GA Review[edit]

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

I come to this as an intelligent but ignorant reader, and it is my habit to comment on the article as I read it the first time.

I'll thus expand this review over time. I imagine it will take a few days to review it fully. I'll make what I consider minor, uncontroversial copy edits, but feel free to revert them. Other suggestions for copy edits I'll list here.

Reviewer: Si Trew (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review now completed, and most issues addressed, with the exception of the elephant in the room large list in the middle of the article, which I think really deserves a separate article (or merge into one of the several already in existence). But that can be addressed after the revew.
Good Pass, congratulations and thank you for your hard work. Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Good b (MoS): Good
    Done Lead: The lead section fails to mention the subject. See WP:MOSBEGIN.
    Done.
    Done I also feel the last paragraph is perhaps too detailed for the lead. Nothing in the lead mentions threats.
    Done for threats; OKish about the para as a whole – it is fine to have something like it in the lead but perhaps is too detailed.
    On the whole, though, it is written in clear, concise and correct language.
  3. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Good b (citations to reliable sources): Good (OR): Good
    Done Some of the Web references could have been fuller – I've checked them and augmented them. Some people prefer Web references in a separate group – see Botanical garden for an example. I've put them into ((cite web)).
    Done ::The section "Ancient semi-natural woodland" could do with a couple more references (detailed below).
Refs added to Forestry Commission report.
  1. DoneI've put all the references into ((harvnb)) templates and so on, so that the citations can link to the bibliography.
    Done For et al. there was a mix of "Smout et. al" and "Nix et. al" i.e. the abbreviation stops were wrong and the italics differed. I've changed them all to "et al." ("et" is not an abbreviation so doesn't need a stop). It might be better in italics as a foreign word, but I am not too concerned providing it's consistent.
    Neutral For books with more than one edition, it could be clearer which edition is being referenced (it's always the latest one, as far as I can tell). It may be clearer not to mention the date of publication of the first edition, since then looking for e.g. James 1966 one sees James 1955 (and further down the citation 1966).
    Done Hibberd was wrong in saying 1993 (revised 1991), unless he has a time machine, so I've just put 1993 (11th ed). which is what the ISBN refers to.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Done b (focused): Good
    Done It doesn't really talk about forestry in the United Kingdom. It talks about forests in the United Kingdom. Not much is mentioned about the timber industry and so on.
    Section "Timber industry" added, although it's not very long.
  5. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: Good
    No problems here.
  7. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.: Good
    Mostly the work of one author, with occasional contributions from others. Not much on talk page.
  9. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Good b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Good
    Done However, I feel that there could be a couple more images towards the end of the article, e.g. a map showing the amount of afforestation in different parts of the UK/Britain/British Isles, or perhaps just illustrative examples of threats/diseases (e.g. Dutch Elm Disease).
    An image of White Rot Fungus has been added, however I would love a map showing the density of afforestation e.g. per-county. Alternatively perhaps a good satellite photo could show this.
  11. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: Good
    Tempted to fail because of the lead and the fact it doesn't say much about forestry, but I'll hold it for now. Si Trew (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of these have now been addressed.

Lead

  • This is fixed now.
  • This has been removed; it could have just been moved to the "see also".
  • Footnote added.

History

  • Removed.
  • Added.
  • I think the footnote in the lead now clarifies this.

Ancient semi-natural woodland

  • These have been added. Though the reference is to a blog in name, I don't think it's what most people would describe as a blog.

Native and historic species

Threats

OK, I think that's enough to mark it as a pass. I still think the list in the article is rather a long intermission, and would suggest you consider moving it to another article. Looking around, though, I see that there seem to be competing lists with this (as rather unencylopaedicly stated at Trees of Britain, which I was tempted to suggest sarcastically this article should be moved to). Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More