Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Cuba/archive1


 * 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 The Rambling Man 17:07, 9 December 2010.

List of World Heritage Sites in Cuba

 * Nominator(s):  Grsz 11  15:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all of the critera. It is modeled after List of World Heritage Sites in Peru and List of World Heritage Sites in Spain, both recently promoted. The main list only has nine items, and I know some reviewers tend to look for ten, but with the "Tentative list", I feel this is sufficient. Thanks.  Grsz 11  15:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Introduced some new references with the comments below.  Grsz 11  04:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - I have no issues with the list. Afro  ( Talk ) 15:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Minor points - what is the initial sort order? I can't seem to recover it by resorting the table, in which case sorting by order of Name alphabetically would seem sensible. This might just be me being slow. Date sorting gives a slightly odd order: I'd expect "N/A" at the beginning (prehistoric geology; not sure if a more helpful description than "N/A" is possible?) and it seems more natural for me that "19th and 20th centuries" would come after "19th century", not before. (If there were "20th century" too, I'd hope it came in between, if that makes sense.) TheGrappler (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The initial sort is the year added, making the list chronologically. When you click to sort the data column the first time it doesn't change (atleast not to me). I've adjusted the sorting so 16-19 and 19-20 come after 16 and 19 respectively. N/A means the historical period is irrelevant, and as these parks aren't just noted for their physical appearance, I'm not sure if prehistoric is an accurate description. (Compare it to List of World Heritage Sites in Spain, where Prehistoric and Palaeolithic are accurate descriptions).  Grsz 11 22:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What you said about N/A works fine for me, thanks. I'm about to be super-pedantic so please bear with me (sorry). An initially chronological list makes sense, but when you have a sortable table, it seems to me that on principle, the initial sort order should be "restorable" using the sorting buttons provided. Otherwise there is information in the initial sort order, which is not displayed in the table. Hope that makes sense. Why not include "Year added" as a column? That way it would be obvious why the table is displayed as it is (I know I was confused a lot by that, which is why I brought the point up), and the initial sort order is recoverable. I know that this information is also presented in the text above, but it would be presented much more clearly in the table. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but this seem more natural to me. TheGrappler (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't the original order recoverable when the sort in the "UNESCO data" section is pointing up?  Grsz 11 21:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh thanks! That'll do me, I'm perfectly happy to support this. TheGrappler (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've made a handful of changes that you'll want to double check to ensure I haven't inadvertently changed the meaning of anything. This is a very promising list. Nev1 (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * '''Leaning support
 * I'd maybe tweak the opening sentence so it states how many WHS there are in Cuba, but this is a minor point.
 * Done (in second sentence).
 * "Sites include La Cabaña, the Cathedral of Havana and the Great Theatre of Havana": it might be worth swapping "Sites" for "Landmarks" or something similar as having sites within a World Heritage Site sounds a little odd, although it's clear what is meant.
 * Done.
 * "It contains many endemic species, including 16 of Cuba's 28 endemic plant species": it might be worth considering swapping the second "endemic" for "unique" to avoid repetition, but only if you don't think it changes the meaning.
 * Reworded a bit.
 * "Cienfuegos was founded in 1819 by the Spanish colonists, though it was originally settled by French immigrants": I'm not quite comfortable with this sentence. Does the second bit mean the French settled the general area before the Spanish founded the settlement?
 * Ok I figured out the meaning, thanks to a section of the source further down the page. It was founded by the Spanish, "but settled by French from Bordeaux, Louisiana, Philadelphia and Guarico." I clarified a bit.
 * "The city exhibits additional modern ideas including in hygiene and urban planning": it's difficult for a city to exhibit a concept such as hygiene, so you mean the infrastructure associated with hygiene such as sewers?
 * I'm not sure it's overly important. It could all be considered under urban planning.
 * Ok, fair enough. Nev1 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In the tentative list section I think it needs to be explained that the years in brackets after each name refer to when the site was first added. Alternatively they could be dropped altogether as they're not really important; what counts is whether they're on the list now, rather than for how long.
 * I've removed the years. You're right, they aren't really important.  Grsz 11 05:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edits you made Nev, I've address your other comments above.  Grsz 11 05:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support the minor points I raised have now been addressed. Nev1 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.