Talk:Fenn's, Whixall and Bettisfield Mosses National Nature Reserve

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protected areas Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger proposal

I propose that Whixall Moss be merged into this page. Fenn's Moss (no page at present) and Whixall Moss do not appear to have clearly defined borders, and the only source I have found (Fenn's, Whixall & Bettisfield Mosses National Nature Reserve leaflet, a now-defunct online version of which is referenced by both existing pages) does not differentiate between the three mosses in most of its information. If more detailed sources can be found, then creation of three separate articles for the three mosses would be possible in future, but meanwhile one article would reduce duplicated effort. Any objections? Espresso Addict (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As no-one commented, I have merged in Whixall Moss. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

I have checked the article against the criteria for B-class.

Suitably referenced, with inline citations
Reasonable coverage - no obvious omissions or inaccuracies
Defined structure, with adequate lead
Reasonably well written for grammar and flow
Supporting materials - Infobox, map, images
Appropriately understandable

It meets most of these, but fails on criterion 3, as the lead contains facts which do not appear in the body of the article, and it does not adequately summarise the main points of the article. I am rating it C-class for now. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead reworked to summarise the main points of the article, and less important stuff moved into body of article. It now meets all criteria for B-class. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]