Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Outer Hebrides/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 20:21, 10 October 2009 [1].

List of Outer Hebrides edit

Nominator(s): Ben MacDui 18:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because it is now complete and I hope ready to join its peers in the pantheon of Scottish island FLs. Ben MacDui 18:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a list of..." Featured lists no longer begin in this way. See recently promoted FLs for suggestions. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to keep up with the ever-changing style guidelines, and easy enough to make this change, which I will be happy to do. Co-incidentally I recently raised an issue at WP:BOLDTITLE on a related theme after an editor started removing the bold in the opening sentence of various FAs. This guideline still says: "In lists (including outlines, indexes, and glossaries), the subject is generally preceded by the article type (such as "List of")." It's a confusing world. Ben MacDui 08:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • Intro is way too long. A large chunk of it should go into a lower section. As a corollary, I don't think we need the geology, settlement history, economy, etc.; that's better dealt with in the main article, rather than a list article.
Done.
    • This may be just me, but I prefer to see references and footnotes separated.
I have not been asked to do this in previous FLCs, but I agree it is a neat method and I will have a go.
Done.
    • The table of Gaelic appears to be there randomly and doesn't really add anything to this list. Perhaps that belongs better on a page of Scottish island terminology.
Done - although not sure where else it would go - might need to create something.
    • Is there a source for the minor island list?
Done - its a trawl through the Ordnance Survey maps. Ben MacDui 09:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are some in the list double-indented and not bold?
The double indentation indicates that it is a sub-set of the emboldened section. I could bold the double indented sub-section name, although that style has not been used elsewhere. Ben MacDui 09:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is St Kilda not linked in the small archipelagos section? And why isn't it in the table?
In the end I decided to include St K in the outlying islands and not here (it could have gone either way), but I will look at this and make this more explicit.
Hopefully now completed. To be explicit, it's not in the table as its not in the list, whereas the others are. Ben MacDui 12:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these comments - all now done, I hope. Ben MacDui 13:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The images need alt text per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk · contribs) is the expert on it, so you might seek him for advice on writing it. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fear that if we have got to the stage where we need experts to write image captions we are in a pretty pickle , but I will certainly look into it. Ben MacDui 07:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite an intriguing task. I have had a go and will ask the good Eubulides for assistance. ( I have noticed that a fair number of lists don't have many images....).Ben MacDui 19:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The alt text that was added is excellent, except for the maps. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for more on that; briefly, a map's alt text should focus on the gist of what it says to the sighted reader rather than accidental visual details (for example, it shouldn't mention map colors, and should say "north of" rather than "above"). Also, several images still are missing useful alt text; please see the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks - the latter is fixed - stray parameters - and I will look at the maps later today. Ben MacDui 07:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Map fixes now also attempted. Ben MacDui 21:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks good, except I'd replace "A red dot lies at the northern tip of this island indicating the location of the Butt of Lewis." with "The Butt of Lewis lies at the northern tip of this island." as per WP:ALT#Brevity and WP:ALT#Maps. Eubulides (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - and thanks again. Ben MacDui 18:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and thank you for fixing it up. Eubulides (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nominator. Ben MacDui 15:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've made a few minor changes, and I find everything to be great. Reywas92Talk 16:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks - foolishly, I had not thought to use "Note" singular before. Ben MacDui 17:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Although one change is necessary - there's a stray sentence after the table in the uninhabited islands list which could probably be placed either in that section's lead or in a note. Also, when you get tired of doing this for Scottish islands, we've got plenty of islands over here in the Americas that need better lists... Geraldk (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - and fixed. Three lists down and four to go - so many islands and so little time. I see from List of islands of Canada that there are "34377 other minor islands", which must have taken a while to count... My favourite is Landsat Island. Ben MacDui 18:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  1. "Smaller islets and skerries" section doesn't have a table that conforms with the rest of the list. It is missing the area, height and other information. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little such information available mostly due to the small size and large number of islets involved. There are two main sources of area information; one only includes inhabited islands, the other very few that are smaller than 40 ha. Another complication is that for smaller islands, area estimates have to take the tides into consideration. See for example this OS map - at lower stages of the tide, some islands merge with one another. Height data is available on Ordnance Survey maps for some of the more elevated of these islets, but where they are relatively flat (as per grid reference HY445262) there is no detailed information. Next to none of them will have highest points that are individually named. For larger islands there are usually Gaelic and English or anglicised names, but few of the smaller islands have the latter. It might be possible to offer "translations" into English, but a lot of the names are ambiguous and this would probably involve OR in many cases. The existing FLs of List of Orkney islands and List of Shetland islands use the same technique. In my view the alternatives are either to include them for completeness or exclude them altogether. There simply isn't enough information to tabulate them I'm afraid. Ben MacDui 19:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A solution could be having another column for the two previous table with "Islands in the vicinity" listing those island. My main problem is that the style switches badly in the "Smaller islets and skerries" section. You are repeating the main island's names and saying in their vicinity is xx so why not have this in the first columns?
The solution would work well enough if each larger island had few islets. However, consider the "Lewis and Harris" section of List of Outer Hebrides#Smaller islets and skerries. At a quick guess there are about a hundred, which would create havoc with the tabulation. Ben MacDui 20:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there is no real solution in this case. I support the list it's of FL quality.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK - many thanks. Ben MacDui 20:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Various Gaelic names are used repeatedly. The suffix ay or aigh or aidh is generally from the Norse øy meaning "island". Eilean (plural: eileanan) also means "island". Beag and mòr (also bheag and mhòr) mean "little" and "big" and are often found together. Sgeir is "skerry" and often refers to a rock or rocks that lie submerged at high tide. Dubh is "black", dearg is "red" and glas means "grey" or "green". Orasaigh is from the Norse Örfirirsey meaning "tidal" or "ebb island"." shouldn't this be referenced? Isn't it considered OR? Or is this from the general references?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OR - goodness no. Even monoglot English speakers who live in the Hebrides would know most of these words, so often do they appear in a topographical context. However, you are quite right, they deserve a reference and I have added a standard one. Note that in order to access the individual pdfs you have to click through from the web page specified. Incidentally, I noticed your interest in Abid al-Bukhari. There are, even today, Hebridean men nick-named "gillie-dubh", literally meaning "black man" - although they are not Scots of African descent, but those with dark hair, whose supposed ancestors were ship-wrecked mariners from the Spanish Armada. Ben MacDui 20:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good level of support so far, just fix his last, last moment oppose and job done. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oppose

  • The area column on both tables doesn't sort correctly. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 21:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As well as IE, I've tried Firefox so I don't understand the nominators comments below but I shall bite my tongue about making personal remarks. Anyway sortability is in the criteria (note to the supporters) so until the area/population columns get fixed I'm opposing. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jpeeling, I'm working on the sorting right as we speak. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I've already promoted the list per WP:BADTIMING which probably doesn't exist but is a scenario when someone identifies an issue at the same time that I'm promoting lists.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I believe that the sorting issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent list. Could you make the approx area (e.g., "c. 30") sort alongside their nearest exact areas. I think this is also Jpeeling comment. Colin°Talk 22:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Meets all criteria, interesting list. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • One question though: where the highest point cell is blank, does that mean the info is not available or there is no highest point? If the the info is unavailable, leave the cell blank, but if there is no highest point put a centered em dash in the cell (code: {{center|&mdash;}}) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sort fix. To be absolutely explicit, every island has an eminence that the Ordnance Survey almost always mark as a spot height. In the cases of some of the smaller and flatter islands, this eminence does not have a recorded name. When the island was inhabited the residents probably did give this eminence a name, but it has not been recorded. I therefore think the "info is unavailable" and the blanks are fine, but you could argue the other way. Ben MacDui 07:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are right, blanks are correct here. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Lead image suggests we look at the orange islands for the Outer Hebrides. This is a challenge for those who are colour-blind and must contravene WP:ACCESS.
  • "This is a list of inhabited islands in the Outer Hebrides,..." not good prose. Although this isn't the lead sentence, isn't there a way you can express this without "This is a list..."?
  • Table doesn't sort correctly for me for Area or Population. I would guess it's because those columns have non-numeric text in them.
  • You use commas in the prose for separating thousands but not in the tables. Be consistent.
  • "grid reference NF785186" is this really required? In-line links like this aren't good.
  • Last inhabited column of the table - 18th Century should be about 100 years before 1890 when sorted chronologically, it isn't for me. Post 16th century is in an odd place too. Plus Area sorts incorrectly for me.
  • What do blanks mean in the "Highest point" column?
  • Forgive my ignorance but what is a " continuing list"?
  • "The location of the Butt of Lewis" caption is really small text for me, smaller than all the other captions. Is it my setting or is it something else?
  • Small archipelagos - why sort by location?
  • Ref 23, spare ).

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt colour. The text "(Outer Hebrides in orange)" is not the only way that colour blind readers can identify the Outer Hebrides. There is a colour key in the map image, with sufficient shade variation. A better map with legible text would help further. Colin°Talk 17:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re comments by The Rambling Man

  • Lead image suggests we look at the orange islands for the Outer Hebrides. This is a challenge for those who are colour-blind and must contravene WP:ACCESS.
User:Colin's comments notwithstanding I have attempted a fix by amending the text.
  • "This is a list of inhabited islands in the Outer Hebrides,..." not good prose. Although this isn't the lead sentence, isn't there a way you can express this without "This is a list..."?
Done
  • Table doesn't sort correctly for me for Area or Population. I would guess it's because those columns have non-numeric text in them.
It seems to sort OK for me - please see above comments ending in statement by Dabomb87 at 02:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC). I'm not sure what else I can do.
I wonder if this is a Safari vs Internet Explorer issue... If you can sort it okay, then I guess around 87% of our readership will be able to as well. Shame I can't! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are using Safari I definitely had problems with sortable tables. Firefox seems to do the trick. Ben MacDui 18:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use commas in the prose for separating thousands but not in the tables. Be consistent.
I thought using commas in tables caused problems for some browsers, but I have added them. They work OK for me.
  • "grid reference NF785186" is this really required? In-line links like this aren't good.
I have moved the link to a note.
  • Last inhabited column of the table - 18th Century should be about 100 years before 1890 when sorted chronologically, it isn't for me. Post 16th century is in an odd place too. Plus Area sorts incorrectly for me.
For areas see above. The last inhabited one is tricky. I am trying to find a way that will allow the tables to sort the items with text. It seems to work if you put "19 th century" rather than "19th century" but it looks silly. "19 th century (mid)" also seem to work better than "mid 19th century" but suffers from the same problem. I will keep trying.
Certainly working better now - it all looks in place to me except Gighay , which is still two places out of order in my browser.
I have undertaken a fix that seems to work, although it feels more like a bodge. Ben MacDui 18:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do blanks mean in the "Highest point" column?
I've added an explanatory comment to the reference that "Blanks indicate that no name is recorded for this eminence". See also above thread ending in comment by Dabomb87 at 22:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC).
  • Forgive my ignorance but what is a "continuing list"?
It by no means a technical expression! I wonder if this is Scottish English - it just means, well that the list is continuing - perhaps like a continuing drama. (Not that I have ever seen one you understand).
  • "The location of the Butt of Lewis" caption is really small text for me, smaller than all the other captions. Is it my setting or is it something else?
It was nicked from another article and the text was made deliberately small for no reason that I am aware of. Fixed.
  • Small archipelagos - why sort by location?
Why sort at all in such a small list? In the interests of transparency I should say that the sort function was introduced by an FLC reviewer. I have switched the sorting off, but I have no strong views on this subject - please feel free to amend as you see fit.
  • Ref 23, spare ).
Thanks - fixed.Ben MacDui 19:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - mostly done I think - I will check the table sorting issue again tomorrow. Ben MacDui 20:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: there are a number of templates which assist sortablility in tables, such as {{nts}}, {{sort}} etc. It may be worth checking these out. As far as I know they're browser-independent... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Ben MacDui 20:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Outer_Hebrides/archive1&oldid=1088117442"