Talk:River Rother, East Sussex/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 06:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bob, I'll be glad to take this review. As before, I'll start with a close readthrough, noting here any issues I can't immediately fix myself, and then follow with the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

On first pass, I see only a few issues, which should be easily remedied. Very nice work on this one.

• Basin area 970km² -- needs citation; you might think about adding this in prose form to the article as well.

• I have removed it. It was added by User:Peter Shearan in 2007, and he has not been active since 2009. I have a source for a catchment area (470 km2), but cannot find one for the basin area. (This is a general problem with river articles. There must be something somewhere that quotes basin areas and lengths for the rivers of the UK, but I haven't found it yet.)

• " by medieval tiles of exceptional quality" -- if you want to include this judgement, it should probably be sourced in text: "tiles described by the National Heritage List as being of 'superlative quality'".

•  Done reworded as suggested.

• " Scheduled Ancient Monument" -- this is capitalized in one instance and not in another; this should probably be made consistent.

•  Done Both now lower case.

• Thanks for the review. All issues have now been addressed. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.