Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Nature reserves in Barnet/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 not promoted by 10:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC).

Nature reserves in Barnet

 * Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the first article I have nominated for good or featured status. Barnet is rich in nature reserves, and I think a summary of them is very useful for local people. I plan to write an article about the list in the local residents association newsletter, and it would be helpful be assured of its quality first. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * As mentioned above, the article should be named "List of nature reserves in Barnet". I may be just as good to wait until the FLC is over to rename to avoid technical issues. Agreed
 * The scope of the lead is wrong. It should talk about the topic, not the article itself. Information about what websites have been available when is better mentioned in footnotes. Done
 * The lead needs to include a definition of nature reserve, as in some countries a nature reserve by definition doesn't contain any roads or the like. Definitions of preserved area types tends to vary between countries. Reply The different types of nature reserve are now explained.
 * Nowhere is there any mention that this topic is about the UK or England. Reply I do not think this is necessary. London related articles do not normally say that London is in England.
 * The codes in access and type should be in a table. Done
 * The table and key should be in its own section. Done
 * List similar to this normally require a brief description to be approved for FL. See for instance Grade I listed churches in Cheshire and List of national parks of the United States Done
 * Refs should go in their own column. As it reads now I would presume only the name is referenced and the rest is not. Reply Refs are now for descriptions.
 * Cells without an image should be marked with a center-align emdash (—). No longer applicable
 * References which are online need proper formatting, with publisher, accessdate and titles, and if possible author and date information. cite web can make this easy and consistent (although you are not required to use such templates). Done
 * Do not start a list with a boldface repetition of the title unless it would be a natural way of starting the sentence (it usually isn't) Done
 * As noted above, the article needs to comply with WP:DTT. Specifically, this includes use of the use of scope parameters for rows and columns, and inclusion of a caption. Done Arsenikk   (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply

Thanks very much for the feedback. I will work on these points. A couple of queries:
 * It appears to me that adding a description column would make too many columns, so I think it would be best to delete the road column and merge district and coordinates into a location column. The columns would then be: 1. Site (without references). 2. Image. 3. Location. 4. Access. 5. Type. 6. Description (with references). Does this look OK?
 * That would be fine with me. Arsenikk (talk)  18:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not clear how to make a table for the codes in access and type. Is there an article which does something similar which I could look at for guidance? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Have a look at List of Rosenborg BK seasons, List of Birmingham City F.C. players (25–99 appearances) and List of Oslo Metro stations for three different ways of organizing the key. Any of these will work, although some will be more appropriate in given situations. Arsenikk (talk)  18:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Support Apart from renaming the page, all my comments have been resolved, the list is looking pretty good, and I'm happy to support it. Nice job. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 16:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments (Please reply to comments by inserting new, indented lines.)
 * In two places, a hyphen is used where there should be an en dash.
 * Can you advise where. I do not understand the rules.
 * It's in refs. 16 and 66.
 * I have copied the en dash from the article on dashes and pasted it in these refs, but it looks just the same. Is it OK now?

Keys
 * "NO = means no public access"
 * Done.


 * "damage to these sites would mean a significant loss to the borough" – This is a complete sentence. Suggest reword to "sites of significance to the borough" or similar.
 * Revised to "of significant value to the borough"


 * "the public has a right to roam freely, not only on paths" – This too is a complete sentence. Suggest reword to "free public access to all of the site" or similar.
 * Done


 * "Site of Metropolitan Importance" – Linking terms like this in the Keys: Type column would be useful (not everyone will want to read the lead).
 * I have linked to LNR and SSSI but there is no good article to link the other terms to. (I ought to sort this out but I have too many things on my list already.)


 * Notes [b] and [c] are in the wrong place (readers who know what Local Nature Reserves and Sites of Special Scientific Interest are will likely ignore the notes here). Try putting that information elsewhere.
 * Done


 * "important sites for nature and/or geology" – Rather vague. Actually, I don't really see the point to all the annotations in that column. Wouldn't just linking the terms be equally as good?
 * I have found a source which gives a clearer (less unclear) definition: "of special interest locally for wildlife or geological features". I think it is worth keeping the annotations. Another editor complained that I had not defined my terms, and I think he was right, that some readers will want definitions.

Sites
 * It may make no difference in most cases, but MOS:DTT still demands.
 * Done, but have I done it right?


 * "The site covers the a lane" – Not yet introduced.
 * "The" refers to Arkley Lane, the site name, but I have changed to " covers Arkley Lane" for clarity.


 * Suggestion: "The lane is thought to be an old drovers' road, and is now a quiet country path." -> "The lane, now a quiet country path, is thought to be an old drovers' road."
 * Done.


 * "The woodland is probably ancient, and it supports a variety of nesting birds."
 * Done


 * Suggestion: "Its importance lies in its breeding grassland birds, and it is the main site in the borough for skylarks and meadow pipits." -> "Its importance lies in its breeding grassland birds. It is also the main site in the borough for skylarks and meadow pipits."
 * The suggestion does not convey what I meant, ie grassland birds including skylarks etc, so I have change for clarity to "Its importance lies in its breeding grassland birds, including skylarks and meadow pipits, and it is the main site in the borough for these species." This is still a bit clumsy, but does it seem acceptable?


 * Suggestion: "the main site in the borough for skylarks and meadow pipits. Skylarks have declined rapidly in recent years, and they are a priority species in the UK Biodiversity Report." -> "the main site in the borough for meadow pipits and skylarks, which have declined rapidly in recent years and are a priority species in the UK Biodiversity Report."
 * I think this could be confusing. It could be misunderstood to mean that meadow pipits have declined.


 * "Skylarks have declined rapidly in recent years, and they are a priority species in the UK Biodiversity Report." – Is this still true? After all, the source is from 1997.
 * I have found an up to date source, and deleted "rapidly" as the decline has slowed. It is now "Skylarks have declined in recent years, and they are a priority species in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan."

More to come.  Good raise  02:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "This site's fields are rated by the LEU as one of the best examples of old hay meadows in London, divided by ancient hedgerows." – This sentence structure is just awkward.
 * Revised to: "This site's fields, which are divided by ancient hedgerows, are rated by the LEU as one of the best examples of old hay meadows in London." Is this OK?


 * "Wild flowers are abundant in the summer, and each field has its own specialities, including two small fields on top of Featherstone Hill at the west end." – Confusing. Why is this one sentence instead of two? What kind of specialities is this referring to? Wild flowers?
 * I have revised this to "Wild flowers are abundant in the summer, with each field having its own specialities." Does this make it clear that 'specialities' refers to wild flowers? The last part on Featherstone Hill I have deleted as superfluous.


 * Don't bypass redirects using pipes. It's okay for links to point to redirects. Redirects just shouldn't point to other redirects. (See WP:NOPIPE.)
 * Editors have complained to me in the past when I have put in links which are double redirects. Does this mean they are wrong? If so, this clarifies the point for me.
 * Links aren't redirects. You can't put double redirects into articles. Redirects are Wikipedia pages which contain only one link which is supposed to be followed automatically. When a link in one redirect page points to another redirect page, that's what's called a double redirect. There's bots running around fixing those, so you don't have to worry about them. Linking from inside an article to a redirect page is perfectly acceptable, even encouraged. Unfortunately, a lot of editors don't understand the advantages of linking to redirects, and keep "fixing" those links by introducing pipes. Yes, those editors are wrong.
 * I think I now understand. I should have said that I have been putting in pipes to avoid redirects because editors complained when I put in links which pointed to redirects, but you advise that this is wrong and pipes should not be used if the link points to the correct article.
 * That's right. Those editors are wrong; in most cases creating and linking to redirects is preferable for a variety of reasons. For example: If you replace  with , the article source becomes easier to read.

 Good raise  23:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC) More to come.  Good raise  21:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your very helpful comments. Please advise if you are not happy with any of my replies. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Revisited.  Good raise  23:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "but it is now closed to the public." – Words like "now" and "currently" are problematic in encyclopedia articles and should be avoided whenever possible. If the place opens again tomorrow, this article will be wrong. Try putting it differently. You might, for example, say when it closed or "as of" when it is closed.
 * Done


 * "Its woodland has a wide range of birds, p . P onds support aquatic life and more open areas have a wide variety of insects." – Comma splice.
 * Done


 * "This small cemetery has mown grass in the western part, but in the east it is less managed, and it has a wide variety of wild flowers."
 * Done


 * "The local RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has recorded a wide range of birds for a small suburban park." – See MOS:ACRO.
 * Done


 * "This steeply sloping field has a varied topography, with dry areas at the top and bog lower down, with several small streams." – "..., with ..., with ..." Please reword.
 * Done


 * "which is now a footpath." – What was it before it became a footpath?
 * The wording is "an old green lane which is now a footpath". I prefer to keep this. I could put something like "is an old green lane which was used by wheeled vehicles but is now just a footpath" but this seems unnecessary and clumsy.


 * " The Its hedgerow has several species of trees, such as wild service-tree and black bryony, which suggest that it is ancient, and the  its verge is rich in wild flowers."
 * Done


 * "The pasture area is dominated by Yorkshire Fog, and it . It is crossed by Burtonhole Brook, which supports a number of uncommon plant species."
 * Done


 * The Its tree canopy is mainly oak and hornbeam, and the  its sparse undergrowth has a number of species associated with ancient woodland, such as wild garlic and wood-sedge."
 * Done


 * " The Its canopy has fine old oaks above an understorey of Midland hawthorn, blackthorn and hazel."
 * Done


 * "Efforts to re-open it have so far failed" – As of?
 * Done


 * "...purchased the site in 2006, and t . T he farm buildings are currently an equestrian shop."
 * Done


 * "...farm buildings are currently an equestrian shop." – As of?
 * Done


 * "The trees and scrub provide..." – What trees and scrub?
 * Done


 * "The trees and scrub provide a habitat for birds, and ; even pipistrelle bats have been recorded." – Suggestion.
 * I prefer to keep this as it is. Pipistrelles are not that uncommon.


 * "Pipistrelle bats" and similar terms should really be linked.
 * I was not sure what to do about linking here. The source probably means common pipistrelles, but it does not say so, and it does not seem helpful to link to the article on the pipistrellus genus. I have linked where I could find a suitable article, but in some cases it is not clear which species is referred to and in others there is no article, such as the dusky cockroach.

More to come. Sorry for the long break. I'm a bit low on spare time and energy these days.  Good raise  21:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.