Talk:South Downs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Earth sciences Portal
South Downs is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Why have we got a South Downs article which begins with the North Downs, and no North Downs article but a redirect to South Downs? This is daft. Surely we either have two articles or one article entitled ... er North and South Downs, or Downs (hills) - I admit the title is tricky. Best have two articles. The human geography of the areas is entirely different.

Djnjwd 01:47, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I moved a lot of info around because there was a lot in the Chalk article that didn't belong there.. if you think the article is misnamed be bold in updating it! ;) --Steinsky 02:10, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Text removed from article: to be integrated with Downland and Weald:

Horticulture is especially difficult near the steepest parts of the Downs, which are particularly alkaline, and it is therefore almost impossible to grow lime-hating ericaceous plants unless the soil has been reconstituted.

Tthe Weald is an area of rolling countryside that stretches over the counties of Kent, Surrey, and East and West Sussex. Its name derives from the Old High German wald, a wooded area.

Arundel and Midhurst are both towns, not villages.

[edit] Rename as simply "South Downs"

I don't think the "The" should be in the article name (I think there's some guideline somewhere that says an initial "The" should generally not be used in article names.) If no one disagrees in the next few days, I'll go ahead and do the necessary.--A bit iffy 12:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree John 19:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The article

Two comments on first approaching the article:

  • Why just geology? I've added geographers too!
  • A glance at the Mendip Hills(MH) article will show that this a poor article! Long list of places in the opening paragraph are mostly places on the periphery - yet the Downs themselves are very sparsely populated. MH just mentions the largest villages and the fact that civil parishes occupy the land itelf. we should see a History section (effect on man; how its economy grew with sheep; ancient burials/Long Man); the geography: gaps (River Cuckmere et al); dry valleys, scarps and dip slopes; dewponds. We need a section on Ecology (the Downs are a haven for rare species of all sorts); the coastal area (not just the Seven Sisters). We should have Climate (Eastbourne is "suntrap"); and the Geology section should be far bigger than just the few introductory lines.Peter Shearan (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
In addition I cannot really see why there is a separate article South Downs National Park (SDNP). Although not the complete South Downs, the SDNP will effect almost all the area, nor does the SDNP article add very much to the sum total of facts, and it will help to make the main article more complete. To hive it off is illogical Peter Shearan (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite of the article

I have now undertaken a complete rewrite of this article, basing it on the Mendip Hills one. There were many articles around in Wikipedia that I was able to incorporate; and, since I know the South Downs very well, I was able to bring in further facts. I shall be pleased to hear from any other editors about anything which will help to makew the article a better one than it was originally! Peter Shearan (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have left the ecology and climate sections blank: I am sure much can be added for the former Peter Shearan (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)