Wikipedia:Featured article review/National parks of England and Wales/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 18:20, 3 February 2008.

Review commentary

 * I have informed WP UK geography, WP England, WP Protected areas, ALoan (original proposer) & major contributors Naturenet, Grstain, Keith Edkins, Morwen & Dunharris - what else do you want me to do?&mdash; Rod talk 20:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A week ago I discoevred this article was an FA (& had been sicne 2004) with no inline citations to verify the information given. The list of references which was given was really External links as it's not clear which bit of information comes from which source. I have organised the old references section as external links and added a few inline citations to comply with 1(c) of the Featured article criteria which says "that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate." I also put a message on the articles talk page and that of several relevant WikiProjects asking for help with citations but these have not been forthcoming. I think significant work is needed to source and back up the statements made.&mdash; Rod talk 20:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR to complete notifications. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what this is saying or how to fix it:
 * The Inquiry sat for 90 days in 2004 before being formally closed on 23 March 2005, . Defra information for public consultation on 2 July 2007, and may decide to reopen the South Downs public inquiry in late 2007.
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The edit that distorted this text happened four month ago, in August; perhaps someone who knows the topic can sort it out. Unless someone else gets to it first, I'll try later.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Bad faith nomination again. Is it a surprise or coincidence that the primary author of this and the Lisbon Earthquake left last week and two articles are on FAR this week?  These articles were fine for a long time, apparently, and just got bad as soon as the author left.  Why?  Geogre (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We can't call this bad faith without evidence Rodw meant ill. I think mav is the guy to contact. He does American parks, but might have some ideas here. Marskell (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I had no idea about the "leaving" of the primary author & I've never even looked at the Lisbon Earthquake article. I found this when I was trying to get Exmoor (one of the national parks) up to GA status & was checking links & looking for ideas for how to improve the Exmoor article. I posted notes on the relevant wikiproject pages, a week or so ago, to see if anyone was willing/able to hep improve it but nothing was forthcoming. I added some citations myself on 4th & 5th Dec to try to improve it before nominating it for FAR.&mdash; Rod talk 19:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This was certainly FA quality in 2004 but standards have become more rigorous since then. Is the only major issue the lack of inline citations? If so, I should be able to help. But if a significant or major expansion is in order, then I won't be able to help due to the fact that I only have books on U.S. parks and the scant web references available on this subject is not sufficient. Either way, I won't be able to help until the weekend since I'm currently trying to get Oxygen ready for FAC. --mav (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked over this article and tried to add some cites but I've come to the conclusion that unless the article is expanded to include sections on what is being preserved (landscapes/wildlife) and how people enjoy it (tourism/activities), then I'm afraid that no amount of citing will do. I'm not able to help much in this area because I don't have access to the necessary references and the information online is not organized in way to make creating such a synthesis piece easy. --mav (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - not too much wrong with it – fixed some refs and left comments re some updates needed, but nothing critical to warrant delisting.--mervyn (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove Erm.....not yet - really needs some updating as there is material from 2005-07 discussed in the present or future tense. Also under-referenced. Not too fussed about much of it but there are some statements which really ought to be referenced. cheers, I hate to say this, but really needs work in 1c (referencing) and, more importantly in someways, 1b. Significant portions need to be updated from 2006 to 2008, also needs some ecological work as per Mav. I'd get stuck into it myself but I am in Oz and not UK and am not too familiar with the material. sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove per 1c and Mav. --Peter Andersen (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Closing: I hate to do it to another one of ALoan's, but per mav and Cas this clearly has citation and comprehensiveness issues. Marskell (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.