Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Doom Bar/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by

Doom Bar

Doom Bar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Doom Bar/archive1

Nominator(s): Worm^TT(talk) 20:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is interesting, well written and meets all the Featured article criteria. The Doom Bar is a bank of sand in Cornwall, responsible for many shipwrecks due to the difficulty of navigating it. There aren't a lot of harbours on the north coast of Cornwall, a lot of ships tried to get past to the nearby harbour of Padstow during poor weather. I've been playing round with this article for 4 years, and I've always been a little apprehensive about nominating it here, primarily because I'm so unfamiliar with the process. Go easy on me, please! Worm^TT(talk) 20:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments.

• "has also given its name to the flagship bitter beer from Sharp's Brewery": "bitter beer" isn't a natural phrase, though I understand that "bitter", even linked, is going to baffle most non-British readers. How about "flagship ale" instead?

  Done. I'm still linking through to bitter (beer) though, as I'd have though the pale ale article deals more with international ales Worm^TT(talk) 13:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  OK; I agree on the link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest cropping the infobox picture -- there's more grass and sky than is needed. It's fine width-wise.

  Now looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure about this, because of the changes in size and position over the years, but is it possible to give any dimensions? Approximate length of the visible spit, for example? It wasn't until I clicked through on the low tide picture and realized that the tiny dots were people that I understood the size of the bar.

  I've managed to use maps to estimate the size, though noting the fact that it is dynamic. I'm still looking at possibilities of a map, but that should at least help. Worm^TT(talk) 15:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The only warship reported wrecked on the Doom Bar was HMS Whiting. She was a 12-gun schooner, originally Arrow, a cargo ship which travelled from the United States to France, until she was captured by the Royal Navy on 8 May 1812 and renamed." How about: "The only warship reported wrecked on the Doom Bar was HMS Whiting, a 12-gun schooner. The Whiting was originally a cargo ship named Arrow which travelled from the United States to France; she was captured by the Royal Navy on 8 May 1812 and renamed." Done
• "owing to the sheer number of ships that have been wrecked there": I'm not sure "sheer" does what you want it to here. How about something more direct, such as "large" or "great"; or even "because so many ships had been wrecked there"? Done
• For a couple of the pictures perhaps you could identify the point from which the photo was taken? I'm particularly thinking of the low tide picture, which if I understand the local topography was taken from around Stepper Point. Also, you mention Daymer Bay in a caption but not elsewhere -- would a more detailed area map be useful? I poked around on Google Maps and was eventually able to figure out what corresponded to what, but it took me five or ten minutes, so I do think more detail would help. The infobox map doesn't go down to fine enough detail to really locate the bar. Perhaps a map showing Padstow near the bottom, and Polzeath and the cape north of it at the top, with Daymer Bay, Stepper Point, and the bar, all marked? Or else add Daymer Bay to the 1825/2010 map?

  I quite like the idea of a good map, and will have a look at ways to do this. Worm^TT(talk) 12:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Combined with the capstans, the bollards and the mooring rings, the Doom Bar posed much less of a risk." Needs to be rephrased; the Doom Bar wasn't combined with the capstans.

  Done, but would appreciate it if you could have another look Worm^TT(talk) 13:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I tweaked it a little. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "and to reduce the number of ships wrecked". Probably better to say that the dredging was intended to reduce the risk, not the number. Done
• I'm guessing here, but is it the case that the intention of the dredging was to create the neat straight channel that appears in the 2010 map? That might be implied by the comments about two channels appearing by the 1930s, and the original channel disappearing. If so, can we say that?

  From my reading, the primary intention of the dredging was for collection of sand and to this day the sand is removed for fertilizer. I believe that it was also manipulated for the secondary purpose of created the new channel, but I haven't found any sources which confirm it. I'd appreciate any thoughts as to how it could be reworded without becoming original research. Worm^TT(talk) 12:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see how to avoid OR here, so I'll strike my comment. It's a pity because I think it's likely it was intentional. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "In other versions of the tale, the mermaid would sing upon the rocks and a youth shot at her with a crossbow, or a greedy man shot her with a longbow." I think the tenses need to be consistent here: you have "would sing", but the unconditional "shot". "Sings", and "shoots" would work. Done
• "Illustration of Tristam Bird when he first met the Mermaid of Padstow": no real need to say it's an illustration; plus I think it would be good to reference Tregarthen in the caption. How about "Tristam Bird and the Mermaid of Padstow, from Enys Tregarthen's North Cornwall Fairies and Legends"? Done
• Is the poem The Coastguard really notable enough to include?
• I think there's a little too much about the beer -- it's certainly worth mentioning, but details such as the countries it's exported to, and the years it was a finalist for an award it didn't win, are probably more than is needed. The reader can follow the links to find out those details if they're interested.

  Done have dropped those two points.

  I removed one more sentence; hope that's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Any particular reason for citing the soil quality on Bodmin Moor as a note rather than a direct citation? It doesn't seem relevant enough to the article to use that format; one of the values of the separate note system is that the reader knows that lettered notes are likely to have interesting text, whereas the numbered notes are simply sources. In this case there's nothing relevant to the article topic in the note.

  Done Most of the dredged sand was used locally, and one thing I'd been trying to pinpoint is where. However, I've never found a source that I was particularly happy with to confirm, and the note was the solution that I'd come up with over time (other solutions were too close to OR or synthesis). I think the real answer is to remove it all together Worm^TT(talk) 11:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck; I agree it would be nice to know where the sand was used, if you ever come across that information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd drop the external link to the beer -- that link belongs on the Sharp's Brewery page. Done
• I was surprised to see no separate list of referenced sources. I don't think this is a formal requirement of criterion 1c, but it's certainly a useful feature for the reader.

  This is something I've been struggling with a lot, the sources are varied and so rarely used more than once, Diannaa recommended this format for them. I'm happy to go with whatever's best though. Worm^TT(talk) 13:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it's not a requirement, so I won't be opposing on that basis, but I find it useful, as a reader. I tend to include books and journals in the reference list, but not webpages, newspapers or magazines. Not a FAC issue, anyway, so I've struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you so much for the suggestions. I'll go through them as soon as I can. Worm^TT(talk) 12:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I struck a couple more, and have switched to support. Nice job on this article; lots of detail on a subject that can't have been easy to research. The three remaining points are really just suggestions, so I'm happy to support; however, I do think it would be good, at a minimum, to label Daymer Bay on the 1825/2010 map, if you don't come up with another local map you like. I can probably add that label for you if you don't have the tools to do it. There's an editor with access to a maps database who does very good quality maps on request; I'll try and remember his name -- he might be willing to do a local map. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a little slow on images, so if there's someone who's good at it, I'm sure I'd appreciate the help. I think a map would be a really good idea, as it would be able to show the scale as well as key areas mentioned in the article. I will certainly get one on there, sooner or later. Thanks so much for the comments, I really do appreciate them. Worm^TT(talk) 12:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J3Mrs

• Comment Interesting article about somewhere I know well. I learned a lot but is it necessary to use the words Doom Bar so frequently? I think we know it's about the Doom Bar and four times in one four-line paragraph is way too many. I counted more than 30, some of which are essential but it makes the prose repetitive and prevents it flowing.J3Mrs (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it that much? I'll see if I can trim. Worm^TT(talk) 12:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I've removed about a dozen. As you say, a fair few are essential - do you think more should be removed to help flow? Worm^TT(talk) 13:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Having looked more closely I think it needs a good copyedit. Just a couple of examples that grate from the lead.
• ...and the gusting winds over the surrounding cliffs. and the winds gusting over the cliffs (The Doom Bar isn't surrounded)
• There have been numerous shipwrecks there through the centuries. Awkward There.....there
• There are records of the sand in the bar Records show that sand from the bar....?

  I've fixed all three mentioned above and would be happy to tweak further if you have any suggestions. The article's been copyeditted by a number of editors, it's certainly beyond my personal ability, but if you know of someone who might be able to help out I'd be happy to ask them. Worm^TT(talk) 11:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of copyediting the lead, please undo anything you disagree with. If it's ok I could do a bit more. I now want to clarify whether "and many more ships have risked being wrecked on the coast rather than negotiate the entrance to the harbor" should be "negotiate the channel leading to the harbor".J3Mrs (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another query, you say in the lead it was formed in the 16th century ansd subsequently "It is unclear exactly when the bar formed, but the nearby port of Padstow was prosperous in Saxon times." So which is it and is Saxon Padstow relevant? J3Mrs (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do, I appreciate it. My qualifications are in mathematics... it's surprising I can string a sentence together, let alone an article! You are right, it should be the channel they are negotiating, not the entrance. The only source I have for it being formed in the 16th century is Dickens (and as Smalljim says below, he's not known to be a historian) - The Saxon Padstow comment was to show that it hasn't been there for a significant period in "geological" terms, but it's certainly been there for a few hundred years. It's quite possibly redundant and I'd have no problems with it being taken out. Worm^TT(talk) 13:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a useful reference here and yes I think you should ditch the Saxon]] J3Mrs (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've ditched the Saxon, and clarified the distance to Padstow. I've also fiddled a little bit more, to show that it was formed in one go (thanks for that source, I hadn't found anything that mentioned it like that) Worm^TT(talk) 11:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks (and sounds) very odd without the definite article in front of Doom Bar, feel free to disagree. J3Mrs (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm happy to put it back, as I've always called it "the Doom Bar" myself. However, looking at the sources, only one refers to it with the definite article, the rest don't include it. I suppose it's like any other named geographical feature, you don't say "the Hawkers Cove", "the Stepper Point" or "the Land's End". Worm^TT(talk) 11:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Goodwin Sands, Motherbank, Nore and Varne Bank all use the definite article, others such as Dogger Bank don't. It seems to me that what sounds right is best but I'm no expert. I have walked to Stepper Point and I have walked to the Doom Bar. You would say the Camel Estuary though. J3Mrs (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I've put it back. It didn't sound natural to me either and having looked further there are more sources which use "the Dunbar", and my offline sources include a definite article in some cases. Thanks for prodding me on that! Worm^TT(talk) 12:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Ιων

OpposeI disagree with making this article a featured article because it is smaller than I think it must be.--Ιων (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's response - This is not a valid rationale for opposing, and it will not be taken into consideration.

talk) 21:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• In your nomination above you said "There aren't a lot of harbours on the north coast of Cornwall, a lot of ships tried to get past to the nearby harbour of Padstow during poor weather." This is an essential piece of background information explaining why the bar is so significant, yet it's not clearly stated in the article. A clear statement that Padstow is a couple of miles up the estuary is needed too (you mention "nearby" a couple of times).

  I'm working on getting a map of the area which will include a scale and should provide a bit more context, but will make sure I add this information into the text. Worm^TT(talk) 13:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure if it was a conscious decision, but you use sand bar and sand bank, whereas shoal has these as single words. Also, the lead uses sand bank four times, but the first sentence of the first section says sand bar. Although they're synonyms, I think these uses, at least, should be the same.

  I've used sandbar in the lead for sandbank, which should give this consistency. Worm^TT(talk) 11:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead, 1st para: "it represented a significant hazard" - "it was a..." is shorter and just as good. Fixed by J3Mrs's edit.  —SMALLJIM  23:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Lead, 2nd para: "Modern dredging" - it's not clear whether this means recent dredging or dredging using modern methods. Fixed by J3Mrs's edit.  —SMALLJIM  23:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 1st section, 1st para: "sand from the Celtic Sea" - this is a bit vague, isn't it sand transported by longshore drift?

  I was under the impression that longshore drift was the name for the process of sand moving along a coast, rather into a coast from the sea. My reading suggested that Doom Bar included sand from the Celtic Sea bed. I will double check my sources.Worm^TT(talk) 13:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought that estuary sandbars were created as a result of longshore drift, rather than being dragged up somehow from the seabed, but the processes are certainly complex and I'm not sure how much info is available about this estuary, as opposed to generic detail. I need to look into this further too.  —SMALLJIM  23:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The CISCAG pdf says that although the source of the sand "is not described within the literature", it's likely that most of it comes from "offshore sources" (p.31), so you were (probably) right, though maybe the uncertainty ought to be expressed. Where did the Celtic Sea mention come from - not the Journal of Fluid Mechanics ref?  —SMALLJIM  00:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the journal ref was generic about how sandbars form, though as I've said below I haven't read it in a while. The Celtic Sea reference was from my understanding, it can be removed certainly. I'll have a look at re-writing it to include the new source. Worm^TT(talk) 16:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "the waves from the sea deposit sand" - do they? Aren't the waves on the surface and doesn't sand get deposited underwater when the current carrying it drops? See deposition (geology). Sorry - I withdraw this after properly reading the abstract of ref 1. This is also obviously a complex process, not warranting detailed discussion in this article.  —SMALLJIM  23:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "scattering the sedimentary deposits" - to me "scattering" doesn't give the impression of accumulation.

  I considered "the scattered sedimentary deposits accumulate at the river mouth", but I'm not sure that gives the right impression either. Have you any thoughts to a better word? Worm^TT(talk) 12:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "the sediment held by the river whilst it is flowing along the channel is deposited..." - maybe "the sediment held in suspension by the river flow is deposited..." is a clearer wording. Done
• Is wave shoaling an important factor worthy of a mention? It sounds like the reason for small boats capsizing. (OR alert!)

  You're almost certainly right, but I've seen no sources that mention wave shoaling and would think it best not to include it. Worm^TT(talk) 13:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you're right - please ignore this.  —SMALLJIM  23:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st section, 2nd para: "in the 19th century, analysis showed..." might be more accurate as "a 19th-century analysis showed..." Done
• I think the sentence starting "The high calcium levels..." would be better moved to become the penultimate sentence of the last para of this section, after "...agriculture in Devon and Cornwall" to keep together the two mentions of this use of the sand. Done
• Same sentence: "combined with the natural sea salt" - I thought soil salinity was a bad thing.

  Not exactly. Excessive soil salinity is a bad thing, but sea salt has an alkalizing effect and is useful for fertilizing acidic soil. Worm^TT(talk) 13:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st section, 3rd para: "It is unclear exactly when the bar formed" is rather at odds with "began to form ... during the reign of Henry VIII (1491-1547)". Henry's reign was actually 1509-1547 and that's a pretty narrow timeframe for a geomorphological process - if that Dickens ref is reliable: I'd have doubts about his accuracy as a historian.

  Based on new sources provided, I've removed the "unclear" when formed statement. Worm^TT(talk) 12:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I've fixed this to my satisfaction (hope you agree) by replacing the Dickens ref with the earlier Paris one on which the Dickens is pretty clearly based. Paris includes "according to tradition", which I've added as a nice compromise. I'll add the bit about the buried forest tomorrow.  —SMALLJIM  23:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st section, 4th para: this is 'toponymy', not 'Composition and formation' - worth its own section if it could be expanded a bit? Also, a later source would be preferable to Polwhele: we know that antiquarians' theories weren't always accurate.

  I don't think there's much more that can be said about the toponomy, but I will have a look for further sources and see if I can replace Polwhele. Who knows, I might find some more to be said! Worm^TT(talk) 12:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  As for Polwhele, there's also Borlase (1769) which confirms confirms both "dun" and "bar" along with The handbook of Cornish Language which confirms "bar". Not sure if either would be better than Polwhele Worm^TT(talk) 16:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at it now, the problem I see is that bar is an ordinary word with a Middle English derivation (see wikt:bar, etymology and use 22), and to attempt to give it a Cornish derivation in the absence of a source that specifically does this for its use in the compound word dunbar is too much like OR/synthesis. The same is true for dun, which Paris (1863) p.215, for instance, simply says is derived from dune. So I think we should follow the simpler derivation.  —SMALLJIM  22:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Last sentence: it would be nice to know what's done with the sand nowadays.

  I don't have any firm sources, though I believe it's still used as fertilizer, especially on Bodmin moor. Worm^TT(talk) 13:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  In what sense is sand a fertilizer? Do you mean it's added to give the soil on Bodmin moor some additional body?

  Fatuorum 17:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That's me being imprecise, the sand is an alkalizing agent and when mixed with manure, it makes an excellent fertilizer for Bodmin's acidic soil. The explanation is mentioned in the second paragraph of the composition section. Worm^TT(talk) 17:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Having spent some time labouring over

  Fatuorum 17:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• 4th section, 2nd para: "Betjeman, who lived in the area as a child" - he only holidayed here as a child. May be better as "... who was well-acquainted with the area". Done
• 4th section, last para: "Williamson explained" - something like "declared" might be better. Done
• "storms in the area supposedly sound like..." - is this what the source actually states? - it's usually said that such cries are heard while a storm is raging.

  The exact quote is in a quote box in that section, Enys Tregarthan specifically states it's after the storm, though I agree during would make much more sense. Worm^TT(talk) 12:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, there's this in the same book - "The wind was quiet, but the sea was still breaking and roaring on the back of the Doombar, and as the waves thundered and broke, a wailing cry sounded forth, like the wail that Tristram heard when the Mermaid disappeared under the water; it sounded like the distressful cry of a woman bewailing her dead, and all who heard shivered and shook, and both old and young looked down on the Doombar with dread in their eyes, but they saw nothing but the dead bodies of the sailors and their broken ships." - Again, no wind, no storm, just the wail. Worm^TT(talk) 12:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these are helpful - if you don't reject most of them, I've got some more for the other paras. Best,  —SMALLJIM  22:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A new source? Not sure if you've seen this pdf from the Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly Coastal Advisory Group. On p. 36 there's a particularly interesting suggestion that the main channel moved to the east side of the estuary in 1929. There's also more detail about dredging on p. 39, and also a note that the flow of the R. Camel is very low and most of the small amount of sediment that it contributes is dropped higher up the estuary (p. 40). Other possibly relevant documents from CISCAG are listed here. HTH.  —SMALLJIM  23:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Helps? Helps? It's fantastic, thank you so much. I'll see what I can do for the rest of the article and get as much reading done as possible. Worm^TT(talk) 13:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that CISCAG pdf document again today, and remain convinced that its incorporation as a source would greatly benefit the article - particularly in correcting the generic detail presently in the 1st section about the means of sedimentation (refs 1 & 2) - it seems that there's very little suspended sediment and

bedload is the most important process (p. 41 of the pdf); also regarding the source of the sand (see new comment above). Thanks for dealing with the other bullet points on the 1st & 4th sections - more soon...  —SMALLJIM  00:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The Doom Bar is a sandbar across the mouth of the Camel estuary on the north coast of Cornwall... The bar is mostly comprised of coarse sediment that is carried up from the seabed by bed load processes, and it has been shown that there is a net inflow of sediment into the estuary.<CISCAG 41-2> This inflow is known to be aided by wave and tidal processes, but the exact patterns of sediment transport within the estuary are complex and have not been fully elucidated.<CISCAG 41-2> ... There is only a very small sediment contribution from the River Camel itself: most of it is deposited much higher up the estuary.<CISCAG 40>

...

The Doom Bar is one of three persistent sandbars in the Camel estuary; the others are the Town Bar, at Padstow and the Halwyn Bank, just upstream of Padstow, where the estuary changes direction.<CISCAG 35> All three bars are of similar composition; a large proportion of their sediment is derived from marine mollusc shells,<CISCAG 39> and as a consequence it includes a high level of calcium carbonate, measured in 1982 at 62%.<Merefield abstract> ... The high calcium carbonate content of the sand has meant that it has been used for hundreds of years to improve agricultural soil by liming. This use is known to date back to 1602,<per lead but needs a ref> and an estimated ten million tons of sediment was removed from the estuary between 1836 and 1989, mostly for agricultural purposes and mostly from the Doom Bar.<CISCAG 39>

I'm still not happy about the use of that Dickens ref<it's on page 453> as the only source for the bar forming in the reign of Henry VIII: my feeling (totally unverified) is that it was then that the main channel may have moved from an easily-navigable easterly one like it is now, to the awkward cliff-hugging one on the west side. The estuary is known to be "dynamic" and I think that's far more likely than the whole thing coming up out of the sea in just a short time, which is what the current wording apparently claims. The wording of Lewis (1848) <current ref 4>: "Previously to the sixteenth century, the harbour was deemed one of the finest on the western coast of England; but from the accumulation of sand, the driving of which was so violent as, in the course of one night, to cover several houses on the coast, it became of less importance." isn't at odds with this interpretation.

In fact (just spotted this) the use of another interesting snippet that should be included - that there is a submerged forest beneath the Doom Bar [2] (see p.3) - favours a long existence for sandbars here since submerged forests don't survive if they're exposed. There are several such forests around the Cornwall coast and others have been dated to the time of the last major rise in sea level:

In the period from approximately 5000 to 2000 BC., Cornwall seems to have been surrounded by a coastal plain offshore from the present line of cliffs, with a shoreline probably in the form of a beach backed by a line of dunes. On this plain grew a luxuriant forest of oak, hazel, birch and alder. As the sea level continued to rise, this forest was submerged beneath the dunes and then covered in a protective layer of beach sand ... The most famous example ... is in Mount's Bay ... [others] are found in the Hayle Estuary, beneath the Doom Bar ..., Porthleven, ...

— Bristow, Cornwall's Geology and Scenery (1999) p.133.

ISBN 1-900147-01-7

Regarding referencing, since you have a number of references to different pages in the same books/pdfs, I think a change to some form of references/sources format would be beneficial - see Help:Shortened footnotes for instance.

A bit long, sorry - hope it (still) helps.  —SMALLJIM  12:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Antoinette: I've just discovered that the large piece of the wreck that was exploded with gelignite by Pope and which reappeared in 2010 lies on the Town Bar, right opposite Padstow. See text and map, pp.11 & 12 here. I don't want to have to say this, but I'm being forced to think that this article isn't as close to FA standard as it first appeared.  —SMALLJIM  17:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need to double check the sources, but I've seen 2 to 3 which state that Antoinette was the largest ship to ever wreck on Doom Bar. It might well be that part of the ship drifted after wrecking and was destroyed at Town Bar - which would make a lot more sense with the blowing in the windows. I'll find out. Worm^TT(talk) 17:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks like the wreck happened on Doom Bar, after ship foundered at Lundy. The ship broke up and the largest portion ended up on Town Bar. French (pg 176) "Broke Tow in gale off Pentire and beached on Doom Bar ... Wreck split up; large bit travelled to Town bar. Blown up by a miner Pope. Blew out windows in Padstow houses" It's also got a clipping from the Royal Cornwall Gazette on 2 Jan 1895, which explains that Antoinette was sighted without a mast offshore from Padstow. A steam tug Princess May took them in tow, but as they entered the harbour a severe NW squall struck and the tow rope had to be released. The barque then struck the Doom Bar and became a total wreck. One crewmember suffered a broken leg. There's another clipping from 12 Sept 1895 describing the costly efforts made to blow up the large piece of wreck on the Town Bar. I'll update the article to reflect this in the morning. Worm^TT(talk) 21:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dave. I'm sorry that I was a bit tetchy there, but after spending several hours on the first set of comments today, I was disappointed to find such a glaring error as soon as I started looking at this new section. I suppose it puts the real value of all these reviews (GA, peer, pre-FA) into perspective: reviewers seem to be happy to suggest improvements to the grammar, punctuation, referencing, etc., but evidently assume that there are no major errors of fact. :(  —SMALLJIM  22:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite alright, you've done a fantastic job helping out here and I'll just be pleased that the article is in a much better position, even if it's not successful. I've not been able to dedicate as much time as I'd have liked to either, since every time I sit down to look at it something else comes up, it's absolutely infuriating. If it's not successful, I'll be leaving it until the end of my term as an arbitrator, I've got no chance of doing the two in conjunction. Worm^TT(talk) 22:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're understandably busy, Dave, I've corrected the fate of the Antoinette. Would you mind if I made further edits to implement some of my other comments?  —SMALLJIM  11:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mind? My god no! For one thing, you've got a lot more understanding of the geographical parts, which every time I try and get my head around something comes in from left field. Please do anything you feel would improve the article, I'd really appreciate it. Worm^TT(talk) 11:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK will do. It was right to ask, though, I think. As an admitted novice FAC reviewer, the whole process strongly suggests to me that it's a breach of etiquette to start substantively editing someone else's FAC article without asking, or being asked. I don't think I've seen that actually written down, but that is the case, isn't it - anyone?  —SMALLJIM  15:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A BOLD reorganisation

I see that after I added a lot of content about Stepper Point etc. to the "Partial removal" section, that header was no longer very accurate. Sorry! I've made a few bold changes: I've renamed that section to "Danger to shipping" and moved it above "Shipwrecks". With some jiggling, I think that's given a better flow to the article, and enabled the removal of some redundancy - particularly the eddying winds, which were discussed in three separate places. I've rewritten the lead too to match the revised text. Please revert if you think this is a step too far.  —SMALLJIM  17:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedits, J3Mrs and Malleus. I'll take them as tacit approval of these changes.  —SMALLJIM  10:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly looks good to me! Worm^TT(talk) 07:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J Milburn

Great to see you finally bringing something FACwards; looks like a really interesting topic. I'll take a look through now.

• I realise that this is perhaps a difficult question, but my immediate question about the formation is how long it is. Is this a question that can be coherently asked?
• "In 1879, four of his grand-daughters along with their friend, were rowing on the Doom Bar and saw a craft go down." Commas aren't right here.Done
• "In May 2010, ProMare and the Nautical Archaeology Society, with the help of Padstow Primary School, mounted a search to find the ship." What's ProMare? And did they manage to find it? Done
• "The largest ship wrecked on the Doom Bar is believed to be the 1874 barque, Antoinette." Either lose the comma, or rephrase to "Antoinette, an 1874 barque". Done
• "Without the removal of the sand, such ships could only use the harbour in emergencies at high tide." Ambiguous. Does this mean that during high tide, the harbour could be used only in emergencies, or does it mean that the harbour could only be used at all when it is a high tide and there is an emergency?

  I've clarified - "Without the removal of the sand, ships in distress could only use the harbour at high tide." Worm^TT(talk) 11:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There's some ambiguity on how you used initials; "Commander H E Turner" vs. "J.R. Merefield", for instance. I'm also not keen on "Sir Henry".

  I was always taught that a knighthood modified a first name, whilst a lordship modified the surname. No matter though, I've updated the name to "De la Beche". Worm^TT(talk) 20:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ballad of Pentyre Town" and "The Doom-Bar" - Are these poems? If so, "Speech Marks". Italics are reserved for longer works. Done(Also, perhaps quote the relevant section of the poems/a poem in a quotebox? That would perhaps add something to the article.)
• "Arthur Hansen Bush" Worth a redlink? The play itself sounds notable, too.

  I've redlink'd Bush, as I had when I first wrote that section. The play though, I've never found anything that it's notable except these stories of a curse. Worm^TT(talk) 20:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "America's actors' union" Do we have a link to this organisation?

  The source says unions plural (fixed). I'm guessing one is Equity, but I don't know for sure. Worm^TT(talk) 21:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You currently have a cite error. Done

Hope these thoughts are helpful! I'll take another look through the article once you've seen this initial review. J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot the comments J Milburn. The question of size is something I'm currently working on, I should be able to get a decent map up by the weekend for scale. I've not seen sources which actually measure it though. I'll hopefully address these issues within the next day or so. Worm^TT(talk) 09:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now given an approximate size Worm^TT(talk) 15:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Be consistent in how editors are notated

  I found one where I'd put (editor) and have removed it. I believe they're consistent now. Worm^TT(talk) 19:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books

  Currently, I've included a location when there is no ISBN, as it's more useful in locating the source. I can go through the ones with ISBNs and add locations too if that's a good idea? Worm^TT(talk) 19:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks links

  removed Worm^TT(talk) 19:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FN13: does this cite the first sentence of that paragraph too? If so, that might include a page number

  I'm not sure how best to do that. I've sourced the entire book as pages 135-185 contain a table of all 600 or so boats. The introduction, at page 13, does indeed cite the first sentence too. Worm^TT(talk) 19:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Compare FNs 11 and 17

  Added a location and removed access date. Worm^TT(talk) 19:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Watch for doubled periods caused by template glitches.Done Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HJ Mitchell

Hi Dave, glad to see this finally made its way here! You've got some good comments on content so far, so I won't do a detailed review right now, but I have a concern about verifiability. I see your point about Harvard-derived referencing systems not being suitable in this case, but you lack page numbers for many of the footnotes, which makes them difficult to check. For example, FN1 cites a 33-page journal article; I have no idea where in the source I can find the fact from the article. The same problem exists in several other footnotes, like 2, 4, 7, 13, and that's just the first column. Most of these are only cited once, so the format like FN14 should work. (This version, to avoid any confusion). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Harry, and Nikki above. I'll be trying to get it sorted as soon as possible. As you know things are fairly hectic on Arbcom at the moment which is really slowing me down. Worm^TT(talk) 20:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry, I've been looking for ways to sort this, but I'm struggling. My other half graduated last year, so I no longer have access to her university library. That means that I'm struggling with exact pages for the bits of information. I also have the issue I mentioned to Nikkimaria above, the Brian French book has about 50 pages which are all relevant, so I'm not absolutely certain how to reference them. I'd appreciate any thoughts. Worm^TT(talk) 11:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate. The only thing I can suggest for the books you don't have access to is your local library (who might be able to get them via inter-library lone) or Amazon and eBay (WMUK might extend the microgrant if you ask nicely). As for the issue of page numbers, cite the page(s) on which the information can be found, or the most appropriate page(s) if there's a large chunk of pages on the same topic. I have a train to catch, but Nikki might have more advice, or I'll check back later in the week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to all the books still, it's the journals I don't have access to. I'll do what I can. Worm^TT(talk) 08:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well that in some ways is easier. You just need to ping someone with access to the relevant journals. Perhaps try Andrew Gray at the British Library. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned above that the CISCAG document indicates that the two journal articles (Mei et al.) about sandbar formation probably don't accurately describe the situation in the Camel estuary: could they not simply be omitted? The details you included from the third one (Merefield) is covered in its abstract.  —SMALLJIM  20:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the CISCAG document could well replace the generic journals that was my plan to sort out the problems. I thought I wrote that, but obviously deleted it because I needed to look further. If you've got any suggestions about how the formation paragraph might be re-written, I'd be very interested. Worm^TT(talk) 12:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I'll reply in my section above.  —SMALLJIM  21:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I've a copy of the lithograph in the Brian French book, which states it is a "19th century print of Padstow showing Stepper Point before the bluff was quarried away". It was part Padstow Harbour Association's report for funding in 1827, so that would put it squarely in the PD-old range. It hadn't occurred to me to update the license on commons, I'll do that now. Worm^TT(talk) 18:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check

• FN 3. OK.
• FN 4. OK.
• FN 5. and 6. The source does not actually seem to say that the bar formed in one night. It says some houses were covered over one night, but obviously that happened on land. (It also says Padstow lies "embosomed in a richly-cultivated vale", which struck me as a splendid turn of phrase!) Dickens says the harbour began to silt up in the reign of Henry VIII but not that it all happened overnight.

  You're right, of course. I was just pleased with actually seeing a source which tied it down and went overboard. I've updated, let me know if you have any issues. Worm^TT(talk) 18:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: The way I'd handle it would be something like: "The port of
    talk) 19:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I've gone for the first one. Thanks for the suggestion, and the support. Worm^TT(talk) 20:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 9. OK.
• FN 12. OK.
• FN 17. OK.
• FN 18. OK.
• FN 21. OK.
• FN 24. I recommend removing the clause "the most recent deaths were", since there may be others we don't know about or more in the future that we miss. "In February 1997, two fishermen.." is sufficient. Done
• FN 25. OK.
• FN 26. OK.
• FN 47. Rather than "banned", which implies government action, "its members were banned from appearing in it" seems more in line with the source. Done
  talk) 21:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: "In February 1997, when two fishermen who were not wearing lifejackets drowned after their boat capsized." 'When' should be removed. Btw, the last paragraph of the "Partial removal" section has a typo in the first line ("The quarrying, in conjunction with with the capstans...") Till 13:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Both sorted, thanks Till. Worm^TT(talk) 13:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  You're welcome, overall a very well-written and interesting article, leaving my support. Till 13:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  talk) 09:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]