Talk:National parks of England and Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article National parks of England and Wales is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 2, 2005.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
National parks of England and Wales is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
UK Collaboration of the Fortnight National parks of England and Wales was the UK Collaboration of the Fortnight for the fortnight starting on October 24, 2004.

For details on improvements made to the article, see Past Collaborations and History

Contents

[edit] Ready for FAC nomination?

I am quite proud of how this page has expanded this week. I would like to nominate it as a Featured article candidate next week. Can anyone see any obvious holes or glaring deficiencies? -- ALoan (Talk)

It's pretty good. The map is a very nice touch. I would say it's a good candidate now; but if I had to think of more to put on it I'd also add a bit more on user conflicts (e.g. Windermere powerboat story); and on the private ownership of the land - most people unfamiliar with the system have much trouble understanding why UK NPs are not owned by the government. I might get down to some of that myself, actually. I also had a look at National parks of Scotland. It's thin and very POV - I changed about half of it but more work is needed. Naturenet 08:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps National parks of Scotland should be proposed on WP:UKCOTW. If you are going to add something soon, I'll wait until you finish before proposing on WP:FAC. -- ALoan (Talk)
Ok, I'm done now. Naturenet 21:39, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Excellent - thanks. Anyone else? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just to let people know, I've also posted on Wikipedia:Peer review. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Perhaps, a further improvement could be a section on how the conflict are resolved as many will be particular to just English and Welsh NAtional parks. ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.154.205 (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of national parks

I think the 'List of national parks' should be promoted higher up the page, perhaps as the second section of the article. I just surfed onto this page, and was expecting to see the list more prominently (if only so I could carry on surfing) -- Nojer2 23:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. I think that visually, the list is not the ideal thing to have in the main body of the article. Anyway, surely the contents box points you to it anyway? Naturenet 08:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I guess it depends whether someone expects to use this page as a proper article, or as a linking list to hop to other national parks. My expectation was that it would have a prominent list with links to the other national parks. Surely there's not much point going into detail about the history of national parks, before you've even mentioned which places are national parks. Anyway I can see that there's also been considerable effort to develope this as an article about National Parks in general, and I can see what you mean about the list being a bit too visually imposing for the top of the article, what with all those additional stats. -- Nojer2 11:32, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've added an internal link to National parks of England and Wales#List of national parks at the end of the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead, which mentions how many there are. Given that this is not too far above the TOC anyway, the link may be superfluous - does anyone have strong views? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wilderness Areas subhead

I note that the 'Untamed and Dangerous?' subhead has changed to 'Wilderness Areas' . I think the point is that these areas are not wilderness areas, and haven't been since prehistoric times. I preferred the previous heading, which emphasised the popular misconception about wild British landscapes. Any views? Naturenet 13:59, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about Untamed countryside?, which is closer to the quoted text (who from, by the way?) -- ALoan (Talk) 14:12, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I like your subhead much better - and I've found a quote! Naturenet 11:25, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

(Comments moved from Wikipedia:Peer review)

[edit] National parks of England and Wales

This was the WP:UKCOTW last week. I'm thinking of nominating it in WP:FAC later this week, so I'd be grateful for any comments (particularly from non-UK people, in case something is missing). -- ALoan (Talk) 20:15, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • (1) The introduction contains the sentence "Controversy over recreational activities in national parks is not unknown: for example, the proposed ban of waterskiing on Windermere" and then just stops. Don't leave the reader dangling like that: explain or omit! (2) "People have lived in the areas now designated as national parks for more than 5,000 years" is a rather weak claim. Say something significant about early habitation or cut. (3) "what is known as a national park in Britain is a very different designation to the original American concept." What is the difference (apart from one being a "designation" and the other a "concept", that is)? (4) The "conflicts" section is rather general. Can you find and discuss specific examples? (The Windermere waterskiing ban could go in here.) Gdr 01:04, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for that. I hope I have addressed your comments. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:03, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Wilderness Areas subhead: I note that the 'Untamed and Dangerous?' subhead has changed to 'Wilderness Areas' . I think the point is that these areas are not wilderness areas, and haven't been since prehistoric times. I preferred the previous heading, which emphasised the popular misconception about wild British landscapes. Any views? Naturenet 14:02, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Better? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:20, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see a sentence added at the very start of the lead explaining roughly what a British national park is. I know that this is covered in the artilce, but currently the reader finds out how many there are before they know just what the article is talking about. Also, could the references be explicitly stated in a References section? Overall a nice read. Filiocht 14:19, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I've edited the lead again. The references were largely the external links. I'll look at them again. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:20, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It's pretty good. The section explaining the difference in the British park system vs. the American and others could stand to be in the intro since it seems unique, or at least not lost in the history where it is at. A few highly British colloquialisms are in the article. Any that not all English speakers would know need to be explained or made a bit more neutral. An example would be "rich incomer's". What is that? Also I've never heard of rights of way being used quite that way. - Taxman 22:34, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I've edited the lead again. I think the meaning of incomer is pretty clear - a someone who is not local who comes in from elsewhere - and I can't think of a synonym right now, but I'd be happy if anyone else can think of a more appropriate expression. Right of way has two main meanings in the UK - the right to proceed at a junction rather than giving way, and a path/road/etc that you either have a private right to use, or which is open to public use - both meanings are referred to in right of way. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:04, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I like this a lot now, the lead is good and it's a really informative read. I had to guess at 'incomer' (in Ireland we say 'blow-in') but cannot suggest a simple alternative. As for 'right of way', TINA, as Madam T used to say. Ready to go to WP:FAC, IMHO. Filiocht 11:32, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I'd like to leave it on Peer Review until tomorrow, if you don't mind, in case there are any other preliminary comments. While you are reading my articles, why not look at Geography of the United Kingdom, which is not as good as this. I'll add it at the top. -- ALoan (Talk)

[edit] New template for National parks and AONBs in the UK

Hi

I have created this new template for National parks and AONBs in the UK and would appreciate comments/edits before it goes onto the pages. Thanks Andeggs 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Funnily enough I was thinking only a day or two ago that there ought to be a navigation box for AONBs. However, this all-in-one template is rather huge, and I think will be too unwieldly and confusing at the end of a short article on a minor AONB or NSA. We already have a Template:National Parks of England and Wales which does its job perfectly well, so why not create separate navigation boxes for, say, AONBs in England, AONBs in Wales (these two could possibly be combined), AONBs in Northern Ireland and National Scenic Areas? That would also eliminate the confusion of apparently applying the designation "Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty" to Scotland.
The one flaw in that scheme is that there aren't enough national parks in Scotland and Northern Ireland to justify their own navigation boxes (especially so in NI!), so the best thing might be to move the current NP box to Template:National Parks of the United Kingdom and add the remaining three. I prefer the design of the new box, so I suggest applying that to the NP box for consistency. --Blisco 19:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is rather large isn't it. I tried to get the show/hide thing going but couldn't quite figure it out. I think it's a shame to needlessly split up the UK countries - most articles cover the UK as a whole. Perhaps we should have seperate AONB and NP templates but then won't someone looking at an AONB page be interested in an NP page? Andeggs 20:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's a new effort for English articles. It shows English AONBs and UK-wide national parks - a good compromise? The other countries would then have their own equivalent versions. What are your thoughts? Andeggs 08:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
OK so here are some new versions, whatdyathink?
Andeggs 22:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Are Loch Lomond, the Trossachs and the Cairngorms still NSAs now that the two Scottish national parks exist? Also, is it necessary to include all the national parks on each template, rather than just those from the relevant country? But otherwise, I like them. — ras52 14:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
… Actually, given the number of AONBs/NSAs in each country, I think separate AONB/NSA and NP templates would be visually better than the current combined ones. Yes, it means that someone viewing a NP page won't find out about the AONBs/NSAs, and vice versa, but is that too much of a problem. — ras52 14:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
How about a clarification that the Broads are not a National Park per se but associatd with them? GraemeLeggett 14:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that it makes sense to add the AONBs to the box for the national parks - there are so many of the former that the latter get a bit swamped. I think it would be best of have one template for all of the national parts of the UK, and separate boxes for AONBs for each nation. I also agree that it makes sense to use the same format for all of them. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough - seem to have been outvoted here. Here are the revised versions:

[edit] Need for inline citations & various templates

I've started looking at this page as I've been editing Exmoor trying to get it up to GA & was looking for ideas. I'm amazed that this is still a FA with no inline citations to verify the information given, which may not have been required when it became an FA in 2004 but is now. The list of references given is really External links as it's not clear which bit of information comes from which source. I'm happy to do some of the work on improving this if others are willing to help - otherwise would it be best to put it up for Wikipedia:Featured article review on the grounds that it fails 1(c) of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria which says "that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate." Putting it up for FAR may get a wider audience & more people to work on it.

Also can anyone advise on the "correct" National Parks Template I see this was discussed a year ago but has it moved on? - on Exmoor we have {{National_parks_in_the_UK}} but on South Downs I see {{National_Parks_of_England_and_Wales}} wouldn't it be best to be consistent? I've also noticed that the title bar in the template that is on Exmoor & most of the others points to National park rather than National parks of England and Wales - is this deliberate?— Rod talk 21:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)