Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Natural Landmarks in Michigan/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 20:08, 25 July 2012 [1].

List of National Natural Landmarks in Michigan[edit]

List of National Natural Landmarks in Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another one in my Michigan series... This one is a bit on the short side, with only 12 entries, but I still believe it meets 3.b. I haven't been able to think of anything else to add to the lead or the individual entries, but if you see something that I've missed please let me know! Thanks in advance for your comments, Dana boomer (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Albacore (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments:
  • Fixed. - DB
  • Why do we need the first column for the numbers?
  • This is the way it is done in every NNL/NHRP/NHL, etc list on WP (I had nothing to do with that, I'm just working with what was there). I'm not sure I want to remove it without a further consensus... - DB
  • Date formatting on reference three
  • Not convinced the image column is needed; the four images could be presented larger off to the right hand side of the table
  • Done. - DB
  • Abbreviate NNL in the first sentence, almost 600 United States National Natural Landmarks (NNLs)
  • Done. - DB

Albacore (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Albacore (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Ruby 2010/2013 21:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ruby2010
  • As Albacore said above, it would be better if you indicated what NNL stands for -> example: National Natural Landmarks (NNL)...
  • Done. - DB
  • This link tells me that "the page cannot be displayed"
  • It appears just fine for me. Are you still having trouble accessing it today? - DB
  • Use consistent date formatting (2012-06-07 vs. May 12, 1999). Ruby 2010/2013 22:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Albacore and Ruby, thank you very much for your comments. I have left completed most of the requested repairs, and have left individual replies above. I apologize for taking a couple of days to get back to you on these - RL has been a bit busy :) Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support the promotion of this nomination. Ruby 2010/2013 04:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • None of the NPS links work for me yet ("... unavailable...") so if you could ping me at some point, I'd like to check the sources!
  • Cool, seems to work fine. Now I can see it, I suggest you individually reference the landmarks using specific page numbers of that publication. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information in the table is found on three pages within the document, so I've just added page numbers to the general ref. I think individually referencing the landmarks would be really repetitive, given the small number of pages that the information is pulled from. Dana boomer (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also note that some of the precise names of the landmarks differ in that publication from those we have here. Is there a reason for that? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've double checked the landmark names and tweaked a couple of them - I had just been working with what was on the list when I started. Dana boomer (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing to consider, the format and refs for the geo-location of each landmark. I don't know where they're referenced (I guess they're not) but despite that, they have differing formats and levels of accuracy (e.g. compare Tobico Marsh – degrees, minutes, seconds – with Porcupine Mountains – degrees, minutes – with Toumey Woods – degrees, decimal degrees to 5 and 4 d.p respectively &ndash with Dukes Research area – degrees, decimal degrees to 2 and 5 d.p. respectively) and wonder also about the symbols you use for degrees and minutes (I think we tend to go for " and ' rather than the slightly slanted ones you're using?). And is specific ref 1 any different from the general ref? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #1 is the same document, but with an extra page added. With the geo-location, part of the issue is that the size of the various landmarks varies significantly, so some geolocations can be more specific than others. Another part of the issue is that I haven't been able to find specific geolocations for some of them, so have used the geolocation of the state park/recreation area/whatever that they are located in. The symbols for degrees and minutes is a function of the {{coord}} template, so that's not me :) I'll check into how to switch from decimal points to degrees/minutes and work on standardizing those in a bit. Dana boomer (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've figured out how to convert coordinates, and so the list should now be standardized. Please let me know if there are any other issues you see. Dana boomer (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the comment above about the number column. It seems meaningless to me as it seems to sort identically with the name of the landmark. Plus, there's the added confusion that it could be misconstrued as the order in which the Landmarks were recognised (if one doesn't pay much attention to lead, of course).
  • "while the latest, the" -> "while the most recent"?
  • To bulk up the list, I note you have in the lead who owns the various landmarks, presumably this information could be added to the table?
  • Our article on the Black Spruce Bog area is called "Waterloo State Recreation Area " so which is right? Or is it that the area was "recognised" when it was called the Black Spruce Bog?
  • Black Spruce Bog is a part of the Waterloo State Recreation Area, and the bog is the only portion of the WSRA that was recognizes as a NNL. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent and link every linkable item each time in this sortable table (e.g. beech-maple forest).
  • I've beefed up the linking - please let me know if it's too much or still not enough. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Michigan's last virgin beech-maple forest" forgive me (and perhaps the NPS source would tell me) but precisely what do you mean here by "virgin"?
  • I can't get ref 3 either, but it looks like another NPS link so why isn't NPS mentioned in the ref as the publisher?
  • It's a PDF of the pertinent Federal Register, which is a government-published journal. The NPS is just hosting it. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I believe I have addressed everything above. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You need to add the parameter |format=PDF to the refs that are PDFs. NapHit (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, NapHit! Dana boomer (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support NapHit (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • A couple of the table descriptions have the phrase "impressive", which may or may not strike some as POV. Just throwing it out there.
  • Two entries have "One of southern Michigan's last virgin beech-maple forest"; in both cases, the last word should be plural (it has to be if we have two of them in this list :-))
  • In the general reference and cite 1, the page ranges need en dashes. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giants, thank you for your comments, and I apologize for taking a couple of days to get back to you. I believe I have now addressed the issues above; please let me know if there's anything I didn't catch. Dana boomer (talk) 13:43, 8 July 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/List_of_National_Natural_Landmarks_in_Michigan/archive1&oldid=1079394345"