This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hiking trails, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Hiking trailsWikipedia:WikiProject Hiking trailsTemplate:WikiProject Hiking trailsHiking trails
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
I left this comment at the Teahouse, but it was archived without reply, so I posting it here too, in case it is helpful to draft reviewers and anyone else working on the draft (pinging EleanorLC too). I've redrafted the history section based on some new sources. What this has highlighted is that there's a bit of a gap in the story between 2014 and today. In 2014, it was reported that more work was neeed on various aspects of the project, but the route now seems to exist, so are there sources that tell us what happened in the past three years (or does the route exist more on the internet than "on the ground" with signs, etc.?). Also, the route was described as 115 miles long in 2010 but seems to have grown to 150 miles today. Some clarification would be helpful here too. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for this, unfortunately, I have also struggled to find information surrounding the more recent history of the area. I am unsure as to whether it has made official progress, or if it is just slowly progressing. I am hopeful that the progress the NHW is making online will help to progress the route to more official levels (if it has not done so already). Should I attempt contact some of the people associated with the north highland way (the people who appear to have worked on the route so far) regarding the lsat few years, or would this cause the page to become biased? EleanorLC (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That might be helpful, EleanorLC. We can only cite published sources, but if we know the story of what has happened, then it might make searching for those sources easier, and it might be the case that they can point us to material that we haven't yet found. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that could be useful for some basic facts, EleanorLC. I'll add some to the article along the lines of "As of 2015, a group of local businesses were trying to have the route recognised as a National Trail". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and I've also added that a company called Easyways is selling walking holidays that use the route. They seem to have yet another idea of the length of the route, though! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, I had read a lot from EasyWays, but I was wary of adding their information as I feared it may be seen as bias, but I definitely agree that their contributions to the route have been significant (even though their route may be slightly different!). Unfortunately, wikipedia has rejected the article on the grounds that it reads like a tour guide, with no additional feedback. I feel that the page follows the style and layout of the West Highland Way (a similar walk to the NHW) so I am unsure what else we can do to change the page? I Have requested additional feedback from the person who reviewed the page, and hopefully this will help. EleanorLC (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some more feedback would be helpful, but the wording in the route section is the main issue, I think. The whole draft and review process is still relatively new, and holds new articles to a higher standard than many that were created prior to its introduction (which is a good thing in my view). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I requested some additional feedback, and I was told that the difficulty ratings made the page read like a tour guide (no additional feedback other than this) So I have removed this information, do you think this will be sufficient to resubmit my article? EleanorLC (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should hold off for now. There are still some unsourced statements in the draft, which could be reason for another rejection. I also think we should try to resolve the issue of the seeming existence of different length routes, or at least explain that different sources give different routes. Did you try to contact the people behind the project? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I haven't had a chance to contact anyone involved, I shall hopefully have a chance at some point this week. Hopefully they will be able to provide us with some answers to our questions. Fingers crossed! EleanorLC (talk) 11:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it's better to take a look at similar articles that are polished to see what the standard (in terms of format and content) should look like, such as ... West Highland Way or Annandale Way (far from perfect, but reasonably polished with few issues). One of the nice feature to have is an infobox. I've added one for you, if you could kindly fill out the missing information, that would be nice.
Could you expand the places of interest along the route? If they can have their own individual sections, it would help to strengthen the notability of the subject and make a stronger case for a proper entry.
My impression is that some of the writing needs to be more concise. Extraneous details is possibly the reason why it may have read like a travel guide.
Do you have more reliable sources, such as commentary from mainstream media?
Why aren't there any images? Some free use images would definitely make this article more appealing.
Further reading and external links looks a bit disorganized.
Completely unrelated, but thank you both (*Alex Shih and Cordless Larry*) for stepping in and offering concise feedback to the editor. It's nice to see that, instead of another rejected article, which could discourage them and/or drive them away. - NsTaGaTr(Talk)19:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Shih in terms of your point regarding the walk, I initially included more details of what you could see at each stage of the walk, but as I understood, this was too much like a tour guide, should I add this section back in, or simply add in brief sections about actual sites/points of interest along the walk.(My initial submission contained more details about each leg as seen in the West Highland Way page) would this be appropriate? Hopefully that question makes sense! EleanorLC (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have also contacted people with better images of the route than me to gain permission to use their images, I agree that images would be beneficial to the page. I shall make the changes as soon as I possibly can, I am just delighted that I am finally making some more progress with this page and can't thank you enough for your feedback. I was beginning to consider abandoning the post, so I really appreciate all the help! EleanorLC (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
