Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Lithuania/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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC) [1].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Lithuania

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

• Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Lithuania/archive1

Nominator(s): Tone 18:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I am continuing to work toward the sites in Northern Europe as a featured topic. There are four sites in Lithuania at the moment, with two more on the tentative list. I think the article is ready. Tone 18:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• As a side note, Estonia and Latvia are probably too short to transform into the FLs at the moment (I remember opposition in this regard when nominating List of World Heritage Sites in North Macedonia) but because of the tentative sites and maps they still deserve separate articles. With Iceland's nomination getting good support, Lithuania and Sweden in a while should therefore be the last from the batch. --Tone 18:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments – Seems a bit out of place to have a single-sentence paragraph (i.e. the second one re tentative list). Would recommend merging with the only other paragraph. For accessibility per MOS:DTT, replace all the asterisks with the {{asterisk}} template (or any other accessible symbol like {{dagger}}, {{double-dagger}}, {{&}}, {{Number sign}}, etc.) Replace the comma in-between "transnational" and "the Curonian Spit" with either a en-dash (–) or a semicolon. Same thing for "fortifications" and "the well-preserved Trakai" – either an en-dash or a semicolon in-between. Missing "The" before "Curonian Spit" in its description. "The northern part of the Spit is in Lithuania, while the southern part is …" Read the prose in detail – looks all good. Images utilized are licensed and tagged, with appropriate alt text. I do have to admit, a list of 6 total items does appear a bit on the short side. If there's subsequent consensus here that this is solid enough to stand on its own (with no appropriate list to merge it with), then I'll do a fuller review and/or vote in support. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support (from Neutral) – all comments addressed. Changed to support in light of the lack of objection from other reviewers below for this to be a standalone list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: I am participating in the WikiCup, and intend to claim points from the above review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

At the moment, several articles with 4 items on the list have been already promoted to FLs. Slovenia, Montenegro, Albania, Malta, for example. So I am considering this kind of the bottom limit for such articles. There is an article List of World Heritage Sites in Northern Europe which is too long, badly maintained, and does not cover the tentative sites in detail, so I do not see merging as an option. --Tone 16:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, Malta had 10 items in total when it was promoted (3 sites + 7 tentative). The rest had 8 items at time of promotion (both Montenegro and Albania was 4 + 4, while Slovenia had 3 + 5). I could understand why "leeway" was given for the examples above. But 6 total items seems to be cutting it. Especially considering how my FLC nom containing 11 items (7 + 4) was failed back in August 2012. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with all of the above, plus.....
  • "continuosly" - spelt wrong
  • "human occupancy of the area continued to the present day" => "human occupancy of the area continues to the present day"
  • "As of 2019, Lithuania lists two properties on its tentative list" - we're well into 2020 now.......
  • "so Kaunas was designated the Temporary capital of Lithuania" - no reason for capital T on temporary
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bloom6132:, @ChrisTheDude: Done, thank you. --Tone 15:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Intense logging activities in the 17th and 18th centuries caused the dunes moving towards the Lagoon". "caused the dunes moving" is ungrammatical.
• Curonian Spit. The description is mainly about the site's preservation and its natural importance. As it is a cultural site, I think you need to cover its architecture.
• "but human occupancy of the area continues to the present day." This is a bit misleading. The citation says "until modern times" and that since the cultural reserve was established in 1989 economic activty has been banned and the settlement managed for heritage protection.
• Trakai. More about its natural importance would be helpful.
• "During the Interwar period, Vilnius was administered by Poland, so Kaunas was designated the temporary capital of Lithuania." Although you have said above that Vilnius was the political centre, it would be helpful context to refer to it as the historic capital. Also "so Kaunas was designated" is a non-sequitur. Another town could have been chosen. Perhaps "During the Interwar period, the historic capital of Lithuania, Vilnius, was lost to Poland, and Kaunas was designated the temporary capital." Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: I'm through! It took me a while, sorry. --Tone 15:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

(WikiCup entry)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

*Not overwhelmed by the lead. I know it's a short list but this is really pushing the boundaries of what is considered featured material. Why obfuscate the name of Vilnius Castle Complex? "invasions and destructions," the "destructions" reads very odd to me here. " dating to Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque, and Neoclassical styles." dating to ... styles is peculiar. The exhibit those styles or date to those eras of architecture. ". Important sites" according to whom? "Curonian Spit" don't part link a formal title to a generic topic. "98 kilometres (61 mi) long sandy " use adj=on here. "since the prehistoric times." maybe ENG~VAR but I would drop "the". " the Lagoon" no need to capitalise. "of the Spit is in " likewise. "millenium" two n's in there. "The most interesting" according to whom? "late 14th " late-14th , or late in the 14th. Friedrich Georg Wilhelm Struve our article gives him a von. Link Trakai. "Magdeburg Rights" no need for capital R. " 1919-1939" en-dash. Same in ref 10. {{Lithuania topics}} doesn't appear to reference this list so should be removed. Check your other lists for this issue. That's all I have for a quick look. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: I'm through. I'd keep Lagoon and Spit capitalized as they refer to Curonian Lagoon and Curonian Spin, not to some lagoon or spit. I agree with other comments, thank you for a detailed check. --Tone 13:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review – pass

• All 10 sources used are sourced to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre. WP:SOURCE (part of WP:V) requires us to "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." There is no doubt that the UNESCO World Heritage Centre is a reliable published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. However, for the purposes of this list, it is not independent. For this article to meet WP:V, it will need a number of third-party, independent sources to verify the information within it. Harrias ^talk 22:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• @Harrias: I'll add some more sources, however, essentially they will always reference the list at least indirectly. We've had such discussions at previous lists nominations and this approach seemed acceptable. --Tone 09:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  That's fine. Ultimately, with this sort of list, we're always going to lean heavily on the primary source, but as long as there's a good smattering of third-party sources, we're fine. Harrias ^talk 09:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I think the sources I added will do. Thanks! --Tone 09:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #3 is missing publisher and author details.
• Ref #4 is missing author and date of publication.
• Ref #5 is missing the author. Harrias ^talk 13:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed. I miss the reflinks, when is it coming back? :/ --Tone 16:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
    • This? Harrias ^talk 18:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Anyway, that's all good now. Harrias ^talk 18:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

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