Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ordnance Survey archive1

Ordnance Survey edit

95% non-self nom - just painstakingly referenced it. --PopUpPirate 22:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object
  1. Lead too short
  2. Too many short paragraphs (combine or make longer)

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Had a go at fixing it --PopUpPirate 23:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lead looks better - thanks. The paragraphs are still short though - and there is at least one one-sentence paragraph. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Why are there two lists of external links? Notes to editors, like that in the first caption should be commented out, and the image caption should come before the source acknowledgement. To link to main artiles use {{main}}. Try and work some of those see alsos into the text since they seem to be relevant, and remove others like UK topics. The Ordnance Survey working in 60 countries seems like it would be worth expanding on in the article - but there is no other mention of it beyond on the lead.--nixie 23:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another editor has kindly fixed the external links thing - I agree with your comment about the 60 countries and will try to add to it. Pity it didn't appear in Peer Review but then these things never do! (wasnt directed at you btw!!) --PopUpPirate 00:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object due to the two unfree images. Not sure what they add to the article, could they just be removed? JYolkowski // talk 02:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 2 map images are imo crucial to the article, and could in no way be obtained in any other way. --PopUpPirate 11:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, an alternate suggestion might be to get rid of one of the images, and write up a fair use rationale for the other one. It seems like there might be a plausible fair use claim. JYolkowski // talk 23:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm happy to go with that - do people think the article would be better with only 1 OS image (all things considered) - I think the 2 images make a good comparison but I understand the counterclaim. --PopUpPirate 00:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object
Why does the lead mention only the 18th century? An overview is required.
A 'one inch' map?
Lots of short paragraphs inhibit the flow.
Lacks depth and is not comprehensive. For example, what were the economic/social circumstances that led to the establishment of the OS? Do the maps have distinctive features? Have they played a role in historical research? Have they made a significant contribution in the history of map-making? Tony 12:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – please reduce the size of those images. In lower resolutions, 600x800 it squeezes the text alongside. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • The first time it says 'one-inch', 'six-inch' etc it should explain that this means 'one inch to the mile' (at least I assume it does).
    • What year did the fire at the tower of London take place? How severely did it affect their work?
    • The footnote contradicts the bit about the OS doing maps abroad during WWI. Maybe it just needs 'currently' inserting into it?
    • Something showing what one inch to the mile is as a ratio would be useful.
    • I'd like to know which countries the OS prepared maps in during WWI. Is this the only overseas work they've done?
  • CTOAGN 12:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Title of this article needs to be changed to reflect the fact that it is about the British OS rather than the OS services of other countries or OS type services in general. --Sf 12:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The name of the organisation is Ordnance Survey, the only other OS's are called Ordnance Survey Ireland and Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland. --PopUpPirate 19:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]