This article is currently well below GA standards, but I think it's unfair to nominators to do quickfails, so here goes. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec
16:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)reply
For criterion 1A
"The River Tone is a river in Somerset, England, which is about 32 miles (51 km) long" -
misplaced modifier. It makes it sound like Somerset is 32 miles long.
"It rises at Beverton Pond" I know that some references do use "rises", but it's confusing for non-creek-aficionados (actually even I don't understand why they say "rises"). Anyway, I'd suggest something like "Its
source is at Beverton Pond".
"A disused five-arched railway bridge built in 1863[40] and the aqueduct that carried the Chard Canal over the river, used from 1842 until 1866, still stand, followed by the bridge at Creech St Michael." seems odd, as if it tries to cram two ideas into one sentence. It should be split into two sentences, one involving the disused bridges and one involving the bridge at Creech St Michael.
Likewise with "Because of the difficulties of navigating past the mill pools, the Conservators of the River Tone decided to buy the mill at Firepool in December 1793 with a view to demolishing it "for the benefit of the navigation","
The 2nd to last paragraph of flood protection jumps back to the 19th century. It should be at the beginning, assuming this section is ordered chronologically.
They layout I was suggesting is mainly the layout that's worked for my stream GAs for a year or two. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec
23:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
The watermills section doesn't really belong as a subsection of the course section. It should be split into history (or a geography or watershed section if there are any remaining watermills on the river).
The watermills section doesn't need both a table of coordinates and a map template. Suggest removing one or the other.
The map link wouldn't work without the list. Although the list is given in order it doesn't easily make the specific locations easy to identify visually so I feel both of these are useful.—
Rodtalk10:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
(now ref 38) Although hosted by blogspot it is a leaflet from the Environment Agency ( a government body and RS).—
Rodtalk12:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Is that leaflet located on an official site of the Environment Agency? Or is that an official blog of some kind? --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec
23:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I still believe it is a genuine Environment Agency publication I can't find another source for it so have replaced it with two other refs.—
Rodtalk08:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Ref 5 says 1698, not 1699, and makes no mention of March 24
(Now refs 19 & 20) It appear that the act was laid before parliament in 1698 (hence the title
here) but received Royal assent (making the law effective) on 24 March 1699 (per
this ref which is also used in the paragraph) which is also used in that paragraph. It is not unusual in UK law for an act to take several months to pass through parliament and then become law..—
Rodtalk12:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Refs 5 and 10 appear to point to the same website.
"During the winter flooding of 2013–14 on the Somerset Levels the River Tone overflowed at new year, during the rain and storms from Storm Dirk, with many residents asking for the Environment Agency to resume river dredging" I could be wrong, but I don't see all of this in refs 24 and 25 (certainly not 25, which doesn't even mention River Tone)
Added another ref re Beverton Pond & the catchment of Clatworthy Reservoir + fall in the first part of the river.—
Rodtalk17:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Ref 32 appears to be some kind of wiki
(Now ref 3) Grace's Guide is used as a reference extensively on wikipedia and I have not seen it challenged before. "Grace's Guide Ltd is a charity (No: 1154342) for the advancement of the education of the public in the subject of the Industrial and Engineering History of the UK." (from
their main page. Information is checked by their editorial team before it appears.—
Rodtalk12:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm currently looking for sources to write a section around geography, geology, wildlife etc but having problems with sources for water quality. Having got
River Parrett to FA without being asked for this I haven't looked before but suspect there is little data on this.—
Rodtalk16:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I've added a geography which hopefully covers some of these areas, apart from water quality where I am still searching.—
Rodtalk19:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Good work. I see you also added some biology/ecology information, which I moved to its own section. Expanding both of those sections would definitely be helpful. As I said above, ref 1 (which is now refs 17, 18, and 20 [you've duplicated it three times, which should be fixed]) has many pages of information on hydrology, as well as a number of other things I mentioned. It's definitely worth
investigating in more depth. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec
23:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I've added a bit more (and 2 new references) for the otters, crayfish & water voles in the river. I've look again at the NRA document but I'm not sure what else you think would be useful to include.—
Rodtalk18:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Add anything you can. Biology and geology are better, but still a bit short compared to the other sections. And there's still no hydrology/water chemistry section. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec
16:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Following further searching I am unable to find anything in reliable sources about the hydrology/water chemistry of the river beyond comments that it is likely to be affected by dredging, therefore I have asked for help on various relevant wikiprojects. There is nothing on this in the article on the larger
River Parrett about hydrology/water chemistry which has managed to achieve FA status without it. Perhaps this is not something which is not measured in the same way in the US & UK?—
Rodtalk17:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Following some really helpful comments, sources and edits from
User:Jokulhlaup, [[User talk:PaleCloudedWhite ]] and
User:Harrias I have now added a subsection which hopefully covers the aspects of hydrology and water quality you were looking for.—
Rodtalk17:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)reply
It looks better now. If you choose to go on to FA, I'd recommend adding more information on
chemical hydrology and also expanding the geography section. It's fine for GA though. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec
12:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)reply
For criterion 3B
Maybe it's just me, but the history section appears deep rather than broad, discussing three or four events related to the creek in great depth (so much that they could almost stand as articles by themselves) instead of briefly talking about a larger number of events related to the creek.
The point I was making is that most of the significant areas are the development (and decline) of commercial use and flooding which are covered. What other events are you thinking of?—
Rodtalk08:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't know; I haven't read the history books of the area. But as I'm saying, it makes more sense to briefly describe a lot relevant of events (even minor ones) instead of taking four or five and going into painstaking detail on those.
Here is an example of what I'm talking about. For instance, that article just says "The stream also experienced bank failure during floods in October 1985 and January 1996. It also flooded homes and trailers in its vicinity." and moves on to something else instead of going on for five paragraphs about the flooding. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec
16:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry but I'm a little confused about what is needed here. I would hope that the significant events (eg development of the navigation and flooding) are given due weight. I've looked at the example you pointed to and feel that most of the sorts of issues at the highlighted article are covered in this one and I'm still struggling to see what else should be included.—
Rodtalk17:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Maybe it's a bit different when there are five or six centuries of history to cover instead of just two or so. With that in mind, I'll pass this. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec
14:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)reply
As with history section, the flood protection part should be part of another section or sections (history, geography, and watershed come to mind), and condensed.
It's a bit unorthodox to have this kind of section, but I suppose if it really is a defining factor, then it can't hurt to keep it in. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec
23:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
The course section goes off onto too many tangents e.g. "The reservoir is an important wildlife habitat managed by Wessex Water, and offers facilities for fishing and walking", "with the Dearne Valley Way footpath on its eastern bank. The B3227 road from Wiveliscombe crosses from the east to the west side of the valley at Waterrow bridge, before heading westwards to Bampton, after which a former railway line crossed the river on its way to Taunton.", "constructed in 1895 and including globe lamps which are thought to be part of the earliest electric street lighting scheme in a British town" and quite a few others. Some of this information isn't bad and can be incoroporated into the other sections I mentioned under 3A.
The prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Verifiable and no original research
It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
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:
It contains no original research:
Broad in its coverage
It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail:
Neutral
It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each:
Stable
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Images
Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
This article is currently well below GA standards, but I think it's unfair to nominators to do quickfails, so here goes. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec
16:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)reply
For criterion 1A
"The River Tone is a river in Somerset, England, which is about 32 miles (51 km) long" -
misplaced modifier. It makes it sound like Somerset is 32 miles long.
"It rises at Beverton Pond" I know that some references do use "rises", but it's confusing for non-creek-aficionados (actually even I don't understand why they say "rises"). Anyway, I'd suggest something like "Its
source is at Beverton Pond".
"A disused five-arched railway bridge built in 1863[40] and the aqueduct that carried the Chard Canal over the river, used from 1842 until 1866, still stand, followed by the bridge at Creech St Michael." seems odd, as if it tries to cram two ideas into one sentence. It should be split into two sentences, one involving the disused bridges and one involving the bridge at Creech St Michael.
Likewise with "Because of the difficulties of navigating past the mill pools, the Conservators of the River Tone decided to buy the mill at Firepool in December 1793 with a view to demolishing it "for the benefit of the navigation","
The 2nd to last paragraph of flood protection jumps back to the 19th century. It should be at the beginning, assuming this section is ordered chronologically.
They layout I was suggesting is mainly the layout that's worked for my stream GAs for a year or two. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec
23:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
The watermills section doesn't really belong as a subsection of the course section. It should be split into history (or a geography or watershed section if there are any remaining watermills on the river).
The watermills section doesn't need both a table of coordinates and a map template. Suggest removing one or the other.
The map link wouldn't work without the list. Although the list is given in order it doesn't easily make the specific locations easy to identify visually so I feel both of these are useful.—
Rodtalk10:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
(now ref 38) Although hosted by blogspot it is a leaflet from the Environment Agency ( a government body and RS).—
Rodtalk12:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Is that leaflet located on an official site of the Environment Agency? Or is that an official blog of some kind? --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec
23:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I still believe it is a genuine Environment Agency publication I can't find another source for it so have replaced it with two other refs.—
Rodtalk08:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Ref 5 says 1698, not 1699, and makes no mention of March 24
(Now refs 19 & 20) It appear that the act was laid before parliament in 1698 (hence the title
here) but received Royal assent (making the law effective) on 24 March 1699 (per
this ref which is also used in the paragraph) which is also used in that paragraph. It is not unusual in UK law for an act to take several months to pass through parliament and then become law..—
Rodtalk12:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Refs 5 and 10 appear to point to the same website.
"During the winter flooding of 2013–14 on the Somerset Levels the River Tone overflowed at new year, during the rain and storms from Storm Dirk, with many residents asking for the Environment Agency to resume river dredging" I could be wrong, but I don't see all of this in refs 24 and 25 (certainly not 25, which doesn't even mention River Tone)
Added another ref re Beverton Pond & the catchment of Clatworthy Reservoir + fall in the first part of the river.—
Rodtalk17:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Ref 32 appears to be some kind of wiki
(Now ref 3) Grace's Guide is used as a reference extensively on wikipedia and I have not seen it challenged before. "Grace's Guide Ltd is a charity (No: 1154342) for the advancement of the education of the public in the subject of the Industrial and Engineering History of the UK." (from
their main page. Information is checked by their editorial team before it appears.—
Rodtalk12:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm currently looking for sources to write a section around geography, geology, wildlife etc but having problems with sources for water quality. Having got
River Parrett to FA without being asked for this I haven't looked before but suspect there is little data on this.—
Rodtalk16:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I've added a geography which hopefully covers some of these areas, apart from water quality where I am still searching.—
Rodtalk19:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Good work. I see you also added some biology/ecology information, which I moved to its own section. Expanding both of those sections would definitely be helpful. As I said above, ref 1 (which is now refs 17, 18, and 20 [you've duplicated it three times, which should be fixed]) has many pages of information on hydrology, as well as a number of other things I mentioned. It's definitely worth
investigating in more depth. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec
23:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I've added a bit more (and 2 new references) for the otters, crayfish & water voles in the river. I've look again at the NRA document but I'm not sure what else you think would be useful to include.—
Rodtalk18:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Add anything you can. Biology and geology are better, but still a bit short compared to the other sections. And there's still no hydrology/water chemistry section. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec
16:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Following further searching I am unable to find anything in reliable sources about the hydrology/water chemistry of the river beyond comments that it is likely to be affected by dredging, therefore I have asked for help on various relevant wikiprojects. There is nothing on this in the article on the larger
River Parrett about hydrology/water chemistry which has managed to achieve FA status without it. Perhaps this is not something which is not measured in the same way in the US & UK?—
Rodtalk17:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Following some really helpful comments, sources and edits from
User:Jokulhlaup, [[User talk:PaleCloudedWhite ]] and
User:Harrias I have now added a subsection which hopefully covers the aspects of hydrology and water quality you were looking for.—
Rodtalk17:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)reply
It looks better now. If you choose to go on to FA, I'd recommend adding more information on
chemical hydrology and also expanding the geography section. It's fine for GA though. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec
12:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)reply
For criterion 3B
Maybe it's just me, but the history section appears deep rather than broad, discussing three or four events related to the creek in great depth (so much that they could almost stand as articles by themselves) instead of briefly talking about a larger number of events related to the creek.
The point I was making is that most of the significant areas are the development (and decline) of commercial use and flooding which are covered. What other events are you thinking of?—
Rodtalk08:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't know; I haven't read the history books of the area. But as I'm saying, it makes more sense to briefly describe a lot relevant of events (even minor ones) instead of taking four or five and going into painstaking detail on those.
Here is an example of what I'm talking about. For instance, that article just says "The stream also experienced bank failure during floods in October 1985 and January 1996. It also flooded homes and trailers in its vicinity." and moves on to something else instead of going on for five paragraphs about the flooding. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec
16:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry but I'm a little confused about what is needed here. I would hope that the significant events (eg development of the navigation and flooding) are given due weight. I've looked at the example you pointed to and feel that most of the sorts of issues at the highlighted article are covered in this one and I'm still struggling to see what else should be included.—
Rodtalk17:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Maybe it's a bit different when there are five or six centuries of history to cover instead of just two or so. With that in mind, I'll pass this. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec
14:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)reply
As with history section, the flood protection part should be part of another section or sections (history, geography, and watershed come to mind), and condensed.
It's a bit unorthodox to have this kind of section, but I suppose if it really is a defining factor, then it can't hurt to keep it in. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec
23:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)reply
The course section goes off onto too many tangents e.g. "The reservoir is an important wildlife habitat managed by Wessex Water, and offers facilities for fishing and walking", "with the Dearne Valley Way footpath on its eastern bank. The B3227 road from Wiveliscombe crosses from the east to the west side of the valley at Waterrow bridge, before heading westwards to Bampton, after which a former railway line crossed the river on its way to Taunton.", "constructed in 1895 and including globe lamps which are thought to be part of the earliest electric street lighting scheme in a British town" and quite a few others. Some of this information isn't bad and can be incoroporated into the other sections I mentioned under 3A.
The prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Verifiable and no original research
It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
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:
It contains no original research:
Broad in its coverage
It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail:
Neutral
It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each:
Stable
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Images
Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: