Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire/archive1
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
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) 00:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the latest of my nominations of wildlife trusts, and is in the same format as the Herts and Middlesex and Essex Trusts, which are FLs. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
- "action for wildlife": what action, to preserve wildlife?
- The source does not specify. It would include volunteering at sites, and probably other things such as making people's own gardens more wildlife friendly, but I do not think I can go into detail as the source does not. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- By 1964 wildlife: comma missing?
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Each is independent and a member of the Society, which changed its name to the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts in 2004" This is two different concepts in one sentence. Suggest a full stop after society. Maybe "The Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves changed it's name to Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts in 2004 and operates as The Wildlife Trusts.[4] Each member of The Wildlife Trusts is independent... and then explain what independent means?
- Looking at this again the wording was not quite right, so I have revised. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are my comments for the lead, otherwise it looks very good! Mattximus (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a redlink for the Common pipistrelle, I think it is a typo for Pipistrellus pipistrellus.
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "and winter visitors" I think you mean "and in winter" to match "in summer"
- I think the variation in wording reads better. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- washings from sugar beet, do you mean sugar beets?
- Done. The source had beet and it looks right to me, but I see that the plural is more common. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- snipe, redshanks and sandpipers,... any info on which bird specifically?
- Changed. The Trust is a bit random on which birds it supplies details on, so I have changed to ones for which the species is specified.
- Graptodytes bilineatus, Dryops similaris, Gyrinus distinctus and Myopites inulaedyssentericae, might as well red-link these for now, like you have others
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Might as well link Limekiln Close to Limekiln Close and East Pit
- I am doubtful. The Trust name for the site, Cherry Hinton Chalk Pits, pipes to Limekiln Close and East Pit, and the description covers each part. It does not seem logical to link Limekiln Close and not East Pit. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything else looks good. Excellent work as always!. Mattximus (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Changes look good to me Support. Mattximus (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from N Oneemuss
[edit]This looks very good.
"3,945 hectares" – conversion needed (I see there are some elsewhere in the article)
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why you've converted it to square miles (everywhere else in the article, you've converted hectares to acres)?N Oneemuss (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think square miles works better for large areas and acres for small ones. The same argument might apply to hectares and square kilometres, but I do not have a feel for what is best for a reader who thinks in metric. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
United Kingdom should probably be delinked per MOS:OVERLINK.
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"an income of £5.1 million" – "had" is missing. Also, "the year to 31 March 2016" seems a bit awkward to me; how about "preceding" instead of "to"?
- "had" added. "year to" is the standard term, and "preceding" would be unusual and confusing.
I would personally link Peterborough (probably at the start of the last sentence of the third paragraph instead of in the name).
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that sentence, I think that "but" would sound a bit better than "although".
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The table looks excellent, but I have spotted a few things:
Coppicing should be linked in the first entry.
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the fourth entry, "it has nationally rare plant" is missing "a".
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the redlinked scientific name in that entry start with a capital letter?
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to have an update for note c? It's been four months now.
- I think it is better left. The site is probably still closed, but I am not sure. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great work; I will be happy to support after these comments have been dealt with. N Oneemuss (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome.
I still have one question (with regards to my first comment) but it's very minor, soI'll support. N Oneemuss (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your support. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome.
- Source review – The references are all reliable and well-formatted. I consider this source review a pass, and will be promoting the list in a moment. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:04, 31 July 2017 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 31 July 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.