Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mendip Hills/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 not promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.

[edit] Mendip Hills

This article has been a Good Article since August 2006. It has recently been peer reviewed (archived here) & all comments have been addressed. The article describes this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in a comprehensive way. It is well written and uses appropriate images (free where possible). It is supported by a wide range of citations and has been stable for a while, with only minor edits and additions. I did not create the article but have been working, with others, on it for the last year or so. I believe it meets the FA criteria and would welcome your comments.— Rod ^talk 10:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments Very good article, and close to FA status. I could make a few very minor improvement suggestions, but in terms of what's needed to get to FA status, I think there are just two things I'd like to see:

• A map of the Hills themselves (in addition to the location map)
• An article lead should only ever contain a summarised version of information found elsewhere in the article - in this article I can see some info which only appears (unreferenced) in the lead.

SP-KP 11:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I fully support the candidacy. It's a joy to read the article. I guess it sets guidelines how an article on a protected area should be written. There's a plethora of good articles on technical subjects, human settlements, IT issues, but very few on landscape/nature related topics. There's one, however, minor (minuscule) suggestion – I would remove the IUCN category National Park from the Geobox title. I'm not sure whether the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty real fall within this category (IMHO they're rather Category V - Protected Landscape, but I'm not an expert here). Regardless what the IUCN definition of this category is, in most countries a national park is usually the highest level of landscape protection with preserved primal ecosystems where human activities are strictly limited; so it might be a bit confusing here. – Caroig 11:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Response - I've added a paragraph explaining the legal status of AONBs in comaparison with National Parks - I hope this meets the comment about a statement in the lead not being supported elsewhere. I was also unsure about how to classify AONB using the IUCN definition & would be happy for this to be changed if people feel that is more appropriate. I agree with the comment that it would be useful to have a map & I have asked others for this but I do not have the knowledge & skills (or software) to do this properly.— Rod ^talk 12:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As of the National Park Status, thanks for clarification but the thing is, I'm still unsure whether both UK National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty could be placed in the IuCN category National Park, neither do they qualify for what a national park generally is outside the UK. I put the IUCN category in the Geobox design as it was in the older Infobox Protected Area but I'm not using it myself for any Czech or Slovak protected areas. The field can simply be left empty.

As of the maps, I can think of two solutions:

• To use a satelite image from NASA World Wind which are in Public Domain (or GFDL).
• To draw the map in Inkscape. I make such maps myself for Czech and Slovak localities. I've scanned some maps which have region and protected area boundaries (and rivers, mountains, roads and settlemnts of course) and use them as a background layer for drawing the boundaries upon them. See e.g. Commons:Image:NP Veľká Fatra - location map.svg or Commons:Image:Váh River (SVK) - location and watershed.svg. One could of course add more features than just the area outlines. So if there's an online map or a map you can scan it is actually pretty easy (well, once you've learnt to use this software).
• You could also combine these two, have a satelite background map and draw the outlines on top of it. The imaps/images from Inkscape are in the vector SVG format, which is highly desirable for such purposes on Wikipedia. Both NASA World Wind and Inkscape are free software.

Response - I've removed the IUCN classification. Still working on a map.— Rod ^talk 15:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional Support -- pending inclusion of map. Weak oppose – 1. A left-aligned image in the lead is not recommended in the WP:Mos. Similarly, image:Mendip_hills.jpg, which is also left-aligned causes a squeeze in the text. Suggest it be moved elsewhere. 2. Units are inconsistently used. In some places metric are given predominance, in other imperial. Please be consistent SI (imperial). 3. What about the residents of the area? 4. bombing decoy is a red link; no context explaination. is given here to compensate for this. 5. AD --> CE 6. Mendip Gliding Club Please unlink. 7. Like has been said above, a map is very essential. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Response1) I've moved the left aligned images 2)units addressed 3)I will add something more on villages & occupations - but I'll have to take something out as it's already LONG. 4) link removed & explanation added 5) sorry I can't find this one 6) delinked 7 still working on a map. Thanks for useful comments.— Rod ^talk 15:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! 1. What is EX ARG VEB? 2. See under =Transport and communications= 3. For consistency, Fahrenheit equivalents req; 102 m (335-foot) -- missed this 4. Mells river --> River Mells (MoS) 5. Cheddar pink(Dianthus) -- space req 6. =Notable settlements= can be converted to prosed and renamed to =demographics= 7. Convert hyphens to dashes (800-900 mm) [–] 8. Are are more vigorous?~ =Nichalp «Talk»=

Response 1. latin inscription on ingots - changed 2. edited 3. added F units 4. changed 5. space added 6. will look at this along with population 7. I think I've done all of these 8. I've removed this complex sentance. — Rod ^talk 16:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The river has not been changed, and 2 conversions have been missed out. (6–8 km) & 76 m =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Response The Mells river was changed to River Mells - but has since been changed back by a local who insists this is the correct name. I've added ft to 76m & changed 6-8km - but see discussion on my talk pages about putting UK units ie miles before KM as a UK article.— Rod ^talk 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For the River naming, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Naming where some UK-specific information is given. As per the MoS, only articles relating to the United States have imperial before metric. If the latter has to be preferred, it needs to be debated on the MoS talk pages before coming into effect. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

For units within the text you can use these templates: {{Unit length}} and {{Unit area}}. Examples:

• {{Unit length|mi|25}} gives: 25 mi (40 km)
• {{Unit length|ft|25}} gives: 25 ft (8 m)
• {{Unit length|m|25.25|2}} gives: 25.25 m (82.84 ft) (the third parameter sets the rounding precision of the conversion)
• {{Unit area|sqmi|25}} gives: 25 sq mi (65 km²)
• {{Unit area|ha|25}} gives:

There exist more conversion templates, they are even better in some aspects, e.g. {{Convert}}. Image:Mendip_hills.jpg can be put to the Geobox, in the image parameter, I'd suggest switching off (erasing) map_first then.

Response - thanks I've started playing with these.— Rod ^talk 15:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd like to see a climate graph in the climate section, if enough information to create one is available. -Malkinann 02:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Response - I don't think there is enough data available to do this - but could you point me to an example of one & I will take a look?— Rod ^talk 10:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nominators Update I have done my best to address the comments above and I think the objections have largely been met (with the exception of a climate graph). A topographic map of the hills has been added (thanks to User:SFC9394. Another map showing settlements, & key features has been offered by the AONB authorites, and they are currently checking copyright issues etc. I hope this now meets the FA criteria, but if you have any further worries please let me know. — Rod ^talk 07:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Another user suggested moving all images to the right side of the article, however in my browser there is alot of white space. DNA, Frog, Chew Valley, and many (if not most) others use some left side images to stop this. I would strongly urge that some left sided images are used for spacial harmonics. Jhamez84 13:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Response - exploring the Wikipedia:Manual of Style further. In the section on images there appear to be 2 key points: # When using multiple images in the same article, they can be staggered right-and-left & # Generally, right-alignment is preferred to left- or center-alignment. Therefore it appears it is OK to have left aligned & if you'd like to do this it would be fine by me. — Rod ^talk 18:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, publishers should be identified on all footnotes/references, in addition to author and publication date when available, in a consistent bibliographic style. You can find samples at WP:CITE/ES, or use the cite templates if you aren't familiar with a bibliographic citation style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Response - Thank you for your comment. I am familiar with the cite templates and have rechecked. The only error/absent details I could find was on the Barrington ref which I've now corrected. Are there others you feel need revision?— Rod ^talk 07:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's a good article, except that there's way too much linking of dictionary terms ("caves", "grass", etc). Why is there an en dash in "Anglo-Saxon"? Tony 23:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Response The link to caves in the geology section takes you to Caves of the Mendip Hills which is very specifically about the area. I have removed the link to grass in this section and the second link to lead. I have removed a link to caves in the history section. I have removed a link to caving in the Caving and cave diving section as it is already in the lead for Sport, leisure and tourism. I have changed the hyphen in Anglo-Saxon within the Etymology section. Are there any other area which you still feel are over-linking to dictionary terms?— Rod ^talk 09:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.