Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Parks of Canada


 * 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 22:43, 29 April 2008.

List of National Parks of Canada
This is one that I had been meaning to clean up, but never got around to it... Until now. It is modeled after List of areas in the United States National Park System (which I am actually considering nominating for removal because it doesn't have stats like area) and is fully sourced. Any comments are welcome and will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion0422 17:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Starter for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from
 * "...is a List..." no reason why List is a proper noun so decap it.
 * Captions full stops are the wrong way round - the lead image is a full sentence so full stop yes, all others are fragments so full stop no.
 * "The goal of the national park service..." needs citation.
 * It does. The citation is a couple of sentences later.
 * "feasbility" - typo.
 * "For a list of National Historic Sites, see: List of national historic sites of Canada." - isn't this what "See also" sections are really for?
 * MOS says don't use colour alone to depict particular properties.
 * "Year Estab'd " - no capital E required, and why not write the whole word out? You've got space.  Use a   if you like.
 * Area should be shown in acres (or similar imperial measurement) as well.
 * No, this is a list about a Canadian subject, so we're allowed to use the metric system.
 * Featured content should be accessible to all and that includes the hundreds of millions of people who use the imperial system of measurement. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll experiment with it, but it might screw up the sortability. -- Scorpion0422 06:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider right aligned area col so commas align correctly.
 * I would consider merging the proposed and abolished tables into the main, colour code and/or reference accordingly. The abolished/proposed date can go into the ref.  Then you get a nice contiguous table.
 * I would prefer to keep the seperate, I think it works better when it is the seperate tables.
 * Polar Bear can be polar bear - neither word is a proper noun.
 * Do National Park Reserves table have year established available to make it consistent with the previous table?
 * I think they are already included.
 * Some tables look forced in width, some not, be consistent, and try to make all tables consistent in column widths.
 * I would prefer to keep the seperate, I think it works better when it is the seperate tables.
 * Polar Bear can be polar bear - neither word is a proper noun.
 * Do National Park Reserves table have year established available to make it consistent with the previous table?
 * I think they are already included.
 * Some tables look forced in width, some not, be consistent, and try to make all tables consistent in column widths.
 * Some tables look forced in width, some not, be consistent, and try to make all tables consistent in column widths.
 * Done, thanks for the review. -- Scorpion0422 22:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Suicidalhamster (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A few minor things from
 * Park Canada is first mentioned in the third sentence, a few sentences later it seems to be introduced again with Parks Canada–the governing body for the system–. These two sentences say similar things (if administered and governing body mean similar things). Could they be merged?
 * Actually what I wanted to see change has not. I made this edit to show what I was on about. Feel free to re-word. Suicidalhamster (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can the year the parks were abolished be added to that table.
 * They were already there, I had accidentally mislabeled the table header. It has been fixed now.
 * I take it there are no newer statistics than 2005 for progress?
 * None that I could find. I doubt there would be any because during that stretch they only announced one new park. Three new ones have been created in the last year, so I expect there will be new stats soon.
 * I've probably missed something but I count 7 national park reserves (excluding Kluane) in the table, however the lead says there are six.
 * One is a future park, which isn't open yet. It has been moved to its own table.
 * One is a future park, which isn't open yet. It has been moved to its own table.
 * Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion0422 16:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Future National Marine Conservation Areas
 * Comment Could the Lead be slightly longer? There must be so much that could be said on this topic, seems quite mean to leave it so short. And it'd balance the lists better. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment OK, this could be annoying because it's been discussed somewhere, but I'd expect to see one list, not several. This way, you can't easily scan them all alphabetically or by size etc because they've been broken up by type. Surely some creative work with an additional column could allow a single table to display all of them without being misleading? (I'd omit the putative future ones from tables but include it as footnote or text or something, as they're not actually national parks, so have no place in a list of such) --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While I am open to merging the National Parks and National Park Reserves column, I think the rest should be kept seperate. I think adding an additional column would make the table look worse and it would seem unnecessary since there are only 2 NMCAs and 1 Landmark. As for the future parks, I suppose they could be merged into one table, but they really should be included for completeness, because they are National Parks that have been confirmed, they just aren't open yet. -- Scorpion0422 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll go along with your thoughtful response. Slightly confused by this though: "

Four more Marine parks will be established as part of the Marine Conservation Areas Act." says four but only one listed... I can guess why, but needs some explanation. --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks. Curious about tenses in "National Landmark". They're a mix of future tense and past tense about something that does seem to exist, although not in the manner originally foreseen, perhaps. Could this be sorted (and my dealt with - could be in following ref, I know). --Dweller (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Scorpion0422 15:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Presumably the Lake Superior thingy has been announced, but not yet established. I guess this from the lack of established date, but the text isn't clear on this. --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I trust Scorpion to deal appropriately with my remaining issues. Good job, nice article. --Dweller (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. When I see a list at FLC by Scorpion, I just assume that it will pass now. Another great list, all issues addressed, no reason to oppose. Qst (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - My comments have been addressed. Great list. Suicidalhamster (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.