Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chew Valley Lake

Chew Valley Lake

This is a renomination. The article has had a peer review. The previous nomination did not receive many comments & the minor issues raised have been dealt with . It has been listed as a good page. The lake is a site of Special scientific interest and also a centre for leisure activities and hopefully the article reflects the history, ecology and uses. I hope the article reflects the lake and feel it meets the criteria for Featured Article Status. Rod 19:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is a great article from a ecology/geology perspective, but the history section could use some work. Good job on the references and external links, though, and in general I support the nomination. Ryan McDaniel 22:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. - If some of the single sentence sections in the ecology section are merged to create a longer, more unified section, I will support. Other than that, a very good article, with excellent pictures. RyanGerbil10 23:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why are there two spaces between "Ecology" and "Leisure use"? Also, the lead paragraph looks a bit too long- I would suggest breaking it into 2 separate paragraphs. AndyZ 00:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put the two spaces there (as the edit notes) to force the "Leisure use" header to appear left-justified (otherwise it gets forced right by the picture). It's a kludge, I admit. Ryan McDaniel 05:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've broken up the over-long lead, and I would support FA status as the article stands. jimfbleak 06:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I've read through the article, it seems to be well-written and informative. Good use of pictures, references, helpful external links. No obvious shortcomings. (That "Leisure use" heading is a bit annoying but it's not really a problem with the article content) – Gurch 09:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators response - I've made a few minor changes and additions to try to address some of the issues raised. Minor additions to history section (but not sure what else is wanted here), minor additions to ecology section to overcome the issue with the image & section break. Rod 09:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This article has clearly benefitted from a lot of hard work. It reads well, is comprehensive, and is well supported by external references. It surely deserves to become a featured article, the Wikipedia community should be proud of it. Chris Jefferies 13:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - nicely written, seems to cover everything I could expect. Grinner 13:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good, well-written article, which, most importantly, taught me new and interesting things. — Grstain 18:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Any reason why english units get precedence over metric units? Isn't this article about a place in a country that primarily uses the metric system? Maybe I'm just confused... --Spangineer (háblame) 21:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse. "Customary" units are not provided throughout. And in listing the size of the lake one sentence says "the largest artificial lake in south-west England (835,000 m²)." while further into the article, we get "When this artificial lake was built in the 1950s, its 1,200 acres (4.9 km²) were flooded". But 835,000 m² is only 206 acres or (0.8 km²). Rmhermen 23:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it shrunk over the years... who knows =). I object until this gets worked out. --Spangineer (háblame) 04:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators response - I think these errors of size/volume have crept in because I've taken stuff from various sources & one may relate to the area of water & another to the land that was purchased for the creation of the lake - I will go back to the source documents & try to resolve this. As far as units go I think acres are still the most common unit here, but I agree consistency is important & will try to resolve this. Rod 15:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators further response I have found several sources for the figure of 1,200 acres (4.9 km²) including the owners Bristol Water and can't find any source for the figure of (835,000 m²) therefore I have changed the lead paragraph. What "Customary" units should I be using? Rod 22:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 or 5 uses of km without miles. The other is the use of imperial gallons and cubic meters, neither of which are used in the U.S. (but who really wants to see acre-foot). Rmhermen 00:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acre-foot certainly makes no sense, this unit isn't used in the UK as far as I know. Water volumes here are conventionally quoted as so many million gallons (Imperial ones of course, not US gallons). Cubic metres (not meters :-) might be a good choice. What a fine muddle we get into over units! Chris Jefferies 17:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you see that you are giving British English readers two ways to understand the volume but giving American English readers zero. That doesn't seem right. Rmhermen 01:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators response I have found 4 occurances of km without miles & added miles to all in a consistent format ie X miles (X km) Rod 10:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support An article like this can always be expanded and improved, but I think it's of high enough quality for FA status. SP-KP 14:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]