Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage sites in Malta/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) 16:21:27 17 May 2019 (UTC).

List of World Heritage sites in Malta

 * Nominator(s): Tone 11:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Following the style of some other lists of World Heritage sites that have been promoted to FL, this one meets the criteria as well. Tone 11:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * "making its historical sites eligible for inclusion on the list". I would delete "historical" as the tentative natural sites are also eligible.
 * "this site took place in 2015.[4]<.[5]" I assume that "<." are typos.
 * Ħal Saflieni Hypogeum. The description seems excessively brief considering that there are only three sites.
 * "subterranean structure dating back to the Saflieni phase" This is not in the UNESCO source, which says that they date to the "Żebbuġ, Ġgantija and Tarxien Phases of Maltese Prehistory, spanning from around 4000 B.C. to 2500 B.C." Wikipedia Megalithic Temples of Malta has Ġgantija, Saflieni and Tarxien Phases dating 3600 to 2500 BC. There seems to be some confusion, but you need to follow the UNESCO citation.
 * "It was probably originally a temple, but it became a necropolis in prehistoric times." There is also confusion over this. There is no mention of a temple in the citation. The summary says "Perhaps originally a sanctuary" but in the main text it "seems to have been conceived as an underground cemetery". I think it is safer to follow the main text.
 * Megalithic Temples of Malta. This is also short and unsatisfactory. You say they were constructed between 3600 BC and 700 BC, but the source in the 4th and 3rd millenniums.
 * I regret I have to oppose as the descriptions do not follow the sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess most of the issues can be blamed on the fact that I was working with a pre-existing text that I did not want to modify too much. I'll see what I can do, I think I can rewrite all problematic sections. --Tone 08:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please check again. I significantly expanded two descriptions. Curiously, the hypogeum intro in the reference contradicts the rest of the description there (which I now followed). Other issues fixed as well. --Tone 19:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you need to write all the descriptions from scratch as there will be others apart from those I checked which are wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I can do that. Give me a couple of days. --Tone 20:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this should work. I expanded a bit and, apparently expectedly, found out that some of the linked buildings in the descriptions were not in the references. Promptly removed. --Tone 16:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * has Tone fixed your issues? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Further comments
 * "between the 4th and 3rd millennium BC" It would be better to say "during the 4th and 3rd millennium BC" as in the source.
 * "were likely important ritual focus of a highly organized society" This is ungrammatical.
 * "dating back to the Antiquity" This is both ungrammatical and vague.
 * "transformed into a purely military outpost" This is an exaggeration. The citation mentions non-military structures, including the cathedral. It would be worth mentioning that the citation emphasises archaeological deposits and Baroque architecture.
 * "Series of catacomb complexes, developed from simple Phoenician and Hellenistic rock-cut tombs to more complex types in Roman Empire." This is misleading. If I read the citation correctly, the site is late Roman and Byzantine (mid 3rd to 7th century).
 * I have checked a selection of citations. The article is improved but still some way off FL standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Checked. Thanks for the eagle-eye reading :) I reworded some parts. The "purely military outpost" is from the source but I added a mention of the cathedral, makes sense. Ready for the next review, I think. --Tone 19:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking through this again I still find issues:
 * "was again discovered in 1902". "again" implies previous discovery, which is incorrect.
 * "Pottery and stone and clay amulets". This is ambiguous. Maybe "Pottery vessels and stone and clay amulets"
 * "including The Sleeping Lady". This will mean nothing to readers and needs a few words of explanation.
 * "among the oldest free-standing structures in the world" This should be oldest stone free-standing structures.
 * "Malta was recording seven such sites on its tentative list". This is an odd construction. How about "Malta had seven sites on its tentative list"
 * I have not checked the tentative sites but the details are excessively brief considering that there are only ten in total. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I follow the example of previous FLs where more attention is on the sites and less on the tentative ones. See Croatia for example. --Tone 18:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The details on tentative sites in Croatia are grammatical. The Malta ones are an odd mixture with the first sentence not grammatical and succeeding ones grammatical. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I have copy edited the tentative sites and trust the changes are OK. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z

 * Why is it once "UNESCO data" and in the other table "UNESCO criteria"?
 * Are there any other sources? Literally the entire article is sourced through UNESCO sources. An article should incorperate sources by different authors.
 * — Lirim  |  Talk  16:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding the data and criteria, this is a style we have decided to use for these lists. Tentative lists often get renominated or modified while the WHS have their fixed numbers. This is why we don't have the serial number on the tentative list. As for the sources, I see your point. However, the unesco pages are considered reliable and the most accurate sources one can get on the topic - I often consider including more information in the description but ultimately stay with what is there in the nomination. --Tone 19:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Only using one publisher to cite this article fails: WP:FLCR Comprehensiveness.-- Lirim  |  Talk  20:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right. I added two more non-UNESCO sources. Does that work? --Tone 20:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you plan to continue with this nomination? -- Pres N  19:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support— No other issues in my opinion. Lirim  |  Talk  23:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. I was waiting to see if there were more comments to address them in a single editing session. I think I can get it fixed by next week, does that work? --Tone 20:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess "next week" is now "last week", what's the deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We had another round of comments, I fixed all that was found to be missing. --Tone 16:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just checking in as nobody had responded to your question. No problem, I can probably take a look at it myself tomorrow?  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have source checked the WH sites and they needed substantial changes but I am happy with them now. I have not source checked the tentative sites. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. -- Pres N  16:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


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