Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Leicestershire/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, 22 January 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Leicestershire edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and is in the same format as FLs such as Suffolk and Essex. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • Make sure you spell out numbers in the lead per MOS:NUM. Mainly just seven and twelve.
  • Put a period at the end of the caption in the opening stream image.

Not going to lie that's all I got for you. Another great list Dudley great job! Care to check out my other FLCs? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both done. Thanks for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Absolutely. Happy to support. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Comments I've reviewed quite a few of these lists and each time there are fewer comments to make as they are at featured quality already. Just a few quibbles:

  • "15% of UK output". I think this could use rewording. For example: "15% of the total production of rock in the United Kingdom." Or something a bit more clear. Is "rock" the best term for the mineral extracted from this quarry?
  • Revised but did not repeat "rock" as that would make three times in two sentences. The source says crushed rock used for the foundations of roads and buildings, so it is not one specific mineral. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Batenus livens and anthribus fasciatus... Capitalization should be consistent throughout the article
  • "have diverse butterflies" -> "have diverse species of butterflies"?
These are just minor, I will alredy Support this list based on my review. Mattximus (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Leicestershire is a county in the East Midlands of England. The area of the administrative county is 806 square miles (2,090 km2)[2", why not "Leicestershire is an administrative county in the East Midlands of England with an area of 806 square miles (2,090 km2)..."?
  • Changed to "Leicestershire is a county in the East Midlands of England with an area of 833 square miles (2,160 km2)," I think I made a mistake giving the area of the administrative not the geographic county. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "57 of which are designated for their biology, twelve for their geology and seven" MOSNUM, 57, 12, 7, or "fifty-seven, twelve, seven".
  • Sure, same MOS page you link, Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: five cats and thirty-two dogs, or 5 cats and 32 dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " is rich in sulphides, some of which are unidentified.[9]" ref 9 has no publication date, so it's possibly slightly dubious to claim that the sulphides remain unknown...
  • Same comment for " their genesis is little understood and they provide great potential for research"...
  • There are more of these further on, perhaps a quick discussion over how to best handle them is in order?
  • This is a good point which applies generally. Many citations appear to date to the 1980s, but geological ones will rarely be out of date as they have not been examined for decades. The problem is bigger with biological sites, where the vegetation can change. How about a note to the description column: "Descriptions are mainly based on the official Natural England citations. Many of these date to the 1980s, and in some cases may be out of date." Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link oak, link ash, but not pine?
  • Link "heronry" (or heron).
  • "one which is nationally rare" link?
  • "neutral marsh" is this as opposed to acid/alkaline marsh? Again, sorry to be repetitive, do we have a link?
  • Done. According to the Wiki article marshes are normally neutral - as opposed to acid/alkaline - but I have stuck with the source. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wigeon, teal, mallard and pochard" links!
  • I think it is better to leave these as two of them go to disambigs, and it would look odd to have two linked and two not. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, although only pochard needs to be resolved because mallard could be linked to Anatinae. Ho hum. Just noticed the ref for this is missing an "r"! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other one is teal, which links to the colour, and the teal disambig covers different unrelated birds. Typo fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are relicts of " -> I've never seen this, always "relic" for me, but I Googled it, and it seems okay, but not common.
  • Link "asphaltite"
  • "woodland.[150][149]" order.
  • "Red Data Book of threatened species" why pipe to a redirect when you can just say "IUCN Red List"?
  • "best wildlife sites in the county" yet only plants mentioned...
  • Make sure consistent date formats are present in the refs, currently seeing DMY and YYYY-MM-DD mixed up.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. Replies above. Have I covered everything? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:42, 22 January 2018 (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_Leicestershire/archive1&oldid=821844858"