Comments:
Is there snow on Madagascar's mountains?
-
- Interesting to know. Hopefully the map-making-people will one day make a new map with better color scheme. bamse (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the map label, "Atsinanana" partially covers "of the" for me.
- I'm not sure how to change the coding so this issue is resolved. Would you kindly point me in the right direction? Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Not sure what you changed, but it looks good now. bamse (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not the most intriguing starting sentence, and not sure what the current guidelines as for boldfacing in featured lists are.
-
- Revising the lead is the next point on my to-do list for this article. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
Just a technicality: "Increased illegal logging ... placed...". I believe UNESCO "placed" and think that this should be mentioned.
Why do you mention the French names of sites on the tentative list?
- While on the tentative list, the names are not translated but rather retain the name given in the original language by the designating country. I have just added an explanation in the text. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did not see any explanation. Can you tell me what you added? If sites on the official tentative list are in French, shouldn't they also be in French in this article's table? bamse (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Can you tell me what you added? bamse (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The names and descriptions of all tentative sites are recorded by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in the language selected by the nominating country. Tentative sites in Madagascar are named and described in French and have been unofficially translated below, along with the year each site was added to the tentative list." The tentative list on the Featured List for Spain has the entries listed in English only although they were originally entered in Spanish. Since the original-language entries are provided in the lead, I think it might add unnecessary bulk to provide them in French a second time. One option that might work better is to just provide the English translations in the lead, and then provide the French and English versions in the table. Which do you think would look better? Lemurbaby (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, missed those sentences. In my opinion, the French names should appear in the table, since those are official. As for how to organize the rest (whether to translate it to English in the table or in the lead, etc), I don't really care. bamse (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What has the Intangible Cultural Heritage to do with the World Heritage Sites? That paragraph should be removed unless there is some connection.
- UNESCO created this categorization so that world heritage beyond physical sites could be recognized and preserved. It's related (i.e. UNESCO world heritage) but not exactly the same (i.e. not physical), yet since Madagascar only has one such type of world heritage, it will most likely be overlooked by visitors to the site if it is not incorporated into the article somehow. If a similar explanation were provided here, would you find it adequate to justify the inclusion of the intangible heritage entry in the article? Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see how it belongs into a "List of World Heritage Sites" (i.e. physical sites) article. bamse (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should "Anjanaharibe-Sud" be marked separately as it is not a new site but an extension?
- I believe it should be kept separate, since it has its separate entry on Madagascar's tentative list. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, if UNESCO treats it in the same way as completely new sites, that's fine with me. bamse (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinates of "South-western Madagascar, Mahafaly country" seem incorrect. Please check others as well.
-
Change section name: "List of sites" to "Sites" or "Inscribed sites" or something like it.
Not too fond of the "period" column in the first table, since only one of the three sites has a non-trivial entry there.
-
- You could have put the years into the description column, not too lose that information. bamse (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
Meaning of UNESCO criteria (i...x) should be wikilinked or explained in the article somewhere.
- There is a brief mention of what those mean in the article: "criteria i through vi are cultural, while vii through x are natural". I lifted that from the Featured List on WHS in Spain. Do you have something specific in mind when you suggest using a wikilink for those? Lemurbaby (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly you could link to this or better (if it has not been done yet/ask the people at the WH Sites Wikiproject) create a redirect to this section at Selection criteria of World Heritage Sites (or a similarly named article). Without telling what these criteria mean (more than "natural/cultural"), it is pretty pointless to list them in this table, IMHO. Replacing the numbers with "natural/cultural" would convey the same information. bamse (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh this is very good - Great thinking. I've now added the wikilink. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I thought about wikilinking the first occurence of the word "criteria", i.e. in the "Inscribed sites" section under "UNESCO data" and not all of the "i", "ii",... bamse (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reference titles in French should be translated with "trans_title" parameter.
Publisher should be wikilinked in references when possible.
More categories should be added.
- I included the categories that I've seen on other World Heritage Sites articles. It might be best not to deviate from the norm, unless there is some Madagascar-specific information that needs to be included and doesn't fit in any of the existing categories. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Added it to Category:World Heritage Sites in Madagascar. bamse (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh! Sorry, I thought you meant categories in the tables. Thanks for this addition. I will add another. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused by the procedures for tentative sites. On the one hand you write, that "[tentative sites]...are under consideration by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee for elevation to official status." and on the other hand "...member states can maintain a list of tentative sites that they may consider for nomination" which sounds as if the sites on the tentative list are not yet nominated. Which is correct?
- Nominated... to become an official world heritage site. So they are both correct. I will try to make this clearer. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a bit clearer now. As for the sentence: Nominations to the World Heritage list are only accepted... By whom? Possibly need some rephrasing, if what you mean is: Sites are only nominated to the WH list, if they've been listed on a tentative list. bamse (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
I realize that UNESCO often uses superlatives to justify inscription of World Heritage Sites. However I am not sure whether such emotional language is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Generally it is discouraged in wikipedia articles as far as I know. Examples from this list: "spectacular", "impressive", "stunning views", "extraordinary beauty",...
-
- Much better. Possibly something could/should be done about "thrive" and "flourish" in view of NPOV. bamse (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not essential, but I would prefer more variety in the way the "Descriptions" are started, i.e. not always: "[Name of WH site] comprises..."
bamse (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the sentence: "The construction of the palace on a rocky outcropping 1675 meters above sea level provides views of rainforests extending east to the Indian Ocean and a series of waterfalls fed by the Onive river." could be removed as it is likely not essential for the designation of the cultural site "Royal compound of Tsinjoarivo". bamse (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
