A Conversation for UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Peer Review: A87789550 - UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Post 1

Bluebottle

Entry: UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales - A87789550
Author: Bluebottle - U43530

This updates A673490 - The National Parks of England and Wales
Original author: U148484 – Sue

Peer Review has seen 2 excellent entries about Hill Forts in the South Downs National Park, which has made me realise that h2g2's article on England & Wales' National Parks does not mention the South Downs National Park!

A673490 - The National Parks of England and Wales was edited in 2002, since when two more National Parks in England and Wales, have been created, two have been granted Dark Sky Reserve status and two more are currently being considered to have their boundaries substantially expanded.
I've also added a few other minor changes – added appropriate links and also mentioned which National Trails cross the National Parks for those of us who enjoy walking. As I've only made tweaks here and there, I feel that it would be appropriate for me to be given an 'additional research by' rather than 'written by' credit.

I did wonder whether these minor modifications were sufficient to justify an article submitted to Peer Review rather than via Editorial Feedback, but as they occur throughout the entry, I felt that the Peer Review Approach worked best. For more information about Update procedures, see: A87727936

Good news! If anyone reads this and is disappointed by the lack of information about the Yorkshire Dales, there is an excellent entry in the <./>Writing-Fleamarket</.> just waiting to be rescued. See: A14295332 – Yorkshire Dales: Heaven on Earth?

<BB<


A87789550 - UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Post 2

h2g2 Guide Editors

Could we have some comments please, reviewers? Thanks smiley - smiley

h2g2 Editors


A87789550 - UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Post 3

Tavaron da Quirm - Arts Editor

Hi BB, good idea to update this. smiley - smiley
I'll just offer my views on the whole thing and not only your updates...

In the first sentence, could you say how many parks were created in 1949? Or was there none created at all and it only gave the legal basis? Hm, yes, seems the first ones were in 1951. Would that be worth mentioning earlier?

Footnote 3: what was/is the foot and mouth crisis? I've never heard about it.

I'm not sure about the structure of the whole part about the parks. It's one header with a single line of text and all others are subheaders, which looks strange to me. In my opinion it would be better if the would all be headers and you would do something different with the line of text.

One thing I miss throughout the list is for each park *why* it is a National Park. You give the size and all but not really the reason. When I'm there, what can I see?

Um.. may I say that 'designated' seems to be the first word of a paragraph too often? I mean, what is the landscape like? are there rare animals and plants? Things like that. I know the lsit is long but I find the current information not really satisfying, if you know what I mean.


A87789550 - UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Post 4

Bluebottle

Hello Tav, thanks for dropping by! I must admit I'm surprised no-one else has commented before, surely someone in England and Wales has been to a National Park?

You are right – this was written back in the days when h2g2 was perhaps more UK-centric than it is now, and does really assume that people know a little about the National Parks.

I don't want to write too much about each National Park; it would be better if there were individual entries about each National Park, and so have now briefly mentioned their geology to explain why each is different. The trouble with listing rare animals and plants is that it could potentially take over the entire entry, and I feel each individual National Park entry would be better to cover this.

I've mentioned the reason for the 1949-1951 delay, explained the foot-and-mouth outbreak more, changed the subheaders to headers, removed the line of text, given a brief reason as to why and each National Park no longer starts with the words 'Designated in...'.

<BB<


A87789550 - UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Post 5

Elentari

Hi BB, just found this entry! I'm surprised there haven't been more comments. I think it's a good entry and while more information would be nice, I think the entry might become too long and unmanageable if you do that. Your idea of treating it as a jumping off point to other entries on the parks individually has merit.

"it is home to Scafell Pike, which at 3,209 feet or 978 metres tall is the highest mountain in England, only one of the found there" - there seems to be a word missing at the end there.

"it meets the Scottish border at the Cheviot Hills to the north and Hadrian's Wall to the south" - it can't meet the Scottish border both to its north and its south, surely?


A87789550 - UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Post 6

parrferris

One tiny thing - there seems to be a missing bit in the middle of the first paragraph on the Lake District.


A87789550 - UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Post 7

Bluebottle

Hello Elentari and Parrferris, thanks for your comments.

I've changed both the Lake District Northumberland sections, so hopefully they make more sense and people don't think that Northumberland is surrounded by Scotland.

<BB<


A87789550 - UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Post 8

bobstafford

The New Forest in Hampshire became a National Park on 1 March, 2005. Hello BB Good work.

The South Downs, in Sussex and Hampshire, is still awaiting a date for its transferal to National Park status to be completed.

Two questions
1. I presume the parks are listed in order of creation. This is just me I would feel more comfortable with a regional listing, as I tend to visit areas and that might make it easier to plan a trip.

2. The South Downs, in Sussex and Hampshire, first are these the 2 parks that await creation mentioned in the text or one big park. If they are not can you tell us which ones please. As the term "is still" in the text seems to indicate 1 park so whats the other one.

Good entry and will be very helpful to travelers...

smiley - magic


A87789550 - UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Post 9

Bluebottle

Sorry - I'm just a little confused. Are you looking at the original or the update?

Update Version: The National Parks of England and Wales - A87789550
Original Version: The National Parks of England and Wales - A673490

<BB<


A87789550 - UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Post 10

bobstafford

Oops

I the original but comment 2 still stands

smiley - biggrin


A87789550 - UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Post 11

bobstafford

sorry comment 1smiley - smiley


A87789550 - UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Post 12

Bluebottle

Hello BobStafford

Although I agree that perhaps arranging the parks regionally would make sense, perhaps north to south or south to north, as I'm doing an update rather than writing my own article, I'm hoping to keep as much of the original article as possible, and just add a minor tweak here and there. I don't think completely re-arranging the entire article would count as a minor tweak, even if it does rearrange the article into a more logical order, so at present I am loathe to commit to that sort of action, I'm afraid. I do agree with you - arranging the article by order of what was delayed by bureaucracy the longest is a bit of an odd way to go about.

I am, of course, happy to hear what other people think about the matter.

<BB<


A87789550 - UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Post 13

bobstafford

smiley - ok


A87789550 - UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Post 14

Elentari

Personally I think ordering them by date of creation is perfectly logical.

You could (if you haven't already) link to a map showing them, which would make it possible for people to view them geographically.


A87789550 - UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Post 15

Elentari

Also, your amendments make sense, thanks! smiley - ok

As an aside, I'm a little gobsmacked that we don't have an entry on the Lake District. I don't think I'm the one to do it, but we need one.

As another aside, thanks for linking to my entry on the Kinder Trespass. smiley - biggrin


A87789550 - UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Post 16

SashaQ - happysad

smiley - ok

A few things I spotted, being extra thorough as this is an update:

In the paragraph beginning "The 1949 Act allowed the creation of National Parks." there is repetition of "Following debate", and it contains a fragment of a sentence, which is a bit confusing.

"the land was not only government-owned, but also by many private landowners." - something not quite right about this... Maybe "the land was not only government-owned, but some was also in the hands of private landowners."

"Since then, two national parks in the south of England were designated in the 21st Century." - not sure you need both "since then" and "in the 21st Century"...

"Pembrokeshire Coast - The UK's coastal National Park, [the Pembrokeshire Coast] was designated in 1952 in the westernmost part of Wales. The Pembrokeshire Coast is one of the smallest parks"

Make the bit in brackets [this] ?

Same in the Brecon Beacons section - you could make one of the mentions of the Brecon Beacons 'this' or something. And the same in the New Forest and Broads sections. Incidentally, is it the "Norfolk Broads" or just Broads? (I wasn't very clear about where they were at first).

"The Pembrokeshire Coastal Path National Trail follows the coast along the National Park." - this sentence doesn't sound quite right to me, either.

"weald, former woodland" - is that weald (former woodland) ?

Footnote 3 is large and contains repetition - could be reduced to something like:

"During the foot-and-mouth disease crisis of 2001, when over 7 million cows and sheep were killed and many parts of the countryside were either quarantined or closed off in order to stop the spread of the highly infectious disease across the UK, Tourist Information offices within the National Parks were invaluable for keeping people informed about what areas were still open to visitors."

"National Park" sometimes has capital letters and sometimes not.

smiley - ok


A87789550 - UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Post 17

Bluebottle

Good points all, – various changes made as per your suggestions. I've not got any objections to any of the points raised, so have no questions regarding them. (My habit of repeating myself needlessly is well known and I promise to try to cut that out, honest!).
With Footnote 3, I'm perfectly happy to make it shorter - I don't particularly want to emphasise one of visiting the countryside's darkest moments and would rather celebrate how wonderful it is to get out and about and enjoy the great outdoors.

As 'National Park' is an awarded title, I've now capitalised it throughout.

<BB<


A87789550 - UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Post 18

SashaQ - happysad

That's great smiley - biggrin

I noticed the second sentence in the Exmoor section could also be tweaked, and I think the bit "a large proportion were in the hands of private landowners" should have "was" rather than "were". Otherwise, looking excellent - I enjoyed reading this.

smiley - ok


A87789550 - UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Post 19

h2g2 Guide Editors

Is this update ready to be applied, please? smiley - smiley

h2g2 Eds


A87789550 - UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Post 20

SashaQ - happysad


My two suggestions don't seem to have been acted on, yet...


Key: Complain about this post

More Conversations for UPDATE: The National Parks of England and Wales

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more