, and moved the image so that it does not conflict with the infobox on wider screens. It may need a few tweaks further down now that the order has changed. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nature Reserve -
 * The first paragraph is referenced, ref 1, with a WP:RS Sheffield City Council, Blackburn Meadows Nature Reserve, REPORT OF HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, REPORT TO CABINET July 2005, but its a bit of a primary source. I would feel happier if that primary source was supplemented with some other citations that were not cabinet agenda's (Note: supplemented not removed). There might be something to use at The Wildlife Trust for Sheffield and Rotherham.
 * I can find plenty of stuff on what can be seen at the reserve, but an extensive Google search turns up nothing at all on its history. I know it is a primary source, but it makes no claims that it is the "biggest", "best" or "first" nature reserve, so am reasonably happy that I have used it correctly, and at the moment there seems to be no alternative. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Power Station -
 * Quite a reasonable and compact section on its own.
 * If you can find the sources, it would be useful to say why the power station was put there. Having looked at your references, it was built by Sheffield Corporation (pre CEGB) to supply electricity to Sheffield's steel industry. However, it was probably put "there" because there was ready access to lots of water and it was "dirty and smelly" so putting it on council land next to the sewage works was a political/pragmatic solution.
 * Symbol question.svg I cannot find any sources that say precisely that at the moment, but have added a note on the proximity of the steel works, the river and the railway connections.


 * Sewage Treatment Works -
 * untitled subsection -
 * The first sentence has a couple of claims: "......is the second largest treatment works in the United Kingdom, .... only the works at Leeds processes more ..." supported by a newspaper article published in July 2006. There are two points to consider, is The Star a WP:RS to support such a claim and if so is the dual claim still true. I suspect that a clause "as of 2006 it was stated/claimed that" is needed.
 * ✅ Altered to include date and "claimed to be".
 * Otherwise, it looks OK.

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * History -
 * I added a few wikilinks, but this subsection looks compliant.


 * Expansion -
 * Its not clear to me what "it" in the final sentence is referring to: "it" could be the 0-4-0 saddle tank or Kilnhurst tip. As Booth is used as a citation, possibly its the first one.
 * ✅ It was the tip that was sold. Extra words added to clarify.
 * Otherwise, it looks OK.


 * Modernisation & Improvements -
 * These two subsections look OK.


 * WP:Lead -
 * This is rather "thin". It's two paragraphs long, of fairly equal length (3 lines v 2 lines): the first paragraph is about the sewage works and the second about the power station and the nature reserve. The discussions in the main body of the article concerning the sewage works occupy perhaps two thirds of the total (excluding lead and refs), so on the basis of relative emphasis (see WP:MOSINTRO) a bit more "meat" should be provided in the first paragraph of the Lead (or perhaps first two paragraphs in a three paragraph lead). This should not be too difficult, for instance "the Sheffield system" could be mention by name, use of external tips, clean up to avoid killing fish. These are just my ideas, there are other ways of doing it: so I'm not specifying how it is to be done, just what needs to be done.
 * ✅ I have expanded the lead to three paragraphs, each a little longer than before. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've subsequently done a minor copy edit on the Lead to "tighten it up" a bit. I don't think that I have changed the meaning of anything. Pyrotec (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

At this stage, I'm putting the review On Hold for these items to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I have now addressed all points, with the exception of the ref for the nature reserve, for which I have given an explanation. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I can't really expect material to be added if its not available, so I'm going to close this review. Pyrotec (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria An informative and interesting article.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Well illustrated.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Well illustrated.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm delighted to be able to award this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing a fine Good Article. Pyrotec (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)