Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Nature reserves in Barnet/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Hahc21 10:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nature reserves in Barnet

[edit]

Nature reserves in Barnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 14:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments
  • Currently, the first sentence describes the table, not the topic. Also, moving the page to List of nature reserves in Barnet would be a good idea
  • The lead puts the topic aside and instead describes the features of websites
  • "in 2009–10" - suggest writing that out, eg "from 2009 to 2010", and moving that at the end of that sentence
  • I suggest putting that table into a separate section
  • The table is not accessible, row header, column headers and captions need to be added. Adding alt text to the images would be a plus
  • Some links lead to something different, eg Arkley leads to a village, not a district
  • Whetstone is a dablink [2]
  • One dead link--Tomcat (7) 11:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Reply

Thanks very much for the feedback. I will work on these points. A couple of queries:

Resolved comments from Bald Zebra (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I also agree that the list should be renamed, and as already mentioned, the last two paragraphs don't belong in the lead - it'd be better to incorporate these into a key at the top of the Nature reserves section (before the main table). Reply Agreed. As Arsenikk suggested, I will change the name when (hopefully) the FL has gone through to avoid technical issues.
  • It might be worth wikilinking a number of the species mentioned in the descriptions, especially those that aren't so familiar to everyone (such as meadow pipit, slow worm, Yorkshire-fog, and the butterfly species at Bells' Hill). Reply Agreed.
  • "Arrandene Open Space is one of the best sites in London" - this needs amending (or removing altogether) to make this note more neutral. Reply That the site is one of the best sites for traditionally managed hay meadows seems to me a factual sourced statement. It is the view of the London Ecology Unit.
  • "In summer it is a blaze of wild flowers" → "Wild flowers are abundant in the summer" Reply Agreed.
  • "The local RSPB has recorded an impressive range of birds." → "The local RSPB has recorded a large range of birds." Reply Again the view of the LEU, although it could be expressed as a large range of birds for a small suburban park.
  • "Big Wood has a surprising variety of trees and shrubs" - why is this surprising? It'd be better to use a purely descriptive term such as "Big Wood has a wide variety of trees and shrubs" Reply I took this to have a similar meaning as above, but I agree that 'surprising' is a curious word and 'wide' would be better.
  • Are there no photos available for Bruno's Field, Mill Hill Golf Course and Totteridge Croft Field? Reply I now have photos for these sites which I will upload. Bruno's Field is a private site hidden behind houses, but I have a picture of the trees in the field from a neighbouring road. Totteridge Croft Field is the most difficult of all the reserves, a field distant from any public space, but I have photographed the border hedge from a footpath.
  • "This steeply loping field" → "This steeply sloping field"
  • "The canopy has fine old oaks" - what makes these old oaks fine? It'd be better to just describe them as old, perhaps mentioning how old they are if possible. Reply This seems to me a fair sourced description.
  • "Coppeet's Wood has an unusual population of juneberry" - should be spelled "Coppett's Wood". Also, why is the collection of juneberry unusual? Better to just say "Coppett's Wood has a population of juneberry". Reply I took this to mean unusual for the area, but probably better left out as the meaning is not clear.
  • "The site also has a good range of birds and the scarce glow-worm." → "The site is a habitat for a range of bird species and glow-worms." (unless the 'scarce glow-worm' is actually a separate species, in which case this need wikilinking). Reply The fact that the site has glow-worms, which are a rare species, adds to its importance as a nature reserve and is worth stating, but it could be expressed more clearly.
  • "The fields have a surpisingly rural quality even though they lie alongside the A1 road." - "Surprisingly" is spelled wrong, although I think it'd better to remove this sentence altogether as it's promotional rather than descriptive. Reply Strictly you are right, but it is sourced and it is interesting and correct. I would prefer to keep it.

Cheers, ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 12:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks very much for the comments. In partial excuse for all the typos, I am in the middle of entering the descriptions and have not yet got around to spell checking them.
The descriptive words are sourced from the London Ecology Unit's Nature Conservation in Barnet, or the summary of the descriptions in London environmental record office website. Some 'colour' words seem to me desirable when properly sourced to avoid making the descriptions excessively dry, but see detailed replies above. Further comments would be appreciated.
I have changed the dating of government statistics from 2009-10 to 2009 to 2010 as suggested by Tomcat 7, but I am not happy with the change. 2009-10 in relation to British government statistics has the generally understood meaning of the year from April 2009 to March 2010, whereas 2009 to 2010 is vague and could mean the whole of both years.
The coordinates are based on the estimates of various editors, but I now have Nature Conservation in Barnet which has grid refs for each site. I am therefore inclined to change to the sourced grid refs. Is there any policy on which to use?
I said above that I would delete the 'road' column, but on second thoughts I think it would be helpful to use it for the area in hectares. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate where you're coming from regarding the descriptive words, but in these cases we need to attribute this statement to the LEU in the text rather than just repeating their opinion as fact - even though these statements are sourced, they could still be seen as peacock statements as they stand right now. For example, I would suggest changing the Arrandene description to "Arrandene Open Space is rated by the London Ecology Unit as one of the best sites in London...". ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 10:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I will amend accordingly. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now made the amendments suggested. Are there further issues? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Five paras in the lead seems large, particularly if you see WP:LEAD. Done.
  • "Green Belt" can be capitalised when talking about a specific "Green Belt" but when used in general (i.e. "... is green belt") then it shouldn't be. Done.
  • Consider converting "hectares" to "acres" using the {{convert}} template for more universal appeal. Done.
  • Same with "square miles". Done.
  • " hectares.[b]" no need for an artificial full stop. No longer applicable.
  • " Importance - the best examples " should be an en-dash, not a hyphen. Done by Tomcat7.
  • "without sticking to " reads a little colloquially to me. Done.
  • You may like to ask User:Goodraise to take a look over this list as I know this editor is particularly scrupulous when it comes to this kind of thing! Done.
  • Be consistent. It's "London clay" or "London Clay". And in a sortable table, anything that's linked once needs to be linked every time. Done.
  • En-dashes should be used for page ranges in the references. Done by Tomcat7.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 scope="row".
  • Done, but have I done it right?
  • "The site covers thea 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. Goodraise 02:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "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 [[Meadow Pipit|meadow pipits]] with [[meadow pipit]]s, the article source becomes easier to read.

Goodraise 23:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC) More to come. Goodraise 21:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Revisited. Goodraise 23:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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. Ponds 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 RSPBRoyal 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.
  • "TheIts hedgerow has several species of trees, such as wild service-tree and black bryony, which suggest that it is ancient, and theits 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
  • TheIts tree canopy is mainly oak and hornbeam, and theits sparse undergrowth has a number of species associated with ancient woodland, such as wild garlic and wood-sedge."
  • Done
  • "TheIts 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. The 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. Goodraise 21:19, 22 March 2013 (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_list_candidates/Nature_reserves_in_Barnet/archive1&oldid=1138488326"