Wikipedia:Peer review/River Parrett/archive1

River Parrett
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a fairly stable GA for nearly a year. It has recently been checked for broken & dab links & alt= tags added to images + had a thorough copyedit. I think it is nearly ready for an FA nomination but would appreciated any comments or guidance about what else might be needed. Thanks, &mdash; Rod talk 08:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Malleus Fatuorum. I wouldn't say that it's yet had a thorough copyedit, as I hadn't finished going through it, but no matter, I'll list my concerns here.


 * The article variously claims that sluice gates are locally called "Clyse" (with a capital "C"), "Clyce", and "clyse".
 * I have standardised these to clyce per OS maps.&mdash; Rod talk 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "The Drove bridge is the first and the newest road bridge to cross the river, and marks the end of the Port of Bridgwater." This stopped me in my tracks when I first came across it. How could it be the first and the newest? Then I realised that this is "first" starting from the river's mouth and moving upstream. I think that needs to be made clear right at the start of the Bridges and structures section.
 * I've changed this to nearest the source.&mdash; Rod talk 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit puzzled by the capitalisation of the bridge names. For instance, is the Drove bridge really just called "Drove"? Shouldn't it be "Drove Bridge"?
 * Capitalised&mdash; Rod talk 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Response thanks for the comments - hopefully now addressed.&mdash; Rod talk 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * From the lead: "... it [the river] is prone to frequent flooding in winter and high tides." Perhaps being excessively picky here, but is it really the river that floods, as opposed to the land on its banks?
 * I would have said the river floods and the floodwater then inundates the surrounding land - but I could be convinced otherwise.&mdash; Rod talk 15:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very nice article, but I think it needs some work before it would pass FAC, here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * There are several FAs on rivers / streams, the two most recent are Columbia River and St. Johns River, both of which are somewhat larger than this, but still would make useful model articles.
 * I notice this article does not have a Geology section, but I believe all other stream FAs have one. There are at least two places where geology is mentioned here, so that is a start, but I think the article needs more.
 * Done


 * Discharge is mentioned in the Geobox but not the article
 * Done


 * External link tool finds one dead link
 * Replaced


 * While this is generally nicely referenced, there are several places without refs that would probably need them for FAC. For example, the end of the first paragraph in Course, or much of the material in the Tidal Bore section, have no refs and need them. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Still working on this


 * The lead seemed a bit sparse to me - my rule of thumb here is to include every header in the lead in some way
 * Expanded


 * I though the organization was a bit muddled - for example in the course section, there is a lot of history and floods. COuld this be in the history section instead?
 * Some more moved to relevant sections

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; 04:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your helpful comments which have helped to improve the article.&mdash; Rod talk 20:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)