Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Madagascar/archive1

< 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 Dabomb87 18:49, 18 June 2011 [1].

List of World Heritage Sites in Madagascar

edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are few World Heritage Sites in Madagascar, this list was modeled on the format of another similar list that was awarded Featured List status (List of World Heritage Sites in Spain) and provides a much-needed basic reference point on Wikipedia for sites in Madagascar of internationally recognized value. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Is there snow on Madagascar's mountains?
  • In the map label, "Atsinanana" partially covers "of the" for me.
  • Not the most intriguing starting sentence, and not sure what the current guidelines as for boldfacing in featured lists are.
  • Just a technicality: "Increased illegal logging ... placed...". I believe UNESCO "placed" and think that this should be mentioned.
  • Why do you mention the French names of sites on the tentative list?
  • While on the tentative list, the names are not translated but rather retain the name given in the original language by the designating country. I have just added an explanation in the text. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did not see any explanation. Can you tell me what you added? If sites on the official tentative list are in French, shouldn't they also be in French in this article's table? bamse (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The names and descriptions of all tentative sites are recorded by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in the language selected by the nominating country. Tentative sites in Madagascar are named and described in French and have been unofficially translated below, along with the year each site was added to the tentative list." The tentative list on the Featured List for Spain has the entries listed in English only although they were originally entered in Spanish. Since the original-language entries are provided in the lead, I think it might add unnecessary bulk to provide them in French a second time. One option that might work better is to just provide the English translations in the lead, and then provide the French and English versions in the table. Which do you think would look better? Lemurbaby (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, missed those sentences. In my opinion, the French names should appear in the table, since those are official. As for how to organize the rest (whether to translate it to English in the table or in the lead, etc), I don't really care. bamse (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has the Intangible Cultural Heritage to do with the World Heritage Sites? That paragraph should be removed unless there is some connection.
  • UNESCO created this categorization so that world heritage beyond physical sites could be recognized and preserved. It's related (i.e. UNESCO world heritage) but not exactly the same (i.e. not physical), yet since Madagascar only has one such type of world heritage, it will most likely be overlooked by visitors to the site if it is not incorporated into the article somehow. If a similar explanation were provided here, would you find it adequate to justify the inclusion of the intangible heritage entry in the article? Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "Anjanaharibe-Sud" be marked separately as it is not a new site but an extension?
  • Coordinates of "South-western Madagascar, Mahafaly country" seem incorrect. Please check others as well.
  • Change section name: "List of sites" to "Sites" or "Inscribed sites" or something like it.
  • Not too fond of the "period" column in the first table, since only one of the three sites has a non-trivial entry there.
  • Meaning of UNESCO criteria (i...x) should be wikilinked or explained in the article somewhere.
  • There is a brief mention of what those mean in the article: "criteria i through vi are cultural, while vii through x are natural". I lifted that from the Featured List on WHS in Spain. Do you have something specific in mind when you suggest using a wikilink for those? Lemurbaby (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly you could link to this or better (if it has not been done yet/ask the people at the WH Sites Wikiproject) create a redirect to this section at Selection criteria of World Heritage Sites (or a similarly named article). Without telling what these criteria mean (more than "natural/cultural"), it is pretty pointless to list them in this table, IMHO. Replacing the numbers with "natural/cultural" would convey the same information. bamse (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I thought about wikilinking the first occurence of the word "criteria", i.e. in the "Inscribed sites" section under "UNESCO data" and not all of the "i", "ii",... bamse (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference titles in French should be translated with "trans_title" parameter.
  • Publisher should be wikilinked in references when possible.
  • More categories should be added.
  • I included the categories that I've seen on other World Heritage Sites articles. It might be best not to deviate from the norm, unless there is some Madagascar-specific information that needs to be included and doesn't fit in any of the existing categories. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a bit confused by the procedures for tentative sites. On the one hand you write, that "[tentative sites]...are under consideration by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee for elevation to official status." and on the other hand "...member states can maintain a list of tentative sites that they may consider for nomination" which sounds as if the sites on the tentative list are not yet nominated. Which is correct?
  • It is a bit clearer now. As for the sentence: Nominations to the World Heritage list are only accepted... By whom? Possibly need some rephrasing, if what you mean is: Sites are only nominated to the WH list, if they've been listed on a tentative list. bamse (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize that UNESCO often uses superlatives to justify inscription of World Heritage Sites. However I am not sure whether such emotional language is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Generally it is discouraged in wikipedia articles as far as I know. Examples from this list: "spectacular", "impressive", "stunning views", "extraordinary beauty",...
  • Not essential, but I would prefer more variety in the way the "Descriptions" are started, i.e. not always: "[Name of WH site] comprises..."

bamse (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe that the sentence: "The construction of the palace on a rocky outcropping 1675 meters above sea level provides views of rainforests extending east to the Indian Ocean and a series of waterfalls fed by the Onive river." could be removed as it is likely not essential for the designation of the cultural site "Royal compound of Tsinjoarivo". bamse (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. bamse (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • The abbreviation UNESCO needs to be fully spelled out somewhere (preferably at the start), with the abbreviated version in parentheses after it.
  • "renowned for their remarkable biodiversity" comes off as quite POV for the lead of a featured piece of work. I feel that should be toned down a bit.
  • Key: I see UNESCO Description here and Description in the table. The key should match what's in the table. If UNESCO isn't part of the heading in the table, don't put it in the key.
  • It would be nice to spell out UNESCO in the references as well.
  • If you're concerned about bulk, try spelling out UNESCO only in the first reference, and then provide the abbreviation in parentheses in that ref just like in the first sentence of the article. I've seen that in several FLs with numerous cites to one abbreviated publisher. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from WFC
A very well composed list, and the images are stunning. I would encourage you to submit this to Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions if it passes, as I'd love to see it on the main page one day!

After doing some WP:ACCESS work myself, and having checked through the English references to ensure that there is no paraphrasing in the table, I'm close to supporting. We could do with additional citations for the following two things though:

  • The claim that Andrianampoinimerina lived on the Royal Hill, and indeed something backing up the "most notably" part.
  • A link between the coup d'etat and an increase in logging.

Regards, —WFC— 18:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support —WFC— 16:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Image caption doesn't require a full stop as it's not a complete sentence.
  • Perhaps this is a matter of taste but I would link Madagascar in the lead, especially if you link Canada.
  • Ouch, so this is a list of three sites with some others being considered? Presumably if they are turned down we'll enter into a 3b debate here?
  • The sites on the tentative list don't get "turned down" per se - they are either selected by the committee for nomination to the World Heritage List or they aren't (but the committee doesn't "remove" anything from the tentative list unless it's to nominate it to the WHL). The tentative list is like a holding pen for sites until the committee decides to award WHS status to them. I'm not aware of instances where the nominating country decided to withdraw sites from the list - there's no harm in keeping them there indefinitely and that's what countries seem to prefer to do in the chance that one day, the committee members will look favorably on the site and nominate it to the WHL. So there shouldn't be any big changes for a while, and certainly not until after Madagascar gets its political situation sorted out, since it's being entirely shunned by the international community for the moment due to the 2009 coup. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2008, Madagascar..." it's now 2011...
  • I would prefer col widths to be the same from the actual sites to the proposed sites section (in Safari they're different).
  • Ref 4 needs an en-dash.
  • Ref 17 looks like it's missing a closing parenthesis.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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_Madagascar/archive1&oldid=1089078072"