Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Buckinghamshire/archive1
- 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) 00:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Buckinghamshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I successfully nominated List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Bedfordshire, and as this list is done to the same format I hope it will also be approved. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Rodw Another useful list, which presents a wide range of information in an accessible format, however a few minor queries:
Lead
"Under Buckinghamshire County Council there are four districts, Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe, and Milton Keynes has a separate unitary borough council." Can we avoid "and"... "and" perhaps and Wycombe, while Milton Keynes has...
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Should the link to List of SSSIs by Area of Search be here or in the "see also" section?
- I am not sure but most seem to have the link here - including Somerset. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- OK I don't have strong feelings on this.— Rod talk 08:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would wikilink Temple Island Meadows in the picture caption, but I don't know if that is covered by policy
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Key
- On my screen there appears to be an extra blank line before "Public access". Is this deliberate?
- It is deliberate because on my screen without the blank line the heading is at the bottom of the previous column. Is there a better way of ensuring that the heading is in the right place? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've played around with different screen sizes and resolutions (I normally use very wide screens) but can't duplicate this.— Rod talk 08:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have posted a helpme for advice on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Table
Is there a specific rationale for the order of the entries in the "other classifications" column? If I sort by that column some that include CAONB do not appear with the others as they have NT or SAC first (ie Bradenham Woods, Park Wood and The Coppice & Aston Rowant Woods) If I was being a real pedant I would suggest alphabetical order (as in the key) but that would mean difficultly if I wanted to find all sites with a particular designation (eg NT, BBOWT or SAC). I don't know how to resolve this one.
- I have to admit that the order is just the order in which I found the information. I can make it alphabetical if you think this best. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would go for alphabetical as "tidier".— Rod talk 08:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to have a photo of Bugle Quarry to complete the set but I know this is not always possible
- The site is in the grounds of a stables. I emailed asking for permission to photo it but I got no reply. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had similar access issues.— Rod talk 08:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise the table appears comprehensive and everything sorts as it should.
References
Ref 51 (COMMUNITY WILDLIFE OFFICER) is in block caps - any reason? It also includes a "&" in "Berkshire, Buckinghamshire & Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust" when the other references to this organisation use "and"
- Revised. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope these comments are helpful.— Rod talk 08:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for the review and helpful comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for tweaks. I can now support this list as meeting the criteria.— Rod talk 14:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Another Rolls Royce article from this source. I have striven to find something to carp about, but can't. Very happy to support. Plainly meets the FL criteria, in my judgement. Tim riley talk 18:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
The third paragraph is stubby at one sentence and feels more like a note than a natural part of a lead section. I saw a suggestion above that it be placed in the see also section. If you don't want to do that, perhaps consider putting it in a hatnote at the start of the Sites section.
- Changed to hatnote. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very minor, but the ranges in the titles of refs 14, 23, 29, 30, and 74 could use en dashes. That's how nitpicky I must be to offer any commentary. It's a strong effort overall.Giants2008 (Talk) 01:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never understood en dashes. Can you advise what I should do?
- Many thanks for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I ended up doing the dashes myself, as I didn't think they were worth the trouble of extending the review. As I said before, it's a strong effort. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did a source review (passed), so now promoting. --PresN 15:48, 2 June 2016 (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.