Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire/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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire edit

Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest of my nominations of wildlife trusts, and is in the same format as the Herts and Middlesex and Essex Trusts, which are FLs. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • " 95% of people..." I believe we're supposed to avoid starting sentences with numerals...
  • "In the year to 31 March 2016" no data for 2017?
  • "52 reserves ..." see my first point...
  • " in 1987. In 1990" touch repetitive.
  • "52 reserves are Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), six are" MOSNUM here, 52, 6 (or fifty-two, six) etc.
  • "The smallest at 0.7 hectares (1.7 acres) " I would add a comma pair around the "at 0.7 hectares (1.7 acres)" clause.
  • No need to capitalise "Meadow saxifrage".
  • "Blow's Downs" seems to be called "Blow's Down", I assume you're just following your RS here?
  • Yes. WTBCN has it as Blow's Downs, Natural England as Blow's Down. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Totternhoe stone," appears to capitalise Stone.
  • " parts. snipe breed " Snipe.
  • " wildlife. 421 species" see first point.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • "action for wildlife": what action, to preserve wildlife?
  • The source does not specify. It would include volunteering at sites, and probably other things such as making people's own gardens more wildlife friendly, but I do not think I can go into detail as the source does not. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • By 1964 wildlife: comma missing?
  • "Each is independent and a member of the Society, which changed its name to the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts in 2004" This is two different concepts in one sentence. Suggest a full stop after society. Maybe "The Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves changed it's name to Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts in 2004 and operates as The Wildlife Trusts.[4] Each member of The Wildlife Trusts is independent... and then explain what independent means?
  • Looking at this again the wording was not quite right, so I have revised. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are my comments for the lead, otherwise it looks very good! Mattximus (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and winter visitors" I think you mean "and in winter" to match "in summer"
  • washings from sugar beet, do you mean sugar beets?
  • Done. The source had beet and it looks right to me, but I see that the plural is more common. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • snipe, redshanks and sandpipers,... any info on which bird specifically?
  • Changed. The Trust is a bit random on which birds it supplies details on, so I have changed to ones for which the species is specified.
  • Graptodytes bilineatus, Dryops similaris, Gyrinus distinctus and Myopites inulaedyssentericae, might as well red-link these for now, like you have others
  • I am doubtful. The Trust name for the site, Cherry Hinton Chalk Pits, pipes to Limekiln Close and East Pit, and the description covers each part. It does not seem logical to link Limekiln Close and not East Pit. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Everything else looks good. Excellent work as always!. Mattximus (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good to me Support. Mattximus (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from N Oneemuss edit

This looks very good.

  • "3,945 hectares" – conversion needed (I see there are some elsewhere in the article)
  • Is there a reason why you've converted it to square miles (everywhere else in the article, you've converted hectares to acres)? N Oneemuss (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think square miles works better for large areas and acres for small ones. The same argument might apply to hectares and square kilometres, but I do not have a feel for what is best for a reader who thinks in metric. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an income of £5.1 million" – "had" is missing. Also, "the year to 31 March 2016" seems a bit awkward to me; how about "preceding" instead of "to"?
  • "had" added. "year to" is the standard term, and "preceding" would be unusual and confusing.
  • I would personally link Peterborough (probably at the start of the last sentence of the third paragraph instead of in the name).
  • In that sentence, I think that "but" would sound a bit better than "although".
  • The table looks excellent, but I have spotted a few things:
  • Coppicing should be linked in the first entry.
  • For the fourth entry, "it has nationally rare plant" is missing "a".
  • Shouldn't the redlinked scientific name in that entry start with a capital letter?
  • Would it be possible to have an update for note c? It's been four months now.
  • I think it is better left. The site is probably still closed, but I am not sure. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great work; I will be happy to support after these comments have been dealt with. N Oneemuss (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're welcome. I still have one question (with regards to my first comment) but it's very minor, so I'll support. N Oneemuss (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review – The references are all reliable and well-formatted. I consider this source review a pass, and will be promoting the list in a moment. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:04, 31 July 2017 (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/Wildlife_Trust_for_Bedfordshire,_Cambridgeshire_and_Northamptonshire/archive1&oldid=1076196606"