Talk:Combe Down and Bathampton Down Mines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Combe Down and Bathampton Down Mines was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 24 September 2006

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. Wikipedians in Avon may be able to help!

[edit] Biological vs. Geological

From looking at the SSSI citation sheets and in particular the english nature map it appears that the mines have been designated an SSSI because of the biology (bats) rather than the geology. How do others understand the english nature information? Suicidalhamster 12:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Just seen that in the Avon list of SSSIs this site is classifed as Biological so will change it here also. Suicidalhamster 12:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

This is how the article, as of September 24, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;

Well, perhaps something is wrong with me rather than with the article, but I found it hard to make out what the author meant in a few sentences, like "No mine abandonment plans of - either the tunnels or the caverns, known as voids - were made prior..." or "During the access and emergency works Oxford Archaeology has produced large scale plans of visible areas and substantial photography has been carried out as the modern roadways allowed access." Perhaps the former is just an example of more sophisticated British grammar which I, as a non-native speaker, cannot understand, but then the article should be accessible to everybody. In the last paragraph suddenly some mysterious "we" appear. And what do the traffic lights have to do with the mine?

The first paragraph of last section is written so that is not immediately apparent how it relates to the subject - it seems copied from somewhere, or simply written by somebody who was so familiar with the topic that he or she did not realize more focus on the mine is needed.

(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);

Structuring is OK with me, but the lead has several flaws. First of all, I am not sure whether it actually summarizes all of the important points of the sections below. I believe it is not the best solution to link to Combe Down and Bathampton from the name of the mine, without explaining what they are. I would say anything (including a mine) can date from one century at a time.

(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline:

I am not an expert on that, and there are other, more important issues here, so excuse me for not reviewing the article thoroughly for that.

(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

What was the 1872 Mining Act? Why isn't quarry linked to? Why is aquifer not linked to when the term is introduced for the first time, but then suddenly is in the latter part of the article? Derelict Land Act 1982 is a red link, and I guess even mentioning it is thus rather pointless, as it doesn't help most readers to gain any more understanding of the issue.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;

Discussed below.

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required;

There are quite many inline citations in the article, though I think that the author is not entirely familiar with how cite.php works, and therefore a number of identical refs were generated for some sources. Moreover, all of the links lead to the top-level pages, which often do not contain the actual information that is referenced, e.g. the last reference (no. 15 at the moment of writing this review) did not contain the purported information on the numbers of people and properties mentioned in the last paragraph. Also, the BANES page says that the mines were worked in the 18th and 19th century mainly, which is in contradiction to what the article says. Excuse me for not checking all of the facts now, but I would recommend running a more detailed errand here before resubmitting for GA.

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

I think those are OK in principle, but the Oxford Archeology page seems irrelevant at all - perhaps the link went awry or something.

(d) it contains no elements of original research.

With so many references, the (rather crude) sentence on Ralph Allen goes unreferenced and seems added later on.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);

I got the feeling that the article is somewhat too superficial when describing the current merits of the mine as a scientific and environmental interest site and such. There is no explanation of how the mine's position over the aquifier affects anything. The second paragraph of the last section seems taken out from somewhere and is providing quite a lot of detailed information without explaining what the project actually consists in. Moreover, is that all that can be said about the bat lair? What actually did Smith do about the site and why is it important?

(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).

I'd say it's rather the lack of detail that is a problem here, save for the abovementioned last paragraph.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;

I haven't actually noticed any significant viewpoint in the article, so I guess it is not a problem here.

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

As above.

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.

No edit conflicts evident in the article's short history, no apparent vandalism. I believe the article's problem is rather the lack of activity about it!

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;

The images are OK in principle, though the map appears strangely cropped in the infobox (so that the location is barely visible).

(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.

Not a problem concerning the GA nomination per se, but I was wondering whether it would really be that hard to obtain photos of the actual mine?

In view of all that, I have to fail the nomination. Overall, the article is clearly undeveloped, currently consisting of patches of information, failing on complying with important encyclopedic criteria and, apparently, not comprising the entirety of information that could be gathered at this level of detail. I believe it is still quite far away from the stage at which it could be considered a good GA nominee.

I hope, however, that it will be developed further, as it might be a pretty interesting article. I would try to look at similar, more developed articles as examples - at least one of the Avon SSSIs, the Avon Gorge, is currently listed as a Good Article. Bravada, talk - 21:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)