Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Finland/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) 00:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Finland edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Tone 09:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With Denmark promoted and Norway getting in shape, Finland is next in the series of sites from Northern Europe. I started paying more attention to the alt text for images since the last discussion. The style of the article is following the previous ones. Tone 09:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image reviews
  • Both pass. Sources look reliable and spot checks check out. Images are free and I added FoP-Finland tags where appropriate. buidhe 10:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should have a longer lead so it can stand alone. I'm looking at List of World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom in comparison which goes into some more detail about the types of sites and the country's relationship to UNESCO. I don't see any issues with the table though. Reywas92Talk 00:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I expanded the intro. --Tone 16:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments
    • "The natural site of High Coast / Kvarken Archipelago, is a" - no need for comma there
    • "The Swedish part, the High Coast," - why the italics?
    • "dates to 17th to 19th centuries" => "dates to the 17th to 19th centuries"
    • "a type of small-scale rural industrial settlement in the 19th and early 20th centuries" - think there's a word missing here. Maybe "a type of small-scale rural industrial settlement common in the 19th and early 20th centuries" or something like that?
    • "from 1,500 to 500 BCE" - dates don't normally use a comma
    • "(North to South: Norway, Sweden" - don't think north and south need capitals
    • "This is an extension of the site High Coast in Sweden" => "This is an extension of the High Coast site in Sweden" (with no italics)
    • "an important halting place" - I think "an important stopping place" is more natural English
    • "Since the 15th century, the sailors waiting for favourable winds were carving images to the rocks" => "Since the 15th century, sailors waiting for favourable winds have carved images into the rocks"
    • "was built around 2,000 BCE" - see earlier comment about commas in dates
    • "It is likely that the hunter-gatherer society build the structure" => "It is likely that the hunter-gatherer society built the structure"
    • "They were painted over a long period, from 3,800-2,200 BCE" - commas in dates again
    • "was built in the 1930-1933" => "was built between 1930 and 1933"
  • Think that's it from me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thank you! --Tone 19:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*My go-bys here are the assessed articles from Lists of World Heritage Sites#Europe and what I've seen in general at FAC.
  • 90% of the table text is crammed into the rightmost inch of my laptop screen; I use a zoom (magnification, Ctrl-+) of 133%, which is a fairly common zoom for older readers. If you're interested in the subject, you can read the posts at WT:FLC#User:Dank/Tables ... but it's not something you have to study up on. From what I've seen so far, I'll be able to support this nomination ... after my support, I'll ask if you'll let me fiddle with the tables a little to make the columns narrower.[Striking ... now that I see the 3c problem, we may need to tackle the organization of the columns sooner rather than later.]
  • I'm still studying up on how to review sources at FLC, so I'll finish that part of the review later. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have had some discussion during the previous nominations, what we have now is a compromise that seems to be working best. As you probably saw, the current layout is quite functional. --Tone 15:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "High Coast / Kvarken Archipelago": Per WP:SLASH, a slash isn't the answer here. Generally, it's a judgment call what to replace a slash with; I think "High Coast and Kvarken Archipelago" works.
    • This is the official name of the site, from the UNESCO source. Verbatim. I agree it is clumsy but that's the name. --Tone 15:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I feel your pain, but if High Coast / Kvarken Archipelago were the best name for the site (according to Wikipedians ... and I'm not saying they're right, I'm just saying their judgments are what we're stuck with), then there would be a page at that name. If you're sure, then create the page and let's see what happens. - Dank (push to talk) [Changed my mind ... not ideal, but I can live with it. Take your time, of course, but please consider the remaining two points. I think Wikicup rules require us to either support or oppose.] - Dank (push to talk) 00:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Swedish part, the High Coast, was listed individually in 2000, the Kvarken Archipelago was added in 2006.": That's a comma splice. A semicolon, or a comma and "and", will work.
  • "and one natural site. The natural site": redundant. "The natural site" works.
  • Caption: "Green dot indicates": The green dot indicates
  • The UNESCO data column is either too much or too little. I wouldn't have an objection to just saying either "cultural" or "natural" and nothing else; that would be clear. What you've got now isn't clear ... I didn't know what "582" means, for instance, until I looked it up, and the link doesn't explain it. (Many UNESCO pages call it an "ID" rather than a "reference number".) I don't know what the criteria numbers mean either, or I didn't until I followed the link ... but that information is supposed to be available at a glance in the table. What I'd probably do is put this information, for just the criteria that appear in this table, at the top of the table, and you can call it a "Key" or not, to explain what iv, etc., mean, and then just put iv, etc., in that column, along with "cultural" or "natural" (since that seems to be the preference in similar lists). If you want to include a reference number, then put "Ref. No." either in the key or in the column label (not just in an abbreviation).
    • As said above, this is the style we have been using for a while in several related FLs. There is the explanation if you move the cursor, and the criteria numbers are listed and linked at the top. --Tone 15:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not buying that we can't give the readers a more visible clue as to what the numbers mean. I don't have any preference for what form that clue takes. - Dank (push to talk) Striking, after discussions about previous entries in the series. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This church is a typical example of the architectural tradition of wooden churches in northern Europe. It ... demonstrates the masterful application of European architectural influences to a structure made of logs.": Damning with faint praise. Is there anything that can be said about the architecture that makes it sound interesting or significant?
    • Yeah, the original descriptions are really boring sometimes. I added what has been influenced by what styles. --Tone 15:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both the High Coast and the Kvarken Archipelago are situated in the Gulf of Bothnia and consist of thousands of islands.": Doesn't the High Coast consist mainly of coastline?
    • Looking at the map, there are many many islands in High Coast as well. --Tone 15:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not accurate to say that the High Coast consists of islands. There's more to it than islands. - Dank (push to talk)
      • I changed it to "include". - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since the 15th century, sailors waiting for favourable winds have carved images into the rocks. There are over 600 drawings, mostly heraldic symbols or people's initials, that constitute a unique "guest book".": Yes the phrase "guest book" appears in the source, but we generally don't repeat whimsical language of the kind a tour guide might use. It's not actually even vaguely like a guest book.
    • Good point. Removed the guest book part. --Tone 15:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the hunter-gatherer society": a hunter-gatherer society
  • "to help them with seal hunting activities, such as keeping the killed animals": To store seal carcasses.
  • "as well as hand prints": and hand prints. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used this link to archive 20 of the references. - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article makes good use of attractive images. I'm not doing an image review, since that's been done already.
  • The references look fine. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FLC criteria:
    • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
    • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
    • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources (but this isn't a source review). I've added archive links. All retrieval dates are present.
    • 4. It is navigable.
    • 5. It meets style requirements.
    • 6. It is stable.
  • So far so good ... until we get to criterion 3c. There's a lot of duplication between this list and the larger List of World Heritage Sites in Northern Europe. Can you detail everything in this list that wouldn't make sense to include in that list, so that we can see if it's enough to warrant a separate list? (Personally, I don't think this is a fatal objection ... there's an argument that more text could be added to this list ... but others may disagree.)
  • Otherwise, this is looking very good. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may or may not pick up 5 points in the Wikicup for this review. - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tone, let me know if there's anything I can do to help. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dank: I think I'm through. Thanks for the review, at some points I added extra comments above. As with the Iceland list, the individual countries' lists have the advantage for maintenance (there is no actual Northern Europe UNESCO category so the tracking of changes is tricky - the items on the tentative list tend to change a lot, with modifications of nominations etc.), and the tentative list has next to zero info in the general list. --Tone 15:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm skeptical that this meets 3c in its current state, but since I'm the new kid on the block, I'll leave that for other reviewers to figure out. If you can clear up the remaining points, I can give you a conditional support. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. I think there's enough overlap with the parent list List of World Heritage Sites in Northern Europe that it might be a 3c problem, but I don't have enough experience to make the call on that. I made an edit to address one point, and I see that you were given conflicting advice in a previous list so I struck the other point. We're good to go. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "the church was abandoned as a newer church was built nearby, so the old church remained well preserved". This is a non-sequitur. Abandonment is normally a reason for neglect, not for preservation.
    • Rewrote according to the source. I suppose they still did general maintenance but not major restructuring while it was not used.
  • The source says "The church is well preserved due to the fact that it was abandoned in the late 19th century, as the new parish church was built, and did not suffer from major alterations such as the installation of heating systems." This clarifies that it was not well preserved because it was neglected, which you seem to say. Maybe "The original features are well preserved because the church went out of use and therefore was not modernised by the addition of features such as heating systems."
  • Good point, I like this.
  • The link to the Last Glacial Period is wrong. It should be the Last Glacial Maximum.
    • Makes sense, changed.
  • It is worth spelling out that the reason for the post-glacial rebound is the removal of the weight of the glaciers.
    • Added.
  • How about [2] for an image for the Gaddtarmen carvings?
    • Great, added.
  • Why is Kvarken not linked?
    • In the location column? Because it is already linked in the name, I wanted to avoid overlinking.
  • The descriptions are very good. Some of the images do not give a good idea of the site even though better ones are available in the Commons categories for the sites. This applies to Old Rauma, Suomenlinna and Verla. The Struve image may be relevant but if so this should be explained in the file description of the image. See [3] for alternatives. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed the images for Verla and old Rauma. The Suomenlinna aerial looks informative to me. For the Struve, the description is in the file - that the church is one of the markers.
  • I see now that there is a description if you hover over the file, but I would expect it - with a reference - in the file description on opening File:Alatornio 3 2015 Copy.JPG, which has a blank file description. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now added a link to the church article, the UNESCO reference mentions it on the map tab. --Tone 09:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dudley Miles: Done, please have a look. Excellent review, as always. --Tone 14:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1 edit

Certainly meets the FL criteria to my mind. A few comments/observations below, but nothing to stand in the way of Support. KJP1 (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • I still wonder whether this is a bit on the short side. Perhaps a slight expansion of the final para., actually just a sentence, to give a bit more detail on what a "tentative list" is?
Images
  • Agree with Dudley, especially in relation to Old Rauma. I think the image in that article better shows the buildings, and it doesn't include the distracting cyclist!
Descriptions
  • Fortress of Suomenlinna - "The fortress, which spans over six islands" - does this mean it covers six islands, in which case could the "over" go? Or does it mean it covers more than six islands, in which case I'd say that?
  • Bronze Age Burial Site of Sammallahdenmäki - "but are now further inland due to the rising land". I think this is Dudley's point above. For a non-specialist like me, while rising sea-levels are an understood concept, rising land-levels are not. Could it be expanded a bit? You do explain it two descriptions down, but I'd suggest the clarification comes at the first encounter.
  • The Rock paintings of Astuvansalmi at Ristiina - "The paintings in red ochre on a steep bedrock above the lake Yövesi depict humans, moose, boats, and hand prints" - are these actually paintings of hand prints, or just hand prints? If, as I suspect, the latter, then, "The paintings in red ochre on a steep bedrock above the lake Yövesi depict humans, moose and boats. Hand prints are also visible."
  • The Holy place of worship of Ukonsaari by the Sami people at Inari - "was used for sactificial purposes" - typo, I think.
  • Saimaa-Pielinen Lake System - "This is a part of a serial nomination" - not getting "serial" nomination. Group nomination?
    • @KJP1: Thank you for the review. As for the tentative list in the intro, what this list is is explained more in detail later on. For the rising land, there is a longer explanation at Kvarken, I am not sure if it makes sense to repeat it? The Saimaa-Pielinen is supposedly a nomination of more than one country, yes, but the source is so bad that it is hard to write anything more detailed. This is often a problem with older entries to the tentative list, they seem like placeholders. I changed some pictures and fixed the text as you suggested. --Tone 14:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 22:05, 23 March 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_Finland/archive1&oldid=947053397"