Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the West Midlands


 * 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 User:Scorpion0422 23:04, 3 June 2008.

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the West Midlands

 * Nomination. I recently stumbled upon this list earlier on, I've introduced a revised lead, fulfilled the list and added a little more here and there. It is based upon other featured lists: List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater London and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Hertfordshire. Kindly, Suicidalhamster had worked to provide a basis for this list, and I will expect he would probably wish to co-nominate this list for featured list. Thank you for your time. Rudget   (Help?) 15:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - A few suggestions: (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph before the geography subheading, in my opinion, is talking about the areas geography and so could go in the lower section. However overall I'm not completely sold on the idea of having subheadings in the lead anyway. I'm not that fussed about either of these so see what others say.
 * Subheading removed, and sentence shifted. Rudget   (Help?) 08:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This document about the the west midlands natural area may have useful information for the lead (if nothing stands out as being really good don't worry, the lead already sets the scene well).
 * Will read now. Rudget   (Help?) 08:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Template:Reflist, which is used, makes the references a small font, which is fine. However reference 5 then has small tags for each PDF. This means the PDF titles are very small. They are just ok on my laptop screen but I have seen them on other screens where they are indecipherable.
 * Done? Rudget   (Help?) 08:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Made the change that I was thinking of . - Suicidalhamster (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reference 4 needs an accessed date.
 * Done. Rudget   (Help?) 08:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * West midlands, in the 1974-1996 county system is bordered by three counties, however only two are listed in the see also (I guess this is why they are there?). Additionally are these links necessary as both are listed in the template at the bottom? Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure is. But the Worcestershire list doesn't exist at the moment. I was thinking of adding the link when I get around to creating the page, which I will do. Rudget   (Help?) 08:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough Worcestershire doesn't appear in the natural england's list of counties to search . Not quite sure what that means. Suicidalhamster
 * It's there as "Hereford and Worcester". However as discussed somewhere else (talk:sssi?) Natural England didn't use Hereford and Worcester as an AoS - so separate Hereford and Worcestershire lists WOULD be more appropriate. SP-KP (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't come close to exemplifying "our very best work", which is ably done by the Avon and Cleveland lists for example. Those lists, linking together SSSI articles, are the "best" you have to match. Please create the relevant short articles (if they are of scientific interest, they'll be notable and will be documented by English Nature amongst others). Colin°Talk 17:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.' Rudget   (Help?) 17:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are more SSSI articles. Good. But there were still seven links to housing estates and nearby towns and villages. I've redlinked them to where they should go. I'll see if I can find time later to create some of those, if you don't beat me to it. Also, I've left notes in some of the other SSSI article talk pages of other potential sources. They could all be expanded with a bit more wildlife text and improved with some pictures if you can find/take some. Also, they should all be added to Category:Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the West Midlands. Polishing those articles isn't essential to this FLC but we should manage to at least create them all. If we can get a photo or two into this list, that would be great. Even if it was a stock photo of some endangered newt. Colin°Talk 13:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, good. I'll look to expand the ones that currently exist later. Rudget   (Help?) 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All the created articles are in the category now. Will expand/create some when I get a bit more time. Suicidalhamster (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok all the articles are created now. Suicidalhamster (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. I support now. Sorry I didn't find the time to create any but well done to those who did. Colin°Talk 08:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. GreenJoe 23:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Every SSSI has a source in the References section. The use of in-line citations is only a technique, not a requirement. Colin°Talk 06:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you like to specify which part of the list needs referencing? This seems an unreasonable request considering the number of PDFs in the referencing section. Rudget   (Help?) 09:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: You have commented on more than 37 candidates within the space of an hour. I do not feel at this time you have provided either a sufficient reason to oppose or given a proper review of what is both needed to make a featured list and what is actually contained in this particular list itself. Rudget   (Help?) 09:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Referencing the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates, I'd remove the very first sentence, which is a repeat of the title.
 * Had a go at adjusting the opening sentences. Hope its an improvement! Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "In the Areas of Search of the English county of West Midlands, there are 23 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), of which 11 have been...."? (I'm not saying use this one, but find a way to re-word the lead part.)
 * Can you wikilink conurbation at the beginning of the second paragraph of the lead
 * It may seem a little crude, but if the reader has found themselves on this page, it's likely they know the definition of conurbation. Rudget   (Help?) 10:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed it to a link of Largest conurbations which hopefully puts the fact in context. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Between the West Midlands conurbation and Coventry" but the second paragraph says that Coventry is within the WM conurbation, so perhaps a re-word here?
 * Done. Rudget   (Help?) 10:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "A smaller piece of green belt between Birmingham, Walsall and West Bromwich which includes Sutton Park in Sutton Coldfield." Missing word? Perhaps "A smaller green belt is located between Birmingham...."
 * Done. Suicidalhamster (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are the area figures aligned to the right? Most columns containing numbers look better if centered.
 * When right aligned it is much easier to compare figure size, especially as they are all rounded to 1 d.p. Suicidalhamster (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all. Matthewedwards (talk· contribs· count· email) 06:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please wikilink hectare and acres in the table.
 * Done. Rudget   (Help?) 10:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd remove the two SSSI links in the "See also" section, as there's a navbox at the bottom of the article with the rest.
 * They are relevant to the list as they are the two nearest counties, and it is reasonable to think that if the reader is researching SSSIs in the West Midlands, they may also be doing the same for Warwickshire etc. Rudget   (Help?) 10:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: The term "Areas of Search" is jargon that doesn't scan well and IMO shouldn't be used in the lead sentence. Try to find a way of defining the list without jargon. Then explain that the geographical area is called an Area of Search by a government body called Natural England, etc. Try to imagine the paragraph without wikilinks--does it still make sense. For example, most readers (including those in the UK) won't know who Natural England are (a company, a lobby group, a charity or a government body) so they need a little help and you shouldn't rely on wikilinks for folk to understand what the words mean. Colin°Talk 08:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Had a go at reducing the amount of jargon and assumed knowledge. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - The list has certainly improved, and I now believe it fully meets our criteria. For the sake of transparency, I was involved early on with setting up the list as well as responding to some of the concerns raised here. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.