This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
South West Coast Path article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | South West Coast Path was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To reach GA standard - lots of bit but mostly easy to achieve
[this wouldn't affect the GA classification but it would be interesting to have a map of the route] Nengscoz416 ( talk) 02:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This article has now been a stable GA for over a year, with recent additions particularly in relation to some places in Cornwall. Apart from a few sections without citations I was wondering what others think would be needed to achieve the Featured article criteria? I will put a note on the relevant wikiproject talk pages and see if others would be interested in working on getting the South West Coast Path article to FA.— Rod talk 11:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
This is not consistent with the wiki page on the E9 European Coastal Path. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownturkey ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
...new research in 2003 indicated that it generated around £300 million a year in total, which could support more than 7,500 jobs. This research also recorded that 27.6% of visitors to the region came because of the Path, and they spent £136 million in a year. Local people took 23 million walks on the Path and spent a further £116 million, and other visitors contributed the remainder. A further study in 2005 estimated this figure to have risen to around £300 million.
How can it have increased from £300 million to £300 million? The cited reference is only a secondary reference, but gives £300 million for 2005, suggesting that the figure in 2003 was less (if it has increased, though no reference is cited for that). Anyone have any proper data? StephenDawson ( talk) 15:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm also unclear as to who the "other visitors" are who are neither visitors to the region or local people. StephenDawson ( talk) 15:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Removed "and also said to be the site of the classic example of a Celtic monastery; [1]" as it conflicts with the academic consensus: see Tintagel Castle for details.-- Felix Folio Secundus ( talk) 19:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
References
I really feel as though there needs to be a map of the SW with the true scale of the trail highlighted. I know the walk and area well enough but even I can't picture what 630 miles means. I think it would help others not so familiar visualise the route better also; a very long route that traverses several county and geographical boundaries but we do not show a map of it? Does anyone else have an opinion? It seems conspicuous in it's absence so I'm not jumping to putting one in myself. FloreatAntiquaDomus 14:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloreatAntiquaDomus ( talk • contribs)
I've deleted the following sentence:
To the south of the path, the highest sea cliffs in England, reaching a height of 1,350 feet (411 m), are at Culbone Hill, although this is more than a mile from the sea. [1]
This information is not in the cited reference, and there are no 400m cliffs (more than twice the height of Beachy Head!) south (inland) of Culbone as this suggests. I think this may be a misinterpretation of an 1868 description quoted in the Culbone article [1], which reads "The cliffs behind the village rise to the height of 1,200 feet, over which a small stream falls down to the sea, forming a pleasing cascade." I don't think "cliffs" in this case should be taken literally; the land to the south rises for about a mile to Culbone Hill (414m), [2] but there's nothing like the "highest sea cliffs in England" suggested here. Dave.Dunford ( talk) 13:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
References
the link by water to Wales no longer exists as it states in the passage.....
and the Balmoral, the Waverley and pleasure boats ply to Porthcawl near Swansea.
Thetiesthatbind (
talk)
12:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Much of this 2008 promotion is uncited, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b). In addition, the article needs cleanup for tone, as the "Route description" section often reads more like a guidebook than an encyclopedic article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
South West Coast Path article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | South West Coast Path was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To reach GA standard - lots of bit but mostly easy to achieve
[this wouldn't affect the GA classification but it would be interesting to have a map of the route] Nengscoz416 ( talk) 02:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This article has now been a stable GA for over a year, with recent additions particularly in relation to some places in Cornwall. Apart from a few sections without citations I was wondering what others think would be needed to achieve the Featured article criteria? I will put a note on the relevant wikiproject talk pages and see if others would be interested in working on getting the South West Coast Path article to FA.— Rod talk 11:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
This is not consistent with the wiki page on the E9 European Coastal Path. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownturkey ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
...new research in 2003 indicated that it generated around £300 million a year in total, which could support more than 7,500 jobs. This research also recorded that 27.6% of visitors to the region came because of the Path, and they spent £136 million in a year. Local people took 23 million walks on the Path and spent a further £116 million, and other visitors contributed the remainder. A further study in 2005 estimated this figure to have risen to around £300 million.
How can it have increased from £300 million to £300 million? The cited reference is only a secondary reference, but gives £300 million for 2005, suggesting that the figure in 2003 was less (if it has increased, though no reference is cited for that). Anyone have any proper data? StephenDawson ( talk) 15:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm also unclear as to who the "other visitors" are who are neither visitors to the region or local people. StephenDawson ( talk) 15:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Removed "and also said to be the site of the classic example of a Celtic monastery; [1]" as it conflicts with the academic consensus: see Tintagel Castle for details.-- Felix Folio Secundus ( talk) 19:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
References
I really feel as though there needs to be a map of the SW with the true scale of the trail highlighted. I know the walk and area well enough but even I can't picture what 630 miles means. I think it would help others not so familiar visualise the route better also; a very long route that traverses several county and geographical boundaries but we do not show a map of it? Does anyone else have an opinion? It seems conspicuous in it's absence so I'm not jumping to putting one in myself. FloreatAntiquaDomus 14:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloreatAntiquaDomus ( talk • contribs)
I've deleted the following sentence:
To the south of the path, the highest sea cliffs in England, reaching a height of 1,350 feet (411 m), are at Culbone Hill, although this is more than a mile from the sea. [1]
This information is not in the cited reference, and there are no 400m cliffs (more than twice the height of Beachy Head!) south (inland) of Culbone as this suggests. I think this may be a misinterpretation of an 1868 description quoted in the Culbone article [1], which reads "The cliffs behind the village rise to the height of 1,200 feet, over which a small stream falls down to the sea, forming a pleasing cascade." I don't think "cliffs" in this case should be taken literally; the land to the south rises for about a mile to Culbone Hill (414m), [2] but there's nothing like the "highest sea cliffs in England" suggested here. Dave.Dunford ( talk) 13:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
References
the link by water to Wales no longer exists as it states in the passage.....
and the Balmoral, the Waverley and pleasure boats ply to Porthcawl near Swansea.
Thetiesthatbind (
talk)
12:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Much of this 2008 promotion is uncited, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b). In addition, the article needs cleanup for tone, as the "Route description" section often reads more like a guidebook than an encyclopedic article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)