Talk:Riverside Park, Guildford

Secondary sources required

Hi, @Dudley Miles: it seems that you are reverting the sourcing templates HERE and then you reverted the primary sourcing template requiring secondary sources HERE by saying "This article is identical in format to hundreds of others I have created for nature reserves and have always been accepted both for the articles and for Featured Lists of nature reserves." the presently references you have provided are either primary sources or seems to be unreliable. And this article needs secondary sources. So why you think that removing the tags of sourcing templates, is justifiable? JogiAsad  ^Talk 12:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The sources are the Natural England information page and map for the site. They have been accepted as reliable secondary sources in thousands of articles, including featured lists. The Rambling Man could you please comment as a featured list delegate? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Natural England is most definitely a reliable source, and when no other secondary or tertiary sources exist, these primary citations are perfectly apt and don't need to be tagged. I would remove the tag, it's unnecessary. Nothing contentious is being referenced either, so really this continued tagging is unnecessarily disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)