Talk:Malvern water/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Review

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * a. ✅ The prose is clear and concise, stating the facts in a way that is accessible to the reader.
 * b. ✅ The article follows the manual of style taken from suggestion made on the comments page.
 * Comments: Nothing new to add here, the major contributors have taken the time to follow my suggestions made over the past year or so. Good job here guys.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * a. ✅ The citations meet the standards of verifiability
 * b. ✅ The citations meet the standards of reliable sources
 * c. ✅ There is no original research.
 * Comments: there is a broken link that needs to fixed, number 16. The link is currently broken. Since it is a major part in verifying the purity standards of the water, I would like to have this issue fixed ASAP.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * a. ✅ The article, in whole, covers the major aspects of the subject and areas of interest.
 * b. ✅ Each section focuses on the subject of that section and does not veer from it, but several are too narrow in their coverage.
 * Comments: The topic is well covered, however several of the sections could use some expansion. I would like to see the art and interest groups sections expanded on as one paragraph isn't enough.✅--Kudpung (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * ✅ No issues here
 * Comments: The article easily passes the NPOV standards requirements, again the main contributors have done a good job in ensuring that facet of the article is correct.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * ✅ No issues here
 * Comments: It has been stable for more than 6 months as the contributors have worked together to improve the article.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * ✅--Kudpung (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * a. ✅ No issues with the status of the images
 * Image 1 - St. Anne's is a verified commons image with no problems
 * Image 2 - Holly well is a verified commons image with no problems
 * Image 3 - Barnards Green Trough is a verified commons image with no problems
 * Image 4 - Spout at St. Anne's is a verified commons image with no problems
 * Image 5 - Darwin plaque is a verified commons image with no problems
 * Image 6 - Mahlvina fountain is a verified commons image with no problems
 * Image 7 -  
 * Image 8 -  
 * b. ✅ The images have captions that state what the images are but do not state how the relate to the article.
 * Comments: I would like to see an image of the commercial products. Also, I want to see the captions of the all of the images expanded a little to put them in context with the article in order to show their importance to the article in order to clear up any confusion of what they are.
 * ✅--Kudpung (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: On hold for the following items:

Comments

 * 1)  The broken citation needs to addressed.
 * ✅ The link was broken because the Malvern Town Council had replaced the old data with a new water analysis for 2010. The ref now links to the URL of the new PDF datasheet.--Kudpung (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)  It needs and image of the products, if available.
 * If by product  you  mean  the water commercialised by  Schweppes or Holy Well, this was deliberately  left  out  of the article as one editor already  accused us of advertising even without  it. Besides which, a separate article is planned later for the  commercial product  in  the same way  as the Wikipedia articles for Perrier or Evian appear. At present  no  FUR image can be provided. This would require a trip to  England to  make a photo ourselves.--Kudpung (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are some acceptable options: File:Malvern Darwin plaque.jpg - medicinal use, File:Malvern Water Bottling Plant - geograph.org.uk - 6036.jpg - the bottling plant. Try doing a search with "Malvern Water" on commons for some more, but don't go over board. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 13:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ - nice pun ;) --Kudpung (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Add  to the "external links" section
 * ✅ All the photos I took of and in the Schweppes  bottlng factory with permission in April, will be uploaded to Commons and used in the new stand-alone commercial Malvern spring water article à la Perrier and Evian. The articles will of course be linked.--Kudpung (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The Art projects, Source and Interest groups section need to be expanded a bit. There needs to be a bit more on the sections' subjects.
 * Art projects - the Spa association has an annual "well dressing" contest where locals spruce up the well sites. This would be a good area to start. Also look at Rose Gerard's home page for some good stuff.
 * I think we've said all we can about art that is Malvern Water specific. We  don't relly  want  to turn this article in to a promotional page for Rose Garrard. At some time or another I might create a BLP about  her, but at the moment, apart from her own autobiographical home page there is very little else about her anywhere, and not  much else about water art in Malvern elsewhere.
 * If you go to her gallery, and click on the images of her Malvern works a summary page will come up listing some background of her involvement with the area. Also, I am not intoning that you make the section about her works solely, but stating that she has some knowledge of the art work and restorations of the various wells and structures. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think she has enough mention in the  article already.  If this article is to become a Rose Garrard fan site, let's let some other editors do it.--Kudpung (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources - A little research came up with the Malvern Hills Geopark site, good as any place to start. Also try searches under Hydrology and hydro-geology.
 * ✅ Fixed by Wotnow. Geopark seems to be more of a portal and appears to have nothing specific to Malvern Water that we can use that  we haven't said already. I think we have other Malvern articls that treat (or should be treating) the geology or Hydrogeology in greater detail alreaady. I'm not sure the object of this article is to turn it into a scientific treatise.--Kudpung (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)}
 * I'm reaching the limits of my time management, but I've covered this as best I could, adding a range of citations to cover the text, while deliberately leaving it compact, and providing 'see also' links for further reading. I also managed to capitalise on the Geopark link. All up, I'd like to think we can pass muster for this section, while at the same time providing the seed citations for future development, either here, or more likely, in other articles. Wotnow (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Indeed, I've now added a further reading section to some articles. It'll be up to other editors to capitalise on it, per DavidCane's initiative from a similar addition to City and South London Railway (he cited it and incorporated it into references). But it illustrates my point, I hope, that we've probably taken this section far enough for current purposes. Wotnow (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Interest groups - a little more on the two main groups, you can use their sites for sources, but do try to get some good secondary sources.
 * ✅ - significantly expanded.--Kudpung (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)They haven't actually got their own sites. The official group has a sub domain on a local government site, the other group has a page that has very little to do with Malvern water, and the site is extremely  difficult to read. Like most volunteer associations they have a lot of meetings and big dinners, and talk a lot. Their work is excellent and takes a lot of planning but the visible result boils down to what we have already written. When I tried to meet up with them in Malvern when I was in the UK in April for more background for this article, there was zero interest - all one group wanted was to promote their books. There is some suspected rivalry and one group tried to use the Wikipedia in the past as a political platform. I've added a few more bits, but IMHO it's beginning to look like a collection of trivia. In order to stay out of local politics, I would suggest that this section covers enough. If it's still not  enough, we can cut the section completely, then there can be no complaints about its size or its coverage.--Kudpung (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've updated that section a bit, which should go some way to addressing issues noted here. Wotnow (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC) ✅
 * 1) This one has been bugging me and while reading over the article again I feel that the last sentence (length of time the water takes to filter through the rocks) of the first section needs to be cited.
 * Mention removed. This was not OR of course, but intensive searching has failed to reveal where we originally got this info. It may have been from one of the MDC govt pages that their webmaster keeps changing and destroying from his records.--Kudpung (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A brief comment so as not to intrude on, or distract from, the efficient and educational dialogue. I too was bothered by the lack of citation, which I tried to address at the same time as the flow rates. The specificity of the statement leads me to think the contributor read it somewhere. Indeed, I'd be a bit surprised if there isn't some study somewhere in which the rate of water seepage has been measured or estimated. Probably the largest part of information finding is knowing the terminology used by those writing on the topic. To that end I found this, on the Hydro-geology of the Malvern Hills, as well as this one, on Geochemistry and the understanding of ground-water systems. On further reading here, I note Jerem43's search suggestions. Thanks for that. Kudpung's action is the most sensible for the purpose of the GA review, given lack of a citation. Nevertheless, I'll add something to the 'further reading' or 'external links' sections to stimulate further research by us or others. I'll also add an 'unanswered questions' section to the talk page, again with a view to stimulating further research. If there is something findable out there, sooner or later, it will be found, by someone, if not us. Regards. Wotnow (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment update. In the end, I used a citation from the MSA site for the temporal correlation between rainfall and spring outflow. It's just not possible that such observable natural phenomena, with such a long-standing high profile, have not been recorded by not only scientists, but also lay-people. So factually, the citation will be reliable enough for current purposes. Regarding the above links, I took a different tack. I used the hydrogeology link in a reference. I see too that the author of that particular page, Dr Cheryl Jones, is a senior lecturer in Physical Geography at University of Worcester.  As for the link for Geochemistry and the understanding of ground-water systems, it doesn't specifically mention Malvern or Malvern Hills, so I placed that in a 'Further reading' section in the article on Groundwater recharge, and created a 'see also' link to the Groundwater recharge article. Wotnow (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Please fix this statement from the Purity section: recent drought has dried out the rock that filters the water... The term "recent" is ambiguous and could end up tagged. Please change that to a more concrete time frame. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Kudpung (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I will do a read through Friday, my next day off. I will see how it reads and make any further comments, if there is a reason to do so. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary
Sorry not to finish the review when I promised, a couple of things came up (work, E. Coli), Looking at the work done and the quality of the edits I think it you have succeeded in your quest.

Lets call this a ✅.

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jeremy! Hope the E.Coli has, ahm, passed! GyroMagician (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)