Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Local Nature Reserves in Greater London/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SchroCat 21:37, 18 August 2014 [1].

List of Local Nature Reserves in Greater London[edit]

List of Local Nature Reserves in Greater London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete list of Local Nature Reserves in London with photos and brief descriptions of each site. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rodw This is an interesting list, which provides lots of useful information. A few comments:

Rodw can you tell me whether you think this is OK?
Site Photograph Borough Area Location Map Details Access Description
Abney Park Cemetery Abney Park Cemetery Hackney 12.54 51°33′50″N 0°04′37″W / 51.564°N 0.077°W / 51.564; -0.077
TQ 334 868		 Map Details YES This is one of London's Magnificent Seven cemeteries. It was closed to burials in 1978 and is now managed as a nature reserve.
Dudley Miles (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. If they are all done like this it would allow the inclusion of kml or similar template for mapping.— Rod talk 09:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the coordinates. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What unit is the area given in? Acres, hectares etc
    • This is shown under the heading 'Sites'. Would it be better to put it in the note?
      • I can't see this and would suggest adding it to note B or in the column header.— Rod talk 11:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done.
  • St John's Wood Church Grounds redirects to St. John's Wood Church Grounds any reason why that link isn't used?
    • Changed. (I think the stop in St. is probably an error but it is so minor I never got around to checking it out.)
  • Rainham Marshes redirects to Rainham Marshes Nature Reserve any reason why that link isn't used?
    • The name according to Natural England is Rainham Marshes but whoever created the Wiki article added Nature Reserve.
      • I would just pipe it ie [[Rainham Marshes Nature Reserve|Rainham Marshes]].— Rod talk 11:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have been told off for this before. You are not supposed to pipe when there is already a redirect. See WP:NOTBROKEN.
  • Where references are to PDF documents (eg 2,5,69,82,130,140) then I believe |format=PDF is supposed to be included.
    • Done.
  • Ref 41 - The Chase - Havering seems to be missing the URL.
    • Fixed.

Hope these are helpful.— Rod talk 09:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments Now that the issues above are sorted (or very close) I thought I'd take another look at the list.

  • Battersea Park Nature Areas (and a couple of others) - the lat & long seems to be duplicated presumably this is because it relates to one area, but it does look slightly strange. Does the area given relate to each of the separate areas or the total?
    • I have added a note (which I forgot before) explaining that locations are taken from the Natural England details pages. In some cases they supply two grid refs where the site is in separate areas. The NE maps give the total area.
  • Barking & Dagenham - why the "&" symbol when the link goes to Barking and Dagenham
    • Changed.
  • Castle Hill ( and others) - the description includes the term "scheduled ancient monument" but the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 defines only ancient monument and scheduled monument, but not SAM (see Scheduled monument)
    • I took this from GIGL but it seems to be wrong so I have changed it to Scheduled Monument.
  • Beam Valley and The Chase - Barking - one refers to the River Beam and the other the River Rom but they both go the same article
    • The River Rom article explains that part of it is known as the River Beam. There is only one artice for both.
  • Ten Acre Wood (and others) - should the abbreviation "N/Av" be explained (perhaps in note i)?
    • Changed to No
  • "Note e" tells us that several maps are missing but use the Greenspace Information for Greater London database instead of the Natural England database of Local Nature Reserves - why is one preferred over the other? Could GIGL be used for all.
  • I was confused by note f. & several of the notes explain that the Natural England database is wrong and point to alternative sources - have Natural England agreed they are wrong? How does the reader know which is "right"?
    • LNR is a designation by local authorities. NE just records information given to them about designations. They have corrected a number of errors which were internal ones in their system, but they say that it will take them time to get answers where they need confirmation from councils. The NE grid refs are correct even when the maps are wrong, and bodies such as LWT and Ruislip Woods management are far more authoritative than NE which knows nothing about the sites. I have tried to expand the notes to make the position clear in each case, although I doubt whether I have succeeded with the Yeading sites, where the situation is so confused that I am not sure whether there are two LNRs or three.
  • Have you looked at Parks and Gardens UK which I've found to be pretty good in the past. It may give another source where there is a dispute. (The one I did as a check Broookmill also gives an alt name)
    • I have not used this site. London Gardens Online is much better for London - see [2] on Brookmill Park - which is a different place from Brookmill Road nature reserve.
  • Lots of references use "London Wildlife Trust" as the publisher, but ref 156 just uses Wildlife Trust - best to be consistent. Most of the references look good but I've not done a formal sources review.
    • Typo corrected.

I think this is getting close to meeting the criteria and hopefully I won't spot anything else.— Rod talk 20:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks very much for all your trouble which has greatly improved the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Following my nit picks above, which have all been resolved. I can now support this list as meeting the criteria.— Rod talk 07:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Robevans123 An excellent list - have been thinking about similar (but much smaller) lists for some principal areas in Wales (starting off with Torfaen). A couple of very minor points:

  • Would it be useful to add List of local nature reserves in England to the See Also section?
  • adding a summary="text" to the {|class="wikitable" creates a description of the table that can be used by screen readers improving accessibility. The text is not normally displayed. Very useful for the structure of the table to be announced - something along the lines of "a table listing the details of the nature reserves with xx columns for name (etc), and nnn rows"

Robevans123 (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have added both suggestions. Which class of reserve are you planning to work on? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support It looks good and ticks all the boxes. LNRs in Torfaen is on my to-do list. I shall shamelessly copy this format! Robevans123 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now: lead is completely inadequate. It gives me a bit of information about London, tells me what a LNR is, then throws them at me. What are the highlights of the list? The most recently established LNR? The largest? The oldest? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the lead. Is it OK now? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, better. I've stricken my oppose above. A few quick comments
  • Why not use the {{convert}} template, so that American readers can have their acres? (i.e. {{convert}} gives you 97.31 hectares (240.5 acres)}})
  • If I remember correctly I had convert in another list and took it out because an editor objected that sort did not work. Can you have both on the same column? I think the ability to sort is more important.
  • I'd trim (named after Gilbert White of Selborne) from the lead as it's not quite pertinent
  • Done.
  • Also about Perivale: although it's been managed by Selborne since 1902, that doesn't necessarily mean it was established in that year. The article on it says 1974  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not get your point here - you may have been misled as the article on the wood itself was not clear, and I have added details there to clarify. Perivale Wood started to be managed as a nature reserve in or before 1902, (almost certainly in 1902, but the source is unclear) and managed by the Selborne Soc from that year, but it was not desigated an LNR until 1974. The wording is "Perivale Wood is one of the oldest nature reserves in Britain. It has been managed by the Selborne Society since 1902, and was designated an LNR in 1974." This seems to me clear without going into excessive detail - but of course if anyone is not happy with it I can revise. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not misled. You say it was one oldest Local Nature Reserve in Greater London, yet its age as an LNR is only 40 years. Since the program began in 1949, 25 years before the Perivale site was made an LNR, it's still quite possible that there are older LNRs in London. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say that it is the oldest LNR in London, but that it is one of the oldest nature reserves in Britain, established by 1902, citing a WP:RS. Perivale is the first London site to be designated an LNR for which the date is known, but as some sites are missing the date on their Natural England pages, I thought it best leave aside which is oldest London designation. As my wording is obviously confusing, can anyone suggest a better one? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One wonders what the relevance is if it's not the age of the reserve being designated an LNR which is notable... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering I'm the one who asked Dudley to add "interest" in the article by adding the highlights of the list, you'd think I know the guidelines. My question was simple: what is the relevance of Perivale being one of the oldest reserves, if it is not one of the oldest LNR? This is after all about LNR in London, and not reserves in general. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the fact that a London LNR is one of the oldest nature reserves in Britain can be considered a highlight of the list. Thanks very much for your help, which has considerably improved the list, but I take a different view on this point. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least, since the context is LNRs, could you contrast this with some of the older ones in Greater London? i.e. "several sites, such as X and Y, were designated local nature reserves at an earlier time" etc. Keep the lede focused. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not clear what I could say. No dates are given for some sites, but the oldest which do have dates are Perivale in 1974 and Sydenham Hill Wood in 1982. Can you advise further? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... yeah, not much to go on then. How about secondary sources? Anything there we can use? Or another way to contextualize this without making possibly false claims? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not found anything. I came across a statement in Google books that the oldest LNR in Scotland was in the 1950s, but that does not seem relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support, the condition being that the article be updated once we ascertain and can reference what is the oldest LNR in London. The list is ready, but that information would make it much more comprehensive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Robevans123

You can give a table cell a specific sort value (which overrides any text in the cell for sorting purposes) by putting a statement like:

| data-sort-value="12.54" align="right" |12.54 ha (31.0 acres)

which will give you "12.54 ha (31.0 acres)" in the table cell. The table will sort correctly on the value given in the data-sort-value statement. See Help:Sorting for more details if needed.

Belts and braces - there is no harm in changing your column statement to:

!scope="col" data-sort-type="number" | Area

In fact, I would try this first, and test it with a few convert templates - setting the data-sort-type to number may be enough to stop the convert template confusing the table sort. Would save you having to add a lot of data-sort-value statements... Robevans123 (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to acres added. Many thanks for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Good to see it worked without having to add data-sort-value statements. Robevans123 (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor is going round changing the names of local and national nature reserves articles from title to sentence case, including this article - wrongly in my view and without consultation. I have raised this with User:Bishonen. See Talk:Local nature reserve. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments:

  • You don't need to lead the key off with "Area is in hectares.", given that you say hectares (and acres) in every area cell
  • Deleted.
  • The "This is" construction you use for all the descriptions is a bit jarring, though grammatically correct. I suppose it's fine.
  • "This is" is only used for two out of the first 10 descriptions.
  • Note a: "but it is missing" -> but is missing.
  • Done.
  • Note b: why bold the i in identify? Even if the icon is an i, that's no reason to partially bold a word
  • Revised.
  • The Wikimedia Commons box is bleeding into the next section- try just sticking it in the See Also section, or throw a {{-}} after it to force a break
  • Done.
  • Your redirects are largely fine, but you should probably fix the two in the see also section
  • I think it is better to keep the capitalisation consistent with the SSSIs list.
--PresN 20:27, 18 August 2014 (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/List_of_Local_Nature_Reserves_in_Greater_London/archive1&oldid=768686543"