Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina edit

List of World Heritage Sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Tone 14:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This list has been previously nominated together with List of World Heritage Sites in Montenegro which later became a FL. As I was not supposed to nominate two articles at the same time, this one was closed in order to be re-nominated later. I believe all issues that were raised during the Montenegro nomination have been fixed, so this one should be ready for a review. Tone 14:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentsWeak oppose
    • Is the word "succeed" the right verb to use?
    • Regarding Stećci Medieval Tombstones Graveyards, I am confused. I was trying to decipher the last three sentences, which took several minutes. I hope someone else may suggest a better version.
    • I couldn't find in the reference provided that 20 out of 28 sites are located in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the main page, it says 22 sites, but it's not referenced either.
      • I am not saying this is wrong, I am saying this is not referenced. Change the reference to the one where it says or lists 20 sites of Stecci in Bosnia.
    • How do you sort the "UNESCO data"? I can't figure out the order.
      • On second thought, I believe we need a footnote stating that this column sorts by the first criterion number because it's not obvious at all.
    • Same thing with the "sites" column in the tentative section. What is the sorting order?
      • There is a location column already for people to sort by location, why is this column sorting by location as well?

--Cheetah (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, BH technically succeeded the convention because Yugoslavia had previously signed it. The Stecci article has a table with all of them listed and 20 are in BH so that page's lead appears to be wrong. I believe the UNESCO data sorts by the first criterion number but that's not a good way to sort something; I'd make it unsortable. The tentative site name sorting order is by the key word or place name, which seems reasonable to me. I don't see any issues and Support Reywas92Talk 03:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you answered the comments already, thank you. Yes, the sorting issue has been discussed before, what we have at the moment seems like a good compromise. --Tone 20:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • " Bosnia and Herzegovina succeeded the convention". I see that this has been discussed above, but it does not make sense. Maybe " Bosnia and Herzegovina inherited Yugoslavia's accession to the convention".
    • Could be. I'll leave this decision to native speakers.
  • "shared with Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro" "shared with" does not sound right to me. How about "is partly in"
    • This is the standard way we are using in all World Heritage lists, but again, I'm open to changing it.
  • "Old Bridge Area of the Old City of Mostar" This says that an area of the city has been designated, but the description says it is only the bridge itself.
    • Added a sentence.
  • "the Geniza (a graveyard for damaged books)" The article on Geniza says worn out, not damaged.
    • Good point, fixed.
  • With mixed sites, you only give details of its significance under one criterion. You should give both.
    • Not really sure what you mean here. Mixed sites typically have some significance regarding the setting and the human impact. I think this is always mentioned to some level. The fact is, though, that the tentative sites sometimes have not fully-fleshed nominations, as this is only a step in the process.
  • I meant that the description should explain how the site meets both the cultural and natural criteria, but as I see that the sources do not always explain both I will drop this point. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not helpful to give the criteria as i to x without explanation. I think you should either delete or add a table explaining them.
    • Again, this is something we use in all articles. But I get your point - I added a link to the list of the criteria. Thanks! --Tone 15:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good article, but it needs a bit more work. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment "In the following table" should be removed as it is redundant, but that whole sentence is better as a footnote or endnote than an introductory sentence. Mattximus (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We've played with this sentence in the previous nomination but ultimately decided it is better if it stays as it is. Not sure. --Tone 10:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago it was determined that featured lists should not have tautological sentences such as "this is a list of", "this table has", "in the following table", etc. The review below on the black mirror episodes has an identical recommendation by another user which generally applies here:
""The following table lists [...]" is clunky. Try summarizing the contents of the table instead (e.g. "XX [entries] have [met the inclusion criteria for the table]")." Mattximus (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we now have a good solution. With a reference as well. --Tone 08:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This works! Mattximus (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • All images should have WP:ALT text for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons.
    • Done.
  • In the following table, the UNESCO data includes the site's reference number and the criteria it was listed under: criteria i through vi are cultural, whereas vii through x are natural. – this should be rewritten as something along the lines of "UNESCO lists sites under ten criteria; each entry must meet at least one of the criteria. Criteria i through vi are cultural, whereas vii through x are natural." along with a citation (I'd suggest this link as the source).
    • Done.
  • In the first table, I'd suggest splitting the "UNESCO data" column in two: one for the reference number, and one for the criteria.
    • This style is consistent with other articles, we've been playing a lot with it but this is what we got at the end. If we go for changes, it would influence many articles.
      • Okay. I would then suggest changing "UNESCO data" to "UNESCO reference number and criteria". TompaDompa (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Possible, though this would be rather lengthy. Let's see some more opinions on this one. Open to suggestions.
          • Right now, it's not explained anywhere that the first number is the UNESCO reference number. You could also just add an WP:Explanatory footnote saying "UNESCO reference number and criteria". TompaDompa (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • What about using abbreviation template? I think this works nicely. --Tone 08:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reader is almost certainly not familiar with the specific UNESCO criteria, so I'd try to put more emphasis on cultural vs. natural rather than the individual criteria met in the tables.
    • Now that we have a reference to it, does it solve the problem?
      • I was thinking maybe write "cultural: v" rather than "v (cultural)", but now I'm thinking just add <br> for a line break before "(cultural)". For the first table, I'd also add a line break after the reference number. TompaDompa (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done.
          • You didn't add <br> after the UNESCO reference numbers. TompaDompa (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I know, I don't think too many breaks are helpful. I'd leave it as it is. --Tone 08:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think it would be helpful as it separates two completely different kinds of information, and conservation of vertical space is not an issue since the images require a certain cell height to make out anyway, but it's not a deal-breaker to me. TompaDompa (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stećci (sing. stećak) are – use {{abbr|sing.|singular}} for sing..
    • Done.
  • What does (N.I.) mean?
    • No idea, actually. This is the name of the site per ref. Though the fact is that the nomination is from 1997 so it probably had some meaning then.
  • "Vjetrenica" is misspelled as "Vjeternica" in the description.
  • "orogenesis" should be linked.
  • "Perućica" is misspelled as "Peručica" in the description.
  • "ossuary" should be linked.
  • The "See also" section should be above the "References" section.
    • All of the above, fixed. --Tone 08:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great job. TompaDompa (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed. I see that there's some vagueness about whether CrazyCheetah's comments got addressed from a month ago, but it appears they all have been (at least to my satisfaction) so I'm promoting. --PresN 02:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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/List_of_World_Heritage_Sites_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina/archive2&oldid=1138485188"