Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National parks of England and Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] National parks of England and Wales

This was the UK collaboration of the week last week, and has been on Peer review for a few days with generally very positive responses and a few comments that have been dealt with. Largely a self-nomination, although User:Naturenet and others also contributed large chunks, and some parts (list and map) were there already. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support. As disclosure, I was one who made remarks on Peer review. Filiocht 14:58, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
• (Not a vote yet) Question 1: Wouldn't it make sense to merge this article with the articles National Parks of Scotland, National Parks of the United Kingdom (and also National parks of Northern Ireland, although there aren't any parks there)? It seems like these would make a nice combination in NPs of the UK, but I may be mistaken. Question 2: How can broken class cause fire? ("Broken glass is a danger to people and a possible cause of fire") Jeronimo 20:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Good idea, but the article is already pretty long, and the division of National Parks into (England and Wales), (Scotland), and (N Ireland) is not accidental: each of those three areas has different legislation and different history to their parks, not to mention different parks. I believe there are significant differences between these three and I wouldn't support a merge. There is no need for a full UK page - it can just be a pointer to the others. The answer to your glass query can be found here: [1]. Naturenet 22:03, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • AFAIK the glass can magnify the sun's rays (and consequently heat) onto dry tinder-like ground and cause fire. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 22:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Indeed - I have added a note to that effect. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:53, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • National parks of the United Kingdom is a summary article, a kind of hub which subsumes and links to National parks of England and Wales, National parks of Scotland, and National parks of Northern Ireland in a very orderly and highly organized manner, according to the principle recommended on Wikipedia:Article size. If these articles were all merged together into one, it would be a very long one. They are surely all set to grow further from inside, too. National parks of England and Wales is about 20 kb now, a very nice size and with no more than an appropriate margin for internal growth before it starts to knock up against the 32 kb limit. Jeronimo, if you think these broken-up UK national parks articles, which seem to me exemplary of their kind, need to be merged, perhaps you'd be interested in contributing to the current article length discussion on the Talk page? In that discussion, the user who has objected to John Vanbrugh (listed some ways below) as being "way too long" is highly recommending that this very same summary + links method should be used to break that up, and (I think, not quite sure), to break up any and all pages over 32 kb, according to Wikipedia policy. I didn't know that opinions on what constitutes acceptable page size or Wikipedia policy on page size varied this much, and my head is starting to hurt at the idea of the possible wanton violence in store for well-functioning pages, if they are all to be either broken up or merged. (Btw I should declare a personal interest, as one of the authors of John Vanbrugh).--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 00:14, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. The answers to my questions were clear, thanks. Jeronimo 19:36, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Joe D (t) 22:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article on a somewhat unusual topic. Ambi 05:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• "Support, great article, but I have one point. The photos are excellent, as well as high resolution, do the thumbnails have to be so small? Would it be a major problem for dial-up users if they were bigger (personally, I'd like to see them much bigger)? They, and the whole layout, would look a lot better. They're really beautiful photos. --[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 00:14, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC). Sorry, I'm pretty new to this page, I didn't realize it was better to first voice concerns and then (maybe) vote Support. To get a reply, I'm changing my vote to "Object because of the smallness of the 2nd+3rd thumbnail, a postage-stamp Scafell Pike isn't the compelling landscape it should be. The page isn't profusely illustrated anyway. Would bigger thumbs make it slow to load?"--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 00:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Like that is it? :) I've enlarged a little them - sufficient? I don't want them too large, otherwise they cease to illustrate the text and start to dominate it - on one PC that I use, they are already getting on for half of the text column width. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, big enough, already. Lovely though thi images are they crowd out my screen as it is. I trust that's now acceptable as any bigger may cause me to object! Naturenet 13:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Solid, Hadrian's wall doesn't look like a length of electric cord lying in the grass any more! Support: great article, interesting, very well written, beautifully illustrated.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 18:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support - very nice article. -- Arwel 19:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support ZayZayEM 08:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support Jayjg 21:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support ✏ Sverdrup 22:54, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support James F. (talk) 13:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)