![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello folks. Long time no interaction. I see Malvern Water may soon be nominated for GA review. This article was my first introduction to articles in the Worcestershire project, and I was impressed early on at the good faith spirit of contributors during an article make-over. For some time since then, I've thought the article shaped up pretty well. But that's my opinion.
I don't know how much contribution I'll be able to make to any further work in this article, but after saving this talk page section, I'll have made one change, which is to relocate the Geo Hack citation from the Springs section to the lead section. The reason is that on clicking the link, I don't find it takes me straight to a page clearly pertaining to St. Ann's Well. I had a bit of a look at a couple of links from that page, but didn't find it. Doesn't mean there isn't a link there. It does mean that the association isn't explicit to a general reader who is not in the know (i.e. who has no implicit knowledge pertaining to X). However, the link looks decidedly useful. So looking for a suitable place in the article, I placed it in the lead section at a sentence where the reader is going to see a relationship between the article text and the citation content. The lead is a general overview pertaining to Malvern Water, and clearly so too is the Geo Hack link.
I did take the liberty of replacing the oscoor template with a straight url, along with a change in the citation content. This is because (a) it's the only way I know to take care of the bare url, which would probably bring comment in a GA review, and (b) I wanted to get the citation content to somehow match that which I found on the webpage in the simplest fashion available to me at this time. Cheers. Wotnow ( talk) 22:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I have now added a citation for the flow rate of springs from the Malvern Hills. This took a bit of effort using a range of search terms. I never doubted the facts, but without a verifiable citation, I couldn't see this surviving unchallenged. Wotnow ( talk) 00:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Kudpung. At time of my opening sentence I had in mind the clear good faith demonstrated by Jeremy, in quickly removing the advertising tag once the issues prompting the tag were addressed. This, and the dialogue surrounding that tag impressed me, for the objective, solution-focussed and good faith discussion demonstrated by those involved. So I concur with Kudpung, that Jeremy would seem eligible as a reviewer regarding both neutraity and non-involvement, but also that whatever Jeremy thinks best is fine. I also concur regarding going for an unambiguous GA review rather than a GA-with-view-to-FA review. I understand that Wikipedia needs a continual feed of articles reaching FA status. But I too think it far better, at this stage, to do well, or reasonably well, at GA status, especially if some of us are likely to be sporadic contributors and in need of keeping input bursts at a manageable level. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 06:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I have filed for Good Article Nomination. However, the talk page banner will not accept the sub topic where it is filed (miscellaneous), so I have entered 'drink'. I will stress however, for the benefit of those who have been confused in the past about its category, this is NOT a food & drink article. It's a natural geological phenomenon for which no category appears to exist. The fact that it can be drunk is but one of its properties.-- Kudpung ( talk) 16:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 21:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
commonscat|Malvern}}
to the "external links" section
I will do a read through Friday, my next day off. I will see how it reads and make any further comments, if there is a reason to do so. --
Jeremy (
blah blah •
I did it!)
05:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry not to finish the review when I promised, a couple of things came up (work, E. Coli), Looking at the work done and the quality of the edits I think it you have succeeded in your quest.
Lets call this a ✓ Pass.
-- Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 21:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi folks. I see Kudpung removed the unsourced claim about the water taking 30 days to permeate through the rocks. Cheers Kudpung. I'm glad you did it. I confess I spotted that at the time I found the reference for the flow rates, but I was reluctant to point it out or challenge it without making a serious attempt to find a reference, and I'd have kept revisiting the exercise for some time, albeit off and on. I would be a bit surprised if there is not some study somewhere in which the rate of water seepage has been measured or estimated. However, I've made a few attempts, using various key terms and combinations of key terms, but to no avail. Either the terms were broad enough that I got thousands of results to wade through, or if I tried narrowing it down, I got nothing citable. This doesn't mean nothing exists of course. Just that (a) it's not readily findable via publicly available internet searches, and (b) if it is there, I haven't hit on the right terms or combination of terms to narrow down the search results while not eliminating the result I'm after. At least it can be said that an effort was made. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 13:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
This section is intended to generate unanswered questions and ideas on answering them, or just ideas for future additions to the article. This is intended to be over and above anything related to the current GA review (i.e. following on from that process for further development to this or related articles), but from which ideas may of course be generated, as indeed was the first question. Wotnow ( talk) 23:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC) See also comment updates above. Wotnow ( talk) 20:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, welcome back to GyroMagician. Good to see your input in the work-up to a GA. Something odd happened to some of the citations, with bare urls showing instead of the citation. After a couple of simple experiments and checking the previews, I did not work out the solution. I noted that the version as at GyroMagician's edit of 08:50 11 July 2010 was okay. Given that, I copied-and-pasted from that version back into the article content. After saving this message, I'll try to reinstate Gyro's efforts from there. I'm expecting it to be easier to do that than to work out what went wrong, although perhaps the answer will jump out as I go. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 04:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
On further review of the article, I noticed a couple of things I thought I might try a bold approach with. Firstly, I noticed that the 'Art projects' seemed to follow naturally on from the 'Interest groups' section, but was separated by the 'Commercialisation' section, which itself follows naturally on from the 'Medicinal use' section. The self-contained wording of the sections allowed for easy relocation, so I did this, and was initially going to leave it at that.
However, by placing the 'Art projects' section immediately after the 'Interest groups' section, a couple of things became more self-evident. Firstly, some duplication and overlap of text, in relation to the Spring Water Arts Project. Secondly, the fact that the last paragraph in the 'Interest groups' section, which contained this duplication and overlap, belonged more appropriately in the 'Art projects' section. After some consideration, I figured that the text and citations provided allowed for restructuring and integration of the overlapping material. In doing this, I managed to take care of another problem that I had previously encountered. That is, how to allow for the acknowledgement of other art projects, either those we aren't aware of, of new ones, or just ongoing activity. The 2010 projects allowed for this quite nicely, and so I decided to give it a shot. Thus, the 'Interest groups' section has been previously expanded to elaborate on the two primary groups. And now, the 'Art projects' follows on naturally from this, up to the present day, and allows for new material to be added on. I hope I have done some justice to the article via this exercise. Wotnow ( talk) 01:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to tend to other things, but I'm pretty much done for our current purposes. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 06:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
How does everyone feel about deleting a couple of pictures? The article has some good illustrations, so I'd like to thin out a couple of the less-good ones. I'd like to get rid of the Malvern Water bottling plant (some rather forbidding gates and a no-entry sign), and Florence at the bottom (it's not clear why she's there - the article isn't about her, or about Malvern museum). What do you think? GyroMagician ( talk) 21:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello folks. Long time no interaction. I see Malvern Water may soon be nominated for GA review. This article was my first introduction to articles in the Worcestershire project, and I was impressed early on at the good faith spirit of contributors during an article make-over. For some time since then, I've thought the article shaped up pretty well. But that's my opinion.
I don't know how much contribution I'll be able to make to any further work in this article, but after saving this talk page section, I'll have made one change, which is to relocate the Geo Hack citation from the Springs section to the lead section. The reason is that on clicking the link, I don't find it takes me straight to a page clearly pertaining to St. Ann's Well. I had a bit of a look at a couple of links from that page, but didn't find it. Doesn't mean there isn't a link there. It does mean that the association isn't explicit to a general reader who is not in the know (i.e. who has no implicit knowledge pertaining to X). However, the link looks decidedly useful. So looking for a suitable place in the article, I placed it in the lead section at a sentence where the reader is going to see a relationship between the article text and the citation content. The lead is a general overview pertaining to Malvern Water, and clearly so too is the Geo Hack link.
I did take the liberty of replacing the oscoor template with a straight url, along with a change in the citation content. This is because (a) it's the only way I know to take care of the bare url, which would probably bring comment in a GA review, and (b) I wanted to get the citation content to somehow match that which I found on the webpage in the simplest fashion available to me at this time. Cheers. Wotnow ( talk) 22:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I have now added a citation for the flow rate of springs from the Malvern Hills. This took a bit of effort using a range of search terms. I never doubted the facts, but without a verifiable citation, I couldn't see this surviving unchallenged. Wotnow ( talk) 00:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Kudpung. At time of my opening sentence I had in mind the clear good faith demonstrated by Jeremy, in quickly removing the advertising tag once the issues prompting the tag were addressed. This, and the dialogue surrounding that tag impressed me, for the objective, solution-focussed and good faith discussion demonstrated by those involved. So I concur with Kudpung, that Jeremy would seem eligible as a reviewer regarding both neutraity and non-involvement, but also that whatever Jeremy thinks best is fine. I also concur regarding going for an unambiguous GA review rather than a GA-with-view-to-FA review. I understand that Wikipedia needs a continual feed of articles reaching FA status. But I too think it far better, at this stage, to do well, or reasonably well, at GA status, especially if some of us are likely to be sporadic contributors and in need of keeping input bursts at a manageable level. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 06:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I have filed for Good Article Nomination. However, the talk page banner will not accept the sub topic where it is filed (miscellaneous), so I have entered 'drink'. I will stress however, for the benefit of those who have been confused in the past about its category, this is NOT a food & drink article. It's a natural geological phenomenon for which no category appears to exist. The fact that it can be drunk is but one of its properties.-- Kudpung ( talk) 16:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 21:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
commonscat|Malvern}}
to the "external links" section
I will do a read through Friday, my next day off. I will see how it reads and make any further comments, if there is a reason to do so. --
Jeremy (
blah blah •
I did it!)
05:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry not to finish the review when I promised, a couple of things came up (work, E. Coli), Looking at the work done and the quality of the edits I think it you have succeeded in your quest.
Lets call this a ✓ Pass.
-- Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 21:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi folks. I see Kudpung removed the unsourced claim about the water taking 30 days to permeate through the rocks. Cheers Kudpung. I'm glad you did it. I confess I spotted that at the time I found the reference for the flow rates, but I was reluctant to point it out or challenge it without making a serious attempt to find a reference, and I'd have kept revisiting the exercise for some time, albeit off and on. I would be a bit surprised if there is not some study somewhere in which the rate of water seepage has been measured or estimated. However, I've made a few attempts, using various key terms and combinations of key terms, but to no avail. Either the terms were broad enough that I got thousands of results to wade through, or if I tried narrowing it down, I got nothing citable. This doesn't mean nothing exists of course. Just that (a) it's not readily findable via publicly available internet searches, and (b) if it is there, I haven't hit on the right terms or combination of terms to narrow down the search results while not eliminating the result I'm after. At least it can be said that an effort was made. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 13:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
This section is intended to generate unanswered questions and ideas on answering them, or just ideas for future additions to the article. This is intended to be over and above anything related to the current GA review (i.e. following on from that process for further development to this or related articles), but from which ideas may of course be generated, as indeed was the first question. Wotnow ( talk) 23:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC) See also comment updates above. Wotnow ( talk) 20:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, welcome back to GyroMagician. Good to see your input in the work-up to a GA. Something odd happened to some of the citations, with bare urls showing instead of the citation. After a couple of simple experiments and checking the previews, I did not work out the solution. I noted that the version as at GyroMagician's edit of 08:50 11 July 2010 was okay. Given that, I copied-and-pasted from that version back into the article content. After saving this message, I'll try to reinstate Gyro's efforts from there. I'm expecting it to be easier to do that than to work out what went wrong, although perhaps the answer will jump out as I go. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 04:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
On further review of the article, I noticed a couple of things I thought I might try a bold approach with. Firstly, I noticed that the 'Art projects' seemed to follow naturally on from the 'Interest groups' section, but was separated by the 'Commercialisation' section, which itself follows naturally on from the 'Medicinal use' section. The self-contained wording of the sections allowed for easy relocation, so I did this, and was initially going to leave it at that.
However, by placing the 'Art projects' section immediately after the 'Interest groups' section, a couple of things became more self-evident. Firstly, some duplication and overlap of text, in relation to the Spring Water Arts Project. Secondly, the fact that the last paragraph in the 'Interest groups' section, which contained this duplication and overlap, belonged more appropriately in the 'Art projects' section. After some consideration, I figured that the text and citations provided allowed for restructuring and integration of the overlapping material. In doing this, I managed to take care of another problem that I had previously encountered. That is, how to allow for the acknowledgement of other art projects, either those we aren't aware of, of new ones, or just ongoing activity. The 2010 projects allowed for this quite nicely, and so I decided to give it a shot. Thus, the 'Interest groups' section has been previously expanded to elaborate on the two primary groups. And now, the 'Art projects' follows on naturally from this, up to the present day, and allows for new material to be added on. I hope I have done some justice to the article via this exercise. Wotnow ( talk) 01:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to tend to other things, but I'm pretty much done for our current purposes. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 06:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
How does everyone feel about deleting a couple of pictures? The article has some good illustrations, so I'd like to thin out a couple of the less-good ones. I'd like to get rid of the Malvern Water bottling plant (some rather forbidding gates and a no-entry sign), and Florence at the bottom (it's not clear why she's there - the article isn't about her, or about Malvern museum). What do you think? GyroMagician ( talk) 21:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |