Talk:Ebbor Gorge

	Ebbor Gorge has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	Ebbor Gorge is part of the National Trust properties in Somerset series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 7, 2014 Good article nominee Not listed November 10, 2014 Good article nominee Listed December 6, 2015 Good topic candidate Promoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 4, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the head of Ebbor Gorge contains the rare mineral mendipite? Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

UK geography Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Somerset Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ebbor Gorge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) 22:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in generally very good shape. I have some copy-editing quibbles, but nothing that I think is fatal to promotion.

• "It is owned by the National Trust following a donation": This reads rather awkwardly and is arguably ungrammatical. Rewording this to avoid the gerund would probably solve the problem.

• Reworded.— Rod ^talk 09:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Clifton Down Limestone.

• Done— Rod ^talk 09:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Pipe a link to Coal measures for Lower Coal Measures.

• Done— Rod ^talk 09:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "and example of Carboniferous Limestone". I assume you mean an.

• Changed.— Rod ^talk 09:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mineral names, such as mendipite, need not be capitalized.

• Changed— Rod ^talk 09:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "are provided with a habitat": Passive mood wording makes it read like the habitat is artificial (or at least does so to my ear). Perhaps reword this sentence more actively: The nature reserve provides a habitat for a variety of flora and fauna...

• Thanks I've used your wording.— Rod ^talk 09:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this is a geological feature, the geology section feels a little thin. I think it addresses the main aspects of the topic, so I'm not going to count this against GA criterion 3, but especially if you want to consider developing this further for a push to FA, you'll want to survey some more of the geology journals here, I think.
• I don't think you need "Specifically" here.

• Removed.— Rod ^talk 09:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Does Hope Wood = Hope Woodlands? I am not certain of the answer; if so, link it.

• No a couple of hundred miles difference.— Rod ^talk 09:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Various caves": If the sources provide them, naming one or two might be worth considering. I see you do name a couple caves for the mammal fossils; any idea if these are the same ones?

• Looking again at the sources, they don't name specific caves and some of the flints were found in areas outside the caves.— Rod ^talk 09:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "One fine flint flake among several found has been identified": This is a pretty awkward sentence, and I'm not quite sure what you're going for here.

• Reworded is this better?— Rod ^talk 09:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I'd reshuffle the History section entirely. You jump from Neolithic people to Devensian mammals, then back to the Bronze Age.
• That parenthetical "presumed"—are the sources unsure about the dating? Why is that here?

• The dating is not specific and sources say "last ice age" or similar so I have removed the presumed - but I don't think the evidence is there to get any more specific.— Rod ^talk 09:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Any sources comment on the ownership history before Mrs. Hodgkinson? I'd guess probably not, but never hurts to check.

• Nothing that I can find in the sources - presumably part of a larger estate of the "landed gentry" but I can't find any specific names of owners etc.— Rod ^talk 09:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• One newspaper ref to its purchase in 1931 added.— Rod ^talk 10:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you have the information, I don't think it would be undue weight to go ahead and list trail lengths, considering its current status.

• The longest is 3 kilometres (1.9 mi).— Rod ^talk 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You mention the year of its notification in the lead, but I don't see that in the body.

• Done— Rod ^talk 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Any date for its status as a National Nature Reserve?

• After lots of searching I can't find this.— Rod ^talk 19:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of similar articles combine flora and fauna sections into one, often titled "Biology and ecology", then break them into sub-sections if length demands. Worth considering here.

• Done— Rod ^talk 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dog's mercury / wood anemone / common bluebell: common names of plants (in most cases, anyway, including these) needn't be capitalized.

• Done— Rod ^talk 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Lesser horseshoe doesn't need to be capitalized. For reasons I do not understand, convention appears to be that butterfly species keep their capitals, but I'll try to double-check that with the MOS people.

• I've never understood these (or been able to keep up with the changing fashions).— Rod ^talk 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Pipe a link to Hibernaculum (zoology) for hibernacular.

• Done— Rod ^talk 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Red deer doesn't need to be linked (because you already have, in history, and doesn't need to be capitalized; it wasn't in its earlier appearance).

• Done— Rod ^talk 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources look mostly good, although I'm not sure Real Alternative (#15) is reliable. I think the information is replaceable from Lewis, but you'll want to check to be sure.

• Replaced by ref to Somerset Historic Environment Record.— Rod ^talk 19:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The External Link is already used in the references, but I don't think that's a problem here. I would restyle it to provide more context though. Perhaps: Natural England website for the Ebbor Gorge NNR

• Done— Rod ^talk 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calling this on hold for the moment to give an opportunity to clean up a few of these issues, but I feel confident I'll be able to promote in short order. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

Reviewer Squeamish Ossifrage hasn't edited on Wikipedia since October 2. As this review has been abandoned, the nomination is being returned to the reviewing pool, where it will hopefully get some attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ebbor Gorge/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MusikAnimal (talk · contribs) 19:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Six months later... here I am! Sorry you had to wait so long. I'll be taking on this review. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I presume you are aware there was a first review during that time, but he reviewer disappeared.— Rod ^talk 20:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not! Thanks for letting me know. I'm almost done anyway. You'll hear from me very soon! — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citations to reliable sources:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Concerns

Infobox

• I'm confused by the use of both the grid reference and coordinates, as they seem to be almost the same. I am admittedly not that familiar with geography-related articles, is this a standard practice? If it is, why when I check the Geohack they have different coordinates?

  The UK still uses the Ordnance Survey National Grid grid reference system for most maps, so a lot of local geography articles include both so that it can be located on UK maps and international systems (eg google maps). The difference (or so I have been told) can be up to a few meters.— Rod ^talk

Lead

• First sentence: Wells is linked, but Somerset, England is not. We probably don't need to mention Wells at all. Also “biological Site of Special Scientific Interest” and “notified” link to the same place. I see there is a section entitled “Notification” that perhaps you want instead want to link to. Even so, I’d reword the sentence to something like Ebbor Gorge is a limestone gorge in Somerset, England, designated and notified in 1952 as a 63.5-hectare (157-acre) biological Site of Special Scientific Interest in the Mendip Hills.

  Changed.— Rod ^talk 21:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

• Last sentence, first paragraph, should Mendipite be capitalized? The link I suppose is optional since it’s already linked in the lead.

  It is a "proper name" of a particular compound and the capitalisation is the same as for Carboniferous Limestone & Clifton Down Limestone in the same paragraph.— Rod ^talk 21:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  My indication of whether it should be capitalized came from the linked article. In mendipite they don't see to capitalize, where in Carboniferous Limestone and others they do. You would know why more than me, but my bigger point is that mendipite is capitalized in the lead but not here in the Geology section. We should keep it consistent. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Now capitalised in lead for consistency.— Rod ^talk 06:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History

• Ref [14] is a dead link. The WayBack Machine may contain an appropriate archive.

  My dodgy internet connection is having problems with the archive site at present - I will try again tomorrow.— Rod ^talk 21:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I've now managed to do the archive URL.— Rod ^talk 22:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biology and ecology

• I assume you are confident the red links, Bryum canariense and Amblystegiella confervoides, meet WP:REDYES?

  There are hundreds or thousands of these plant species, but as these two are considered nationally rare I suspect they are worthy of articles (and might get them one day).— Rod ^talk 22:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. The article otherwise looks great. I'm fully confident we can tackle these issues quickly, so I'm placing the article on hold. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See my note above under Geography about the Mendipite capitalization. Once we get that addressed I think we're good to go :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Great work! This nomination has passed. Congratulations! — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]