Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St Kilda, Scotland

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 03:35, 30 December 2007.

---

St Kilda, Scotland

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a GA that has recently been copy-edited and peer reviewed. The subject matter is perhaps obscure, but I hope fascinating nonetheless. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 12:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please close and archive the peer review, per instructions at both WP:FAC and WP:PR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Done Lurker (said · done) 15:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - well written, well referenced, great images, and I agree that it is a fascinating topic and article. (In the interest of full disclosure, I peer reviewed this article, and have made three edits to it and the map of the archipelago for it.) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support with a few comments on some redundant bits and other minor things.

• "The Gaelic-speaking population probably never exceeded 180 in number and was never more than 100 after 1851" in the lead. "in number" is redundant as there is little else the 180 can refer to than the number of them. Done
• "various artistic interpretations," - various does not add to the sentence as it seems implicit in the plural.Done
• "The geology of the islands areis comprised of" ... This is in a section called "Geology". Fixed by Finetooth.
• The last sentence/paragraph of the "Geography" section does not seem to fit with the rest of the section.

I have tweaked it, but I am not sure this deals with the comment. Most places in the UK might have a greater balance between the physical and human geography, but as St Kilda has been effectively uninhabited for more than seventy years, there is very little to say about the latter without getting into yet more history (rather than geography). Any further suggestions are most welcome.

• "practical routines of running the island" - "running" appears redundant. Done.
• "The boats also brought other previously unknown diseases" - means the same as also is implicit and there are no diseases previously mentioned for the other to refer to.

removed 'also', but there were other diseases - "visiting ships in the 18th century brought cholera and smallpox". Hopefully fixed.

• "The children all now learned English in addition to and their native Gaelic". Done.
• "From the 1880s, trawlers fishing the north Atlantic made regular visits, and this brought bringing additional trade" Done
• "A variety of new military buildings and masts have since been erected" - I think that it's understood erected structures are new unless explicitly stated otherwise.Done
• "the Marquess of Bute's in his will bequeathed" - means the same and is more succinct. Done
• Can reference [87] move to the end of the sentence ?

Something has moved around. The only one I can see in that number range in 'evacuation' has been so moved. Fixed?

• Is it known that the heritage area is exactly 24,201.4 ha ? This looks like excessive precision. This may be correct but the land area of 854.6 hectares is also troublesome.

Both are from the official UN description in the "United Nations Environment Programme: World Conservation Monitoring Centre" reference. For some reason this was not provided as a ref in the infobox. Fixed.

• "The Scottish folk rock band Runrig have recorded a song"...recorded is already past tense Done
• "It was performedenacted simultaneously"...surely operas are performed, acts are enacted. Done
• "s part of the lasting legacy, this production also left" Done
• "These tools are also probably of Neolithic origin" - can't see what also adds here

I can certainly remove it, although the pottery is definitely Neolithic, the tools are harder to be certain about. I have re-worked the para. Done

• Can you add ISBNs to the "Further reading" section as they are in the references section.

- Peripitus (Talk) 04:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments and your support. I have attended to them all save the ISBNs which will involve a little research. (Now also 'done bar a couple I could not find). Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 19:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support The article is fascinating, well-supported, well-illustrated, and well-written. In the interests of full disclosure, I should note that I copyedited St Kilda, Scotland, a few weeks ago, and I've made a couple of minor edits since then. Finetooth (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Support. This is a fine article. A few comments:

• evacuated in 1930: reading through the rest of the article, it's pretty clear that from 1930 onwards there have been no year-round residents except for the military base; can you make this explicit? On first encounter I had to pause to think why they were evacuated.
• the late Late Middle Ages. If this is intentional, it's a bit clumsy.

Technically correct and patently absurd. Fixed.

• Culdee, the name for anchorites, who may have brought Christianity to the island: I think this needs to be tweaked. "Culdee" doesn't mean all anchorites; should this be something like "Culdee, the name of an order of monks who may have brought Christianity to the island"? We don't even need to know they're anchorites at this point, since the name is the point.

Fixed - I hope.

• You mention "Toubir-Kilda" and "Tobar Childa" separately in the "origin of names" section; presumably they are the same. I can see you're organizing this material by sources, which makes sense, but I think the explanation of Tobar Childa's etymology needs to be included the first time you mention it. If you can parenthetically explain the different spellings that would be handy too. Perhaps reverse the order of use of the sources, moving Haswell-Smith right after Martin Martin?

Done.

• Haskeir island much nearer the west coast of the Outer Hebrides. I think this is slightly confusing. I presume you mean that Haskeir is nearer the main body of the Outer Hebrides, that is, nearer to North Uist. However, the lead makes St. Kilda part of the Outer Hebrides, so the west coast of the Outer Hebrides is the west coast of the St. Kilda archipelago. Just adding something like "main body" probably suffices here.

Fixed.

• The images used are outstanding; they're a real asset to the article. The archipelago map is very clear too. Is there any chance of getting a map of Hirta itself, showing some of the summits mentioned, and the village itself? This isn't absolutely necessary, since you do identify Village Bay, and hence implicitly the location of the village.

I have asked the creator of this excellent map. He was recently admitted to the company of administrators and may be busy.

I can't take any credit for the images, but one of my favourites is the one with the Eiffel Tower photoshopped onto Boreray at [1].

• No trees grow on the archipelago, although more than 130 different flowering plants, 162 species of fungi, 160 bryophytes and several rarities exist amongst the 194 lichen species. Needs to be rephrased; as it stands it sounds as if flowering plants, fungi and bryophytes are amongst the lichen species.

Fixed.

• The beach at Village Bay: I'd unlink "beach". In the following sentence, was the survey only of that beach? I assume so, but it might be good to say so explicitly: "A survey of the beach in 1953…."

Fixed.

• I'd never heard of a fowling rod; there's no fowling rod article to link to, but perhaps fowling would be worth a link -- it doesn't mention fowling rods now but might do so in the future.

Fixed - they may have been used by one or two other nearby communities, but I don't think they were at all common in Scotland, and I doubt elsewhere either.

• It has been known for some time that St Kilda was continuously inhabited -- any reason not to simplify this to "St Kilda has been continuously inhabited"?

I have added 'earlier'. The intention here is to convey the idea that it was well-known that St Kilda had a long history, but it was only recently that Neolithic habitation was suspected.

• You use both "St. Kilda" and "St Kilda"; the manual of style allows either, but please be consistent. I believe WP practice is not to regularize this sort of thing in direct quotations and titles of works, so those don't need to be made consistent.

Fixed.

• What is a "Skaill knife"?

Note provided.

• elected the most "meagre" among his friends in the neighbouring islands, to that number: what does "to that number" mean in this quote?

Fixed - I hope. The contrast with the situation two centuries later is incongruous.

That's all I have time for at the moment; I'll come back to this later today. Mike Christie (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a little more time than I thought, so here are some more comments:

• the first place in Scotland to be inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site; this is an odd use of "inscribed"; is something specific meant here?

According to my GB-English dictionary inscribe means "to add to a list".

OK, I'll strike; it does appear to be a reasonably common usage in this context, though I must say I hadn't come across it before. Mike Christie (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'd also suggest moving the reference used for "first place in Scotland" to the end of the sentence.

Fixed.

• The area of the whole archipelago is given in the infobox, but the body of the article doesn't mention area of the archipelago as a whole or the individual islands. This is a fairly minor point, given that the map makes the area fairly apparent, but if you can mention the area of one or two of the larger islands in the text in the Geography section that would be nice. I also wonder a little at the use of hectares as the unit of measure for area. You've been thorough about quoting both metric and imperial units elsewhere; could we have areas in acres or square miles as well?
• its original purpose is the stuff of legend rather than archaeological fact: might be better to make this "Martin's account of its original purpose is the stuff of legend rather than archaeological fact".

Martin's account is certainly mythical, but the purpose of the buildings is also unknown. This has received further attention and is I hope fixed.

• I'm not convinced of the value of the "See also" links. Mingulay, the Flannan Isles and Rona all seem only peripherally connected. The World Heritage article seems like something that could be linked from within this article, and I think relevant material from the other two should be worked into the body of the article and eliminated as "See also" links. However, I wouldn't withhold support for this point.

I've removed the Flannans and North Rona, which are peripheral. The story of Mingulay is very similar to St Kilda's so I've left it.

Struck; I agree those two were the least relevant. I'd still recommend finding a way to merge the relevant material into the main article but it's up to you. Mike Christie (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Done - extra sentence puts Flannans etc. back into the Geography section.

That works very well, and bulks up what had been a rather short paragraph. Actually what I meant to say was that I thought you might add the material from the remaining "see also" links to the article, and eliminate them too, but as I said it's not necessary.

• I don't know what the manual of style says on this point, but I was slightly surprised to see that references and further reading were two distinct sections. I understand that the references are the ones used in the notes, but wouldn't it be more concise to merge the two sections? Is any useful information lost by doing that?

According to WP:GTL this section "is generally for resources on the topic that are not specifically cited in the article".

Overall, this is a great piece of work, and I am likely to support if the majority of these points can be dealt with. Thanks for a very interesting read. Mike Christie (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. A few more fixes to come. Hopefully all now attended to. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 10:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. The map would be nice to have at some point in the future if you can find a source. I've switched to support above; this now thoroughly deserves the FA star. Mike Christie (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 12:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support I've done some editing myself to points needing fixing. Otherwise, it definitely looks like FA-class work. Nice job! VanTucky ^talk 20:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for the support and fixes - incidentally the last para in 'Geography' is now slightly longer and has re-emerged in a separate state. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 10:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes and References

Notes: Please complete the footnotes to include publisher, last access date, etc (per WP:CITE/ES)

Hopefully all in place and fixed.

Not corrected; sample edits left. Author and publication date should be given when available, all sources need publisher, all websources need last access date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• ^ 2001 UK Census per List of islands of Scotland
• ^ Ordnance Survey

I believe the above two references are fixed. I will go over them all again tomorrow.

Done. The BBC ref in 'Media & the arts' has a 'last updated' date rather than a publication date as this does not seem to have been supplied. Ref 83 has a link that no longer leads to the March 2007 work party information as this is no longer current. Presumably people with clever Google link apparatus can still find it.

and note style recommendations on ibid and similar abbreviations in footnotes. News sources should include publication date and author, and

ibid is not in use. Pertinent notes copied from my talk page:

"* I've just received info from ahigh: "Yes, it's in WP:FN, and the reasons are there ... we use named refs instead, in case text is moved around. Doesn't make sense in a dynamic environment where people can move text around or insert new text in between." Tony (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see why ibid would be a problem, but it wouldn't matter with op cit as this simply a direction to a previously cited text (in this case in the References section). I don't see a mention of op cit at WP:FN. If you can direct me to a particular piece of policy or an authoritative interpretation of the same I'd be grateful. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)"

Copying text from above, adding bold emphasis this time: and note style recommendations on ibid and similar abbreviations in footnotes. Similar abbreviations. Wiki is a dynamic environment, text gets moved around, what used to be above may not always be above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy on this one -- I think it would be better to use short form titles rather than op cit. "Ibid" is avoided because new footnotes can render it incorrect; "op cit" is less likely to go wrong but can become ambiguous if another editor adds citations from another work by the same author. I think it's best to use the unambiguous short form. Mike Christie (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be that you and Tony corresponded on this front already, but either way I've had no further dialogue. If necessary, further guidance would be appreciated.

I'd suggest removing op cit for two reasons. First, it has no practical value as a carrier of information. "Steel (1988) page 32" conveys the same information as "Steel (1988) op cit page 32." Second, most readers will not know what op cit means and may feel a slight twinge of resentment when they see it. Finetooth (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I had not previously understood op cit to be similar to ibid save that it is in the same language and is used in footnotes. I can think of no reasonable circumstance in which the term could cause confusion. Its purpose is to remind the editor and reader that the note is a full citation not just a sloppy part of one. I note that our science articles use a large vocabulary of words that an ordinary reader would not know the meaning of. However, lacking an alternative, I will remove the phrase. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 21:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Op. cit. no longer found.

External links could use pruning per WP:EL

Hopefully fixed.

WP:NOT (not a photo collection, for example). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 12:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.