Talk:Biodiversity of Wales

Ecology Mid‑importance

	Ecology portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Wales Mid‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Evolutionary biology Low‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biology Low‑importance

	Biology portal Biodiversity of Wales is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Biodiversity of Wales was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 3, 2012). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Did you know

Good article nominee

I started the talk page for the Good article nomination.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Biodiversity of Wales/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just claiming this now. Review to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud you for taking on this subject, but I'm afraid that the article is not ready for GA status yet. I'm afraid that there are a number of problems; I am not going to go into excessive detail, but hopefully I can point you in the right direction.

Some areas lack sourcing. For instance, the "evolution" section is seemingly completely unsourced, and has citation needed tags. Ideally, everything in the article should be sourced to published reliable sources.
The coverage seems extremely patchy. For instance, why do you list only three trees, and why those in particular? Are these the three most common trees in Wales? I know they're not the only ones.
There doesn't seem to be anything on fungi, other than an (inaccurate) mention in the lead. "Common plant species found in Britain include bryophytes (mosses and liverworts), lichens and fungi due to the unique climate in Wales." Fungi are not plants, and this sentence doesn't seem to make much sense. (As an aside, this failure to adequately cover fungi is not unique to this article- see "Raising the profile of fungi on the Internet: editing Wikipedia", Fungal Conservation.)
Remember that specific names (for instance, Amanita muscaria) should be italicised. Common names should not be.
Don't be scared of linking when species do not have an article- redlinks are not a bad thing.
Section titles should use sentence case. So, for instance, "Lower Plants" is wrong; "Lower plants" is right.
Inconsistency between lists and prose. For instance, compare the section on endemic flowering plants to the section on endemic reptiles.
The gallery is not adding anything to the article. The use of illustrations to show key species and such is definitely a good idea, but a block of images isn't particularly useful.
Citation templates will help you format your footnotes, but the references at the moment are not ideal. A few references to conservation websites probably isn't too bad, but the article would ideally be based on published books and academic articles. Some of the items in the further reading list would be good examples; with some, it's hard to see what they're doing there at all.

I'm sorry if this seems a little harsh, but this article is not close to GA status. Perhaps, as this is a longer article, it would benefit from the use of a peer review once you have dealt with my thoughts. I hope my comments are helpful- feel free to contact me on my talk page if there is anything in particular with which you need guidance or help. J Milburn (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this sentence does not make sense

"Common plant species found in Britain include bryophytes (mosses and liverworts), lichens and fungi due to the unique climate in Wales".... I have no idea how to fix it. Is it supposed to be found in Wales? Removing pending clarification.

Copy edit

The initial copy edit has been completed and addressed minor grammatical or reference copy-paste errors (author names all capitalized or missing periods after initials). A few minor phrasing or run-on sentence adjustments have been made.

More importantly, the issues brought up in the GA Review should be addressed. This would include such basics as deciding upon and implementing a consistent layout, removing bulleted lists, etc. I have added expert requests to several relevant WikiProjects to attract editors who may contribute much-needed text.

Reviewing other "biodiversity" articles may be helpful in terms of layout and supporting text guidance.

I do not necessarily agree that the gallery is not adding anything to the article; however, the selection and organization of images seems to be random. Suggest adding a gallery within each section, i.e., "Elements" and "Endemism", instead, or intro text to the gallery and organization of images. If gallery is kept, I suggest images should reflect only the species listed w/in the article and should be expanded to include examples of insects, fungi and lichens.

Finally, while examples of the biodiversity of Wales are certainly required, the current format seems to show an attempt at making this page a field guide, with lists of species, rather than an informed text. Future edits must add information, answering questions about the topic, rather than just listing species. For example, in the endemic trees section, the current version reads, "Native species include ash, birch, oak, willow, holly, juniper, Scots pine and yew.[11] Planting and conservation of natives species is encouraged, because they tend to better survive the local environment. They also help balance the biodiversity and provide wood and timbers." The last two sentences are so generic as to be unhelpful and should add something specific to the topic, instead. I did not remove them in the copy edit, as I hope they will prove a foundation for additional text/edits by an expert. JourneySarah (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Section 74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

The source below was removed during the initial copy edit. Suggest adding some sort of intro to connect this information to the purpose of the article and adding a paraphrase of the data below, rather than this difficult-to-read "section". JourneySarah (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Section 74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

The three main elements of the new duties are:

a general duty on all ministers, government departments and National Assembly of Wales to have regard to the Biodiversity Convention;
a duty to list the most important species and habitat types for biodiversity conservation; and
a specific duty, on the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly of Wales, to further their conservation and to encourage other to do likewise.^[1]

In Wales, the Environment Strategy for Wales identifies three key outcomes that needed to be met:

The loss of biodiversity has been halted and we can see a definite recovery in the number range and genetic diversity of species, including those species that need very specific conditions to survive;
The wider environment is more favourable to biodiversity through appropriate management, reduced habitat fragmentation and increased extent and interconnectivity of habitats; and
Sites of international, Welsh and local importance are in a favourable condition to support the species and habitats for which they have been identified.^[2]

References

^ John Brady, Environmental Management in Organizations: The IEMA Handbook, Earthscan, 2012. ISBN 1853839760, ISBN 9781853839764. p358.
^ Cite error: The named reference defra was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Biodiversity template

Why is the Biodiversity template included? It doesn't link to any specific reference to Welsh biodiversity. I think it should be removed. JourneySarah (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Biodiversity of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biodiversity of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050825002841/http://stort.unep-wcmc.org/imaps/gb2002/book/viewer.htm to http://stort.unep-wcmc.org/imaps/gb2002/book/viewer.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] John Brady, Environmental Management in Organizations: The IEMA Handbook, Earthscan, 2012. ISBN 1853839760, ISBN 9781853839764. p358.

[defra-2] Cite error: The named reference defra was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]