Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Natural Landmarks in Colorado/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 Hahc21 03:45, 9 March 2014 [1].

List of National Natural Landmarks in Colorado[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This list, which covers some of the most beautiful and unsullied areas in Colorado, closely follows the format I used in the Michigan and Alaska lists, both now FLs. I look forward to your comments! Dana boomer (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- this list is looking good, but after reading the Michigan list, I would like to see a little more information on some of the more notable landmarks in Colorado. Is there any content you can add? I'm not suggesting you expand the lead that significantly, only to add a sentence or two about some of the sites' significance (culturally, militarily etc.). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 00:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the corresponding list is actually List of National Natural Landmarks in Michigan, not the National Historic Landmarks list you linked above. The NHL list is summarizing almost 40 sites, while this NNL list is summarizing 14, in a different program. I'll look at the Colorado list tomorrow, and see if there are any little bits and pieces I can add in, but wanted to make sure you were comparing to the right list :) Dana boomer (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, you are correct. That's what happens when you're reading late at night, I suppose! :) Sorry about that. Now looking at the correct Michigan list, could you specify in the lead the first two designations you are referring to (and the latest one)? Ruby 2010/2013 00:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list looks great and worthy of becoming an FLC. I support its promotion. Nice work! Ruby 2010/2013 19:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A very good list. I would suggest linking "unconfined aquifer". Dudley Miles (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the support and the suggestion, which I have now acted upon. Dana boomer (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Very informative list. Quite educational and encyclopedic. Meticulously sourced throughout. Well done. — Cirt (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome, — Cirt (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "13 fully within Colorado and one shared" MOSNUM says use either numbers or words to describe similar things, so "Thirteen" or "1".
  • " two Natural Landmarks, while two Landmarks" various varying description of the landmarks, you abbreviated them to NNLs in the lead, why not just use that each time?
  • I did a bit of tweaking to this, but I don't think it made it much better. Do you have any better wording to get rid of the two landmarks...two landmarks... repetitiveness? Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over doing the accuracy of the conversion, we don't need square miles to the nearest 0.001.
  • "Owners include private individuals and several municipal, state and federal agencies" vs "Both public and privately owned properties can be designated as NNLs." isn't this effectively saying the same thing twice?
  • No, not the same thing. The second says that both public and private properties can be designated as NNLs, the first says that NNLs owned by the various groups listed have been designated as NNLs in Colorado. For example, Colorado has NNLs owned by municipalities, while Alaska doesn't. In Michigan, a public university owns at least one NNL. I think there's at least one state where there are no NNLs on private land. So, the first is what is done in that state, the second is what could be done in nation-wide. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may object to" why would they do this with all the benefits thereafter described?
  • They don't want the guv'mint on their land? Honestly, I'm not really sure, but I would guess it would boil down to the distrust/dislike that some people in very rural areas (which are where the vast majority of the NNLs are) have for the federal government. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Top North American" do you mean the best when you say "top"?
  • "5.000 sq mi" see above.
  • Rounded to the nearest 1/10; also fixed another one that was to the nearest 1/1000. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • General ref and specific ref 1 appear to be the same.
  • They are. The general ref covers everything in the table that isn't specifically referenced to other sources, while the first specific ref covers the information in the lead that precedes it. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A major example of" any need for "major"? Is it backed up by reliable sources?
  • The source calls it an "excellent illustration". Any suggestions for rewording? Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • National Park Service is linked in ref 1, not in the general ref which comes before it.
  • "species- and plant-..." are plants species?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I think I have replied to everything above. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Rambling Man, I think I have addressed everything above. Any further thoughts? Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a comment- you're mixing date types in your references; pick one (yyyy-mm-dd or Month dd, yyyy). You also have a few redirecting links in the descriptions that don't seem intentional, if you care to fix those. --PresN 22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support. The dates are standardized, as far as I can tell - publication dates are month day year, access dates are yyy-mm-dd. This is a completely legit way of styling references, and is the style I generally use in everything I write. Not sure which redirect links you're speaking of, or why they're a problem? Dana boomer (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh, looked it up, and it turns out that's true- pub dates have to be consistent, and access dates have to be consistent, but they don't have to be the consistent with each other. Never knew that; always thought it had to be one format for all dates in the references. Still looks silly to me, but to each their own. As to the redirects, it's just minor issues that don't matter much- quarries, wetlands, igneous, and I meant unconfined aquifer, honey ant, and hanging garden as well (also: Indian Springs Trace Fossil), but on second look they seem more or less intentional. --PresN 07:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Perfectly happy with 99.9% of the list; my only minor quibble is that the image used in the lead, of Hanging Lake, makes the lake look quite... dinky. The image used in the table seems much more impressive, and I'm wondering if it might be better to swap those two around, because at present the initial impression is that you're leading in with an ol' swimming hole. (The fact that this is such a petty gripe should indicate there's plenty right with the rest of it. :P). GRAPPLE X 01:02, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_National_Natural_Landmarks_in_Colorado/archive1&oldid=1079394336"