Talk:Marsden Rock

Marsden Rock has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 16, 2022. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Marsden Rock appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 February 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the naturally formed arch of Marsden Rock (pictured) collapsed in 1996 following a winter of storms?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marsden Rock.

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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

North East England Low‑importance

	North East England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England 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.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Marsden Rock is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Firstly, you have done a great job of tidying up and expanding this article, which is very nearly ready for GA. I therefore have only a few minor comments to make. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"is a rock formation" -> "is a rock". Formation is a process; the term is used by geologists for subdivisions of the Permian (etc); and popularly to mean pretty much anything rocky, not terribly useful or encyclopedic. Let's avoid it.
- Thank you, I've changed it.

By the same token, "Formation" is an ambiguous heading - I think you mean "Processes" here, i.e. the processes of sedimentation and hardening that created the Magnesian Limestone (which needs to be mentioned and wikilinked in this section) and then the processes of erosion which have shaped the stack and its arches. It would be clearest to have headings "Creation" and "Erosion" under "Geology" to replace the existing subheadings (Formation, Collapses), but note that "Erosion" begins with the second paragraph of the existing "Formation" section, i.e. a small reorganisation.
- Agree this makes more sense - have changed the subheadings and reorganised the paragraphs.

The photos from 1990 and 1991 are a bit too similar, maybe lose the 1991 photo. The "A smaller arch" photo needs a date. We are missing a photo that shows the rock in the context of the nearby tall cliffs - an aerial view, or one from the sea, would be ideal. There are some on Commons, of variable quality.
- I've removed the 1991 image and added a date to the smaller arch image (2006). I've also added an image of Marsden Rock taken within the context of the Bay with a caption explaining how it was once part of the main cliff.
  - The article immediately looks better.

The 'seabirds' in the photo are mainly cormorants.
- Thanks - I wasn't sure! I have added this into the caption.

It might be worth downloading and using Thomas Bewick's wood-engraving "Marsden Rock", published 1804 in his A History of British Birds but drawn by 1798; it forms an interesting comparison with Jackson's later (far more refined) engraving, and it shows that the rock had been portrayed repeatedly. It is online at British Museum object 1860,0811.107 and can be put on Commons with the license {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} as it is long out of copyright. If you like I can do that for you.
- Thanks for finding this image, I'll have a go at uploading and adding to the article.
  - Good luck!
    - I've uploaded and added it to a gallery in the article - I thought that would be the best way to lay out the two images coherently but happy to rearrange if necessary.
      - That works.

The cultural section is great fun. It actually would benefit from at least one postcard - I'd suggest the Neill C. Woods scenic postcard "Marsden Rock (Avast Behind)" which we could include under the fair usage provisions with a non-free usage rationale as long as you include brief discussion of the topic in the text. The hand-coloured postcard on Google Arts & Culture could be an alternative. The postcard "Marsden Rock and Grotto, South Shields" was published in 1911 by Valentine's of Dundee, so presumably we can use {{PD-Art|PD-1923}} as its Commons license. The Aerial View, The Marine Grotto, Marsden Bay is a historic aerial photo so we could include it under fair usage (with NFUR again), it must be 1930s.
- I had a blast (pun intended) writing this section! I'm not too familiar with NFUR images, so I'm going to do the 1911 postcard first. Could I just check why the template is PD-1923? And can you find any evidence for a publication date? The website only lists the date it was posted (1911).
  - Oh, um. Well if it was posted it had certainly been published by 1911. If it was a book that'd be fine but maybe cards are different. Best assume it's in copyright for now. I've uploaded a different image with NFUR, feel free to do as you like with it. I think the article is now easily up to the required standard, good work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for picking this article up for review so quickly and for your help! Much appreciated :) Unexpectedlydian (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Marsden Rock pictured in 1990. The naturally-formed arch collapsed in 1996.

... that the naturally-formed arch of Marsden Rock (pictured) collapsed in 1996 following a winter of storms? Source: Johnson, Doris (2001). The Millennium Remembered. South Tyneside. Great Britain: Petersons Printing Ltd. ISBN 0-906617-35-9. Retrieved 9 January 2022 – via Internet Archive. URL: https://archive.org/details/millenniumrememb0000john/page/76/mode/2up
- Comment: QPQ requirement - only have 1 DYK credit currently.

Improved to Good Article status by Unexpectedlydian (talk). Self-nominated at 13:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Starting review. Zeete (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Zeete, I have noticed that the reference I have used is not accessible to everyone as it is a Google Books preview, also it does not mention a storm. Could I request that the reference for this DYK is changed to ref no.23 in the article (Orr, Robyn. 30 May 2016) and the words “following a storm” are removed from the hook? Do let me know if I should make this request via a different means. Many thanks Unexpectedlydian (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had no problem with the reference listed here. Ref 11 says "Early in 1996, after a winter of harsh storms", not a particular storm. Please update hook as you see fit and/or add alternate hooks, then I will finish the review, Thanks, Zeete (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I have amended the hook to make clear there were multiple storms. Unexpectedlydian (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review: New, promoted to GA, long enough (over 6,500 per DYK check), cited, neutral, Earwig reported Violation Unlikely (22.5%, due to quotation), QPQ not needed (1 previous credit), hook interesting, length checked ok, wording and citation issue, see below, picture looks good.
Article needs to agree with hook wording change and appropriate citations. Thanks, Zeete (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered the article to make it align with the hook and changed the reference. Hope that works. Unexpectedlydian (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the sentence in the lede that says "collapsed in 1996 following a storm", not the one in the body. Thanks, Zeete (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it. I've changed the lede now. Thank you Unexpectedlydian (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hook looks good now.
Good to go. Thanks, Zeete (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting the main hook (ALT0) to Prep 5, with the image. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]