Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset/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 00:09, 26 January 2013 [1].

List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset edit

List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): — Rod talk 17:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria. It is a long time since I've nominated anything here so if anything doesn't meet current standards let me know and I will do my best to fix them. Plans and pictures are only available for a few of the sites. There are a small number of redlinks - these are cases where there is enough evidence for them to be in the list but probably not enough material in reliable sources for a decent article. In terms of "comprehensiveness" this is difficult as archaeology experts are still arguing over some of the sites and there is always the chance of further sites before discovered, but I believe it covers all the sites for which strong current evidence exists.— Rod talk 17:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • your use of row scopes is interesting. They be formatted !scope=row
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - nice work.
  • Could empty cells in the table e.g. in the scheduling number column, have en-dashes?
  • Not sure why you have the mini-heading, nor why it's not in capitals while the first sentence of the para is?
  • Is there a reason why "Site Name" isn't just "Site name"? Similar comment to "Scheduling Number".
  • Bathampton Camp description is inconsistently centrally aligned.
  • Scheduling number doesn't sort numerically.
  • Is lake village likely to get an article?
  • Site name format is different between first and second table.
  • Please ensure consistent retrieval date formats are used for refs.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting these - it is amazing how close you get to an article & can no longer see these sorts of issues. I believe I have addressed your concerns with one exception:
  • Site name format is different between first and second table.
I can't see the formatting difference you are referring to.— Rod talk 19:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, on my PC and my Mac, the first table has the site name in unbold, left aligned, the second table has it centrally aligned and bold. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. On my screen (PC) they both look centered & equally bold with the rest of the columns headings. The code for the 1st table says !scope="col" style="width:160px;"|Site name<br />Alternative name(s) and on the second !scope="col" style="width:160px;"|Site name<br />Alternative name(s) which both look the same to me.— Rod talk 20:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second wikitable class is missing plainrowheaders but it's fascinating that you see them the same on your set up but on my old XP machine and my Mac I see them differently...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added plainrowheaders to the 2nd table & they still look the same to me - does it work for you? Also spotted "suspected" was missing from the title of the 2nd table.— Rod talk 20:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I switched the order of the code, check my last edit, and now it looks fine for me! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - looks fine to me to - however I note you changed the title of the 2nd table to lower case presumably I should do this for the 1st table as well for consistency.— Rod talk 21:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry, missed that before. Stickler for resistance to becoming German Noun Wise. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand Your Last Comment - but I've done it anyway.— Rod talk 21:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No Problem, I think we've finished this Debate. I'll let Others check out my Comments, but then I'll Cap them. Good Work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: No problems found. You have a bunch of redirecting wikilinks, but they all seem intentional. Consider archiving your online sources with webcitation.org or web.archive.org, so that if the sites ever go down or remove the data your referencing, your references don't die with them. --PresN 19:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Epic work. — ΛΧΣ21 20:15, 22 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_hill_forts_and_ancient_settlements_in_Somerset/archive1&oldid=1079643474"