[edit] A bit of a mess
Think this article looks a bit of a mess with all the lists of things. My first instinct is to delete, but I'm wary since someone clearly invested a lot of effort to generate all this lot in the first place. I think the material about all the features within the park belongs in their own articles and this should be a much shorter article, and without all the lists which really don't add to an encyclopaedia entry. Before I waded in I thought I'd ask if there is some history to this one, since there seem to be a number of cleanup entries and reverts. Andy Farrell (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, the lists are unnecessary and it is a real mess. The other problem with this article is that an anonymous editor, with apparently no concept of what an encyclopedia is, insists on adding and re-adding material that is hopelessly unbalanced in tone, like it belongs in a holiday brochure or tourist guide. –Signalhead < T > 19:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
-
- I mostly want to clean up the hyperlinking. When I came to look at the portion on the Trossachs, I ended up just cleaning the quadruple link to the Trossachs article within that one paragraph, but the author(s) seem to have gone nuts with the linking. I'd gladly clean them, except that it looks like you're wanting to split the article as well, so editing would come after that. Anthony H (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I arrived at this article from the list of articles to be copyedited. Your comments above seem to be right on the mark. I did a little polishing myself, but the grammar is sometimes deficient. Keep up the good work, but remove the copyedit template when you are satisfied. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I've gone ahead and chopped the article down wholesale and attempted to put some more useful prose in as a starting point. I couldn't see any way to gently edit it down. I did think it may be worth using some of this as the basis for split-down articles on the forest parks, but when I read it more closely I saw that the prose was so muddled that a lot of the meaning couldn't be figured out. The old stuff is still there in the page history in case anyone wants to make use of all the lists. Anyway, it's not great, but it's a start. Andy Farrell (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Capitalisation of name
I have moved the article from 'Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park' to 'Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park' so that the name accurately reflects the official name of the designated area (ie with a capital "T" to start "The") as used extensively on the National Park Authority's own website. All links should still work etc.
Geopersona (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Location map
Loch Lomond and The Trossachs
I've uploaded a location map of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs to Commons (shown to right). I have not created an associated {{location map}} template, but this can easily be done if desired.
If this is created, it will enable creation a map of the National Park similar to the one under construction at Talk:Dartmoor#Location map, and could be used in related articles (see this example). Hope people find it useful.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
