Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Titchwell Marsh/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SandyGeorgia 23:15, 6 January 2012 [1].

Titchwell Marsh

[edit]

Titchwell Marsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After more than 30 bird FAs, I've been branching out a bit. This isn't as far out of my comfort zone as my last nom, but it has some milhist, archaeology and economics as well as the birds. Prospective reviewers please note that I will be away 13–17 December, but I'll deal with any comments on my returnJimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know much more about capitalization of birds on WP than I do. Why is Bitterns capitalized (that's not a name, even an informal name, of any species, is it?) when, for instance, "geese" isn't? - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A huge influx of Pallas's Sandgrouse into Britain in 1853 led to several records from Titchwell, including breeding attempts. The last bird seen was on the saltmarsh, the rest were on the dunes or in marram grass. All the birds were shot.": I don't know what "records" means here. Also, it seems a little implausible that every grouse ever seen was killed (despite what hunters may have claimed). - Dank (push to talk) 01:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Records" is actually pretty standard in ornithological journals, since we only know about these vagrants from what was recorded by naturalists and others. I've changed to "arrivals at Titchwell", which probably reads better anyway. I actually think that it's quite likely that they were all shot; this was a great trophy in an era when even naturalists routinely shot rare birds for their collections. However, even the people writing the source papers can't have been certain all were killed, so I've amended to "many". Thanks for comments, Jimfbleak - talk to me?
  • Done, although I'm not totally convinced that this is better. "Breeding attempts" tends to be used because not all species form pairs (eg pheasants, ducks), but sandgrouse do pair, so your suggestion is appropriate Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is of international importance": I don't know what this means.
  • In the Birds subsection, you generally need either a "the" in front of a species name or a plural if you're talking about more than one bird.
  • "1998/9": I don't know what time period that is.
  • My preference would be to remove the two inflation figures from the last section, since we're talking about 1999, and most readers will have a rough sense of the present value. If you leave them, "at current prices" is a WP:DATED problem; see how I fixed that where it occurred above.
  • There are two sentences I'm still not getting, otherwise everything looks good. Would you write "many goose", or "Lone animals sometimes wander through my yard, including mouse, dog, cat, and squirrel."?: "Large numbers of ducks winter on the reserve, including many Wigeon, Teal, Mallards and Gadwall, and smaller counts of Goldeneyes and Northern Pintails.", and "Other highlights in recent years include Baird's Sandpiper, Broad-billed Sandpiper, Thrush Nightingale and Arctic Redpoll, all in 2004,[14] a Stilt Sandpiper in 2005,[13] and Black-winged Pratincole and Black-headed Wagtail in 2009." - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually quite common to refer to ducks in this way, but my usage was not consistent, so all changed to proper plurals now. I've changed "highlights" to "rarities" and added indefinite articles to the vagrant species Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perfect, thanks. I'm not a linguist, but I'm guessing what's going on with "duck" is the same thing that happened in the language to deer, swine, cattle and sheep ... so we have to distinguish between an oddity in the language that results in using an unexpected plural or singular form, and an oddity of a plural form that sounds singular. We seem to be dealing with the second oddity here, which makes it easy for a copyeditor to decide on an answer ... we just look it up. There's still more support for a plural of "ducks" in the standard references, although "duck" does appear, for instance in M-W. Cambridge Dictionaries doesn't give "duck" as a plural, but Oxford Dictionaries does. Again, I'm not a linguist, so I'm going out on a limb here ... but by analogy, I would be more inclined to accept the "duck" plural when thinking of duck as something you eat or shoot rather than a species of bird; bird species don't seem to be adopting the singular-form plurals, in general. - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Missing bibliographic info for Taylor & Holden, unless that's the one listed only under Taylor
  • FN 7: formatting
  • FN 14: check publisher name
  • What is RIBA?
  • FN 33: date?
  • FNs 53-55: date, publisher?
  • Murphy: ISBN formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support following comments from Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Updated with support: 07:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The image caption "Robins can become very tame near the car park" strikes me as less than encyclopedic and more in the vein of a tourist guide. Unlike the "'Birdwatching visitors help to support the local economy" image caption later on (which is sourced in the article text), there is no mention of robins in the article itself. It looks like gratuitous image decoration. Suggest replacing the robin image with something else (plenty of images in the Commons category and birds photographed there as well). Actually, I find it strange that only two bird images are included here, an avocet and a robin. Surely there is room for more bird images, and of birds actually mentioned in the text?
  • I've replaced the robin (which I confess we used in our Christmas cards last year) and added a third image. I try to make images relevant to their sections, so I'm not sure I can squeeze in any more without clutter. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This bit: "The 7.7 million day visitors and 5.5 million who made overnight stays in the area are estimated to have spent £158 million at current prices, and created the equivalent of 2,325 full-time jobs" left me wondering what the price was in 2005 (or whatever year the figures were obtained in). That needs to be given really, as well as the current prices, and arguably is more relevant.
  • Several parts of the article are based largely on repeating what you find on the RSPB website about this reserve. That is not bad per se, but means the article will need updating as things change at the reserve. Stuff like that in the Facilities section will change over time: "the adjacent cafe serves hot and cold snacks" is particularly useless. If you are intending to visit this nature reserve, the location, timings, facilities and accessibility information are all something that you would check on the RSPB website, rather then go by what is said here, which begs the question: what point is there in putting this information here? FWIW, the bit about food is mentioned three times in the article: lead ('hot food servery'), and 'servery for hot food and drinks' and 'adjacent cafe serves hot and cold snacks'. There is also the potential for confusion: is the cafe serving hot and cold snacks the same as the servery for hot food and drinks?
  • In my last FA, St Nicholas, Blakeney, Sandy specifically asked me to add stuff about the congregation and services, which in principle is similar to the facilities issues you raise in that it can readily change. I've trimmed a bit, but I'm reluctant to take out everything. Let me know if there is anything left you really object to Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "remains of military constructions from both world wars" an adequate summary of the information on this in the article?
    • Acknowledging my military history bias, I agree on this point; another sentence would be appropriate, given the extensive material in In 1972 ... feel free to add something, or I'll give it a shot when I copyedit this. (I'm waiting for the initial reactions and responses before I copyedit ... and btw, I see that there's not much to do :) - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To balance the above criticism, the 'Economic effects', 'The RSPB era', 'Archaeology' and 'To 1972' sections were excellent. It was just the bits that read like they were sourced from the RSPB website (unsurprising, as they were) and read like a tourist guide and 'advice to visitors' that I found offputting. Maybe that is just me, but if others feel the same way I hope some suggestions can be made to reduce that effect somewhat. Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments, I'm back now, and I'll try to fix these fairly soon. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes. I'm particularly happy to see more of the actual birds in there. Will enter my support above. Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Titchwell is archaeologically significant, - a tad ambiguous - if it is the village, I'd maybe make it "Nearby Titchwell is archaeologically significant," to show it is the village, or add "marsh" if it means the marsh...?
In the To 1972 section, the first two paras come across as a tad choppy. Any info to be added might make it flow a little more smoothly. I'd combine the paras but it is a big temporal jump.....

Otherwise, happy with prose and comprehensiveness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It always frustrates me when British birders refer to British birds ("the Oystercatcher", "the Avocet", "the Swallow", etc.), as if theirs are the only ones on the planet. Don't assume that your readers will know that you mean Eurasian Oystercatcher and Pied Avocet. Tell them! There are other oystercatchers, avocets and swallows, and your readers are from all over the world. They may not realize that the ones you're talking about aren't the ones they're used to from home — their oystercatcher, avocet or swallow.
  • All the names were linked to the correct species, and I did actually use Pied Avocet in the text. I've expanded the name to the international form on the first occurrence for those species like Eurasian Oystercatcher and a couple of the ducks where I hadn't already done this. Is that sufficient? Having make it absolutely clear which avocet we are talking about at the first occurrence, I think it's reasonable to refer to it just as "avocet" thereafter. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We still need an image review here. Ucucha (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Sandy. I seem to have developed a blind spot on the usually unproblematic caption full stops issue, you're the second person to raise this. I think I've got it right now, if not you had better tell me where it's still wrong! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super critical query – several references end with a full stop, but not all. I guess our templates add a full stop automatically while the refs without templates it's up to the editor. Would expect consistency in a FA. (By the way, made a few "technical" edits, feel free to revert any) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In recent years" in the lead falls afoul of WP:MOSDATE#Precise language-- can the time frame be clarified? "The reserve's location is important for migrating birds and it has regularly attracted rarities": it is intended to refer to the reserve, but technically, refers to location in this sentence construct. Could you rephrase to make the "it" point the right place?

I see the geobox is nominated for deletion. Infoxes are neither required nor discouraged at FAC-- we stay out of that-- so promotion of this article should not be interpreted as an endorsement one way or another about the deletion discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "in recent years". Changed to "The reserve has regularly attracted rarities, as its location is important for migrating birds." - Dank (push to talk) 16:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dank, I've changed to and Little Egrets are common. which makes more sense if I can't say that they haven't always been. It's obviously impossible to reference even to the year when this colonising species changed from "rare" to "uncommon" to "common". Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Titchwell_Marsh/archive1&oldid=1078808411"