User talk:SP-KP/Talk page archive 2008 a

Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Hi; I have responded on the article's talk page to the valid point you raised about the pronunciation sound file, which I added to the article. Let me know your thoughts. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ripley guide
The easy bit first - I haven't got any of HBW!. I'll make detailed comments on the article tomorrow, but one quicky - I can't see the logic of the review section unless it either links to the actual reviews or summarises what they said (which is probably a bit spammy) Jimfbleak (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * second quicky before I sign off for the evening - the books in references need ISBNs, but the ISBN in the main text would be better in footnotes/ref. The redlinks to authors and book/journal titles are making a rod for your own back -they are not expected, so best take them out. the opening para has three parenthetical bits, bit clunky for the hook. Incorporate or lose, and see WP:LEAD Jimfbleak (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've avoided making any edits to this myself, because if it goes to GA before I go to Thailand in mid-Feb, I'd quite like to review it.
 * This gives a bit of relevant background for Pam that I think would be worth adding, and also summarises the review in Birding - I think it is a good idea to mention reviews, as long as you can give a link so that people can read either the summary (like the Birding one, or the full text of a professional review like this. The present review section effectively just says it's been reviewed - so what?
 * The opening passage is still weak, too parenthetical, doesn't mention the endemic section - I'd split it into three paras, without parentheses and with a mention of the extra endemics
 * As above, redlinks to authors and book/journal titles should go. Journal titles eg Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR look better written in full, and an isbn and publisher are pretty well obligatory for the reffed books
 * I think it would be better to put the page numbers (which are in parentheses, not brackets) at the end of each species split - It reads poorly, starting each item with parentheses and a lower case letter.
 * the lists are, well, a bit listy - I would be inclined to move some of the material from footnotes to the text. Ref 2 definitely, since it explains the significance of Clements. Ref 11 and 17 have some interesting stuff that would give more meat to the list, some of the other ( those which are more than "a treatment previously used by...") are also possibilities.
 * as in your to-do list, you shouldn't need to link both English and binomial names for a species (esp if both redlinked)
 * I think this is a promising article, well thought out and nicely illustrated, but it needs a bit of work on content and presentation to get through GA at present. It might be worth getting Rufous-crowned Sparrow to have look at a later stage - he's a good and helpful reviewer who has helped get several of my articles up to GA/FA, hope this is helpful, Jimfbleak (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, [another review] Jimfbleak (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Birds of South Asia
Hi SP-KP: I've added the HBW10 reference. Let me know if anything else should be added! MeegsC | Talk 19:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The Brecks
Hello, I just want to inform you, because I found a link to The Brecks at User:SP-KP/Placestodo: I have created this page as redirect to Breckland. I hope I did everything correct. As non-native speaker I'm somewhat confused that "the" is part of the article's name as in "The Fens". Best regards --Cyfal (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Christianity
No problem in the assistance. I think one way to improve the discussion going on is to simply have more join the discussion... I was reading the back-and-forth between you and Str and felt that for normal human reasons he was becoming frustrated despite that fact that your questions were valid, and your entire thesis of "this is not obvious to non-Christians" is quite valid. That being said, it is a fine balancing act to 1. Make it clear that most of the article is based on beliefs and interpretation and not fact in the strict sense, with 2. Not discrediting Christianity or patronizing people by over-simplifying ideas. I'll be more active in the discussion and points you are bringing up and will be as neutral as possible as to find change on agreeable ground for everyone. Gwynand (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lundy & Quantocks
Thanks for your improvements to Lundy. If you had a few minutes could you take a look at the Ecology sections of Quantock Hills as I'm hoping to work this up to GA. I got most of it from the SSSI sheets but I'm sure it could be worded in a better way & you may have other sources?&mdash; Rod talk 11:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I've now put Quantock Hills up for GA as (I think) I've done everything else to it.&mdash; Rod talk 08:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again.&mdash; Rod talk 20:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Chew Valley/Proposed revision
A tag has been placed on Template:Chew Valley/Proposed revision requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)