Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article Withdrawn Adamdaley (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest

edit
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me?


Although this is primarily a biological article, it contains a fair amount of military history, which Dank has kindly copy edited. I don't need any more history, since it will make the article unbalanced, and I've no objection to losing a bit. I take full responsibility for the non-military content, so I'm basically looking to improve the prose and referencing enough for your A rating before heading to FAC. Thanks in advance for any reviews you can provide for someone here (almost) under false pretences. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Welcome to Milhist ACR. This is not really a topic I feel comfortable giving an opinion on (content wise) as I have no specific knowledge. Anyway, I will focus on small things. Hopefully it helps in someway:

  • overall I think the level of referencing is good, but this appears to be missing a reference: "long found on the present-day coast at Titchwell date from a time when it was 60–70 km (37–43 mi) from the sea. Other flint tools have been found dating from the Upper Paleolithic to the Neolithic."
  • inconsistent terminology: First World War, WWI, Second World War, WWII;
  • in the References, some of the short citations end in full stops, but others don't. For instance compare # 15 with # 16. This should be consistent;
  • in the Cited texts section, is there a year of publication for "Gorski, Richard (ed). Roles of the Sea in Medieval England"?
  • in the Cited texts section, some of the titles use title case, but others don't. For instance compare Gorski to Gray;
  • the duplicate link checker tool reveals a number of potentially overlinked terms: Mesolithic, North Sea, Brancaster, Blakeney Point, Scolt Head Island, Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Special Protection Area, Morston, A149 road;
  • "...and the remains of a Blenheim bomber were found at the north of the island" --> when were the remains found?
  • Added 2004
  • slightly repetitious: "The military camp held 160 men and was later used to hold prisoners of war" (held and hold --> perhaps reword slightly);
  • "Titchwell Marsh RSPB, Cley Marshes NWT and Holkham NNR each attracts 100,000 or more..." --> "Titchwell Marsh RSPB, Cley Marshes NWT and Holkham NNR each attract 100,000 or more..." AustralianRupert (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for review, amazing how many things I thought I'd checked and still missed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I'm not an environmental scientist either, so mainly copyediting points:
  • "The SSSI is economically important to the area because of the the tourists it attracts for birdwatching and other outdoor activities, and the combination of sensitive wildlife sites and large numbers of visitors means that management is necessary to protect vulnerable sites." - I'd unpack this sentence into two after "outdoor activities"
  • I'm not sure about this, seems a bit choppy when split. Done for now, see if any other comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The SSSI starts at the eastern boundary of The Wash SSSI between Old Hunstanton and Holme-next-the-Sea, and runs east for about 43 km (27 mi) to Kelling. The southern boundary runs roughly west to east except where it detours around towns and villages, and never crosses the A149 coast road." - I've got to admit that I couldn't really picture the shape of the SSSI from this description at all.
  • The SSSI is a long, narrow strip of coast —. With the infobox mao, should be enough? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " are "among the best in Europe ... flora is exceptionally diverse"." - given that this is an opinion/assessment and a direct quote, the article probably needs to explain whose it is.
  • "The latter two sites are also important as structures consisting mainly of shingle ridges. " - I wasn't sure from this why being made from shingle ridges made them important.
  • "Woodland is limited in this coastal strip," - it wasn't clear what coastal strip is meant here (the whole SSSI, or the land in the previous sentence?)
  • Made clear it's the SSSI
  • "Both Modern and..." - capitalisation of modern seems wrong to me
  • "To 1000 AD" section. It's all linked, but the mixture of dates (e.g. "10,000 years ago"), events (e.g. "the last glaciation") and geological periods (e.g. "the Mesolithic") and archaeological periods (e.g. "the Bronze Age") doesn't necessarily make it easy to follow time-wise. If you don't know when the Bronze Age begins in Norfolk, for example, calling something "rare Bronze Age survivals" doesn't tell you much about when they were made. My advice would be to give a date for the periods when using them.
  • Added periods for the various -lithics and Bronze Age (now piped to Bronze Age Britain). I've assumed that people roughly know the later stuff, Roman etc, to avoid a clutter of dates Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the ice retreated during the Mesolithic, the sea level rose, filling what is now the North Sea, and bringing the Norfolk coastline much closer to its present position." is repeated twice
  • "the makers of the long blades " - I'm assuming these are the blades in the previous paragraph, but it doesn't actually say in that they were long blades.
  • "Medieval and recent" section heading. "recent" seemed like an odd heading, as it barely touches the 20th century at all, let alone the 21st - would "early modern" be more appropriate?
  • "Four spigot mortar bases found at Holme dunes " - bases can mean two things in this context; I'm guessing you mean the base-plate of a mortar, rather than a military base for mortars. Worth clarifying, as non-military folks would probably think of the latter.
  • "There were no new fortifications along this coast at the start of WWII," - this is a long paragraph, and could usefully break at "Military activities continued..."
  • "The large number of visitors can have negative effects..." Much of this paragraph is in the conditional, with lots of "can"s. It wasn't clear to me if this meant that these negative effects were happening on occasion ("are sometimes having negative effects") or if there was a potential risk ("could have negative effects"). Hchc2009 (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for producing a good "cross-over" article! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/North_Norfolk_Coast_Site_of_Special_Scientific_Interest&oldid=1046372293"