Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest 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) 00:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC).

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Buckinghamshire

 * Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I successfully nominated List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Bedfordshire, and as this list is done to the same format I hope it will also be approved. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Rodw Another useful list, which presents a wide range of information in an accessible format, however a few minor queries:

Lead
 * "Under Buckinghamshire County Council there are four districts, Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe, and Milton Keynes has a separate unitary borough council." Can we avoid "and"... "and" perhaps and Wycombe, while Milton Keynes has...
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Should the link to List of SSSIs by Area of Search be here or in the "see also" section?
 * I am not sure but most seem to have the link here - including Somerset. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK I don't have strong feelings on this.&mdash; Rod talk 08:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally I would wikilink Temple Island Meadows in the picture caption, but I don't know if that is covered by policy
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Key
 * On my screen there appears to be an extra blank line before "Public access". Is this deliberate?
 * It is deliberate because on my screen without the blank line the heading is at the bottom of the previous column. Is there a better way of ensuring that the heading is in the right place? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've played around with different screen sizes and resolutions (I normally use very wide screens) but can't duplicate this.&mdash; Rod talk 08:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have posted a helpme for advice on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Table
 * Is there a specific rationale for the order of the entries in the "other classifications" column? If I sort by that column some that include CAONB do not appear with the others as they have NT or SAC first (ie Bradenham Woods, Park Wood and The Coppice & Aston Rowant Woods) If I was being a real pedant I would suggest alphabetical order (as in the key) but that would mean difficultly if I wanted to find all sites with a particular designation (eg NT, BBOWT or SAC). I don't know how to resolve this one.
 * I have to admit that the order is just the order in which I found the information. I can make it alphabetical if you think this best. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would go for alphabetical as "tidier".&mdash; Rod talk 08:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to have a photo of Bugle Quarry to complete the set but I know this is not always possible
 * The site is in the grounds of a stables. I emailed asking for permission to photo it but I got no reply. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had similar access issues.&mdash; Rod talk 08:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Otherwise the table appears comprehensive and everything sorts as it should.

References
 * Ref 51 (COMMUNITY WILDLIFE OFFICER) is in block caps - any reason? It also includes a "&" in "Berkshire, Buckinghamshire & Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust" when the other references to this organisation use "and"
 * Revised. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful.&mdash; Rod talk 08:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the review and helpful comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tweaks. I can now support this list as meeting the criteria.&mdash; Rod talk 14:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Support – Another Rolls Royce article from this source. I have striven to find something to carp about, but can't. Very happy to support. Plainly meets the FL criteria, in my judgement.  Tim riley  talk    18:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments –
 * The third paragraph is stubby at one sentence and feels more like a note than a natural part of a lead section. I saw a suggestion above that it be placed in the see also section. If you don't want to do that, perhaps consider putting it in a hatnote at the start of the Sites section.
 * Changed to hatnote. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Very minor, but the ranges in the titles of refs 14, 23, 29, 30, and 74 could use en dashes. That's how nitpicky I must be to offer any commentary. It's a strong effort overall. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have never understood en dashes. Can you advise what I should do?
 * Many thanks for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – I ended up doing the dashes myself, as I didn't think they were worth the trouble of extending the review. As I said before, it's a strong effort. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Did a source review (passed), so now promoting. -- Pres N  15:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


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