Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cambridgeshire/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) 00:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cambridgeshire edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest of my nominations of lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and is in the same format as other FL lists of SSSIs such as Buckinghamshire and Essex. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passing comment: All Latin species names should be italicized. Example: Juncus inflexus should be Juncus inflexus. Mattximus (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done thanks. 09:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Another great article but there are a few passages that could be reworded. For example, it's not the founding of University of Cambridge that made it an intellectual centre, it's the university itself. suggest rewording it to "...and the University of Cambridge made the county one of the country's most important intellectual centres since it was founded in in the thirteenth century." Or something like that.
  • "The only site designated for both interests " I would repeat what those two interests are in this new paragraph
  • I would link the four endangered beetles (Graptodytes bilineatus, etc), just to be consistent with other species, even if they are red links for now.
  • Link Barbastelle, there is a decent page for this bat
  • Italicize Selinum carvifolia
Otherwise looks pretty good! Mattximus (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Many thanksMattximus. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, support Mattximus (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rodw edit

This is another impressive list. All entries have pictures links to article and other supporting information as appropriate. Having looked at some of the similar lists I am familiar with the format which we have discussed previously. Random checks of sortable columns all work sensibly. Just a few specific minor comments:

  • Citing the whole of the first paragraph of the lead to Encyclopedia Britanica could be improved (eg by providing a specific ONS source or similar for the population).
I agree that it is unsatisfactory and I devoted considerable effort to finding a better source without success. I could not find a list by county on ONS and the Cambridgeshire site has figures by administrative county which excludes Peterborough. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.. Here we have "a population as of 2011 of 708,719". Cambridgeshire we see "Population (mid-2015 est.) = 841,200" and Peterborough says "Population (mid-2015 est.) = 194,000" so unless there has been major change between the 2011 census & the mid 2015 estimates (ie an increase to 1,053,000 from 708,719) then something doesn't quite add up. Perhaps the Cambridgeshire article does include Peterborough & the increase has been 708,719 to 841,200 which is more believable.— Rod talk 06:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have managed to track down sources with the help of List of ceremonial counties of England, which is referenced. For the area you have to add the ONS figures for the 5 districts and Peterborough, which comes to 339,746 hectares. This is 1312 sq mi, slightly higher than the ceremonial counties figure of 1309, and I do not know why there is a difference. ONS for mid-2015 population has 647,238 for administrative Cambridgeshire and 193,980 for Peterborough, total 841,218, which agrees with the ceremonial counties figure. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for additional work on this. I'm happy with the citations now.— Rod talk 18:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is "major river" defined in the lead
Not defined so I have deleted "major". Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the measurements in the descriptions do not have conversions (eg "more than 20 metres of Upper Oxford Clay" in Warboys Clay Pit)
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "fossils reptiles" on Ely Pits and Meadows be "fossil reptiles"?
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I would wikilink terms such as ancient woodland as some readers may not be familiar.
Done - although I do wonder whether all the writers were using the term in the technical sense described in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On cherry Hinton Pit "British Red List of Threatened Species" is wikilinked to IUCN Red List, whereas on Upware North Pit we have "British Red Data Books" unwikilinked. Are these the same - if so it would be good to be consistent
The British books are different from the international IUCN list and there is no article on the British ones. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK Should the British "Red Book" have an article? I'm sure you could create one as it is mentioned in many articles.— Rod talk 06:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again, I think all three Red Book cites are to British reviews based on IUCN criteria, but only one spells out the source clearly. I have added a short section to Regional Red List and linked to it. Is this OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sorting this.— Rod talk 18:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Holme Fen should "which aims to create a 3,700 wetland wildlife area" be 3,700 acre, hectare or something?
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Adventurer's Land I would link "BP" to Before Present as some may not be familiar with the term.
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these are helpful.— Rod talk 21:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and helpful comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing my issues. I can now support this list as meeting the criteria.— Rod talk 18:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Rod. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments brief early run...
  • Ref 286, OS shouldn't be in italics, and the date should be in the same format as the other refs.
Deleted. This is an out of date ref which I forgot to delete. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link East Anglia.
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with much of it being ancient ... an indicator of ancient woodland" isn't that essentially saying the same thing?
Revised to clarify and deleted last sentence about wild service trees being an indicator of ancient woodland. Rodw suggested linking ancient woodland, but the Wiki article defines it as dating to before 1600, and Natural England appears to be using the term here to mean going back to a much earlier period. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This site on a former mineral working is g" what's a "working"? and a comma after site too...
A 'working' is a place where minerals are extracted, a mine or quarry. A 'mineral quarry' does not sound right to me but I have linked 'working' to 'quarry'. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is described by Natural England as of national" most of these descriptions come from Natural England, why pick this one out for attribution?
Reviewers have objected in the past when comments which sounds POV are not attributed so I attribute any phrase like "of national importance". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chippenham Fen and Snailwell Poor's Fen" entry, link Natural England if you wish to continue to occasionally attribute stuff to them, it's linked every other time.
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1912 to 1915" why not "between 1912 and 1915"?
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – In the Upware North Pit row, I see "a plant listed in the British Red List of Threatened Species of threatened species." That repetition is the only thing I found that is worth commenting on. The rest of the article looks great, as usual. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Meets FL standards with room to spare. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check another county off the list! --PresN 00:54, 8 May 2017 (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_Cambridgeshire/archive1&oldid=1076194422"