Talk:Thorne and Hatfield Moors/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 13:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments

Looks very good, only a few small things:

A retrieval date missing for one web link;

Done I presume this is the Thorne and District Gazette. I don't normally add retrieval dates when there is a publishing date, since the web link in only a convenience. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two Ordinance Survey map references, which I'm not keen on in principle, definitely need some more information. They have a reference number which would certainly be a good start and make sure the first has a year recorded.

Partially Done. I don't have the 1:50,000 recent sheet, as I used a web source, (which I have not found how to quote), so have changed it to the 1:25,000 2006 edition, which I do have. The 1890 map is another on-line source, so has no indication of what the sheet numbers were. Sorry you are not keen on OS maps - I find they contain a wealth of info. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Online source? Could you link to it? That would be enough. (Oh, an OS maps are good for walking and things, I just don't think they lend themselves to referencing encyclopaedia articles.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find how to link to them. I use old-maps, and for Swinefleet Works, the co-ordinates are 476773 and 416622, so presumably these could be typed into the appropriate boxes to select the current map of the area. Then you select 1890 1:2500, and get to see a little bit of it, but the url does not change, so I do not think you can link directly to an appropriate bit of map. (I believe my usage of maps to be covered by Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in wikipedia articles. There was a large discussion on this sort of usage on Talk:Bow Back Rivers prior to the GAR of that article.) Bob1960evens (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried passing X and Y as parameters, but it does not select the map. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the see also link Thorne and Hatfield Moors Peat Canals should be somewhere in the article, I think. (Not a GA thing.)

Done I have linked "canals to transport peat". Bob1960evens (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Note: I believe that the images are correctly licensed; however, you should be aware that some map holders (including the OS) look to protect the map data of their maps, and not just the representation of it. Two of your maps come from recent map editions and are vulnerable; however, the focus is on whether your version undermines theirs - to which the answer has to be no. (This is primarily a question of detail and area shown.) So whilst not impenetrable it is suitable as-is. I'm passing, I assume if there are any tweaks following my copyedit you can deal with them without affecting the GA status. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this is definitely a geography article – in theory the specifics of peat production could be spun out, as could the canals, but the scope of this article would be the same, i.e. it is firmly about the area. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]