Talk:Solsbury Hill/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jakec (talk · contribs) 15:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments

 * For criterion 1A: Prose is OK overall, and no obvious spelling or grammar errors jumped out at me. Copyvio is a problem, though. The first sentence of the wildlife section and the last sentence of the geology section (which is also repeated in the lead) are copied word for word from ref 23. The sentence beginning with "Examples of plant species found include" is also copied verbatim (except for one word) ref ref 23.
 * I have reworded these, however the Conservation Volunteers web site copied it from wp rather than the other way around (see the ref no [1] on the web page).&mdash; Rod talk 15:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked in the history and found that the site (which dates to 2012 incorporates content from the article as it was in 2011, so there aren't copyvio problems). However, now that means that the article is indirectly citing itself, which is not good.
 * Removed.&mdash; Rod talk 19:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, is "layer-cake" (from the first sentence of the geology section) an established term, or is it quoted without attribution from somewhere? --Jakob (talk)  17:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed to "formed in layers".&mdash; Rod talk 19:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Another comment: "A small population of Common Buzzard (Buteo buteo) nesting in the area,[30] Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus), Badger, Red Fox" isn't a sentence. --Jakob (talk)  20:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Reworded.&mdash; Rod talk 20:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * For criterion 1B: The lead section is good. List incorporation and fiction do not apply here because there is none of either in this article. There is one words to watch issue. Calling the views "impressive" is peacock wording unless it can be attributed to a reliable source (in which case, you should say "according to ___, the views are impressive".
 * I agree and have removed the word "impressive" (even though they are).&mdash; Rod talk 15:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * For criterion 2B: There are some serious problems here. Multiple references failed fact-checks and still others are dead links. Refs 13, 16, 22, 27 , and 28 do not support the information that they are used as citations for. Ref 13 does not mention the hill, so cannot be used for information about it. Ref 24 does not mention badgers or foxes living on the hill. Refs 17, 18, and, 25 are dead.
 * Can I check the numbering here as I think Ref 13 (The Fosse Way) does support the claim that "The hill is near the Fosse Way Roman Road as it descends Bannerdown hill into Batheaston on its way to Aquae Sulis".&mdash; Rod talk 15:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed the linkrot, but could you clarify which sources you think do not support the claims as the numbering has now changed and I'm unsure which claims in the article still need further citations.&mdash; Rod talk 16:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you quote the part that you think supports that claim? It doesn't mention the hill as far as I could tell (using cntrl+F).
 * But it says goes into Batheaston which is at the base of the hill.&mdash; Rod talk 19:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --Jakob (talk)  20:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * this, this, this, and this don't support the claims they are cited for.
 * I've replaced Bath Skyline with a better ref and found an NME one for the Peter Gabriel track. The walking world one does support the buzzard claim but not deer, badger etc. The Warlord Chronicles book ref does say he adopted Solsbury Hill for the site of the battle.&mdash; Rod talk 19:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess the Warlord Chronicles book says that in the actual book, then, and not on the Google Books description page? --Jakob (talk)  20:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The ref opens for me to a PDF which appears to be the 3rd page of "historical note" which explains the use of Solsbury Hill as the site for the battle in the novel.&mdash; Rod talk 20:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't happen for me, but I'll take your word for it. --Jakob (talk)  12:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, just in case you missed it, the walkingworld ref doesn't mention any species of moths or butterflies, it just mentions bufferflies. --Jakob (talk)  12:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added some more on moths and butterflies with refs (but found the NBN Gateway site difficult to use).&mdash; Rod talk 17:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There are several other referencing issues that I forgot to mention. The last two sentences of the hill fort section are unreferenced. Also, what makes waymarking.com a reliable source? --Jakob (talk)  17:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added some more references at the end of the hillfort section and removed the waymarking site.&mdash; Rod talk 19:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * For criterion 3A: Meh, the article does an okay job with this one. I think it could benefit from being longer if you could find additional sources.
 * I've used the sources I can find.&mdash; Rod talk 16:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you tried looking on Google Books? (Also try looking beyond the first page of the Google Books results) --Jakob (talk)  17:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK have taken a look. Several are novels. The arbib book about the road protest is already cited (there are a couple of others which mention the road protests, but I think adding too much about this might be undue weight. The & castleden book on king arthur is cited. Several are made up of wikipedia articles! The cannon book just says that the hill "may have been the site for the battle of mount badon" - that speculation is already covered. So I don't think there is much more from them which will enhance the article.&mdash; Rod talk 17:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * For criterion 3B: The long paragraph on hill forts in general really has nothing to do with the article. I recommend shortening it to a couple of sentences.
 * Shortened.&mdash; Rod talk 16:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Checklist

 * Well-written
 * The prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct: Symbol support vote.svg
 * It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation : Symbol support vote.svg
 * Verifiable and no original research
 * It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: Symbol support vote.svg
 * It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: Symbol support vote.svg
 * It contains no original research: Symbol support vote.svg
 * Broad in its coverage
 * It addresses the main aspects of the topic. GA candidate.svg
 * It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Symbol support vote.svg
 * Neutral
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Symbol support vote.svg
 * Stable
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Symbol support vote.svg
 * Images
 * Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. Symbol support vote.svg
 * Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Symbol support vote.svg
 * Overall
 * On hold for the time being.

--Jakob (talk)  15:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not too thrilled with the article length, but all the same, I'll pass this. --Jakob (talk)  18:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)