Talk:Ruislip Woods

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ruislip Woods article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ruislip Woods has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 2, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 6, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that timber from the Ruislip Woods was used in the construction of the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, the Palace of Westminster, and the manor of the Black Prince in Kennington?

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Mid‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ruislip Woods/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Folklore1 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I perform the review, I will be updating the following table. Please look for my questions, comments and recommendations below the table. Folklore1 (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See notes about History and Lead section.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See notes about Lead section.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	See notes about Green Flag Award and Great Barn. See notes about Flora and Fauna and Management.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Dates and statistics are supported by references to good primary sources, but see note about Goodliest Place.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See note about Bec Abbey in History.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	no recent edit wars
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	4 images with Share Alike 3.0 certificates
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	related to subject, sutable captions
	7. Overall assessment.

Lead section

National Nature Reserve links to a disambiguation page. A link to National Nature Reserves in England, displayed as National Nature Reserve would be more useful. Folklore1 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been replaced. Harrison49 (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two sentences in the lead article should be moved to the body of the article: "The reserve covers four woods: Park Wood, Mad Bess Wood and Copse Wood in Ruislip, with Bayhurst Wood in Harefield. Poor's Field in Ruislip is also part of the reserve." These sentences do not serve the function a lead section, to introduce the article and summarize its important points. Moving these sentences to the body will also help to trim a lead that is already disproportionally long for such a short article. Folklore1 (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of note "a" to explain the name of Mad Bess Wood is awkward and unnecessary. After the related sentence has been moved from the lead to the body of the article, the text explaining Mad Bess Wood can also be moved into the body. Folklore1 (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"were soon also purchased" in the third paragraph of the lead seems a bit vague and awkward. Folklore1 (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These have been changed. Harrison49 (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See "remaining woods were also purchased from other owners" in the third paragraph. "also" should be removed. Folklore1 (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been changed. Harrison49 (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph is unclear. I'm not sure who owned and sold what portions of the property. When revising this paragraph, be careful to keep it to a brief summary; leave the details to the History section. Folklore1 (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been changed. Harrison49 (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The park's status as the first NNR in an urban area of England seems to be important. Perhaps the second sentence of the first paragraph should be revised to mention this? Folklore1 (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In "Evidence of Bronze Age settlements have been", "have" should be replaced by "has". The direct object of the sentence, "Evidence", is singular. Folklore1 (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These have also been changed. Harrison49 (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green Flag Award

Although the first and second footnotes have different titles and dates, they point to the same url. The source article at that url does not give the date or year Ruislip received the Green Flag. Folklore1 (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Management" section also mentions the Green Flag Award being received in 2006, but its reference footnote cites the same source as the first and second footnotes. Folklore1 (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Named references should be used to link multiple inline citations to a single footnote rather than creating identical footnotes or using ibid footnotes. This was done properly with other references, but not with the Green Flag Award. Folklore1 (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this was a mistake. These references have been merged. Harrison49 (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great Barn reference

The second paragraph of the lead section states that "the Great Barn at Manor Farm was built from English oak from the woods." This information isn't supported by the "Manor Farm" reference. "A history of the Manor Farm site" provides better support for the second paragraph, although it doesn't specify the type of oak used in the Great Barn. Folklore1 (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This reference has been changed. Harrison49 (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

In the third paragraph of this section, "though remained" should probably be "though it remained". Folklore1 (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been changed. Harrison49 (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When and how did Bec Abbey acquire Ruislip Woods? Folklore1 (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When and how did the property pass from Bec Abbey to King's College? Folklore1 (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been added. Harrison49 (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In "Kings College, Cambridge became lords of the manor", should "lords" be changed to "lord"? Folklore1 (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My source refers to them as "lords". Harrison49 (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodliest Place

The Goodliest Place in Middlesex has 282 pages. Page numbers would be helpful with references to this source. Folklore1 (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been replaced by a more recent source. Harrison49 (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flora and fauna

The reference to "Wildflowers" links to an article about birds. Folklore1 (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to "Mammals" also links to the article about birds. Folklore1 (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about those. They have been changed. Harrison49 (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Management

The reference to "Woodland management" points to the wrong article. Folklore1 (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again - this has been corrected. Harrison49 (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

I hope you will excuse a couple of extra comments. I had a look at the article and I wondered if enough attention had been paid to:

a) History. There is a gap of perhaps 2,000 years between the Bronze Age and the Norman Conquest. It would not be surprising if no detailed evidence from the Iron Age or later periods had been found, but even so I think a short paragraph on the changing landscapes of the area through that long period would not be amiss.

b) There is a reasonably comprehensive list of the common birds, but a brief mention of the more unusual occasional visitors would be of interest. I don't know if this counts as an RS, but there must surely be something available.

I hope this is helpful. Ben Mac Dui 08:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in a short mention of the gap in dates. I'm not sure if there are any sources for the more occasional wild visitors but the Hillingdon Council site is quite comprehensive. Harrison49 (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A brief mention of unusual wildlife would be a welcome enhancement, but I think the article now has sufficient material for GA classification. Folklore1 (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Harrison49 (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruislip Woods information board.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ruislip Woods information board.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ruislip Woods information board.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Ruislip Local Nature Reserve

Can anyone upload a photo of Ruislip Local Nature Reserve? It is the only site which does not have a photo in List of Local Nature Reserves in Greater London. Thanks if anyone can help. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]