Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of local nature reserves in Berkshire/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) 00:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of local nature reserves in Berkshire edit

List of local nature reserves in Berkshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Local Nature Reserves and is in the same format as FLs such as Kent and Suffolk. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image reviews —pass

No issues. Sources are reliable for what they're used for and images are free. A few source checks did not uncover any problems. buidhe 00:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drive-by comment - the two FLs which you link above have leads of over 1500 characters, whereas this one is only 900, which seems very short. Can it be beefed up a bit.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from - Dank (push to talk) 00:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dank
  • "must have a legal control over": Sounds off to me. must have legal control over? - Dank (push to talk) 04:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ask for a couple of commas below, and you said in my last review you're amenable to adding them. Since everyone has different comma rules, I want to explain briefly. First, there are a lot more authorities that say that a comma is needed between two non-short independent clauses than say that they're not needed. But it's not just another silly comma rule; psycholinguists have found that, contrary to intuition, it actually reduces comprehension and enjoyment if a reader parses a sentence one way and then finds out that parse was wrong, even if the problem is fixed in just a second or two. The bad parse doesn't disappear in the reader's brain; bad information tends to hang around in the brain and clutter things up. All of the commas I'm asking for will help to avoid short garden paths.
  • "There is also a mollusc fauna", then "There are fauna": Either is fine, but it's best to be consistent with technical words ... in this case, consistent on plural vs. singular.
  • Both look right to me but I have changed the first to "There are also mollusc species" Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thought to have been carved out during the last ice age": The source says "said to have been gouged out of the terrain by a glacier". That seems too tenuous to me to meet WP:V. Is there a source that is more sure of itself?
  • The wording seems to me to reflect the source, but on reflection the source is not reliable. It refers to "a glacier in the last ice age some 15000 years ago", but this is nonsense. The Last Glacial Maximum ended around 20,000 years ago, and at its height the ice sheet did not get as far south as Berkshire. I have deleted the statement and amended the description of the site. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "birds such birds": indeed.
  • "This large pond is surrounded by an area of swamp.": "surrounded by swamp" would be a little more sure of itself, but YMMV. If area means "expanse" here, maybe say that instead.
  • Changed to "This large pond is surrounded by marshland". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is a large amount of common reed and other flora include bog mosses, sundew, bog pondweed, spike-rush and St John's-wort.": "include" -> "including".
  • Changed to "It is dominated by common reed, and other flora include" Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fauna include grass snakes and frogs and flora include": comma after "frogs"
  • "1-metre (3-foot) deep.": 1 metre (3 feet) deep, or 1 metre deep (3 feet).
  • "The park has flowers, mammals and birds." (That's the description in its entirety.) It seems like it should either be more, or nothing.
  • I do not like to leave the description blank even if there is minimal information available. I have changed to "The park, which has flowers, mammals and birds, provides a good view of Windsor Castle." Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This site was formerly part of the grounds of Woodley Lodge and its former arboretum has": comma after "Lodge". - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " 'The Duck and the World'.": WP:MOS doesn't like single quotes (see MOS:SINGLE), but Brits sometimes do. Not my call. Wouldn't the actual name of the sculpture usually be in italics? Not sure. (Depends I think on whether you can call it a "work of art" with a straight face.)
  • Changed to italics. I do not think that you need to keep a straight face in judging a sculpture (!) but I have changed the image of the site to the only one of the sculpture. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there also semi-ancient woods": ?
  • Changed to "there also areas of semi-ancient woodland" Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a variety of ... birds": I mentioned this last time, I think.
  • Sorry, I meant you're damned if you do and damned if you don't with "is a variety" vs. "are a variety". It's better not to use "variety" as the subject of a with a finite verb. - Dank (push to talk) 00:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nationally important": not sure how I feel about that. You know the issues, I think.
  • "It is not an administrative county following": Not sure. "no longer"?
  • Done for now ... I'd like to see other types of reviews here before I finish up, because I'm a little unsure of myself at FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 01:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent. When I woke up I wondered if I had gone too far, but you've taken everything in the spirit intended. I'm mainly trying to understand how to write lists like this, how to navigate the FLC criteria, and how to do light-touch copyediting that maintains a respectful tone. How am I doing so far? - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The review is fine and very helpful. Personally, I review FLCs and FACs to the same standard (apart from expecting leads to be referenced in FLCs), but maybe that is wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgot to mention: My main go-bys for this are WP:Featured lists#Nature reserves and conservation areas and what I've seen in FAs. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. "LNRs are sites which have a special local interest either biologically or geologically, and local authorities have a duty to care for them. They can apply local byelaws ...". "They" makes a short garden path here. I recommend "LNRs are sites which have a special local interest either biologically or geologically. Local authorities have a duty to care for them, and can apply local byelaws ...". Also: if you like "biologically", I won't argue, but I was expecting a phrase with "natural(ly)" in it somewhere. - Dank (push to talk) 00:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Biological or geological" is the legal definition, and I do not think "natural" would be right. Some LNRs are formal gardens. They are biological, but it is arguable whether they are natural. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is governed by six unitary authorities, Bracknell Forest, Reading, Slough, West Berkshire, Windsor and Maidenhead and Wokingham.": For six, a colon is better after "authorities". - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is also a wildflower meadow which is grazed by wild Exmoor ponies and it has many butterflies and moths.": Your call, but I like "A wildflower meadow with many butterflies and moths is grazed by wild Exmoor ponies."
  • "A small stream runs through the carr woodland, which has peat to a depth of more than a metre and the ground is covered by mosses.": Your call, but I like "A small stream runs through carr woodland covered by mosses, with peat to a depth of more than a metre."
  • "blcakcap": spelling.
  • FWIW, at a zoom of 133% (Ctrl-+ on a laptop), 90% of the text in this table winds up in the rightmost 1.3 inches on a 12-inch screen. If this is a subject you're interested in, I can create some alternative tables in my userspace for you to browse, but I'm not asking for anything here as part of this review, it's just information I thought you might like to know.
  • At this point, I've covered FL criteria #1 (prose) and #5 (style), and #6 is not a problem (it's stable). I'll back in half an hour with the rest of it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, I may or may not claim Wikicup points for this review ... I don't want to push anyone out of the second round who wants to continue. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make excellent use of images, but this isn't an image review, per se.
  • All of these check out: 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria. 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations. 3b. Sourcing is adequate. Not every online link has archive dates listed, but reading over other reviews, it's not clear to me what the archiving requirements are (I'll keep checking). All retrieval dates are present. 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it is not a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article. 4. It is navigable.
  • On 3b my understanding is that archiving is recommended but not required. I run the archiving tool [2], which does not work for all citations. I do not try to archive citations individually as it is too much work. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks again Dank. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure Dudley. I've just got some routine link-checking to do. I haven't done a spotcheck or a source review per se, but the sourcing is adequate and the references are reliable. I'll go work on some table formats in my userspace and then ping you. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments
  • I am sure I have reviewed some of your other LNR lists and this never occurred to me, but should we specify in the first sentence that the LNR concept, the Act, etc. relate to Great Britain?
  • I have changed to "in England". The other UK countries have LNRs, but I cannot find a source which covers the UK generally. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Berkshire is a county" - maybe change to "Berkshire is a historic county" or "Berkshire is a ceremonial county", with appropriate link?
  • Agree with the above comment about "no longer an admin county"
  • "Ground flora include" - this suggests that "flora" is a plural noun, but later on you use "one of the richest ground floras", where it is clearly singular
  • The first refers to the flora on one site, the second compares floras in different sites. There does not seem to be agreement whether flora is a singular or plural noun. Grammarist says that fauna and flora "are usually treated as mass nouns applied to large groups of things, although they do have plural forms". The wording "Ground flora includes marsh marigolds, primroses and anemones." sounds wrong to me, but I am open to suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and birds such birds such as" - repeated words
  • "The park has views over the River Thames and a sunken ancient track called Gypsy Lane" - slightly ambiguous wording here. Does it have an ancient track? Or views over an ancient track?
  • Changed to "The park has views over the River Thames, and a sunken ancient track called Gypsy Lane which is lined with beech trees." to remove ambiguity. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I guess the flora thing makes sense now that you have explained it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • Only one issue for me, there are repeated linking of the same borough like Workingham, Bracknell Forest etc. Link once per MOS:OVERLINK and merge the row of brorough if repeated in the consecutive rows. Like the first two site are in Workingham, so merge both row of brorough into one. Otherwise the article looks fine to me. Dey subrata (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review Dey subrata. The reason for the repeated links is that reviewers of previous lists have advised that links should be repeated in sortable lists as sorting on area, for example, would put different links first in the list. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 18:35, 11 April 2020 (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_local_nature_reserves_in_Berkshire/archive1&oldid=950421215"