Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Australia/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Australia edit

List of World Heritage Sites in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Tone 22:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australia has 20 World Heritage Sites, including the Sydney Opera House, Uluru, and the Great Barrier Reef (and several ones that are a bit less known that those three). Standard style. The list for India is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. This one is medium-length, the next couple of nominations will likely be shorter. Tone 22:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Side note, it seems I forgot to add it to the FLC list when I created this nomination, fixed now. Tone 16:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

Steelkamp (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I used another image for the lakes, it is more informative anyway :) --Tone 07:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all, thanks! Tone 09:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plural of mollusc is molluscs.
  • Is there are version of File:Willandra Lakes.png without the numbers on the image that can be used? With no key, the numbers are useless.
  • "the Aboriginal Australians have lived in the area at least 21,000 years ago." I would change this to just "Aboriginal Australians lived in the area at least 21,000 years ago."

Steelkamp (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AK
  • Copy-edited somewhat.
  • "found the cremation burial dating" This seems grammatically and semantically wrong; you can't cremate and bury a person at the same time.
  • "wild river systems" as opposed to domestic rivers?
  • "ancient relict species Pherosphaera fitzgeraldii and Wollemia" Wollemia is not a species, might want to reword.
  • That's all I have; nice job! AryKun (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed all, thanks! A wild river is actually a term depicting an unregulated river, and in the context of Tasmania, it is relevant. Linked and additional text provided. Tone 09:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • There's a random space between "August 1974" and the full stop
  • " is world's most extensive coral reef system" => " is the world's most extensive coral reef system"
  • "Archaeologists found a cremation dating to around 40,000 years BP, early stone tools, as well as fossils of giant marsupials." => "Archaeologists found a cremation dating to around 40,000 years BP, early stone tools, and fossils of giant marsupials."
  • "The area is home to the threatened species such as the boodie," => "The area is home to threatened species such as the boodie,"
  • "At the length of 122 km (76 mi), Fraser Island" => "At a length of 122 km (76 mi), Fraser Island"
  • " It also includes the only growing sites of the ancient relict species" - what is a "relict species"?
  • "The coastal waters are home to one the longest coral reefs" =? "The coastal waters are home to one of the longest coral reefs"
  • That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed all, thanks! Linked relict species as this is a biological term. Tone 16:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "Lake Mungo is pictured." You should say that this is the dried up lake bed.
  • Willandra "contains some of the oldest evidence of modern human occupation outside Africa". This is in the source but I would delete as it is contradicted by the dating of Kakadu above.
  • "Aboriginal Australians have lived in the area at least 21,000 years ago". This is ungrammatical. I would say "for at least 21,000 years". Also, I cannot see 21,000 in the sources. The description says 20,000 in the lead and 40,000 in the main text.
  • "Among animals, there are numerous bird and marsupial species." Would this not apply to all Australian natural sites?
  • "colony of living stromatolites, providing some of the earliest records of life on earth". This is not quite right. The records are fossils, not living organisms. Stromatalites are famous because they form microbial mats similar to fossils which are some of the earliest which can be seen without a microscope.
  • "This allows researchers to study the sequence of crustal levels all the way down to about 6 km (3.7 mi) below the ocean floor." This is confusing as it appears to imply that researchers are digging 6 km down. You should clarify that rocks from this depth are exposed at the surface.
  • "Fossil and geological record is spanning for 350 million years". This sounds very odd. Maybe "The fossil and geological record spans 350 million years.
  • "the Sturtian glaciation (672 Mya). The Sturtian lasted over 50 million years. 672 is just the date of a particular exposure in Flinders. It might mean more to readers to refer to Snowball Earth.
  • I doubt whether readers will be interested in changes in site boundaries. It might be better to put them in footnotes. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, great comments. I am through. I'd leave the boundaries changes, this is why there are bis etc in the numbers, otherwise I sometimes get questions about those. Speaking of, I've just checked the UNESCO site and they added two more tentative sites so I'll have to add those two before the article is ready. Tone 14:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dudley Miles: Alright, the two new tentative sites added, ready for review. Tone 08:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Feel free to disagree

  • "added to the list were the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu National Park, and Willandra Lakes Region, both at the fifth session of the World Heritage Committee". Not sure if "both" is the right word for this sentence, as it implies two sites, when three are listed.
  • "was thought to be extinct but was recently rediscovered on the islet of Ball's Pyramid" (Lord Howe Island section); "recently rediscovered" is subject to rot, is there a specific year that can be cited instead?
  • "has fossils from 30 to 10 million years ago" (Fossil Mammal sites) –> "has fossils from 10 to 30 million years agos"
  • "and the recently extinct thylacine" (same section); again "recently" subject to rot, but also, the citation doesn't say the tiger is extinct (even though it obviously is). Nonetheless, an additional citation would be needed to say it is.

There is a policy somewhere about word rot but I couldn't find it. Overall a really good list, I think in future, more source diversity in the individual description sections would bring this list to perfection (instead of just UNESCO which is still very good). Idiosincrático (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Idiosincrático: Fixed, thanks! I don't think that "agos" is better, the others I have addressed. I agree, better to use different formulations than "recently". For those, I added third-party references since UNESCO source indeed does not have that. Otherwise, I am usually sticking to the UNESCO-related sources since they are the most factual on why a site has been listed/nominated. Other sources would either relate to the nomination or write about unrelated things about the site which is kind of out of scope here. Tone 07:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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_World_Heritage_Sites_in_Australia/archive1&oldid=1203226441"