Talk:Lundy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Lundy has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | |||
|
||||
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Customs check
"Residents did not pay taxes to England and had to pass through customs when they travelled to and from Lundy Island."
- Is this still the case? Seabhcán 13:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- No! seglea 22:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC) (regular visitor to Lundy)
-
- When did that change? JAJ 01:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Income tax was imposed on the residents of Lundy in 1974 (source: ILN, v.3:no.1, 1974).
[edit] Rats
According to this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4617693.stm rats have been eradicated from the island. DrHydeous
- Fixed accordingly. -- Hoary 05:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Legal Latin
There is now a substantial wodge of Latin within the article, which (as it's Latin) will be incomprehensible to the great majority of readers, and which (we are told) "has been (very freely) translated as" a wodge of English legalese whose significance I can't fathom. If the translation is free, surely we can dispense with the legalistic lack of punctuation, and perhaps also with a lot of the legalistic throat clearing. Could somebody who understands legal documents of this kind, or knows a bit about the history of Lundy, perhaps summarize what, if anything, is significant about this? Thanks. -- Hoary 05:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Endemics
Whom discovered that the endemic beetles on Lundy were not endemic and when? Please reference these things!!!
- The current [Dec 2006] assistant warden told me.
[edit] Moving
Do someone know if it's possible to move on the Lundy? I mean to live there, not just a trip. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.70.255.54 (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
- Generally, no, it's not. The Landmark Trust, which administers the island, does, however have a few people who live there temporarily as volunteers or employees.--MichaelMaggs 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ? copyright problem
I've started editing this article & noticed that most of the history & ownership section is directly copied from History of Lundy - does anyone know if this was done with the owners permission? I will try to edit this to overcome the problem, but any help appreciated as it will take me a day or two.— Rod talk 16:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review
I've taken on this article for review under the Good Article criteria, as nominated on the Good Article candidates page. I've given the article a brief read through and you'll be pleased to hear that the article meets none of the quick-fail criteria. I will be carrying out an in-depth review and will post the findings below. If you have any questions then feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Many thanks, Seaserpent85Talk 12:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA on hold
I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:
1.1 Prose
I think the article would definitely benefit from a copy-edit to increase the readability. There are no major issues, but here are a few suggestions that should improve the flow of the article:
- Overuse of the word 'about' in the lead section
Done- the specific distances and areas may be better off in a new subsection, away from the lead. Done - "...It has a resident population of 28 people (2007), almost all of whom live and work in the village on the south of the island." What do these people do? Having followed some of the links in the article it seems that these people are volunteers, maybe this should be mentioned. Done
- "One-day visits are most usual" Needs rewording - maybe mention the extent of excursions or organised trips etc. Done
- Government and politics section - consider merging the first 2 sentences. Done
- Geology section - the last sentence could perhaps be split up, it's all squashed into one sentence for no reason. Done
- Birds subsection - the first paragraph contradicts with earlier statements about how the island got its name. Done
- "...Lundy is home to an unusual range of mammals..." should this read "a range of unusual mammals"? Done
- "The behaviour of the Soay Sheep (Ovis aries) on the island has been shown to vary their behaviours..." - beginning of sentence is repeated. Done
- Deed quote contains random characters "&c" Done
- King built the Castle - should this read "the King"? Done
- Lundy stamps section - The last few sentences could do with being rewritten and integrated, they read like trivia.
- "...with flying between 12 noon and 2pm, making it ideal for weekend visits and short breaks." - last part of sentence reads like an advertisement, should probably be removed. Done
- "The heliport is basically a field" and "It consists essentially of a shed" - be more specific - Is the heliport a field? Is it a shed? Consider removing these ambiguous comparisons altogether. Done
- " If you are staying on Lundy..." - this reads like a travel guide, maybe change to "those staying on Lundy" Done
- "to enable people food, fuel, farming and building materials safe access to the top of the island" - slightly muddled statement, not entirely sure what is trying to be said. Done
- Economy section - this is all repeated information from earlier in the article. Done
1.2 Manual of Style
- Sections - a restructure would help here. The present sections are confusing, nearly half the article falls under "history". I would suggest something along the lines of Geography, Ecology, History (split into subsections!), transport etc. Done
- The "See Also" section should come before the references section, per these guidelines. Done
- The "See Also" section should come before the references section, per these guidelines.
- Wikilinking - generally fine, I noticed there's a repeated wikilink to the Blackbird page though.
- Units of measurement - again mostly fine, but there's at least one instance of using ft instead of feet, in the "Human habitation" section. Done
Mostly fine, though the "Transport" and "Economy" sections could do with a few more references. There may be some original research in the former section, particularly with regards to the cafe - this will need to be removed if no sources can be found. Done
3 Coverage
The article seems to be largely focussed on the history of the island, something which will need to be dealt with. There are certain basic sections missing, such as climate, tourism etc. which are quite large gaps, especially when compared to the almost overly-detailed "Human habitation" section.
No signs of bias in the article and a neutral tone is present throughout.
5 Stability
No problems here.
6 Images
- Images - Gallery sections are discouraged, seeing as there are only a few images there they can probably be integrated into the article where appropriate, or removed if not necessary. Done
- The map would be better off in the infobox, with the image of the cove later in the article. At present, the image placement causes some display issues (particularly the map after the infobox). Done
- Captions - The map refers to Great Britain, perhaps this should be the British Isles as that is what's shown. Done
- The map would be better off in the infobox, with the image of the cove later in the article. At present, the image placement causes some display issues (particularly the map after the infobox).
As a result of the above concerns I have placed the article on hold. This gives editors up to a week to address the issues raised (although in some circumstances the hold period can be briefly extended). To help with tracking, editors may like to strike through each comment as it is dealt with, or use the template Done after each comment.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or are ready for a re-review. In any case I'll check back here in seven days (around 23rd September). Regards, Seaserpent85Talk 20:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think I've tackled most of the issues raised. I can't find the repeated wikilink to the Blackbird. I can't find the info for a climate section. Also I've left the gallery as I don't think there is room to neatly fit them into the article & couldn't decide what to remove. Any further edits or comments welcome.— Rod talk 11:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- The map is really ugly. If anyone knows of someone who could do a better job, that would be good. Otherwise, what about getting rid of it entirely? --MichaelMaggs 12:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- You could try Jza84 who has done a number of the maps for the template {{Infobox UK place}} Keith D 13:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've asked. --MichaelMaggs 15:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- The map is really ugly. If anyone knows of someone who could do a better job, that would be good. Otherwise, what about getting rid of it entirely? --MichaelMaggs 12:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the article mostly meets the Good Article criteria, agreeing with most of the comments by the previous reviewer. However, there are a couple of major issues that should be addressed. First, I would promote the history section, since it contains much detail, I would put it right after the etymology section, near the front of the article. Most wikipedia articles follow this guideline with respect to their history sections. Done
The 'government and politics' section really doesn't have much to do with politics, and with a very low population, I would remove the words 'and politics' from the subsection header. In fact, it would be better to rename the section as 'administration', since the island is really "administered" by other districts and jurisdictions, as opposed to being self-governing. I also would move this near the end of the article, possibly as the last section, since it's not all that important. Done
The section entitled 'lundy stamps' is actually in violation of WP:MSH, as the article title should not be used in section headers. Since this also kind of deals with the administration of the island, I would think it would help to move its contents to the newly-renamed 'administration' section, which would also contribute to beefing up the section a bit. The Lundy stamps section is also completely unsourced as well. It doesn't look like it would be WP:OR, as it looks like it could be historical fact, so finding a citation shouldn't be a problem. Done
The 'geography' section is very short. Certainly, more information can be added here. One suggestion to beef up the section might be to add a link to the google map location of the island, using the {{coor dms}} template. It should also have some information on the island's climate as well.
The major quotation in the 'knights templar' section does not have a reference (reference #16 does not cite the quote). All quotes should have references, per GA criteria. Done
Once these issues (and any others from the previous reviewer) are cleared up, I think the article can be promoted to GA status. Cheers! Dr. Cash 04:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Info that might need a mention
It's a little ironic that the article's being nominated for GA without the mention of the fact that the island is currently closed (and has been since the 23rd) due to an outbreak of norovirus. This is easily sourced, from the BBC website amongst others - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/21/nlundy121.xml ; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7006182.stm ; http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8GZrqKOnU0EM3bis1X97uK0sxAA; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2500379.ece
Also, there is little to no mention in the article as to why people would want to visit it - no mention of the unique geological features or the island's popularity with climbers either. 81.153.168.16 14:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- GA articles have to be "broad in coverage", rather than comprehensive, so I see no irony. Any article can be improved, including this one, so if you have information about the unique geology, popularity with climbers or anything else relevant then why not add it? --Malleus Fatuarum 20:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ottomans?
Is the Ottoman reference just vandalism? The reference link looks like a malware site of some sort —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.189.78 (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I see what you mean about the reference (No 16) - this was an English language description of the Turkish navy when I added it (the same as used on Ottoman Empire) but now I presume it is a 404 unobtainable error in Turkish. It may work again in a few days - if not I will remove the reference & look for an alternative source - possibly http://www.everythingexmoor.org.uk/_L/Lundy_Island.php .— Rod talk 13:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well how about the timesonline as a quote http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article1449736.ece, will put the information back in . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.211.39 (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Main Image
There is currently an IfD discussion about this image. I would like to put to the community this: do we want the current image as the main one, this one that is currently up for deletion or both on the article. This has been brought up due to the comment by Caltrop [quite rightly] that the new image has no grid or scale. Which image do you prefer? ><RichardΩ612 13:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- The current main image is Image:Lundy outline map.png which was kindly created by Jza84 specially for this page at my request. If the image needs a scale or grid, I suggest asking the author if he'd add one. In fact, I will do that now. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the scale in Image:Lundy24511.png is useful. I think the newer image should be used in its place. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
