Talk:Northern Isles/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments
I've had a quick read of this article, and on the basis of that my first impression is that this is a good article and should make GA-status this time round (but there is a big "But", see later).

The article is well referenced, so I have no real concerns on WP:Verifiability; and the article is well illustrated.

BUT: There is nothing about climate (climate is included in both the Orkney and a Shetland articles) and nothing about transport and transport routes (these are Islands!!). "Obvious" means of transport are boats/ships/ferries (harbours) and planes (airports), but what about roads and causeways; and both topics are discussed in the Orkney and a Shetland articles, so only a summary is, possibly, needed.

I'm now going to work my way through the article, but I will be returning to these points: in respect of WP:WIAGA, criteria 3. I will be mostly concentrating on "problems", if any. So if I don't find any/many, this section could be quite short. Pyrotec (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for undertaking this. I didn't add a climate section as there is very little to say that would not be repetition of the existing island sections, but it's easy enough to put together. Likewise transport - I'll get to this in the next day or two. Ben   Mac  Dui  20:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Now attempted. Ben   Mac  Dui  13:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Geography, Geology, Prehistory -
 * These three sections are OK.


 * History, culture and politics -
 * This looks OK.


 * Modern times -
 * Politics -
 * This looks OK.


 * Economics -
 * This is highly summarised, and I'm not sure that the balance is right: i.e. "The very different geologies of the two archipelagos have resulted in dissimilar local economies. In Shetland, the main revenue producers in Shetland are agriculture, aquaculture, fishing, renewable energy, the petroleum industry (crude oil and natural gas production), the creative industries and tourism.[62]".
 * Well perhaps, but does Shetland produce crude oil and natural gas, or just revenue from crude oil and natural gas? I'm assumed (since I've seen it), since it is not mentioned at all, that there was a place called Sullom Voe Terminal where this product was brought ashore from the North Sea Oilfields and was merely stored before being taken away by ships. The major benefit, apart from jobs, is tax revenue. There is no mention of how long it has been there (at Sullom Voe) and what was there before oil; and, there is less information about North Sea oil than, for instance, "Shetland has a strong tradition of local music.....". (I'm not knocking local music and I happen to enjoy it, but in terms of generating revenue North Sea oil makes much much more money).
 * I have added some detail about Shetland's oil and gas industry. Shetland is a major producer from the East Shetland Basin and I have added the word "offshore" to emphasise this. (It's also in the lead). As I understand it the Sullom Voe throughput is mostly from the Brent and Ninian fields to the east and the Schiehallion oilfield to the west. I also added some information about renewables to expand this section a little.
 * Orkney, takes a longer view, going back to the 19th century, but the discussion is mostly "ag & fish". Its' importance in the World Wars is air brushed out, i.e. no mention even in respect of tourism. (same applies to Whale hunting, i.e. no mention).
 * World wars section added plus a sentence on whaling. Ben   Mac  Dui  15:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Culture -
 * This looks OK.


 * Island names -
 * Shetland, Orkney -
 * These two subsections look OK.

... stopping for now. To be continued, tommorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The recent series of edits, see discussion above, have both addressed my comments in respect of the Economics section and plugged a hole in "scope" that I had not yet got round to mentioning in detail. The WP:Lead is possibly rather "thin" nad in my eyes could do with a bit more "meat", however, I'm not going to delay my final summary. Pyrotec (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

In the light of recent improvements, I'm happy to be able to award this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)