Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Minnesota state parks/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates | List of Minnesota state parks
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 06:38, 1 February 2008.

List of Minnesota state parks

edit

Modeled after List of Pennsylvania State Parks but with park coordinates. I believe this article is now up to snuff (after it's 1st failed submission in march 06) -Ravedave (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure you can designate which columns are sortable when using wikitable sortable... but I'm no expert. Seegoon (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jonathunder has corrected the sorting. -Ravedave (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems to me as though the map in the upper-right corner needs to be altered a bit. Several of the parks are shown as being in Lake Superior, and several others are shown as being in other states (Wisconsin and Iowa). Skudrafan1 (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the positions of some of those coordinates so they'd actually appear to be in the state. (Jay Cooke State Park and Saint Croix State Park were the ones that looked most obviously like they were in Wisconsin.) Several of those parks are actually on the borders you described, as there are several parks on Lake Superior and the St. Croix River, the borders of the state. (Then there's Interstate Park, which actually does span the border between Minnesota and Wisconsin.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Parks such as Hayes Lake, Minneopa, Sakatah, Myre-Big Island, Great River Bluffs, and others all appear to be located 6-10 miles or so south of their actual positions; some also appear to be shifted slightly to the east. Kablammo (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they are only 6-10 miles off then color me happy. I manually guessimated their position based on this map which has a different projection and no county outlines. Feel free to move them where they need to go I don't think the s-e thing is systemic. -Ravedave (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kablammo (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Ravedave at Talk:List_of_Minnesota_state_parks#Map the map displays differently in Firefox v. Internet Explorer. The map now displays correctly in IE, but the dots in Firefox are displaced. Kablammo (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Looks pretty good, but three things bother me. First, the external links in the park name column. Second, the gallery doesn't add much at all. I'd say those pictures are better left for the park's pages. Third, I think the year column should be center aligned (typically, columns with data, ie numbers, are center aligned). Drewcifer (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. #1 Is there some better place for the links? They are extremely useful, so I'd like to keep them but they could be moved. #2 I can go either way, so if someone 2nds removing pictures I'll do it. #3 really? the lists that I have seen here usually have the left or right aligned. -Ravedave (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I like the gallery as it is -- the pictures help to illustrate the content. If the article does its job, then everyone will want to come to Minnesota to see our state parks. (Well, maybe that's not the point of the article, but there are other reasons to visit Minnesota besides the Megamall.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could go either way with the pictures. It's just that there is so little of them, it doesn't seem to add much. Whatever you think is best. As for the external links, I would expect that if a reader really wanted to find out more about the park, they'd go to the park's main page, where an external link would be more appropriate. Per WP:EL we should avoid external links in the main prose/content of the article. As for the dates column, after looking through a bunch of other FLs, it doesn't seem to be as uniform as I made it sound. Most county lists do it, but some others don't, so whatever you think is best. Drewcifer (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. Not essential, but you might consider creating a separate column for the external links.
2. While I like the images, I don't think they should be in a separate gallery section. I think List of Pennsylvania state parks gets it right by interspersing them throughout the article.
3. The facts section must be eliminated. There is no reason at all to have a separate list of facts lacking context, and it would be relatively easy to fold those facts into portions of the lead or of the 'History' section.
4. Again, take a look at how the Pennsylvania article separates an overview of the current park system from the history of the system. A more in-depth overview than what you provide in the lead would be helpful, though not absolutely essential.
5. The history section stops at 1935. Surely there must be more recent history that is important to the topic. Were more parks or more acreage created at certain times than at others?
6. There's no mention in the lead of the Former parks.
But you've done a yeoman's job putting it together. Geraldk (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Minnesota_state_parks/archive2&oldid=188340637"