Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina/archive2
- 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 | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina/archive1
- Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina/archive2
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 opposeIs 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.
- Changed - better I hope. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "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.
- Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "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]
- Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 15 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]
- I think we now have a good solution. With a reference as well. --Tone 08:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- ""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]
- 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:
Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
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.