![]() | Mendip Hills is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 1, 2010. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think that the climate section is flawed and lets down the otherwise high quality of the article. A lot of this is text lifted from another website and relates in general to the South West of England region rather than specifically to the Mendip Hills. I suggest that any weather data that cannot be directly attributable to the Mendip Hills should be removed. As for the claim that snow falls on 8-15 days per year, I cannot remember there being more than 8 days of snowfall in the whole of the past 5 years that I have lived in the Mendips. -- Cheesy Mike 16:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I was about to add a link to the Mendip Gliding Club, but then noticed that it had previously been delinked. I can see why; but this has had the unfortunate consequence of removing any link to gliding—which is a pity, given that other sports such as caving, climbing, abseiling and hillwalking are all linked.
As it happens Gliding is a FA & well worth reading. I wonder whether you could link to it by changing the current wording to something like the following:
Incidentally, the MGC website has rather a nice aerial view of the Cheddar Reservoir: perhaps it could be included.
The Mendip article is excellent. Good luck with the FAC! -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a few comments on what is in general an excellent article. I could have made these points on the FAC page, I suppose, but it feels more appropriate to do so here.
Otherwise a really good & informative read. My next appearance will be on the FAC page. -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Oh, those rabbits again ... If you are going to give the scientific name, give the species, not the order (which includes hares, among other things). I presume we're dealing with the European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Geology If it's Carboniferous Limestone, there's something wrong—or insufficiently explained—about the reference to "200 million years ago" (which is roughly Triassic/Jurassic). You'd better check this. It's not necessarily wrong, but the Carboniferous was roughly 360-300 Mya.
US geological usage divides the Carboniferous into Mississipian & Pennsylvanian: I suggest you make it clear in which period the Mendips were formed (I'd tell you if I knew!).
I've made a couple of minor edits in this section, including a para break to separate the mining.
Coordinates (at the top of the page). I would think you could drop the seconds, which specify the location down to 100 ft or so! The nearest minute would do (down to 1 mile or so). I haven't used this template myself, but usually you can just omit any unnecessary parameters—in this case, the seconds of lat & long. -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello - thanks for asking! I added a paragraph that I hope elucidates the issue - basically, the rocks (Carboniferous Limestone) were laid down during Early Carboniferous time, and the uplift that created the mountains (that the Hills are, I assume, the remnant of) ocurred a bit later, around 300 million years ago. So it was not incorrect to refer to the mountains of 200 million years ago, but I added "200 to 300 million" to try to make it clearer. The mountains would have existed all that time - and still do, to the extent that the Hills are their remnants. I did a bit of research to check on these ages, but if some geologist comes along who is more specifically knowledgeable than I about this area, I hope they can improve it even more! It looks like you all have done a very nice job on the article. Hope this helps - any questions, let me know, and of course feel free to improve my expression of this. Cheers Geologyguy 01:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Featured article status. Woo hoo! Well done Rod for driving this. Lots of us have contributed over the past few months but it wouldn't have reached FA without your input and direction. -- Cheesy Mike 08:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello!
This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:Uk_outline_map.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:British_Isles_United_Kingdom.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 ( talk) 10:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I have resolved the individually templated "citation needed"s. <>Multi‑Xfer<> ( talk) 04:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Have any of the peaks of the Mendip Hills been summited? If so, it might be useful, from a historical standpoint, to give the dates of the first ascents and the names of the intrepid apinists involved. 98.27.45.153 ( talk) 09:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm bemused that such an uninteresting image has been chosen for the infobox. There is a vast range of images on Geograph, such as this one, which in my view would give a better perception of the area. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 09:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Surely they are commonly called the Mendips, not Mendip? I have never heard the latter. 82.32.238.139 ( talk) 09:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
In IE 7 and 8 there is a huge white space under the geology header. Probably caused by the nav box. Any thoughts? (sarcastic "get a better browser" comments are not useful by the way - 60 odd percent of the world uses IE so whilst it may be rubbish that's not really the point). 86.147.182.85 ( talk) 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't find the Mills book, although I did find Watts, Victor (2004), The Cambridge Dictionary of English Place-Names, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-36209-1. The entry for Mendip Hills is on page 407 and agrees with what is attributed to Mills. As such, I suggest removing mention of mills from the article but retaining the information and simply using Watts insted of Mills. Nev1 ( talk) 18:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Rather than clutter up the FA review page with a lot of detailed comments I intend to list them here as I go through the article. -- Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Do mast towers and micro-hydroelectric plants belong in the History section? This article needs a general edit, but as an American I'm not going to do it. I did capitalize the first letter of a sentence, but I'm too old to battle other editors over re-writes.
MarkinBoston ( talk) 15:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Mendip Hills is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 1, 2010. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think that the climate section is flawed and lets down the otherwise high quality of the article. A lot of this is text lifted from another website and relates in general to the South West of England region rather than specifically to the Mendip Hills. I suggest that any weather data that cannot be directly attributable to the Mendip Hills should be removed. As for the claim that snow falls on 8-15 days per year, I cannot remember there being more than 8 days of snowfall in the whole of the past 5 years that I have lived in the Mendips. -- Cheesy Mike 16:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I was about to add a link to the Mendip Gliding Club, but then noticed that it had previously been delinked. I can see why; but this has had the unfortunate consequence of removing any link to gliding—which is a pity, given that other sports such as caving, climbing, abseiling and hillwalking are all linked.
As it happens Gliding is a FA & well worth reading. I wonder whether you could link to it by changing the current wording to something like the following:
Incidentally, the MGC website has rather a nice aerial view of the Cheddar Reservoir: perhaps it could be included.
The Mendip article is excellent. Good luck with the FAC! -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a few comments on what is in general an excellent article. I could have made these points on the FAC page, I suppose, but it feels more appropriate to do so here.
Otherwise a really good & informative read. My next appearance will be on the FAC page. -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Oh, those rabbits again ... If you are going to give the scientific name, give the species, not the order (which includes hares, among other things). I presume we're dealing with the European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Geology If it's Carboniferous Limestone, there's something wrong—or insufficiently explained—about the reference to "200 million years ago" (which is roughly Triassic/Jurassic). You'd better check this. It's not necessarily wrong, but the Carboniferous was roughly 360-300 Mya.
US geological usage divides the Carboniferous into Mississipian & Pennsylvanian: I suggest you make it clear in which period the Mendips were formed (I'd tell you if I knew!).
I've made a couple of minor edits in this section, including a para break to separate the mining.
Coordinates (at the top of the page). I would think you could drop the seconds, which specify the location down to 100 ft or so! The nearest minute would do (down to 1 mile or so). I haven't used this template myself, but usually you can just omit any unnecessary parameters—in this case, the seconds of lat & long. -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello - thanks for asking! I added a paragraph that I hope elucidates the issue - basically, the rocks (Carboniferous Limestone) were laid down during Early Carboniferous time, and the uplift that created the mountains (that the Hills are, I assume, the remnant of) ocurred a bit later, around 300 million years ago. So it was not incorrect to refer to the mountains of 200 million years ago, but I added "200 to 300 million" to try to make it clearer. The mountains would have existed all that time - and still do, to the extent that the Hills are their remnants. I did a bit of research to check on these ages, but if some geologist comes along who is more specifically knowledgeable than I about this area, I hope they can improve it even more! It looks like you all have done a very nice job on the article. Hope this helps - any questions, let me know, and of course feel free to improve my expression of this. Cheers Geologyguy 01:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Featured article status. Woo hoo! Well done Rod for driving this. Lots of us have contributed over the past few months but it wouldn't have reached FA without your input and direction. -- Cheesy Mike 08:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello!
This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:Uk_outline_map.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:British_Isles_United_Kingdom.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 ( talk) 10:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I have resolved the individually templated "citation needed"s. <>Multi‑Xfer<> ( talk) 04:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Have any of the peaks of the Mendip Hills been summited? If so, it might be useful, from a historical standpoint, to give the dates of the first ascents and the names of the intrepid apinists involved. 98.27.45.153 ( talk) 09:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm bemused that such an uninteresting image has been chosen for the infobox. There is a vast range of images on Geograph, such as this one, which in my view would give a better perception of the area. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 09:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Surely they are commonly called the Mendips, not Mendip? I have never heard the latter. 82.32.238.139 ( talk) 09:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
In IE 7 and 8 there is a huge white space under the geology header. Probably caused by the nav box. Any thoughts? (sarcastic "get a better browser" comments are not useful by the way - 60 odd percent of the world uses IE so whilst it may be rubbish that's not really the point). 86.147.182.85 ( talk) 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't find the Mills book, although I did find Watts, Victor (2004), The Cambridge Dictionary of English Place-Names, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-36209-1. The entry for Mendip Hills is on page 407 and agrees with what is attributed to Mills. As such, I suggest removing mention of mills from the article but retaining the information and simply using Watts insted of Mills. Nev1 ( talk) 18:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Rather than clutter up the FA review page with a lot of detailed comments I intend to list them here as I go through the article. -- Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Do mast towers and micro-hydroelectric plants belong in the History section? This article needs a general edit, but as an American I'm not going to do it. I did capitalize the first letter of a sentence, but I'm too old to battle other editors over re-writes.
MarkinBoston ( talk) 15:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)