Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Trying something new... This is my first FLC that is not about Japanese National Treasures. I expanded this article from a simple list (with little value) to a sortable table. The design is stolen from List of World Heritage Sites in Africa. bamse (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to try a real review, but you might add a "p.7" to that first reference. I had to search through that PDF to find out what UNESCO was really calling this list; unfortunately, it's the ungrammatical-looking List of World Heritage in Danger, just like the title of our WP article. I rather thought it should be "List of World Heritage Sites in Danger", or similar; this title just looks like an accident to me.
Added a page number ("page 6" which is the number printed on the bottom of the page and is equal to page 7 of the pdf which starts with page 0). As for the title, you are not the only one who thought that it is "...Sites in Danger" and in fact it took me some time to remove these incorrect phrases from wikipedia articles on World Heritage Sites. As far as I am aware, UNESCO never uses the title with "Sites" in it. Presumably (I don't have a source for it), they are trying to emphasize that the respective "World Heritage" (which is a universal thing that should be preserved) and not the "Site" (which is a UNESCO creation, and whether it exists or is in danger does not really matter for the world) is in danger. bamse (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, the commas, dashes and parentheses in the Area column of the two tables mean you will have to resort to some trickery to make the tables sort correctly.
Fixed by adding "|sortable=on" to the convert templates. bamse (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not clear to me what the pink color means on the second table. Aren't all the sites shown there just as delisted as Dresden Elbe Valley (meaning they should all be pink, meaning none of them should be). If that color represents some important distinction, then some additional means should be provided to convey it. I think the blue and pink, if both are used, should have different indicators.
When sites are put on the List of World Heritage in Danger, they remain world heritage sites. One site, in Dresden lost its world heritage status after being put on the List of World Heritage in Danger (="delisted"). This site is therefore marked in pink. This is explained in the last sentence of the lead section. Added "#" to convey the information per WP:ACCESS.
Maybe change the description from just "Delisted" to "Delisted as a World Heritage Site" or something. It may look like it is delisted as a "World Heritage in Danger" and not as a "World Heritage Site" as it is. Iusethis (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Changed to "Delisted as a World Heritage Site" as suggested. bamse (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I would expect the images to be in the second or last column of the respective tables, while elements in the Name column are the actual main things being listed. In any case I think we need some scope="row" markup for the Name contents (per WP:ACCESS). Take a look also at more appropriate ALT texts for the images
Swapped the first two columns of both tables to use the same order as other featured lists of world heritage sites. Added "scope="row"" to both tables. Added ALT text to all images.
Thanks for your review. I think i addressed all of your comments (see above). bamse (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome, and I think you addressed them nicely, too. Just one little thing, however: it looks as though you forgot to change the column sortability when you swapped the image/name columns. Right now, we can sort by photographs... ;-)
Something new I've noticed, too, although I haven't studied the refs extensively and further review is still needed: The date format is not consistent for all refs. Refs 1 and 2 appear to be different from all the rest.
Oops, indeed. Made the name column sortable and the image column unsortable now. Also fixed the inconsistent date format in the references. bamse (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Cool, that you're so responsive. I hope this gets promoted. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
At this point I would support promotion if another reviewer were to take the time and look this list over. Again, I haven't done a proper review, haven't read the lead, studied the references, etc. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Went through all the coordinates and fixed precision following the recommendations in WP:OPCOORD. Also made all coordinates use the same format of "degree-minutes-seconds". bamse (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
References to the session summaries lack page numbers; these are typically 200 pages long and I have no idea where to start looking within the to find the information on a particular site.
Done. Added page numbers to all references of session summaries. bamse (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
All the columns from each site are referenced from the refs in the "reason" column; the convention is to have a "ref(s)" column for the refs.
Done. Created refs column for both tables. bamse (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Under Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve's reason you have "the State" which shouldn't be capitalized.
In the reasons, if there are two reasons which are not connected with an "and" or similar word, use a semicolon instead of a comma. For instance, "Illegal grazing and poaching, deteriorating security situation" would be better as "Illegal grazing and poaching; deteriorating security situation"
Hopefully better now. bamse (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The link under Plitvice Lakes National Park and Dubrovnik's reason is a surprise; why not add the name of the war like in other sites
Done as suggested. bamse (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
"Former UNESCO World Heritage Sites" is in the navbox, and thus should not be listed under "see also"
Removed from see also section. bamse (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I notice that all the references are from UNESCO. While they most certainly are a credible institution for providing information on the sites, perhaps find one or two independent sources which explain the significance of being on the list.
I was thinking of one or two for the whole article in the lead. I see I formulated myself a bit vague, but for the entries themselves the UNESCO ref is sufficient. Arsenikk(talk) 13:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I see, will see what I can find. bamse (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see, all the images have free licenses. There are no disambig links and all links are valid.
"value of a property" an odd phrase for "natural sites"
Not sure what issue you have with it. The sentence says "scientific value of a property", which seems fine to me and is also a term used in this context in the operational guidelines (ref 3). bamse (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
"Sites previously listed as being in danger, but later removed from the list after improvements in management and conservation. " not a complete sentence. Perhaps "There exist a number of sites that were previously..."
Changed as suggested. bamse (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
"UN controlled " -> United Nations-controlled" or "UN-controlled".
Changed to UN-controlled. bamse (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
"to inflict the integrity" to inflict what?
Changed to "inflict damage to the integrity". bamse (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Djoudj bird sanctuary, really need six refs?
I generally referenced the start and end dates (and reasons) of being endangered. Since Djoudj was twice (1984–1988, 2000–2006) on the List of World Heritage in Danger, it has more references than other entries (which only appeared once). bamse (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Iguazu's refs are out of order.
Will run the article through AWB when done which should take care of this. bamse (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Can you not tell me why all of the previously listed sites were delisted?
Not sure I understand what you mean. Could you eloberate please? bamse (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
In the notes column which explains why they were at risk, some explain why they no longer are, some don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer not to explain all of these since if done in detail it would get very lengthy and since not much could be learned from it. Basically the reasons for delisting (from the List of World Heritage in Danger) are that the the threats that caused the site being listed have disappeared. This is hinted at by the section intro ("...later removed from the list after improvements in management and conservation."). How about moving the reasons for delisting that are currently present in the notes column to the section intro as examples? bamse (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Mixed date formats in the references.
Fixed. All should be "day month year" now. bamse (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Usually we expect to see format= parameter used for things like PDFs.
Done. Added format=PDF to all linked PDF. bamse (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Any reason why "sixteenth" is lower case in the Sixteenth Session links? And "twelfth"?
Added row scopes to the first table (they were already present in the second table). Also made the two tables look more similar stylistically (centering of columns). bamse (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd do that, if I knew what I was talking about. In the references I used it is only mentioned as "Colon Road" without specifying what "Colon" is meant here. Possibly it is one of those mentioned at Colón, but I am not sure. Also asked the Wikiproject Brazil for help (will do the same with the Argentinian wikiproject), but no reply so far. So, at the moment I can see the following options: i) leave it as is, ii) red-link Colon road, iii) remove "Colon" since the name is not really of importance here. bamse (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been searching a bit more about this road and it appears to be a local, 18 km long road running through the park. As such it is probably not important enough to get its own wikipedia article. It is named after Christopher Columbus but linking to that article does not make much sense IMHO. bamse (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I reworded "Colon road"->"road ("Colon Road")" to emphasize that it is the name of the road. Please let me know whether this is better, or whether I should remove the parentheses. bamse (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
"In the case of cultural sites also gradual changes due to geology, climate or environment can be potential dangers." The "also" would be more logical after "can".
Fixed as suggested. bamse (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Dresden Elbe Valley: The note has a stray period right before the semi-colon. Oh, and should "world heritage" be capitalized?
Done. Stray period removed and World Heritage capitalized. bamse (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
In the second table, how is the Location meant to sort? The first table sorts by country name, but the second doesn't.
Fixed sorting. Both tables sort by country name. bamse (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Some of the general references have dates in the YYYY-DD-MM format while the rest of the refs have them spelled out. These should be consistent throughout. It would be easier to just change the first few refs, but either way is okay.
Done. All dates are spelled out now. bamse (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Done. Spelled out "December". bamse (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to review. I addressed all of your comments (see above). bamse (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Nightw 12:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Night w:
This list looks of very high quality, and my comments are mostly merely suggestions based on pickiness.
I'm viewing the page on a low resolution, and the column with the majority of the text appears squished to single-word lines. Perhaps the ref column in the second table can be narrowed by adding <br/> where more than three citations occur. MOS encourages writing out single-word figures (like seven, twelve) instead of the digit.
My screen is also low resolution. Will see whether adding <br/> in the refs column helps. Not sure which figures you are referring to. The only ones that I can see are those in the third paragraph of the lead. However since they appear together with larger numbers, my understanding is that either all should be spelled out or none. bamse (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Added linebreaks as suggested and it freed up a bit more space for the "Reason" column. bamse (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Much better! :) Nightw 12:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
My only major concern is: Why is Jerusalem listed as being in Israel? The United Nations (and presumably UNESCO) does not regard Jerusalem as part of any state. The sources given do not appear to allude otherwise. Nightw 17:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I replaced "Israel" with "no nation named by UNESCO (see Positions on Jerusalem)" and a footnote saying that the site has been proposed by Jordan. Also removed the color label marking it as trans-border site and added a footnote saying that the location column sorts as "Jerusalem" (unlike other entries that sort by state). bamse (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to review. I addressed all of your comments. I am not sure about which "single-word" figures you meant (see above), so I'd need more instructions from you before I can proceed. bamse (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant the ones in the third paragraph, but can see your reasoning behind keeping it consistent. Nice work. I hope you don't mind me capping your comments with mine, if so, feel free to undo. Nightw 12:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)