Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of local nature reserves in Somerset/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 PresN 16:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of local nature reserves in Somerset edit

List of local nature reserves in Somerset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): — Rod talk 10:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already have one FLC nomination of the national nature reserves in Somerset, which has three supports and I believe "reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed". This is a companion list covering all of the local nature reserves in the county.— Rod talk 10:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments per your request on my talkpage, apologies for not getting back to you sooner...
  • Not sure you need to repeat the name of the reserve in the Description.
    • Removed/reworded.— Rod talk 08:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 200 hectare (494 acre) area" this should be hyphenated, shouldn't it, i.e. A 200-hectare ....?
    • I've now used the convert template which should handle this.— Rod talk 08:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could abbreviate SSSI in the lead and then use the abbreviation in the table.
  • Can we put en-dashes in the empty picture cells..
    • Done (but I always get em-dash and en-dash confused so could you check).— Rod talk 09:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "notable bath asparagus." any need for "notable", or perhaps explain what makes it so notable...
    • Its an unusual plant but I've removed "notable" as being subjective.— Rod talk 08:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Wain's Hill Iron Age hill fort " there is, somewhere, a MOS guideline that suggests that we avoid placing blue links adjacent to one another (I can never find it, although I may have a quick look after this), we have three in a row here.
    • I've reworded this to avoid them being adjacent.— Rod talk 09:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " includes the Folly Oak which" you only link Oak here, if the Folly Oak is so significant, I would link it entirely, or just not link Oak, particularly since it's part of a proper title.
    • I've removed the link. I doubt if there are enough sources for a separate article - its significance is the age of the tree.
  • Deatil typo (South Taunton Streams (Mill, Galmington, Blackbrook 1&2)).
  • Then it's "Details" in Twerton Roundhill.
    • Done.
  • No map, area or co-ords for Uphill Hill and Walborough Common. I understand they're combined, in which case I would put the same stats in and add a note to say as such. As a minimum the co-ordinates for Uphill need to be repeated and those empty cells need explanation.
    • I'm not sure how to handle this. I have emailed Natural England + local wildlife trusts, council etc - and not had a response. Natural England still lists them as separate sites (see detail links with non-interactive maps) which would therefore have different coordinates, but the MAGIC government mapping system from which I get the areas etc shows them as one site. If I duplicate the area this will give a false impression that they cover twice as much as they do. Advice appreciated.— Rod talk 09:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check refs for publisher info missing, e.g. ref 7, ref 27...
    • Done those two - can't see any others.— Rod talk 09:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency needed in retrieval/publication dates.
  • Check for accessdates, e.g. ref 21 is missing one.
  • Ref 18 "south Somerset" I imagine should be South Somerset.
    • You are right - done.— Rod talk 09:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 19: Kepp Britain Tidy, obvious typo.
    • You are right - done.— Rod talk 09:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the Pen Selwood reference a WP:RS?
  • Is it "Taunton Deane Council" or "Taunton Deane Bourough Council"? And the latter has a typo.
  • Work for ref 30 should be Bristol Post.

That's it for a quick onceover. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "The smallest at just 0.53 hectares (1.3 acres) is Wellington Basins where a series of small ponds and surrounding grassland and woodland which provide a habitat for grey wagtail, dipper and reed bunting." This sentence does not seem grammatical.
  • "Uphill Hill and Walborough Common are adjacent to each other in Uphill and are sometimes treated as a single site covering 38.14 hectares (94.2 acres)." Uphill Hill and Walborough Common should be linked. Also the sentence is not referenced (here and in the descriptions of the sites). Who treats it as a single site?
    • As discussed above the MAGIC government mapping site treats it as one reserve, (see this map) while Natural England has two separate data sheets. I am unsure how best to present this.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This seems to me a technical detail not worth mentioning in the main text - let alone three times. I would add an efn note to the two reserves stating that NE has separate details pages but one map covering both sites. I see above you got no response emailing NE. I find that surprising as they were very good at dealing with my queries about London and Hertfordshire and corrected a number of errors. (Others they never corrected, presumably because they were unable to get the information from the boroughs.) Perhaps you could try phoning them? You can get the area from this Somerset page, which says that Uphill is 17 hectares, so presumably the rest is Walborough. The page also says that Uphill is an SSSI. There is an SSSI called Uphill Cliff and you could check the maps to see whether they are the same. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. I have tried to amend in line with your suggestions.— Rod talk 07:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think that is quite right. You need to explain that you are using a different source for the Uphill and Walborough areas and you have not referenced the last sentences in the descriptions. How about 1. Add at the beginning of note a "Unless otherwise stated," 2. Delete notes e and f. 3. Add one note to both the Uphill and Walborough areas using {{efn|name=x|. "The areas of Uphill Hill and Walborough Common are not given by NE as although there are separate information pages for the sites, the map shows them as a single site with an area of 38 hectares. The areas for these sites are based on Somerset site..., which states that Uphill has an area of 17 hectares, which leaves 21 for Walborough. Refs Somerset site and Magic map. 4. Ref for the descriptions Uphill Magic map, and for the statement that Uphill LNR and SSSI are largely coterminous the Somerset site. Does this make sense? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have attempted to edit following your suggestions, but could you take another look?— Rod talk 19:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comparing the LNR and SSSI maps, the SSSI is only half the size, 19 hectares, so partly coterminous might be more accurate than largely. It looks as if Walborough also covers a small part of Severn Estuary SSSI, but you may not think this is not worth mentioning. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This reserve covers unimproved neutral grassland" No change needed but I wish someone competent would create an article on neutral grassland. There is even a category for neutral grassland SSSIs!
  • "The dunes, west of the village of Berrow, has a golf course, and is a noted site". "has" and "is" do not agree in number with "dunes"
  • " A 200 hectares (490 acres) area was designated in 1952 as a SSSI." Presumably the 16.7 hectare LNR is part of the SSSI, but this should be spelled out.
  • "The site includes beech trees up to 200 years old. There are also oak and hazel. It provides a habitat for birds including blackbirds, woodpeckers, goldcrests and jackdaws and small mammals." This reads a bit awkwardly. How about "The site has beech trees up to 200 years old, oaks and hazels. Birds include blackbirds, woodpeckers, goldcrests and jackdaws, and there are small mammals such as badgers and foxes."
    • Thanks - I have used your suggested wording.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It includes the bath asparagus". This does not sound right to me. Maybe "Plants include bath asparagus."
  • Chard Reservoir. Ref 19 appears to be a dead link as it goes to the Keep Britain Tidy home page. I would add that Chard Canal closed in 1868 to make clear that the reservoir has not been active for 150 years.
    • Archiveurl used. Closure of canal added.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This reserve includes a hill fort dating from the Iron Age on Wain's Hill and Church Hill. It includes calcareous grassland, coastal scrub and woodland" Repetition of "includes". The second one could be changed to "has".
  • "The lakes are the centrepiece of the one mile long[44] nature reserve which includes dry woodland which has a ground flora including common bluebell, dogs mercury and twayblade." This is awkward with the repetition of "which". I would split the sentence into two.
  • I think "rhyne" should be linked.
    • Wikilinked.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add the list of Somerset SSSIs to 'See also'.
  • Another first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. I think they are dealt with apart from the issue with Uphill Hill and Walborough Common on which I would welcome your thoughts.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jakec
  • "A 36.97 hectares (91.4 acres) reservoir"...should be "36.97-hectare (91.4-acre) reservoir". Use the adj=on parameter in the convert template.
    • Done.— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It still reads "A 36.97 hectares (91.4 acres) reservoir". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I had missed a "|" within the convert template.— Rod talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the Chard Reservoir section, three consecutive sentences begin with "it". Perhaps rephrase and/or merge a couple of the shorter sentences?
  • There should be a comma after "Following the route of the Cheddar Valley Line" and also "Alongside the River Tone"
    • Commas added.— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Woodland and grassland support a range of bird species" isn't grammatically correct; should be "supporting" or "that supports".
    • Changed to "that supports".— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The grassy plateau of the hill fort is owned and managed by Yatton and Congresbury Parish Councils." should be referenced.
    • Ref added.— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • About half of the Berrow Dunes section is unreferenced.
    • Refs added.— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence of the Street Heath section needs a period.
  • "There are a variety of birds, bats, reptiles and invertebrates." - try maybe adding an "also".
    • Added.— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually mant "There area also a variety of birds, bats, reptiles and invertebrates." --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the clarification - got it now.— Rod talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that four entries don't have articles of their own. Can this be rectified?
    • Some of them (more than four I think) link to the geography sections of larger articles about parishes/villages. These are generally small reserves which I am not sure they would meet the GNG on their own but are a significant part of their locality.— Rod talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. As long as there aren't that many, and they do link somewhere, it's not a 5a violation. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 6 is dead
    • Linkrot fixed.— Rod talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still see a page saying only "This Account Has Been Suspended". It's now ref 5, titled "Ash Priors Common". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Archiveurl & archivedate added.— Rod talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 14 appears to come from Geocities. Is it an RS?
    • I can't find another source for this so removed - not vital to the nature reserve.— Rod talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 20 looks like a personal site. Is it an RS?
    • I'm not sure which one you are referring to as refs have been added and removed. Can you give hint as to which one this relates to?— Rod talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is now ref 21, " "Chard Reservoir Nature Reserve". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Replaced with a site from the local council.— Rod talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting list, and I look forward to supporting once these are addressed. Would you by any chance have time to review Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_tributaries_of_Shamokin_Creek/archive1? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments. I will try to take a look at Shamokin Creek.— Rod talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support by the looks of it, the previous reviewers have covered everything; I can't find anything to fault. This has also reminded me that I still owe you a photo for Silk Mills, I'll jot that down! Harrias talk 10:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this FLC as passed. Consider nominating the list at WP:TFLS, and remember that the best way to make sure that nominations get through the process faster is to review other nominations. --PresN 16:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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_local_nature_reserves_in_Somerset/archive1&oldid=687603797"