Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Norfolk/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) 00:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC).

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Norfolk

 * Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This is the latest in my lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and is in the same format as FLs such as List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Suffolk and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Kent. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support – Looks good. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The lead should begin with information about SSSIs rather than a whole paragraph about the county irrelev vascular plantsant to the list. Population does not have anything to do with the sites, nor do the local governments, nor do bordering counties, so why are they there right at the top? The location column lists cities and towns, not district councils, so I don't see the purpose here.
 * It is standard to have background information about the area in FLC candidates on lists of SSSIs and scheduled monuments. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the lead should begin with what the article is about. The list is about the SSSIs so it should begin with background information about the SSSIs. Population, district councils, and bordering counties are completely irrelevant to SSSIs and do not provide any background to this list whatsoever. At the very least the list should start with the topic of the list! List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the West Midlands does this well. List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest on the Isle of Wight is also nice, it actually discusses the county's geology! Reywas92Talk 21:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If it said how many sites are in each district council like List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Bedfordshire does that would make more sense, but as it is, the first paragraph is just a bunch of facts about Norfolk. If readers wanted to know that, they can go to Norfolk, but this list isn't about the county, it's about the SSSIs.
 * Background information about the county is generally considered helpful by reviewers. It is given in List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Kent, nominated at FLC by me, and similarly in List of local nature reserves in Somerset, nominated by . However, I will be happy to delete the first paragraph if other reviewers agree that it should be deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to delete, seems to me a minor change of grammar plus swapping the first paragraph with the third would fix this, and also would neatly reflect the title, 'list' of 'SSSI' in 'Norfolk'. Mramoeba (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment . I put the second paragraph first as it did not seem to work with the third one first. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "123 are biological, 25 geological and 15 are both biological and geological." is not parallel
 * This is almost universal in lists of SSSIs and I do not see the objection. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Parallelism (grammar): Should have "25 are geological" OR "15 both..." Reywas92Talk 21:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * There does not need to be a whole column to link the citation when it is already linked as part of the reference. Reywas92Talk 22:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is useful to the reader and has been in a dozen SSSI FLCs without anyone objecting. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Then there hardly needs to be a duplicate reference when the citation is already linked in the table! Whatever, not a huge deal but not great form.Reywas92Talk 21:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review but these points refer to features which are standard in SSSI lists I have submitted to FLC and I prefer to keep to the format which has been approved by previous reviewers. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I have reviewed quite a few of these and each time I find fewer comments, the lists are excellent. Few quibbles:
 * Sedge is unnecessarily capitalized in Beetley and Hoe Meadows, Woodlark in Breckland Forest
 * Revised. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would link relict to Relict (biology)
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "one species not previously recorded in Britain" doesn't really make sense without some time reference. Every species was not previously recorded until it was...
 * Deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Invertebrates include two nationally rare dragonflies, and the marshes have several important breeding bird species and an internationally important population of wintering wigeon" and...and...
 * Split into two sentences. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Capitalize Sphagnum, acanthophyma, hygrolycosa
 * Done, Dudley Miles (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "dry acid dune grassland, the latter of which is very extensive. " can be reworded to say " very extensive dry acid dune..."
 * Done, Dudley Miles (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sphagnum needs to be italicized twice.
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 'a fine example of oceanic heathland' should have " "
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ...by glacial meltwaters It is species-... is missing a full stop?
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * link coppicing
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * a rare amphibian and a rare butterfly... can you be specific?
 * The source does not specify, probably because they forgot to cover amphibians and invertebrates in detail. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok I've done the A-G sites, and will have to work on part 3 later. Overall these are just minor quibbles and I'm happy to Support once they are addressed. Mattximus (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All Comments addressed, nice work! Mattximus (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Phew I made it through the rest. It looks good, just a few minor points! Mattximus (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review . Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Nice work with this huge list. Two comments:
 * A map of Norfolk would better fit the top of the article instead of a random sunset photo. East Sussex uses a map, for example.
 * I have used a picture of the site in the previous 11 SSSI county lists I have nominated for FLC and I think it is more relevant than a map for an article on SSSIs, whereas a map is more relevant for the article about the county. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * What is a "common"? Many places are named so, and then the text says "The common has ...". I guess it's Common land? A link somewhere would help. --Tone 13:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Added links in each case where common is referred to. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review. . Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Minor ce., water dropwort has a page on Wikipedia, but as it is a common name is it the same? You have reedswamp as one word, should it not be two? I would wikilink vascular plants for those of us who have to look these things up. Wigeon can also be wikilinked as the other birds are. Hopefully I will have more time to read through later. Mramoeba (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Water dropwort - this is the name of the genus, which is also used of species in the genus. I have linked to the species according to Natural England, but it is a red link.
 * Reedswamp. OED agrees with you that it is two words. Changed.
 * Vascular plant. Linked.
 * Wigeon. Linked.


 * Thanks for your comments . Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments
 * " by Natural England as "finest " -> as the "finest..."
 * Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "This area of spring fed fen" shouldn't that be "spring-fed"?
 * Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "Quaternary till, " sea of blue.
 * Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * " grassland, and it has a " no need for "it".
 * It reads better to me with "it". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No need, honestly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Be consistent on how you refer to the IUCN Red List.
 * Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "Dersingham Pit is important " the entry is called "Dersingham Bog"...
 * Clarified that Dersingham Pit is part of Dersingham Bog. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't "Scots pine" be capitalised?
 * Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "Neolithic flint-mines " don't think that needs to be hyphenated.
 * Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "LNR[224] Ramsar,[8][68]" needs a comma.
 * Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "This is the best site displaying" needs attribution.
 * Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * " The Devil's Punchbowl is " this is called "Stanford Training Area"...
 * Clarified that The Devil's Punchbowl is part of Stanford Training Area. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "is the Type locality for " no need for capital T.
 * Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Ref 1 seems to be in trouble.
 * Fixed - I must have accidentally corrupted it when fixing another error. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "Ludham - Potter Heigham Marshes" shouldn't that be "Ludham–Potter Heigham Marshes"
 * That is how it is shown by Natural England. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Our article is Ludham – Potter Heigham National Nature Reserve and the lead starts "Ludham–Potter Heigham Marshes"... Some consistency would be appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The list links to Ludham - Potter Heigham Marshes. I was not aware that there is a separate article on the NNR, although I should have picked it up. I think it would be best to change the NNR article to a redirect. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably, sounds reasonable, but ensure that en-dash is used, rather than a hyphen. I would have thought, ideally (and per MOS), that it should be an unspaced en-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK but I do not know how to insert an en-dash in a move. Can you advise please . Dudley Miles (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your review . Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, a few responses above. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Reply on Ludham - Potter Heigham above. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley
I shudder to think how much work has gone into this mightily impressive article. When I pasted a copy into Word to check it (easier that way I find) it ran to 57 pages. A most impressive achievement. Only one drafting point: at Kelling Heath something has gone awry in the fifth column, leaving a red formula showing. The article is comprehensive, neutral, well and widely sourced and beautifully illustrated. Clearly meets the FL criteria in my view.  Tim riley  talk   16:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks . It is the fifth largest county by number of SSSIs with 163. I shudder to think how much work Cumbria would be with 278! Dudley Miles (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from SN54129
It's an excellent example of what a featured list should look like and no mistake. , as a purely stylistic question, have you considered making the "Other classifications" section two columns? Then all three would all sit flush on the top of the table? —— SerialNumber  54129  16:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I am afraid I do not understand your suggestion about making the "Other classifications" section two columns. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I had a go; but. who knows about these things  :)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * SN means splitting the "Other classifications" list into two columns, but I think that would require either fake headers or nested column creation. Personally I'd say that since that section is twice as long as the other two, having the two-column setup is the best way to go. Splitting that list into two might make it a bit more convoluted. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, that's exactly what I meant, and that sounds excessively complex for only a tiny return. Cheers! ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am still lost. Isn't the section the whole table, which is the main part of the article? So what are the other two sections and what is the problem which you are trying to solve? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly simple. I was suggesting a layout such as

, but as established that it would not be as easy as it looks, and probably not worth the hassle of attempting. Which is fine by me. See wot I mean? —— SerialNumber  54129  17:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah I see now. I thought you were suggesting splitting 'Other classifications' in the sites section, but you meant in the list of codes. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed, in keeping with the rest of the series, promoted. -- Pres N  21:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


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