Talk:River Rother, West Sussex/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: User:Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) 09:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable? lead section needs to be referenced closely to all the dates
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: first paragraph of history needs referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic? article of this length should probably have more images
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: would be ideal if further images could all be free

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

This article is not too long that it could be polished up within a week or so. It certainly has had plenty of good work put in, but the referencing is still in places deficient. Splitting it into section might also make it easier to read. It is, however, by and large a fairly good article. Jamesx12345 (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History section split in two by adding a Closure sub-heading.

Response to the review

Thanks for the review. I am struggling to know what to do with it, however. There seem to be two main points.

Dealing with the easy one first, there is no requirement for an article to be illustrated for it to pass at GA, though it can be if images are available. As there are a number of images on Commons, I have added two more to the article, but there was already a link to Commons, for readers who really like pictures.

The other main point seems to be that the lead is unreferenced. Again, this is not a requirement for GA, unless there are facts in the lead which are controversial, and are either not covered by references in the body of the article, or the article is a biography of a living person. There was one fact in the lead which was not adequately referenced elsewhere, but I could not find a reference for it, so I have deleted the length of 30 miles from the lead. Are there any other facts in the lead which you believe are not covered in the body of the article?

Does the "lead section not ideal as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section" only refer to the referencing, or are there other points from the manual of style which you think are not adequately addressed? The lead should introduce the subject, and summarise the main points of the article, which I think it does reasonably well, but I am open to suggestions.

Regards, Bob1960evens (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the response

Images are good - I agree with your point about not being necessary, but the MOS does say to include them if possible. Checked off as yes.

The final paragraph of the lead is most contentious (The quality of the water is generally good...) should probably be sourced, but that is the only one I can see. The rest appear later on, I think.

It summarises: "The quality of the water is generally good..." from the hydrology section, which is referenced to CAMS 2003, p.12.

Added instance of reference for clarity - chalk mentioned end of page 12.

I remain to be convinced that this clarifies it. If anything, the fact that ref 18 is repeated without another ref in between, suggests that there is part of the text that is unsupported by that ref. Under normal circumstances, I would recommend that the first ref was removed as superfluous, if I were conducting the review.

The second paragraph of the introduction is probably a bit dense. It could probably be condensed to saying to saying that river was once navigable, but is now not so (or something more accurate). More emphasis on the size of the river would also be nice.

I have trimmed out some of the detail from the second paragraph.

Subtle, but a definite improvement.

I like this article more the more I read it, which can't be a bad thing. Keep up the good work on waterways. Jamesx12345 (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some citations to the first section of the history are needed, and then the citations can be passed off as well.

I cannot see where. The whole of the first paragraph is referenced by Hadfield 1969 pp.126-127. Looking at the source, all of the facts are supported by a single, rather long paragraph that spans the two pages, and the ordering of the facts is rather different, so I cannot easily split it up into p.126, pp.126-127, and p.127. I have added a hidden note to the ref that says it supports the whole paragraph. The whole of Hadfield's discourse on the Rother covers less than 2 pages in total, and that has already been split into four, for the purpose of refs. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't have the book, but the note is fine (albeit a bit unusual) and should assuage future editors. I've now run out of criticisms, so have checked off the rest of the boxes. Thank you for putting up with me - I can be a bit obtuse. Jamesx12345 (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]