Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Earthquakes in 1985/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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 21:37, 21 March 2011 [1].
Earthquakes in 1985 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Diego Grez (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all of the criteria, showcases the topic in depth, covering all of the earthquakes that year, and is properly sourced. Thanks, and comments are of course welcome Diego Grez (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Just quickly passing by, haven't read in detail.
- What is the inclusion criterium? Why not mention it in the lead?
- For some earthquakes (e.g. the March 3 Chile earthquake) you list the main eartquake and a number of other obviously related earthquakes ("aftershocks"?). I think that these aftershocks should be marked somehow as such.
- The main list appears unreferenced.
- Some of the short (one sentence) paragraphs of the lead should be merged with others.
- Not sure what the second image (church of Santa Cruz) shows with regard to earthquakes.
- There is one broken link and five links to disambig pages.
bamse (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, a map showing the location of all the earthquakes of that year (or all earthquakes mentioned in the list) would be more instructive than the maps of just two earthquakes in my opinion. bamse (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments.
- The first sentence of the article should probably begin with "According to United States Geological Survey, ..."
- In the list itself dates should be separated from magnitudes by mdashes, not ndashes as now.
- I do not like the style: poorly written incomplete sentences. The list should be either rewritten in the form of prose or converted to a table.
- Comments
- I think a table would be a better format, the current layout looks rather messy
- Should show the country name along with the flags. Not everyone recognize them. Use {{flagcountry}} instead
- The dates are hard to see. Should bold them.
—Chris!c/t 21:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I didn't notice that this list copies materials from a public domain source. Per Giants2008, this is not our best work.—Chris!c/t 04:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – Sorry, but I feel that a list with much of its writing copied from a public domain source shouldn't be made featured. An article of similar closeness to a PD source would be quickly declined at FAC, and I don't think FLC should act any differently. PD copies may have their place on Wikipedia (with proper attribution), but that doesn't mean they deserve a star. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose leaving PD issues asides, I am sure this list can be reorganized into a sortable table (date, location, magnitude, casualities, notes). Nergaal (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Per nominator request The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.