Talk:River Brue/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I willl take a look at this, make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning!) and jot questions below. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

restore, recreate and reconnect - I think "restore" and "recreate" are largely synonymous here...using both makes it sound promotional....

Done.— Rod ^talk 11:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The River Brue originates in hills, to the south west of the catchment area, close to the border with Dorset which are also the sources of the River Wylye and the Dorset Stour which flow south to the English Channel. - this sentence needs some cleanup. First I'd remove the first comma, and southwest is one word. I'd split with a full stop after "Dorset", and then write, "From the same origin/locale, the River Wylye and the Dorset Stour flow south to the English Channel." (or something similar)

Done.— Rod ^talk 11:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It falls quickly in a narrow valley... - makes me think of a waterfall. Unless there is one I'd change to "It descends/drops quickly in a narrow valley" (or something similar)

Done.— Rod ^talk 11:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'd link tidal, sluices, catchment~~

Done.— Rod ^talk 11:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The valley was used during Romano-British period when it was the site of salt extraction - can we expand upon this sentence at all? Single sentence paras are no good....

I don't think there is much else to add but I have removed the paragraph break.— Rod ^talk 11:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the direct route to the sea at Highbridge was prevented by gravel banks and peat near Westhay - "prevented" sounds funny for a noun..."blocked"? "barred"?

Changed.— Rod ^talk 11:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~The 1768 flooding (and preceding sentence) is written twice - consolidate and remove one...~~

Done.— Rod ^talk 11:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both Galton's Canal and Brown's Canal, which were built in the early 19th century connected to the river. - err, connected what (i.e. body of water) to the river?

I don't quite understand this one - both canals had water in them and connected to the River Brue. I've added a "were" in case this was a grammar query?— Rod ^talk 11:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passive tense is ok, if active tense then something connects something to something else - thought it might be good to list what the canals connect the river with. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the sources is that they just went a mile or so into fields and didn't "connect" with anything else.— Rod ^talk 12:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no worries. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It aims to help wildlife sustains itself i - grammar

"s" removed.— Rod ^talk 11:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I can't help but think the recreation segment is a bit small...can it be embellished/added to at all?~~

Fishing, canoeing & walking really are the only leisure uses - what else would you like to see?— Rod ^talk 11:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will read again for prose. I think this can be smoothed out a little more. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've responded above (including a couple of questions).— Rod ^talk 11:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: This bit bugged me so I reworded it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~File:Uk_som_brue.jpg and File:Uk som levels.jpg have a missing author and may have an appropriate licence. Given we have a number of appopriately licenced images, I'd say removing them is prudent.~~

Replaced.— Rod ^talk 13:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Still one ^{[citation needed]} tag...~~

Thanks I hadn't spotted that - now done.— Rod ^talk 13:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

- all looks in order for GA status. I didn't see any prose-clangers outstanding but if you want to take it to FAC I'd recommend another set of eyes on the writing first. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]