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 promoted by GrahamColm 21:02, 18 August 2012 [1].

Dorset[edit]

Dorset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formerly a Featured Article, Dorset was downgraded to a B Class in Oct 2010. Following a Peer Review and a virtual rewrite it was elevated to Good Article status in August last year. After a further Peer Review, more work and a copyedit, we tentatively believe we are ready for FAN.--Ykraps (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One thing caught my eye skimming: "Dorset is unaffected by the more intense winds of Atlantic storms that Cornwall and Devon experience." Is it that black-and-white, intense in Devon and not in Dorset? - Dank (push to talk) 19:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dorset is sheltered from the more aggressive Atlantic winds by Devon and Cornwall, yes. It's why the north and north west coasts of those counties are popular with surfers, and Dorset has a rubbish surf reef! Do you think the sentence needs toning down?--Ykraps (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to make a recommendation when I've never been to Dorset. The wording does seem a little bit stark. - Dank (push to talk) 21:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better?--Ykraps (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is, we didn't consider this sentence to be controversial. The shire suffix has been widely dropped across the entire country, not just in Dorset (see the article on Shire counties). There is a very similar sentence in the Somerset article, a Featured Article, which is also unsourced. However, having said all that, I am prepared to remove the sentence if it means getting FA status.--Ykraps (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped Chaffey and Cullingford. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected.--Ykraps (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not sure I understand, can you expand on this please?--Ykraps (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Publisher given but not visible due to a cite web/cite news template mix up.--Ykraps (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This appears to be an excellent article with good referencing. I have a question: Who owns Dorset? Are there rich landowners owning great swathes of the countryside? How much does the Ministry of Defence own? You mention Tyneham being requisitioned during WWII – does the MOD still own the area? Is this contentious? Does the National Trust own a significant acreage? Does the crown or Duchy of Cornwall own chunks of the county? Aa77zz (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a lot of questions about ownership. Are you interested in buying it? :) The short answer is yes to all. There are a number of large landowners, including the crown, the MOD, the National Trust and private owners. The MOD still owns Tyneham and other parts of Lulworth, Bovington, Blandford, Portland and more besides. It was at one time hugely controversial when the MOD refused to return Tyneham but appears to be less so today. The Duchy of Cornwall owns Poundbury. The National Trust claims parts of the Jurassic Coast, parts of the Isle of Purbeck and Brownsea Island among its Dorset possessions. Much of this information is freely available on the interweb.--Ykraps (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still saving to buy my first piece. The tone of your answer suggests that you don't believe such information belongs in this high level article and that the question of ownership is adequately covered by other linked articles. I'm not so sure. As always it is a question of judging what to include and what to omit but if, as seems possible, a few landowners own a substantial fraction of the total land, then this should be mentioned in the article. Aa77zz (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my tone, I think I was wandering where your line of enquiry was leading. We were sort of following the WP:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties guidelines which didn't really mention ownership and although I sort of agree that large landowners are worthy of inclusion, I'm not sure whether anyone owns such a significant amount as to warrant special mention. I will give this some more thought however.--Ykraps (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

All correct now, I think. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rodw Having made some significant edits to Somerset I thought it would be interesting to take a look at a neighbouring county. I think the article is good but have some specific questions and comments

Lead

  • Yes, I'd noticed that the first estimates have been published but thought it better to wait until all the information was available, otherwise there will be a mixture of 2001 and 2011 data which I think will be too confusing. The age structure, ethnic groups, religion, economic activity, industry and employment figures appear to be due for release between Nov 12 and Feb 13 [[2]].--Ykraps (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I have added a bit more about transport and culture.--Ykraps (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I have done this but it might be irrelevant after the lead has been tinkered with.--Ykraps (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toponymy

  • Damn, thought I'd checked all links. Sorted now, thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • I think both spellings are acceptable but internet searches seem to suggest Bokerley more common so I have changed to match its article.--Ykraps (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is linked in the lead. Does it need a further link or did you miss the first one?--Ykraps (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Oh, and it is linked in the main body, albeit rather cryptically.[reply]
  • OK didn't spot that
  • It does sound a bit awkward so I have changed slightly.--Ykraps (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paratroopers are dropped, yes.--Ykraps (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought the gliders landed and then the troops got out - but I will strike this.
  • The '74 boundary changes are mentioned in the politics section. Funnily enough, we removed some other references because we thought it had been a bit over-mentioned. I'm not aware of boundary changes with Devon but will look into it further.--Ykraps (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently the parish of Thorncombe (in Devon until 1836) was transferred to Dorset from the diocese of Salisbury in 1844. Also in 1844, Holwell went from Somerset to Dorset. Also from Somerset, the parishes of Goathill, Poynington, Sandford Orcas, Seaborough joined Dorset in 1896 while Wambrook went the other way. Also in 1896 Dorset lost Chardstock to Devon. Assuming I can find reliable sources, how much of this info do you think should be included, and where in the article do you suggest it is best placed?--Ykraps (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how much but some mention of these changes may be useful for readers not familiar with the county, who may have come across references elesewhere to villages/parishes being in one county or another.— Rod talk 18:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:BarretB has added this information in the form of a footnote.--16:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Physical geography

  • No. Purbeck Marble is a particular type of Purbeck limestone. Are you asking out of curiosity or is there a sentence you think needs clarifying?--Ykraps (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Others like me may have heard of Purbeck Marble but the Purbeck stone article redirects to the Pubeck marble article so might need some explanation or sorting.— Rod talk 18:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have linked Purbeck stone to Purbeck Group. I think this is probably where the re-direct ought to go but I don't want to change that without proper discussion.--Ykraps (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks I think that is better as Purbeck Marbvle is already mentioned in the history section.— Rod talk 19:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly but the county also has its own Geography of... article which I am planning to expand. Might it be better suited there?--Ykraps (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps just say Canford Heath is part of wider Special Protection Area & Ramsar site.— Rod talk 18:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three areas of heath have Ramsar site status, so I have added a piece to say that.--Ykraps (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is supported by the two references at the end of the paragraph but I have inserted a reference after the sentence too.--Ykraps (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I have removed. I thought it was needed to explain why most rivers are of the lowland type but it probably isn't necessary.--Ykraps (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a bit to say, the first complete icthyosaur was discovered there. Is that sufficient do you think?--Ykraps (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demography

  • No, not just you. Again, this came up at a previous peer review but at the time I thought, "That's just him". :) I have changed this sentence to read "....when there was a fall in the level of net migration".--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

Economy and industry"

  • I have changed to "mid 19th century". The service industry became the largest employer some time between the 1841 and 1881 census. Draper points to the mechanisation of farming, that began in the 1830s as a major cause. Fluctuations in labour and land area don't always have an effect on the economy. For example, the increase referred to in the article has been in permanent grass and land set-aside. Land set-aside makes no contribution to the economy and permanent grass makes only a small, indirect contribution if it used for grazing. In contrast, arable land (used for growing crops), makes a significant contribution, and this has been reduced.--Ykraps (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I have added hidden text to show how this figure was arrived at.--Ykraps (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

  • If you think they are all worth a mention you could just remove the word "major".— Rod talk 06:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if I've improved that or not. See what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I think this is better, but would it be worth mentioning that these are all on the English Channel? - I know it is mentioned in the lead and elsewhere, but those unfamiliar with the county may not know which body of water they border.— Rod talk 16:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I have noted that the Dorset coastline lies on the English Channel.--Ykraps (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at WP:UKCITIES the guideline suggests more could be included on Religious sites (which get a minor mention in culture) and public services. I think the article is looking good but could do with a little more polishing to achieve FA quality.— Rod talk 19:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should have pointed to WP:UKCOUNTIES rather than cities.— Rod talk 07:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have added a section on Religious sites as you have suggested. I'm not sure services are relevant to counties however.--Ykraps (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have been away for a couple of weeks and the improvement in the article has continued. I now feel it meets the FA criteria.— Rod talk 08:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dorsetshire continued to be a common alternative name for the county for centuries but has now fallen out of fashion. - avoid "now" - best way is by finding the approx. date the term ceased being current. I can check OED later tonight, but someone might have a better source.
Finding accurate date and a reference has proved to be extremely difficult. As their have been previous comments regarding this sentence, I have decided to remove it until better sources are found.--Ykraps (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of overloading the lead, I would add that it has been an entity since the 7th century.....
Okay, good suggestion, I have done so.--Ykraps (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than have Dorset (UK Parliament constituency) in the seealso section, I'd write a sentence or so and place in the politics section. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a sentence about the historical county constituency would prompt an explanation of the historical borough constituencies of which there were (from memory) 7 and these experienced a number of changes. We would like to add all this as a footnote but the real problem has been finding reliable sources.--Ykraps (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise - the article is looking promising from a prose and comprehensiveness view. I'll run through the prose again later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions and the copy edit.--Ykraps (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • main railway lines — personally I'd write railway main lines
  • Roman Legion — why caps? I know it's linked to a specific region, but text should still be lc.
  • Portland or Purbeck stone — I know it's all relative, but I'm not sure I'd describe any limestone as hard. Not a big deal though
  • Agreed, I've made those changes, thanks--Ykraps (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes -- image check plus spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing needed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

The source refers to 2009 not 2010, which attracted 250,000.
No issues except for the one regarding the year. Graham Colm (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now altered. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry to be so late showing up, but I have only just been prompted to look at this article, which I peer reviewed about 20 months ago. It has come on enormously since then and seems to be well on the way to FA standard. I have a rather lengthy list of points, but most of these are small and easily fixable; if the delegates are inclined to promote on the basis of the review so far, I don't think my issues need hold that up, but I do believe they should be addressed if the article is to fully meet the FA criteria:

Congratulations on a fine effort in article enhancement. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More