Wikipedia:Peer review/St Kilda, Scotland/archive1

St Kilda, Scotland

I've listed this article for peer review because I am intending to put it forward as an FA candidate. The current version has been pretty stable since it passed GA in August. I undertook the auto peer review prior to that time. There are various b&w images I'd like to include which date from the inhabited period in the 19th century. However UK copyright being such a minefield, it has proven hard to be certain they can be used. I am still looking into this.

Any comments gratefully received. Thanks,

Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 09:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 04:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A very nice article. I will make some more comments later, but a quick read through shows a couple of quick fixes that need to be made before FAC. 1) The first locator map is only 150 pixels wide and is difficult to read at that width - the box looks to be close to 300 pixels wide (on my monitor anyway), so the map could be much wider and clearer 2) The units are inconsistent, presumably in Scotland metric units should be first throughout, but several places have distances in miles only. Units should also be in the format 10 kilometre (6 mi) (i.e. full name (abbrev)) 3) The images are good and generally well placed, but are almost all right justified. This leads to some white space on my monitor, perhaps some left justified images could help here. I ran the PR script to fix the non-breaking space issue and a few other small issues. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - many thanks. I'll drop a note back here when I've gone through these items. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 16:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attended to and hopefully fixed. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 19:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very comprehensive article! You might think about putting the references into standard format (see WP:CITET). ISBNs (for those books that have them) in particular would be a great addition! MeegsC | Talk 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you. In fact in a previous FA candidature I was asked to remove the templates as they did not (in the opinion of the reviewer) correspond to WP:MOS! I'd be happy to look up a few more ISBNs - although just out of curiosity I have never been sure what their purpose on Wikipedia is - is it not just as easy to look a book up on Amazon these days? Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 22:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose. But if you click on an ISBN on Wikipedia, it takes you right to the book (after a single stop at a Wikipedia page, where you can indicate where you'd like to look), so you don't have to type in a thing! : ) MeegsC | Talk 23:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some final thoughts. The ISBN templates here also allow users to look the book up in a variety of libraries. I would make the locator map in the infobox wider still (it is 200 px now, and looks as if 250 px would still fit in the box). There are some fairly obscure terms that could be wikilinked or explained, such as Anchorite or the first occurrence of Taigh an t-Sithiche (say it means house of the faeries?). The terms "cleitan" and "cleit" are each used once before the definition of cleitan is given. What is a boat cough? Could any of these be wikilinked: "Scheduled Ancient Monument, a National Scenic Area, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and a European Community Special Protection Area"? In the "Prehistoric buildings" section, would it help to mention again where Gleann Mòr is? The Media and the Arts section has several one sentence paragraphs - could these be combined into fewer, larger paragraphs? Finally, per WP:LEAD the lead paragraphs should summarize the whole article, and I always try to somehow mention at least all the section headers and subheaders. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS I changed the article units to consitently spell out the name of first units, but per WP:MOS#Conversions, "The exception is that where there is consensus to do so, the main units may also be abbreviated in the main text after the first occurrence." I am OK with switching back, as long as it is consistent. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully now done, inc. available ISBNs, save for the lead. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 16:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like all concerns have been addressed - great job! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help everyone. I have been watching Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shapinsay and note the various concerns raised. I will have another look at the Etymology section and see if I can figure out where the italics should go - then it's into the breach. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 19:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minor things.
- It seems like the "general references" subsection could be merged into "further reading".

The difference is that the general refs are those that are referred to frequently in the footnotes whereas the 'further reading' list are not cited. Nonetheless you remind me that Featured Lists use this method but that someone may grumble at FAC.

- What does the word "corn", used twice, refer to here? Oats? It would be better to clarify, if possible (most Americans will assume you are talking about maize, which seems unlikely in St. Kilda's climate). Lesgles (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I removed the first one as its superflous, but in GB English 'corn' is a useful word meaning 'wheat, oats or barley'. I notice there isn't even a dab page on Wikipedia, which is shade frustrating. 'Corn' is what the source says - it seems a bit supine to remove it. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 20:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong there is a dab page - its just not listed at the top of Corn. I'll put in a link to the former. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 20:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good (I would still merge the references). I was mostly confused by the first one, because it said "barley and corn". (Incidentally, corn is a mess! There seem to be two pages, corn and maize, which link to the same talk page.) Lesgles (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll deal with the refs asap. Yes - at first I wondered if my eyesight might be failing on the corn/maize front. A shade peculiar. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 12:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]