Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Extreme points of Sweden
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 User:Scorpion0422 16:30, 18 November 2008 [1].
Extreme points of Sweden[edit]
Modeled on Extreme points of India and Extreme points of Bulgaria, I feel that this article is ready for FL status. This is my first FLC and I am open to any comments and/or improvements. --TheLeftorium 15:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A well written article based on solid fact that is well cited. The lead section gives a good introduction to the subject. Includes relevant tables and images. Good job! ☺ Spiby ☻ 16:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "The extreme points of Sweden include the points" points-->coordinates.
- The Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve article says that it is the lowest point in Sweden, but this article says that it contains the lowest point. Which is it?
- It is located in the reserve so I changed it to that in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve article.
- Adjectives like "northernmost" should be hyphenated: northern-most, southern-most, etc.
- "It is
locatedin the Scandinavian Mountains chain, in the province of Lapland." - "The point is at the bottom of what once was Nosabyviken"-->The point is at the bottom of what was once Nosabyviken...
- "The bay was drained in the 1860s by John Nun Milner, an engineer,
in orderto get more arable land for Kristianstad." - The last image's caption needs a period at the end.
- PDF files need to have "PDF" entered into the
format=field in the citation template. - What language are the book sources in (ref 8 and the general reference)?
- Refs 9 and 19 need to state what languages they are in. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well referenced. Looks good. Can't find a reason to oppose?—Chris! ct 02:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Current refs 12, 13, 16, 24 all redirect to the Wikipedia article. You can't reference the article itself as a source.
- Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't those refs go to the book, Almqvist & Wiksells stor-atlas, in the references section? Maxim(talk) 15:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They do (now that I can see the highlighting), but why do you need to on such a short article? The linking trick is useful when the list of references is so long that people might not find it easily, on this short of an article it's just confusing (at least to me) but it's certainly allowed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I like the prose. Of course I do, I copyedited it... :p Maxim(talk) 15:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because Sweden sucks at hockeyComment Nice work, but is it possible that you could replace the Swedish refs with English ones? It should be okay if you don't, but it would be nice if you could. Also, why are there three citations for each line? If each one covers something specific, then it should be in the appropriate box. -- Scorpion0422 19:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've searched all over Google and those English references already there were the only ones I could find. As for the three citations, they don't cover anything specific, they're just there because "the more references the better". ;) TheLeftorium 20:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.