Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Holkham National Nature Reserve/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 22:32, 6 October 2012 [1].

Holkham National Nature Reserve edit

Holkham National Nature Reserve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

England's largest National Nature Reserve has an Iron Age fort, several earls and a few naturists. Please wander in (but not on the dunes). Delegate permission given by Graham Colm Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN22: formatting
  • FN23: should use dash not hyphen. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely fixed 23, might have fixed 22, but not actually sure what the problem was, thanks for checking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • fix "are stated in the SSSI notification document states"
  • not sure if part of the quote from SSSI about the salt marsh being "among the best in Europe" is appropriate; what makes one salt marsh "better" than another?
  • The quote makes it clear that it's because of its floral diversity, which is a measurable quantity. I think it's reasonable, indeed expected, that a designating body should make comparisons, even on a European level, to explain why these marshes are worthy of protection Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer if the second paragraph of the lead didn't start "This stretch of coast", as it's not immediately obvious what "This" refers to (the coast has only been mentioned explicitly so far at the beginning of the previous paragraph)
  • "The resulting lower water table reduced the wildlife value," reduced the value of the wildlife there, or reduced its value to wildlife?
  • "was subsumed into the newly created 7,700 hectares (19,000 acres) North Norfolk Coast SSSI." this unit is used adjectivally and so needs a hyphen (also hectares->hectare); same with the later "The narrow 5 km (3 mi) belt"
  • "holding 7 per cent" -> seven, per MoS
  • title in the cited texts are a mix of sentence and title case
  • have you seen these articles?
Title: Managing coastal grazing marshes for breeding waders and overwintering geese: Is there a conflict?
Author(s): Vickery, JA; Sutherland, WJ; OBrien, M; et al.
Source: BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION Volume: 79 Issue: 1 Pages: 23-34 DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3207(96)00111-5 Published: JAN 1997
Title: Holkham grazing marshes N.N.R.
Author(s): Harold, Ron
Source: Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists Society Transactions Volume: 30 Issue: 2 Supplement: Norfolk Bird & Mammal Report 1993 Pages: 123-130 Published: Sept 1994
Title: Factors affecting the establishment and distribution of Corsican Pine natural regeneration at Holkham National Nature :Reserve.
Author(s): Johnson, C. L.
Source: Quarterly Journal of Forestry Volume: 70 Issue: 2 Pages: 95-102 Published: 1976
  • There's a surprising amount about the pines at Holkham. My own feeling is that this and other articles on their regeneration are a bit peripheral Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Title: HOLKHAM NATIONAL NATURE RESERVE NORFOLK ENGLAND DESCRIPTION
Author(s): THE REGIONAL OFFICER EAST ANGLIA
Source: Entomologist Volume: 101 Issue: 1256 Pages: 23-24 Published: 1968
Title: Studies on the impact of paths on the dune vegetation at Winterton, Norfolk, England
Author(s): Boorman, L.A., Fuller, R.M.
Source: Biological Conservation Volume: 12 Issue: 3 Pages: 203-216 Published: 1977
  • I'm not sure that this adds a great deal to the general "keep off the dunes" message, especially as Winterton is a less managed location than the Holkham site. Much easy to scramble over the generally steeper dunes there (OR). What do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Holocene relative sea-level movements along the North Norfolk Coast, UK
Author(s): I. Boomer, B.P. Horton
Source: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volume: 230 Issue: 1–2 Published: 2006 Pages: 32-51
  • There's masses of geomorphology for this fragile coast, could write an FA on that alone. I prefer the article as is because it's much more focussed on the local picture Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Wind action and sand movement near Holkham Bay, North Norfolk Coast, England
Author(s): Oronsaye, W. I.
Source: Environmental Geology and Water Sciences Volume: 15 Issue: 2 Pages: 77-82 Published: 1990
Title: Assessing the impact of climate change on visitor behaviour and habitat use at the coast: A UK case study
Author(s): Coombes, Emma G.; Jones, Andy P.
Source: Global Environmental Change, Volume: 20 Issue: 2 Pages: 303-313, Published: 2010

Most importantly, the following article says that the rare (in Britain; it's a UK "priority species") earthstar fungus Geastrum minimum has been found there and concludes "The survival of this species in Britain would undoubtedly benefit from the construction of a boardwalk across this fragile and frequently-visited habitat."

Title: Recent discoveries among the gasteroid fungi of Norfolk Original Research Article
Author(s): Telfer, Mark G.; Lambdon, Philip W.; Gurney, Mark
Source: Field Mycology, Volume: 1 Issue: 1 Published: 2000 Pages: 30-32
  • Thanks very much for the review and additional sources. I'll tweak as indicated above, and let you know when I'm done here or on your talk page. If you think I've dismissed the pines and geomorphology too lightly, and the article needs more on these for balance, let me know. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for the additions. I'm satisfied that the article meets the FA criteria. (Feel free to remove these resolved comments to the talk page) Sasata (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check - only 1 minor issue, others are OK (Geograph project images).

Comments on images by Cwmhiraeth:

  • It would be nice to see some of the images on the left hand side of the page so as to break up the text a bit.
  • You could provide alternate text for the images.
OK, done both Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made a couple of copyedits. Ii is a well written article and I am satisfied that it meets the FA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for edits and support, I would have responded sooner, but been away for a couple of days Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Maky:

  • "As the ice retreated during the Mesolithic (10,000–5,000 BCE), the sea level rose, filling what is now the North Sea. This brought the Norfolk coastline much closer to its present line, so that many ancient sites are now under the sea." – Would it be worth mentioning that this submerged area is referred to as Doggerland? It might make for easier access if people want to know more.
Thanks. The only reason I knew the term is because I followed the North Sea link and tried to learn more about its past geology. I figured it would be best to simplify that process for others with similar interests. – Maky « talk » 07:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...which is carries inland when the wind is from directions between northwest to northeast with a speed greater than three metres (10 ft) per second." – Besides the typo ("which is carries"), this seems a little awkward. Maybe say "...which is carried inland when the wind exceeds... directed from..."?
  • Added in response to earlier review, obviously in too much of a hurry, tweaked now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...of intertidal sand and mud flats belonging to the Crown." – Is there a reason why you say "Crown" and not "Crown Estate"?
  • It might be nice to summarize the number of species found in the reserve.
  • It would, but easier said than done; even for birds I haven't found an RS source. I'll keep looking, but difficult to get data with an FA standard ref Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely understand. I've written about two reserves myself. It was worth asking. – Maky « talk » 07:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to see more informative captions for images. Most people can see what's depicted in a picture (and if not, that's what the alt is for). Instead, I prefer to read a brief, interesting fact pertaining to the article (cited in the text). For example: "Vegetated dunes protect the NNR" -> "The reserve is protected from flooding by vegetated dunes along the coast." ...or: "Horses on the beach" -> "The reserve has many visitors every year, including horse riders who frequent the beach." Those are just an examples, and you're welcome to make up your own. I look at it this way: most people who visit the article will only read the lead and look at the pictures. Therefore we should make the pictures and their captions as informative as possible. Hell, let's give them a reason to want to read the entire article that we've worked so hard on. Pictures with a good caption can really pull people in.
  • I was looking at your references, and I noticed several are web-based. I strongly urge you to use WebCite or something equivalent to archive your sources. It would be a tragedy a few years from now if the sources were gone and the article demoted as a result.
  • That's brilliant! I've webcited key documents now, not bothered with pages which are courtesy views of real documents (like British birds ref) or ones where I'm certain I can replace the refs (almost all the Natural England and Holkham Estate links) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for archiving. Since you're using the cite templates, you can incorporate the archival url into the citation with the parameters archiveurl=url, archivedate=date, and deadurl=no. – Maky « talk » 16:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all fixed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it no longer a requirement (policy or guideline) to alternate image positions on the page from left to right? Sorry... it's late, and I'm being too lazy to look it up. I can look tomorrow, if needed.
  • No, that's gone - I've had several FAs through now with my preferred all-right-aligned Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very good article. I'm going to AGF on its comprehensiveness, but it looks like it covers anything that I could think of. I'm looking forward to adding my support. – Maky « talk » 02:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for review and helpful comments, I'll keep looking for species counts, but it's surprisingly difficult to source adequately Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Maky – The article meets FA requirements IMO. Again, AGF on comprehensiveness, but seems to cover everything. – Maky « talk » 18:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and the useful archiving tip Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chaosdruid

Just a few minor issues that I have noticed so far:

  • SSSI - I cannot see where SSSI is given in full. I would expect "Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)"
Lead
  • "The reserve is part of the North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest, which is additionally protected ..." maybe change which to and? Is the site additionally protected or is it just the NNCSSSI that is protected as a whole?
  • "Holkham is important" - is this Holkham the town, the estate, or Holkham NNR?
  • "but drainage and reclamation" - but, this should counteract something though there seems to be nothing to counteract in the previous sentence-part; are the creeks still there or have they gone?
  • " but access to the former harbour was stopped by drainage and reclamation of the marshes between the coast and the shingle ridge which started in the 17th century, and was completed in 1859." Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "drainage and reclamation of the marshes [...] was completed in 1859." seems a little misleading as the picture clearly states "Tidal foreshore and salt marsh" which suggests that the marshes still exist.
  • Yes, the marshes outside the shingle ridge are still there, I think my previous respose fixes that too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "local economy. but" I think that might be an orphaned full stop.
  • "potential damage to sensitive habitats caused by large numbers of people" how do large numbers of people cause potential damage? Also damage can be caused by small groups or individuals. Perhaps change to "... habitats that could be caused by visitors"
  • Recast as "The NNR has taken steps to control entry to the fragile dunes and other areas important for their animals or plants because of the damage to sensitive habitats that could be caused by unrestricted access" to avoid repetition of "visitors" or "access" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will add to this later. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for review and comments


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_article_candidates/Holkham_National_Nature_Reserve/archive1&oldid=1138463070"