Talk:Lord Howe Island

Untitled

I would just like to say that I went on a cruise in 1975, on the Oriana. We were supposed to go to Vila and Noumea but as we left Sydney Harbour we followed a hurricane all the way to Vila it was a mess when we arrived. Noumea was a little better. By way of compensation the cruise was detoured to circumnavigate Lord Howe Island and Ball's Pyramid. I will never forget the amazing sight as this massive blue spire/pyramid grew ever larger on the horizon. It is a truly spectacular and amazing sight in the middle of the ocean. I would recommend this as a must to anyone who travels to Lord Howe Island. L.I.Boundy 26/03/2006

Southern Most Reef?

The article claims that Lord Howe Island has the most Southern coral reefs in the world -- is this really true (or just a little bit true)? I've seen the same claim made for Rottnest Island, lattitude 32°0′35″S vs Lord Howe's 37°.

See http://www.rottnestisland.com/en/Marine Management Strategy/Rottnest Island Marine Reserve/default.htm

I think this requires clarification as well. Rottnest Island has a fringing reef in the same manner as Lord Howe, so I don't see how the statement that Howe is the southernmost coral reef can be regarded as factually accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.55.115 (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Unique clock shift?

The page includes "Timezone: UTC 10:30 ( 11:00 DST)".

I believe that the Island is currently unique in having Summer Time with a shift other than one hour. That seems interesting enough, if carefully verified, to be worth stating as such in the text.

82.163.24.100 13:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

pronunciation

Is it Lord /hau/ or Lord /hou/? kwami 23:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Rhymes with how, now, cow, rather than slow, low, blow. If that helps. Kahuroa (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. kwami (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

GAN

Article needs info on things other than environment before it can pass: govt rule, demographics, religion, schools/hospitals on the island etc YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And what sort of a references are Hutton, Coleman or Flannery? The citations need improving. Polargeo (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No it's correct to use shorthand in the notes and list the book in full at the end YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lord Howe Island/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Initial review

I'm sorry for the slow initial progress on the review; unfortunately I was not been able to do any work on wikipedia over the weekend.

This appears to be a competent article, which stands a reasonable chance of making it through to GA-status. I think I needs a bit more work in several places; and I'll list these points tomorrow.Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The article appears to be well-written and generally well-referenced. However there are a number of unreferenced statements, so I'm just going to concentrate on them for the moment.

• Geology -

• Statements about the Lord Howe seamount chain are unreferenced.

•  Done seamount chain, but didn't find a ref for 60-80 million. --99of9 (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• The coral reef and lagoon are unreferenced.

• Flora -

• First paragraph: Apart from the first sentence, this is completely unreferenced.

• Other animals -

• First, second, fourth and last paragraphs are unreferenced.

• • This is quite a "bitty" section consisting of mostly two-sentence and one-sentence paragraphs. The second paragraph is the best of these. I would suggest that some of these paragraphs be combined to provide a better reading experience.

• Threats and conservation -

• First paragraph: Apart from the last sentence, this is completely unreferenced.
• The second paragraph is well referenced in the first half; but the second half is unreferenced.

• Other comments -

Apart from the lack of in-line citations mentioned above, the article is generally of GA-standard.

Having gone through the article is some detail, I think there are a few missing points:

• Settlement is barely mentioned. History mentions the Old Settlement and an establishment date of 1834; the infobox gives the largest city as: "Lord Howe Island (347)"; and tourism is mentioned as one of only two sources of external income. However, that is all. I would expect the article to provide more information about settlement, the Old Settlement and the infrastructure to support tourism.

• Transportation is barely mentioned, apart from: "Until the construction of Lord Howe Island Airport in 1974, the only way to reach the island by air was by sea or by flying boat from Rose Bay in Sydney, landing on the lagoon surrounded by the coral reef". The facilities for boats are not mentioned. There is nothing about the airport, apart from a link; and flying boats are mentioned in passing, but presumably (and this in not mentioned in the article) this covered the period from about 1920s, or possibly post-WW II, to 1974?

• The WP:lead is a bit short. This is intended to do two things: provide an introduction to the article, which is does reasonably well; and to summarise the main points of the article. I would suggest that the lead needs to be expanded to about twice its present size - perhaps by adding a third paragraph which includes a bit more summarised information on Lord Howe Island.

I'm putting the article On Hold for these points to be addressed. If you have any questions about this assessment, add them to this page and I will answer them on this page.Pyrotec (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A god article that is quite close to being a GA, but not just yet.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Pyrotec (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lord Howe Island/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nightw 23:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary

I'm going to do a thorough review of this in a few moments, but please take a look at the suggestions automatically generated by the peer reviewer for a start. At the moment, from what I can see, the lead is under-referenced.

Thanks for undertaking this review N. The Lead, as a starting point, has a few things I need advice on. I will check the referencing; an editor has suggested reducing the statistics but I need guidance as to which might be put elsewhere; it seems long, but I'm not sure what to leave out, the four paragraphs are within WP guidelines, but it actually lacks a summary of the history section so there is potentially more to go in. It also raises the issue of galleries. I will, of course, abide by WP policy but wonder what you think about this? The galleries in this article were inserted in innocence on the assumption that they would both interest and assist the reader - that multiple pictures can be really informative and, in fact, often speak louder than the words. Animals and plants especially seem appropriate for galleries, rather than just a sample pic or two to decorate the article. Anyway, the Lead is where this problem first arises, as the gallery gives the reader a "taste" for familiar island views and operations. I'll get on with the references ...Granitethighs 05:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go at condensing the lead and moving the detail elsewhere, and have disbanded the lead gallery. I still think a few sentences summarizing the history should be put in. --99of9 (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks 99of9, that's a significant improvement; you've made my job much easier! Nightw 13:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

General notes

• The article could do with a thorough copyedit. There's a noticeable over-capitalisation of nouns and an overuse of semicolons. I will do one myself after finishing the general review.  Done

Resolved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For the layout, take a look at this guideline. While this article is obviously a little bit different, it might give you an idea about how to order the sections.  Done I am content to let you order the sections as you see fit.Granitethighs 10:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Resolved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Still under-referenced. As a rule, if a paragraph does not end with a citation, that's a red light. This applies to the distance and area figures and any claim that may be reasonably contested. One particular point that I personally would challenge is the attribution "dependency" (since I'm faily certain it isn't one and the article linked doesn't mention it). I am not sure how to deal with citing heights, distances etc. I have had a quick check of other articles (e.g. citation for the height of Everest) and they do not seem to be given. I am not sure how to deal with this - I'm not a geographer - any ideas? Also I'm having difficulty in determining LHI's exact constitutional status. I suspect that, like Norfolk Island, this is contentious (see Norfolk Island). Any help? Perhaps the issue does not have to be addressed head on? Beyond this I'm not sure what needs referencing. For example, do you want the statement that the Admiralty Group consists of 7 islands referenced?Granitethighs 23:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Distances and heights can be referenced by any topographic map if we can find one. --99of9 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC) OK, I'll have a look. I'm not much of a lawyer but based on definitions on WP, LHI could pass as either a "protectorate" or "dependency", the legal status of these does not seem to be discussed. Perhaps the latter is the way to go - what do you reckon? Granitethighs 01:22, 20 August 2011 Nichols calls the island a New South Wales "dependency". I've cited this statement and until someone proves to the contrary I suggest we stay with it.Granitethighs 04:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Dependency is a legal designation. Since it's not legally given this designation under Australian law, it shouldn't be used. In the infobox, it says it's an unincorporated area of New South Wales, similar to the Far West Region. I think this designation should be easy enough to verify. Except for this one point, the lead is okay as long as the content is then sourced in its appropriate section. For the sections (in this case the Geography one), obviously not everything has to be referenced, but I would like to see a source for the statistics. I am out of my depth here but would suggest that although Lord Howe Island is not a (legal entity) Dependent Territory (what in common parlance is called a "Territory", like Norfolk Island or the Northern Territory) it is nevertheless a "dependancy" which is not a legal entity. I realise this is in part semantic, but I need convincing to the contrary.Granitethighs 07:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Ok, a dependent territory is any territorial entity that is legally under the sovereignty of a state but is outside the legal boundaries of that state. In Australia, the term officially used is "external territory" (in the UK it's "overseas territory"), and Australia has seven. A map of these can be seen here. When an act (any piece of federal legislation) is passed it will say where it applies: if it only applies "in Australia" then it does not apply to any in these territories (with one exception that isn't relevant here), but it will apply to Lord Howe Island because that is considered part of Australia. To cite an analogy, New Caledonia is a dependency of France, but Réunion (in the Indian Ocean) is not, because it is considered part of France. Does that make sense? OK - is there any mileage in the term "protectorate" which I'm sure I've also seen used in relation to LHI?Granitethighs 10:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC) In checking on the flag I came across this site Flag which refers to LHI as a dependency of the state of New South Wales. This is the point I was making earlier - perhaps you are not convinced?Granitethighs 11:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, it's probably because my area of editing on Wikipedia is mostly in politics that I'm being so picky with the legal content. While any website or author is free to apply whichever terminology they deem the most appropriate, we don't have that freedom. For us to say that this entity is a dependency, a protectorate, etc, we would need something solid (a piece of legislation, a government document, or failing that something from a legal scholar)—i.e., sources of exceptional quality, since it would fall outside the normal definition of a dependency. A website on flags and a self-published source do not qualify. It falls under the state's Constitution. The Lord Howe Island Act states that all the land is New South Wales land. For local government purposes, it is officially classified as an unincorporated area. Jurist M. White wrote, "The formal administrative structure is that Lord Howe Island is part of the New South Wales electoral district of Port Macquarie. ... It is anomalous that an offlying island such as Lord Howe Island should be part of a State, and in this regard it is like Macquarie Island which is part of Tasmania. It would probably be preferable that it be a Commonwealth offshore territory, like its island neighbour Norfolk Island." But it isn't. You could even cite that weblink you recently added to the Governance section, which states unequivocally, "Lord Howe Island is part of the State of New South Wales". I'm not convinced that the word "dependency" really does carry a legal obligation with it as you imply - it seems to be used legitimately in a general sense quite frequently. However, I confess to knowing little about politics and less about law so I will willingly defer. Would you accept what I have put in there now?Granitethighs 02:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Looks fine. I'm going to cap this off as resolved. So far as the detail is concerned, the first paragraph delves a bit too much into topography. I'd suggest summarising sentences 3 to 7 into one (e.g., "Most of the population lives in the north, while the south is dominated by forested hills rising to the highest point on the island, Mount Gower".) Then squeeze in a new second paragraph with major points on history. And I'd take out the last (single-sentence) paragraph.

History

Resolved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This section is fantastic! I was actually interested (let it be known that I'm almost never entertained when reading encyclopaedia entries). Minor points of pickiness: First Fleet, HMS Supply (1759), Lady Penrhyn (ship) are all linked multiple times in the same section. I've also removed a couple of links to common English terms (goat, pig). Done I says when it was claimed as a British possession, but (unless I've missed it) it isn't stated when the island passed to Australia, which could be seen as a vital point. Other than that, this section is comprehensive and everything is well-sourced. I'd guess that it was administratively included in NSW from discovery, and when Australia became a Federation in 1901, it simply rolled along with NSW. --99of9 (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Yes, I have been surprised how much of the history has loose ends. It's a good point: I'll check what I can but this might not have a neat answer.Granitethighs 23:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Australia has never fought a war of independence and is still, in a (surely legal) sense, British (it has a British Governor General). Lord Howe Island was British in the same way that New South Wales was British. Inevitably, I would suggest, its official administration came initially from New South Wales. I think the wording is OK - or perhaps someone could give it a little word tweak to remove any ambiguity.Granitethighs 07:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC) From White, who I referenced above: "The island was, of course, under the British Crown but in 1855 it came under the administration as part of the Colony of New South Wales." Here's the link at Google books (p 305). I'm not quite sure if or where you think this should go in, so I'll leave it to you. Nightw 04:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC) The book looks great but, frankly, I find this sentence (which is the only really pertinent one) clumsy and ambiguous. What does "under the administration" mean? Does in mean the British administration or the administration of NSW? I assume it means it came under the administration of NSW. But this really needs a backup citation. Was there a legal or other document, an official statement, or some other vehicle for declaring the island to be under NSW administration - and, if there was one, did it come from Britain or the settlement in NSW? In short, agree with you that if we quote a date when LHI fell under any form of external administration then it will need clear documentation. I do not think this sentence does the trick, and I'm still not convinced that such an official date must exist. I suggest it is left as is, no?Granitethighs 13:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC) It appears that this is the year that it officially become part of New South Wales, as defined under the Constitution Act.[1] Nightw 16:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Fabulous. Well sleuthed.Granitethighs 06:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Can we add it somewhere? Nightw 06:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC) It has been added by 99of9 Granitethighs 10:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC) I don't mean the source, I mean adding the date to the history section. At the moment, it reads that Ball claimed it as a British possession in 1788. The next mention of a sovereign authority is when three men left the island after a land dispute with the NSW government. There's no mention of when ownership of the island was transferred. It has now been added by 99of9Granitethighs 02:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Governance

Resolved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is maybe one more issue. The sentence about the ousted administrator returning to observe Venus could be seen as wandering from the point of the section. It isn't related to how the islands were/are administered. I agree - I have put it in brackets to indicate that it is a side issue. It does account for the name of a geographic feature of the island. If you still think it is a red herring then please delete it. Granitethighs 12:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC) It's not a big deal. Please check through this section for unsourced pieces of information. The ministry's duties looks like a quote; I recently just touched it up, but we could still be liable to copyvio unless we either reconstruct the sentence or make it clear that it is indeed a quote.  Done The claim made in the caption of that flag, especially, needs a citation.  Done I have been through this section now section. Please mark where further citations are needed and I will insert them.Granitethighs 11:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Done. I've also added a tag where a statement was attributed to a source that didn't contain anything even remotely similar. This is not the first instance I've seen of this in this article, so I will need to do a thorough check through the citations before passing this. Since I don't currently have access to any of the literary sources, I can only assume in good faith that these sources have been cited more carefully. Nightw 14:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Yes. slips like that are not acceptable of course. Its replacement is a "library"-type entry too - perhaps I got the wrong library ref ... Granitethighs 02:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)  Done

Demographics

Resolved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please do a thorough review of the sources included here and check whether the sentences which don't have citations attached are in fact sourced at the end of the next sentence. This now seems to be in order.  Done Granitethighs

Economy

Resolved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This entire section needs renovating. At the moment, the content of the tourism section isn't related to the economy. Yes, it's about tourism, but it doesn't touch upon how tourism impacts on the local economy or how it's being developed. Instead, it reads like a pamphlet summarising the sights and activities on the island. Moved to own section.  Done Granitethighs 23:07, 23 August 2011

Tourism

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The tone could do with a bit of an adjustment here. At the moment, it reads a bit like a pamphlet.  Done I also have no idea where the information comes from since most of it is cited to the homepage of this website which doesn't mention anything of the sort... There are major gaps in sources elsewhere in the section as well. This isn't done. In fact, it hasn't even been touched. I'll add some tags if that makes it easier. I'd also advise that you be careful when citing this site in this section, since it obviously contains some less-than-impartial claims and peacockery. Try using another source if you have one. I've added citations.Granitethighs 11:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)  Done Without a map, the list of walking tracks is useless, and I wonder if anybody would actually read it through. Names are just names, they don't describe anything about where the trails go. Is there some way this can be summarised? It indicates how many walks are available, the time they take, and their degree of difficulty, all of which might be of interest. However, I'm not fussed, reduce it to a sentence if you like - something like "There are many walks available on the island" or somesuch.Granitethighs 11:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC) I've just removed the grades, since this is a local grading system.

Geography

Resolved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reads fine from a brief glance over, but a lot of the content is under-referenced. As I said above, obviously not everything has to be referenced, but I would like to see a source for the statistics. Please insert where you think citations are needed ... otherwise  Done Granitethighs 10:07, 22 August 2011 I've added the tags. I've added citations that satisfy the bulk of those sentences, but I've left the tags because there are some details that aren't in my refs. --99of9 (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC) There are still a couple of tags in the Climate section.  Done

Plants

Resolved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
From a quick glance over, this section does not appear to be adequately sourced. I will check this more thoroughly later, but please take a look at this yourselves when you have time. That little table looks a bit odd on its own. I'm just putting it out there, it's not a cause for this nomination, ...but there may be a better way of presenting that information. Have been through citations. Please insert citation tags like before if you think they are needed and I'll fix it up. The table could be put into words but is mch simpler as it is - could the text be wrapped around it? Otherwise  Done Okay, added tags. Don't worry about the table so much. Just one left that I couldn't cover off. --99of9 (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Added Granitethighs 00:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)  Done

Animals

Resolved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Done a quick copyedit. Please reduce the familiarity of the tone here. For an exmaple, "it is so tame that it will climb into your lap" would sound more academic to a reader written as "are relatively indifferent towards the presence of humans". Some sentences may need shortening. From a quick glance over, the section appears to be well sourced. I will check through more thoroughly later.  Done As I've mentioned below, I recommend reducing the size of the gallery in this section.

Conservation

Resolved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A number of sentences here read like original research and indeed aren't attributed to any source. This includes several sentences in the second, fourth and last paragraphs, and the first sentence in the sixth paragraph. I think the tone needs to be adjusted here. A lot of statements are fairly non-commital or brief in detail. A succession of sentences say that something "has now been" done and things "have been" done in the past, a date for these is important. An example is the recovery program for the woodhen—a year needs to be added for that program otherwise the sentence is meaningless. Another sentence states something "probably cannot be eradicated but others can be effectively checked", which reads like it's pasted directly pasted from a conservationist's report. This has been copyedited to address these issues but please check to see if now satisfactory - otherwise. Done Granitethighs 23:09, 23 August 2011 Added some tags to indicate where the remaining problems are. Also added a year for the population change in the woodhens.

Appendices

Resolved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I only see one link in the See also section worth listing. There shouldn't be citations in this section, or any information needing a citation. Please adjust to taste then Granitethighs 23:11, 23 August 2011 I've removed the citation and the extra info. It's not an issue of taste, it's a MOS issue. A couple of the citations could do with more detail. Some are written out in full (e.g. refs 1–8), but others (e.g. 47, 55, 57, 58, etc) are simply links with the author and an access date. Consider adopting a citation style consistent with the bibliography section, which is perfect. Also try to write obscure acronyms out in full (e.g., ABS → Australian Bureau of Statistics). Some of the items in the bibliography section aren't being used or aren't currently attributed to any specific piece of information. Unless you want to just remove them, you should move these to a "Further reading" section. Take a look through the external links given. Alot of them are subpages of lordhoweisland.info, which is fine, but they should be bulleted underneath the main link to that website. Descriptive names like "Maps" and "Rodent eradication" are okay, but you should also indicate the publisher or name of the website. It may be just my end, but I can't open the link on "Maps" (checklinks doesn't pick it up as dead).

Images

Resolved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see your point about the galleries. I personally don't mind them in articles, and since this is not a nomination for featured content, it won't impact much on the article passing GA criteria. 99of9 has already dispersed some of them and the remaining ones under the "Plants" and "Animals" sections I think classify as a good use of galleries. However, the plants and animals sections both contains two galleries each. They should each have one, maximum. Also, I'm currently on a laptop and at this resolution I see a line of 5 images on top and then a second line with one image on its own. Given this, I'd suggest reducing the number of images from six to five. Thanks for combining them. However, I strongly suggest reducing the number of images in each gallery. A maximum of eight images (four on each line) won't clutter it too much and you'll still get the desired illustration of the variety of species. The markup used now doesn't allow for alternative text, required by our accessibility guidelines. Use Template:Gallery instead. I see most images in the article already have alt text in their markups. A few of them don't; that needs to be corrected. I removed one instance of wikilinks in a file's alt text markup. Please check to make sure that none of the others have this.

Rating

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This is obviously the preliminary assessment to see where we need to focus our attentions (since I've also made a lot of "random" suggestions!).

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   At the moment, it needs a thorough copyedit to check for tone, grammar and flow. Will do at the end.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   I do think the sections could do with reordering. Please have a look at that under my general notes, but the current setup does comply with policy.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Consistency in the citation style is preferred and easy to achieve.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Most sections (including the lead) have major sourcing concerns. Exceptions are the History and Animals sections.

   C. No original research:

   Will do a thorough check at the end.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   There are parts where it could be seen to wander off into unecessary or trivial detail.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Worthy of a brief mention.

Having recently been there, there are a few things that we saw/heard that should be in this article. I shall list them here first as bullet points and then if no-one objects, will put them into the main article. In no particular order, here goes:

The RAAF Catalina that crashed in 1949, the remnants of which form a tourist item. Either somewhat expanded in "History", or a brief mention in "Tourist Facility", or both.

The controversy regarding the building of the airport, the effects of the airport on tourism and the local ecology, and the management of the resulting expansion of tourism.

" ... no daytime sharks off the beaches" . Well, we saw a Blacktip reef shark at Ned's Beach, I think that he means no dangerous sharks.

The unsuccessful introduction of the owl as a predator on the rats, with a bit of detail as to what actually happened. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Old Wombat - that all looks good to me, but could I suggest that all the additions are kept as brief as possible?Granitethighs 12:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

How about three lines each at most? Old_Wombat (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The information itself looks good. My only concern is maintaining balance within the article by weighting the new information relative to the other content. Three lines sounds quite a lot to me. For example the shark edit simply requires the addition of a single word. If you disagree, then put in the information and we can discuss how it looks.Granitethighs 09:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all you say and will follow your suggestions. I will put the suggested texts here first and then everyone can kick them to death first. Whatever survives can then go into the article Old_Wombat (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I put in the one word into the shark article as per your suggestion. The rest will have to wait for a week or so. Old_Wombat (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Time Zone

The time zone on Lord Howe Island is Lord Howe Standard Time (UTC 10.5 hours) from the 1st Sunday of April to the 1st Sunday of October and Lord Howe Summer Time (UTC 11 hours) from the 1st Sunday of October to the 1st Sunday of April. Of all of the places in the world that switch to Daylight Saving Time/ Summer Time each year, Lord Howe Island is the only place where the current Summer Time offset is not one hour.

HankW512 (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Lord Howe Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110321122526/http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/legislation/09756lhiactreview.pdf to http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/legislation/09756lhiactreview.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120331102023/http://www.lordhoweislandtours.net/weather-a-forecast to http://www.lordhoweislandtours.net/weather-a-forecast
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111109083938/http://environment.gov.au/coasts/mpa/publications/pubs/lordhowe-plan.pdf to http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mpa/publications/pubs/lordhowe-plan.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lord Howe Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130419050017/http://www.lordhowe.com/press/Australian Traveller.pdf to http://www.lordhowe.com/press/Australian Traveller.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lord Howe Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lordhoweisland.info/getting-to-lord-howe-island-factsheet.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5QE8rvIqH?url=http://www.birdlife.org to http://www.birdlife.org
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160328018632/https://law.anu.edu.au/conferences/artificial-photosynthesis to https://law.anu.edu.au/conferences/artificial-photosynthesis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lord Howe Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090913093002/http://www.aucd.org.au/pdf/Lord_Howe_Island_MR.pdf to http://www.aucd.org.au/pdf/Lord_Howe_Island_MR.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lordhoweisland.info/getting-to-lord-howe-island-factsheet.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lordhoweisland.info/walking.htm/important-info.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birdlife.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lord Howe Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090503074945/http://www.lordhoweisland.info/important-info.htm to http://www.lordhoweisland.info/important-info.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007054652/http://www.blueswami.com/lord_howe_island.html?page=0&scope=1&sortby=id&dir=desc&pic=1400 to http://www.blueswami.com/lord_howe_island.html?page=0&scope=1&sortby=id&dir=desc&pic=1400

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Article - Endangered animals bounce back on rat-free Lord Howe Island

Key points: Rats have had a significant impact on flora and fauna on Lord Howe Island. In recent times a major rat eradication program was carried out. Since then there has been significant improvements for fauna and fauna.

Quoting:The last rat seen on Lord Howe Island was sniffed out by a detector dog about 15 months ago not long after a sometimes controversial program to rid the island of an estimated 200,000 of the vermin began.

The change in the little island since the rats disappeared has been spectacular, says Terry O’Dwyer, a biologist who worked on the program.

Shoots are now covering sections of the island’s forest floor and its famed Kentia palms are heavy with fruit.

Most significantly there has been a rebound in the numbers of Lord Howe’s flightless woodhen, which was pushed towards extinction by the rats that competed with it for food and even preyed on its eggs and young.

Fears that the woodhen might succumb to the baiting program that was carried out between June and July in 2019 caused some islanders to campaign against the effort, and prompted scientists to capture and keep them in captivity as the rats were being exterminated.

“We knew they were going to be all right as soon as we released them,” Dr O’Dwyer said. “They started copulating before they were out of sight.”

In a recent survey 440 of the hens were counted, twice the number of the previous count a year earlier.

Feral animals have already caused the extinction of six bird species including the Lord Howe Island fantail, white-eye, gerygone, starling and thrush, as well as 13 invertebrates and two plant species. Since rats scurried ashore from a shipwreck in 1918, they have caused or contributed to the extinction.

The impact of the eradication has stunned some observers.

“It has blown me away,” tour operator Jack Shick said. “I was a huge supporter of [the eradication] but I am in disbelief at what I am seeing. There are more birds, there are berries on the trees and insects are coming back. We are hearing crickets calling again at night. I remember that sound from when I was a kid.

“The thing that excites me is that there is no one alive on Lord Howe who can tell us what it was like before the rats came, so there is a new discovery around every corner.”

It will take longer to assess the impact on larger animals, but, said Dr O’Dwyer, the breeding success rate of petrels on the island has jumped from 2 or 3 per cent to more than 70 per cent.

Eradication programs of invasive species on islands have become a key tool against the global extinction crisis. The Database of Island Invasive Species Eradications has tracked 2000 programs between 1950 and 2019.

The $15.5 million Lord Howe Island program involved intensive ground and aerial baiting in 2019, supported by ongoing monitoring and ramped-up quarantine measures.

“This is an extraordinary example of a community conservation effort backed by world-leading science,” said NSW Environment Minister Matt Kean, who visited the island last week.

It is expected that the island will be declared rodent free later this year, two years after the baiting was finished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.207.105 (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Congenital illnesses?

Great article! Thank you to all who have contributed.

Do the permanent residents, descendants of the very limited number of original settlers for six generations according to the article, suffer from genetic diseases due to the limited gene pool similar to the Amish? I imagine permanent immigration is not permitted. However, are residents permitted to settle their spouses on the island if they marry an outsider?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)