Wikipedia:Peer review/List of World Heritage Sites in Madagascar/archive1

List of World Heritage Sites in Madagascar
This peer review discussion has been closed. This list of the World Heritage Sites in Madagascar is admittedly short, but it's comprehensive. It could nonetheless benefit from a review by a second pair of fresh eyes. I used the List of World Heritage Sites in Spain as my model in the interest of hopefully seeing it reach Featured List status despite being brief... the little engine that could. :) -- Lemurbaby (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice job basing off a current FA, excellent idea. However, everything can be improved! Anyway, I too hope length won't matter so much, but I suppose you'll see in FLC. Lead List of sites Tentative list Final notes I'm having trouble accessing your sources, but this is probably an issue with either my computer or the archiving tools than a problem with the sources. I can see why you'd make sure that the sources are always accessible, but a link to the current site if it's available would still be very useful. I feel that if you fill out the tentative list, you should be able to skirt around any length issues raised. Good luck! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments by Chipmunkdavis
 * "In 2011" would be better written "As of 2011" or something similar. Even better would be removing it. Just say "There are three blablabla", current time is implied.
 * "comprising one cultural site and two natural sites" Instead of simply saying this I'd recommend giving a slightly more informative explanation. "Comprising one site chosen for its cultural value and two sites chosen for their unique biodiversity" or something. Just to explain the meaning of the words, if you get what I'm saying.
 * I'd reverse the order of the second sentence. "The first site to get the status was X in 1990" instead of the current set up.
 * "Five sites added to the tentative list in 1997 include" You've listed all five sites, so a sentence with the word include is wrong. "In 1997, five sites were added to the tentative list, these were ABCDandE" or a similar structure would be better.
 * Perhaps a short halfsentence description of the tentative list could also be given.
 * I'd recommend moving the last sentence about the Rova of Antananarivo to the first paragraph. It deals with a site that was more than tentative (so I assume) and is also out of place chronologically.
 * Perhaps include some more information about Madagascar and UNESCO, such as when they ratified the UNESCO convention etc.
 * I suggest improving the description of the criteria slightly. "Name: as listed by the World Heritage Committee" would probably be written as "Name: Name as listed by the World Heritage Committee", even though that sounds redundant, due to the colon. Just my opinion.
 * You current describe Location as the city or province of site. Yet in the table you have neither, just co-ordinates. In addition, Madagascar no longer has provinces, so that's outdated.
 * The Region description should be written similarly to the location one currently is. Eg. "Region: The region (faritra) of Madagascar that the site is located in."
 * The period explanation should be written out as a full sentence. Eg. "The time period in which the site was considered significant."
 * Expand the year inscribed description too. Inscribed is perhaps a bit WP:JARGONy, change to "Year added to UNESCO World Heritage Site list" or something.
 * The UNESCO Data column confuses me. The description says it includes year inscribed, yet you already have that as a separate column. It may be worth splitting this column up into a separate column for each criteria you've combined there, for ease of reading. In addition, somewhere a brief explanation of the criteria that the sites have been listed under would be useful, whether in the tables or beneath it as notes.
 * Clarify that the description column is the UNESCO description, noting somehow it is a direct verbatim copying of their description. Perhaps retitle the column "UNESCO description"?
 * If you need space, you can probably just add the references to the name column or something rather than have them as their own column. You can also get rid of the (s) if Ref(s) if you keep the column, as you'll only need one (the UNESCO one) for each site.
 * The tentative list is where I think this can be most improved. Instead of just listing the name of each site and the date it was added to the tentative list, give more information to each similar to the information given for the actual sites. Information such as criteria they were submitted under, for example, is probably extremely important for this article.
 * Once again, the "as of 2008" note is probably unnecessary. It may be worth moving the prose about the tentative list to the lead instead, and just leaving a list here. Source it of course.
 * How does the picture relate? I can't tell.