Talk:North Devon's Biosphere Reserve

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:North Devon's Biosphere Reserve/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 00:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

On first pass, this seems strong and ripe for promotion. It relies heavily on primary-ish sources (UNESCO and Devon government docs, the biosphere reserve's website), but none of the claims are extreme and the sources seem sufficiently reliable. I made some minor copyedits as I went; please double-check me to make sure I haven't inadvertently introduced any errors, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

Only one initial quibble:

• "Fine examples of the remains" -- it's a small point, but we should attribute the judgement "fine" in-text, or simply say "examples of..."; as a subjective opinion, this probably shouldn't be in "Wikipedia's voice". -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Jack (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Closing review for copyright concerns

After some spotchecks, the language and sentence structures of the article appears to me unnecessarily close to that of the sources. I've listed some examples below for reference; this is from spotchecks and isn't meant to be a complete list of issues here.

Because of these concerns, I'm not listing the article as a GA at this time; it seems like it needs a more comprehensive revision than would be reasonable for this review. I hope you won't be discouraged, though. Paraphrasing is a difficult gray area, and something I struggle with in my own contributions at times. I'd suggest checking out WP:PARAPHRASE and revising per its suggestions. Some of this content should be rephrased to avoid such close matches. The amount of factual content may also need to be reduced in favor of a more summary-ish style to avoid reproducing the sources "beat for beat", unless multiple sources for things like the plant species can be found and blended.

Best of luck in your revisions of this one--I'm sorry this isn't passing now, but it's strong in other respects, and I hope you'll be renominating soon. Let me know if you have any questions or if there's any way I can help, and thanks for all your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right after looking at those examples. I'll have a proper look at it very soon and try to clear up those issues before renominating. Thanks for the copyedit anyway, Jack (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome--thanks again for your work on this one, I hope it makes GA soon! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Examples for reference

Article: "...a rich mixture of grasses, sedges and herbs such as rough poppy (Papaver hybridum) and toothed medick (Medicago lupulina). Scrub invasion occurs with native species such as willows, privet (Ligustrum vulgare) and common blackberry (Rubus fruticosus), and introduced species such as sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides). The landward side of the dunes is particularly important for lichens, some 60 species having been recorded from the compacted soils of that area alone"

Source: "...a rich mixture of grasses, sedges and herbs such as Rough Poppy Papaver hybridum and Toothed Medick Medicago lupinula. It tends to be invaded by scrub of native Willows Salix spp, Privet Ligustrum vulgare and Bramble Rubus fruticosus agg, and introduced Sea Buckthorn Hippophae rhamnoides ... An area on the landward side of the dunes is particularly important for lichens, some 60 species having been recorded from the compacted soils of that area alone."

Article: "The dune slacks separate the dunes and may flood after heavy rain. They support round-headed club-rush (Scirpoides holoschoenus), which was discovered here in the 17th century; sharp rush; round-leaved wintergreen (Pyrola rotundifolia ssp maritima); early gentian (Gentianella anglica); and many orchid species."

Source: "Between the dunes are slacks which flood according to rainfall. Other notable plants occur here, including the Roundheaded Club-Rush Scirpus holoschoenus, discovered in the 17th century at about its present location, Sharp rush Juncus acutus, Round-leaved Wintergreen Pyrola rotundifolia ssp maritima, Early Gentian Gentianella anglica and orchids"

Article: "There is evidence of human occupation of North Devon from Mesolithic times onward. The remains of flint scatters from this era have been found on coastal headlands, and Westward Ho! has an ancient prehistoric midden in the clays below the sand on the beach"

Source : "The earliest evidence for human occupation in North Devon comes from the Mesolithic Period, where the remains of flint scatters have been found on the coastal headlands. At Westward Ho!, an ancient prehistoric rubbish dump or "midden" lies hidden in the clays below the sand on the beach."

Article: "The Biosphere Reserve Partnership supports farms that operate in a manner that recognises the positive and negative environmental impacts of farm practices, not only on their own land, but also in the wider environment"

Source: "... farming in a manner that recognises the environmental impacts (positive and negative) of farm practices on a specific of the holding but also beyond farm boundaries, in the wider environment."

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:North Devon's Biosphere Reserve/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jetstreamer (talk · contribs) 01:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC) I'll be reviewing the article soon.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

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.
	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).	So far, I've found that this section has content that is not directly supported by the references provided. This is against WP:VERIFY.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Likely WP:OR in the ″Geography″ section.
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.

• The date format for the references is unclear. Please use a single one throughout the article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Geography

• The last sentence in the section's first paragraph is unsourced. I've marked it with a {{fact}} template.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• The section is backed by just two references, 1 and 2. It's hard for me to find some claims in the section included in these two references provided. For example:

1. It is said nowhere in the two references that the reserve is located in North Devon, Southwest England. Should the reader click on any of these two links to find the location of these two places? Either the article assumes the reader knows (or should know) these places, or the content included in this very first sentence of the paragraph is built from the links in references 1 and 2. This last option borders original research. I suggest including at least a reference where the location is clearly visible. I'll try to do it on my own, though.
2. ″There are no cities within the reserve, but the towns of Barnstaple, Bideford, Northam, Ilfracombe, and Okehampton contain the greatest proportion of the 155,000 people living in the area.″ The first two cities are mentioned in ref 2, the rest are not. This is not in agreement with WP:VERIFY.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• A reference that was added after the comments above were drawn includes a large number of maps. If this reference is useful, I suggest to direct the reader to the specific page(s) of the document that better fits the topic of the article. My comments above regarding the presence of unsourced claims in the section still stand.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Jetstreamer for all of the contributions in terms of fixes, and you will see I have tempered mention of settlements to readily accessible verifiable source table supporting a simpler statement. I have reworded or deleted some of the worst weasel which is unencyclopedic but agree there is quite a few items still to go, some of various reviewer's examples in GA1 blatantly amount to at best clunky administrative-ese, at worst plagiarism. - Adam37 Talk 11:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I will continue with this soon. The nominator is away until mid-August, so I'm just taking my time to review this article. I'm actually checking every piece of information, that's why this might take a little more time than expected. I'll try to fix as much as I can. Thank you for your contributions to it.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

History

I'm failing the nomination as per these comments at my talk page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)