Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Inner Hebrides/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:50, 12 January 2010 [1].

List of Inner Hebrides[edit]

Nominator(s): Ben Mac Dui 16:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list candidates/List of Inner Hebrides/archive1

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is now complete and ready to match the existing Scottish island FLs such as List of Outer Hebrides. Ben Mac Dui 16:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"the Hebrides as a whole were a strong " vs "Inner Hebrides is a chain" - plural vs singular. Can you check this for consistency?

The problem here is that the word would seem to be both singular and plural. Thus the "Inner Hebrides is a chain" is correct in that "Inner Hebrides" is the noun for an archipelago. However I can also say that "there are many Hebrides" meaning many individual islands plural. The only way to make this consistent is to make everything plural e.g. "Inner Hebrides are a chain". I can and will do this, but I think it rather goes against common spoken usage. Ben Mac Dui 10:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Now done.[reply]

I think it may be helpful to link loch.

Done

If a highest point isn't named, I would suggest you use an en-dash.

Commenced

Done

"This is a list of uninhabited Inner Hebrides with an area greater than 30 hectares..." nasty - why not "There are x uninhabited Inner Hebrides with an area..."?

Simply because the list wasn't completed until recently. Now fixed if my addition is correct.

" Eilean Dubh (2)" - is it really called this? The same as the one in Loch Linnhe?

This may be misleading. It means that there are two "Eilean Dubhs" here. The Gaels have a propensity to name lochs with outrageous names such as "Loch Dun na Buail'-uachdraich" and "Loch Druidibeag" but for some reason run out of steam with small islands.

"much less well-known" sorry to be picky but you're making an assertion and not referencing it in this case.

Well I could try explaining that I had never even heard of these latter little rocks until I spotted them with a magnifying glass recently, but I fear you would be unimpressed. Difficult to know where to look for a reference for their obscurity. Maybe I will add them to the table instead...

re-written without obscurity Finavon (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments. I will attend to them asap, although you have caught me at a busy moment and it may be Saturday before I get the time to look at them all. Ben Mac Dui 21:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, no stress. Glad you appreciate the comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments above. Ben Mac Dui 22:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All items above now fixed or commented on. Ben Mac Dui 11:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typically we avoid bold links.
Especially as you link Inner Hebrides in the next para as well.

The lead is fixed I think.

There are emboldened links in the "Smaller islets and skerries" section too. This isn't generally necessary in the other lists as they are all archipelagos distant from the shore so the "main island" the skerries surround is always linked higher up. Here the links are useful pointers to the general area. It would be a pity to unlink them and I'm tempted to suggest that this is a case of IAR, but I am open to suggestions.

Well, I suggest we see what the rest of the community think about it... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the emboldened group names are appropriately linked. An alternative would be to repeat the group name and link that - would probably look worse. Finavon (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bold is fine as well. We could very loosely consider it used for a "definition list" function, as per MOS:BOLD. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bamse

Looks very good. Just a couple of comments/questions:

In reference 9 ("Haswell-Smith (2004) p. 206 save those indicated with a separate footnote."): which "footnotes" are meant here?

Done

Thanks.

According to the "Uninhabited islands" section, last paragraph, there are "difficulties of definition". Which definition is used for this list?

This is explained in the lead and in Note 1 - I could add an extra note if you think it would be helpful. Ben Mac Dui 12:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for pointing me to the explanation. I don't think it is necessary to add anything.

The "Group" column of the tables: Are these commonly used names/groups/categories or only in this list? Are there wikipedia articles to link to?

Done - recognised group name or main island in group used; where these are not known, the location (eg Loch ...) is used. wikilinks added. Finavon (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Last inhabited" column: What does "post 1931" and "post 1841" tell? I'd rather expect upper limits like "pre ..." or "before ...". Post 1931 could mean that it was inhabited until yesterday.

These will usually be the last 10-year census that showed a population. It is likely to be the best available information. Finavon (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little more research and the dates have been amended to avoid this usage. Ben Mac Dui 13:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

"...in the possession of Clan Stewart of Appin at this time...": Is there a "the" missing?

Normal usage would be without the definite article.

OK.

"In addition to be a hazard to navigation...": To be or not to be: "be"->"being"?

Fixed.

Thanks.

What is a "continuing list"?

Removed

Thanks.

The paragraph starting with "Various Gaelic names are used repeatedly..." should be moved up as it relates not only to the "Smaller islets and skerries" as far as I can see.

Done - Moved up, may need to be in an introductory section - not the lead. Finavon (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd move it up even further, either to the lead or a separate "Names" section.

Done

I am not sure how the "Small archipelagos" section fits in. It gives the impression that these are islands in addition to the "Inhabited/uninhabited islands" and "Smaller islets and skerries", but as far as I understand these groups include both, inhabited and uninhabited islands. It would be better to wikilink the groups in the table and to convert the information in the "location" column into prose.

Done

Thanks.

I'd reduce the number of "See also" articles to those that are directly related to the Inner Hebrides. "North Sea islands" links to "North Sea#Islands" which does not currently exist.

Done

Thanks.

Why is "General references" small while "Notes" and "Citations" are bold?

Done

Thanks.

The "Settlements and Places of Interest in the Outer Hebrides (Na h-Eileanan Siar)" navigation box should be removed or replaced with its Inner Hebrides version.

Removed - there is no alternative

Thanks.

Also the "Prehistoric Western Isles" template appears to have only sites on the Outer Hebrides and should be therefore removed.

Done. Apologies - these two templates were absurd leftovers. Ben Mac Dui 12:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

I removed Category:Inner Hebrides since Category:Islands of the Inner Hebrides is already in that category. Feel free to revert if that was a stupid idea.

Not an inconceivable idea but as Category:Islands of the Inner Hebrides is now buried in Category:Landforms of the Inner Hebrides I've undone this. Ben Mac Dui 12:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bamse (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK.

Some further replies: Ben Mac Dui 12:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments. I think these are all attended to now. Ben Mac Dui 13:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for attending to the comments. Just one more thing. I noticed a couple of fullstops after non-sentences which I think should be removed: captions "The Clachan Bridge...", "Eilean Mor...", "The lighthouse at Carraig...", "Looking north from ...". The same problem with some of the references, e.g. "Estimate from Ordnance Survey maps." But I am not that sure what the MOS says about those.

I'm not sure whether some of the captions are really sentences or not but I have removed the periods. I think the references are OK - so long as they are consistent. The system is that there is no period on a closing page number but there is for a sentence or phrase. It's easy to change of course. Ben Mac Dui 20:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support All comments have been addressed.bamse (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments by~~ Reywas92 Support

The years in the Last inhabited column should not be linked.

Done

Notes 2 and 6 could be merged.

Done

Very nice overall. Reywas92^Talk 03:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done and thanks for your comments. Ben Mac Dui 13:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Before I can support I have a couple of comments below. Other than that the alt text looks good and the article seems well written with a good lead and clean and organized tables. I checked it through AWB and there was nothing significant there.

There is 1 disambiguous page for Lismore

Took me a while to find it hiding on a template. Now fixed.

many of the references seem to lack proper formatting--

Could you be more specific?

Kumioko (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that the last section of the lead that appears to be notes in determining what is defined as an island be removed from the lead and linked as a note. I think this info detracts from the content of the article itself..but thats just my opinion.

Done

Other than that it looks good.--Kumioko (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my comment to support, looks good to me know. --Kumioko (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

~~In the two tables, items that have Gaelic names with Gaelic as the first letter sort following all names beginning with a regular letter in the Gaelic names column. Is this the intention?~~

It was not and thanks for spotting this. Now Fixed.

~~In the second table, Eilean Tigh's area is not sorting properly.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Ben Mac Dui 09:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5

Looks very nice, just a few minor things:

"The islands of Scotland's west coast are known collectively as the Hebrides and the Inner Hebrides are separated from the Outer Hebrides by The Minch to the north and the Sea of the Hebrides to the south." - this is a bit of a run-on sentence; might I suggest instead The islands of Scotland's west coast are known collectively as the Hebrides; the Inner Hebrides are separated from the Outer Hebrides by The Minch to the north and the Sea of the Hebrides to the south. This would break things up a bit by inserting a verbal/mental pause.
~~"In the past the Hebrides as a whole" - a comma after "past" would not be amiss.~~
"Scottish Gaelic speaking" is a single adjective, so I believe the correct punctuation would be Scottish Gaelic-speaking
~~Jura and Gigha overlinked in the lead.~~

Otherwise very well done. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments. All done. Ben Mac Dui 19:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support the promotion of this list, as it meets the featured list criteria. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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