# Talk:Sand Point and Middle Hope

A bot has identified that some of the text in this article is the same as this page from U.S.S. Post I believe that they copied the content from wikipedia's previous article on Sand Point, which has been merged into this one and this is why the bot has wrongly tagged the article.— Rod talk 10:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Rod, 33.5% of this article is copied from http://usspost.com/sand-point-somerset-england-81184/ . Please look at this page. -(t) Josve05a (c)  16:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
On the U.S.S. page it says that was posted on October 12, 2013 by "staff". If you look at the history of Sand Point, Somerset via its history page you will see that text has been there since 2008.— Rod talk 17:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Rod is correct.  USS post have copied text from the previous article on Sand Point, presumably around October 12 2013, which was later merged into this new article. As Rod states this text is clearly on the earlier wikipedia article from as early as 2008.  You can also see where I myself edited some of the content in 2012.  This is an incorrect tagging by the bot, please remove.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryL2012 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sand Point and Middle Hope/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 09:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments

The area, in the lead it's hectares/acres, in the infobox it's hectares, sq metres, sq miles, it's all a little mixed up.
Made the same.— Rod talk 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Any reason for three paras in the lead on such a brief article?
Each dealt with different topics but made into two paras.— Rod talk 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Any reason for the solitary reference in the lead?  I assume it gets expanded upon and referenced later in any case?
Moved to geology section.— Rod talk 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"Notification" of 1952 is mentioned in the infobox and the category, but nowhere in the article, seems like an oversight.
Now in history.— Rod talk 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"At Middle Hope a sequence of carboniferous limestone, and includes limestones," grammar fail.
Reworded.— Rod talk 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"finest Tournaisian carbonate sections in South West England." sounds POV, is there a quote to back this up?
Prudden's Good Rock Guide says it is "a very special place", but I've removed that claim.— Rod talk 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Does "The site contains a Pleistocene-aged fossil cliff and shore platform" really need three separate references?
All the sources talk about this as being a key feature.— Rod talk 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
You abbreviate "millions of years ago" to "myr" but that abbreviation is never used.
Removed.— Rod talk 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
" the Middle Hope 84.1 hectare" needs a hyphen, and no need to re-link hectare.
I've removed this and covered it in history.— Rod talk 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Be consistent with your pipelinking/redirects, so the lead has " biological and geological Site of Special Scientific Interest." redirecting to "Site of Special Scientific Interest " while " biological and geological Site of Special Scientific Interest" piped to the same.
wp doesn't have separate articles for each type of SSSI.— Rod talk 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Avoid over-capitalising plants like Common Gorse and Bramble, they just don't need those caps.
The MOS seems to change on this every time I look at it - hopefully caught them all now.— Rod talk 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"A bowl barrow and disc barrow from the late Neolithic or Bronze Age have been identified." where, when, why, how? This is a strange way to open a sentence in a new section.
Reworded.— Rod talk 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"The triangulation station and site of the bowl barrow and disc barrow." incomplete sentence, no full stop required.
Full stop removed.— Rod talk 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
" as it was well away from the men of HM Customs and Excise" sounds like it should be a quote, it's not encyclopaedic otherwise.
Yep a quote from Gallop.— Rod talk 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"Woodspring Priory is a former Augustinian priory.[21] The priory" priory, priory, priory.
I've removed one and reworded, but I can't see how to avoid  "Woodspring Priory was an Augustinian priory".— Rod talk 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"who were influenced by the Cistercians who emphasised" who  ... who.  Repetitive.
Reworded.— Rod talk 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"and now rent" timeframe?
Since the 1990s.— Rod talk 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Normally things like "HMS Birnbeck" are "HMS Birnbeck".
Done.— Rod talk 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Our article calls it a Department of Miscellaneous Weapons Development  (department) rather than a Directorate.
Changed. (I think the title has changed over time).— Rod talk 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"as an Explosives and Shock Test Facility" no need for all those capital letters.
Now lower case.— Rod talk 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Be consistent with ISBN spacings.
Hopefully done now (I think some automated programme changes them).— Rod talk 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll put the item on hold for a while.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Cool, I'm good with the changes so happy to promote to GA, nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)