Talk:Port Gaverne/GA1

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 17:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy to review this article.
 * Great News, thank you MapReader (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Summary

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Link pilchards, slate.
 * For a place this size I would consider only including the following in the infobox: map_type, country (UK, not England), coordinates, official_name, cornish_name, static_image, civil_parish, unitary_england, os_grid_reference.
 * The lead section is too small. To be a concise summary of the text in the article it should include the following (two points are already there): Port Gaverne's location ✅ - that it was little known before the 19th century ✅– the sand industry ✅– slate quarrying, fishing and shipbuilding ✅ in the 19th century, and subsequent decline ✅– the growth of tourism at the start of the 20th century ✅– the character of the buildings ✅– local governance – its population and demographics ✅– the modern economy, including location filming ✅– its reliance on nearby villages for services ✅.
 * Ref 1 cannot be accessed.
 * Use undefined undefined to convert the distance to km.
 * Ref 2 (OS map) is not needed, as the link to the coordinates provides this information.


 * I would merge this very small section with the next one (or expand this section).
 * ...come from 'Karn Hun', which means ‘rocky haven‘. - is it known which language the name comes from?
 * Ref 3a (Visit Cornwall) is not really a suitable reference for the etymology of the name, as it is unreferenced. This was written a century ago. This mentions Karn Hun, without any explanation (but it’s a usable source as it is referenced). According to A glossary of Cornish names (written in 1871), carne (‘rocky’) can be found here and haun (‘haven’) here. can something better be found?


 * Link Cornwall; lease; ketches; pilchards; Wadebridge; Second World War; tank traps (Dragon's teeth (fortification)).
 * Who were John Norden and Warwick Guy? These people need to be introduced, e.g. the cartographer John Norden…’.
 * A citation is needed for Norden’s quote.
 * Historian Sir John Maclean mentions… - Sir is not usually included; also, amend mentions to ‘mentioned’ as he is no longer alive.
 * Murrays Handbook of Devon and Cornwall – should be Murray’s Handbook of Devon and Cornwall (in italics).
 * Thirty wagons, pulled by over a hundred horses, would load a sixty-ton ship. - Personally, I would use numerals here (and elsewhere throughout he article) wherever the number is more than nine – but the choice is yours. See MOS:SPELL09.
 * Tons and tonnes are used inconsistently. Either is OK, but don’t keep changing.
 * Convert six miles.
 * Link Delabole, not 'Delabole Quarry'.
 * Consider leaving out {Port Isaac} in the quote, it not difficult for readers to understand the words he uses.
 * ...there is a reference to a lease of some land… - do we know more about the source?
 * The fish cellars are still extant. - is redundant, as further details emerge later in the article.
 * ...some shipbuilding here. - needs to be amended, as at present it sounds as if ships at Port Gaverne were built in cellars.
 * ...the large Delabole Quarry… - large is a redundant word here.
 * ...and other local produce, particularly pilchards, was exported. - can we specify the produce? Why particularly for pilchards?
 * in the harbour, many (as in many evacuees) and however are redundant.
 * As late as 1890, women still helped with stowing the slates. - some readers might not understand what is being implied here – what is significant about the date, and why shouldn't women have worked in this way, did the men?
 * ...was excavated by convicts… - excavate is incorrect, as the prisoners were neither hole-diggers or archaeologists. 'Built'?
 * ...transport of Delabole slate… - ‘...the transport of Delabole slate…’.
 * the fish disappeared is idiomatic (WP:IDIOM), they were overfished.
 * I would clarify what a sail loft was, as readers may not be familiar with the term.
 * ... now the Port Gaverne Hotel…; ...now empty…; ...now provide - avoid now (MOS:RELTIME), is the text referring to 'now' in the 19th or the 21st century?
 * A series of tank traps were installed in the cove in case of German invasion. - is there a date? Do we know how many? Readers may not know the context of the term ‘German invasion’ and it may need to be clarified.


 * Link heathland (Heath); listed buildings.
 * Maps show that the bay is also called Port Gaverne, which I think should be mentioned.


 * I would name the magazine.


 * Doc Martin and Fisherman's Friends need to be in italics.
 * Link University of Plymouth (and I would use this title, not the one currently in the article).
 * Link diving (presumably Underwater diving); takeaway (Take-out) – amend to ‘takeaway restaurant’.
 * Services in the title has a small ‘s’.
 * ...displaced by tourism… - ‘replaced’ is more correct imo.
 * ... the current ITV television series… - avoid current (MOS:RELTIME).
 * I notice it appears elsewhere, it should be replaced with more suitable text (e.g. '...as of 2020...'). Amitchell125 (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ... all services… - ‘... all its services…’.
 * ...as there are none in Port Gaverne other than Port Gaverne Hotel - is redundant.
 * ...both of which included shooting in Port Gaverne. - Ref 15 (Busby & Haines) does not refer to Port Gaverne, only Port Isaac.
 * According to the Draft Neighbourhood Plan, as of 2019 Port Isaac had nine restaurants, one takeaway, eighteen shops and three public houses, with Port Gaverne having just the public house/cafe/restaurant at the hotel. - is unnecessary detail, and should be removed (imagine if the Wikipedia article for every town in the UK had this kind of information).
 * ...and by Port Gaverne Beach Association. - it’s not clear if this association maintains the beach, or bequeathed it. Also, a citation is required for the second part of this sentence.


 * Is it a hamlet (11 counts) or a village (4)?
 * I think most of this section is excessively detailed. Consider not including this section at all.


 * The image is better placed in the Geography section.
 * Ref 4 (www.gullrock-Port-gaverne.co.uk) has no author, is unreferenced, and appears to be an unpublished source (see WP:RSSELF). An alternative source (or sources) will be needed to verify the text.
 * Ref 11 (www.stendellionpc.com) is produced for Cornwall Council, but not by them, and is an anonymously written draft plan without any references. According to this it has yet to receive approval. As a source, it counts as WP:RSSELF, but if the purpose of a NDP in connection with the county council is explained, I think it could be used.
 * Ref 16 (www.atlanticscuba.co.uk) is also a self-published source, and so is not acceptable.

On hold
The article is on hold for a week until 21 October, please let me know if there are points you want to discuss. I'll cross out the comments as they are addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for such a comprehensive and well structured list of suggestions. I have worked through those for the lead section and made the changes, and will return to this later.  I think the separate Etymology section is worth retaining.  If we can reference the name in contemporary Cornish it would be good to add this back, but I cannot so far find any source for this now that the original first reference is broken. MapReader (talk) 08:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, I can’t see how to get rid of the Police-Fire-ambulance lines from the infobox? MapReader (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy with keeping the Etymology section there. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have worked through most of the history suggestions. I haven't found a primary citation for Norden but we have the secondary one in Gullrock.  For short numbers my personal preference is for numbers in words, for readability.  Tons and Tonnes are both used in various citations, and as the measurements are different (1016 kg versus 1000 kg) it would be wrong to treat them as interchangeable.  The Delabole Quarry reference is a specific reference to the quarry and it seems better that the link directs straight to the relevant part of the destination article?  Sail loft and German invasion I have dealt with by links.  There are a couple of points outstanding that need more research.  Kind regards MapReader (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This link from British History Online appears to useful for quoting Norden.
 * A minor point perhaps, but I would simply convert either tons or tonnes so that the units are the same throughout the article.
 * Thanks for the other points in your reply, I understand and agree with them. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have done the Geography points (covering the reference to the harbour/cove in the etymology section); I don't understand the Governance point? From the history list, I have included sand as an exported product; the 'particularly' for pilchards simply reflects the size of the catch at its peak, which is mentioned in the article.  I have reworded the disappearing fish; over-fishing may have been the case but isn't referenced, so I simply say the catches reduced.  The redundant words point was already done.  Cross-referencing the sources the point is that historically the slates were often loaded by women and this continued through to the 1890s.  On Transport I have switched to "hamlet" throughout, as most accurate and reflecting most sources (Port Isaac is the village).  I have trimmed the detail but kept the section, which reflects many other place articles including GAs; The relative inaccessibility down narrow lanes and paucity of transport links is a relevant aspect of today's settlement (people looking to visit are likely to be a good proportion of readers for the article).  The Economy & Services changes are mostly done.  The National Trust owns the beach and is legally responsible for managing it; the reference to the Port Gaverne Beach Association likely reflects arrangements common in many small British coastal resorts where local residents volunteer to do periodic beach litter picks and suchlike.  This was in the article before I came to it, and may need to be removed as a quick search has failed to throw up a source. Edit/ I am also seeing if we can get permission for a historical photo, as although the length of the article doesn't need more images, one for example of loading the slate or pilchard boats would enhance the (longest) history section.  Kind regards MapReader (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies, the magazine is mentioned in the following section. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * An old photograph would work very well; the History section could imo benefit from a suitable image. Happy with the amendments made so far. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello - I've added an icon to any of the above comments I think still need to be addressed/discussed. Thanks for all you've done so far. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly. I believe I have already removed the “current”s, the outstanding point in economy, and also covered off the outstanding point in geography by referring to this in the earlier etymology section - really it’s to do with the name, the “port” in “port gaverne” being the cove or bay. MapReader (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, there still seem to be still outstanding points that need to be addressed, can you let me know how close we are to completion? Amitchell125 (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have had a few RL distractions, and am also waiting to hear back from the website owners about the history and images material. Meanwhile I have ticked off most of the remaining smaller points - amended the single remaining "tonnes" (as an estimate prefixed by "about" the change is reasonable), named the magazine, moved the image, deleted the remaining "currents".  On the Neighbourhood Plan, it isn't anonymous - the website belongs to St Endellion Parish Council, which as an elected first tier local authority is clearly a reliable source.  In terms of self publication the considerations are the same as for the UK Parliament website or the websites of US Federal and State authorities.  Furthermore since the Plan is a proposal coming from the Parish Council itself, it is effectively referencing the council's own proposal rather than the actions of any third party, and therefore clearly legitimate.  I have inserted the word "proposed" into the sentence to make clear it is a proposal at time of writing.  On the Etymology, this section has been rewritten since you offered your comments; "Karn Hun" is referenced by two of the sources and the historical quote, so we are no longer relying upon Visit Cornwall for this.  I have left the Visit Cornwall reference in - as the official Tourist Board body it is a reliable source, and we are only now relying on it for the contemporary pronunciation of the place name, which is the sort of thing that it is reasonable to expect them to know. Kind regards MapReader (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, and for the work you have done on the article. I'm swayed by what you have said, and I'm maybe wrong, but the criteria for reliability (see WP:SOURCE) is very clear, and so I needed to be convinced. The Plan looks professionally written, but it is almost certainly based on a template provided by the local authority, and based on previous versions. However, this PDF file appears to point to it being examined for improvements by a professional Examiner, and so it looks OK. Apologies if I appear nervous, but I'd hate for someone else to delist your GA because of this. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm happy that a governmental website can be treated as reliable, especially on material relating to its own actions.  On the possible extra image, the website owner says it's a photo he himself took of an old photo hanging on the wall of the local hotel, the original copyright having long expired under UK Copyright law.  He's happy for me to use it and has emailed me to that effect, but isn't enthusiastic to complete some sort of formal licence.  Can we use the image in such circumstances? MapReader (talk) 08:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Passing
Congratulations! Amitchell125 (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you and for your work on the review MapReader (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)