Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Local Nature Reserves 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) 00:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC).

List of Local Nature Reserves in Buckinghamshire

 * Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the fourth list of Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) in English counties I have nominated for FLC. LNRs are designated by local authorities for their biological or geological interest. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – With the fixes, I find the list to be of similar quality to the other ones in the category that Dudley has worked on. Nice job yet again. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Support – Meets the FL criteria, and is of the same high quality as earlier FLs in the same series. Two v. minor points in passing: "anthill" is one word rather than two according to the OED and Collins and is one hyphenated word according to Chambers (Chairborough Road); and I don't suppose you meant to pluralise "deer" as "deers" (Warren Nature Reserve). –  Tim riley  talk    05:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Tim. Both your points are interesting. I have changed "anthill" to one word, although it looks wrong to me. OED quotes Smeathman 1781 as giving two words, but I fear that is not Sufficient Authority. I have also changed deers to deer. OED gives deers as "occasional", so not actually wrong, but on reflection deer does sound better. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Support – only quibble is you could link county in the lead sentence. Otherwise it's pretty faultless, prose is sufficient, table is appropriately formatted and so are the references. Lemonade51 (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Link added. Thanks very much Lemonade. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Source review - passed


 * Formatting: No problems.
 * Spotchecks: Checked refs 6, 16, 27, 38; no problems
 * Completeness: No obvious sources missing

Promoting! -- Pres N  16:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


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