Talk:Flat Holm/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Flat Holm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article is not yet ready for GA status. Please view the following suggestions:

Overall issues:

1. Article has too many unnecessary subsections. As a general rule, topics that only have a few lines of text do not generally require their own headers. ✅

2. Lead is too long. Try to condense it and put most of the information into the body of the article.

3. Prose is awkward in places. Try to avoid the passive voice as much as possible.

4. Article length in general is too long and areas are too unfocused. Cities of several million people don't have good articles that are this detailed. Try to cut information that doesn't relate directly to Flat Holm.

5. Make sure citations appear after punctuation marks. For example, "The sky is blue. " not "The sky is blue ." ✅

More detailed problems:

1. Citations are needed in the following areas:
 * a)History section, paragraph starting "An archaeological survey by H. J. Thomas" ✅
 * b)History section, paragraph starting "On May 13, 1897, Guglielmo Marconi, assisted" ✅
 * c)Buildings section, paragraph starting "In 1819, the circular stone" ✅
 * d)Buildings section, paragraph starting "The barracks for the battery" ✅
 * e)Buildings section, paragraph starting "On the outbreak of World War II over 350 soldiers" ✅
 * f)Administration section, paragraph starting "In 1975, South Glamorgan County Council" ✅

2. Introduce more-obscure historical figures with a simple title or phrase. For example, instead of just "Robert Fitzhamon formed the Shire of Glamorgan..." how about, "Robert Fitzhamon, a cousin of William the Conquerer, formed the Shire of Glamorgan..."? That way it's not absolutely necessary for a reader to look up a minor historical reference. This is especially important for names of figures that do not have internal wiki-links like H. J. Thomas.

3. The article suffers from the rare problem of having too much information; too many details start to detract from the main topic. I find these facts to be not terribly important to the understanding of Flat Holm:
 * a) Grid details of early settlements
 * b) The entire paragraph about early graves
 * c) Viking refuge
 * d) King Harold's mother
 * e) Edmund Tournor lease
 * f) Shipwrecks section. I think it's enough to say that there are shipwrecks, unless any are particularly notable, which does not seem to be the case.
 * The wreck of the William & Mary is an important story in the history of the island and it would be a shame to cut it Tony (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * g) The word "pharos" is archaic, and generally refers to one of only a few famous lighthouses from history. Best to use just the word "lighthouse" and not use pharos as a synonym. ✅
 * h) Farm House section
 * i) The exact specifications of the gun batteries and barracks.
 * j) Administration too small to stand as its own section.
 * k) The exact details of certain flora and fauna. Some information is interesting such as, "Flat Holm is one of only five places in the UK where the Wild leek is found" but other information is unnecessary such as, "the leek has a bulb that grows for several years producing only leaves, then blooms with large purple flowers that smell of garlic". See the difference? One fact relates to the island, the other to the plant. The facts that relate only to the plant are not needed unless they factor significantly to the island, for example, if the island is well-known for smelling like garlic because of the leeks.
 * l) Sustainability section. Only worthy of mention if the power system was the first of its kind or if its unique/special/interesting in some way.

Decent job overall, article just needs more copy editing to get to GA status. Will place on hold until changes can be made. Best, Epicadam (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion
I think that the article is a decent job, although still needing significant work to met the GA criteria, but I'm afraid that I cannot say that I hold the same opinion about this review. The major criticism appears to be "too much detail", which I find to be absurd in this case, and I would strongly encourage the editors of this article not to shorten the lead or to delete material to the detriment of the article.

Use of the passive voice is criticised, but glaring whoppers like this sentence: "Crispe had to agree to spend £800 for the construction of the tower and pay costs incurred to obtain official permission (known as a Crown patent) was finally built in 1737, and the light first lit on 25 March 1738." go unremarked. I'm sorry to have to say that I think this is a very poor review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking in my own defense, I was doing a cursory review of the article for GAN, not providing copy edits. When the article gets to the point where its content and organization are set, then a copy edit is perfectly in order. Further, as a general rule, I feel that all articles should be succinct to the point of getting the necessary points across to a general audience. The fact that the island has rabbits and uses solar energy are not particularly noteworthy, in my opinion. My home also has rabbits and solar panels, yet I can't find a reason why I would bother mentioning either fact in a Wikipedia article about my city. Best, Epicadam (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A GA review ought not to be a "cursory review", and an article about a small island ought not to be compared to an article about a major city. The fact, for instance, that this small island generates at least some of its own power is most certainly notable enough to be covered in this article. That fact that you may have a solar panel in your back yard is of course not notable. See the difference? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First, you're right, a GA ought not be a cursory review, but at the same time, articles nominated for GA ought not have such glaring errors in the first place. I'm not about to go through and make a list of obvious flaws in the article, I might as well just spend the time actually fixing it. And second, the fact that a small island generates its own power is interesting and should be mentioned; however, all the information that is currently in its own section can be summarized in one or two sentences and be added to the section on the farmhouse. That's all I'm trying to say. (And just FYI, the fact that this tiny island generates some of its own power is not terribly significant in itself; many small islands in the Pacific generate their own power.) -Epicadam (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ... and in an article about any of those islands that fact ought to be mentioned, as an element of their public services. If I may say so, I think that you have got completely the wrong idea about what material ought to be covered and what not. Have you read WP:UKCITIES, for instance? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep. Sure have. But I think the point is that Flat Holm is, in fact, not a city but a 35 hectare island and therefore many things that would apply to the WP:UKCITIES (Keyword guidelines) simply don't apply; it even mentions that small settlements (if this can even be called a settlement) may not have all the detailed information that would normally be present. That said, it's a cool little island with a lot of history that is worthy of mention; hence why so many people care passionately about the article. If I and other didn't, we wouldn't bother making any reviews or edits. And, of course, I am not just going to unilaterally remove pieces of information but instead am opening up talking points for consensus, as I have done below. So chill, take a deep breath, nothing is changing radically or being deleted sections outright... just making suggestions. Best, Epicadam (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Best summarised by saying that although you claim to have read the guideline, you really didn't understand it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestions
...and we'll act on them where we can. As well as being a truly collaborative work (hence the different styles) we have access to a very comprehensive archive of sources – so it’s great to have views on where we need to trim things down a bit. It may help reviewers to know that we really need to meet GA criteria, as this article could become an important resource for schools doing preparatory work as part of the curriculum before (and after) visiting. We also have an objective to raise the profile of the island, as people who live within sight of it don’t realise that there is quite so much to see. Thanks Tony (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Final Passage
I think the problems with the prose have been fixed, as have the minor formatting issues. As it stands, this is a great article, with lots of information and excellent sources. GA Pass. epicAdam (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)