Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Monuments of the United States/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [1].

List of National Monuments of the United States[edit]

Nominator(s): Reywas92Talk
Toolbox

I have worked significantly on this list, adding references to every listing, greatly expanding the monument descriptions, and writing a lead. I'm not great with prose, so specific comments would be helpful, including any additions or changes to the lead I have forgot, as well as anything needing a reference. The biggest problem will surely be the images, so simply give me the name of the monument and I will fix or replace the image. Thanks, Reywas92Talk 22:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

LEAD
  • The aim was to protect all historic and prehistoric sites on United States federal lands and to prohibit excavation or destruction of these antiquities.[2] - remove the ref from here since the following sentence is also source with ref#2
    • Done
  • The first National Monument was Devils Tower in Wyoming, proclaimed by Theodore Roosevelt on September 24, 1906. - add "built" or "created" before was
    • Done
  • Most recently, George W. Bush created three new Marine National Monuments in the Pacific Ocean on January 6, 2009. - the Pacific is pretty big, any more precise location?
    • No. They are three different monuments in different parts of the Ocean.
  • Arizona has the most National Monuments, with 18, followed by New Mexico, 11, and California, 10. - add "with" before the other numbers
    • Done
  • National Monuments are in 27 states, as well as the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Minor Outlying Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. - 1)(optional) But you should add "location" before in 2)add "in" before the District of Columbia
    • Done
  • Fifty-four National Monuments protect places of natural significance, including 9 geological sites, 7 marine sites, and 5 volcanic sites. - be consistent with the number formatting, fifty-four should be "54"
    • Done, though a reviewer said in a previous FL not to use a numeral to start a sentence. But I don't want to write them all out.
  • Twenty-four National Monuments are associated with Native Americans. Twenty-one are other historical sites, including 10 forts. - twenty four should be "24"
    • Done
  • Fifteen presidents have created National Monuments since its beginning; only Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush did not. - 1)fifteen should be "15" 2)Since what beginning? 3)did should be "have"
    • Done; removed have instead.
  • Bill Clinton created the most monuments, 19, and expanded three others. - be consistent with the number formatting, three should be "3"
    • Done, but for single digits you're not supposed to use the numeral.
      • Yeah, but for other single digits in the lead you use numbers, so you have to go through it and review it for accuracy in its formatting.--TRUCO 503 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theodore Roosevelt designated 18 National Monuments, though only nine remain. - 1)Teddy Roose is already linked and spelled before, so it should only be mentioned as "Roosevelt" since FDR is not mentioned in the lead. 2)though should have a comma after it
    • I just delinked him. To be consistent with the other presidents I kept the full name. No, another comma does not belong there.
      • Its not correct however when you already spelled it out before, it clutters the lead and is repetitive. Sorry, I was thinking about the word "however".--TRUCO 503 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sites that are no longer National Monuments can be found at List of areas in the United States National Park System#Decommissioned National Monuments - period needed at the end
    • Done
  • Some of the paragraphs need to be merged together, such as the second and third; and the fourth and fifth.
    • Done
MONUMENTS TABLE
  • The table and wording on the monuments maintained by each bureau should be made into a separate section.
    • Will this be done?--TRUCO 503 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was done, unless you were looking for something else. Reywas92Talk 18:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend seeking a copyedit of the descriptions, these are just some of the problems I found.
    • Will this be sought?--TRUCO 503 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of Tongass National Forest in the Alaska Panhandle, Admiralty Island has more brown bears than the entire lower 48 states. - the last part is a bit trivial. Is it that notable?
    • I took all the information from their respective articles. There isn't much about Admiralty Island, so I took that, but I can remove it if you really want.
      • I would because its trivial and not really adding to the description (the part about the bears)--TRUCO 503 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was discovered in 1991 during excavations for a new Federal building. - federal doesn't need to be capitalized
    • Done
  • Surprise Lake within the volcano's six-mile wide, 2,500 ft. deep caldera is the source of the Aniakchak River. - comma after caldera
    • Done, and after Lake
REFERENCES
  • Ref #1 needs a publisher.
    • Done, though that one's harder because the three links come from a template.
  • Are different cite templates being used? I see different formats of the dates.
    • Yes, but that's not it. I just copy and pasted the dates from the monuments' websites, and they were in different styles. Fixed.
  • --TRUCO 503 21:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your review! All comments are fixed. I hope with some more reviewing you can support. Reywas92Talk 00:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I don't have time to go through the entire article; please find someone to proofread it.

    • I will be asking some others to copyedit.
  • "mostly prehistoric Indian ruins and artifacts — collectively termed antiquities — on federal lands in the West." Em dashes should be unspaced.
    • Done
  • "There are one hundred National Monuments in the United States." Not sure why the number is not in numerals.
    • Done
  • "though Congress can create monuments as well" I don't think "create" is the correct word here. Congress did not build the monuments themselves.
    • Changed to designate
  • "Many National Monuments would later become National Parks." Unnecessary.
    • Removed
  • "The first National Monument created was Devils Tower in Wyoming, proclaimed by Theodore Roosevelt" Add "as such" after "proclaimed".
    • Done
  • "National Monuments are located in 27 states"
    • Done, but that's what Truco said
  • "54 National Monuments protect places of natural significance, including 9 geological sites, 7 marine sites, and 5 volcanic sites." Don't start sentences with numerals. It is better to change all these numerals in this sentence to words, because numbers under ten should be written out and comparable quantities should be written the same.
    • Done
  • "24 National Monuments are associated with Native Americans. 21 are other historical sites, including 10 forts. 15 presidents created National Monuments since the program's beginning; only Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush did not." Same comment here.
    • Done
  • "some of which later became National Parks."
    • Done
  • "though only nine remain."-->although only 9 remain.
    • Only did although, so the numeral isn't inconsistent with the others.
  • "Sites that are no longer National Monuments can be found at List of areas in the United States National Park System#Decommissioned National Monuments." I would put this in the see also section.
    • Done
  • "There is also the Greens Creek mine and the Point Retreat Light on this seventh-largest US island."-->The Greens Creek mine and the Point Retreat Light are also on the seventh-largest US island. Watch the inconsistency with "US" and U.S. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Thanks for your comments, I will get further proofreading. Reywas92Talk 18:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose from Nev1 (talk · contribs)

  • It feels like there should be a lead image, perhaps a shot of one of the better known monuments or maybe a map. (I know there’s a "map of all coordinates" link, but maybe have a map outlining the states with colour coding for the number of monuments in each one. This would give an overall impression of the distribution of monuments.)
    • I have added a lead poster of the first NM. I could make a map if really necessary, but that's a lot of work and there's already the coordinates map as well as an external link with one.
      • Nice. It's not necessary to draw the map; it might be useful, but isn't important. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "… prohibit excavation or destruction of these antiquities": that’s not actually what the source provided says. Buried material can be excavated as part of preservation.
    • Reworded.
  • It's mentioned that some of the monuments Roosevelt designated have since been delisted. I think it would be worthwhile explaining under what circumstances this can happen and whether it's happened to any other monuments.
    • Well, it can happen under any circumstance. It's often the president's call. Some were upgraded to National Park, others given to state control. It has happened to a lot of monuments, and the link to the partial list is in the see also, per Dabomb's comment. I'll see what I can do.
      • Can a site be a National Monument and a National Park? Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. I'll mention something along those lines.
  • Is the year the monument was formed really relevant? Surely the date it was formed is pretty much on a whim? By all means, mention it in the monument's individual article, but I'm not convinced it needs to be mentioned here. Maybe it would be more useful to give the date the monument was built/formed (in the non-legislative sense).
    • I find it to be plenty relevant. It says how long it's been protected and one can tell what president proclaimed it, and it can be sorted. The formation date would be impossible because half are natural and millions of years old, and a quarter are Indian and are only estimates as well.
      • Fair enough about not having any foundation date. The date they were listed surely just reflects the topic of interest of the day or the president rather than the importance of the site; they're all NMs so are presumably all equally important. But it's not as if the column's taking up valuable space that could be used by another column, so it's your call. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I actually wasn't the one who originally put all that in there. I find dates interesting so I'd like to keep them, and the space is fine for now.
  • What is meant by "pre-contact times" as used in the row for Alibates Flint Quarries?
    • Before the Spanish made contact with the Indians. I changed it to Pre-Columbian.
  • "Pueblo" is inconsistently capitalised, but I'm not sure if this is intentional.
    • Some are Puebloan peoples, others are pueblos, which are their buildings. I double-checked the caps and all are correct.
  • Some of the descriptions seem poorly written to me. For example: "Buck Island is an uninhabited 176-acre (0.71 km2) island with a large elkhorn coral barrier reef that provides cover for a great variety of reef fish, sea turtles and Least Terns. Most of the 19,000-acre monument is underwater" feels like it's the wrong way round. Shouldn't it describe the monument first and then significant features such as the island? Another example is the Bandelier NM: "Frijoles Canyon contains a number of Ancestral Pueblo homes, kivas, rock paintings and petroglyphs. The monument is also a historic district" doesn't explain what the whole monument is, only one part.
    • I have fixed these two. Just give me the name and I can work on it.
      • Better, I'll list any more as I come across them. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think {{convert}} needs to be used more widely. Some units have metric equivalents, but not all. This should be consistent.
    • If you hadn't noticed, most of the information is taken directly from the NMs' articles. Some used convert and some didn't. I will work on adding this template to all units.
      • Although nps.gov doesn't always provide conversions, using the convert template prevents you having to do any working out yourself; just plug in the starting value, tell you what you want it to be converted to and from, and it does the hard work. For example, {{convert|4|mi|km}} gives 4 miles (6.4 km). There are other fields which allow you to choose rounding, and whether hyphens and abbreviations are used, so I'd recommend checking out the documentation that goes with Template:Convert. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe all units now are in both Imperial and metric.
  • "The monument includes a statue of Cabrillo and coastal artillery batteries built to protect the harbor of San Diego from enemy warships": when were the batteries built?
    • I've added 16th-century. Specific dates are not in the article.
  • "The crater is 400 feet deep and its rim is a mile in circumference": what might be more useful than circumference is the diameter of the crater.
    • Okay then, it now says "over 1500 feet in diameter."
  • Re the Carrizo Plain: what is a "native grassland"?
  • Some of the descriptions could be a bit more detailed, for example about the Casa Grande Ruins: "This monument preserves a group of structures surrounded by a compound wall in the Gila Valley that were built by the Hohokam people in the 1100s to 1300s" what purpose were the structures? Just habitation? Also, when did they go out of use? The phrasing of the description is that they were built over a 200 year period. Also, 1100s and 1300s means the first decade of the 12th and 14th centuries respectively when I think the entire 12th and 14th centuries are meant.
    • No, 1100s and 1300s almost always mean the entire century, just as the 1800s should be taken the same as the 19th century; context would show it in their rare use as the decade. Again, these short descriptions were just taken from the key points of their articles without getting too long. I have expanded on this NM; just give me the names and I will expand others.
      • Fair enough, but WP:CENTURY from the manual of style would prefers the use of centuries over 1300s etc. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done then.
  • Castillo de San Marcos: "This Spanish fort, called Fort Marion when first protected, served for 205 years under four different flags" when was it built and when did it fall out of use? Who used it? Is there nothing more to say, was it involved in any battles?
    • Expanded.
  • There's also some inconsistent spelling between archaeology and archeology; both are correct, the second one is the US spelling. It doesn't matter which you use IMO, but pick one and stick to it.
    • All are now archeology.

There may be more issues, but this is enough for me to oppose I'm afraid. It's a reluctant oppose though, as clearly a lot of effort has gone into compiling the information. I think the article would benefit from a thorough copy edit. I've made a couple of changes to the article myself, and Reywas92 might like to check them over to check that I haven't changed the meaning of any sentences. Nev1 (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for you comments, and any other specific suggestions would be appreciated. I hope that with further review you will be able to support, though apparently that may need to be at a later FLC. Reywas92Talk 00:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because response has been prompt, I'll make an effort (probably tomorrow) to go through the rest of the list. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks! Reywas92Talk 03:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References question

Reywas92, I see you added a reference to each description pointing to the main federal page for that monument. I'm not sure in all cases though that that page is actually a reference for all the points made in the lede. I worked on many of these articles back in September as well as reformating into the table with descriptions, dates, etc. I'm not sure I always used only the single reference to write the lede. Wherever possible, I used multiple references to build the articles. dm (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some of the information about the monuments was taken from its article, so not all of the information is actually listed on its NPS page. I'm not sure how it relates to the lead section of the list though. The NPS pages are not extremely detailed, so not everything in the list is backed up by them, though what isn't given probably isn't major. Let me know what facts are problems and need additional sourcing and I can fix it, though lists are generally allowed to be more general. Reywas92Talk 21:44, 22 February 2009 (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_National_Monuments_of_the_United_States/archive1&oldid=1146256185"