Oppose mostly great, a few (initial) fundamentals, which may just be me and my tiredness...
- Minor issue, I alway thought the plural of archipelago was archipelagos... (i.e. no second "e")...
- Dear me, you are right of course. Fixed. Ben MacDui 21:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "incorporate those which are not part of the larger archipelagoes and island groups and are thus not listed elsewhere" this is really confusing to a non-expert. Where are the "larger archipelagoes [sic]" defined, and the "island groups"? and why is there a natural "thus not listed elsewhere"?
- Amended to include the "main lists" Ben MacDui 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Stroma was permanently occupied until the 1970s" how "permanent" is permanent here, considering the previous island was occupied since the Neolithic period?
- There are records from the Viking period and at least one prehistoric structure. One can't easily prove permanent inhabitation prior to the historic period, but there 80 people there in the 1950s. There is an element of supposition here as I don't have easy access to a great deal of detail about the island's history. I will certainly look into it further if you think this is important. Ben MacDui 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "none of which are still manned." not sure there's a need for "still" here.
- They were manned until latterly. Ben MacDui 21:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would merge paras 2 & 3 of the lead since they seem to be directly related.
- Done Ben MacDui 21:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless the "complication" isn't related to the definition of "island", in which case the third para needs a better starting point.
- Added "relating to membership of this list". Ben MacDui 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to link "loch" in the lead for non-experts.
- Reluctantly, I pander to these lesser beings. Ben MacDui 21:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "simplicity they are included in that list rather" which list is "that list"?
- added "the List of Outer Hebrides". Ben MacDui 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "There are several small groups involved." not sure what this means at all.
- Made it "There are several small groupings of outlying islands involved"
- Is St Kilda "most notable" in your opinion or is it fact?
- I was hoping you wouldn't ask. I can't say I can put a reference to this specific assertion, but here are the facts:
- Hirta is double the size of the 2nd largest in the list and is several times larger than all the others.
- Hirta had about double the population of the 2nd largest in the list and several times greater than all the others.
- St Kilda is a World Heritage Site and none of the others are even remotely in that category.
- Numerous books have been written about St Kilda, Scotland, which is an FA, and the bibliography gives a selection. I can't say for sure but I doubt anyone has ever written a book solely about any of the other islands. The next most notable (and is just an opinion) is probably the Flannan Isles due to the "mystery". Its a GA and no book only about them is listed. Arguably this is using WIkipedia as a reference, but you get my drift.
- Various facts about the Stacs are listed - if there were similarly important ones for the other islands they would appear here too. There are others not listed e.g. the existence of various endemic animals such as the St Kilda Mouse. etc. Ben MacDui 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ben, you know what I'm gonna say, and I have no issue with anything you've written. But you say "most notable" in Wikipedia and expect to get away with it? Your choice. Add all this as a footnote, and maybe tone down "most notable" to "significant" or something, you may get away with it. It's nothing personal, as well you know... "notable" fine, "most notable", always debatable... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Accepting that we have a duty to protect ourselves from ourselves, there are occasions when it is painful to have to deal with a situation in which editors have become little more than parrots, unable to make the most obvious of inferences without the necessity to prove that someone else thought of it first. I have nevertheless capitulated ignominiously - or to put it more simply, fix attempted. Ben MacDui 20:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully I ain't no parrot. Nor would I ever wish you to capitulate without good reason. But such is Wikipedia... I'll re-review in due course, and thanks for your understanding.... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second para of "Main list" (which is a nasty heading) is a single-sentence para, any chance of merging it?
- Space removed per the below. Changed to "Main islands". Ben MacDui 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sula Sgeir" is overlinked in the Main list section.
- Fixed. Ben MacDui 21:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another couple of super-short paragraphs in this section, is it really necessary?
- The intention was to keep those close together in the same paras but it isn't important. Done. Ben MacDui 21:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Nonetheless, some have a degree of notability." interested by this, by which definition? And I don't think we'd be discussing things on Wikipedia if they weren't notable...
- This could perhaps be re-phrased. I've tried " a degree of historical significance". Ben MacDui 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Link ROI, Iceland but not Denmark. Any reason for that? I probably wouldn't link any of them...
- Denmark is flat and undeserving, but I have de-linked them all to avoid accusations of prejudice. Ben MacDui 21:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll come back when these are dealt with, just a quick run-through of the first couple of sections... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
OK - thanks. Ben MacDui 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "The story associated with its naming is that three sons of Danish prince, sailing to avenge their sister's wrongs, were wrecked here" - don't like this, maybe "Three sons of Danish... gives the island its name"?
- Amended.
- Fixed. One day, I will understand the difference, and why it matters.
- I am proud to say that it is the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, now explained and linked!
- Some areas in the notes just hectares, some just square metres, but lengths are converted. Would suggest you make it internally consistent.
- Too true - and fixed.
- Citations 27, 57 and 58 appear to be notes. What makes them different from, say, note 7?
- Note 7 is an explanation of distances and where they are from/too, and thus a note. 58 is I think the most clear cut - it specifies a location and identifies a reference as the structures are (most unusually) not named by the OS. 57 also specifies a location as the object is fairly well hidden in an estuary. Following on from 58 I think it is a reference, although less clearly so. 27 is currently onesmallisland.org.uk and I think you are referring to waht is now 28: "A remote rock located at...". Like 57 this is specified as someone with a map and a magnifying glass looking along the shore for islands might well miss it - in this case because it is so small and so far offshore. The logic thus proceeds in reverse chronological order from 58 to 57 to 28. I thus see no need to change them, although I am willing to do of of course.
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies above by Ben MacDui 20:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|