Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Essex/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Essex edit

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Essex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third list of Sites of Special Scientific Interest I have nominated after Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, and I believe is it is also of FLC standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)
  • Comments
    • The In the early Anglo-Saxon period ... sentence looks out of place to me. It breaks the flow when I read the lead. Maybe it's just me, I just want someone else to comment on this as well before making any changes.
      • I put this in because I thought it was interesting background, but I am happy to take it out if reviewers think it does not belong there. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Map and Citation columns should have that "a" footnote as well
    • The area for Abberton Reservoir is listed as "718.3", but the citation says "716.31". The location for Abberton Reservoir is listed as "TL981181", but the citation says "TL 970180". I strongly suggest to go over the info one more time.
      • This is a difficult one. I have always gone on the citation as that has been the standard and that is what the note says, but in this case the figures were put in before I started working on the article, and - checking now - I see that whoever did it used the Magic Map for Abberton Reservoir. I will check whether the same applies to other sites. This often differs slightly from the citation and is a more reliable source for the location and area. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • If all the location and area values are from the Magic Map, just change the references. If it's mixed, just leave the citations and change the values. Currently, they're not referenced and a change is a must.Cheetah (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have gone through the figures and there are many minor discrepancies, probably because the location was based on looking at the Magic Map and estimating the centre of the site. I have revised the figures using the most reliable source, the Natural England details page for each site, and revised the notes accordingly. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alt text on "Purfleet Chalk Pits" and "West Wood" images should be corrected
    • "commons category" should be placed under "See Also" section, not over.
    • Other similar FLs (the ones you didn't do) have a column Year in which notified, what's the reason of this omission?

Cheetah (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Crzycheetah I have checked and revised the areas and locations. Do you have any other points? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rodw

Another excellent list. Just a few minor questions/nitpicks:

  • The "Map all..." link works in OSM & Bing but doesn't work properly in Google for me - I can't see any reason in the code & may be a temporary blip on Google maps.
I think it is a blip. I have checked the link in three other articles and they all have the same problem. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK perhaps worth checking in a few days or asking those knowledgeable about the template map links.— Rod talk 19:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title "Inner Thames Marshes" redirects to Rainham Marshes Nature Reserve. The RSPB ref uses one name & Natural England uses the other are they synonymous?
This is a difficult one. There are very few details on the RSPB's own site, and I cannot find any map of Rainham Marshes or reference to the SSSI. An old BBC article at [2] says that Rainham Marshes is 77% of the Inner Thames Marshes SSSI, but I doubt whether this can be considered an RS. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the local knowledge or sources to help with this one - I see on Rainham Marshes Nature Reserve the top of the infobox says "Inner Thames Marshes" not sure about this but consistency is generally good. Might be worth a comment in the description within the list, but minor.— Rod talk 19:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised to make clear that Rainham Marshes is only part of the SSSI. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anglian glaciation is wikilinked in the description of Holland-on-Sea Cliff & Wivenhow Gravel Pit but not in Hall's Quarry - any particular reason?
Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Harwich Foreshore "London clay" doesn't have a capitalised "C" but the article London Clay does - any reason?
Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 195 has WIVENHOE capitalised - any reason?
Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 94 and 110 (Ratcliffe) seem to point to the same page in the same book - it could just be reused
Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these are useful.— Rod talk 18:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your helpful comments Rod. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I can now support this list as meeting the criteria.— Rod talk 19:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rod. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Looks good, just a few points for the lead, will look at table next.
  • Is the first "and" in the second sentence needed? Reads strange with two "ands".
  • I do not think it works deleting it, but I have deleted the whole clause, which is not needed. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has an area of 1,426 square miles" could not find this number in the citation... also the citation uses km? Which is standard in the UK?
  • I put in the wrong url, and I cannot find the source now, so I have replaced it (with a source which gives a slightly different figure). Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fit back together" -> "reconstruct" or "recreate"?
  • This does not work. You can fit back together pieces of flint, not reconstruct them - just as you can reconstruct a jigsaw but not the pieces of the jigsaw. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Red Data Book invertebrates." should probably be "invertebrates on the IUCN Red List". Similar change would be good for "Canvey Wick", "Crouch and Roach Estuaries", "Epping Forest", and other references.
  • Changed to " IUCN Red List of Threatened Species" for clarity. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two unusual moths" are there wikipages of those two moths? If so it would be good to link to them.
  • Brachythecium mildeanum needs to be italicised
  • "A network of ditches radiates from Holland Brook, and these have several nationally scarce aquatic plant species, such as brackish water crowfoot and divided sedge." -> "A network of ditches radiates from Holland Brook. These ditches have several nationally scarce aquatic plant species such as brackish water crowfoot and divided sedge."
  • In Inner Thames Marshes, all Latin species names must be italicised.
  • xanthandrus comtus italicised.
  • "The woodland it mainly ancient, and there are more than a thousand species of moths and butterflies, and nearly seventy of breeding birds" This sentence does not make sense.

Great list! Look forward to support with these few changes. Mattximus (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments Mattximus. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all the changes were met and it looks good. Just one minor quibble, there is still one reference to "red book species" which I think can be better termed "IUCN Red List of Threatened Species" or even just "species on the IUCN Red list" if you want it less verbose. Great work! Mattximus (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I think on reflection that it is worth spelling out what the red list is, as some readers will not know. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus do you have any further comments? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you've met all my concerns and I keep my support from before, great work! (I'm not sure if you have time but I do have a nomination up above that could really use a quick once over) 10:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Will do in the next few days - and I have another Essex list above. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep I saw, was hoping to get to it on the weekend. Mattximus (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I would have expected to see Essex linked and not emboldened in the opening sentence.
  • Consider converting the areas in the lead to metric (you have metric (imperial) in the table, after all)...
  • " A further 3 sites ..." three (it's a different sentence to those preceding it with numeric values).
  • "For other counties, see List of SSSIs by Area of Search." why isn't this another entry under the See also section?
  • It is commonly in this position in SSSI lists, and I find it convenient when switching between counties, but I have changed it to a hatnote. I hope this is OK. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nature Conservation Review" should be "Nature Conservation Review site".
  • "Roesel's Bush-cricket" should be "Roesel's bush-cricket" these days...

An excellent list. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review The Rambling Man. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Sites_of_Special_Scientific_Interest_in_Essex/archive1&oldid=1138484451"