Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of U.S. National Forests/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 The Rambling Man 17:34, 16 January 2013 [1].

List of U.S. National Forests

Featured list candidates/List of U.S. National Forests/archive1

Nominator(s): Fredlyfish4 (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is fully illustrated with many details. I have worked on it extensively, and the National Forests cover a huge portion of the United States. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments by Hahc21

*Comments

Note A has no reference. Does it needs it, or this is covered by references 1, 4 and 5?

Yes, covered by references 1,4, and 5, but I added them to the note anyway.

The lead seems fine, although the image appears to be a little too big, at leats on my screen.

I shrunk it from 500px to 450px, but 400px seems to small to me.

References #11, #30 is missing the accessdate.

Added.

" Forests with citations to references,[8][11] or [30]" Looks odd. I recommend to move the refs to the end of the note.

Done.Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Impressive work. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good work. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support...pretty familiar with a couple dozen of these forests. I'm not seeing any issues that jump out in any way. Covers all the forests, has references for each, plus images. Nice job.....MONGO 06:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments really quick ones, will need to revisit this mammoth list...!

"761,998.53" silly precise.

It's not that precise when there are 247.1 acre per km2 and the source is accurate to 1 acre, but to the average person it does seem too precise. I cut off the decimals in the first paragraph, but left the details in the third paragraph.

You know what I mean! When you're in the millions of square km, you don't need 2 d.p. of accuracy...!

Merge first two paras.

Done.

" If looking at national forests on a map, in general those west of the Great Plains show the true extent of their area,..." a bit journalistic, rather than encyclopedic.

I rephrased it, but if it still sounds awkward it can be removed because I don't think it is essential.

Tuskegee's photo is predominantly a bicycle, not of the national forest.

It is literally the only suitably licensed photo I could find from my searches on the Commons, Flickr, Panoramio, and the Forest Service website of Tuskegee. I contacted the Forest Service about getting a better photo, but I never received a reply. At least you can see some of a trail and the trees in the photo, and there isn't much else to this, the smallest National Forest. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It would be nicer to have something less bicycle, more forest, but I can understand your challenge!! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support' – ~~you're not going to like me for suggesting this, but the images in the tables could do with having alt text. NapHit (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

I actually meant to add this but forgot about it. I'll do it soon. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - nice job on this! Two comments: 1) In the last sentence of note C, shouldn't there be an "or" before the last of the three options for the date meaning? 2) Consider archiving your citations- it's optional, and a pain with that many, but it ensures that the reference will not be lost if websites go down or change. --Pres N 00:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fantastic work on this! It looks like you modeled this on my National Parks list, and you've done a terrific job. I liked File:USA National Forest Lands.svg, which used to be in the article. I think it could be worthwhile to mention the top states with the most area/greatest percentage of area that are national forests. Also, you mentioned six of the national monuments that are part of NFs, but Admiralty Island and Misty Fjords could be added to Tongass. Reywas92^Talk 21:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I borrowed your list format, and I may use it for other similar lists. So thanks a lot for it! I liked that image as well, but didn't think more than one map worked well in the article. I do plan on revising the article United States National Forest, and I will definitely include the map there. I'll add some mention of the states with most/greatest percentage of NF lands as well as the monuments here. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – All of the book references (I counted three) need page numbers to assist in helping readers verify the content. I don't believe that just providing a link is enough if the reader has to go through a large number of pages, with no idea where the information can be found. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add page numbers, but it is actually quite easy to find the information in the books because they have a short section on each forest, as in an encyclopedia. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One small question. Why is "U.S." being used as an adjective in the title? Shouldn't the adjective be "National Forests", e.g. List of National Forests in the United States? Or is "U.S. National Forest" the formal designation of these forests like "U.S. Navy"? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why the title is like this, and it was like this long before I did any work on the article. I don't think "U.S. National Forest" is a formal designation, so "National Forests" should be the adjective. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I only wondered about the formal designation because obviously a list about admirals in the US Navy, for example, would almost certainly have to be titled "List of U.S. Navy admirals", which kind of tortures "U.S. Navy" (a proper noun) into an adjective. Since "U.S. National Forest" isn't a title, perhaps the article would be better titled "List of National Forests in the United States" or "List of national forests in the United States" (since I'm not sure "national forest" can be considered a proper noun). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm also not sure "national forest" can be considered a proper noun. I'm leaning towards no, but there's really no comparable protected area designation similar to it in other countries. If the title is changed, the two other NF related lists should be changed as well. I'm hoping someone else can provide some input into this. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Its been a long time (years) and I cannot find it but lists of this type went through some sort of naming discussions at some point and this naming style was at that time deemed the best way to solve the problems. It should be noted however that List of national parks of the United States, is a featured list and has a naming convention similar to what HJMitchell suggests. We also have List of National Wildlife Refuges of the United States which isn't an FL. I think the discussion about naming styles also led to such lists as List of U.S. Wilderness Areas, List of U.S. state fossils...etc. So this may all be a matter of personal preference rather than any current or even recent discussion regarding standardizing the naming comventions of such lists.--MONGO 01:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also...the article List of national parks of the United States was moved to that name in 2012 here though it passed FLC as List of National Parks of the United States in 2010.--MONGO 01:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        To complicate things, "List of National Monuments of the United States," a featured list, was moved from "List of national monuments of the United States" in 2009. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        "of the United States" seems a strange way to title these articles to me (perhaps it's because I'm a Brit). I think it's fairly uncontroversial to say that "U.S." is not an adjective and "national forest" (or "National Forest") should be the adjective in the title. Since "national forest" isn't really a proper noun, my preference is for the latter of the titles I suggested above. I think we would all think "List of France National Forests", "List of Australia National Forests", or "List of Canada National Forests" were rather strange titles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree. I checked a couple books and other references, and in them national forest is not a proper noun. The U.S. Forest Service website and some of their publications agree with this (at least for the most part). Fredlyfish4 (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Suggest page is moved to List of national forests of the United States and then promotion follows. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        While I'm not beholden to the precise naming of the article, there is an interesting discussion at the FLC for List of national parks of the United States which at the time of the FLC in May 2010 was List of National Parks of the United States and was moved in 2012 to its current title. Under the comments section, a similar discussion ensued...here...and noting there that they mentioned another FL titled List of National Parks of Canada. I'm leaning towards keeping National Forests in caps since this is a formal designation of the areas in this list. But I'm not going to argue about what title is best suited here, only pointing out that there seems to be much disagreement as to how to best name these types of lists and what is a proper noun and what isn't (especially when we're discussing formally designated areas)...thats all.--MONGO 23:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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