Talk:Somerset Coalfield/GA1

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

Reviewer: Gilderien (talk · contribs) 17:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

From a first read through, seems a good article, good use of images, which are all appropriately licensed. However, there were a few minor points;


 * Ideally the lead should not contain material not listed elsewhere, nor have citations - could you move/copy the sentence regarding the toal area of the coalfield to another appropriate place within the article?
 * I have copied this to the start of the geology section.&mdash; Rod talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 7 is a dead link, as are references 8, 9, 58, 62, 67, 77, 78, and 81.
 * I think I've fixed all of these.&mdash; Rod talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 2 may cover all of the "Structure" sub-section, but this needs to be made clear, or an alternative source found.
 * resued.&mdash; Rod talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Similar for the "Stratigraphy".
 * Ref reused.&mdash; Rod talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of the "Area Today" section has no reference.
 * Refs added.&mdash; Rod talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of the "Paulton Basin" section has no reference.
 * Ref reused.&mdash; Rod talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of the "East of Camerton" section has no reference.
 * Ref reused.&mdash; Rod talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of the "Writhlington Collieries" section needs to have more references - as above, this may just be repeating the one at the end of the paragraph.
 * Refs reused & new ref added.&mdash; Rod talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 17:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. It is amazing how quickly deadlinks creep in as I checked all of these a couple of months ago when I nominated it. I hope I've addressed the queries, but if there is anything else you think is needed please let me know.&mdash; Rod talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

So that is about it. Congratulations.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 20:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)