Talk:St Catherine's Hill, Dorset
St Catherine's Hill, Dorset 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. Review: April 12, 2022. (Reviewed version). |
A fact from St Catherine's Hill, Dorset appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 April 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
St. or St ?[edit]
You need to work out if it is "St." or "St"? The Hampshire article is called St. Catherine's Hill, Hampshire. See for example St. Catherine. I have done two disambig pages: St. Catherine's Hill, St Catherine's Hill so both possibilities are covered. Also I set up St. Catherines Hill, St Catherines Hill as redirects as there's no certainty that the apostrophe would be included in a Wiki search by a user.--Penbat (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think the Manual of Style says, St (without the full stop) but currently I can't find where.--Ykraps (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Photos with date[edit]
The photos File:Disused quarry, St Catherine's Hill, Dorset..JPG and File:St Catherine's Hill, Dorset, west side..JPG were taken with a camera that added a watermark with the date and hour of the photo at the corner. It may be better if those things are removed, to improve the quality of the article. The guys at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop may be able to help. Cambalachero (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yeh, I agree with you. Unfortunately I forgot to turn the option off on that day. I was in two minds as to whether to take the photographs again or to try and edit them with photoshop. I'll ask the guys at the graphics lab which they recommend, good suggestion, thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:St Catherine's Hill, Dorset/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 17:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I'll be reviewing this article to help reduce the good article nomination backlog and to gain points in the WP:WIKICUP. Although quid pro quo is not required, if you fancy returning the favor, I have a list of articles in need of review here. — GhostRiver 17:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Infobox and lede[edit]
Toponomy[edit]
- Should specify that it's Catherine of Alexandria in the text, not just the WL, as there are Lots of St Catherines
probably means 'Great Hill'
in what language?- Old English. Added.--Ykraps (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- "indicates a 'hill'" reads strangely; should either be rephrased as "means 'hill'" or the single quotes around 'hill' should be dropped
- Split first sentence of second paragraph after the second parentheses and then begin next sentence with "The latter was located north ..."
- From Harbour to Harbour should be italicized as the name of a book
- Obviously Bell clearly believes this, so where is the source to indicate that it is an erroneous belief?
- Hodges discusses the debate but makes no judgement as to whether Richedon and Rishton are the same. He does point to a farm north of the hill called Rishton which he says may be a source of confusion. I have rewritten the sentence.
- Link River Stour, Dorset and Moors River
History[edit]
- Capitalize and link "Ice Age" to the one that's most appropriate (see disambiguation page
- Comma after "discovered on the hill"
- "and a few Paleolithic tools" → "and a few from the Paleolithic" to reduce repetition
- "but if they visited the hill, there is no direct evidence remaining" → "but no direct evidence remains of their potential visitation"
- "currently" runs afoul of MOS:DATED
- Used as a lookout post by whom?
- Romans, Tudors, the Royal Observatory Corps. This is explained later in the article. I have rewritten slightly. Please see what you think.
with its commanding views
not neutral- Delink Stour river here, since it should be linked above
- Fix passive voice throughout the paragraph beginning
Exploratory trenches were dug
- Comma after "A number of artefacts were found"
It is said
by whom?- No comma after "Shore Beacons"
The military has made extensive use of the hill for training purposes
When? the Crimean War is one example, I don't believe that qualifies as "extensive"
20th century[edit]
- Link World War I
- Mixed semicolon/comma use in the list of the first sentence
- @GhostRiver: I read that as if the observation and machine gun posts, dressing stations, latrines etc are part of the second line trench system. Do you think a colon is more appropriate?--Ykraps (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Link Second World War
- "After the war, a nuclear bunker was built into the hill by the Royal Observer Corps." → "After the war, the Royal Observer Corps built a nuclear bunker into the hill."
Sand and gravel extraction has taken place over various parts of the hill
When?is today
MOS:DATED- Comma after "Gravel extraction continued until at least 1933"
- "4,000,000" → "four million" per MOS:LARGENUM
Today[edit]
- Section as a whole needs some MOS:DATED qualifications
- "70%" → "70 percent" per MOS:PERCENT
- Semicolon would be better served as a period, and then "Although prohibited, off-road ..."
Geography[edit]
The eastern slopes and foot of the hill, an area referred to as the Town Common, is almost
Subject/verb agreement issues. Subject is plural (slopes and foot) but is then qualified as a singular, making it a bit of a mess- "and are believed to have been"
- Don't like parentheses in the main text if it can be avoided, as in
all others were formed in a marine environment
If this is so
If what is so?- "Mossy Stonecrop" should be lowercase and the scientific name should be italicized
- "provide habitats" {[right arrow}} "provides habitats" (singular "mix" is the subject of the sentence)
References / Bibliography[edit]
Oh boy.
- Use the SFN template on all the "Hodges", "Stannard", and "Hoodless" refs (for an example, see Arthur Guinness)
- Done. All these citations are in a consistent sfn format. It is normally considered unhelpful to add citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Variation in citation methods.--Ykraps (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Most of these sources are from the Management Plan, so that should go in the biography and the SFN template should be used for page numbers
- Both [3] (Surrey Record Society) and [4] (Bell) appear to be books, so the titles should be italicized
General comments[edit]
- Images all look good
- No stability concerns in the revision history
- Earwig score looks good
Broadly, the prose gives me pause, as there are many MOS:WTW about time (MOS:REALTIME) and the conference of authority (MOS:WEASEL). Most of the latter are caused by passive voice throughout this article. It's going to take some serious work to get into shape. Putting on hold for now. Feel free to ping me with questions, and please let me know when you're finished. — GhostRiver 20:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- @GhostRiver: Do you have further comments?--Ykraps (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- @GhostRiver: Are you intending to return to this review? --Ykraps (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I got pinged to have a look at it since the reviewer hasn't been active for a week. I've done a bit of a copyedit, but other than that I don't think there's any reason it can't pass a GA review now, except to note I have not checked many of the references to ensure the claims in the article are factually accurate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
No more serious concerns. Passing now. — GhostRiver 18:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)