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

List of World Heritage Sites in the Netherlands

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what is needed in order to pass as FLC.

Thanks, Rubenescio (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by doncram Not sure a separate list for WHS sites in just one country is that worthwhile. Not very much additional material or discussion that is not or could not appear in a Europe-wide WHS list. Anyhow, I think you should include the coordinates of all of these Netherlands ones, and include a Google/Bing map link, so that readers can see where these are located. The WHS program provides coordinates at least for the approved ones, you might have to do some work to get coordinates for the proposed ones, I don't know. See WikiProject World Heritage Sites/Tables of WHS Sites for a working list of all the WHS sites, including coordinates from the WHS for many of them already. doncram (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Further comment: There should be some description about each of the sites, as is customary in featured lists about other kinds of historic sites. The intro text seems pretty well-written to me--I appreciate learning about how the WHS program works from that--but the main point of the list-article should be to convey the list of WHS sites and to describe them.  Probably the description should convey specifically what is culturally important about the ones listed for their cultural importance, etc.  For the editor who wishes to see more sources, this would provide opportunity to include a quote or two or other facts supported from other sources, too. doncram (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Further: I looked up the WHS program's coordinates for the approved NL sites, and added a table of them to the Talk page of the article.  Feel free to cut-and-paste from there, to add coordinates into the actual article.  I am just trying to be a bit more constructive, and I want to apologize for being maybe too negative to start.  I also want to say i have been convinced by this article and the UK WHS list in progress, that separate country lists seem to be useful.  I do think they should have a description column that explains the importance of each site, still.


 * The presence of the Curaçao entry (off of South America) in the list, and the Germany-shared one, raise for me some question as to what the article title should be. Currently the title is "List of World Heritage Sites in the Netherlands", which is not perfectly descriptive.  It does not need to be perfectly descriptive;  the article title as is can be okay.  But, is there a better title possible?  "List of World Heritage Sites associated with the Netherlands"?  Not sure.  I would not want the title to get to be awkward or long though. doncram (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Associated" might be too loose as sites in another country could be associated with the Netherlands. The problem arises because the Netherlands Antilles is included (UNESCO list the state controlling the sites as the Netherlands). As the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles are both constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, how about "list of World Heritage Sites in the Kingdom of the Netherlands"? I'd defer to Rubenscio's judgement in this matter though. Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The UK list, which includes 3 places not in the UK proper, has just been renamed by Nev1 to be List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites of the United Kingdom. How about going with the "of" rather than "in" preposition here, too:  List of World Heritage Sites of the the Netherlands.  That would allow for the Netherlands Antilles one and the one partly in Germany, which are culturally or naturally associated, but are not "in" the Netherlands. doncram (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by  Overall, this is a decent list but is slightly inaccessible. It's clearly been written by someone who is familiar with the concept of WHSs, the selection process and so on, but this means that some information has been excluded which could make the list difficult to understand for someone unfamiliar with the subject. Doncram also raises a good point about adding coordinates as this would allow users to see the sites on google maps. I do however strongly feel that having lists for individual countries is a good idea and disagree with the assertion that more discussion can't be added than a pan-Europe list; for instance the main European list doesn't mention tentatives and it would become unmanageably long if it did. I have a few comments which I think would help at FLC: I think it might be useful to have a notes column with a brief explanation of what the sites are. This means that the reader doesn't have to navigate away from the list to find out a little about the site beyond stuff such as when it was listed and its reference number. Also, the lead seems a bit light and could do with expansion. What period do the sites range from? Is there a particular period with more representation? Why is that? There's probably more stuff to add, but that's what I can think of off the top of my head. I don't know if there are any list of WHSs in ... FLs but I think this could make a good template and I'll look into emulating it for List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom. I'll be keeping tabs on this list and I'll be interested to see how it progresses. Nev1 (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not explained what a World Heritage Site is or the protection it gives to the sites.
 * "Seven of these are cultural properties and one is a natural property": it should be explained what cultural and natural properties are.
 * The term "tentative list" needs to be explained.
 * "Eleven properties were submitted in 1995, only The Dutch Wadden Sea was added later, in 2007": is that just the Netherlands that nominated 11 properties?
 * "Selection criteria i, ii, iii, iv, v, and vi are the cultural criteria, and selection criteria vii, viii, ix, and x are the natural criteria": ok, so what are the criteria?
 * The external links in the reference column should be converted into inline citations using tags.
 * Comment Compared to other Category:FL-Class List articles, this article is exclusively self-sourced. That is a major issue. Prapsnot (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about your comment, but I'm not sure how it's relevant. WP:V applies to self-published sources. UNESCO, and other organistations that look after assorted historic sites, who publish the information are experts and involved in the preservation of the sites. Could you expand on what you mean, as I don't think it's clear. Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe any expansion effort for FL would be helped by other sources. I don't think the List is biased or self-serving.  It does seem that UNESCO information is good enough for the article to exist (I don't agree the list is not worthwhile); however, it is very bare.

Are there any annual number of visitors estimates, annual cost of upkeep, visitors over the past 10 years? Someone mentioned before that you may want to spell out the actual selection criteria, the kind of detail left out of the main article that should be found there is missing. It should not be a content fork. But if there is a lack of additional information at UNESCO, perhaps Magazine or Newspaper articles, or Books featuring those locations can provide it. Is there information on when some sites were last renovated or the date of the last preservation effort, how much did that cost? Current population or demographic information? Most famous prior resident? Depiction in a work of art, painting, film, etc? Not a long paragraph, but an extra detail in a note here or there with a verifiable source. An extra detail instead of just a picture and an external link. Just population estimate for each area for example, or whatever interesting detail can be found (even if it can' be found for the others).

Also, some of your interwiki links are misleading. If there is no specific article named "Historic Area of Willemstad, the Inner City and Harbour," but there is an article named "Willemstad, Netherlands Antillies", then only the word "Willemstad" should be interwiki linked. It just needs some work.

Sure, the UK list is better; but simply paraphrasing UNESCO, and not getting other sources for their centuries old sites, is just lazy. But then again, that article is not trying for FL status, it is happy with just being a list.Prapsnot (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the list could do with some expansion (I suggested as much in my first comments at the peer review), but I don't think all of your suggestion would be useful.
 * In a list article, only the important information about an entry (in this case a World Heritage Site) should be included to prevent it from becoming too long. In this case, states of preservation and dates belong in the individual articles. The UK is already struggling with the amount of information, and that just includes the period the site dates from, the date of its inscription, and a description of why the site is important. "Most famous prior resident" is subjective, but it is worth stating who the site was built for (in a notes section). These are historic sites, the population and demography isn't relevant. Info on "Depiction in a work of art, painting, film, etc" belongs in the individual articles. I believe the same can be said for upkeep and visitor numbers, although they are at least more relevant to WHS. To take the example of the Derwent Valley Mills in England (I use this example because I'm familiar with the site), a site which covers nearly 5 miles2, it would be impossible to measure visitor numbers accurately (nothing more useful than an educated guess could be made). Unless there was a source which used consistent methods to measure visitor numbers, it wouldn't be useful comparing them, and for the UK at least I don't think one exists.
 * Now I agree that having a wide range of sources is desirable, however this is a list rather than an article. If all the relevant information is available from one source, I don't see the point in looking for other sources (but only because this is an encyclopedic article rather than academic). It's the easiest course of action, but by no means does it make someone who writes these lists lazy, as I know from personal experience. Nev1 (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is the case, then maybe List of World Heritage Sites in Europe is the list that has a chance at becoming a Featured List, since it is the most comprehensive.Prapsnot (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)