Talk:Brean Down/GA1

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

Reviewer: TLSuda (talk · contribs) 18:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Greetings! I know you've waited a few months for a review, but I have good news! I'm stuck in a tin can for 5 hours tomorrow late night UTC, so I'm going to use that time wisely to review this article. I expect to have the review posted in the early morning hours UTC the following day. (Approximately less than 36 hours from this post.) I look forward to reading and reviewing this article.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Initial Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * Very minor things. See prose review.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * One issue. See prose review.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to 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 provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Just a few small things left to do! Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Just a few small things left to do! Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Just a few small things left to do! Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead

 * "...it is a continuation of the Mendip Hill" should end the sentence, and start the next sentence with "Two further..."
 * Changed.&mdash; Rod talk 08:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "...Bronze Age and there remains..." replace "there" with "includes"
 * Changed.&mdash; Rod talk 08:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

History

 * "Probably" see WP:ALLEGED. Either need a different word, or remove the word, or find a source that claims probably.
 * The Athill book which is used as a citation says it is "extremely likely". I don't think a definitive answer will ever be given so probably reflects the source unless you have a better word.&mdash; Rod talk 08:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would end the sentence at "...mid-4th century." and start the next sentence: "According to at least one source, it is extremely likely this temple succeeded..." and make sure that source stays at the end.  TLSuda  (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Done&mdash; Rod talk 17:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Shooting rights" does not need quotes.
 * Removed&mdash; Rod talk 08:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Spell out and convert 6" (see CONVERT
 * Done&mdash; Rod talk 08:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Do we know what the results of the proposals to construct a Severn Barrage are? I assume they are obviously not successful, but do we know?
 * See Severn Barrage. The proposals which go back over 100 years have never been successful so far, however Peter Hain and others are still working on further proposals and trying to persuade the government to fund either the barrage or tidal lagoons. (As an aside and this is personal speculation - the development of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station will mean that a lot of the infrastructure will be put in place making future development of a barrage more likely). I'm not sure how to word it - perhaps say that previous proposals have been unsuccessful but future developments are awaited or similar.&mdash; Rod talk 08:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you word it exactly how you just worded it to me: "The proposals which go back over 100 years have never been successful so far, however Peter Hain and others are still working on further proposals and trying to persuade the government to fund either the barrage or tidal lagoons." Thats really good writing there. This is why I like to ask open ended questions: you do the work in your response.  TLSuda  (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Done.&mdash; Rod talk 17:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ecology

 * Why is "small heath" the only name that is not capitalized?
 * Changed.&mdash; Rod talk 08:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That's all I have. As soon as we get these little pieces cleaned up, I will be happy to promote. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your comments. I have addressed most but see comment re barrage proposals above and the use of "probably" for 4th century building.&mdash; Rod talk 08:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've responded to both. Let me know,  TLSuda  (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Both changed as suggested.&mdash; Rod talk 17:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to promote this to a Good Article! Congratulations,  TLSuda  (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)