Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Suffolk/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) 23:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

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

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest for FLC, such as Essex and Northamptonshire, and is I trust of the same standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rodw Another excellent list but, as always a few minor quibbles:

  • The first sentence of the third paragraph of the lead is incredibly long & listy. I know it has commas but is there any way to make it more manageable?
  • The description of Crag Pit, Aldeburgh "This is the most northern site which exposes the Pliocene Coralline Crag Formation around five million years ago." should perhaps be "exposed" or other tweak for sense.
    Changed to "Coralline Crag Formation, which dates to around five million years ago" Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of Round Hill Pit, Aldeburgh has "2.5 metre" without a conversion
  • Convert added. It seems strange that the convert pluralises metres but not foot. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an expert on the convert template but have you tried "abbr=in" & "abbr=out" as well as "on" & "off". I have found often that a message on the convert template talk page will get an expert who can achieve the output you desire.— Rod talk 05:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have had a reply and changed to {{convert|127|m|foot|adj=mid|-long|abbr=off}} which yields 127-metre-long (420-foot). I do not like the excessive hyphens, but there seems to be a consensus that it is grammatically correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should all the words of " Marine Isotope Stage" be capitalised on Stoke Tunnel Cutting, Ipswich? Also are we talking about turtles or tortoises?
    As so often, Wikipedia is inconsistent. The generic Marine isotope stage is uncapitalised, but article titles on specific stages such as Marine Isotope Stage 5 and Marine Isotope Stage 11 are capitalised. My view is that it is helpful to capitalise such terms to make clear to the reader that they have a specialised meaning and are not just noun phrases. On the other point, they are turtles, but described as European pond tortoises by NE and often in scientific literature. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again I'm not an expert and will go with your explanation - I was just a little confused.— Rod talk 05:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know next to nothing about turtles and tortoises and looked into it when you pointed out that the pipe is confusing. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little Blakenham Pit includes an unconverted "127 metre"
  • 500 metres is unconverted on Horringer Court Caves
  • What are "Sandlings Heaths" (Sutton and Hollesley Heaths)?
  • They are a large area of heathland in Suffolk. Would it help to specify "Suffolk Sandlings Heaths"
  • Is "Sandlings" a place or area in Suffolk they are named after or is it a local term for "Sandy"?— Rod talk 05:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth mentioning that at least on the article if not on this list.— Rod talk 15:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thoughts I have changed it to "formerly extensive sandy heaths of the Suffolk coast", which I think more clearly reflects the meaning of the citation, which has Sandlings heaths with no capitalisation of "heaths", unlike most other sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Stour Estuary "Wrabness" id a different font size on my screen - others seem to have <small style="font-size:85%;"> - any reason for this difference?
  • Ref 184 "Frithy and Chadacre Woods citation is showing a CS1 error "CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown" as is Ref 300 " "Minsmere-Walberswick Heaths and Marshes citation" & 336 "Pakefield to Easton Bavents citation" - not sure what is causing this
  • The parameter "deadurl=bot: unknown" may be because when archived the bot couldn't identify the status of the original citation & the original URL is not shown. Using 184 as a test case if you add |url=http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1001098.pdf and switch "deadurl=bot: unknown" to "deadurl=no" it may solve it.— Rod talk 05:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is puzzling because the bot must have found the original citation in order to archive it. I have solved the problem by just changing to deadurl=no. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these make sense and are helpful.— Rod talk 19:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for dealing with my quibbles. I can now Support as meeting the criteria.— Rod talk 15:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Another excellent list, I might have time to do a full review later but just a quick note, all Latin words should be italicized (see glaucous fescue, Festuca caesia). Mattximus (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Mattximus. Glaucous fescue is the common name for the Latin Festuca caesia. I left out the common name of Festuca caesia, Breckland wild thyme, in error, and I have now corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • "the Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty" is a little WP:SEAOFBLUE for me.
  • Similarly "the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty"
  • I agree, but I am not sure how to deal with this. Do you have any suggestions? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in Dedham Vale, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and thirty-six are in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty." does that work? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "One site is in the Dedham Vale, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and thirty-six are in another AONB, Suffolk Coast and Heaths." Dudley Miles (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure I've noted this before, but in the prose "7 National Nature Reserves and 4 contain Scheduled Monuments." these redirect to "national nature reserve" and "scheduled monument", i.e. they're not proper nouns.
  • " Six sites are Local Nature Reserves, 27 are managed..." MOSNUM says all numbers or all words, but don't start a sentence with numbers (as you haven't).
  • I am confused. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Numbers as figures or words says that 1 to 9 should be in figures, 10 to 99 in words or figures, other numbers should be in figures. I have changed the paragraph you comment on to words, but what about the previous paragraph? According to the MOS here I should keep 142 as figures, but according to your consistency rule I should change it to words. What do you advise? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the clause that states Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently that I'm referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So hopefully the changes I have made are OK. I have kept "As of October 2017 there are 142 SSSIs in Suffolk,[5] of which 109 are biological, 28 geological and 5 are designated under both criteria." in the previous paragraph in figures, as the equivalent sentence has always been in figures in similar articles. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Norfolk is overlooked in the lead.
  • " 0.1 hectares (0.25 acres) " use adj=on here.
  • " site as ""outstanding" one too many quote marks.
  • "two kilometre " convert.
  • "2.6 million" - use non-breaking spaces for things like this.
  • "Cavenham - Icklingham Heaths " shouldn't that be "Cavenham–Icklingham Heaths" per our MOS?
  • I copied the spacing from the source here and in the article name. Should I do a move on the article name? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think so. You could check the wording at MOS:DASH to be sure, but it certainly isn't right as it stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • An editor has now fixed the problem and removed the spaces. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent with the capitalisation of Bryozoan.
  • Our article hyphenates stone-curlew.
  • "a 2.5 metres (8.2 foot) exposure" adj=on again.
  • "Marine Isotope Stage" appears (per our article) to be over-capitalised.
  • See comment above.
  • "rare plants , an " spare space.
  • En-dashes for page ranges, e.g. ref 165.
  • I sometimes forget this. I think there is a bot to deal with it but I do not know what it is. Can you advise? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a bot, but a fair-to-middling script, see my recent conversations with at User talk:SusunW on this very topic. Problem is that it doesn't seem that straightforward to get up and running, although it works for me.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from BeatlesLedTV
  • @Dudley Miles Based on your other featured lists you mentioned, I think you got a well-deserving featured list here. My only comment is do you think this list should be split? I've checked out WP:Article size and normally the readable prose size is 105 bytes while this list as is currently stands at over 300k bytes. Your other featured lists are over 105 bytes so if you don't split it it's no big deal. If you think about splitting it, I would suggest maybe A–L and M–Z or something like that. But again it's not my list so I'm not going to force you. Let me know your thoughts and opinions. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much for your comment. As I read it, the readable prose limit applies to prose excluding lists. I do not think that people are going to read right through as they would a prose article, and it would be inconvenient for some readers to have the list split - for example, sorting by size or location would then not work correctly. I am therefore inclined to keep the article as one list. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – You got it. That was my only comment and therefore have nothing else. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:01, 16 November 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_Suffolk/archive1&oldid=1076194439"