Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Norfolk/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) 00:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Norfolk edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and is in the same format as FLs such as List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Suffolk and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Kent. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
;Comment from BeatlesLedTV
  • Change all numbers in lead above 10 to numbers. Reading numbers as words like "one hundred and sixty-three" is a little off-putting. I know MOS:NUMS doesn't explicitly say you have to but I think you can just do that here since the numbers get big (especially since you use actual numbers in the table itself).
  • I have changed the numbers in the second paragraph, not the third. I think it would look wrong having a mixture of styles in the same paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My only other comment is that this is a MASSIVE list, (almost 400k bytes). I'd love to see what other editors have to say about that but maybe you could separate it from like A–K and L–Z. Just a suggestion because it's so big.
  • I would strongly object to splitting the list as it would make it much less useful. You could not, for example, so easily sort by area to see which is the biggest site or by location to see whether there are sites in your town.

Great job on this! Must've taken a lot of work. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead should begin with information about SSSIs rather than a whole paragraph about the county irrelev vascular plantsant to the list. Population does not have anything to do with the sites, nor do the local governments, nor do bordering counties, so why are they there right at the top? The location column lists cities and towns, not district councils, so I don't see the purpose here.
  • It is standard to have background information about the area in FLC candidates on lists of SSSIs and scheduled monuments. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to delete, seems to me a minor change of grammar plus swapping the first paragraph with the third would fix this, and also would neatly reflect the title, 'list' of 'SSSI' in 'Norfolk'. Mramoeba (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment Mramoeba. I put the second paragraph first as it did not seem to work with the third one first. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "123 are biological, 25 geological and 15 are both biological and geological." is not parallel
  • This is almost universal in lists of SSSIs and I do not see the objection. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There does not need to be a whole column to link the citation when it is already linked as part of the reference. Reywas92Talk 22:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is useful to the reader and has been in a dozen SSSI FLCs without anyone objecting. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then there hardly needs to be a duplicate reference when the citation is already linked in the table! Whatever, not a huge deal but not great form.Reywas92Talk 21:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your review but these points refer to features which are standard in SSSI lists I have submitted to FLC and I prefer to keep to the format which has been approved by previous reviewers. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed quite a few of these and each time I find fewer comments, the lists are excellent. Few quibbles:

  • Sedge is unnecessarily capitalized in Beetley and Hoe Meadows, Woodlark in Breckland Forest
  • "one species not previously recorded in Britain" doesn't really make sense without some time reference. Every species was not previously recorded until it was...
  • "Invertebrates include two nationally rare dragonflies, and the marshes have several important breeding bird species and an internationally important population of wintering wigeon" and...and...
  • Capitalize Sphagnum, acanthophyma , hygrolycosa
  • "dry acid dune grassland, the latter of which is very extensive. " can be reworded to say " very extensive dry acid dune..."
  • Sphagnum needs to be italicized twice.
  • 'a fine example of oceanic heathland' should have " "
  • ...by glacial meltwaters It is species-... is missing a full stop?
  • link coppicing
  • a rare amphibian and a rare butterfly... can you be specific?
  • The source does not specify, probably because they forgot to cover amphibians and invertebrates in detail. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've done the A-G sites, and will have to work on part 3 later. Overall these are just minor quibbles and I'm happy to Support once they are addressed. Mattximus (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All Comments addressed, nice work! Mattximus (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Phew I made it through the rest. It looks good, just a few minor points! Mattximus (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work with this huge list. Two comments:
    • A map of Norfolk would better fit the top of the article instead of a random sunset photo. East Sussex uses a map, for example.
  • I have used a picture of the site in the previous 11 SSSI county lists I have nominated for FLC and I think it is more relevant than a map for an article on SSSIs, whereas a map is more relevant for the article about the county. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is a "common"? Many places are named so, and then the text says "The common has ...". I guess it's Common land? A link somewhere would help. --Tone 13:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor ce., water dropwort has a page on Wikipedia, but as it is a common name is it the same? You have reedswamp as one word, should it not be two? I would wikilink vascular plants for those of us who have to look these things up. Wigeon can also be wikilinked as the other birds are. Hopefully I will have more time to read through later. Mramoeba (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Water dropwort - this is the name of the genus, which is also used of species in the genus. I have linked to the species according to Natural England, but it is a red link.
  • Reedswamp. OED agrees with you that it is two words. Changed.
  • Vascular plant. Linked.
  • Wigeon. Linked.

Comments

  • " by Natural England as "finest " -> as the "finest..."
  • "This area of spring fed fen" shouldn't that be "spring-fed"?
  • "Quaternary till, " sea of blue.
  • " grassland, and it has a " no need for "it".
  • Be consistent on how you refer to the IUCN Red List.
  • "Dersingham Pit is important " the entry is called "Dersingham Bog"...
  • Clarified that Dersingham Pit is part of Dersingham Bog. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't "Scots pine" be capitalised?
  • "Neolithic flint-mines " don't think that needs to be hyphenated.
  • "LNR[224] Ramsar,[8][68]" needs a comma.
  • "This is the best site displaying" needs attribution.
  • " The Devil's Punchbowl is " this is called "Stanford Training Area"...
  • Clarified that The Devil's Punchbowl is part of Stanford Training Area. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is the Type locality for " no need for capital T.
  • Ref 1 seems to be in trouble.
  • Fixed - I must have accidentally corrupted it when fixing another error. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ludham - Potter Heigham Marshes" shouldn't that be "Ludham–Potter Heigham Marshes"
  • The list links to Ludham - Potter Heigham Marshes. I was not aware that there is a separate article on the NNR, although I should have picked it up. I think it would be best to change the NNR article to a redirect. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably, sounds reasonable, but ensure that en-dash is used, rather than a hyphen. I would have thought, ideally (and per MOS), that it should be an unspaced en-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

I shudder to think how much work has gone into this mightily impressive article. When I pasted a copy into Word to check it (easier that way I find) it ran to 57 pages. A most impressive achievement. Only one drafting point: at Kelling Heath something has gone awry in the fifth column, leaving a red formula showing. The article is comprehensive, neutral, well and widely sourced and beautifully illustrated. Clearly meets the FL criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 16:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim. It is the fifth largest county by number of SSSIs with 163. I shudder to think how much work Cumbria would be with 278! Dudley Miles (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN54129 edit

It's an excellent example of what a featured list should look like and no mistake. @Dudley Miles:, as a purely stylistic question, have you considered making the "Other classifications" section two columns? Then all three would all sit flush on the top of the table? ——SerialNumber54129 16:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Serial Number 54129. I am afraid I do not understand your suggestion about making the "Other classifications" section two columns. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had a go; but. @Primefac: who knows about these things  :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SN means splitting the "Other classifications" list into two columns, but I think that would require either fake headers or nested column creation. Personally I'd say that since that section is twice as long as the other two, having the two-column setup is the best way to go. Splitting that list into two might make it a bit more convoluted. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]
Many thanks Primefac, that's exactly what I meant, and that sounds excessively complex for only a tiny return. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 16:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am still lost. Isn't the section the whole table, which is the main part of the article? So what are the other two sections and what is the problem which you are trying to solve? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly simple. I was suggesting a layout such as

, but Primefac as established that it would not be as easy as it looks, and probably not worth the hassle of attempting. Which is fine by me. See wot I mean? ——SerialNumber54129 17:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see now. I thought you were suggesting splitting 'Other classifications' in the sites section, but you meant in the list of codes. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, in keeping with the rest of the series, promoted. --PresN 21:11, 13 March 2019 (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_Norfolk/archive1&oldid=935975935"