Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of protected areas of Svalbard/archive1

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 22:47, 25 May 2010 [1].

List of protected areas of Svalbard

Featured list candidates/List of protected areas of Svalbard/archive1

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete list of all natural protected areas of Svalbard, perhaps the most accessible part of the high Arctic in the world. If anything is not to your liking, you know what to do. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comments - Sandman888 (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"comprising the northernmost part of Norway." well its an island far north of mainland Norway, not a part of it.
- That would be akin to saying Alaska is not part of the US. Svalbard is a full part of Norway. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - More akin to saying that Greenland is comprising the northernmost part of Denmark. And if I remember correctly Svalbard is not a fully de facto part of Norway, as Russia, Japan and various other countries has mining rights etc. up there, meaning there exist some limited sovereignty wrt Svalbard.Sandman888 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Based on the map on Norway and the article Svalbard, it would seem it is a part of Norway and not merely a possession of it. Some activities are restricted due to treaty, but that makes it no less a part of the country. "The Spitsbergen Treaty (also known as the Svalbard Treaty) of February 9, 1920, recognizes the full and absolute sovereignty of Norway over the arctic archipelago of Spitsbergen (now called Svalbard). Bouvet Island and Peter I Island are dependent territories (Norwegian: biland) of Norway but are not considered part of the Kingdom." --Golbez (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
there are quite a few redlinks.
- Yes, and those are all bird sanctuaries. While notable, all an article would contain is probably in this list already with the sources I have at hand. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
why is the Svalbard Protection Act under external data?
- It is a relevant external link, as there is not article on either it or protection on Svalbard in general. It is not suitable as a reference, as it is a primary source. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - almost nobody would understand it as its in Norwegian.Sandman888 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there any English sources for (some of) this?
- Most of the information is sourced from "Protected Areas in Svalbard", which is in English. Concerning ref 4, it is a commentary on the law, and is the sort of information which is not readily available in English. Refs 8 through 36 contain a database entry for each protected area, and is only used to reference the area. No English sources exist that presents this information, so using a Norwegian source is fine. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ref4 is in Norwegian, use same format to designate language in ext. links
- Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the various databases lists Susan Barr as primary author of the first book?
- According to the book itself, Torkildsen is presented as the main author. This is also supported by for instance this library entry and the entry at BIBSYS lists Torkildsen first in the title field. From the book itself, Barr was in no way presented as the main author. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
X sq mil doesnt sort properly on my mac.
- Is this by getting four possible outcomes? Let me take a look at this, as I see no immediate reason for the malfunction. I suspect it has something to do with the mix of emdashes and numbers, even though I tried to sort the emdashes as numbers. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - yep, thats right. In the article List_of_FC_Barcelona_players I used SortKey to solve emdash sorting Sandman888 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I tried to fix it up, but no it just acts irrational, sorting by alphabet instead of numbers half the time. Argh. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have now circumvented the issue. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ref colum shd be unsortable.
- Done. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't there exist some better images?
- With the current layout, I don't think there is room for more than one image plus the map. I chose that image because it both showed the wilderness, the winter and the animals. There are (I believe) seven areas with images, so putting in thumbnail will, to my opinion, not look good. Do you prefer File:Prins-karls-forrland pho.jpg, File:Uria lomvia 2.jpg or File:Morsy1 (js).jpg? If you feel something else is better, or want more (resulting in a compromise on table width) then that is okay for me. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Prins-karls-forrland_pho.jpg is IMO way better than the current.Sandman888 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Image replaced. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time to review the list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough room for two more image to the right of the table. Ruslik_Zero 17:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I found no problems. Ruslik_Zero 17:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with the above statement, great work! --TIAYN (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

~~Since it is not wikilinked, could you shortly explain in the text what a "geotope" is?~~
- I wikilinked it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perfect! bamse (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is an article missing in: " Ten of the bird sanctuaries and Moffen Nature Reserve...". Also not sure about the meaning of the "while" in the same sentence.
- Think I fixed it. If you feel it is still not right, please be bold and correct it yourself, as it reads okay for me now. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added a "the". Please revert if it is wrong. I am not a native English writer. bamse (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Sixteen species are on the IUCN Red List" refers to all species, or animals only or seabirds only?~~
- Specified. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. bamse (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~"geotop" or "geotope"?~~
- "Geotop" is Norwegian, so I've fixed that. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
~~Did you consider marking the Ramsar sites in the table with color and/or label (like in the railway tables)?~~
- I did; the reason I chose this solution is that it makes it possible to sort to find the Ramsar sites, while at the same time making it possible to sort to get bird sanctuaries. I can always add color if you feel it is necessary as well, but that would "wreck" the sorting. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure why it would break sorting. If you have "Bird Sanctuary" (for the non-Ramsar sites) and "Bird Sanctuary†" (for the Ramsar sites) it would still separate the two when sorting, no? If necessary one could add hidden sort keys to make it sort properly. Anyway, color is up to personal preference and I don't feel strongly about this point. bamse (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. bamse (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Why are the land/marine columns with a lower precision than the size columns?~~
- Because they are using two different sources. The source that specifies the marine/land values is only accurate to the km², while the sources for the total area is accurate to the decare. For the scale the article is covering, I felt these were appropriate sizes, particularly since some of the sanctuaries are less than a square kilometer. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds reasonable. As a related question: why are there hyphens in some of the land/marine sizes? Lack of sources? bamse (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. bamse (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sorting needs to be fixed.~~
- Working on it, but I don't know why it is malfunctioning. No-one has answered at an inquiry at Help talk:Sorting, so if you know anything about the issue, please take a look. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll have a look at it, though table sorting on wikipedia often confuses me. bamse (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I tried all kinds of options but it still does not sort properly. Sorry. Apart from finding sources in order to replace the hyphens, I can only think of splitting off the bird sanctuaries in a separate table (without land/marine columns). Or make the critical columns unsortable. bamse (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've split it into two tables. This solves several issues, although it is not optimal. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. bamse (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~The picture possibly shows only part of the national park and should therefore get another caption. Something like "X in the Forlandet National Park"~~
- Specified more accurately. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very good. bamse (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bamse (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All comments have been (patiently) addressed. bamse (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"an Arctic, wilderness archipelago" not sure we need that comma.
"Five of the bird sanctuaries are Ramsar sites. Fourteen of the bird sanctuaries are islands" merge?
"tentative list for nomination" it's a list or it isn't, not tentative, perhaps proposed?
- This is the wording used by UNESCO. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"for conservation lays with " lies with?
"Svalbard reindeer" if this is a unique species, then link to the specific species. It may be a redlink but it's more accurate than linking to a generic Reindeer.
- Articles exist in Norwegian and German, so it is a plausible article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the icon of Svalbard" sorry to be a pain but do you have a ref for this?
- Yes, that probably needs a better ref. As I have no appropriate books at my side and I can't find anything suitable online. I've removed it for the meantime, but I'll readd it if I can find a ref (for instance the next time I'm into a library). Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fifteen to twenty->15 to 20.
thirty types->30 types.
"Particularly Bjørnøya" -> "In particular, Bj..."
"re important breeding ground for seabirds" grounds
kilometers or kilometres?
File:Svalbard protected areas map with names.svg - another map which most certainly contravenes WP:ACCESS. If you're colour blind then how do you interpret this?
- I've added a legend; if there is more that is needed, then tell me. I've run it through a few online color-blindness tests and the colors are distinguishable. Isn't .svg just great :)
What's the difference between 0 and – in the marine area columns?
- —: no data; 0 = zero. Should this be explained further in the text? Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a general issue with the fact that this is English Wikipedia and virtually all of your references are not in English.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Reg. sources; on this recently promoted FL List of National Treasures of Japan (temples), and all of the others Japanese treasures FL, they almost solely rely on non-English refs, and that wasn't seen as an issue. I think there is a general acceptance that non-English sources are valid. Sandman888 (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:RSUE. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material." And I'm quite certain that no English source can be found for the Norwegian ones used. So there is no "general issue" as I see it, there is no issue at all. Sandman888 (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, and the same guideline also says "When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote", I'm trying to avoid this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You are trying to avoid that other editors request it? As I see it, if no-one request it (and the stuff that is cited is hardly controversial), then it doesn't matter. Sandman888 (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I'm trying to avoid the fact that we have virtually zero chance of proving that the information cited here is correct without requesting a translation. That's why I cited WP:RSUE. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:RSUE is fairly clear on the matter: Where English sources exist that are of equal or better quality, English sources are preferred. In most of the areas I work, English sources (reliable or not) are seldom available, and often the short summaries I send to FLC has more English sources than typical articles. Compiling lists from topics from a non-English-speaking country normally requires that at least some of the information be sourced from non-English sources, because the information at the necessary detail is not available in English. In this article, most of the information is from the directorate's (online) English brochure on Svalbard's protected areas. The only things from a Norwegian source is "although vegetation only covers 10% of the island group." (from Torkildesen) and the size of bird sanctuaries (from the directorate's database). The sanctuaries existence, date and location can be verified from the brochure, as can the size of the other areas (with one less significant figure). So although a lot of the number of sources are in Norwegian, very little of the content is actually being sourced from Norwegian. And for web sites, there is always Google Translate and similar services. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time for the review. Unless otherwise noted, I have amended per your comments. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~conditional~~ support a few comments still though. Sandman888 (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

make an introduction to the bird sanctuaries where you mention they where all established in 1973, a constant column looks silly.
said column cd easily have a picture at the right.

Conditions met. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice pictures. I'd wl ramsar sites in key. Sandman888 (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linked. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.