Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Cartography of Jerusalem/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) 00:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Cartography of Jerusalem

Featured list candidates/Cartography of Jerusalem/archive1

Nominator(s): Onceinawhile (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the history of maps of Jerusalem is one of the most important topics in cartography, this is the best resource for the subject on the internet, the article has collated images of every single one of the most notable maps of the city, it clearly explains the reasons for the notability of each, uses the most respected sources on the subject, and this is the best of wikipedia's lists of maps and so may inspire further effort on an under-represented topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from ChrisTheDude

"This article also is a list of maps of Jerusalem" - sentences like "this is a list of....." have been deprecated for many years and should not be in the article

removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You now have "This article chronicles the known maps....", which is essentially the same thing. Articles basically should never say "this article....." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

now removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"More than 12 maps" - seems oddly specific. Maybe "at least 12...." would be better?

amended. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vellum is wikilinked the second time it appears - should be the first

moved, and also wikilinked the other materials. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"between the late-1400s to the mid-1800s" => "between the late-1400s and the mid-1800s"

done. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"and few of the mapmakers had travelled to Jerusalem" - this should be a new sentence

done. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a random exclamation mark in the header of the first table

removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bold sentences or sections of sentences in the tables

The intention here is to highlight those maps which are at the highest level of notability (e.g. they were the first of their kind, or considered the most accurate of their generation). Do you think there could be another way we could achieve this?

now removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Today, more than 12 such maps are known" - why "more than 12"? How many is it actually?

I have changed to “at least” per the comment above. The sources (both the same author) say "more than a dozen survive today", but provide no further information, and there are no other specialist publications on the Crusader maps topic recent enough to clarify.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence fragments such as "Thought to be from the 14th century." should not have a full stop

removed full stops from all fragments. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: thank you for the excellent comments. I have made all the changes except the debolding – I have commented on that above, and would be grateful for your thoughts. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I based that comment on WP:MOSBOLD, which says "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text". I can see where you are coming from, but I can't really think of an alternative approach. Let me muse on that (and also see what other editors who comment here think)........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Y @ChrisTheDude: I have now removed the bold per Aoba47 and your agreement on the topic. Thanks again for your input here. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I spotted one more thing - against the very last entry, the two refs are not in the correct numerical order, and ref 31 needs formatting properly using an appropriate citation template -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @ChrisTheDude: I have now fixed this. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

For the lead image's caption, I do not believe it should have a period because it is not a full sentence.

removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest adding ALT text, but I do not believe is a requirement for a featured list and there has been some dispute in the past about this subject. I wanted to raise this to your attention though.

added alt text to all. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ChrisTheDude that the list should not refer to itself in the prose as it is done with this sentence: "This article chronicles the known maps of Jerusalem until the rise of modern surveying techniques".

removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would a wikilink for ancient times be helpful just to clarify the time period being discussed in this part: "the creation, editing, processing and printing of maps of Jerusalem since ancient times".

removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with ChrisTheDude that sentences or sections should not be put in bold. I believe that this is typically discouraged. I have seen items put in bold for a lead to help identify redirect targets, etc., but I do not think I have seen it done in the body of a featured list or a featured article.

removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this part "Ground plan from De Locis Sanctis drawn for pilgrims, showing relevant Christian sites in relation to each other." should have punctuation as it is not a full sentence.

removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of a clarification question, but I noticed that some of the "date" columns have a reference while others do not. Is there any particular reason for it? I am not saying it needs to be changed, but I was just curious about your reasoning for it.

this was because some of the refs for the exacts dates were different to the refs for the descriptions. I have now added these where they were missing, so it is consistent now. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about the current citation format. There are instances where the page number is given in the "References" section with a link to the "Bibliography" section with the full book citation, and other cases where the full book citation and page numbers are put in the "References" section. See Reference 3 vs. Reference 25 as an example. Any particular reason why it is done this way?

fair point - I have fixed these and moved all the books and journal articles into the bibliography. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the list mostly does not use the Oxford comma as in this part "including parchment, vellum, mosaic, wall paintings and paper", but the Oxford comma is used in this list "original factual maps, copied maps, and imaginary maps" so I would remove it for consistency.

removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with the list overall. I hope that it inspires other editors to work on more cartography lists, and it is awesome that you have updated is what is most likely an extremely helpful online resource on the subject. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: thank you for your generous and excellent comments. I have put them all through. I also hope that others follow this article - it would be great to see articles like this for all the other major cities worldwide. One day perhaps. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything! If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FLC. I support this list for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Reywas92

I really like this list but I don't see how this passes criterion 3a. The crusader maps are based on a catalogue, but the other three sections appear to be entirely subjective inclusion criteria. They're very interesting examples but how do I know nothing important is missing? If the Illes Relief is included why is the Holyland Model of Jerusalem relegated to a see also? Isn't the city model at city hall relevant to modern cartography? The Jewish Virtual Library has many more maps that seem important to the history of the city's cartography.
- One of those lists the Brandis map as being the first printed map, pre-dating the Reuwich map by a decade (though with less detail of the city itself)
- There isn't really a broad storyline connecting these maps either, such as discussing differences between the maps, how they improved over time, and how they were used. This is more of a "List of [selected] maps of Jerusalem" instead of "Cartography of Jerusalem", which I would expect to go into more detail about the study and process of mapmaking and the relevance to Jerusalem.

Hi @Reywas92: thank you for your thoughtful comments, and for addressing what I think is the single most important question for this FL proposal. This was the question I was most focused on from the moment I began this article. Per the comments from other editors above I have had to remove a couple of self-referential sentences which tried to explain the scope of the article.

In summary, this article lists all the maps which progressed the cartography of Jerusalem; that is its broad storyline. It does not include “imaginary maps of ancient Jerusalem” (a topic which could certainly merit an article; this would include the Brandis map, the Holyland model, and most of the Jerusalem maps listed at JVL [which is usually non-RS btw]), nor does it include either copies of existing maps which didn’t progress it in any way or maps which were materially less detailed than maps already in existence. It stops at “the rise of modern surveying techniques” because after that mapmaking became commoditized. My conviction in building this article with this scope is that an attempted list of every map ever made of Jerusalem – if it was even feasible – would dilute the impact of the maps which were historically significant in the cartography of the city, making it harder for readers to “see the wood for the trees”. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense but the lead needs to define these inclusion criteria, best with a clear explanation for how we can trust that what's listed here is comprehensive and tells the story of cartography rather than just being a selection of maps. The commented-on part above mainly concerned "This article" and the rest can be rewritten. Reywas92^Talk 18:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: thank you. Could you help me understand how I should write this without self-referencing? I have read MOS:SELFREF which says what not to do, but doesn’t say how to explain the scope of a list to readers. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could be something like "The maps below represent the progression of mapmaking across the history of the city...They are the most historically significant..." or "All maps marking milestones in the cartography of Jerusalem are listed here...This is a collection of the most important maps, because they show how mapmaking and surveying improved and outsiders could better understand the city." (Don't use my exact words but just omitting the word "article" while still talking about the list itself is fine). But the comments on each map could use a little more detail to corroborate why they're chosen. Reywas92^Talk 01:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: thank you. I have added an explanation at [2]. What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't have to quote me but that looks good! Reywas92^Talk 02:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Today, at least 12 such maps are known" – "such" simply being Crusader-era? This section description doesn't line up with those listed. (5) München is missing, and Cambrai and Sanudo-Vesconte are added to Röhricht's catalogue, but these numbers still don't add up then for what's included.

Map (5) is the Arculf map, already in the section above. I have added a sentence to explain. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No colon after "labeled"

removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92^Talk 00:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Thank you for your very helpful comments. I believe they have now all been implemented. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but not the elaboration on the map descriptions themselves that relate them to what makes them important. E.g. the Hague map is called "the most famous" but does not give any detail why and I don't have access to the cited book to learn more about its importance. The Willenberg map says where it was published, but not how it progressed cartography. Reywas92^Talk 17:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: I have spent the last three months building out the article (and adjacent articles) per your suggestion. I'd be grateful if you could review when convenient. Regards, Onceinawhile (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent improvements, support Reywas92^Talk 21:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Dudley

There is no point in having the Madaba map as the lead image as it is shown identically immediately below. You need some variation, such as a different image, part of one of the other maps or a much larger image of the Madaba map.

very fair point. I put a modern photo instead for comparison purposes. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Most extant maps known to scholars from the pre-modern era were prepared by Christian mapmakers for a Christian European audience." This implies that there are a significant number of non-Christian maps but ref 2 says that there are almost none. I suggest changing to "hardly any". Are any non-Christian maps known?

changed to “almost all”. I think the reason the sources don’t say all/none is because there are likely a few known non-Christian sketches or illustrations on bigger maps like this one, but none which advanced the cartography. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should state your criteria for inclusion in the list, as you set out in the discussion above.

@Dudley Miles: thank you. I have added an explanation at [3], following the suggestion of Reywas92. What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Early religious / pilgrimage maps" It would be helpful if you added dates to this sub-heading.

done Onceinawhile (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The dates in the left hand column should be as c.680 when the exact date is not known.

done. Onceinawhile (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The table heading 'Description' is misleading. 'Comments' would be better.

done. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The text in this column is very brief, particularly as it is such a short list. "Dated to the mid 12th century" just repeats the date column. It would be helpful to expand the information, although I realise that in some cases information may not be available.

Dudley Miles (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded these throughout where information is available. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The comments still look too brief. There must be more information available about maps which are significant enough to meet your criteria for inclusion in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: thanks for your copyedit, which I am fine with, and for your comment above. Re adding more detail to the descriptions, most of these maps have enough written about them that they could justify an entire article on their own. How much detail would you consider appropriate in the table? Onceinawhile (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See for example List of local nature reserves in Somerset. This has 2-3 lines but less where details are not available. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: I have spent the last three months building out the article (and adjacent articles) per your suggestion. I'd be grateful if you could review when convenient. Regards, Onceinawhile (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"A "round map" showing simplistic buildings;" An argument can be simplistic, not a building. As almost all depictions of buildings on maps are simplified, I would delete the word "simplistic".

done. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The annotations considered to have been made by Haukr Erlendsson" This does not sound right to me. Maybe "The annotations were probably made by Haukr Erlendsson."

done. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comments randomly mix sentences and non-sentences. List of local nature reserves in Somerset sometimes has the first statement on each site as a non-sentence but all subsequent ones are sentences. I would prefer all comments as grammatical sentences, but you do need to follow some rule about which comments are sentences. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have gone for all comments starting with non-sentences, with the rest of the text being sentences. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine apart from these points. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: thank you very much for these comments, which have now been implemented. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brief update

@Dudley Miles and Reywas92: thank again for your very helpful comments. I have put through almost all of them, and am currently finalizing the comments re adding further description where available. It is taking some time but I am not far from being finished now. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last set of comments being finalized above. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Giants2008

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

The first two words of the List of notable maps of Jerusalem could be omitted to make the section name tighter, as it is obvious at a glance that these are lists.

removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cartographers should be sorted by last name, not first name. The last couple of tables are where the issue is really apparent.
Catherwood map: In a scan of the comment here, there's a year range that needs an en dash for style.

fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Aldrich and Symonds map doesn't appear to have a reference, unlike any of the others.

added. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Illes Relief: In the comment here, a space before the final reference needs fixing.

fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting from refs 12 to 14 need work. A couple of them need publishers, and all three need access dates and publication dates (if available).

fixed and replaced two references with one better reference. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 (Talk) 23:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: thank you for picking these up; it seems they crept in whilst I was working on the other comments above. I have implemented all except your second point which I don't understand - please could you clarify where they are not in the correct order? Onceinawhile (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name sorting in lists is typically done by last name, not first name, although there are some exceptions. If you click on the column with the names of the cartographers, you'll see that they are sorting by the first name instead of the last name, which happens when there isn't a template in the table cell that makes it sort the proper way. The sortname template does wonders for such issues, and I think that's the easiest way to clean up the sorting here. Just fill out a sortname template for each cartographer name that is known, and that should get everything to sort properly. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: thank you. I have now fixed this. All your comments have now been implemented. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – All of my concerns have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

Sources look reliable
Please move unused sources (eg Laor) to a further reading section Y Onceinawhile (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Add OCLC, ISBN or other identifiers to all print sources Y Onceinawhile (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to cover the bases wrt content. b uidhe 03:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: thanks for your comments. These have now been implemented. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: @The Rambling Man: Please note that I've supported already and will not be closing this FLC, so one of you will have to do the honors/honours when the time comes. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'll give it a brief review but as a minimum the tables need row/col scopes per ACCESS. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scopes added. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

c. needs a space after it.

Spaces added. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The article lists maps that progressed the cartography of Jerusalem..." according to whom?

The is set out in the sentence immediately prior: “All maps marking milestones in the cartography of Jerusalem are listed here following the cartographic histories of the city, from Titus Tobler and Reinhold Röhricht's studies in the 19th century to those of Hebrew University of Jerusalem academics Rehav Rubin and Milka Levy-Rubin in recent decades” Onceinawhile (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes in the tables should be consistent in the use of full stops.

Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" Czech travelogue of Palestine" sea of blue.

Unlinked Czech to remove sea of blue. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Jerusalem].[46][43]" cites in order, check all.

Fixed. I checked others, there were no more. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The map was dedicated to empress Elisabeth Christine" sea of blue and needs citation.

Unlinked empress to remove sea of blue, and added citation Onceinawhile (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which variant of English is used here? I see "catalogued" (Brit) and "categorized" (non-Brit)...

Fixed. There was also both center and centre, and one date was inconsistent. I went with the one that seemed more prevalent, which was British. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Jerusalem;.[52] " no need for both punctuation.

Semi colon removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page ranges in refs need to be "pp." and should use en-dash not hyphen for range separator.

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cartography and Cartography by city are nugatory categories as they are super cats of Maps of Jerusalem.

Removed Cartography and Maps of Jerusalem Onceinawhile (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very quick run through. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: thank you. Please could you let me know what “sea of blue” means in two of the comments above? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I figured out sea of blue. I have now implemented all your comments. Thanks again. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks ready to promote; I'm going on the assumption that TRM is going to continue his long-standing practice of not returning to "quick run through" reviews. If I'm wrong, please let me know! --Pres N 02:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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