Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Extreme points of India

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 User:Matthewedwards 07:51, 26 September 2008 [1].

Extreme points of India

Saw this article today, and decided to clean it up and list it on FLC. Note: References to this topic are unavailable. Because of the nature of such a list, I had to cite Google Earth coordinates. I believe the coordinates and boundaries of Google Earth are reliable enough to merit referencing. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about google books. Is it possible that you could also site a book (surely there must be an atlas that contains this information). Also, it would be great if you could align the table widths. And is this the write name for the article? Would "Extreme geographical points of India" be better? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, the article title is consistent with the titles of many related articles, such as Extreme points of Earth and the other articles in the categories Category:Extreme points of Earth and Category:Extreme points by country. --Orlady (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - interesting idea, very interesting! References may be an issue. However, I'll skip that for now and just head for review of content.

"This is a list of ..." - no, please, start with something engaging. Remember our FAs don't start with "This is an article..." so FLs should do the equivalent.
Four para lead is too much for an article of this length - go for two, max.
I think you'd be entitled to wikilink India and Pakistan in the lead.
And, since it's geographically interesting, you could also link PR of China?
"...administered by India, by is disputed by ..." - English goes astray here a little...
"eastern-most" and "northernmost" - to hyphenate or not to hyphenate, that is the question...
"centre-most" - is this for real? Can you tell me what this means for a land mass that is irregular in shape? Is it the average lat/long derived from the extremes? Is it notable or is it just OR? Presumably you could end up with an average height as well?
UT probably needs expanding in that table heading.
Don't like the bold in the North, South etc.
Probably worth a note somewhere to state that co-ordinates are given in decimal lat/long using (presumably) WGS84?
Keep accuracies of geo-locations the same.
Lowest point seems to use both a hyphen and an en/em dash?
All references should use {{cite web}} and have accessdate, title as a min..

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. My PC suddenly went kaput two hours back, not sure when I can address the above. Currently using a laptop > Bluetooth > GPRS to connect; so very slow. Just like to clarify:

The latest MoS rules against linking India, China and other well-known entities. You'll find it on the latest signpost (Sorry, can't wikilink... will take me ages to do that)
- I would think that, in an article on geography, linking the other countries is useful, since it leads to information on their own geography, borders, etc. It's not like saying "He went on a pilgrimage to India in 1973", where a linked India adds nothing. --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite so, that's what I'm getting at. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lowest point, not sure if anything can be done... seems to be a problem with {{convert}}. Would have to raise it there.
About the accuracy, Kuttanad precision would have to be skipped, since its not a point, rather a region with varying depths. Also not sure if mentioning the insignificant zeroes would help.
Centre-most is real. Not sure how they derived it, but you can check the source (Nagpur district collector's office website), or Google "Nagpur centre India"
I didn't think citeweb was necessary for google earth, seemed like an overkill. But, ok, I'll do it, wouldn't hurt.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my system is back up. Replies:

I've made all the changes as suggested above
Managed to get a reliable source for the coordinates (Manorama Yearbook) -- But this only cites the coordinates as per India's claim.
Posted a query on Template:Convert on the dash/hyphen thingy.

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will you do one for Australia? Tony (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, after this gets featured and all issues sorted out. Australia is lucky, it has the pole of inaccessibility field that can also be added, =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments redux (on this version)

The lead is still a little on the light side. WP:WIAFL criterion 2 would seek an "engaging lead" etc etc so can you work on this?
Southernmost extreme point's longitude appears to be one less d.p. than the others.
It's possibly worth mentioning what negative means in terms of these co-ords, i.e. +ve lat = northern hemisphere, -ve lat = southern hemisphere, +ve long = east of Greenwich meridian, -ve long = west of GM.
Refs don't need to sort and should be in numerical order unless there's a really good reason not to list them in numerical order.
Blank cells worry me - e.g. the two blank Bordering entity cells - it's obvious to you, as an expert, but it's worth footnoting or n/a or similar in there for the rest of us.
Your first col is "Heading" - is "Centre" really a heading?
You're aware of it but highest within India is referenceless.
Full stop at the end of the footnote.
3 refs (4, 8 & 10) have rogue ]'s.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fixed all, and split the "most central" into a new section. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unless the extremes used to determine the most central point are determined, or it is dropped entirely. Without those specifics the notations is downright useless. Circeus (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Could you clarify what you mean? Are you saying that I need to either remove the central point OR mention the methods used to arrive at that value? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Think I have got you, and have removed the text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still oppose the nomination? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. I so rarely comment on FC noms anymore I tend to forget when I do. support Circeus (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the correct name of the article is Extreme geographic points of India. Nergaal (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2] suggests that we currently use "Extreme points" for all of these. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SatyrTN comments

I'm not sure the usefulness of sortability for these tables. Most are free text, so sorting them makes no sense. The only ones that *would* make sense are the "Heading" and/or the coordinates. Since both of those are sort of equal, there's really no point. Just my opinion. I'll Conditionally Support. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've removed the unnecessary ones. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Support this FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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