Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/February 2018

Keep

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 kept by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC) [1].

---

List of National Parks of Canada

Notified: Canada WikiProject

I am nominating this for featured list removal because there are a lot of unsourced things, broken references, old lead style (This is a list of) and awful tables (lack of MOS:ACCESS in colored cells. A column to upload images, is that necessary, what the hell is that?). This article can no loger be a featured list. Yilku1 (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• The photo upload links seem to have been added as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2017, but I agree they're very out of place in an encyclopedia list and I've removed them. I also replaced (rescued) one ref which seems to have been partly deleted or maybe cut-and-paste overwritten, I'm not sure but it's fixed. I also agree that the use of colour and shading to convey information is a failure of MOS:ACCESS and I'll think about ways the designated sites could be indicated differently. Otherwise I don't think there are any problems here that make the list unsalvageable. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I updated the table. Now is a modern onw.

There is really necessary the Notes section? I don't see how they fit in the article and not the the parks respective articles.

All the References are dead or do not support what they are supposed to reference, even with the archived versions, what is the source for the areas for example?. --Yilku1 (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm at the library updating stats on the parks based on a National Geographic source that cites Parks Canada as one of its sources. I've added it as a general reference because I'm not sure exactly that should be cited inline, if at all. I'm out of time, I'll be back to check on the other things probably tomorrow. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 23:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yilku1: wondering if you could take another look at this? I'm clearly not done with content yet, but I've added a ref for the parks/reserves area and year of establishment, which I'll also use to update the NMCAs. I have refs in mind for the delisted parks as well. I think I've corrected all of the dead links - most were not dead but Parks Canada changed their site layout a few years ago and everything got messed up. Do you see anything else currently that's missing a reference or where the given reference doesn't support the info? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the notes: I've updated them to the current standard format at least, but I agree that the majority could be eliminated. I'm loosely planning to restate the info currently in notes within the new descriptions that I'm working on. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Now it looks better, it needs to rewrite the lead and finish the description column. Because I'm not from Canada i don't know where to look for more info.---Yilku1 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Delist many of the nominator's points have failed to be addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm working on it; there's a lot I'd like to do but not a lot of time to do it, and it's now a little over two months since being nominated for delisting. I'm not all that familiar with the featured list process, but if it's better to delist this now and resubmit for a new review when it's up to standard, I'm fine with that, especially since there haven't been a lot of comments here and there doesn't seem to be much interest from others in improving the list. I expect what I want to do may take a couple weeks, assuming my schedule holds up. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector: If you think that you can finish most of the work that will be needed in the next couple of weeks, we can absolutely give this FLRC more time to allow for that. A list being improved enough to meet the FL standards is the best possible outcome here, and if that's possible I have no problem with showing some patience. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: are you still working on this? --PresN 19:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the ping. I still have a book out from the library that is due back tomorrow so I expect to be doing work on this tonight. Maybe not finishing, but I haven't forgotten. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have started to add descriptions. I recommend making the descriptions short and to the point - details can be found in the park articles. Also, I can help with the intro. maclean (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector: I recommend deleting the attendance column (that is just incomplete trivia that needs constant updating) and replacing it with "Natural Regions" (the goal of the parks system planning is to create a park in all their identified 39 Natural Regions of Canada) - I see the US Parks list has this attendance list and its lead fails to mention why it relevant (...it wasn't in the list when it went through FLC, not that FLC doesn't allow trivia columns to be included in FLs). If you agree, I will implement it according to this reference. maclean (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @Maclean25: thanks for taking this on! I appreciate the input, I'm not good at summarizing as I'm sure you can see from some of the descriptions I've added (copyedits welcome!) I'm a bit torn on the attendance stats: on one hand I agree it's a maintenance issue, but on the other hand we have editors going around updating similar demographic stats in numerous articles all the time, and if they do get out of date the stats are probably always going to be easy to find. But overall I won't be sad if they go. I do like your suggestion to replace with the natural regions, but I'm not sure if I have a source for that. I was planning on leaving the lede to the very last, as I usually do when doing this kind of update. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, we have descriptions for all of the national parks, thanks for doing the lion's share of the work on that. I have material to add some description to the reserves and NMCAs as well, but nothing for Pingo. Regarding the park reserves, I can't figure out why Thaidene Nene is kept separate from the list of parks and reserves while all of the other park reserves are included in the main table. Do you have any thoughts on that? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thaidene Nene is still undergoing consultation (which will continue well into 2018) around the specifics. So, probably best just to keep it separate until it is formally established. We could add the Manitoba Lowlands as a proposed park, too. It has been dormant for a while but technically still on the books as a proposed park. Next week I will add text to the intro section, mostly around history using this. —maclean (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• I figured out the distinction after I posted, and found a new entry for the list. I agree they should be kept separate and more added if there are references. Will check back later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Lead: For the lead section, how about the following format, (1) lead sentence that specifically defines exactly what constitutes a "national park" in Canada; (2) first paragraph that generally introduces the subject (e.g. their purpose, how they differ from other crown lands, how they are defined, role of Parks Canada in their administration, etc.) (3) second paragraph that provides the context for how they came to be, inclusive of the list's inclusion criteria (ie. date, area, natural region parameters) (4) third paragraph with the other related information (e.g. visitor attendances, NMCA, Landmark/Historic Sites, etc.) maclean (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I read what you did and made some minor corrections before I saw that you posted this. I've expanded on the info for NMCAs along with (I think) a better separate intro for those properties, sort of following what was already there for the national landmark, and did some reorganizing. I'm about to add the Manitoba Lowlands proposal, although it seems very immature compared to the others but then again so is the Magdalen Islands proposal. After that I think the content is pretty much complete and up to date, unless there's anything you can see or would like to add. I tried but could not find a photo for Aulavik.

For the lede my thought about historic sites is to just leave them out. Parks Canada manages the national historic sites but that's a separate list, and they also manage things like the Canadian Heritage Rivers System, heritage railways and canals, and the register of historic places, and if we get into all that it's going to make the lede needlessly long for info that's not terribly relevant. I agree with your points on the rest of the structure, and I'll see what I can find to add. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I edited the intro sentence to specifically mention the Canada National Parks Act which is how they exist (how they are legally "protected") and the "benefit, education and enjoyment" which is also from the Act (kind of like their mission statement). I would like historic sites mentioned in the lead as a contrast to parks (like why they are outside this list's scope) since they have the same protection and administration under the Act but have a different focus. So, I added something along those lines and you can let me know if you think it fits. Also, I agree the review can be closed if the nominator's points have been addressed. maclean (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I like what you did, I've just given it a bit of a copyedit. I didn't realize we don't actually have a standalone list of national historic sites, I may add that to my to-do list. I think we've satisfied the nominator's points and updated this into much better shape than when we started, and we can go ahead with the review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Yilku1, The Rambling Man, Giants2008, and PresN: thanks for your patience; at long last we have reconstructed and updated the list into a state that's ready for further review. I hope you enjoy, and look forward to your feedback. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep good work, doesn't look out of place with the bronze star now. I made a couple of table tweaks but nothing important. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – Before we consider closing this as a keep, the Abolished National Parks table needs a fix. The Established and Abolished columns are sorting by the first number presented, which is a problem because they have some entries with full dates, which aren't sorting in the right order (they're sorting after the entries with just years given). Sort templates should be able to fix this issue for you. Otherwise, nice job fixing up the list. I made several edits to help it along, but it's improved dramatically during this review. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, in a way. I've fixed the sort order for the dates we have now, but I think I can probably find more precise dates. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep The article was greatly improved, god job! --Yilku1 (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Closing as keep. --PresN 02:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been kept, 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.