# Talk:River Rother, West Sussex

Suitably referenced, with inline citations
Reasonable coverage - no obvious omissions or inaccuracies
Defined structure, with adequate lead
Reasonably well written for grammer and flow
Supporting materials - Infobox, map, images
Appropriately understandable
I have assessed the article against the criteria for B-class. In order to meet these, the following points need to be addressed.

The lead needs to be longer, to adequately summarise the contents.  Done
The hydrology section is unreferenced.  Done section re-written and expanded.
I am therefore rating it as C-class for the moment. Bob1960evens (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

As all issues have been addressed, I am now rating it as B-class. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the following from the article for the moment.

The river is partially fed by springs in the scarp slope of the chalk strata of the South Downs which flow at a constant volume and temperature throughout the year. This gives a more stable summer flow than is found in the upper reaches of the River Arun, which drains more clay soils. This steady flow powered several watermills along the river. The flour mill at Coultershaw, south of Petworth continued in operation until the 1960s, still partially water powered and collecting imported bread wheat from nearby Petworth railway station, which was then still open for goods only.
Although the "constant volume and temperature" is widely quoted on the internet, all mentions of it refer back to this article, and I cannot as yet find an authoritative ref for this. I am rewriting the hydrology section, so will reinstate it if I can find a source. Bob1960evens (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The "more stable summer flow" if supported by CAMS (2003), but not the constant volume and temperature. Some details of Coultershaw mill are now included in the Route section. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:River Rother, West Sussex/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: User:Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) 09:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?  lead section needs to be referenced closely to all the dates
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  first paragraph of history needs referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral? 
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?  article of this length should probably have more images
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  would be ideal if further images could all be free

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

This article is not too long that it could be polished up within a week or so. It certainly has had plenty of good work put in, but the referencing is still in places deficient. Splitting it into section might also make it easier to read. It is, however, by and large a fairly good article. Jamesx12345 (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
History section split in two by adding a Closure sub-heading.


### Response to the review
Thanks for the review. I am struggling to know what to do with it, however. There seem to be two main points. 

Dealing with the easy one first, there is no requirement for an article to be illustrated for it to pass at GA, though it can be if images are available. As there are a number of images on Commons, I have added two more to the article, but there was already a link to Commons, for readers who really like pictures.
The other main point seems to be that the lead is unreferenced. Again, this is not a requirement for GA, unless there are facts in the lead which are controversial, and are either not covered by references in the body of the article, or the article is a biography of a living person. There was one fact in the lead which was not adequately referenced elsewhere, but I could not find a reference for it, so I have deleted the length of 30 miles from the lead. Are there any other facts in the lead which you believe are not covered in the body of the article?
Does the "lead section not ideal as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section" only refer to the referencing, or are there other points from the manual of style which you think are not adequately addressed? The lead should introduce the subject, and summarise the main points of the article, which I think it does reasonably well, but I am open to suggestions.
Regards, Bob1960evens (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


### Response to the response
Images are good - I agree with your point about not being necessary, but the MOS does say to include them if possible. Checked off as yes.
The final paragraph of the lead is most contentious (The quality of the water is generally good...) should probably be sourced, but that is the only one I can see. The rest appear later on, I think.
It summarises: "The quality of the water is generally good..." from the hydrology section, which is referenced to CAMS 2003, p.12.
Added instance of reference for clarity - chalk mentioned end of page 12.
I remain to be convinced that this clarifies it. If anything, the fact that ref 18 is repeated without another ref in between, suggests that there is part of the text that is unsupported by that ref. Under normal circumstances, I would recommend that the first ref was removed as superfluous, if I were conducting the review.
The second paragraph of the introduction is probably a bit dense. It could probably be condensed to saying to saying that river was once navigable, but is now not so (or something more accurate). More emphasis on the size of the river would also be nice.
I have trimmed out some of the detail from the second paragraph.
Subtle, but a definite improvement.
I like this article more the more I read it, which can't be a bad thing. Keep up the good work on waterways. Jamesx12345 (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Some citations to the first section of the history are needed, and then the citations can be passed off as well.
I cannot see where. The whole of the first paragraph is referenced by Hadfield 1969 pp.126-127. Looking at the source, all of the facts are supported by a single, rather long paragraph that spans the two pages, and the ordering of the facts is rather different, so I cannot easily split it up into p.126, pp.126-127, and p.127. I have added a hidden note to the ref that says it supports the whole paragraph. The whole of Hadfield's discourse on the Rother covers less than 2 pages in total, and that has already been split into four, for the purpose of refs. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't have the book, but the note is fine (albeit a bit unusual) and should assuage future editors. I've now run out of criticisms, so have checked off the rest of the boxes. Thank you for putting up with me - I can be a bit obtuse. Jamesx12345 (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on River Rother, West Sussex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130807125807/http://www.rotherbridge.org.uk:80/article.htm to http://www.rotherbridge.org.uk/article.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on River Rother, West Sussex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120430134621/http://www.old-maps.co.uk/maps.html to http://www.old-maps.co.uk/maps.html
Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121210154326/http%3A//www.environment%2Dagency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/Arun__W_Streams__CAMS.pdf to http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/Arun__W_Streams__CAMS.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)