Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Poland/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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Poland edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Tone 19:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poland has 16 sites on the main list and 6 more on the tentative list. The style is standard as per several earlier FLCs. This article is on the longer side and I had to rewrite most of the descriptions since they were either copied directly from the UNESCO pages or included data that were not related to the actual WHS. In any case, I think it is ready now. The map is a bit crowded but I think the size is fine nevertheless. Lots of churches from different sites that I solved with color-coding. Tone 19:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments
  • "The historic centre encompasses three urban ensembles" - what is an "urban ensemble"?
This is the wording from the source. A group of buildings and other things in an urban area. It sounds fine to me, I cannot think of better wording...
  • "including several important houses in brick Gothic" - what is "brick Gothic"? A style of architecture?
Reworded to mention it is a style. In Malbork, above, there is a hyperlink to it.
  • "The religious complex (calvary) " - I don't understand the reference to Calvary in brackets, can you elaborate?
Found a better link, it is Calvary (sanctuary), a specific type of pilgrimage site.
  • "was founded by the voivode of Kraków" - suggest wikilinking voivode
  • "They feature wooden bell towers, iconostasis screens" - suggest wikilinking iconostasis
  • "the first battle of the World War II" => "the first battle of World War II"
  • "After the World War I," => "After World War I,"
  • "In that time, the population grew from 1200 to 120 000" - the latter number should be written either as 120000 or 120,000 but not with a gap in
All done.
  • "a symbol of modernisation" - earlier you spelt "evangelization" with a Z (American style) now you use an S (British) - pick one and be consistent
I opted for British and checked for consistency.
@ChrisTheDude: Done, thank you! --Tone 20:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TRM
  • ""Białowieża Forest" is overlinked in the lead.
  • Not a direct issue with this specific nomination but a few of the linked articles have different capitalisation from that used by UNESCO. It might be a nice idea to make them align with your (and UNESCO's) usage if you feel like it? E.g. Wooden Tserkvas of Carpathian Region in Poland and Ukraine redirects to the article name where "tservkas" is not capitalised (despite it then capitalising it in the lead!!)
    • I moved the article to be consistent.
  • Blue, green and grey dots in the image, is that MOS:ACCESS compliant?
    • I've used this color schema before. I believe it is fine. Red and green have different sizes while blue and grey are not mixed as often, if I understood the guideline correctly. But I am open to suggestions, if anyone is more skilled in this.
  • The table has "voivodeship" under location, but I looked at that article and couldn't see any sign of "Lesser Poland" (for example).
  • Sortable table so e.g. "Lesser Poland" should be linked every time.
    • True, sortable, but the default shows it sorted by the years and I followed the linking there. I can link everything but then we will have a sea of blue.
  • "where the kings are buried" which "the kings"?
    • Expanded.
  • "A minor boundary modification" if this is notable, say how/why. If it's not notable, don't say it.
    • This is what the WHS states in the box. Basically, this means that either some extra area was added or that the borders were redrawn. I think it should be included as it is, as per the source.
  • Link Kraków.
  • "Wieliczka and Bochnia contain deposits of rock salt" for me a little odd phrase. Deposits of rock salt are presumably found underground in both cities, rather than the "contain"?
    • Rewritten, does this make more sense?
  • "also contain works of art, such as sculptures carved in salt and underground chapels. The mines also" also ... also.
    • Removed the second also.
  • " in 1978. In 1989," repetitive, perhaps "Eleven years later"?
    • I like that!
  • "by the humidity. " reads odd, like we have a priori knowledge of the humidity. Is there something more we can say here?
    • I assume this is clear, elementary school knowledge. Humidity + salt do not go well together. I added a comment that they installed equipment to reduce humidity.
  • "A minor boundary modification took place in 2008" see earlier.
  • "covers Auschwitz I, the base camp, Auschwitz II–Birkenau, the extermination camp, and a mass grave of inmates" potentially confusing, could be five items here to those non-experts reading, how about: "covers Auschwitz I (the base camp), Auschwitz II–Birkenau (the extermination camp), and a mass grave of inmates"?
  • European Bison -> European bison.
  • Link Warsaw.
  • "Old City of Zamość" piped to a redirect, any good reason?
  • No need to link "German" or "Castle", these are common terms.
  • Link Toruń.
  • Link Brick Gothic.
    • Linked already at Malbork but maybe better again.
  • Link Baltic area perhaps to Baltic states. I suspect a large portion of our readership won't know where that is.
  • "of Nicolaus Copernicus" I would say "of the mathematician and astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus" for context.
  • Calvary: capital C or not?
  • "site today" see WP:CURRENTLY.
    • Reworded.
  • Silesia is overlinked in the Churches of Peace entry.
  • "The six churches" similar point to the Auschwitz comment, the list has more than six "commaed" items because some are disambiguated by location, perhaps put those ones in parentheses.
  • "Brick Gothic" or "brick Gothic"?
    • Reworded.
  • " is an important early Modernist building" important according to whom or in what sense? That it's listed here probably makes that description superfluous.
  • " venue, to serve " no comma required.
  • Link Tarnowskie Góry.
  • "mine was a lead, silver, and zinc mine" mine mine.
  • "of global importance." why, according to whom?
    • Reworded.
  • Bronze Age piped to a redirect, why?
    • Fixed.
  • "show the important exchange of human values within Europe" sounds like a tourist brochure. What does this actually mean?
    • Meh, yes. Reworded. Sometimes those official descriptions are full of such descriptors.
  • "1823-1839" en-dash.
  • "Czarna Hańcza" missing diacritic.
  • Eastern Prussia -> our article calls it East Prussia.
  • "an interesting geological and " interesting according to whom? And in what way?
  • "the Pieniny Mountains " always odd wikilinking half of a formal name.
  • "offers an insight into the evolution " again brochure calling.
    • Reworded.
  • "nine ... 12" MOSNUM, all words, or numbers.
  • You linked World War I but not World War II?
    • Now also linked.
  • Link Duszniki-Zdrój.
  • "mill still maintains the production of" needs an "as of 2020" and this could be "mill still produces".
    • Reworded.
  • "Old City of Zamość" is a redirect in the WHS in Poland template.

That's it for a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      • @The Rambling Man: I'm through. There are some open points where I'd like to see what you think, other things I have fixed. --Tone 16:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass edit

  • Formatting is consistent
  • Not convinced touropia.com is a reliable source, I would recommend switching it out
  • Reliabillity is good otherwise Aza24 (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Aza24: I removed the reference, it was not in the UNESCO source anyway. --Tone 16:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alexandra

  • I have added alt text to the map, which like the other current world heritage site FLC had a bizarre "List of WHSs in X is located in X" style alt text - feel free to tweak wording. May also be good if you go over your previous / future FLCs and make sure the alt texts for maps are okay in those, and manually add alt texts like this one if they're not.
  • the Wooden Tserkvas of Carpathian Region in Poland and Ukraine with Ukraine - can we shorten it in the lead to "Wooden Tserkvas of Carpathian Region", or otherwise rephrase the sentence, to avoid saying that the site is partially in Ukraine twice in immediate succession?
  • Looks good otherwise. Please ping me when you have addressed the above, and I will be with you asap.--AlexandraIDV 06:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--AlexandraIDV 08:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great job improving the article with everyone's suggestions above. I didn't find any issues so I support this nomination. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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_Poland/archive1&oldid=1021815185"