Wikipedia:Peer review/British Isles/archive1

British Isles
This peer review discussion has been closed.

"British Isles" is an article that has been dogged by political rows for as long as it has existed. If the KBs of talk page archives were a measure of how good an article was then this one would be the touch stone of Featured Articles. Unfortunately, that is not how it works and while the article is not bad it could be a lot better.

Outside views on the article, looking at it as an article on geographic area, are needed to kick start long-required work. The regulars (myself included) can no longer see it as normal article. IMHO, an person not from the region would be best suited - a non-English speaker would be even better, just to be sure! - but anyone willing to comment on the article and offer areas of improvement would be VERY welcome.

One practical point (solely of my own opinion) is not to set too high a standard of what would follow your review. For example, practical reasons have dictated that the article doesn't have a History section (it couldn't be agreed on). Obviously that is not a long term solution, but for these kinds of reasons, I don't believe "British Isles" will ever be an extensive article. So maybe you should bear that in mind.

In any case, help is needed to tell us where to work and what an outside reader would expect.

Kind regards and many thanks in advance, --RA (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Your idea of sticking with the general category of "geography and places" is a good one and might help solve the organizational problems in this article. Proper sourcing is needed, and sticking to a purely descriptive "who, what, where, when" approach to the islands might help avoid editorial disagreements of a political nature. I don't live in the British Isles (Britain and Ireland) (Atlantic Archipelago), and I'm not directly involved in any of the islands' politics, although I find them interesting. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

Organization
 * "Etymology" is well-placed. ✅
 * I'd move "Geology" up to just below "Etymology", either as a separate section or as the top part of the "Geography" section. ✅
 * "Geography" is well-placed, but I would not include "Demographics" and "Transport" as subsections of "Geography". Instead, I would make those into sections of their own, and I would move "Transport" to the bottom of the article, right after "Culture". ✅
 * I would change "Political co-operation" to "Government" and completely re-write this section as a skeletal description of the main governmental entities in the archipelago (essentially central, provincial, and local) without going into too much detail and without much discussion of the history behind the arrangements. Outsiders will not be much interested in details such as " ...bilateral agreements allow UK embassies to act as an Irish consulate when Ireland is not represented in a particular country and since the partition of Ireland an informal free-travel area has continued to exist across the entire region." They will, on the other hand, want to know something about the form of government (democratic with elections held every so often), and the top-down hierarchy of governments and sub-governments across what looks like a non-homogeneous set of islands with local variations. ✅
 * I'd consider greatly reducing the "Languages" section to a skeletal description of the languages spoken and, in a general way, where. I'm thinking of perhaps one paragraph, which could then become a paragraph in the "Demographics" section. ✅
 * I'd add a "Flora and fauna" section, an overview of the plants, land animals, and fish found on or near the islands. ✅
 * The article really does need a "History" section.

Lead
 * The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. It ideally should neglect no major parts of the article, and it should not include important material that is not mentioned in the main text. About half of the existing lead is devoted to history, but the article has no history section. The lead does not mention "Etymology", "Transport", or "Culture". In short, it's not a summary of the article. WP:LEAD has details.

Transport
 * A citation seems to have gone awry in the first paragraph. See "Hardisty, Jack", etc. ✅
 * I'd think about adding a kind of summary of land transport to this section. It might include total highway mileage, total railway trackage, some mention of how goods are shipped internally, major shipping points, passenger rail, something about the system of canals, major seaports. It might not hurt to mention touristy or recreational modes of transport as well. I am thinking of networks of bicycle routes and footpaths.
 * I'd be inclined to move "Transport" to near the bottom of the article, below "Culture". ✅

Demographics
 * The Manual of Style recommends using straight prose rather than lists where feasible. I'd turn this list into one paragraph of straight prose. WP:MOS has details. ✅

Sourcing
 * Many paragraphs in the existing article are unsourced and therefore violate WP:V. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for any claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged, any direct quote, any sets of statistics, and every paragraph.

Models
 * It's often helpful to look at FA articles for ideas about how particular problems can be solved or materials organized. WP:FA is a good place to look for ideas that might be helpful here. For example, St Kilda, Scotland, is an FA article about an island archipelago; it happens to be a subset of the Atlantic Archipelago (British and Irish Isles).

I hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing this, Finetooth. They are all very helpful and very usable suggestions. I'll work on them all over the next few days. --RA (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)