This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot(talk | contribs) at 21:15, 11 January 2024(Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 3 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject United States}}, {{WikiProject England}}. Keep 1 different rating in {{WikiProject Former countries}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:15, 11 January 2024 by Cewbot(talk | contribs)(Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 3 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject United States}}, {{WikiProject England}}. Keep 1 different rating in {{WikiProject Former countries}}.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
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.
Lost Colony DNA Project was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC) with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Roanoke Colony. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
I propose switching the citation style to Sfn notes, which allow for citing different pages of the same work in separate citations, eliminating the need for the 'rp' template. I think the rp template, especially combined with the AMA style, makes the article hard to read, with unusual small parenthetical numbers between the regular footnotes and prose. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing summary
I'm reading the summary in the intro paragraphs without having read the rest of the article, and I find it quite confusing. It's filled with bad forms like "while awaiting... Lane abandoned"; it omits crucial information (I assume everybody abandoned the colony in 1586, not just Lane, otherwise it's unclear why they had to build a whole new settlement later); and it's vague about roles and cause-effect relationships. For instance, the sentence "During a stop to check on Grenville's men, flagship pilot Simon Fernandes forced White and his colonists to remain on Roanoke." Why was Fernandes checking on Greenville's men, who were only mentioned in relation to the previous settlement? What Greenville's men were doing at that point? How did Fernandes force White and his colonists to remain on Roanoke? Does that mean that the circumstances forced them (in what way, though?), or that Fernandes gave them an explicit order? This whole concept is immediately contradicted by the following sentence anyway, which describes White going back to England with Fernandes. And what authority did Fernandes have? He's only described as "a flagship pilot", which is an obscure designation if not expanded upon (and it's not even hyperlinked). Kumagoro-42 (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried reading the rest of the article, but gave up. Like the lead, it is a confusing mess. It seems to be simultaneously excessively detailed while also lacking critical context. CAVincent (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
