Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/RSPB Minsmere/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2017 [1].

RSPB Minsmere

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd long wanted to write an FA on this flagship RSPB reserve, but lacked sufficient sources. The site celebrated its 70th anniversary in 2017, leading to the publication of a major article in British Birds which, together with Bert Axell's book, purchased for the princely sum of 98p, gave me all that was necessary. Thanks to DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered for for fixing some of my less felicitous edits Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

"The Great Storm of 1987 destroyed 3,000 trees in one night, leading to significant tree-planting. However, it was noticed that other badly affected woodlands nearby had been colonised by woodlarks, and some recently acquired arable land was acidified and converted to heathland to encourage open-ground species, rather than being forested as had been originally intended.": I'm thinking of something along the lines of "Many areas were reforested, but some arable land was ..."

I'm not quite sure what you are after here, but I've rewritten to make less wordy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The reserve is also protected as part of the Minsmere to Walberswick Heaths and Marshes Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The site is also included in the areas covered by the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the Suffolk Heritage Coast": Do something about the "also ... also".

Lost an "also" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dank thanks for your copy edit and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest linking/expanding/revising the lead caption to either help readers understand what the "scrape" is or to avoid using that term at this point
Possible to reformat the caption of the simplified map to have one colour per line? Also suggest a wikilink on "hide". Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review Nikkimaria, all done as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

A question of consistency: some of your PDF sources carry retrieval dates while others don't. Is this in accordance with a principle? Personally I think they are required for all online sources. Other than this point, all sources look of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brianboulton. I'm minding the shop for a moment or two. I am sure you are right but I think I will need the boss to fix them ... if I get some time tomorrow I will have a careful look whilst trying not actually to wreck it! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton, thanks for looking. The standard policy is that we have access-dates for on-line-only sources, which can change, but not for on-line copies of hard publications. I've now checked and added access dates where missing to all pdfs except those for copies of journal articles and those where an isbn indicates a hard copy publication. I think it's now consistent throughout Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

"The 1,000-hectare (2,500-acre) site was acquired in 1947" the body says a management agreement was signed, and the property was purchased later. Possibly substitute "reserve was established" for "site was acquired" or similar?
"The river mouths were finally closed " I imagine this means all of Suffolk as you've only mentioned the one river.

Source says "mouths", referring to this area of Suffolk, but only one at Minsmere AFAIK, so DBAK's change is appropriate Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I might link "hide" as appropriate. It may not be as common a word over here.
It might be useful to mention the size of the reserve in 1947, as various expansions are mentioned.

I'll add an RS source shortly Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"former arable land". Was it no longer capable of being farmed when sold, or did it lose that potential on being sold? "Formerly arable" makes me think of farmland poisoned by wastes, which is probably not the case here.
"The avocet first started its recolonisation of Britain in 1947, four pairs breeding a month after the reserve was acquired by the RSPB. Numbers now vary between 40 and about 140 pairs per year." In Britain or on the reserve?
I'm a bit taken aback by the final sentence of the article, which is a sentence by itself and seems a bit POV, and prominently so in light of the fact that it does conclude the article and gets the last word. The reader might take it as commentary on the immediately-previous discussion of the nuclear power plant. I think just attributing the prediction would be enough to take it out of Wikipedia's editorial voice.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attributed as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing. I think that DBaK has fixed the points that I've not addressed above, let me know if there is something we have missed. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I messed up the layout before. Trying again:

1947: Yes, good point thanks. Reworded into something similar to how the RSPB put it themselves.

Rivers I will try to check. Update: After a bit of reading around I can report that I am confused. As you say it could mean either; in addition it might mean that there were multiple mouths at Minsmere although we don't mention this possibility and we'd need a ref. (We mention it having been an estuary but nothing much more specific about the structures.) I have ordered the Axell book but I doubt that it will be here before Jimfbleak is. So the only fix for now that I see as reasonable is to make it a singular mouth at Minsmere, as that must be right locally; if it has narrowed the field too much then Jimfbleak can no doubt open it up again! Thanks,

Hides - Oops. We had it in a caption but missed the lead. Fixed, thanks.

Size - to check. Update: according to a contemporary local newspaper report quoted by a local history society site (scroll or search down to Dec 27 1947), they acquired 1,500 acres in 1947 so yes, well short of the eventual 2,500 acre total. I agree this needs sorted, but I'm not sure how to fix it or whether that can be regarded as an RS, so I am parking it here, and waiting for a grown-up to sort it out! Thanks for the query

"Former arable" - yes, still arable at sale. I chickened out of buying the source article or subscribing to some complex rental system BUT the free sample includes that bit! Fixed.

Avocet - to check. Update: it's the local number of breeding pairs. The RSPB says that nationally it's about 1500 pairs, and another reserve has 170+ so there's no way that the 40-140 is anything but Minsmere. I know I'm arguing this backwards as I don't have the source but I am confident that this is correct and that Jimfbleak can confirm it. Thanks. I've updated the article to reflect this,

Final sentence. Gosh yes. A bit of a structural issue perhaps. I will discuss it with the boss and try to see a fix.

My not responding to all of these at once reflects only the lateness of the hour.

Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing more. The reserve is exactly 1,000 hectares? Or is that just a round figure. Given that it has been added to over the years, it would be surprising if it were on the dot.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, I've been unable to find figures other than 1000 ha or 2500 acres, so I've no idea how rounded they are. I take your point though, and I've added "roughly" to the mention in RSPB era. I didn't think it was necessary in the lead, but feel free to add if you disagree. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support All looks good then. Sounds interesting, wouldn't mind a stroll there someday myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Yes, it's the RSPB's flagship reserve, you can see maybe 100 species in May Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was tempted not to point out the pleasing misspelling "tortoisehell" (there is no doubt a tortoiseheaven too) but that's all I can find to quibble about. A pleasure to read, seems comprehensive, well and widely sourced and beautifully illustrated. Tim riley talk 19:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, thanks. I shall have nightmares about tortoisehell now (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by William Avery

I'm a bit uneasy about the clause "Peat cutting is recorded to have taken place at Minsmere from at least the 12th century". It looks like the less acceptable variety of double passive to me. It might it be better to start with something like "Records show that peat cutting has taken place...", or perhaps some other recasting? William Avery (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks William Avery for your useful comment. Yes, and actually the ref supports a more direct statement anyway, so I have made it so. It is the cutting, not the record of the cutting, that is important here. Thanks! DBaK (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right. The indirectness was the underlying niggle. William Avery (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very interesting account. It makes me a bit sad that it's a 4½ hour drive away. William Avery (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. It's a truly lovely place. The thing that could help with the 4½ hour drive is to stay overnight in a pub in Westleton! With best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you William Avery. The Eels Foot Inn in Eastbridge is walking distance from the reserve too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check by Cas Liber

FN5, FN6 and FN20 check out (i.e. material faithful to source). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cas, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nice article - all in line with the FA criteria. The only quibble I found (too minor to affect my support) was in the Landscape section: "Two extensive sandbanks lie in the sea off the coast": a bit of a tautology, with the sea being off the coast? I'll leave it to you to decide whether to act on it or not. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, good point - they couldn't really be anywhere much else! Thanks SchroCat; I've detautologized (?) the description there. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks from me too, SchroCat Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from edwininlondon

Excellent article. Very little to nitpick about:

have been recorded on the reserve -> used twice in short succession
1500 -> inconsistent with the earlier "5,800 species"
quite a few weblinks used as source. Adding archive urls would help prevent link rot in the future
reference 24: I could not see Cathy Smith mentioned on the given page. I only looked because 22 and 23 do not have an author
ref 42 has a name surname switch error. The real names are David Moore, ‎Marijke M. Nauta, ‎Shelley E. Evans, Maurice Rotheroe

Great work. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for support. I've fixed the text and ref infelicities (don't know where Cathy Smith came from) and I'll add the archive links later Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I notice that there is no alt text on the images. While alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice. But that is a choice for the main editors, and is not worth delaying promotion. Sarastro (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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