Talk:Brandon Marsh nature reserve/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

OK, I will begin now and likely make some straightforward copyediting changes as I go. Please feel free to revert any that inadvertently change the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lede mentions fungi - this should appear somewhere in the body as well - and can some info on notable species be sourced and added?
  • Are there any issues with pollution or threats, or (given it is reclaimed) species which have been unable to colonise?
  • Bulleted paragraphs should be unbulletted and plain text. Some more plants and things should bolster them nicely.

More later - not looking too bad. I have an idea of the series of Everglades articles (eg Geography and ecology of the Everglades) as something to aim for. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cas, saw you were reviewing this reserve, which is a real jewel of the West Midlands. Unfortunately, I couldn't help meddling (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, the more the merrier, anything more to add would be most welcomed :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, most of the detail about fungi species and any pollution/threats (not a huge amount there I'd guess, but I'll check) can probably be sourced from the annual report; I'll take a trip over to the centre tomorrow and get a copy. Will have a look at unbulleting the Pools list later on. Black Kite 15:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Some more plants would be good too (wetland plants are quite a topic in some conservation areas etc.). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, unbulleted the list; will need the written report to expand the flora and fungi; there's very little online. Doesn't look to be much on threats or pollution, indeed the one online source I found gave Brandon as an example of an area particularly free from pollution - the report may come up with more though. Black Kite 22:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, with most of my FAs and GAs I have had to get written material - the internet is often pretty bland and I see these type of situations as also highlighting readers to more detailed sources not electronically available. Some local history books might have some more too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have given it a first attempt using the report. Another image might be nice, but the weather was utterly horrific today so I got no further than the Visitor Centre :) Black Kite 19:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahaaa, well ify you go out in 2-5 days time there might be some early fungi :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't know what species they were though! OK, I think I've completed expanding it for now - any comments welcome! Black Kite 23:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you see any, just make sure you get a photo of the underside (gills), the base and the smell, the flesh and whether it changes colour when you bruise or break it, and we can figure out the rest :) Pommie ones are alot more well studied than aussie ones.
Onto the article, I will have a look in a mo'. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the site is mainly derived from gravel pits and settling pools alongside the River Avon.. --> shouldn't this be "Although the features of the site is mainly derived.." or something like it? We're talking about the landscape features aren't we?
  • The first attempts at using the site for conservation purposes came when the Brandon Marsh Conservation Group was formed in 1968, - this sorta just comes out of nowhere. As a reader this leaves me confused as to why the group was set up. I can infer that (?) amateur naturalists must have alerted someone that there was potential here (??). A sentence or two might help here about the circumstances of the group being set up.
    • Expanded this a bit.
      • A little better, though I still don't get a sense of what was going on before 1968 to make them set up the group. But, I presume there is nothing in the sources to add so don't sweat it.
  • Mention of native ladybird population - these are some local species, right? Does the report list them? A few would be good to list, including rare ones. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just one species - linked it in.
  • Any other notable insects?
    • There appears to be very little on this - the report merely lists species, the one that it concentrates on is mentioned in the "Threats" section. Black Kite 12:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


But overall, very nearly there. If these are unanswerable just let me know. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):
    Well-referenced to reliable sources:
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Thorough treatment of all important topics.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    All images have appropriate free use licenses.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

OK, I think we're over the line with this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brandon_Marsh_nature_reserve/GA1&oldid=1140093684"