Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of nature reserves in Barnet/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 Giants2008 10:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of nature reserves in Barnet

Featured list candidates/List of nature reserves in Barnet/archive1

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it was a failed FLC and I think have now covered the objections raised. I have also put it through peer review. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This is a well-prepared list, neatly presented with pleasing illustrations. I was somewhat surprised to find that there are over 60 nature reserves in an area so close to London. I looked at the list during its peer review stage and could find little wrong with it then. I note also that a lot of work has been done since the last foray into FLC. I only have a handful of further observations:

London is well provided with green areas, and it is surprising how far the boroughs extend into the countryside. The list could easily be extended.

Did the railways really "arrive in Barnet" only in the early 20th century? Pretty well all of the country was covered well before then

I was not thinking when I cited this. I assume the author was referring to the development of the Northern Line, but I have deleted it.

39% seems a rather low "positive conservation management" figure. It appears to indicate that over 60% of the sites were not being managed "positively" – whatever that means in practice. Is this a point of concern, and if so should the concern be indicated?

I do not have anything I can cite on this. My impression is that pretty well all the conservation work in Barnet was done in the 1990s, and since then the borough has lost interest, but Wikipedia is not the place for my impressions!

Ref 9 seems formatted differently from the other Hewlett citations

I am not sure of the best way to cite the whole work as opposed to specific pages. Perhaps I should give the full details of the book?

Otherwise, the list seems to be well worthy of featured status. Brianboulton (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your support. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need to withdraw this nomination. My most important source, Greenspace Information for London, has refurbished its site barely a year after it went live and many of my references are now dead links. I have emailed them about this and I was told that the lack of redirects to the new pages was an oversight which they are rectifying, so I may be able to re-nominate in the future.Dudley Miles (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GiGL has pointed out a - fairly - easy way to update links, which I have now done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments

Don't start with "This is a list..."

Done.

No need to link common geographical terms (like London).

Done.

Do all our readers know what "green space" means?

I don't think this is a problem and would prefer to keep it, but I can change it to open space if required.

You use "Green Belt" and "green belt" interchangeably, I'd opt for a consistent format.

Done.

If the LEU are worth listening to, why don't they have an article? i.e. why aren't they notable?

I have moved the note explaining the LEU to make it clearer. I assume that the LEU has no article because it was absorbed into the Greater London Authority in 2000 and information is not easily available. Update: I have now created an article on the London Ecology Unit.

" Its objects include" I don't understand "its objects".

Clarified and moved to note.

Given the last sentence of the lead, is this list "as of 2011"?

The list in the 1997 Nature Conservation in Barnet is still current. I have added a sentence to note C clarifying this.

Not your problem I suppose but the LNR link leads an uncapitalised version of the name, i.e. "local nature reserve", while you capitalise it here.

I have been meaning to deal with this for ages. I have now requested deletion of the redirect page Local Nature Reserve so that the article can be moved.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Area column doesn't sort correctly.

This is because another editor suggested adding conversion to acres. Would it be best to revert to a heading of hectares and just a figure without conversion?

It would be best to get it to sort correctly! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be consistent with decimal places please? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not to. I have followed the source which is not consistent and generally shows larger areas (and a few small ones) as a whole number. If I show figures to one decimal place, then 11 in the source becomes 11.0 in the article, which would be misleading, but if I round to the nearest whole number then I would have to round 0.6 up to 1, which significantly exaggerates its size, and 1.5 in the source as 1 or 2, guessing which is more accurate. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A couple of very minor tweaks made, but this is certainly of featured standard. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Keep up the great work! Zia Khan 20:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.