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

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset edit

This list has been created taking into account the discussions about List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cleveland which have both achieved featured list status. This list is bigger than the others but has the same features and I feel meets the criteria for featured lists. — Rod ^talk 10:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support (I'd suggest using the same resolution for all grid refs rather than having a mix of 6- & 8- fig ones, and Ordnance Survey is mis-spelled once, but those are the only problems I could spot. Easily meets the FL criteria) SP-KP 11:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - typo & grid refs fixed— Rod ^talk 11:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent list, however is it necessary for each citation sheet to have its own access date? Would it be possible for them to be all checked and updated to the same day as this would reduce the size of the references section. I realise this may be hard with over a hundred of them. Thanks Suicidalhamster 23:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support - but I don't understand your comment as, even if they all had the same access date, they point to seperate documents & therefore the list would be the same size. — Rod ^talk 08:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didnt really explain. On my screen each reference for a citation sheet takes up two lines because of the access date, which adds 'retrieved on ...' etc to each reference. If these were removed the refernece section should be smaller as each link to a citation sheet generally only takes up one line as in the Avon and Cleveland lists. I realise this is purely aesthetics so feel free to leave it as it is. Suicidalhamster 14:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now. On my large high res screen they fit on one line each but I've tried reducing the screen res & reproduced the problem, however I believe it is good practice to include the date as these documents do change (even if only occasionally) as recomended on Template talk:Cite web.— Rod ^talk 16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK thats cool, happy with the list so support still stands! Suicidalhamster 16:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Although I'd like to see a few more stubs in place of the remaining redlinks, this is comprehensive, well presented, and well referenced. Excellent work. Durova 02:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. All remaining red links are now pointing at stubs. — Rod ^talk 09:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support A huge effort. Well done. Colin°^Talk 22:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good effort. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 09:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]