Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Pennsylvania state parks

List of Pennsylvania state parks

List of Pennsylvania state parks is a complete list of all current 120 state parks in Pennsylvania, and has three shorter lists of all known former parks and other names for these parks. It has had a peer review, which is here, that found no major problems. The suggestions for improvement have all been addressed and we believe the list meets the requirements for featured list candidates. This article follows the model of List of areas in the National Park System of the United States, which is a featured list.

The article was previously 96 kb with 120 more references (one for each park) as inline citations, but now is 68 kb and uses one reference for the 120 current parks (the official list of them, plus the other references). The other larger version is saved in User space if needed. Since the tables are 95% of the possible width, there is not room for pictures in them. We have instead used galleries to show thumbnail images of 20 parks (in five groups of four each) throughout the article, plus one panorama. This is a self-nomination in that we are the three editors who have worked the most on this list and the park articles themselves. Thanks in advance for all input, Dincher, VerruckteDan, and Ruhrfisch 00:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent work :-) I think you made the right descision in not having images for every single park. I like how you have images between the sections instead. Tompw (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your support - unfortunately only about a fourth of the articles have images that were taken in the park, which was another factor in our decision. Ruhrfisch 11:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks great! See below for my nitpicks. Nationalparks 14:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpick: Two nitpicky things-- 1) Please make sure that with the former parks and other former parks (which have the same columns) that the column widths are forced to be the same. 2) The quote (last line of the lead-in) should say Dan Cupper of Pennsylvania Heritage Magazine says... Nationalparks 14:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thanks for your support, Nationalparks and Underneath-it-All. As to the nitpicks: 1) Just to make sure, I think you mean that the last three tables ("Other names of current parks", "Former parks" and "Other names of former parks") should all have the same column widths, as all are 5 columns wide? Is that right? Also (semi-unrelated question), is there any reason not to make the tables 100% wide (as I was going to use % to set the column widths, so I could change them all from 95% to 100% total width if that is OK)? 2) Cupper wrote both the book (ref 3) and the magazine article (ref 2), which is a very condensed version of the book (I cited both as the article is free and online). The quote is in both. Would According to Dan Cupper, "Pennsylvania is the thirty third largest state, but ...^[2][3] or As Dan Cupper writes, "Pennsylvania is the thirty third...^[2][3] be OK (specify the author, but not either source)? Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 15:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Yes I would like According to Dan Cupper. The tables as a whole are all the same width, but the columns within them are not consistent from table to table (in the last three tables, which each have 5 columns). Nationalparks 19:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, the changes you requested have been made (plus a few minor copyedits). I appreciate the input,Ruhrfisch 21:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to fix it and got beat to the punch. Thanks for the support and ideas. Dincher 21:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Good list with lots of references. Great work! -- Underneath-it-All 15:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, a beautiful list. PhoenixTwo 04:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well done: comprehensive and effectively organized. Difficult to criticize. -- bcasterline • talk 05:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very good indeed. I suggest removing the spaces between the notes, otherwise they all seem like stubby paragraphs. Michaelas10 ^{Respect my authoritah} 20:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, thanks for all the support. The use and format of the notes is based on featured articles that use them, such as El Greco and Demosthenes, which include spaces between the notes. If you insist we will take the spaces out, but I think that it looks very crowded without them (tried it in preview). Ruhrfisch 00:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not currently sure. Since there is no guidelines for notes formatting, I've seen articles go either way. I guess this is just a visual preference — to make the notes appear constantly to the references. Michaelas10 ^{Respect my authoritah} 16:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I took the spaces out for now. Any comments on the change and preferred version (with spaces or without) are welcome. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see little difference in appearance. Both ways are fine in my opinion. Dincher 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support — A beautiful page. – Zntrip 02:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A definite support. - Qjuad 09:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]