Wikipedia:Peer review/Double Arches Pit/archive1

Double Arches Pit
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get some detailed feedback from an uninvolved editor. The article is currently around a Start/C class grade, maybe one day this could make GA, with substantial improvements/additions of course. All feedback welcome :)

Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * Since I do not know the area I am not much help in suggesting ways to expand the article much beyond more detail on what is already in the article and following the example of other articles.
 * That said, I would start the History section with the Romans, since there is archological evidence they lived there.
 * I would also give some brief history of the area in the intervening centuries up to the founding of the sand quarry. Something on the history of Heath and Reach and / or Leighton Buzzard - this could be quite brief.
 * I would also give more history of the rail line - currently this is mentioned out of chronological order in just one sentence, but there is quite a bit of information at Leighton Buzzard Light Railway that could be included here (may need more / better sources)
 * This should be refrenced directly to the magazine "The pit was mentioned in an article in the Cement, Lime & Gravel magazine..." - might also be worth seeing that has more info on the pit. In any case the date of the article should be mentioned.
 * Any information on the uses of the sand mined there would be helpful too
 * Make sure to distinguish between the historic pit and the current SSI (the original pit seems as if it covered a much larger area - 19 vs 4 acres)
 * The article should have a Geology section, describing how the underlying rock and sand formed.
 * If possible, there should also be a section about the plants and animals that live in and around the pit.
 * Once it is expanded, the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
 * Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - however the alternate name is only in the lead and should be in the body too (as should an explanation of each name). Please see WP:LEAD
 * The map in the railroad article, File:LBLR Map.png, seems to show that Double Arches and New Trees were different quarries.
 * Article needs some free images - the above map would work in a pinch, but images of the former quarry would be great
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches for more details

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)