Talk:Steep Holm

Untitled

For some reason, the map shown here displays with a black background on IE. Morwen 13:31, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Weird. I thought IE had fixed its problems with transparent PNGs. I'll do it again and make the background white, then. Marnanel 15:29, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Infobox change

Changed from Infobox mountain to Infobox Islands as it is more appropriate.

Removed these parameters that didn't fit the new template:

| Prominence = 78 m | Topographic map = OS Landranger 182 | Grid_ref_UK = ST229607

Rupert Clayton (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

North Somerset not Bristol

I just reverted a change made earlier today which had put Steepholm in Bristol. This is incorrect. The proof can be seen on the Government's MAGIC mapping system here, but you will zoom into the island (scale 1:5000). It shows the Bristol City Council boundary touching the north shore of the island but not actually encompassing any of it. Furthermore the text label next to the island indicates that it is part of the Weston-super-Mare parish of North Somerset. If further proof were needed, then numerous references can be found on the North Somerset Council website to the island e.g. in the local plan. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 16:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Steep Holm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 15:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Will take a day or two to finish. Please be patient.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   No copyvio issue. There are some grammar issues throughout the article, particularly in the history section, especially with run-on and awkward sentences. I'll point out some - Prehistoric: the 4th and 5th sentences in the 2nd paragraph; Religious foundations: 1st, 8th, 9th sentences; Manorial, sentences 2, 4, 7, 2nd paragraph, sentences 1, 3,

I have attempted to improve these.— Rod ^talk 15:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rodw - there are still quite a few throughout the article. I went in to the sections I mentioned and made some corrections. This is really the only issue I still see. Very nice job so far. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been through and made a few more grammar changes. Are there other "run-on and awkward sentences" that I'm not spotting?— Rod ^talk 08:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rodw - There are a couple throughout (the World wars section) comes to mind. But I don't think enough to keep this from GA. You might want to take one more look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Lead is a good summary of the article, good layout.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Well referenced. Couple of places that might be cases of WP:CITEKILL (e.g. 2nd paragraph in Palmerston Fort - consider of moving some to an "External links" section)

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Everything is well sourced.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Covers the island and all its aspects.

   B. Focused (see summary style):

   No section goes into too much depth, yet each section adequately covers its subject.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images are public domain or have the appropriate CC license

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall: pass

   Pass or Fail: