Talk:Malvern water/Archive 2 (GAC review)

Working up toward GA status
Hello folks. Long time no interaction. I see Malvern Water may soon be nominated for GA review. This article was my first introduction to articles in the Worcestershire project, and I was impressed early on at the good faith spirit of contributors during an article make-over. For some time since then, I've thought the article shaped up pretty well. But that's my opinion.

I don't know how much contribution I'll be able to make to any further work in this article, but after saving this talk page section, I'll have made one change, which is to relocate the Geo Hack citation from the Springs section to the lead section. The reason is that on clicking the link, I don't find it takes me straight to a page clearly pertaining to St. Ann's Well. I had a bit of a look at a couple of links from that page, but didn't find it. Doesn't mean there isn't a link there. It does mean that the association isn't explicit to a general reader who is not in the know (i.e. who has no implicit knowledge pertaining to X). However, the link looks decidedly useful. So looking for a suitable place in the article, I placed it in the lead section at a sentence where the reader is going to see a relationship between the article text and the citation content. The lead is a general overview pertaining to Malvern Water, and clearly so too is the Geo Hack link.

I did take the liberty of replacing the oscoor template with a straight url, along with a change in the citation content. This is because (a) it's the only way I know to take care of the bare url, which would probably bring comment in a GA review, and (b) I wanted to get the citation content to somehow match that which I found on the webpage in the simplest fashion available to me at this time. Cheers. Wotnow (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now added a citation for the flow rate of springs from the Malvern Hills. This took a bit of effort using a range of search terms. I never doubted the facts, but without a verifiable citation, I couldn't see this surviving unchallenged. Wotnow (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeking a reviewer

 * Would anyone care if I asked a really good editor, Ruhrfisch, to do a review for FA/GA review? He specializes in this tipe of review and give you directions to help bring it all the way to FA status, if you so desire. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For my part I have no strong view. Reasonableness, objectivity, a modicum of flexible thinking, and a minimum of unnecessary pedantism would be all I'd ask. But I'm a bit-player in the Worcestershire project. What do others think? Wotnow (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Jeremy, whatever you think is best, bearing  Wotnow's comments in  mind.  I  will be GAC nominating  this article based mainly  in  fact on  your encouraging  comments after you first  heavily  criticised  it. Apart from  having  made a basic review, you are not  a major contributor  to  the article - you  could even probably  review it  yourself. Malvern Water is however probably  far better known as a geological  phenomenon than as a food & drink  product. It  is my  intention  sometime or another to  create a stand-alone article for Malvern Water, the beverage, such  as our articles on  Perrier etc, which  afre not  to  be confused with  advertising.--Kudpung (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: I would rather see this article pass a GA review with flying  colours than fail  miserably  on  an FA review. With  all  due respects, unless a reviewer feels that  this article has a very strong  chance of becoming  featured, any  reviewer, especially  those who  may  be more concerned with  the special  requirements for FA, should bear this in  mind,  and not  be tempted to  apply  their customary demands for FA.--Kudpung (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Kudpung. At time of my opening sentence I had in mind the clear good faith demonstrated by Jeremy, in quickly removing the advertising tag once the issues prompting the tag were addressed. This, and the dialogue surrounding that tag impressed me, for the objective, solution-focussed and good faith discussion demonstrated by those involved. So I concur with Kudpung, that Jeremy would seem eligible as a reviewer regarding both neutraity and non-involvement, but also that whatever Jeremy thinks best is fine. I also concur regarding going for an unambiguous GA review rather than a GA-with-view-to-FA review. I understand that Wikipedia needs a continual feed of articles reaching FA status. But I too think it far better, at this stage, to do well, or reasonably well, at GA status, especially if some of us are likely to be sporadic contributors and in need of keeping input bursts at a manageable level. Regards Wotnow (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

GAN
I have filed for Good Article Nomination. However, the talk page banner will not accept the sub topic where it is filed (miscellaneous), so I have entered 'drink'. I will stress however, for the benefit of those who have been confused in the past about its category, this is NOT a food & drink article. It's a natural geological phenomenon for which no category appears to exist. The fact that it can be drunk is but one of its properties.--Kudpung (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am working on the GA review. There are some issues I have identified that will need to be addressed. You have 28 days to fix them, beginning from today. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Progress notes
Hi folks. I see Kudpung removed the unsourced claim about the water taking 30 days to permeate through the rocks. Cheers Kudpung. I'm glad you did it. I confess I spotted that at the time I found the reference for the flow rates, but I was reluctant to point it out or challenge it without making a serious attempt to find a reference, and I'd have kept revisiting the exercise for some time, albeit off and on. I would be a bit surprised if there is not some study somewhere in which the rate of water seepage has been measured or estimated. However, I've made a few attempts, using various key terms and combinations of key terms, but to no avail. Either the terms were broad enough that I got thousands of results to wade through, or if I tried narrowing it down, I got nothing citable. This doesn't mean nothing exists of course. Just that (a) it's not readily findable via publicly available internet searches, and (b) if it is there, I haven't hit on the right terms or combination of terms to narrow down the search results while not eliminating the result I'm after. At least it can be said that an effort was made. Regards Wotnow (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Update. Per comment above, transcluded from the GA talk page, I have found a citation for the temporal correlation between rainfall and spring outflow, which is good enough for current purposes. If another citation isn't found, it'll do. Meantime, the presence of the sentence serves (a) its own information purpose and (b) as a possible stimulant to further inquiry. There will be records somewhere. That is certain. It pertains to observable phenomena that scientist and lay-people DO record. It doesn't mean it's findable to us via the public internet, or not easily findable. But what's found so far will do for now. It'll at least stop me from spending a disproportionate amount of time looking for information. Wotnow (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Unanswered questions and ideas
This section is intended to generate unanswered questions and ideas on answering them, or just ideas for future additions to the article. This is intended to be over and above anything related to the current GA review (i.e. following on from that process for further development to this or related articles), but from which ideas may of course be generated, as indeed was the first question. Wotnow (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC) See also comment updates above. Wotnow (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Time taken for groundwater to seep through Malvern Hills to the spring outlets.
 * What is written on this? Is there a good overview to be found somewhere? Where should one look, and what search-terms will yield sensible results?
 * Some links to start with:
 * Malvern Hills Geopark
 * Hydro-geology of the Malvern Hills
 * Geochemistry and the understanding of ground-water systems full article
 * Add next link here


 * Some terminology used:
 * Hydrology, hydro-geology. Aquifier
 * Groundwater recharge

Reversion solution
Firstly, welcome back to GyroMagician. Good to see your input in the work-up to a GA. Something odd happened to some of the citations, with bare urls showing instead of the citation. After a couple of simple experiments and checking the previews, I did not work out the solution. I noted that the version as at GyroMagician's edit of 08:50 11 July 2010 was okay. Given that, I copied-and-pasted from that version back into the article content. After saving this message, I'll try to reinstate Gyro's efforts from there. I'm expecting it to be easier to do that than to work out what went wrong, although perhaps the answer will jump out as I go. Regards Wotnow (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Wotnow (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Structuring for content flow
On further review of the article, I noticed a couple of things I thought I might try a bold approach with. Firstly, I noticed that the 'Art projects' seemed to follow naturally on from the 'Interest groups' section, but was separated by the 'Commercialisation' section, which itself follows naturally on from the 'Medicinal use' section. The self-contained wording of the sections allowed for easy relocation, so I did this, and was initially going to leave it at that.

However, by placing the 'Art projects' section immediately after the 'Interest groups' section, a couple of things became more self-evident. Firstly, some duplication and overlap of text, in relation to the Spring Water Arts Project. Secondly, the fact that the last paragraph in the 'Interest groups' section, which contained this duplication and overlap, belonged more appropriately in the 'Art projects' section. After some consideration, I figured that the text and citations provided allowed for restructuring and integration of the overlapping material. In doing this, I managed to take care of another problem that I had previously encountered. That is, how to allow for the acknowledgement of other art projects, either those we aren't aware of, of new ones, or just ongoing activity. The 2010 projects allowed for this quite nicely, and so I decided to give it a shot. Thus, the 'Interest groups' section has been previously expanded to elaborate on the two primary groups. And now, the 'Art projects' follows on naturally from this, up to the present day, and allows for new material to be added on. I hope I have done some justice to the article via this exercise. Wotnow (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Wotnow, well done, I think it looks better after re-ordering. I always enjoy that moment of clarity on recognising a better structure for a piece of text. An thanks for fixing the refs - I've no idea what happened there, but I'd agree with your pragmatism - in this case making it work is more important than understanding why it didn't (and it could be a very tedious search!). You and Kudpung have done good things with this article, it's looking very healthy. I have very little spare time at the moment, so I'm afraid my contributions will be minimal, but I think the article looks ready. We'll see if Jeremy agrees ;-)


 * BTW - Hi Jeremy, nice to see you reviewing the article. I believe I was rather grumpy when we first met, but fortunately you had the patience to clearly set out how we could improve the article - thanks again! GyroMagician (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * De nada --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheers GyroMagician. Nevertheless your contribution was helpful and well-timed. Thanks for doing the Malvern Water move (Sounds like a new type of dance. "Take your partner by the sash. Move to the right and make a splash...etc"). And now I know what de nada means, although I did have to look it up on de internet. Anada bit of learning for me. Wotnow (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sir your puns are horrible. Keep up the good work... --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Editing status re GA updates
I have to tend to other things, but I'm pretty much done for our current purposes. Regards Wotnow (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture Cull
How does everyone feel about deleting a couple of pictures? The article has some good illustrations, so I'd like to thin out a couple of the less-good ones. I'd like to get rid of the Malvern Water bottling plant (some rather forbidding gates and a no-entry sign), and Florence at the bottom (it's not clear why she's there - the article isn't about her, or about Malvern museum). What do you think? GyroMagician (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Florence is there because there was a suggestion that  the article was thin in  content. I  took  the picture in  the Museum in  April so  I  used it. I  thought  it  would add more 'notability' to  the water, but  in  fact  there's absolmutely  no  shortage of notability of the water, nor of notable people who  have used it  or consumed it. I  have absolutely  no objections whatsoever of it  being  removed. The gate of the Schweppes plant  was added on the reviewer's suggestion.--Kudpung (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not mind the removal of some images, but per good and featured article standards there should be images in the sections that help improve the section and expand the article. If you do remove some, please make sure that you do not leave sections devoid of pictures. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In principle I have no objection, for what it's worth, especially if it enhances the article overall with regards the GA review. And especially since the suggestion, and agreement with the suggestion, all come from editors with an unquestionable track-record of striving to improve articles. So it has considerable credence.
 * I could make a couple of observations. Firstly, the bottling plant picture did get me wondering - a key motive for inquiry and learning, in my experience. The building in the photo looks somewhat historical. From the Victorian era? Is it the oldest building on the site? Is it the actual originl bottling plant? What is its history? Are there other comparative photos of it from the Victorian era? That sort of thing. This wondering is from the perspective of a reader intrigued by the article content. The Malvern Water (bottled water) article lends itself nicely to answering such questions, and the answering of such questions may help in development of that article.
 * Secondly, the Nightingale picture impressed me, for its quality and visual informativeness. If the article suffered from a paucity of relevant pictures, it would be worth leaving there and expanding on the relationship between Nightingale and Malvern - I gather she visited there a few times: I never previously knew that. However, there is no such paucity. I did manage to capitalise on the Nightingale picture by adding it to the article on her, and developing the relevant section just that bit more.
 * My general philosophical view on the deletion of any information is: "is there somewhere else, and/or some way else, that this inoformation could conceivably play a contributing role to the information environment?" On this count, both pictures have done that, and any deletion from this article can be safely done if the overall consensus is to do so - which it seems is the case. Regards Wotnow (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Photos removed. Both sections still have other, more relevant, photos, so I think we remain well illustrated. For the bottling plant, a photo of the plant itself may still be interesting (what else do you have in your stash KP?) - but the photo I removed was of the gates, and a no-entry sign, with the plant almost visible in the background. It seemed rather foreboding! And while I think Malvern Museum are doing a fantastic job, we have better picture already in the article, and I don't think it added much. I like to keep an article tightly focussed, if possible - I think it enhances the good stuff, of which there is plenty here. GyroMagician (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi GM, I think you've done the right  thing. What  I  have in  my  stash  is not  interesting - at  least  not  for this Malvern  article. I'm happy  to  go  along  with  any  consensus to  prune the pics because I  felt  the article was getting  over illustrated already. BTW, time's up  today.--Kudpung (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi folks. While I held no strong opinion either way on the presence or absence of the pics (my opinions pertain more to the question of how useful information can be utilised rather than lost, and that's been addressed), I concur with GM's removal. I see too, per Kudpung, that time is now up. I'd like to think we covered our bases, addressed all the criteria as laid out, and explained ourselves adequately as we went. But that's just my view. Regards Wotnow (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi folks. While I held no strong opinion either way on the presence or absence of the pics (my opinions pertain more to the question of how useful information can be utilised rather than lost, and that's been addressed), I concur with GM's removal. I see too, per Kudpung, that time is now up. I'd like to think we covered our bases, addressed all the criteria as laid out, and explained ourselves adequately as we went. But that's just my view. Regards Wotnow (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comments:

 * 1) Please standardize the citations using the cite web family of templates
 * 2) The format of the quotes is erratic, please pick a single format for them
 * 3) Unless there is reason to separate the quotations, they should be inline using italics. The way they are now makes this read like a brochure.
 * 4) Unless this is a brand name, which it appears not to be, this article should be moved to Malvern water per WP:Common name.
 * 5) The headings need to be redone per WP:Headings. e.g. The water in medicine should be Medicinal uses or Medicinal claims
 * 6) The Prominent consumers section really does not appear to be relevant to the article, just added trivia.