Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National preserve/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

National preserve

edit

National preserve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Reywas92Talk 20:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next in my series of US protected areas is the national preserve, which like the National recreation area was a designation created to accommodate protecting places that were already impacted by people and didn't meet the criteria of national park or national monument. Then it became a way to allow hunting in protected places, sometimes connected with parks or monuments where it's banned. Although they have those differences, they're still beautiful places I'd like to visit. It's a shorter list than my others and I appreciate your reviews! Reywas92Talk 20:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • I would merge the last two paragraphs of the lead as they are both very short
    • Done, though these sentences aren't actually related or parallel facts so I considered even splitting the last paragraph. Other thoughts are welcome.
  • "management of reserves can be delegated to the state in which they reside" - do reserves really "reside"? Maybe "are located"?
    • Done
  • "They are home to nine-banded armadillos, bobcat, river otter, alligators" - plural/singular/singular/plural?
    • Done
  • Under Glacier Bay, what's ATV?
    • Linked
  • "There are no roads but it is has access" - stray word in there
    • Done
  • "Summer visitors float down the rivers abd see remnants of gold mining" - typo in there
    • Done
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

edit
  • Version reviewed — 1
Formatting
  • Ref#3 – "Washington, D.C."; be consistent with including location. (Either all or none)
  • Ref#4 – Add URL access date and website name.
  • Ref#5 – Add July 14, 2020 as date.
  • Ref#6 – Inconsistent in usage of "National Park Service" and "www.nps.gov". Also, why is (U.S. National Park Service) there in the title?
    • That's how the citation tool autogenerated it.
  • Ref#7 – Check the date. Of-course Nixon gave the speech on "February 8, 1972", but I'm fairly confident that the web page given here wasn't published in 1972. Also, just a suggestion that we can replace the current url with a permanent url (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/255047)
    • Not sure what you mean, I'm citing the primary souce of his speech, not the fact that UCSB put it on their website, which doesn't have a date.
      • @Reywas92 – If it doesn't has any date, better remove the date parameter. 1972 looks odd for date in a {{citeweb}} template. However, its up-to you, and is a minor issue. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I changed it to {citation} and it's the same formatting, I'll just leave that.
  • Ref#11 and 12 are probably fine.
  • Ref#13 – Title ""Do Things Right the First Time" Administrative – Quotes inside the title should be in under single quotation marks to avoid these 2 quote marks forced by the template.
  • Ref#15 – If the URL is of the chapter, it should use the "Chapter URL" parameter.
  • Ref#19 – Statesman Journal is linked, which is not consistent with rest of the article. And "Salem, Oregon" is included as location, which too is inconsistent.
  • Ref#31 – The title should have a endash (–) instead of a usual dash (-).
Reliability
  • All good. In previous such featured list nominations, using "National Park Service" as a source was determined to be OK.
Verifiability

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ran the bot, but I'm confused why it chose to link to the 2010 version of the pages for many of them.
If my understanding is correct, the IA bot usually finds and adds the latest archived URL. It may be that, for various sources cited in this article, the last archived link was in 2010. Nobody since archived it... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well these have been archived since then so idk, I may just remove them for the NPS homepages. Reywas92Talk 15:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All done thanks. Reywas92Talk 13:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for source review. Is this going to be a Featured topic sometime in future (which would be great to see). Would appreciate if you could review this nomination. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually yes! National Historic Site (United States) will need a 145-item table though.... Will do yours soon. Reywas92Talk 16:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

edit
  • Tables need captions to allow screen reader software to 'jump' straight to them without reading out all of the text above them each time; add as the first line in the table |+ caption_text, or if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header you can make it only visible to screen reader software like |+ {{sronly|caption_text}}. --PresN 01:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, thanks. Reywas92Talk 03:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DTM

edit
  • When all other rows have one reference, why does Glacier Bay need two; conversely, why do the others need just one? All the other references in the other rows point to a general opening page, whereas only here have you provided a specific link.
  • Row for Noatak, before Ref#38 – there is an extra space.
  • Support, reads well and looks good. – DTM (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Glacier Bay is a combo park and preserve and the NPS has such a webpage dedicated to the preserve, so I cited it as well. None of the other co-managed preserves have separate official pages about them and are instead covered in the context of the combined area. Done, thanks! Reywas92Talk 19:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Thadeus

edit
  • Support - It's a comprehensive list with a thorough, well-sourced background section (which in my eyes is just as important as the list itself). I was surprised that we only have 21 national preserves! I suppose many states probably have their own versions of the system, though. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 14:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 03:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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/National_preserve/archive1&oldid=1061932396"