Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Park System areas in Maryland


 * 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 01:20, 21 February 2008.

List of National Park System areas in Maryland
previous FLC (05:51, 22 July 2007)

I am re-nominating this list because I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Most of the credit goes to Geraldk, who created and expanded this list. I made several minor edits and got rid of the red links by creating stubs. Any questions/comments are welcome!-- Crzycheetah 23:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. The list looks very nice, but I find myself wanting to find more information in the list. The list would be more useful if it provided more information on the properties, such as identification of the feature(s) for which each was established (e.g., Civil War battlefield, historic home, or "military fort restored to its condition during the War of 1812"), land area (or length, in the case of the parkways), and/or indication of which properties are part of the National Capital Parks system. Also, the introduction should explain that some sites are administered by the NPS as part of the National Capital Parks system. I think this information is needed in the intro because it helps to explain why NPS manages some Maryland sites that are smaller and less consequential than most NPS areas. --Orlady (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Before adding the information you mentioned, I'd like to ask a couple of questions. Do you want to see the info on properties as notes or in a separate column (which is going to be as wide as "location" column now)? Some of these units are located in other states, as well; therefore, I have to ask how useful the land area really is for this list(since we're talking about Maryland only). Also, if I provide the info on units located in Maryland only and not on others, then it will be inconsistent on our part.-- Crzycheetah 21:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to see the additional information in a table column or columns, not as a footnote. Furthermore, it would be desirable to reduce the use of footnotes by incorporating information into the table. My issue is that the current version of the table, which lists name, location, and establishment date, plus notes, leaves me feeling that the table has little informational value. Format is one reason for this "feeling"; I think that the need to frequently toggle or scroll between table cells and footnotes significantly diminishes the value of a table as a vehicle for presenting information. (I recognize that an additional column either makes the columns narrower or displaces the images. To be candid, I think that additional information in the table would add more value to the article than the series of images along the side of the table. I think one or perhaps two images could be positioned above the table, and others could appear in the references sections of the article. Also, additional space could be acquired by changing "Date established" to "Date founded".) --Orlady (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Confession: When I commented earlier, I wasn't entirely sure which additional information I wanted this list to contain. However, after thinking further, I now think a column of short descriptions is needed, but not a column of land areas. Descriptive details could be somewhat free-form, depending on the site. For example, if the park is the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, it's misleading to say that it's in Washington County, Maryland; instead the list could say that it is a footpath that extends from Maine to Georgia, crossing Maryland in Washington County. For some sites, such as the 9.35-mile Suitland Parkway, the length or area could be informative parts of the description, but it can be omitted in most cases. The information in notes C, D, E, and F could be included in the table in the description column. --Orlady (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll work on it. What if I rename the "Location" column to "Description" and keep all the info about locations, then add the descriptions? So, an additional column won't be needed. -- Crzycheetah 07:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That works for me, but I suppose it might be seen as a negative by users who want to be able to sort the list by county name. --Orlady (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Information about National Capital Parks is added.-- Crzycheetah 21:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. How about going further, and moving the "note A" callout into the table, inserted in the first column after the name of each park that is included in this system? That way, the table would convey the information, not the footnote. Also, with that change the note text could be shortened to something like "Unit of National Capital Parks." --Orlady (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A final comment on note positioning: Since Note B adds information on the park's founding date, it would be more helpful to the reader if the callout were attached to the date (rather than sitting in a "Notes" column). --Orlady (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, then User:The Rambling Man is going to oppose. That note used to be attached to the date(some notes were attached to the name of the parks, too), but TRM suggested to place it(among other notes) in a "Notes" column. There is a contradiction going on here.-- Crzycheetah 07:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't oppose simply on that. If the consensus says those notes are better next to the dates then fine, but I still think the references should stay in a notes column for appearance.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks Orlady for taking over here. I added a description for Greenbelt Park. I don't like it as much, but there is the size of the park mentioned at least.-- Crzycheetah 06:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support my comments have been addressed, it's a nice piece of work, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - My comments have been resolved. I was happy to pitch in to help resolve my concerns because I think this will become a good model for similar topical lists. --Orlady (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support It's a bit on the short side, but I can't find anything to oppose over. However, the images on the right overlap into the sections below, perhaps the images should be shrunk a little or one or two of them should be removed? -- Scorpion0422 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.