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 Dabomb87 15:18, 10 August 2010 [1].

List of outlying islands of Scotland[edit]

List of outlying islands of Scotland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ben MacDui 19:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it completes the main lists of Scottish islands and I believe meets the criteria. Ben MacDui 19:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Ben MacDui 19:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ucucha 19:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from WFC
*Comment Initial reaction is generally positive. I'll return to review this one when I've got a bit less on my plate. As a brief opening comment, "storm washed" could do with qualification. I'm confident of what it means through familiarity with Rockall, but a reader without that benefit might not work it out. --WFC-- 23:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK - fixed. Ben MacDui 09:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments from WFC:

  • I think that citations 18-21 (as of the time of this post) should be considered notes.
Various fixes attempted. I think 18 is a reference albeit a joint one.
  • The caption "Soay, St Kilda, the westernmost island of Scotland", seems at odds with the suggestion that Rockall is considered part of Scotland by the British. On the other hand, saying it's the second westernmost might suggest that wikipedia is passing judgement on Britain's claim to Rockall. Perhaps it would be worth coming up with an alternative caption?
Quite right and fix attempted.
  • I sympathise with and congratulate you on compiling this list, due to the difficulty in defining it. Doubtless there were at least a dozen islands where it was hard to decide whether they belonged here or elsewhere. It's tough as a reviewer as well, because we need to gauge whether the decision-making process was as consistent as it could be. I'll therefore use one example to ask as a general question. Could you elabourate on how the decision was taken to include Sule Stack and Sule Skerry here, but not Fair Isle? The purpose of the question isn't to agree or disagree with the call, but to get a rough idea of how the decisions were taken.
The question is a good one, although the example is easy to deal with. Fair Isle and Foula are both inhabited and above the nominal 40ha mark that enables them to qualify for the List of Shetland islands#Main list. Some of the islands on this list are easy to justify, such as those in the Solway Firth as they are not, by any reasonable definition, part of any of the other fairly well-defined archipelagoes. The ones that I think are most questionable are Sule Skerry and Sule Stack that are part of the Orkney council area. They are however 66 kilometres west of Orkney and included as separate outliers by Haswell-Smith, the main source, who mentions them under the main heading of Rona. I think they can be reasonably considered as "outliers" rather than part of the main group.

Regards, --WFC-- 07:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments - three replies above. Ben MacDui 17:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Ben MacDui 20:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will list them below and comment individually:

Various other definitions are used in the Scottish context. For example, the General Register Office for Scotland define an island as "a mass of land surrounded by water, separate from the Scottish mainland" but although they include islands linked by bridges etc., this is not clear from this definition. Haswell-Smith (2004) uses "an Island is a piece of land or group of pieces of land which is entirely surrounded by water at Lowest Astronomical Tide and to which there is no permanent means of dry access". This is widely agreed to be unhelpful as it consciously excludes bridged islands.
The GRO is cited as a reference. There are no page numbers to cite. The information is provided under the heading "Appendix". H-Smith's is in the Preface page xi. I can add this easily enough.
Now done. Ben MacDui 07:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^ Encyclopædia Britannica (1978) says: Hebrides – group of islands of the west coast of Scotland extending in an arc between 55.35 and 58.30 N and 5.26 and 8.40 W." This includes Gigha, St Kilda and everything up to Cape Wrath – although not North Rona.
If you think this needs a page number I can add it.
^ When inhabited, these islands had strong cultural ties to the Hebrides, but they are quite distinct from the Outer Hebrides geologically and Haswell-Smith (2004) pp. 313–331 lists St Kilda in "Section 9: The Atlantic Outliers".
This is referenced within the note. Do you think this information needs to be moved to a separate ref?
Now done. Ben MacDui 18:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^ Aird an Runair, North Uist approximately Mean High Water Springs ETRS89 57°36’10.42010"N 7°32’56.63226"W, grid reference NF 68686,70560. Distance to Rockall approximately 366.966km (228.022mi) (198.146nmi).
The first sentence is simply a statement. The second is, I admit, an unreferenced calculation, albeit hardly controversial. I'll see if anything definitive is available to corroborate this, but I don't recall ever seeing anything.
Amended and ref added. Note that this now includes examples of the the grid ref. links referred to below. Ben MacDui 08:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^ Note that the Ordnance Survey maps mark the height above sea level of a high point on most islands, but in a small number of cases, this may not be the highest point.
This is a caveat and I don't see how it could be referenced.
Indicates the presence of a lighthouse on Ordnance Survey maps.
This is a statement and I don't see how it could be referenced any further given that the OS is listed as a main reference.
^ As the name implies there are two small islets separated at higher stages of the tide. The smaller islet is circa 0.25 ha.
This is a statement and I don't see how it could be referenced unless by adding a grid reference.
^ The Ordnance Survey indicate the presence of a ruined chapel.
This is a statement and I don't see how it could be referenced any further given that the OS is listed as a main reference, unless by adding a grid reference.
^ The two islands are connected to one another and the mainland at low tides and were probably inhabited at some point in the past.
The first statement is clear from an OS map. A quick search turns up nothing to confirm the second statement, but it is inconceivable they were not inhabited at some point in the past. I will take a longer look.
Done. The Gaelic name is a clue - see also Innse Gall. Ben MacDui 08:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^ None of the very small islets are named by the Ordnance Survey.
I don't see how it could be referenced any further, unless by adding a grid reference.

First pass of replies - I'll take some time to look at the details asap. Ben MacDui 20:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass complete - awaiting further comments. Ben MacDui 08:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 14:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Cmts Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 19:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delink years in table.
Fixed - rather an odd one!
  • Surrounding islets - none shd sort last.
I'll get to this asap but it's getting late. If you have a mo' can you direct me to the sorting protocol?
Done. Ben MacDui 07:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the criteria for delinking an island?
If it is unlikely that it will have an article at any point in the near future. I can red link 'em if you prefer, although it's generally done the other way around i.e if they ever appear here they get linked in the main list they refer to.
I think islands are noteworthy and thus potentially shd have an article, but unsure. Remember, all links should be redlinked if the subject is noteworthy, so we can keep track of development and see what needs to be done. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 14:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. When you say "we"...... you are welcome to join in at the coalface.

Thanks for this - I'll get to the "none" issue tomorrow I hope Ben MacDui 20:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Last inhabited - doesn't sort properly.
It does in my browser - unless you are looking for a different way to sort the 1930-related dates. Can you say specifically what is wrong?
Sorry, I mean the uncertain and never values shd sort before a positive value. I.e. never < Iron age. Preferable, then "unknown" shd sort between never and iron age. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 14:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully done. Ben MacDui 18:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks also. Ben MacDui 20:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ben MacDui 09:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK - many thanks. Ben MacDui 07:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly great, a few (initial) fundamentals, which may just be me and my tiredness...
  • Minor issue, I alway thought the plural of archipelago was archipelagos... (i.e. no second "e")...
Dear me, you are right of course. Fixed. Ben MacDui 21:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "incorporate those which are not part of the larger archipelagoes and island groups and are thus not listed elsewhere" this is really confusing to a non-expert. Where are the "larger archipelagoes [sic]" defined, and the "island groups"? and why is there a natural "thus not listed elsewhere"?
Amended to include the "main lists" Ben MacDui 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stroma was permanently occupied until the 1970s" how "permanent" is permanent here, considering the previous island was occupied since the Neolithic period?
There are records from the Viking period and at least one prehistoric structure. One can't easily prove permanent inhabitation prior to the historic period, but there 80 people there in the 1950s. There is an element of supposition here as I don't have easy access to a great deal of detail about the island's history. I will certainly look into it further if you think this is important. Ben MacDui 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "none of which are still manned." not sure there's a need for "still" here.
They were manned until latterly. Ben MacDui 21:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would merge paras 2 & 3 of the lead since they seem to be directly related.
Done Ben MacDui 21:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless the "complication" isn't related to the definition of "island", in which case the third para needs a better starting point.
Added "relating to membership of this list". Ben MacDui 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to link "loch" in the lead for non-experts.
Reluctantly, I pander to these lesser beings. Ben MacDui 21:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "simplicity they are included in that list rather" which list is "that list"?
added "the List of Outer Hebrides". Ben MacDui 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are several small groups involved." not sure what this means at all.
Made it "There are several small groupings of outlying islands involved"
  • Is St Kilda "most notable" in your opinion or is it fact?
I was hoping you wouldn't ask. I can't say I can put a reference to this specific assertion, but here are the facts:
Hirta is double the size of the 2nd largest in the list and is several times larger than all the others.
Hirta had about double the population of the 2nd largest in the list and several times greater than all the others.
St Kilda is a World Heritage Site and none of the others are even remotely in that category.
Numerous books have been written about St Kilda, Scotland, which is an FA, and the bibliography gives a selection. I can't say for sure but I doubt anyone has ever written a book solely about any of the other islands. The next most notable (and is just an opinion) is probably the Flannan Isles due to the "mystery". Its a GA and no book only about them is listed. Arguably this is using WIkipedia as a reference, but you get my drift.
Various facts about the Stacs are listed - if there were similarly important ones for the other islands they would appear here too. There are others not listed e.g. the existence of various endemic animals such as the St Kilda Mouse. etc. Ben MacDui 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ben, you know what I'm gonna say, and I have no issue with anything you've written. But you say "most notable" in Wikipedia and expect to get away with it? Your choice. Add all this as a footnote, and maybe tone down "most notable" to "significant" or something, you may get away with it. It's nothing personal, as well you know... "notable" fine, "most notable", always debatable... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accepting that we have a duty to protect ourselves from ourselves, there are occasions when it is painful to have to deal with a situation in which editors have become little more than parrots, unable to make the most obvious of inferences without the necessity to prove that someone else thought of it first. I have nevertheless capitulated ignominiously - or to put it more simply, fix attempted. Ben MacDui 20:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I ain't no parrot. Nor would I ever wish you to capitulate without good reason. But such is Wikipedia... I'll re-review in due course, and thanks for your understanding.... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second para of "Main list" (which is a nasty heading) is a single-sentence para, any chance of merging it?
Space removed per the below. Changed to "Main islands". Ben MacDui 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sula Sgeir" is overlinked in the Main list section.
Fixed. Ben MacDui 21:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another couple of super-short paragraphs in this section, is it really necessary?
The intention was to keep those close together in the same paras but it isn't important. Done. Ben MacDui 21:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nonetheless, some have a degree of notability." interested by this, by which definition? And I don't think we'd be discussing things on Wikipedia if they weren't notable...
This could perhaps be re-phrased. I've tried " a degree of historical significance". Ben MacDui 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link ROI, Iceland but not Denmark. Any reason for that? I probably wouldn't link any of them...
Denmark is flat and undeserving, but I have de-linked them all to avoid accusations of prejudice. Ben MacDui 21:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come back when these are dealt with, just a quick run-through of the first couple of sections... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC) OK - thanks. Ben MacDui 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "The story associated with its naming is that three sons of Danish prince, sailing to avenge their sister's wrongs, were wrecked here" - don't like this, maybe "Three sons of Danish... gives the island its name"?
Amended.
  • Note 3 needs an en-dash.
Fixed. One day, I will understand the difference, and why it matters.
  • What's RCAHMS?
I am proud to say that it is the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, now explained and linked!
  • Some areas in the notes just hectares, some just square metres, but lengths are converted. Would suggest you make it internally consistent.
Too true - and fixed.
  • Citations 27, 57 and 58 appear to be notes. What makes them different from, say, note 7?
Note 7 is an explanation of distances and where they are from/too, and thus a note. 58 is I think the most clear cut - it specifies a location and identifies a reference as the structures are (most unusually) not named by the OS. 57 also specifies a location as the object is fairly well hidden in an estuary. Following on from 58 I think it is a reference, although less clearly so. 27 is currently onesmallisland.org.uk and I think you are referring to waht is now 28: "A remote rock located at...". Like 57 this is specified as someone with a map and a magnifying glass looking along the shore for islands might well miss it - in this case because it is so small and so far offshore. The logic thus proceeds in reverse chronological order from 58 to 57 to 28. I thus see no need to change them, although I am willing to do of of course.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies above by Ben MacDui 20:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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