Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset/archive1

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 Crisco 1492 07:22, 25 April 2015 [1].

List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset edit

Featured list candidates/List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset/archive1

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 21:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The is the sixth (and penultimate) list of Scheduled monuments in Somerset. It follows the format of the previous lists but is considerably larger, particularly in the number of bowl barrows, cairns, stone rows and standing stones. All entries are referenced and images have been provided where suitably licenced pictures are available. Any comments appreciated. — Rod ^talk 21:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments from Harrias ^talk

Again there is a mix of metric (imperial) and imperial (metric) for units, which I think would benefit from one consistent format.

Thanks for spotting these. I have flipped a few so they should all be metric (imperial) but if you spot any more please shout.— Rod ^talk 22:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you favour keeping the EH titles, but "Alderman's Barrow at N of Almsworthy Common" doesn't make grammatical sense to me?

I have take out the "at" but should still be searchable under the EH title.— Rod ^talk 22:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know there isn't really any logical way to split this down, but this list seems to be bordering on being too long for me. Harrias ^talk 21:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you know I have already spilt Somerset into 7 lists and can't see how to split it further. There is one more to come which is slightly longer than this one.— Rod ^talk 22:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of comments from Keith D

There appears to be a problem with the linkage to note a.

Hopefully fixed.— Rod ^talk 22:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the split of English Heritage in April may be a good idea to change over the URLs and name to the Historic England site which is already live. Suggest using {{NHLE}} for the references to pick up the new web site and name as this future proofs against any further changes as it keeps all instances of web site in one place.

I will look at this tomorrow, however as all the links still work I may be able to do a global find & replace English Heritage to Historic England, rather than having to reformat hundreds of refs.— Rod ^talk 22:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher updated.— Rod ^talk 17:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keith D (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments. Hopefully link to note "a" & publisher updated.— Rod ^talk 17:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This page maintains the high standard of its predecessors. It is formidably referenced, clear, doubtless comprehensive, and meets all the FL criteria, in my view. (Speaking of "view", the table fits less well on one of my screens than on my other two, but with a hundred-and-one different varieties of screen in use these days, I suppose that is inevitable, and is certainly not something that influences my support.) Tim riley talk 10:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noswall59 A few points, more may follow:

Firstly, I am happy that this is comprehensive ;)
The notes ought to be consistent or split into a separate subsection - the first one is "a", but the others are "note x".

Thanks - I'm not sure how to solve that one - Notes 1,2 & 3 are autogenerated by Template:EH listed building header whereas "note a" is specific to this list explaining the discrepancy in the numbers of items (which you helped me sort out.)— Rod ^talk 15:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've fixed this - it was a case of adding <ref group="note">... instead of the note template. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Like I say, more will follow, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

OK but I feel I should let you, any others willing to make comments, and the FLC deleagtes know I will be away from 3-13 April and will not have any access to respond to any comments. I will deal with them (as best I can) as soon as I return.— Rod ^talk 15:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now been back for a few days and would welcome any further comments.— Rod ^talk 17:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rod, apologies for not getting back to you on this - I've been busy this week and it slipped my mind. I've read through the lead and I can't fault the prose. I can also vouch for its comprehensiveness, but I do not have the resources around me or local expertise to check every entry in the list for accuracy, although, as usual, I imagine there are no major issues. As such I am willing to support on prose. And, as Tim suggests below, it is a shame more counties don't have people like you, prepared to write up so much about their local history. I hope you enjoyed your break, regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

~~Support~~ – I could have sworn I'd added my support already (getting aged and forgetful), and hasten to do so now. This is a worthy companion to its predecessors, and fully meets the FL criteria. Other counties may well sigh in vain for their own Rodw to write up their monuments so well. Tim riley talk 18:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I think you have already supported (2 April) so I don't think it can be counted twice.— Rod ^talk 18:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh! I really am getting senile. So sorry! Still (and note my surname) remember the old Irish maxim, "Vote early, vote often". Apologies both to Rod and to the FL coordinators (who know me well enough to treat me very kindly). Tim riley talk 18:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~ sigh.... ~ ;-) - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't think I've previously supported it though. Good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.