Talk:Skerryvore

The Canadian community ought to be on a separate article surely? --JBellis 12:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This was fixed in 2007. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk

No photo?
A photo would be good. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A photo would be wonderful. Suggestions for sources are welcome. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  08:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Photo added - scoured the web and asked a few people for permission. Chairman of the West Lothian SAC responded with permission to the photo on this page: http://www.westlothiansac.co.uk/history/2000/janer_2000.html laurens (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Many, many thanks - that's great. I think that the same fellow was asked by another user for a picture of Dubh Artach about a year ago, with no result. You are clearly persuasive! Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  21:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a pleasure, I wanted to make a general contribution since I translated the nice little article into Afrikaans (af:Skerryvore). BTW - There is another person who agreed to release their photo see http://www.flickr.com/photos/sulaire/1106215531/ Looking at the photo I am just a bit worried that it may be Dubh Artach and not Skerryvore. I looks like it has too much land for Skerryvore - if you look at this page the similarity with the land form on the top picture seems quite strong: http://www.westlothiansac.co.uk/history/2000/janer_2000.html - you can't see the red band on the flickr photo as its too far


 * What do you think? laurens (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The most obvious difference between the two is that Dubh Artach is an isolated rock, whilst Skerryvore is a complex series of reefs. This set of images shows something of the latter. The Sam Bough painting on the Dubh Artach article is the closest I can find to an image taken from a similar position to the Flickr one, and they are pretty similar. There is an image from much further out here, which is inconclusive, but is certainly similar to sulaire's. There was a similar issue discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scottish Islands recently. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  16:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dynamite
Dynamite was not invented to 1866. They must have been using gunpowder.--Grahame (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You are quite correct - Nicholson definitely states it was dynamite, but I will have to come up with an alternative phrase. Thanks for that. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  08:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review
This is an excellent article, and I only have a very few points before it's listed:


 * "The light shone without a break until a fire in 1954 ..." It shone without a break from when until 1954?
 * Fixed
 * "He designed a tower 138 feet high with a base of 42 feet, narrowing to just 16 feet at the lantern gallery." The article gives imperial -> metric conversions elsewhere.
 * Fixed
 * It would be the tallest and heaviest lighthouse yet built, with 151 steps to the top and today it is the tallest lighthouse in Scotland." The tallest yet built where? In the world? Why "today" the tallest lighthouse in Scotland? Wasn't it always the tallest?
 * Hopefully explained.
 * "Dear sir, I am extremely sorry to inform you that the barrack erected on Skerryvore Rock has totally disappeared." Should this be Dear Sir? Quotations need to be cited immediately after their use.
 * Fixed.
 * "Work begun on the foundations for the lighthouse continued until 30 September." Not sure what this means.
 * Removed 'begun', which hopefully makes it clear.
 * "However, between April 1839 and June 1840 4,300 blocks had been taken from quarries on Mull donated by the Duke of Argyll." The Duke was presumably donating the blocks, not the quarries?
 * Indeed yes - wording revised accordingly
 * Subsection headings like Fitting out ought not to have a left-aligned image underneath them, as that tends to disassociate the heading from the following text.
 * Moved the 'Fitting out' image right and the one below it left.

So just a few small things before it gets listed as a GA. I'm off out now, so if these issues are still remaining when I get back, then I'll put the article on hold, otherwise I'll pass it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your prompt attention. I have made a start and expect to complete the changes this evening (GMT). Now attended to. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  19:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You've done a fine job, this article is now listed as a GA. I really don't think it's very far away from being a good FA candidate, if you've got the energy and motivation. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)