Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Minnesota state symbols/archive1
- 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 Hahc21 03:45, 9 March 2014 [1].
List of Minnesota state symbols[edit]
List of Minnesota state symbols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because, well, I believe it meets the criteria. I've modeled this largely after the featured Oregon list. It is a rather short one (with only 18 entries), so hopefully it won't take long to review. I see a large backlog on this page and will be happy to help clear some of it by jumping into reviewing tomorrow. Any comments here are much appreciated. Ruby 2010/2013 04:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments mainly minor technical issues...
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comments
- Have to say I'm surprised ice hockey, and not professional wresting, is the state sport. Jesse Ventura missed a trick here.
- With no article to explain it, it might be worth adding a little bit about lester soil. With the image being so tall you could add a line in the description without the table growing any. Just something along the lines of "Lester is a [dense/loose] [loamy/sandy/silty] soil present in approximately sixteen Minnesota counties", or however it actually is.
- " the "Gopher State", which is inspired from an early political cartoon" -> inspired by. You take inspiration from, but are inspired by.
- "the most northern state excepting Alaska" -> might flow better as "the most northern of the contiguous United States" (I find that "the most within a defined scope" reads better "the most overall, bar X")
- The unsuccessful proposals—some of these seem a bit frivolous (not that official soils and muffins aren't...), if there's any particular quirk behind the proposals it might be worth noting (I imagine the Tilt-a-Whirl one may have been a promotional stunt, for example). It's not major but it would help address Rambler's last point about helping the lead and text differ a little more strongly.
- Yes, many do seem rather frivolous! I've sought to explain wherever possible the significance of particular proposals (unsuccessful and successful), but see that I failed to do so for the vaunted Tilt-a-Whirl. I have now added some more information on it to clarify why it was proposed. If I did the same for the animals, it would make the section rather bloated. Ruby 2010/2013 02:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- On a similar note; given the state motto and sport, maybe a mention of the North Stars hockey team taking their name would help too.
- Not sure I'm keen on centred text in the description cells; totally an aesthetic opinion.
- "as a signal to the state's dairy industry that Minnesota cares about them" -> wouldn't an industry be an "it"? Could be phrased as "workers in the state's dairy industry" instead to keep the plural.
- "In 1904 and 1905, Minnesota's state song was written" -> Written in two stages, or should this be phrased as a range?
- Support: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Quite well sourced and great structure. Most educational. — Cirt (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: State of Minnesota is linked in many of the refs. Should it perhaps only be linked in its first appearance in the reflist? I may be ignorant of relevant policy with this question; excuse me if that's the case. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 18:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is usually up to editor preference. IMO, it would look a bit odd to only include one link to State of MN but link all mentions of the Star Trib. I've always sought to link all my citations in my articles for consistency's sake (especially if the references list is rather long). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 20:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Dana boomer (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments -
Just a few minor comments; otherwise, it looks to be in great shape. Dana boomer (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
- Thanks for reviewing! Let me know if there's anything else. Ruby 2010/2013 19:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Thanks for the fast response, everything now looks great. Dana boomer (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Congrats on a quality list! (I've not looked closely enough to cast a vote, but at first glance it looks great. Just dropping in having come across the list by chance.) --Another Believer (Talk) 03:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.