Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Denmark/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) 22:37:28 8 January 2020 (UTC) [1].

List of World Heritage Sites in Denmark edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Tone 15:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A new list from the series of World Heritage Sites, it follows the standard format, it is up-to-date and complete. I have currently the Austria nomination open but I was told that it is fine to go with the next nomination since the support there is solid. Probably it will require some copyediting but I can take care of it during the nomination process. Tone 15:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "practiced par force hunting, hunting with hounds." Should be colon not comma
  • Kujataa: Replace hyphen with a dash
  • Can you make the descriptions more original please? Now I feel like I've been negligent on this in previous reviews but most of them are extremely close paraphrases of the general descriptions on the UNESCO website. Lists I've written have also come mainly from the primary sources but I try to mix it up a bit more with info inspired from our WP article and subpages of the source, rather than doing just enough to avoid a copyright violation. See if you can summarize what's in the "Outstanding Universal Value" sections of the website in your own voice instead of relying on rewriting the brief description at the top, even if that's the highlights. Reywas92Talk 19:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I am aware of that, I am trying to balance the creativity with the facts. Sometimes the descriptions are really bland and contain little facts that can be used, other times there is so much info that it makes sense only to summarize. I'll see what I can do, I am trying to make the descriptions at least a bit different. --Tone 19:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "inscribed at the 18th Session of the World Heritage Committee, held in 1994 in Phuket, Thailand." - source for that? The ref against the site in the table gives the year but not the location or the session number
  • Paragraph 2 ends with a comma for some reason
  • "Seven sites in Denmark are cultural and three are natural" - clarify in some way that these figures don't include the tentative sites
  • There's a stray space between the full stop and the reference at the end of paragraph 3
  • "The cathedral is the early example" => "The cathedral is an early example"
  • "with furter military modification" - typo in "further"
  • "followint the recovery after the mass extinction" - another typo
  • "harboring species such as harbour seal, grey seal, and harbour porpoise" - the spelling of the first word suggests that US English is being used, in which case the next two usages of the same word are spelt incorrectly. Best to check for consistency of the variety of English throughout.
  • In that same cell, there's another stray space before a ref
  • "The peak activity was reached between 17th" => "The peak activity was reached between the 17th"
  • "The design the forests" - think there's at least one word missing here
  • "As of 2019, Denmark recorded 4 sites" => "As of 2019, Denmark has recorded 4 sites"
  • "The main square contains four identical maisons" - other than being French for house, what is a "maison"?
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: It took me a while but I'm through. I went with British spelling article-wide. I also modified some descriptions per the above comment. --Tone 09:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • For this image caption (Locations of World Heritage Sites in Greenland.), I would remove the period since it is not a complete sentence.
  • I have a question about this part (As of 2019, Denmark has 10 sites inscribed on the list and a further 4 on the tentative list.), I have generally seen numbers ten and under written in words as opposed to numerals. Is there any reason for the numerals in this part? It seems to juxtapose with the next sentence (Three sites), which represents "three" in words rather than numerals.
  • I am a little confused by the links for "Denmark" and the "Kingdom of Denmark" as they both go to the same article. I am uncertain if the "Kingdom of Denmark" part should be linked.

Great work with the list. It seems that a majority of the issues were already ironed out during ChrisTheDude's review above. I just have three relatively minor comments, and once they are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. If you have the time and interest, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC. I am completely unfamiliar with Denmark (although I have a weird fascination with Greenland) so I very much enjoyed reading this list. I hope that it attracts more attention in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all, thank you for your comments! @Aoba47: --Tone 17:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Viking Age Ring Fortresses: In this entry's description, the hyphen in 975-80 should be an en dash instead.
  • En dashes are also needed in the titles of refs 19 and 22. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: Done! --Tone 09:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – My couple of small nit-picks have been addressed and I think this meets the criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "The two burial mounds are pagan sites while the massive stones with runic inscriptions mention the Christianization." This does not seem right. The citation says that the runic stones are pagan and the site illustrates not mentions Christianization.
  • Roskilde Cathedral. I think the first two sentences should be swapped. It is better to say the date before saying that it is early. Also the citation says earliest, not just early.
  • Sermeq Kujalleq can be linked.
  • The citation is out of date on the 65 million year date of the end of the Cretaceous. It is now dated to 66 million year ago, as shown in the ICS chart. (You may say "what does a million years matter?" but it is still better to get it right!)
  • "Baroque landscape planning trends". "trends" does not seem the right word.
  • Kujataa Greenland. I think it is worth mentioning that the Norse settlements disappeared by the fifteenth century.
  • The Category Northern Europe is too broad. It should be in Category:Denmark-related lists.
  • A first class list. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dudley Miles: Done! The runic stones (further in the text) state "King Harald bade this monument be made in memory of Gorm his father and Thyra his mother, that Harald who won for himself all Denmark and Norway and made the Danes Christians", so this is correct. And the Roskilde Cathedral is the first church in Scandinavia while "Roskilde Cathedral is an outstanding example of the early use of brick in the construction of large religious buildings in Northern Europe." So this is fine as well (not sure of any earlier brick churches in Northern Europe, depends how one counts North Germany, I suppose, but that's in the reference). Thanks for the comments! --Tone 20:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "the massive stones with runic inscriptions mention the Christianization". The citation says that one runic stone mentions the Christianization but the other one is pagan.
  • Looks fine otherwise. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Shearonink edit

  • Tone and FoxyGrampa75 - It seems to me that one of the major remaining issues is the wording for the following sentence:
The two burial mounds are pagan sites while the massive stones with runic inscriptions mention the Christianization.
The source document states:
The Jelling burial mounds and one of the runic stones are striking examples of pagan Nordic culture, while the other runic stone and the church illustrate the Christianization of the Danish people towards the middle of the 10th century.
A further sentence states:
one pagan runic stone, another commemorating the introduction of Christianity
The Jelling stones article itself separates the two runestones in type (one Christian & one pagan). I admit I am still reading through the List so maybe I've missed something but I was wondering if there is a reason for retaining the present wording. Shearonink (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I missed this was still an issue. I rewrote the text, I suppose this is now fine. @Dudley Miles:, does it work that way? --Tone 08:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is still wrong. You say "The stone with runic inscriptions mentions the Christianization." The pagan stone also has a runic inscription. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Dudley Miles - agreed. Both stones, the larger/newer/Harald Bluetooth one and the smaller/older/Gorm one, have runic inscriptions. The larger/newer/Harald Bluetooth stone has Christian iconography & wording, the smaller/older/Gorm stone has pagan inscriptions. (I think - if this one issue is corrected appropriately - that I will probably be able to Support. Still combing through the rest of the List.) Shearonink (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tone Saw your most recent edits to the Jelling stone paragraph and it's much better but still not quite right.
The monuments at Jelling include runestones, burial mounds, and a church. They document the Danish transition from Norse paganism to Christianity in the 10th century. The two burial mounds are pagan, as well as the older runestone, raised by king Gorm the Old. The larger stone was raised by king Harald Bluetooth, who also erected the nearby church. The stone with runic inscriptions mentions the Christianization.
The issue with the paragraph now is that both rune stones - the smaller/older/pagan/King Gorm stone and the bigger/newer/Christian/King Harald Bluetooth stone - both have runic inscriptions on them. Both stones are runestones, therefore both have runic inscriptions, one is Christian and one is pagan.
The paragraph could be adjusted to something like the following:
The monuments at Jelling include runestones, burial mounds, and a church. They document the Danish transition from Norse paganism to Christianity in the 10th century. The two burial mounds are pagan, as well as the older runestone, raised by king Gorm the Old. The larger runestone mentions the Christianization of Denmark and was raised by king Harald Bluetooth, who also erected the nearby church.
Something along those lines. Shearonink (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a great list, I especially appreciate all the work Tone put into it during my participation in this FLC process. Shearonink (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/source review from DanielleTH edit

  • Source review on this is brief, as all of these come from UNESCO. UNESCO is a reliable source, especially for this topic. All the links work, citing is consistent. Source review passed.
  • None of you images have alt text, and need them per MOS:ALT (plus accessibility is important in general).

No other concerns. Lead is nice, brief but clear. Prose are fine. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 20:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the alt-text, I had missed that. Shearonink (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DanielleTH After posting above I then went and checked the images....and I am puzzled. All the images have alt text and have had Alt text since before your comments above. I think you might need to take another look?... Shearonink (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tone DanielleTH is correct and I was wrong. I apologize - I wanted to refresh my memory about alt-text so went over the MOS explanatory supplement Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images and I was wrong about the present alt-text being fine.
From the alt-text MOS :
[Alt=text] serves the same purpose and conveys the same essential information as the image. In situations where the image is not available to the reader, perhaps because they have turned off images in their web browser or are using a screen reader due to a visual impairment, the alternative text ensures that no information or functionality is lost. Absent or unhelpful alternative text can be a source of frustration for visually impaired users
Once the images' alt-text is adjusted to what is needed - per intended audience and basic alternative text - I will Support this FLC nomination. Shearonink (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: just checking, is it fine now? I am not sure if you checked the article before or after I added the alt texts. --Tone 21:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tone I appreciate all the work you and the other contributing editors have done on this FLC - I'm sorry if I haven't explained my understanding of alt-texts well-enough so here's an example - the following FL has alt-texts that are more towards what I think is the ideal:
List of National Treasures of Japan (residences)#Treasures->Look at the alt-texts for the images in this section. Per MOS:ALT - they're descriptive, they paint a picture for those who might have diminished vision, people who cannot access the actual images in the article, they allow "the content and function of an image to be understood by text-only readers". So, usually, the caption alone from the image's File page isn't enough of a descriptor. The caption is a label and someone who is using a text-only reader needs more than a label - they need a word-picture. Hope I've explained it a little better. Shearonink (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: ok, check now please ;) --Tone 06:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tone I think the alt-text is much better in this latest version, but please take a look at alt-text tool results. The text on the right is what a blind person will hear as their spoken substitute for being able to see the List's images. To quote the alt-viewer tool:
Alternative text (alt text) is meant for readers who cannot see an image, such as blind readers and readers who use a text or mobile browser. It should summarize an image's purpose, and should not duplicate its caption. Every image should have alt text, except for purely decorative images, which should instead have "|alt=|link=".
The following table shows images and captions on the left, and alt text and captions on the right: the right column is what a visually impaired reader will hear.
If you were blind, and you were reading this List (as it stands right now) with a text browser, would you be able to see with your imagination all the images in the List from hearing their alt-text descriptions? I am not sure that I would so i've found some FAs & FLs that have very good alt-texts for their images, the following are examples of what I think alt-text can really be: WP:FAs - Pyramid of Neferirkare, Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia), Takalik Abaj and WP:FLs - List of church restorations, amendments and furniture by John Douglas, List of Smithsonian museums, Listed buildings in Poulton-le-Fylde, List of National Treasures of Japan (ancient documents). We really need to follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Images' first entry at MOS:ACCIM which states Images that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users. If additional alt text is added, it should be succinct or refer the reader to the caption or adjacent text. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are good enough. This is exactly what I did, like "a look at the cliff from above". I don't think there's any added value if we add "there's a tree in front of the church". Or, propose better wording, if you think it can be improved. --Tone 17:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that extraneous details aren't useful (like the bit about "a tree in front of the church") but people who are blind or using a text-only viewer probably have no idea what specific named places (like Kronborg Castle, the Church Hall at Christiansfeld, Roskilde Cathedral, and Wadden Sea) look like. For instance, the present alt-text for Kronborg castle reads "Kronborg Castle". Couldn't it perhaps read as something like:
A buff-colored stone castle with a copper sheeting roof overlooking the Øresund strait.
And the present alt-text for the Christiansfeld Church reads "A church building". Could it maybe be recrafted into something like
A large simply-adorned yellow brick church building with a steeply-pitched black-tile roof and a central steeple which can seat 1000 people.
That's all - just some more descriptive details along those lines that will paint the picture for someone who's using a text reader. Shearonink (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the point, however, I have two issues here. First, the image of the church is actually illustrative to the article and not crucial for it - among other things, that's why there's no thumbnail. The article is about why a certain property is on the WHS list and not about the church (clearly, it would make sense in the church article, or if the church photo was a featured picture). Second, the kind of descriptions you propose needs sources - I cannot write that it seats 1000 people if I don't have a source for that. Also, not even that it is yellow. That could be my personal opinion or the consequence of light conditions in the photo. For the article in question, I think that "a church building" is perfectly fine. As for other descriptions, what "Kronborg castle" is is well described in the main text (a large castle built in brick). This is what the main descriptions is for. See my point? --Tone 06:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I said "something those lines", any possible changes didn't have to be a regurgitation of what I wrote, they were just examples (and as for the brick being yellow - that's in the article and in sources - but ok). I understand what you are saying re main descriptions vs alt-text in this List but I think our understandings of alt-text's purpose and implementation seem to be somewhat different. My schedule this week is slightly crazed, I will come back at some point in a few days or so and take another deep-dive into the List and see what I think then. Shearonink (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I guess we have slightly different views on how this should be handled - you are more descriptive, I am more technical, but I recognize the importance of alt text and will make sure to use it in future articles as well. Feel free to modify the descriptions here as you see fit. --Tone 14:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tone. Please see my comment in my section above. Shearonink (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think we're good to promote. --PresN 22:37, 8 January 2020 (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_Denmark/archive1&oldid=935988987"