The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 23:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC) [1]. reply
Essex Wildlife Trust ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
This list is in the same format as two wildlife trust FLCs, Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust and London Wildlife Trust. Essex is especially interesting because it has a number of internationally important wetland sites on its coast. Dudley Miles ( talk) 10:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC) reply
|
Support - This nomination caught my eye while transcluding my own nomination. Overall, this is a well-polished and informative list, and I have no concerns at all about the depth or accuracy of the content. I've read through the descriptions and only noticed a few minor things that could potentially be improved, as listed below...
Nice work! – Juliancolton | Talk 04:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Comments –
Source Review: references are clean like the prior lists, and spotchecks show the information covered and no instances of close paraphrasing. Promoting. -- Pres N 16:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 23:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC) [1]. reply
Essex Wildlife Trust ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
This list is in the same format as two wildlife trust FLCs, Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust and London Wildlife Trust. Essex is especially interesting because it has a number of internationally important wetland sites on its coast. Dudley Miles ( talk) 10:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC) reply
|
Support - This nomination caught my eye while transcluding my own nomination. Overall, this is a well-polished and informative list, and I have no concerns at all about the depth or accuracy of the content. I've read through the descriptions and only noticed a few minor things that could potentially be improved, as listed below...
Nice work! – Juliancolton | Talk 04:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Comments –
Source Review: references are clean like the prior lists, and spotchecks show the information covered and no instances of close paraphrasing. Promoting. -- Pres N 16:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC) reply