Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ordnance Survey archive1

95% non-self nom - just painstakingly referenced it. --PopUpPirate 22:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object
  1. Lead too short
  2. Too many short paragraphs (combine or make longer)

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Why are there two lists of external links? Notes to editors, like that in the first caption should be commented out, and the image caption should come before the source acknowledgement. To link to main artiles use {{main}}. Try and work some of those see alsos into the text since they seem to be relevant, and remove others like UK topics. The Ordnance Survey working in 60 countries seems like it would be worth expanding on in the article - but there is no other mention of it beyond on the lead.--nixie 23:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another editor has kindly fixed the external links thing - I agree with your comment about the 60 countries and will try to add to it. Pity it didn't appear in Peer Review but then these things never do! (wasnt directed at you btw!!) --PopUpPirate 00:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object due to the two unfree images. Not sure what they add to the article, could they just be removed? JYolkowski // talk 02:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object
Why does the lead mention only the 18th century? An overview is required.
A 'one inch' map?
Lots of short paragraphs inhibit the flow.
Lacks depth and is not comprehensive. For example, what were the economic/social circumstances that led to the establishment of the OS? Do the maps have distinctive features? Have they played a role in historical research? Have they made a significant contribution in the history of map-making? Tony 12:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]