Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ordnance Survey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ordnance Survey

Partial self-nom, archive from previous submission, comments actioned. --PopUpPirate 23:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC) No mention of William Mudge. how can this be ? Object with sadness.  :-( I think this is, overall, a good article, and about a great subject. I actually think it's pretty close. But there are a few points I think need fixing:

• Sorry to say this, but I think you're going to have an issue with the map images. Doing an article on the OS without them is going to be a pain, of course, but the licence looks to me like a "non-commercial" licence as per Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ. A pic of a trig point would be good though...

Just found the discussion you've already had on this. If Fair Use applies, and I guess it does, then I think you're OK. — Johantheghost 19:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

One solution for this -- & would add to the value of the article immensely -- would be to include parts of older OS survey maps. I believe these maps are all Crown copyright (well, the two I own are), so that those more than 50 years old would be PD. A portion of one of the surveyors' sketches (which are available at some UK public libraries on microfiche/microfilm), & a portion of a pre-1950s map would help illustrate the historical value of these documents, a feature that the British historian W.G. Hoskins often emphasizes in his writings. -- llywrch 17:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• "Following a fire at its headquarters at the Tower of London in 1841 ... he saw how photography could be used ..." — needs more fleshing out, it looks like he started using photography in 1841 — isn't that a bit early? Or is it? Also some info on how he actually used photography would be good.

• "Mapping Britain" section jumps up to 1969, then we jump back to WW1. Same in the next section, where we have WWII, then 1920. Maybe re-org a little?

• "Some of the remaining buildings ... are now used as part of the court complex." What court? (Clarify.)

• The multi-layered "See also" is cool, but on reflection, I think this is not the best way to do this — I think using categories would be better, at least for some of this. If I want a list of mapping agencies, for example, it's not logical to look under OS (or to ask all editors who write about mapping agencies to add their one to the OS article). Ditto with the world's many grid systems.

• The References aren't linked from the text — should these be called "Further reading"? OTOH, I think you need references which are linked from the text.

• No, anything that is consulted to write the article should be listed as a reference as has been done here.--nixie 03:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• In the reference ' "Official Homepage". Official Homepage ', I think the title needs fixing.  :-)

• Probably "Mapping Britain" and "20th Century" should be sub-sections of a section called "History"...? Likewise, it looks like "UK Map Range" and "OS MasterMap" should be sub-sections of a section called "Products", or something like.

• My overall impression is that the article is just a little "light". I don't think an article has to cover every aspect of a subject to be FA-worthy, but maybe this one could use just a little more meat? Kind of hard to put my finger on it, but eg. covering the mapping techniques used throughout the history, and today, in a little more depth would be good. I guess I would see "Cartography" being more than just a summary of the "National Grid" page, but also covering actual mapping.

Sorry I couldn't actually fix some of the above points, rather than just whinging about them. Cheers... Johantheghost 19:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, I still notice a number of things that I brought up during the previous nomiation that haven't been addressed.--nixie 03:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Poorly written. Let's take apart a few statements at the top.

'Ramsden theodolite'—This appears unexplained in a prominent part of the text, but very few readers will have a clue what it is, and will have to hit the link. The linked article needs work (by the end of the first paragraph of that article, you finally understand that it's an instrument for dividing angular scales with great precision, and that it was a significant step in map-making).

Reverse the order of the opening info—'national mapping agency ...' is more obvious than 'executive agency'. Can you use a consistent term for the country? Since you can't use 'the UK' historically, why not keep to just 'Britain' and 'British'.

Link the 's in 'Great Britain' to avoid blue/black conflict.

'In addition to producing a wide range of maps of Great Britain, the organisation is also working in over sixty countries worldwide.' Like 'also', 'in addition' should be reserved for where it's really needed. Almost every sentence is 'in addition' to what you've just said. 'is working' is just too vivid for something that has been occurring for quite a while. 'The organisation produces maps of Great Britain, and performs a valuable role in .... in more than (not 'over') 60 countries.' Maybe this needs to be split into two sentences.

'one-third'—why not 'a third'; keep it as plain and simple as possible.

And further down, at random:

'In 1920 O. G. S. Crawford was appointed Archaeology Officer and played a prominent role in developing the use of aerial photography to deepen understanding of archaeology.' The reader is hit with this fascinating idea without preparation or further explanation. No link; nothing about whether this was a first. Who got the brainwave of making this appointment—the Minister? How does it work? Perhaps a couple of sentences might do it; the paragraph is rather short, in any case. // 'OGS Crawford' might look better on the page, and consider delinking the useless simple-year '1920' so that it doesn't jostle with the man's name. Why link simple years at all? No one will hit those links. // Just a few more commas would improve the readability.

Tony 02:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)