# Talk:Westonzoyland Pumping Station Museum

The article is more about pumps than the museum itself.  It could do with some expansion on that info. -- Whpq 14:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Any online articles written on Westonzoyland Pumping Station are of interest directly to the members...and the webmaster (me) in particular. However, to address the previous poster's comment about too much emphasis on pumps and engines......in reality, this is what part of the museum actually is, a large collection of pumps and engines. In all fairness to the person who wrote the article, there is not a great deal of information easily available concerning the old pumping station house, because casual visitors are not allowed into it, to view it. In essence, however, the facts given in the article are generally correct.
I would recommend keeping tabs on the Trust's main website for information....after all, it's the members who have got the best information and the contacts.
Cdwz 13:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What else do people think is needed to get this article to meet the Good article criteria?— Rod talk 17:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Westonzoyland Pumping Station Museum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 21:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Rodw, I will be engaging in a thorough review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian  (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Rodw, as promised, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I find that it meets the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I do have some comments and suggestions that should first be addressed. Thank you for all your hard work on this article and others like it! -- West Virginian  (talk) 08:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the pumping station museum, establishes the museum's necessary context, and explains why the museum is otherwise notable.
The info box for the ship is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
I don't understand the reference to "ship" here, but presume it is a copy and paste from elsewhere, and I've not taken any action on it.— Rod talk 10:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Rodw, this was erroneously carried over from my own personal checklist template for reviewing ledes and info boxes to ensure all criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section have been met. I apologize for the typo in this review of your article. -- West Virginian  (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The image of the pumping station's red brick building is licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 and is therefore acceptable for use here.
The Somerset locator map is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is also acceptable for use here.
Westonzoylandpumpingstation.jpg should have both a formal caption that appears in the template, and an alt caption, which is already in place.
Caption added.— Rod talk 10:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest removing the ampersand in Westonzoyland Pumping Station Museum of Steam Power & Land Drainage and replacing it with and unless the ampersand is officially part of the historic site's formal name.
The ampersand is included on their web site, however it doesn't appear elsewhere so I removed it in line with MOS.— Rod talk 10:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Grade II* listing should be wiki-linked in the lede.
I don't understand. Listed building is wikilinked but we do not have a separate article for Grade II*.
Rodw, I thought it should be wiki-linked to the exact definition within the article at Listed building#Categories of listed building, in case someone wanted to jump right to the definition, rather than scroll through the article. I hope that helped you to understand where I was coming from. This works as is. -- West Virginian  (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
History

Regarding the Domesday Book reference, it should probably be specified that draining was under way at the time of its recording around 1086. There should be some sort of temporal reference here.
1086 added.— Rod talk 10:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Glastonbury Abbey, the River Tone, Pawlett, Bridgwater, River Axe, and Glastonbury should all be wiki-linked in their first usage within the prose, as not all readers are familiar with these place names.
Glastonbury Abbey is wikilinked in the monasteries of Glastonbury,... I have wikilinked the others.— Rod talk 10:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Rodw, my apologies. I assumed Glastonbury was wiki-linked to Glastonbury. In that case, perhaps "monasteries of Glastonbury" as an entire phrase should be wiki-linked to Glastonbury Abbey. -- West Virginian  (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Rodw, on second thought, scratch that. It is fine as is. -- West Virginian  (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
"In 1500, there was said..." I would include who said this.
I have removed the phrase "said to be" - all these dates and areas are from Williams & Williams book.— Rod talk 10:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Lords and Commoners are capitalized, but Parliament is not? For consistency's sake, I suggest capitalizing Parliament.
Done.— Rod talk 10:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
For the "reens" pronunciation, I suggest consulting Help:IPA for English for crafting a phrasing of IPA symbols used for English pronunciations.
This is complicated as it is my understanding that the pronunciation is different in different places. The same explanation of pronounciation is used on Somerset Levels (an FA) without IPA.— Rod talk 10:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Rodw, this was merely a suggestion. -- West Virginian  (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Westonzoyland Pumping Station - geograph.org.uk - 676871.jpg needs an alt caption describing the photograph. It is licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 and is otherwise acceptable for inclusion here.
I wasn't aware ALT tags were a requirement (although good practice) as the visual interpretation and description of an image can be subject to bias.— Rod talk 10:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Rodw, under criterion number six section b at Wikipedia:Good article criteria, images should have "suitable captions." "Suitable captions" links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions. Here, "alt text" is suggested but not required for "visually impaired readers." I'm sure there will be visually impaired readers in Somerset that would benefit from the added context. -- West Virginian  (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Steam pumping engine Westonzoyland - geograph.org.uk - 676914.jpg also needs an alt caption describing the photograph. It is licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 so it is definitely acceptable for use here.
As above - but done.— Rod talk 10:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I noticed in the mention of "Westonzoyland, Middlezoy and Othery" there is no Oxford comma, but prior to this the Oxford comma was used consistently throughout the prose. I would just ensure that before coordinating conjunctions, that either the comma is used or not used consistently throughout.
I know that serial (or oxford) comma's have been the subject of some debate and I tend not to use them (but I'm not a grammar expert). Can you point out where they are used in the article?— Rod talk 10:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Rodw, as this is not a requirement for Good Article status, I won't belabor the point. Either method of listing coordinating conjunctions is fine by me; I just think there should be one single method used in one article; serial or no serial comma. Under the "History" section, an Oxford comma is used here: "the monasteries of Glastonbury, Athelney, and Muchelney..." And it is also used here: "They included Southlake Wall, Burrow Wall, and Lake Wall." And here: "at Mark, 100 acres (0.4 km2) in Shapwick, and 1,700 acres (7 km2) at Westhay." But then, also in the "History" section, the Oxford comma is not used, as in this example: "Westonzoyland, Middlezoy and Othery..." Again, either method is perfectly acceptable, but only one should be used in the article. -- West Virginian  (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
Restoration

Geograph 3146561 Wills Brickworks engine - Westonzoyland.jpg needs an alt caption describing the photograph. It is licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 so it is definitely acceptable for use here.
As above re ALT but done.— Rod talk 10:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Are there any inline citations for the second paragraph of this subsection?
Citation added.— Rod talk 10:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
This subsection is otherwise well-written and I have no further comments or questions for this subsection.
Museum

Geograph 3146582 Westonzoyland - Marshall Boiler.jpg needs an alt caption describing the photograph. It is licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 so it is acceptable for use here.
As above re ALT but added.— Rod talk 10:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there an inline citation for the second paragraph of this section?
Citations added.— Rod talk 10:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Westonzoyland Pumping Station Museum 28.JPG needs an alt caption describing the photograph. It is licensed CC BY-SA 4.0 so it is suitable for use here.
As above re ALT but added.— Rod talk 10:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
Overall

Rodw, while you may be lacking in the department of affability, you certainly make up for it in your tremendous and tireless efforts to beautifully illustrate the historic landmarks of England. Your articles are always thorough and comprehensive and I've been a big fan of your work for many years now. For these reasons, I look forward to reading and reviewing your future endeavors. England is lucky to have you writing its history, and sharing it for all to discover here on Wikipedia. Congratulations on another job well done! -- West Virginian  (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)