Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater London


 * 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 05:32, 13 January 2008.

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater London
Self-nomination. Modeled mainly on: I've changed this to this. If you have any questions or comments, feel free. Best regards, Rt . 11:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater Manchester
 * List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Merseyside
 * List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cleveland
 * Comment This is a vast improvement; nice work! There are a couple of things you might want to address:
 * Footnotes C and D are difficult to understand as they are currently worded. Can you perhaps try reworking them?
 * ✅ - If they are still unreadable, get in touch. Rudget . 13:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still not quite clear on how a very small reserve (footnote C) can end up with two grid references just because it's small. Surely that only happens if it spans two squares?
 * True, but this is what was given by te PDF. Rudget . 16:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that the PDF gives two grid references. However your footnote says "Those SSSIs with more than one OS grid reference have either one of two things; an extended area which is unable to be referenced by a single co-ordinate or it maybe too small." Where did you find the reference that says a park may have two listed references because "it may be too small"?  That's the part I'm wondering about.  That explanation is contrary to how I understand the National Grid working, so I just want to be sure it's a correct explanation before I give my support to the article! : )  Thanks for taking the previous suggestions on board. MeegsC | Talk 19:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to provide an acceptable footnote. It'd be gladly accepted. :)  Rudget . 19:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the maps provided by the list's links, it appears that all the reserves with two grid references are composed of multiple (generally two) sections, separated by non-reserve land. So I guess I'd suggest something like "Those SSSIs with more than one OS grid reference are composed of multiple sections, separated by non-SSSI land." I don't think you need to get into details about grid reference letters (and eastings and northings, etc.).  People can click on the wiki-link if they want to learn more about the National Grid and how to use it. MeegsC | Talk 00:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds good. I'll add that now. Rudget . 16:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In footnote D, I'd suggest you drop the second sentence. The first sentence explains the date perfectly well, and the second just confuses things.
 * ✅ Rudget . 16:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeegsC (talk • contribs) 11:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In the reference section, the list of reserves appears to be in several different sizes. Any reason for that?  Also, there probably shouldn't be full stops after the names.
 * It appears like that for two reasons: 1) It would be too large it was full size 2) Those lists mentioned above use the same sizing. Rudget . 00:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I hadn't realised you could make the references section smaller, seen as I've never had to do it. :P Rudget . 15:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference for Chingford Reservoirs says there are 316.3 acres in the Greater London area, with a further 75 acres in Essex; should the total (391.3 acres), or only the Greater London area, be included here?
 * ✅ Agreed. My mistake. Rudget . 00:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * MeegsC | Talk 22:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Nice job. And thanks for addressing my various concerns! MeegsC | Talk 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Meets the criteria and follows the the format of similar lists. Excellent work. Suicidalhamster (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Great work, list is up to par with others of this subject. Good job!  Gonzo fan2007  talk ♦ contribs 19:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.