Talk:Corsehill, Lainshaw, Robertland and Dunlop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is article is under construction and I have taken other stubs which I have written and I will tailor them so that they all tie together in one complete article.

Do you think this article is too long? Should it be broken into shorter linked articles?--Filll 18:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's local history and I have found that it becomes too parochial if it is split up into lots of articles. The Lands of Cunnighamhead article has been chopped up and even with links I find it hard to use or even update and I wrote it. Rosser1954.

[edit] Introduction

Hi, this is a good standard of article, I feel as a suggestion that the introduction should make what the article actually refers to a little clearer however. I live in Ayrshire so I know that these are areas of land, but if you can imagine someone from half way across the globe in the U.S or Australia reading this article they would be quite clueless I'm sure! It's not particularly clear that we're talking about land, far less historical boundaries in Scotland so I think it would be helpful if a sentence or two were added at the start such as "Corsehill, Lainshaw, Robertland and Dunlop were traditional areas of land in the modern county of East Ayrshire in Scotland". Wikipedia is after all a global encyclopedia and the intention is that you can read any article without any background knowledge, so the very first thing the article should do is explain what it's referring to (even if this is obvious) - e.g "A pen is a writing device used to dispense ink onto a piece of paper".

I would add this but I'm not entirely sure on how one would classify the lands of Corsehill etc, myself! Aside from that there's a wealth of information here so well done.

Good point - I will give it some thought and then clarify the 'coverage'. Thanks Rosser.

[edit] typo?

"stastistical" is a typo, yes? I didn't want to fix it on the off-chance the source is actually titled that way. jhawkinson 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So, err, you replied on my User:Jhawkinson page, saying "Thanks for the correction - it might have been right :-)". I think it's best if you just reply here, to keep everything together, but otherwise, please use my talk page User Talk:Jhawkinson not the user page. Anyhow, I'm not sure what you're saying -- that you're not sure? Or I should make the change? Or...? Thanks! jhawkinson 21:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello J,

Sorry to confuse things - I often work from very old books that use a number of spellings that we would consider wrong today. I have now taken to typing in '(Sic)' when this is the case. I take (Sic) as meaning 'its wrong, but that's how 'they' wrote it'.

So thanks for your corrction. It was just my typo.

Rosser 14:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, great, I've fixed it. Thanks! jhawkinson 14:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)