Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Natural Landmarks in Alaska/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 Giants2008 10:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

List of National Natural Landmarks in Alaska

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

• Featured list candidates/List of National Natural Landmarks in Alaska/archive1

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This list follows the format of my previous NNL nomination (the Michigan list last year). I believe it is close to featured status, and look forward to comments regarding any issues. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Dudley Miles

;Comments: "16 of the almost 600 United States National Natural Landmarks" sounds clumsy to me. I would prefer something like "16 National Landmarks out of a total of almost 600 in the United States". Reworked this a bit. Better? I do not understand "unorganized boroughs". Tweaked grammar slightly and linked to Unorganized Borough, Alaska. "makes nomination recommendations after an owner notification process" also sounds to me clumsy. Perhaps re-word. Attempted reword. Better? I would prefer "integrity of the sites" to "of the properties". Except that throughout the rest of the lead they are referred to as properties... Under Malaspina, what is an ice-cap region? Linked to polar ice cap. Under McNeil, what is nears fishing? LOL, I looked at this and went "huh?". Then realized it was a typo. Supposed to be "bears fishing" :) Unga. "The remnants give environmental and climactic evidence of pre-human contact Alaska." This took me two or three readings to understand. How about something like: The forest provides evidence of the environment and climate of Alaska before humans reached the area. OK, replaced. Walrus. What is a bull-walrus haul out? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Linked to Hauling-out. Replies above. Thanks for the comments! Dana boomer (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Support. A good list well presented. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from RadioKAOS: Right off the bat, the biggest issue I see: since these designations were made decades ago, how much of this information is presently outdated?

• I had previously pipe-linked "Clarence Rhode National Wildlife Refuge" to Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, but that doesn't quite tell the whole story. From Who's Who in Alaskan Politics:

  RHODE, Clarence J.<...>reg. dir., U.S. Fish & Wildlife, Juneau, 1948–58; killed in plane crash, Brooks Range, Aug. 21, 1958, accompanied by s. Jack and another passenger.<...>Kuskokwim Nat. Wildlife Refuge near Bethel renamed in his honor, 1960.

  While that explains that, it isn't explained that the name "Clarence Rhode National Wildlife Refuge" and accompanying land designation were both deprecated by the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980.

• Except that the "Clarence Rhode National Wildlife Refuge" was and still is designated as a National Natural Landmark, and is considered as such by the federal government. The name of the area before its designation doesn't matter. Dana boomer (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Similiarly, the statement about which landmarks are in or not in organized boroughs is false. The boundaries of Alaska's earliest borough's weren't finalized until the mid 1970s, so once again, you may be simply parroting information which is decades out of date. Lake George is within the corporate limits of the Municipality of Anchorage, an organized borough, although it's certainly a world away from Anchorage proper. Malaspina Glacier is within the City and Borough of Yakutat, also an organized borough. The thing is so freaking huge, though, that it quite possibly spills over into the Unorganized Borough (specifically, the Valdez–Cordova Census Area). Whenever I've looked up a feature on GNIS, it tells me which borough or census area the feature is located in. Little or none of this has been incorporated into the list.

• I've added borough information where boroughs have been created since the landmarks were designated. Where landmarks are located in wholly or partially in the Unorganized Borough (which is true for six of them), I've left the table alone. Dana boomer (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• On a related note, that table header is entitled "County", which needs to be changed. Alaska does not have counties and has never had counties. Perhaps "Borough or census area"? RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 19:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've changed this to "borough". Dana boomer (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Godot13

;Comments: Comments from Godot13 For consistency I would probably get rid of the "November" in the date column. Done. In the Borough column, again for consistency, I would not use "Alaska" in place of the Unorganized Borough. Done. "Alaska" is still in the last row. What I was suggesting, however, is that you put the Unorganized Borough in the column in place of Alaska. The dash could work, but you do actually have the info to fill in the cell.-Godot13 (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Fair enough. Done. Dana boomer (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC) See if you can find some representative images for the missing ones, the blank space is unfortunate. These are not great examples, but they're better than white space: [Unga Islands] and [Walker Lake]. Also, this list was translated on the [German Wikipedia] a few months after it was started on English Wikipedia, perhaps there are some images that can be used. Found images for all but one, so quite a bit of white space is gone. I thought I had looked for images for these previously, but my search skills had obviously deserted me that day. There are good search days and bad search days... ;-) -Godot13 (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC) References - Each description probably could take one or more, but should have at least one. All of the descriptions are sourced to the general reference. I've now added an in-line ref in the header to make this more clear. Maybe add this as an [external link]. Done. Nice work, very easily readable lead.-Godot13 (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the review! Replies above. Dana boomer (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support-Godot13 (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support– You may add alt text to the images, otherwise all look fine! Zia Khan 21:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support! I've now added alt text. Dana boomer (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.