Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Northamptonshire/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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Northamptonshire[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and is in the same format as FLs such as Essex and Cambridgeshire. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Northamptonshire" should be in blue, not in bold.
  • Couldn't "Area" be replaced with the following code instead of repeating the units in every cell? "Area<br />{{nowrap|<small>[[Hectare|ha]] ([[acre]]s)</small>}}"
  • I think it is more convenient for readers to see the units when looking at each site. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Site names are in bold and centered. Not consistent with your previous SSSI lists.
  • Fixed. (I must have edited with Word, which messes up the formatting). Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "B" and "G" lack {{tooltip}}. Not consistent with your previous SSSI lists.
  • "Area" and "Location" lack notes; "Map" and "Citation" have different notes. Consistent with Cambridgeshire but not consistent with Essex.
  • {{commons category}} is at the bottom. Not consistent with Essex.
  • {{GeoGroup}} is near the "Sites" heading. Consistent with Cambridgeshire but not consistent with Essex.
Please note that I'm not saying this list should be updated to look like the previous ones – you might as well update the previous lists, just be consistent. Sandvich18 (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review Sandvich18. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :) If you prefer having units in cells, then may I suggest adding style="width:75px;" to the first cell in the "Area" column and |disp=br() to each {{convert}} in the table? It would make that column look less busy. I took the liberty of implementing that change myself to show you what I mean, feel free to revert it if you don't like it, of course. I also think expressing coordinates in DMS instead of decimal would look better. Sandvich18 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes to the area column. It looks much better. I prefer not to change to DMS. Decimal looks OK to me and it would be a lot of work to change all the lists to DMS. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I'd also suggest using "{{As of|2017|07}}" in place of "As of July 2017". Other than that, I think the list looks great and I support this nomination. Sandvich18 (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'As of' template added. Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rodw Another interesting list which has already had most of the minor tweaks resolved, so I don't have much to add:

  • In the lead does England need to be wikilinked? (I thought linking of common terms was discouraged)
  • Would it be worth wikilinking fen as some readers may not familiar with the term (eg in description of Aldwincle Marsh)
  • I know we have debated definitions (and wikilinking) of ancient woodland in the past but now we have "secondary woodland" which could be wikilinked to Secondary forest (eg in description of Ashton Wold)
  • In Alder Wood and Meadow we see "a surviving fragment of the Royal Forest of Rockingham" by the time we get to Banhaw, Spring and Blackthorn's Woods and Wakerley Spinney we have "remnants of the ancient Royal Forest of Rockingham" and at Geddington Chase, Stoke and Bowd Lane Woods and Short Wood "medieval Royal Forest of Rockingham." - would it be worth making these consistent? Is it ancient or medieval?
  • I followed the source in each case, but William the Conqueror introduced Royal Forests, so they are medieval and I have corrected.
  • I know ages of geological deposits are approximate but we have the Rutland Formation and up to nearly the top of the White Limestone Formation, "169 to 166 million years ago" (Cranford St John) & "168 to 166 million years ago" (Finedon Top Lodge Quarry). At Roade Cutting we see White Limestone Formation between 168.3 and 167.1 million years ago. Have we got a date for Blisworth Clay (Thrapston Station Quarry)
  • The International Commission on Stratigraphy says 168.3±1.3 to 166.1±1.2, so I have settled on 168 to 166. The British Geological Survey says Blisworth Clay is Bathonian, and Thrapston is the type site, so I have amended accordingly.
  • Many of the references to citation sheets etc are archived but some are not - any particular reason? I now use the IA bot form to archive them all.
  • Someone else must have archived some citations as I rarely archive, but I have tried running your bot. I have never used bots before and I got two failures with error messages but the third time it worked fine.

I can't see any other issues with meeting the criteria at present.— Rod talk 13:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for addressing these minor issues. I think it now meets the criteria so I can support the nomination.— Rod talk 16:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rod. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image and source review
  • It is the only source I could find for uncontroversial information. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead, and that source, omit Rutland from the list of counties that it borders. (It isn't inaccurate, it just says "borders 8 counties including...", and only lists 7 of the 8.) This might work for the bordering counties, this for boroughs and councils and this possibly for the "East Midlands". Harrias talk 14:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - with I think a better source for East Midlands. Thanks again. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put a full-stop at the end of ref #43 for consistency.
  • Checks reveal no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing. Harrias talk 13:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work, thanks for the quick responses – images and sources are all okay. Harrias talk 18:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Lead kicks off with "It... It... It..." which is a bit clunky.
  • "and it has " not sure you need the "it" here...!
  • " Nature Conservation Review" shouldn't that be in italics?
  • "A small marsh has very diverse herbs" maybe "It contains a small marsh with ..."?
  • " ash-maple woodland" link species of tree for consistency.
  • "ash, lime and" ditto.
  • "well drained" hyphenate.
  • maple and blackthorn need links.
  • I won't pick any more of those up here, just check for others please.
  • Forgive my ignorance, what are "wet flushes"??
They are slopes where water flows down without being confined to a channel. I cannot find an article to link to so I have changed to "wet slopes". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The usual high standard, nice work, just a few tweaks please? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much for the comments. Sorry about the delay in replying but I have been away on holiday. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 1 October 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/List_of_Sites_of_Special_Scientific_Interest_in_Northamptonshire/archive1&oldid=1076194431"