Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National Tourist Routes in Norway/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 NapHit 22:33, 8 November 2012 [1].

National Tourist Routes in Norway edit

National Tourist Routes in Norway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Arsenikk (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norway is a trade-off between spectacular nature and bland food; this list unites transport with the former. I have taken half of the routes and can attest that they are truly breathtaking. Arsenikk (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "tourist-friendly infrastructure" are you sure that represents a neutral point of view?
    • That is the criteria they have used to select them, but I have rephrased the sentence somewhat to be specific about that it is the Road Administration which has stated this. Arsenikk (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eighteen" should be 18 per WP:NUM
    • You mean WP:MOSNUM? It states "numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in word" so this is just fine. Arsenikk (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "800 million" it should be obvious, but just in case, can you clarify what type of dollars that is?
  • "by 2012" should be changed to "in 2012" instead
    • The first were signposted before 2012, so it would be incorrect to state "in 2012". If you have a better way of formulating it without giving the impression they were all signposted this year, then I'll be open for a change. Arsenikk (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "List" personally, I'd say a better header could be used
    • Hm, I have previously had complaints about the opposite, but I can change. Arsenikk (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the "Sign" image should be used, as it is in the template below, and distracts from readability of the list
    • I was uncertain myself, so if we agree then it is best begone. Arsenikk (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table doesn't meet WP:DTT, add table captions to ensure it does
    • I seem to remember telling someone else just a few days ago that tables need captions.... ;) Arsenikk (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text needs to be added to the images per MOS:IMAGES
  • There is a {{official website}} that is typically used for official websites, perhaps that can be used there instead? If not, "Official site" should be changed to "Official website" instead
    • Don't think there is any requirement to use the template as all it does is produce the exact code I have written. I have changed to "official website".
  • Can you add appropriate portals that relate to this subject in external links section, as it is the only place where it currently fits, using {{portal box}} or {{portal bar}}
    • Don't know why I keep forgetting those.
  • Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order
    • Where do you have this from? The guidelines specifically state that categories do not need to be in a particular order, especially not alphabetical. Arsenikk (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBrandley 21:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fast review. I have amendment the article or replied to all your concerns. Arsenikk (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on all criteria, looks very nice, and solid, as always. Great work! TBrandley 22:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An amazing piece of work. Good job Arsenikk. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope to take a look soon. --Rschen7754 23:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there any secondary sources available? --Rschen7754 23:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There were two and I added two more (one English-language). The main problem is that independent sources are approximate in their coverage; they do not include facts and instead focus on the "softer" sides of the issue. I have tried to source as much of the lead as possible from various news sources. Arsenikk (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sounds good, more in depth review coming. --Rschen7754 18:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • First paragraph - two sentences start with "The routes".
    • through which the roads run?
    • Second paragraph - "project" used in quick succession.
    • Next sentence - move "in 1997" to the front. --Rschen7754 01:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Moved, but elsewhere in the sentence to avoid it starting with "in [year]". Thanks for the comments. Arsenikk (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support issues addressed. --Rschen7754 19:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)
;Comments
  • National Tourist Routes in Norway - Is this the official translation? The current wording is "National Tourist Routes in Norway ... is ...", which looks really weird.
    • That is the official term, although I admit it is not a particularly eloquent. In general, anything within the public sector has an official translation which we as far as possible try to stick to on Wikipedia, even if a lot of them are rather long and awkward. I have rephrased the sentence so it's not quite as weird. Arsenikk (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The routes have been singled out based on their unique natural surroundings, because they serve as alternatives to main highways, and for availability of viewpoints and tourist services. - You just said they are "chosen for their picturesque scenery and featuring tourist-friendly infrastructure, such as rest stops and viewpoints.". This is feeling redundant.
  • The project started in 1994 with projects - Project ... projects
  • design to enhance the experience. - What kind of design? Everything has some design.
  • Louise Bourgeois and Peter Zumthor - Opposed to "young Norwegians" how?
    • Bougeois would be 98 and Zumthor is 69 and neither are Norwegian. Do you want this to be specified? To me it is obvious from the sentence that they contrast. Arsenikk (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • including one of Mark Dion - The work was by him or shows him?
  • All routes were signposted and officially designated by 2012. - You just said six have been completed and signposted.
    • Fixed. I wrote the article about a year ago, when that was the case, and forgot to remove it. Arsenikk (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • views 600 m (2,000 ft) down on the Aurlandsfjord. - What are views "down on" a fjord?
  • enclasps to the fjordside - I don't get what "enclasp" is supposed to mean here.
    • enclasps is the same as to cling; it was an attempt to avid repeating that word, but I agree that it didn't work out very well. Arsenikk (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • crown island - What's this mean?
  • endless ocean - That's waxing poetic. The ocean does end... don't think you need "endless"
    • Good point. This is the first chance I had on WP at creating somewhat poetic descriptions, so I had to take my chance. Arsenikk (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's it. Images look fine (one needed renaming, but I did that) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the comments; all has been seen to. Arsenikk (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good, except "selected highways designated" seems redundant. I'd nix the "selected" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Lead image could be bigger and caption needs a full stop.
    • I have set it to standard width (it is after all a portrait-aligned image), but a {{clear}} is then needed above the table for a combination of 300px- and wide screens for the image not to "steal" part of the table width. Arsenikk (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you translate the cost into something more universal e.g. US dollars or Euros or similar?
    • Dollars, pounds or euros, at what exchange rate? I normally do not convert figures to other currencies because it is impossible to agree to a single currency, and it is impossible to determine a proper exchange rate. Arsenikk (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pick one, and a year for approximate conversion. It's just because that could be equivalent to two pounds or two trillion pounds as far as I'm concerned (no disrespect to non-US $/non-Euro currency countries such as Norway, of course....!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks like I didn't formulate myself quite as planned, as I actually did add a conversion, just wanted to make a big hassle about it ;) Arsenikk (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The stops are regarded as art projects that use design to enhance the experience" sounds a bit like an adverty quote to me...
  • Perhaps qualify Mark Dion with "American fine artist..." for context.
  • If these routes are notable, all routes should have articles or, at least, be redlinked to encourage the articles to be written.
    • I have avoided redlinking the unnumbered county roads as they would only exceptionally be notable. The linked roads are ex-national roads and therefore notable (which explains why some are linked and others not).
  • The Roads column doesn't sort numerically...
  • Not sure you need the Category:Roads in Norway nor the Category:Tourist highways since they're both categories of Category:National Tourist Routes in Norway I presume?

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. All has been seen to. Arsenikk (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, will collapse as soon as I think other folks have had time to take a look. Nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "1,850 kilometers (1,150 mi)" they should either both be abbreviated or spelt out in full
    • This is not only the default setting in {{convert}}, but also the recommended way in the MOS. Arsenikk (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • So it does, seems a little strange to me, but never mind. NapHit (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another one in the second para
  • How come some of the roads aren't linked in the table, yet they are in the template?
    • The reason is that I honestly don't know if all of these roads are notable and that I was more liberal in the template than in the list. I have delinked the template (as I presume un-numbered highways are non-notable and they can always be re-linked should I be proven wrong). Arsenikk (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images in the table could do with alt text
  • "and is dotted with fishing hamlets hiding between unsheltered" dotting and hiding are the most encylopeadic words, also sounds a bit adverts. Suggest changing the wording
    • Changed. 20:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "infamous as a ship graveyard" infamous is a bit POV, would just have famous or "a noted ship graveyard"
    • Changed, but this is as infamous as it gets. Arsenikk (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The area is sprinkled with waterfalls..." again sprinkled is not encyclopaedic language
    • Changed to "scattered", which I hope is better.
  • "The area in unpopulated..." typo
    • Changed. 20:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • You have "A coastal alternative to E6..." and then "The coastal alternative to E6..." in the next cell. Using The suggests it is the only alternative when that appears not to be the case
    • Changed to "a", but I don't think there is any other alternative coastal route (at least for that section of E6). Arsenikk (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "include Torghatten with a hole through it..." I would be a bit more descriptive here, what sort of hole? natural or man-made?
  • "preserve the an active cultural heritage..."
  • "views of emerald green mountain lakes..." that reads like a travel brochure I think green would suffice
    • Added meltwater green, as that is a proper description (and the unique color). Arsenikk (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, all has been seen to or explained. Arsenikk (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is a well-structured, well-referenced list that meets all the criteria. Dough4872 20:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be possible to get a map. Nergaal (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2012 (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/National_Tourist_Routes_in_Norway/archive1&oldid=1138488316"