Talk:The Making of the English Landscape
 | The Making of the English Landscape has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 13, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | A fact from The Making of the English Landscape appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 September 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:The Making of the English Landscape/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Erachima (talk · contribs) 21:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll review this page, expected timescale later this evening. If you're active at the moment and want a head start, Chiswick, note that the current outcome would be a Hold on the basis of the same lead issues that were a delay for Historia Plantarum. --erachima talk 21:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Alright, on review, I see three issues I'd like addressed before passing the article.
- The lead section is, as mentioned, brief and inadequate. Please expand it to comply with WP:LEAD as an apt summary of the article.
- Extended with summaries of contents, illustrations and criticism. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- The description of chapter 2 is slight versus the others. Is there a reason for this?
- Extended with description and linked examples. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- You discuss the illustrative plates contained in the book at some length, but do not illustrate the article with examples of any. Why not?
- Added Plate 13, "a sunken lane in East Devon", as the example discussed in most detail in the text, with NFUR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Your rationale for the image is incorrect. The image is not being used to illustrate what a sunken lane is, and if it were that would be invalid, since it's relatively trivial to go photograph a sunken lane under a free license instead of using the one he made. Rather, the image itself is a subject of discussion in the article. --erachima talk 07:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Updated rationale as indicated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Your rationale for the image is incorrect. The image is not being used to illustrate what a sunken lane is, and if it were that would be invalid, since it's relatively trivial to go photograph a sunken lane under a free license instead of using the one he made. Rather, the image itself is a subject of discussion in the article. --erachima talk 07:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Added Plate 13, "a sunken lane in East Devon", as the example discussed in most detail in the text, with NFUR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
In the mean time, it's On Hold. --erachima talk 03:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
My concerns have been addressed, so the article passes. Good work yet again. --erachima talk 08:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the review and the perceptive suggestions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The Television section suggests that Hoskins only presented one T.V. programme, but my copy of Hoskins, W.G., 1978, 'One Man's England' BBC, London states on the flyleaf that it was 'based on the 12 BBC2 Programmes Landscapes of England, in which Professor Hoskins examines selected areas of England.'
Manninagh1958 (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Plate 13 edit
The illustration said to be plate 13 in the article is different from plate 13 in my Penguin (1985) edition, although the text is broadly similar. Did the illustrations change with the publication of the paperback edition? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's very possible. I've just checked and it is indeed plate 13 in my copy. I've removed the mention of plate, we usually don't mention such things anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)