Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama


 * 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 User:Matthewedwards 06:24, 4 January 2009.

List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama
I want to have this list assessed for FL, it has been peer reviewed and the reviewer felt it was ready. Myself and Doncram have been the primary contributors, but the list structure involved substantial input from our project, the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. This is the first of the 50 state National Historic Landmarks lists to be nominated for FL. (List of National Historic Landmarks in New York was nominated and failed.) Thanks.  Altairisfar talk  20:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick comments:
 * We don't use "This is..." for lists anymore. Make a more descriptive opener.
 * Cut the blue out of the table. It serves no purpose and is unnecessarily distracting.
 * The "The table below lists all of these sites, along with added detail and description." is unnecessary.
 * Find someone to spot-check the images for proper sourcing/permissions/etc.


 * That's it for now. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 21:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The first three are done, working on the fourth. Thanks.  Altairisfar talk  22:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Sephiroth BCR objected to the use of color because, I assume, he/she did not understand the purpose of the color, which is to provide consistent color-coding of various types of NRHP properties in mixed tables of NRHPs created by WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. The coloring system was explained in a footnote to the top left cell of the first table, and it could also be linked from each of the differently colored numbering cells in the table. The article coloring scheme will not be immediately obvious to a reader who is not familiar with more of the NHL and other NRHP list articles.  However, there is a purpose to it, and it enhances the reading for the more informed reader while not detracting from the experience for a less informed reader, in my view.


 * This article, being mostly a tabulation of the NHLs in one state, used the NHL blue color mostly. A different color is used for the NHL district or two within the first table;  other different colors used in the third table.  In my view, the color in the first table header (which Altairisfar removed) should be restored to NHL color blue. doncram (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I restored that color and I restored/added explanatory footnotes about the color-coding, now linked from the top left cell of each table. Note the color-coding info is also linked from the number in the first cell using each new color when it is introduced...namely, cell 1 in table 1, the Tuskegee Institute's number cell, the Yancey number cell, and the 3 entries in the 3rd table.  This access to color-coding explanation is subtle, rather than hammering the reader over the head with it.  The use of the color-coding makes sense in the larger context of the system of lists of NHL and NRHP lists.  For example, see also List of National Historic Landmarks in New York, which uses more colors because more types of properties appear there.  Again, I think the subtle use of color-coding helps for the more informed/interested reader, and it does not detract from the reading experience for the less informed.  It suggests to the reader, correctly, that there is a distinction to be made between some of the properties vs. others. doncram (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't justify the blue in the top row of cells. Drop those. If you want to use color to identify the different NHLs, then add a key (see Chicago Bulls seasons, use symbols in addition to the color for the benefit of our colorblind readers), center the numbers (use align="center" | YOURTEXTHERE ), and make them bigger. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 23:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the blue in top row, I don't think this would be controversial at the wikiproject. I'll leave a note there to make sure.  My skills at markup language aren't good enough to center the numbers, though I tried.  The template link to the key at NRHP colors legend within the number at the first occurrence of each color seems to be the problem, it needs different formatting.   Altairisfar talk  00:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there was a reason for the blue NHL color in the header row, which Sephiroth would also not have understood upfront, namely that it is a table of NHLs. In the wikiproject, we have been using the different blue color for NRHPs (as used in this article for the Yancey site which is now an NRHP and no longer an NHL) for headers of those tables.  There is a planned out system for many many articles.  I don't think it is essential for the reader of just one article to see what the system of organization is;  it is a feature enhancing the information for readers of many NRHP / NHL articles.  That said, i don't mind terribly losing the NHL color here if that would secure Sephiroth's support.  I've tried adding a key with symbols into the article.  I don't want to increase the size of the numbers.  Why do you want them increased in size?  They are not official numbers, they are merely helpful row numbers which are helpful for clarifying how many items there are in a table.  They should not be enlarged or bolded or otherwise highlighted further.  Such numbering is helpful here, but even more helpful in longer lists of this type, and including them is a matter of the style worked out for these tables by the NRHP wikiproject.  Further editing to use the symbols as well as the colors is still needed, if the new key is kept in.  I am not sure if it is that helpful or not.  The proposed list-article did have a key system (though without symbols) which was already explained in the article's notes and the available links.  There is a danger in whipsawing the article through too many changes in response to semi-casual observations.  Upon further consideration, does switching to a different key system really improve the article, once you understand there was a key system already? doncram (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really matter what type of table this is; having a solid sheet of blue in the top row is by far not aesthetically pleasing, serves no purpose, and is distracting to the reader. It shouldn't be in any type of table. As for the numbers, I want them increased in size so a reader can read what on earth it is. There's no advantage to keeping them small, and you can barely see what symbol is used in the table. Adjust the template accordingly. As to your so-called "danger in whipsawing the article [...] in response to semi-casual observations," that's insulting. You're nominating this to be an item of featured content, and as such, it must meet community standards that the reviewers here, including myself, are very knowledgeable about. It's fine to state the reasoning as to why your doing things and quite another to bring accusations against the reviewers of this process who invest time and effort in ensuring that these lists are of the necessary quality to be featured. In any case, you need to use the symbol in every iteration of the said classification, and each needs to be wikilinked because the table is sortable. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 04:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you interpreted my comment as insulting to you. You labelled your own comments as "Quick comments" and you made what I believe is an over-statement / misstatement (about the colors "It serves no purpose...."), when in fact there was an intended purpose for the colors.  I do freely grant that the intended purpose may not have been adequately clear, and there is room for consensus improvement as well as room for personal taste differences.  I don't believe it is disrespectful, and it was not meant to be, to comment about a danger of revising an article too much in response to semi-casual comments.  Thank you for your comments. doncram (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm attempting to change it according to the suggestions, but I may need help with the coding. BTW, I nominated the list, not Doncram.  Altairisfar talk  04:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) Okay, it's done now.  Altairisfar talk  05:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - all problems were fixed to comply with WP:WIAFL.--SRX 16:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose [Opposition withdrawn] for the same reason that I earlier opposed the similar list for New York: the scope of the list is fuzzy. A list of National Historic Landmarks should be a list only of designated National Historic Landmarks, and should not also include National Park Service sites with historic value. The assertion that these are "equally significant" is probably true, but (1) it is original research that is not based on the cited sources and (2) these sites have other designations (such as "national monuments" and "national historic sites") -- they are not "national historic landmarks." I have no objection to listing former landmarks in the article, but the list should not include other sites that never had this designation.

I have not reviewed the article thoroughly yet, but I have some concerns about prose similar to those stated by SRX. For example, I suggest restating "This is one of the most unusual examples of Greek Revival architecture in the United States" to something like "Gaineswood was designated an NHL because it is considered one of the most unusual examples of Greek Revival architecture in the United States."--Orlady (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Response I removed the "equally significant" phrase to which Orlady objected. It now reads "Though they are also historically significant at a national level, they are not also designated as NHLs."  That is a 100% factual, true statement involving no original research.  The NHL program has a priority to designate sites which are threatened;  the probable true reason why these 3 sites are not named NHLs is that they were very well protected already in the National Park Service system.  This assertion, however, is not stated in the article and does not need to be stated there.


 * As for Orlady's objection on the inclusion of the 3 other National Park Service areas in the article, she states that "A list of National Historic Landmarks should be a list only of designated National Historic Landmarks, and should not also include National Park Service sites with historic value". But why not?  Why should it not?  Orlady does not object to the one former NHL site, which is also not an NHL.  The list is more helpful to readers by identifying the other 3 major contenders for historically important sites in the state.  There is no problem, as I see it, in including the 3, and in fact it is helpful.  Perhaps Orlady believes it is too confusing for readers?  That would be very negative about the ability of wikipedia readers to read and to comprehend what is stated in the list-article.  I suggest that if other reviewers do not also object strongly to including those three, that Orlady's view, just on this one point, be disregarded.


 * Also, Orlady, if you have specific objections to the prose in the article, it would be most helpful if you would state them. Otherwise, your objection about prose is vague.  The 2nd reviewer's comments, above, are much more helpful.  Sincerely, doncram (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Taking into account suggestions from several users, I've removed the sites that aren't National Historic Landmarks. This seems to have been one of the main reasons List of National Historic Landmarks in New York failed to attain featured list status. These sites are already covered in List of areas in the United States National Park System. I've also addressed the specific issue with prose in the Gaineswood text.   Altairisfar talk  03:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally object to losing the sites that are not National Historic landmarks. As a reader/user of the list, I find it very helpful to have all of these sites in one article when trying to see historic sites there are in a given state.  As a member of WP:nrhp, I guess it's what we have to do in order to get a list to featured list status.  I am frustrated by the fact that Orlady's view by itself seems to be enough to derail the nominations of these lists.  I'd be more in favor of changing the title of the list than of removing the additional sites. Or, I'd just disdain the honor of Featured List status, and keep the article the way it is. I am, however, extremely sympathetic to Altairisfar's desire to have the hard work he and Doncram have put into this list recognized. Therefore, I can reluctantly agree with removal of the other sites if that's what it takes.


 * I am appreciative of the specific suggestions about prose. I have written many list descriptions, though not on this list, and I appreciate the input about specific phrasing.  There are, however, some that I do not agree with.


 * This structure is an unusually sophisticated Greek Revival style plantation house, built in 1840. - 1)usual not ''usually 2)no need for the comma.
 * Changing usually to usual changes the meaning. As originally written, the unusually refers to sophisticated.  The house's Greek Revival architecture is unusually sophisticated.  Changing it to unusual makes it refer to the house.  The Greek Revival style house is unusual.


 * It represents the standard design for American fleet submarines at the beginning of that war. - represented not represents
 * It represents what was then standard design. Because the design changed does not change the fact that the still existing submarine represents that style.  Maybe It represents what was the standard design for American fleet submarines at the beginning of that war.


 * This house, cottage, and water pump are where deaf and blind Helen Keller was born and learned to communicate, assisted with the aid of her teacher and constant companion, Anne Sullivan. 1)is not where 2)remove assisted
 * I'm guessing that 1) should be is not are. However, the house IS where but the house, cottage and water pump collectively ARE where...


 * This monument was established on May 11, 1961, when 310 acres (1.3 km2) of land were donated by the National Geographic Society to the American people.  - was not were
 * An acre WAS donated. 310 acres WERE donated. OR "land WAS donated " but "acres of land WERE donated"


 * I agree with Doncram that we need to be careful that changes we make are appropriate changes, and that we don't just change things based on one reviewer's opinion if it is questionable.Lvklock (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Support Nitpicks, insignificant nitpicks all of the reasons to oppose are just that. Nowhere in the criteria WP:FL? does it say that an article needs to be perfect in order to be a featured article.  Since everyone will disagree about just what makes a perfect article.  Heck almost immediately after an article is approved for this status someone will make some change or the other that would ruin said "perfection".


 * "We don't use this is anymore..."says who? I suppose using it over and over again is not that creative.  But on the other hand.  How many ways can there be for telling someone what something is?  A simple fix for this, though IMO it does not need fixing, would be to replace this with "(name of place) is....."  OR would that not be Avant Gard enough? :-/  This is a variation on the argument WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is recognized as being a non-argument argument.  It implies somehow that a certain person's likes or dislikes constitute an objective, logical reason for the writers of an encyclopedia to do something.


 * "Coloring of the table" That is a matter of personal taste. Don't go making it sound like your personal taste is the only way a list can be.  Saying that the color coding confuses you, That only makes sense if there is no logic to the code.  which there is.  Different types of monuments have different colors.  That made perfect sense to me. This is a variation on the argument WP:IDONTLIKEIT....


 * "The list sould be composed only of sites which are on the list of national historic monuments or some such." That assertion is far to limiting.  Because there are official list of national historic "sites", "Architecture", "art" etc etc etc.  If you read the essay WP:NOTOR gathering data under a common heading is not Original research or synthesis.  Many pieces of historic art, or historic sites have monuments on them. This is a variation on the argument WP:IDONTLIKEIT....


 * "Typo's" The complaint about typo's is probably the only criticism with which I agree. That was one of the reasons I wrote in my peer review that I would not nominate this for FA status.  There is an easy way to fix this.  The Mozilla firefox browser has a built in spell checker.  I use it all the time and forgot that not everyone does.  It will underline each and every mispelled word.  (just be sure that it inserts the appropriate word.)  It cost nothing. Another thing you can do, if you havent, is check out wikipedia's enhanced editor.  Look under your preferences, click gadgets, then "wiki ED".  This alone is not a good reason to not have an article be a featured article.  Heck I could fix those typo's in two minutes. So I will. Thus negating this quibble.   (After checking for spelling errors) For example in one of the above "typos" it is said that represents should be replaced with represented.  The submarine in that case sill does actively represent the way subs would be built at the begining of that war.  Just like a large mockup of a Saturn V represents how NASA used to build spacecraft.  Until it is destroyed it will continue to represents.  I mean does the Great pyrymid of Giza represented  the state of Architecture in the 3000's BC. :-? I would say it still represents.  Many of the so called typo's are simmilar issues which reflect a individuals personal taste hence are just a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Which is no reason at all for anyone here to take any particular action.


 * I strongly support this because as I have just argued there has only been one real reason given to deny this FL status. That was some spelling errors which have been addressed.  The others are just matters of personal taste which can never please everyone. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're going to come here to do nothing but pout and claim that all the errors are "insignificant nitpicks" then don't bother commenting. It's disrespectful to the reviewers of this process and a disservice to the nominator of this article, who is doing an admirable job in bringing this list up to par. Our suggestions are not WP:IDONTLIKEIT (which by the way, is solely for use in deletion arguments and has zero relevance to the discussion here), they are actionable suggestions on the aesthetics of the table that need to be addressed. The NHRP WikiProject does not exist in a vacuum. It does not make standards that trump community standards, and FLC's purpose is to recognize our best work by community standards, not the arbitrary standards of a random WikiProject. You obviously have no experience with the FL process, and as such, your claim that our concerns are irrelevant is all the more insulting. I would advise both you and Doncram to not comment on the nomination because as of now, you're doing nothing constructive for the candidate. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 19:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I kinda feel like i have to chime in, because you are telling me not to and I do not think that is right. Please note my response above (within this edit change) about your taking offense;  i did not mean to insult you.  I do agree with some of what you say and appreciate your helpful participation in this review.  I do not think it is appropriate, however, for you to say who else should participate here and who should not, with respect to me and Hfarmer.  User:Hfarmer has legitimate points and I appreciated hearing them;  I expect that Hfarmer knows plenty well enough about the FL process and has much else to contribute on this and other FL nominations. doncram (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better way to put it is this: If someone does not have any constructive comments to make, then that someone should not say anything at all. Let us stop arguing about who has the right to do or say what and focus on improving the article. I will post a full review of the list later today. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I found it useful to hear Hfarmer's candid reactions to the FL review process, as Hfarmer seems to have a lot of experience with peer review but has never previously contributed to an FLC discussion. However, I share Sephiroth's concern that attacking the FL review process is a tactic that is unlikely to help this list get promoted -- and even might possibly hurt its chances. --Orlady (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If anybody has a problem with the way FL reviews are conducted, please bring them to WT:FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Butting in, for the record (and to the best of my knowledge) Hfarmer only very recently got involved with peer review. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 06:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Hfarmer, I take issue with this comment: "Nitpicks, insignificant nitpicks all of the reasons to oppose are just that. ''Nowhere in the criteria WP:FL? does it say that an article needs to be perfect in order to be a featured article." Sure, a list will never be "perfect", but the point of this process is to smooth out all of the little details and make the article as perfect as possible. They may be minor errors and the like, but they should still be fixed. -- Scorpion 0422  20:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not say they should not be fixed. What I did say is that the issues raised above were more or less matters of personal taste being presented as if they were logical arguments. (i.e. Color coding the table)  That is the essence of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  If it is a common part of the process that people decide if an article should be featured or not based on personal taste.  Then just what does FL status really mean?  It is not in fact there are criteria, which I feel that this article basically meets.  After reading it and checking a random sample of the citations and consulting WP:FL? It was my opinion it met the criteria at least 98% of the way. I do not see how issues like removing coloration help get it that last little 2%.


 * As for my right to comment here. None of us own these articles or these pages we all have equal rights.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, since all my issues (below) have been resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk)</b>  11:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Overall, this a very good piece of writing Altairisfar. Try not to worry about the bickering above. As Dabomb says, the focus here is the content, which is good. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  20:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've taken care of the issues raised by Dabomb87 and Rambo's Revenge, with the exception of the new third paragraph by Doncram. I'll give him a chance to correct these issues before doing it my way.   Altairisfar <sub style="color:#9ACD32;">talk  21:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've revised the 3rd paragraph, trying to address all the issues raised for it. What i was trying to do was provide some context for the NHLs, what they are vs. what they are not, including mentioning the 3 other obvious contenders for most-important-Federally-protected-historic-sites in Alabama, and mentioning that the NHLs are just 3% of all the Federally-somewhat-protected sites in the state.  Done for now. doncram (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Images look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC) (Non-comprehensive list from someone who knows next to nothing about images):
 * File:USS Drum SS-228 in Mobile.jpg needs a real source (is it self-made).
 * This one was copied to Commons from here, not sure why it double redirects, corrected.


 * File:Episcopal Church of the Nativity Huntsville.jpg – Can we have a link to the website?
 * The link was at the bottom of the summary, corrected.


 * File:1861 Davis Inaugural.jpg needs an author, and Wikipedia cannot be the source.
 * I have already replaced with a new image.


 * File:Fort morgan alabama.jpg – Use the commons version instead.
 * Replaced with a new image.


 * File:Sloss_Furnaces_Birmingham.jpg needs an author for attribution.
 * Corrected


 * File:WilliamLowndesYancey.jpg needs its information organized. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This one came from the NPS website, but has no attribution there, looking for another image, then will upload. Done. Altairisfar <sub style="color:#9ACD32;">talk  22:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer either of the two images of the building itself available at the NHL webpage for the building to be added, rather than an image of Yancey the person.  One of those pics is in the William Lowndes Yancey Law Office article already.  (Further, in fact, I'd rather have no image, than just an image of the person, in order to enlist readers to provide a new photo, but that's just my opinion and here 2 pics are readily available.)  It is not a problem that the specific author of the photo is not available at the NHL webpage.  The problem with certain other photos at NPS photos is that they are specifically credited to a non-public-domain type source.  If not specifically credited elsewhere, like these, the photos can be used.  This is consistent with NPS webpages copyright statement, it is practice at Commons AFAIK, and it consistent with my own "watchdogging" on NPS photos. doncram (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was aware of that image, I'm the uploader. It is specifically credited as a  National Historic Landmarks photograph too, which is good, I just didn't like it much. That's why I added the credited engraving instead, and because an engraving was what was already there.  If you'd like to change them, feel free.   Altairisfar <sub style="color:#9ACD32;">talk  00:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, finished with the above issues. We still need a source for the final sentence of the third paragraph.   Altairisfar <sub style="color:#9ACD32;">talk  00:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The sentence currently is: "Neither NHL listing nor NPS management are exclusive indicators of protected sites' importance: there may be other sites of equal or greater national historic value whose historical integrity is protected by private owners who decline to participate in these Federal programs." Its "there may be..." is deliberately vague.  Does it really need a specific reference?  It could be footnoted, perhaps that:  "There are historic sites such as the Charles Scribner's Sons Building in New York City which have recognized historic standing but whose private owners decline to permit listing on the National Register and hence exclude also from National Historic Landmark consideration."  See the "Accompanying nomination correspondence" link in that Scribner's article.  I don't know where it appears in NRHP / NHL regulations that owner objections to listing must be, or often are, obeyed, but I know it occurs in practice.  Perhaps it appears in what I refer to as the NRHP manual, or in some document in this list of NRHP / NHL publications: . doncram (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It has to have a source, original research is going to be brought up if it doesn't have one.  Altairisfar <sub style="color:#9ACD32;">talk  00:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I expanded the thought into what is now the last 2 sentences, with a reference to the Title 36 regulations already referenced. The reference documents procedures for private owners to object and directs that if a majority of owners object, a site will not be designated NHL.  BTW it is similar for NRHP.  In practice (not asserted in article) this means that private sites whose owners oppose NRHP listing and/or NHL designation generally will not be nominated:  it would be wasteful to apply scarce State staff time to developing nominations that cannot yield designation.  The Scribner example to NRHP listing is one where the owner objection came in very late in the process, after the site was already deemed eligible.  Anyhow, I believe there's now no original research present.  Done for now, again. doncram (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can live with that, thanks!  Altairisfar <sub style="color:#9ACD32;">talk  01:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments: I've stricken my earlier opposition, but did not hide my comments because I think that the subsequent discussion, which had broad participation, should not be hidden. I have edited the article myself to fix a few of my concerns with it, but I have a few additional concerns that I imagine the creators would like to have the opportunity to address: --Orlady (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the lead is nicely written, but the language seems overly flowery and imprecise for an encyclopedia article. It says "The National Historic Landmarks in Alabama trace a broad sweep of history from the precolonial era, through the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Space Age, as well as many points in between," but in fact the landmarks don't "trace" anything (that word implies some sort of a continuum, which is lacking here), and I can't read about "points" in time without being reminded of the Watergate hearings. I also find "sweep" to be overly metaphorical, but I won't quibble with the effort to avoid saying "this is a list." I suggest changing this sentence to "The National Historic Landmarks in Alabama are representations of a broad sweep of history from the precolonial era, through the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Space Age."
 * The last sentence of the first paragraph says that "One site in Alabama was designated a National Historic Landmark, but was subsequently removed." I know what this is supposed to mean, but the sentence tells me something different. Clarify that it was the NHL designation (not the site itself) that was removed.
 * The first sentence of the second paragraph says that the National Park Service is in charge of the NHL program, but the second sentence says that the Secretary of the Interior is the one who designates landmarks. This could be seriously confusing. To fix this, separate the statements about who is responsible for NHL designations (that is, the NPS, which is in the Department of Interior, runs the program but the official designations are signed by the Secretary of Interior) from statements about the criteria for designation.
 * In the third paragraph, the sentence "The NHLs are among the most historically significant protected sites in the state" is unsourced -- and I think it is unverifiable. The NPS' FAQ on NHLs says "Many of the most renowned historic properties in the Nation are Landmarks," but that's not the same as saying that the NHLs are among the most historically significant protected sites in either the nation or any specific state. I suggest deleting the sentence.
 * The second sentence of that third paragraph introduces the concept of the National Register of Historic Places, but in a kind of backhanded fashion. For users who are not familiar with NHLs and the NRHP, I think it might be more effective to (1) say that NHLs are included on the NRHP, (2) briefly define the NRHP, and (3) state that NHLs are tiny fraction of the NRHP listings in the state (give the number). The key point to be made in distinguishing NHLs from other NRHP listings (according to this source) seems to be that NHLs are judged to have national significance; it would be useful to make that point (possibly in the previous paragraph).
 * Later in that paragraph, there is a statement that "The state holds four historic sites directly protected by the National Park Service". The word "holds" is misleading as it implies state government ownership; substitute a different verb here. Also, it is arguable whether the NPS role for these sites is "protecting" them; the NPS role is more typically described with a word like "managing," and the only protection bestowed on many (but not even all) of these sites is federal ownership. For example, the passage could say "Four historic sites in the state are managed by the National Park Service. One of these, the Tuskegee Institute National Historic Site, is also designated a NHL. The others are Horseshoe Bend National Military Park, Russell Cave National Monument, and Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site."
 * The last sentence of the paragraph ("Thus, NHL listing is not an exclusive indicator of protected sites' importance: there may be other sites of equal or greater national historic value whose historical integrity is protected by private owners who decline to participate in the NHL program") is true in part, but it falsely indicates that objections of private owners are the only reason why a site might not be included. In fact, there are also some potential landmarks are not NHLs because they haven't been evaluated yet, and others are not NHLs because they are owned by federal, state, or local governments (not private owners) that don't want them to be designated. (I can name examples of federally owned properties that have been determined eligible but have not been designated.) Also, the sentence implies that all historic sites are "protected" even if they aren't designated landmarks-- in the U.S., that is utterly incorrect. I suggest simplifying the statement to something like "NHL designation is not an exclusive indicator of a site's importance; for example, some sites of equal or greater national historic significance may not be designated because their owners have declined to participate in the program."
 * The table legend is unnecessarily complicated and possibly confusing. In the context of a list of landmarks, it does not make sense to show "National Register of Historic Places only" as the first entry. That category should be presented as an afterthought, if it is presented at all. (My preference would be to delete it from the table and legend -- it applies to only one site that is not in the main table.) I don't see a need to specify "NRHP and National Historic Landmark," since all NHLs are listed on the NRHP -- that's sort of like saying "Mammal and cat", when "cat" would suffice; just say "National Historic Landmark." For similar reasons, simplify "NRHP, NHL, and National Historic Site" to "NHL and National Historic Site."
 * I have addressed all of the concerns. I found the suggestions helpful, so I implemented almost all of the them.  The only difference was that I left the NRHP reference in the table legend.  I think that as long as the colors are used in the tables it will be necessary.   Altairisfar <sub style="color:#9ACD32;">talk  07:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good. My concerns are resolved. Support. --Orlady (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The edits in response to Orlady's comments made the text different, not better, in my view. Now, i don't get the organization of the 3 paragraphs.  The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs repeat parts of each other, and it is not clear why/how they are divided.


 * I appreciate Orlady's responsiveness in being more specific with suggestions, but I perceive there to be overstatements and unnecessary dismissiveness in Orlady's comments. The most harmful to the writing is Orlady's dismissal of the sentence "The NHLs are among the most historically significant protected sites in the state".  The sentence was a topic sentence providing introduction to a 3rd paragraph which fully supported the sentence.  Support for both the assertion of relative importance of the NHLs, and the assertion that NHLs are not everything were included.  The support was in the form of (a) quotation that the NHLs were sites of exceptional national historic significance; (b) fact that they represented just 3% of the Federally listed historic sites in the state; (c) example of 3 non-NHL National Park Service areas of historic importance that demonstrates not all salient historic sites are NHLs; (d) explanation of another way in which there may be other protected historic sites in the state of high importance (the private sites whose owners declined to participate).  The topic sentence was supported by those statements and was not unsourced or unverifiable as Orlady asserted.  Removing the topic sentence, and rearranging as was done, leaves the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs repetitive and disorganized, in my view.


 * I would prefer to return / develop the 3 paragraph text into (para 1) intro / description about the 36 NHLs in AL; (para 2) define / expand about the NHL program (perhaps including differentiation vs. NRHP program here); (para 3) broaden out, putting NHLs in context of other historic sites in AL (quote about exceptionality of the NHL sites, just 3% of the NRHPs, that there are 3 non-NHL NPS areas, and possibility that there are other protected historic sites in the state of high historical importance).  I would prefer to bring back the 3rd paragraph's topic sentence and ensure that it is supported. doncram (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the current form is more easily understood and still conveys that these sites are important and protected to some extent. I'm not seeing what you mean about the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs repeating info. The 2nd describes how NHLs are designated and nominated.  The 3rd contrasts the differences between NHLs and NRHPs.  My feeling about the first sentence was that the reader can draw the conclusion that the NHLs are "among the most historically significant protected sites in the state."  But if you can provide a source that states this unequivocally, then we can put it back in. But, perhaps I'm not getting what you really mean?   Altairisfar <sub style="color:#9ACD32;">talk  22:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you acknowledge the stricken topic sentence was supported and/or could be supported by the rest of the paragraph. I don't see the need for a reference for it.  There is no rule that every sentence needs a reference, and it is like a lede which summarizes what follows.  Ledes don't need to say everything or contain detailed references;  those are developed later.  I thot the stricken sentence was a short, semi-provocative statement, that gives the reader something to think about (hmm, are these the most important sites?  what about other sites?) and then the support for the sentence followed and provided larger context.  Currently, the lead sentence of the 3rd paragraph is not a topic sentence.


 * What i meant by repetition is that the second paragraph now ends with "Owners may object to the nomination of the property as a NHL. When this is the case the Secretary of the Interior can only designate a site as eligible for designation." and then, separated in the 3rd paragraph, is "...for example, some sites of equal or greater national historic significance may not be designated because their owners have declined to participate in the program." Discussing the owner objection process in 3 sentences is overkill in the current draft.  Note, currently the 5 sentences of the 2nd paragraph and the first 3 sentences of the 3rd paragraph do not mention Alabama at all.  Those 8 sentences could appear in the NHL article, instead.


 * Mentioning the owner objection process would be relevant, however, in supporting an assertion that the NHLs in AL are among the most nationally significant historic sites in the state (but are not guaranteed to be a comprehensive list). In my view, the 1st 2 sentences of the 3rd para could better be merged into 2nd paragraph (then 2nd paragraph is generalities about the NHL program, somewhat boring but perhaps helpful).  The stricken topic sentence, added back to start the 3rd paragraph, would transition back to talking about Alabama and would be interesting/relevant to readers.  The 3rd paragraph also could/should end more positively, not with the list of non-NHL NPS areas.  Perhaps the stricken topic sentence could be used as an ending, summary thought type sentence there, instead. doncram (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I do see what you mean, though I don't agree with all of your points. The brief overviews are helpful to have in a list of this type, even if the National Historic Landmark article was more informative than it now is.  The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph is a topic sentence, but maybe not the best.  It is more so now that I've removed the somewhat repetitive sentence and broken out the unrelated text about other historic sites. As for the former topic sentence, I just don't believe that we need to expand on that any further.  I really think that most readers would easily infer that the NHLs are among the most protected and significant sites in Alabama.   Altairisfar <sub style="color:#9ACD32;">talk  00:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Kudos to the nominator and others for their prompt fixes and responses after a bumpy start to this FLC. In a little over two days, huge improvements have been made. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the FLC template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.