Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in West Sussex/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) 06:47:52 6 November 2019 (UTC).

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in West Sussex

 * Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2019 (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. I have not been able to archive the citations as the bot appears to be down. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from KJP1
An impressively comprehensive list, well-structured and fully referenced. There really is very little to complain about, and I'll be pleased to support, subject to consideration of the meagre gleanings below. With apologies, my comments will be in batches.


 * Lead
 * "Designation as an SSSI gives legal protection to the most important wildlife and geological sites" - I'm not quite getting this. Does it mean that all SSSIs get legal protection, due to their designation, or that only the most important of the SSSIs do so?
 * Changed to "The most important wildlife and geological sites are designated as SSSIs in order to give them legal protection." Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "five are Ramsar sites" - I appreciate that it's linked and explained below, but the term, unfamiliar to me and I suspect most readers, caused me to stumble. Perhaps, "five are Ramsar sites, designated as internationally important under convention,"
 * Changed to clarify. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * List
 * Ambersham Common - "including the nationally rare" - I'm assuming this means rare to the UK, but more common elsewhere? I wonder if "nationally rare" is actually necessary, as you go on to state that it as been found at only three British sites?
 * "nationally rare" has a technical meaning and I have linked to British nature conservation statuses which explains. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Arundel Park - "This old deer park" - link?
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bognor Reef - "It is one of the few areas which has the full sequence of layers in the London Clay" - two points here. "the few areas", is that one of the few SSSIs in West Sussex or one of the few areas anywhere in England? Also, I didn't know what "the London Clay" was until I hit the link. Is it possible to clarify?
 * On the first point I think that "one of the few areas" implies one of the few anywhere and I do not like to say in England as London Clay is only found in parts of the southeast. On your second point, I am not sure how to give an explanation without going into excessive detail. Can you suggest a wording. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Chapel Common - "rare and scarce invertebrates" - is the "scarce" doing anything that the "rare" doesn't, or vice versa?
 * I have again linked to the article which explains the terms. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Cissbury Ring - I appreciate that this list is focussed on the SSSIs, but is it worth mentioning in the Description that this is the largest Iron-Age hillfort in Sussex? Perhaps, "The site, the largest Iron-Age hillfort in Sussex, has unimproved chalk grassland..."?
 * I am not sure there is a reliable source for it being the largest but I have cited Historic England for it being a Neolithic flint mine and a large hillfort dating to the Iron Age. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Coates Castle - "There are an estimated 200 individuals" - are the crickets individually identified, Jiminy etc.? Perhaps, "They number approximately 200"?
 * Revised another way. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Coneyhurst Cutting - "fossils of large Viviparus (freshwater river snails) preserved in three dimensions" - I'm displaying my ignorance here, but aren't all fossils three-dimensional? Or are most flat and only two? Forgive me, I did Combined Science for O-level, when only the most stupid boys were entered for that subject.
 * Many and maybe most fossils are two dimensional as they have been crushed flat. Three dimensional ones give far more information. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks indeed for the responses. All excellent. Shall move onto Batch 2 of comments as soon as I can (day or two most). It is a long list! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fyning Moor - "Open rides have diverse flora" - what are "open rides"? Horse-riding? The source doesn't say and I don't know.
 * Linked to Bridle path. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Horton Clay Pit - "a thick and stratigaphically important" - typo, "stratigraphically".
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Rook Clift - " this steep sided valley" - should "steep-sided" be hyphenated?
 * It seems to be commonly hyphenated so I have done so. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pleasure all mine. A superbly detailed list, which I am delighted to Support. KJP1 (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments

 * It took me till K to find anything but then I got this: "This reserve's yew woods are described by Natural England as the best in Britain as it has the most extensive stands unmixed with other species." - singular plural disagreement?
 * I think this is correct. The reserve has the most extensive stands, not the yew trees. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes sense.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "which are relicts" - is "relicts" a typo for "relics" or simply a word I am not familiar with?
 * Corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "There are 1 metre (3.3 feet) high fossils" - earlier you converted a measurement in metres into yards, now you are using feet - why the change? As the earlier distance was shorter it seems odd that that one was converted to yards and this one to feet.....
 * Corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "These disused railway tunnels are the fifth most important sites" - sites or site? If it's considered to be one SSSI then I would say the singular is more appropriate.
 * Corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "This former quarry exposed.....It provided excellent three dimensional sections" - why the past tenses? All other notes are written in the present tense.
 * Clarified that the past tense is because the quarry has been filled in. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "These woods have steep sided valleys" - "steep-sided" should be hyphenated I think
 * Corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Last three notes need full stops
 * Corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Think that's it from me. Fantastic work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review. . Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Review from Mattximus

 * I kinda like how you moved the description of the county to the lead paragraph in List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Suffolk and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Kent to give some context to the area before going into specifics.
 * I moved it because an editor objected in a review of another FLC to starting with the description but I agree with you and have moved it back. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "There are also intertidal mudflats which are nationally important for ringed plovers and other birds include redshanks and dunlin", Should be "including" if the redshanks and dunlin are also nationally important, and if they are not, then simply a semicolon or a second sentence "Other birds include redshanks and dunlin". Together in one sentence is a bit confusing.
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Arun banks, can you link "fen"?
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 160 fish species do you mean fossilized fish species?
 * Added "fossils of" for clarity. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a colon is needed: "on Annex I of the EU Birds Directive: woodlark, nightjar and Dartford warbler"
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Shingle beach should be linked
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Homo heidelbergensis isn't considered a human remain, but Hominin remains
 * Heidelbergensis were archaic humans. Hominim is a broader category which includes australopithecines. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, however Homo heidelbergensis is not human, but a different species. It is Homo heidelbergensis, a Hominin. Saying it was human remains is not correct, even if it was a distant ancestor to a human. There are defined uses for the words human, hominin and hominid. In this case the word to choose would be hominin (although hominid is also correct, it is less specific).
 * The article you link to, homo sapiens, starts "Homo sapiens is the only extant human species", implying that there are also extinct human species. OED defines "Human" as "belonging to the species Homo sapiens or other (extinct) species of the genus Homo". The definition of archaic humans as including Heidelbergensis also defines them as humans. I am using a definition which is generally - although not universally - accepted. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we found a point of disagreement, however the link you provided archaic humans does have a box that indicates a list of hominins and includes Homo heidelbergensis... but I can see using either the vaguely defined term archaic human (with a link to that page), or the precise term "hominin", but certainly not simply "human" as is indicated now. That is definitely incorrect. Mattximus (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We may have to agree to disagree. "Human" is not definitely incorrect. As I said above, it is correct according to the Oxford English Dictionary. The genus "Homo" is Latin for man. Homo sapiens is wise man and Homo Heidelbergensis is Heidelberg man, but nowadays we prefer "human" as non-sexist. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In all technical circles, of which I was once apart, the word Human is for Homo sapiens only. I suppose using the term "archaic human" though not a scientific term, will at least avoid the incorrect use of human and would be a compromise. If we follow your logic, would Australopithecus afarensis be a human, because it is our likely ancestor? Or just when the genus name changed? If so, you would call Homo habilis a human? What about Homo neanderthalis? Both humans? I think we can agree that at least homo habilis is not a human. But then you just picked an arbitrary species on the homo lineage to start calling human? Help me understand your logic here. Mattximus (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not operate on logic, but on following reliable sources, which define humans as members of the genus Homo. The Oxford English Dictionary defines human as belonging to the genus Homo. I am currently reading Early Humans by Nick Ashton (a British Museum curator), which is a history of human occupation of Britain from the arrival of (probably) Homo antecessor around 900,000 years ago to the end of the Mesolithic around 6000 years ago. The Smithsonian at describes Homo erectus as "early humans". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked up your sources, and the Oxford Dictionary uses the term hominids to describe extinct ancestors to humans. The Smithsonian uses "early human" which is equivalent to the other acceptable (not not scientific) term above Archaic human. I don't have access to the second book you cited. So far, all the sources I can find call it either a hominin, hominid, or early/archaic human. Not a signle source so far calls Homo heidelbergensis a "human" with a cursory search. Encyclopedia Britannica calls it an archaic human, science articles  also do not call it a human as far as I can see, and some  do not even call Neanderthals humans, of which like quite likely are. Do you have a source that calls that species human? Mattximus (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Lexico dictionary at gives meaning 1.3 of 'human' as "Of or belonging to the genus Homo". The paper at  by Laura Buck and the leading expert on human origins Chris Stringer describes Homo heidelbergensis as "a critical human species in the Middle Pleistocene". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Link Heronry
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks great so far, I've reviewed several of these and the standard is already very good. Just these few minor quibbles. Mattximus (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review . Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you good with this, or are we still stuck on the Homo/human issue? -- Pres N  17:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I still disagree with the nominator on this issue, however I won't hold up the promotion due to it. Support despite one issue. Mattximus (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. -- Pres N  06:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


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