Talk:Monks Brook

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hampshire Low‑importance

	Hampshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HampshireWikipedia:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Monks Brook was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 8, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed

GA Review

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Monks Brook/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting GA review.Pyrotec (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Preliminary review

This is an readable and well illustrated article; but it is not yet a GA-class article (see River Parrett and River Irwell, which are UK GA-class river articles, as examples of what is achievable). The article is a good B-class, but in order to be rated as GA-class it must comply with Wikipedia:Good article criteria. I have provided a summary of some of the problems and my recommendations below.

You may be able to correct and improve the article sufficiently in the next week, or so, so I will put the article On Hold for now.

Problems:

In first part of the article, before the Contents box is known as WP:lead. It is supposed introduce the article and to provide a summary of the important points. These "facts" seem to appear in the Lead and nowhere else:

" ...River Itchen, which it joins at a medieval salmon pool in Swaythling. The brook is formed from seven streams that rise in the chalky South Downs, with the official source of Monks Brook being known as Bucket's Corner. Monks Brook drains a clay catchment of 49 square kilometres. The brook is designated a main river, which means the operating authority for managing it is the Environment Agency, not the local government authorities for the areas through which the river runs. In 2007, a 250 metre stretch of a tributary to the brook that had been culverted in the 1970s to make way for a golf course was uncovered as part of a £2.5 million community regeneration project."

These "facts" should be copied from the Lead into the main body of the article, and expanded.

It is stated that the brook is a river, but this cannot be verified as ref 5 is broken; and verification appears to be taken from Southampton City Council, not from the Environment Agency, which this article states, made the designation.
The descriptions of this river are inconsistent as the terms, river, brook and stream appear to be used interchangeably.
The Infobox should be expanded to cover some of the summaries provide in the River Parrett and River Irwell Infoboxes. For instance the length of the river is unknown (the article does not give it); and there is no informative given on elevation or geographical coordinates.
In-line citations are needed to provide verification of claims, as per WP:Verify, yet:

Ref 2 has a broken link.
Ref 5 has a broken link.
Ref 6, 7 & 8 are a bit light, they are almost WP:Spam. Ref 9 is slightly more informative.
Ref 10 has a broken link.
References 1 and 11 appear to be the same reference.

The claim that "Monks Brook was a feature of the gardens of South Stoneham House, landscaped by Capability Brown" is unverifiable as no citation has been provided.
There is no discussion of where the name "Monks Brook" came from, it may indicate that it was owned by a monastery, or passed through monastic lands. This should be clarified.
Apart from the Lead there is no discussion of the geology of the area that the river drains.
I assume that the the river passes through mostly built up-land, the article makes no mention of this, but the phrase "green corridor" is use several times as is the phrase "community regeneration project". This should be clarified, and if so some discussion of the change of use of the land over time be provided.
Some of the references used are quite light weight, e.g. newspapers and advertiser web sites. With a name of "Monks brook" this river may have provided long-standing legal functions such as land boundaries. This should be investigated, and where appropriate added to the article.

Pyrotec (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Pyrotec, very useful comments. waggers (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Has the potential to make GA, but needs someone to make the effort.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
WP:lead needs attention - see comments above.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Broken links

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Broken links

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

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm regretfully failing this article for lack of (any) progress. It has the potential to make GA.Pyrotec (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Monks Brook. 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/20110516142232/http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc-3588 to http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc-3588

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified (February 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Monks Brook. 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:

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) 16:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Unreliable sources

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

@DarklitShadow: has tagged the page as having unreliable sources, however they hasn't made clear which sources they are referring to. A cursory glance doesn't show any immediately obvious candidates. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Fifteen and Sixteen.

DarklitShadow (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Those are dead links rather than unreliable and are tagged as such Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've now "rescued" those by replacing them with live links to the same newspaper articles. Waggers TALK 13:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic