Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Montenegro/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC).

List of World Heritage Sites in Montenegro

 * Nominator(s): Tone 14:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This list follows the pattern of FLs for sites in Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia, I believe all the issues (style, formatting, table contents, etc.) that were raised during the previous nominations of those three lists were addressed here as well. At the same time, nominating List of World Heritage Sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the same rationale. Tone 14:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The newer standard for featured list suggests you do not use terms like "In the following table" or "In the table below", as it's redundant. In fact the whole line "the UNESCO data includes the site's reference number and the criteria it was listed under: criteria i through vi are cultural, whereas vii through x are natural." can go since you already put cultural or natural in brackets in the table itself. No need to repeat. Also You can only nominate 1 list at a time, I see you have 2 open right now. Mattximus (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point, I can remove that line. As for two lists ... I checked again, you are right. This must have skipped my eye since I previously had two open nominations and so did other editors and noone pointed this out. I should pay better attention next time :) --Tone 21:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's usually okay to have multiple nominations, but when nominating two at once with similar subject matter and therefore possible similar problems, it's better to wait for one to get close to promoting consensus, at least that's what I've been doing with the Laureus lists. I suggest I close one for the moment, which would you prefer?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess I should freeze one then - is there a way to do it without bot recording a failed nom (as it was a technical freeze, not a failed nom in fact)? Let's freeze the Bosnia one as the discussion is taking place here. My reasoning is that I already got three lists on similar topic passed so there should be little issues that have not been sorted out in the previous noms already. --Tone 17:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * why can't I click on 2 of the 4 places in the map? Mattximus (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They do not have dedicated articles. I could either link them to the municipality articles, which do not even mention the monuments, or to the general article, which again does not say anything in particular about the two specific sites. --Tone 07:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * " Montenegro declared independence in 2006 and succeeded the convention on 3 June 2006." This does not sound right. "acceded to" the convention?
 * "As of 2017, there are four sites in Montenegro inscribed on the list" The word "inscribed" seems to be superfluous. Is inscription different from listing? If it has a technical meaning this should be explained; otherwise I suggest not using it.
 * I think it would be helpful to point out that two sites were listed before Montenegro existed.
 * "limestone massive" massif?
 * "It was founded in the 15th century and saw a major urban development in the 19th century." It should be "major urban", deleting the word "a", unless you mean one specific development.
 * A column for the coordinates of each site would add to the list's value.
 * A good list. Just a few quibbles. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Support – Capitalize "Gora" in Biogradska Gora. Other than that it's all good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

, : Done, please check. It is always great to have a native speaker doing the proofreading. As for coordinates, I am currently using the format without them. While it is easy to add coordinates for some places, say Kotor, other cases are tricky. For example, there are three Stećci sites and in Bosnia, there are 20. This is why they are shown on the map instead. --Tone 20:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The coordinates of a central point are in the UNESCO documentation - e.g. at for Stecci. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly - this is one central point for over 20 sites scattered around the region - therefore not particularly useful, IMO. For example, these coordinates point to a location in Bosnia. --Tone 07:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I do not agree on coordinates but it is not a dealbreaker. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - The introduction needs some work. Half of the first paragraph (well...one of two sentences) is about the political history of Montenegro. Shouldn't this introduction focus on the subject of the article which is World Heritage Sites? Each paragraph should deal with one theme. The first sentence of the first two paragraphs seem related...and it looks like you are going for a history theme in that second paragraph but that first and last sentence is out of place. The last paragraph needs to get to the point and to say 'there are currently no endangered sites', one of them was endangered, now its not...and the relevance of what that means. Also, can you provide a rationale for the Location column in the intro? The lead mentions that first site is in the Bay of Kotor area but is silent on the rest...which leads me to think 'where is the column's relevance?' It appears that column is identifying location as a municipality in two rows and a general geographic area in the two. Shouldn't this be consistent, like all municipalities? Of course, then I would just ask 'what do municipalities have to do with World Heritage Sites...but then I guess it is just as arbitrary as regions of Montenegro. Is that what that location map showing: municipalities? I kind of have the question about the UNESCO data column (the Tentative list labels the column "UNESCO criteria"): shouldn't the intro introduce the relevance of those numbers and numerals? Also, why so little in the intro about the Tentative list (only half a sentence) when the rest of the article is pretty much giving it equal weight to the main list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maclean25 (talk • contribs)
 * I made some changes to the intro in line with your comments. To me, the structure makes sense and is in line with other FLs on the topic - what are the WHS and when the country in question joined the convention, then some discussion about the sites themselves, and the last paragraph if there are/were any particular things going on, such as listing/delisting the sites as endangered. I would not go further in the details what listing as endangered site means in this article, we have a dedicated one which is linked...
 * I see your point regarding the location column. I was trying to be as concise as reasonable - for places like Cetinje which is a city, one can be more specific than the municipality itself, while the Bay of Kotor covers a larger area with several municipalities, so I went with the broader region. Could list the municipalities as well, what do you suggest?
 * As for the UNESCO data/criteria - following the previous pattern here. WHS have serial numbers which are listed here. For tentative sites, we just list the criteria. In earlier iterations, the year of inscription was listed here as well but was later moved to a separate column for easier sorting purposes. --Tone 13:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding your question, the only relevant location criteria the intro makes is that they are all in Montenegro. If you want to list the sites by municipalities or regions (or some other geographical subdivision of Montenegro) then it should be justified in the intro. The lead should summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. maclean (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, as suggested. --Tone 11:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * could you check to see if your concerns have been addressed please? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My concerns have not been addressed. These are the edits that were made. An FLC delegate has corrected me that FLs do not need to meet MOS:LEAD or MOS:BEGIN, so that part can be struck from my concerns above, but it is still my view that this lead section is not adequately summarizing the body with appropriate weight (e.g. explaining the relevance or significance of the "location" and "UNESCO data" columns and the little relative weight given to the tentative list) and the writing should be improved (e.g. not sticking off-topic sentences into a paragraph about something else), as I noted above. maclean (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I fail to see what exactly bothers you. Why would I have to write in the intro why the location is relevant? I added a notice in each section that the location refers to the municipality. The cultural/natural sites are mentioned in the intro. The tentative list never receives much focus in the intro as it is only a list of sites that may be considered in future. How would you change it? --Tone 18:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is not the correct venue to discuss what UNESCO classifications mean, that would be better hosted in a more general article and then perhaps linked from the column header here. I see no reason to need to explain the "relevance or significance" of each location, this is the UNESCO listing, once the classification is linked, that, together with the existing description column, more than suffices. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. I've now linked the column haeading to the relevant section of the World Heritage Site article. So we're done here I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. You said An FLC delegate has corrected me that FLs do not need to meet MOS:LEAD or MOS:BEGIN, could you link me to that please? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As requested, here is the link. I review each candidate based on its own merits (relative to the criteria and guidelines), not the characteristics of other articles. While I believe that adherence to those sections would improve the article, it is not the basis of my continued oppose (now that I know the delegates' interpretation of that criteria). As I illustrated above, though the nominator (and presumably the supporter BeatlesLedTV) has disagreed, I do not think this is professional standards of writing per FL criteria #1, nor that this meets LEAD (as a whole in terms of summarize the body with appropriate weight and providing context for the chosen relevant or interesting factors). Btw, that link you provided does help clarify the numerals, but why are the numbers in that column, too? Those are some kind of reference numbers or decision numbers(?)...I'm guessing that is the difference between the "data" and the "criteria" column in the next section? maclean (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a peculiar interpretation of what PresN said. Anyway, it's becoming clear we're chasing vapours here, and elsewhere, and I suspect your continued opposition to multiple lists will (like PresN's closure to which you link) eventually be overlooked.  Comments need to be actionable, suggestions as to how to improve the list are welcome, rather than just saying "it's not professional enough for me" etc.   The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. The UNESCO number is the reference they use to address the site. So I've amended the heading of the list again to say (Ref; criteria).  Presumably now you want to understand the significance of Ref?  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Review by PresN
Reviewing:
 * I do not see it as a violation of guidelines for this list to spend the first short paragraph giving the context of what a UNESCO WHSite is and that Montenegro became a country/signatory in 2006. The other option would be to assume that the reader already knows that in the first sentence, only to then turn around and explain it after they've been confused. WP guidelines, MOS or not, are not that rigid.
 * "a further four on the tentative list" - while the term is fairly obvious, and explained in full later in the list, I'd like to see a few words on what the "tentative list" is here, e.g. "on the tentative list, the official list of sites that may be considered for future submission." or something like that.
 * The lead is not the place for explaining table columns, if applicable. That would be directly above the table, or in footnotes
 * Speaking of: "UNESCO data (Ref; criteria)" is hard to parse- it's doing too much for a column header, and also not enough. I'd go with just "UNESCO data", and add a footnote (with efn) to explain that it has both the UNESCO reference id and the criteria that it fulfills; you need more than a couple words for that, and a footnote gives you all the space you need while not overfocusing a top-of-table note on a single column.
 * I think "municipality" is a decent, consistent compromise. The Location column is self-evidently the segment of the country in which the site can be found; that some could be more specific than others is true, but you're not going to get down to the exact spot with words in any case.
 * That said, there is a way to be more specific- List of World Heritage Sites in Germany includes geohack links to the place/region that the site is at; given that you have a map already, that seems like something fairly straightforward to providethat can re-add some specificity without making the rows inconsistent.

Bonus Source Review:

Not much to review here, but a couple issues:
 * The purpose of the work/website/publisher fields is to list 1) the name of a website/work, and 2) the publisher of that website/work, if its not self-published. That means, therefore, that it should not be displaying a actual url, unless the name of the work has ".com" in itself, which is not the case here. So, it should not be "unesco.org. UNESCO World Heritage Centre", because the name of the site is actually UNESCO World Heritage Centre. So, it should just be "publisher=UNESCO World Heritage Centre".
 * You seems to have listed the accessdates for the last few refs as the publish dates; "|date" is for the date the page was published, "|accessdate" is for when you looked at it to cite it. All of your online references should have accessdates, and dates if applicable

-- Pres N  16:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

any chance you can take a look at PresN's comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * On it! Give me a couple of hours. --Tone 15:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, done. I believe I covered all the comments. As for the exact coordinates in the table, this is problematic as not all the sites have a single location. For example, the stećci sites are at two places and the sites in Kotor are all around the bay. The coordinates just point to a single place, which is therefore not accurate. This would, of course, work for places such as buildings. --Tone 17:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * could you check your comments have been addressed? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright, all looks good. I'm going to skip over the bureaucracy and promote this myself rather than go through TRM's "not-a-support" to make him promote it. -- Pres N  20:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


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