Talk:New Forest
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
New Forest was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.
Date of review: 24 September 2006 |
 |
New Forest is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. |
 |
|
 |
 |
OpenStreetMap is holding a mapping party in this area on 4-5 November 2006 (provisional) to make a creative commons licensed map that may be used in Wikipedia articles.
Everyone is invited, no special skills are required and GPS equipment will be provided. See OpenStreetMap for more details. If you know of Wikipedia articles that need particular photos from this area, leave a message here or on the OpenStreetMap wiki |
I believe that New Forest is the location for these oaks, can anyone verify :
New College, Oxford, England has a dining hall that was built 350 years ago. Its roof is supported by a series of 40-foot long beams made of brown oak which recently were found to be decayed and in need of replacement. The college authorities contacted a contractor who specialized in this type of work and indicated that they wanted the new beams to be similar to the original ones, preserving the architectural integrity of the building. They were told that brown oak of the needed dimensions was not available anywhere in the United Kingdom. Not wanting to take no for an answer, New College contacted the local Oxford forester to see if this were true. "We've been wondering when you'd ask," said the forester. It seems that when the dining hall was built, the architect went to the person who was then the Oxford forester and asked him to plant a stand of brown oaks, because he knew those ceiling beams would need to be replaced in about 300 years.
The trivia section of the New College web page dismisses this story because the 1862 remodelling was preceded by one a century before. The oaks did not come from New Forest. 169.207.90.173 09:56, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
[edit] New Forest National Park
The change just made to the map (adding the Lord Lieutenency area of "" to Hampshire) need explanation for me - why are they necessary? As a local they make no sense. --Webmink 00:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The map shows the area of the 'hampshire' lord lieutenecy; it doesn't show the administrative county (the area covered by Hampshire County Council), which does not cover the unitary authorities of Portsmouth and Southampton. In other words - the area shown is not Hampshire as the term would be used administratively (where it would be described as Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton), and according to Wikipedia: Naming conventions (places), administrative counties should be used; in this instance, they aren't, and so should be qualified by this description. 80.255 12:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-
- OK, got it. I've made the change reflect the way locals would talk about it and hopefully stuck within the conventions you refer to. --Webmink 20:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Sources for Facts
Someone just added "It is also the largest contiguous area of un-sown vegetation in Europe." Does anyone have source for this please? I feel assertions like this need to be supported if they are to be allowed to stand. --Webmink 21:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The source is a BBC documentary, 'A Wild Autumn Day', broadcast on Sunday 6th February on BBC2 South at 17.15 UTC. I can't find any other reference to support the claim, but on the other hand this was the BBC. I have found a reference to it being the largest contiguous area of unsown vegetation in lowland Britain (http://www.chm.org.uk/detail.asp?m=812) so I have changed my addition accordingly. I'm sorry - this is the first time I've edited a Wiki article - what kind of evidence is acceptable for this sort of thing?
-
- Your source is good - you should add a link to it to the article at the bottom under a 'references' heading. I think Webmink was right to question the unsupported fact, and you've also now done the right thing by providing an authoritative reference and amending the wording to ensure that it is consistent with what can be demonstrated. Admittedly this level of rigour isn't always demonstrated on all pages, but it's something to aim for. Well done on your first edit - you've participated very positively and successfully in the Wikipedia process. Keep it up. And why not get a free account? Then we can recognise you and your work. Naturenet 12:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- OK, I've added it to the external links section. Thanks very much for the positive response, I will register and go through the editing tutorial.
-
-
-
-
- Excellent link, thank-you for the addition. --Webmink 18:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] GA nom failure
I am failing this article for the following reasons:
- Missing basic map I'd like to see a map of this whole area within the context of England.
- Paucity of references Could fail for this reason alone. Seven footnotes is far too few for the assertions made in this article.
- Images Plenty, but they seem unrelated to the text of the article other than being taken in the forest. The intro image, for one — where does the article even mention Buckler's Hard on the Beaulieu River (Not to mention it being a poor-quality photo, in need of some attention from the shadow/highlight tool)? I have no idea what it really has to do with the New Forest except that, well, the river runs through it.
Conversely, there should be a picture of Rufus Rock where it's discussed ... there are a bunch over at that article.
- Inconsistent use of systems of measure This is a real sticking point for me personally. All references to areas in metric should be in km², not square kilometers as they are in one or two instances, and English equivalents should be given for every one (at present they are given for only a few).
I have added this article to the Protected Areas project; I believe looking at it from that perspective would greatly help improve it (the infobox for starters). It seems to fall into IUCN Category V (Protected Landscape/Seascape) due to the combination of private and public land, developed and undeveloped areas (I have worked on a similar one in the form of Catskill State Park — I don't know if you could get any ideas from that one). Good luck. Daniel Case 03:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Added Infobox and Map with context in England
- Changed square kilimetres to KM2
- Added acres to all km entries
Ben 12:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Images - Over the past 2 years I have posted nearly 1000 photos of the New Forest on the geograph.org.uk website, each with a grid reference and description - see this search results page. They are all licenced with a Creative Commons attribution licence, which means they can be put onto Wikimedia commons no probs. I see someone has already done that with the Ibsley Common photo, although the geograph pics are only 640x480 pixels in size. I can upload the original hi-res photos onto wikimedia commons if necessary. If its mentioned in this Wikipedia article, I've probably photographed it. And if I haven't, someone else on geograph.org.uk probably has....
In this article as it currently stands, the pic of the miniature pony is a little unrepresentative (the vast majority of ponies on the Forest are 'full size') and I agree with the above comments about the Buckler's Hard photo. I've moved it to the gallery on the Beaulieu River article. JimChampion 19:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
