- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 User:Gimmetrow 19:21, 10 December 2008 [2].
Notified: User:Hike395
Fails Wikipedia:Featured list criteria 1 and 2. Also, it lacks sources. —Chris! ct 06:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Added citation to main data (previously in EL). Lede can be easily worked on --- please give this a few days, and we can make it fulfill the new criteria. hike395 (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, a removal nom generally last 14 days. So, you should have enough time to work on it.—Chris! ct 19:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist unless improved; there are redundant columns (ft and m can be combined), bad intro, deficient citations (need to use the proper templates), and what is the rationale for picking McKinley over Denali, but not Mauna Kea over Pu'u Wekiu? Finally, why does Kentucky get a special cite? --Golbez (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Striking delist, but not yet voting keep. --Golbez (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the rounding is a bit odd on DC, which has a minimum elevation of 1 foot, but 0 meters. If the columns were combined, it would be clear which was the dominant figure (I'm assuming feet), and which is the calculated one (meters). --Golbez (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I have to ask what the utility of the prominence column is. Its source is a single unsourced site, and I don't know how it really helps with elevation. Prominence is useful for the specific peaks, but not for the state as a whole. --Golbez (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Prominence is a common measure of the overall impressiveness of a mountain (at least in WP:WikiProject Mountains. Just because Kansas' high point is 4000'+ doesn't mean it is impressive: it has a tiny prominence. I think this is a useful fact to provide to readers. hike395 (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's not the prominence of Kansas. That's the prominence of the high point of Kansas. That Kansas' high point is 4000ft matters in relation to the other states; its prominence does not. This is not a list of the "highest prominences in each of the United States". This is a list of the highest points. Kansas tops out at 4000ft; that that point is only 6 feet or whatever above the next highest is 100% irrelevant to this list. --Golbez (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you: that thought occurred to me when someone added prominence to the list. However, I can see why they did this: this list really should be List of U.S. state extreme elevations, because is collecting information about the extreme elevation points for each state. If we delete the prominence column, someone may very well reconstruct the list in another article, and then we'll have copied data that goes out of sync.
- What do editors think of renaming the list? hike395 (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - Lead is small and does not comply with Cr 1&2.--SRX 22:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen discussion
I have written an introduction, which seems to be the main objection. Feedback is welcome. hike395 (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Golbez, I have copied to my sandbox an example of how the table could look if many of the columns were combined. As of the moment, my example is unsortable, but that and other issues can be remedied. Take a look and tell me if you think it would be an improvement. --Millbrooky (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks good. Though, I removed the non common-used names.—Chris! ct 21:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I get a few boxes in the table showing as merged, even across rows, something wrong with the formatting? They also show as blank.
- I think the imperial and metric columns should be merged, with metric in brackets. Would look better and easier to read and have no effect on sorting.
- Currently working on it at User:Millbrooky/Sandbox3. It does have an effect on sorting, because the autosort doesn't recognize the output of the convert template as numeric. hike395 (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead doesn't follow WP:Lead, it should be rewritten, not in bullet points, maximum 4 paragraphs, and give a general intro to the topic, not just stats.
- Done. hike395 (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclaimer saying is out of date when up to date info is available fails comprehensive.
- I respectfully disagree: there is disagreement between the main sources of topographic information --- USGS provides elevations in the 1929 datum, while the National Geodetic Survey provides them in 1988. The main source for this article provided them in 1929, although a few editors have updated some of the entries to 1988.
- No general ref nor cites for the info (at least not in an easy to find place).
- So more up to date data exists, but you are choosing not to use it? Why? How does that not fit the definition of out-of-date? "Updating" suggests the 1929 data ihas been found to be wrong, yes? So it should be renamed to "List of U.S. states by elevation in 1929".
- It's complex: two things have changed: the coordinate system (the datum) of the elevation, and the elevations themselves.
- The coordinate system (the "datum") of the elevations has changed: that's what the 29 and the 88 refer to. The elevation may be up-to-date, in an out-of-date datum. The overall shape of the earth has been better determined (it's not just a sphere or an ellipsoid). There are on-line calculators that can convert between the two. In WikiProject Mountains, we've been discussing whether to use these calculators to update the elevations to the datum. There are problems with this: it may be original research (although the consensus seems to be "not"), and that if we converted all of the data to NAVD88, then editors could not easily verify the computation by simply checking a source. The latter seems like a serious issue, but that hasn't stopped some editors to do the conversion manually for other list pages (e.g., Mountain peaks of the United States.
- The NGS has resurveyed some of the USGS benchmarks over the years, and have supplied the elevations in the new datum. Some of the peaks have the new data, some do not. I would guess that very few of the low points have NGS resurveys
- Finally, there's a WP issue in that your objection was over comprehensiveness. The details about which datum to use on which point is clearly not a comprehensiveness issue: the list contains a high point and a low point for each state. It is a complete list. hike395 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you suggest putting the ref? I'm happy to place it in a better spot. hike395 (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be under "references" or a "sources" section. That's where readers would expect to find references and sources.
- Already done. hike395 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall, i think this needs to much work, and i vote strong removal , and renomination after improvment.Yobmod (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How can it? The table has 2 sources and we're probably going to drop one of them because one editor objects to including prominence.
- I'm getting a sense that people want to delist this because they don't like the list, perhaps because of simplicity of the subject matter? That's ok with me: I did not nominate the list to begin with. But I would prefer to work on improving the list in rational ways. hike395 (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I love the list and I hope it can stay featured; it's really interesting and well made. But with only two references it simply does not pass the FL criteria. The two it does use are not properly formatted. I realize the census PDF has the entire list, but more can always be added to cross-reference. Reywas92Talk 19:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
____
Done: I (and other editors) tried to address all of the issues raised, above:
- A 4 paragraph lede was written, with no bullet items
- Columns were cited as to source
- All citations use proper citation templates
- Common names were used for Mount McKinley and Mauna Kea
- Rounding was performed using convert template, sorting preserved
- Prominences removed from table
- Metric and imperial columns were combined (thanks, Millbrooky!)
- Additional backup citation found in EL (I'll look for more), and specific citations for individual highpoints (when a more accurate source was found).
Given that we've addressed all of the issues, I hope that we can Keep this list as featured. hike395 (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The notion that this article should be delisted is quite wrong in my view. The subject is of enduring interest to many people.
- The article will continually attract additional editors who will make various improvements, a process that could continue indefinitely, but not if it's delisted by one or two people who simply don't care about the topic. Calamitybrook (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a person interested in geodetics and and geography in general I find this list to be well researched and of interest. The fact that it is difficult to find reliable documentation in some cases is by itself of interest. I don't think that the list itself is of great intrinsic value but the fact that it is wikified makes it of value. Each high point is linked to an article where more information can be found. The fact that it is a work in progress adds to its value rather than detracts from it in my own opinion. --DRoll (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be strong interest in improving this list, significant improvements have already been made, and the material is useful and interesting. Parts of the list that do not conform with standards can be tagged like any other Wikipedia article; at this point delisting seems like a "nuclear" solution. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the proposal. Is it to delist this article or to remove it from some obscure list of lists? I further don't understand why one would want to delist this article. It is a perfectly fine list, quite similar to others I've seen published elsewhere, and contains many verifiable references, etc.
- As for the list of lists, I don't understand what that is, or why it matters, but this list seems as good as any other list.
Calamitybrook (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think some of the confusion here (and I just fell into this myself) is that this is a discussion about delisting the featured status of this list, not eliminating the list altogether. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S., a caveat about the claims of "most rugged": while elevation change could be considered a substantial contributing factor to "ruggedness", relatively flat areas may also be "rugged"; large parts of Wyoming, centered around Craters of the Moon National Monument, are incredibly rugged and also relatively flat. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A featured status of a list can be taken away if it fails to fulfill the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. The result of this process is not going to lead to deletion.—Chris! ct 04:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Chris points out, the discussion is about whether the list fulfills the featured list criteria. Collectively, we've made numerous edits to the page (summarized above). After these edits, does the list fufill the criteria? I think so. Golbez thinks so (he struck out his "delist", above). Presumably Pgagnon99 & Calamitybook think so? (yes? no?). Any other opinion? hike395 (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've stricken out my delist, but a little longer lead would be nice. Reywas92Talk 23:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No; I don't think it's quite there yet. I agree that content is lacking; there also need to be work in the lead that justifies the importance of the material. Although this is a list, you have but to compare its quality to that of a featured article to see that it isn't up to par.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since a featured list is not a featured article, I don't think that comparison is fair.—Chris! ct 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, they're not the same; however, basic level of quality standards apply. The lead doesn't necessarily need to be longer (although that will probably help); it needs to be more comprehensive, more descriptive of the list and the nature of the list, and more exclusive of ambiguity. I've already mentioned the subjective nature of the term "ruggedness"; in the end this list must be clear about what it is trying to do.
If the list improves, it can always be renominated. Until then, Delist.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added another paragraph about the sport of state highpointing, presenting estimates of number of people who are interested in the sport. (Re your point about importance). hike395 (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it barely fulfill the criteria, so I am leaning toward keep, though a longer lead would be good.—Chris! ct 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice if the mean elevation column noted that it's an approximation; the census bureau's numbers clearly approximate the feet by at least one spot left of decimal, but then give an accurate-to-the-decimal metric reading. That isn't great, and it needs to be pointed out in the column that this is an estimate, rather than a solid figure. --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done hike395 (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds like everyone who has commented, except for Pgagnon999, is now in favor of keeping it featured. There are several calls for expanding the lede: I've added a paragraph, will continue to do research. hike395 (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there is at least
one other two others who have indicated Delist and have not retracted; also note that while some folks may have struck their Delist, some of them have not subsequently voiced a Keep !vote, or have made their keep vote conditional upon revisions to the list. Good to hear that you're working on the list some more, though.--
Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, missed two as you say. Golbez & Reywaz92: you struck delist, do you explicitly want to keep this listed, or are neutral? hike395 (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions: remove the subjective term "ruggedness"; modify the first paragraph or move it; your first paragraph should speak directly to the exact nature of the list (i.e. summarize). --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You already edited out one "rugged", I just struck out the other one. hike395 (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Sentence begins with "However"; however, when used as a conjunction meaning "although" (or as an adverb meaning "nevertheless"), it should be preceded with a semi-colon and proceeded with a comma. See The Elements of Style and other writing guides
- Done hike395 (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done hike395 (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I (or someone) still needs to do this, it's a tricky thing to explain.
hike395 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Took a stab at it: I didn't want to go into huge detail into a lede. Feel free to change/edit. hike395 (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both maps could do with being much bigger, but especially the little one at the bottom. The red and green dots are difficult to see, and the squares look like dots. I have a feeling that this list would be printed out, photocopied, and used in classrooms. Could be problematic as the circles and squares would be teeny tiny black dots.
- Done hike395 (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still not clear enough. Print the page out and see the results. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Other editors are shrinking the pictures. There's a contradiction between wanting something printable and obeying MOS:IMAGES, which directs that the article should be well readable on a 800x600 monitor. In any events, 550px is the largest size that we can use. Would you really delist the article based on these image sizes? hike395 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that I haven't !voted to delist. Having said that, a Featured list of this type of material needs to be useful, every single part of it. A little tiny map with a few dots that are barely visible is not useful. You're right that MOS:IMAGES does say not to force above 550px, but at the time I left my last comment it was thumbnailed at the default 180px size which was of no use to anyone. Its current 450px size is fine.
- I have a couple more comments too:
- "List of U.S. states..." = "List of United States states" is this common practice?
- It's unclear. MOS:ABBR directs us to use full words in titles, but all of the other parallel lists (e.g., List of U.S. states by population) use abbreviation. I think we should WP:IAR and go with the parallel structure --- the "States states" redundancy bothers me. hike395 (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was the "States states" thing that I was mostly referring to. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- perhaps the maps should change position, and put the topographical one at the bottom of the page and the larger more useful one in the Lede?
- The table itself needs separating from the Lede with a Level 2 header.
- Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been bold and made all the requested changes. Feel free to revert if consensus doesn't support.—Chris! ct 02:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The table is wider than normal wikipages on my screen - i didn't even know it was possible to do this, but it makes the page annoying to use, and certainly not "the best of wikipedia". Maybe abreeviating feet to ' would narrow it. In fact, why are the units written in every column instead of once in the header? Thats how proffesionals would do it. "Elevation in feet (metres)" is clear enough. Maybe adding a note for the stupid readers, to be sure.Dillypickle (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right now, the article uses ((convert)) in default mode, in response to comments by editors who wanted a more uniform rounding. I'm not sure if it is possible to force that template to use ': I'll check. It should be possible to change it to ft & m, for more compactness. hike395 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It may not ber possible to do it without manual intervention--tediious, but that doesn't mean it should not be done. I have had to do similar work to get an article up to featured status. BTW, made some improvements to the lead. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:UNITS says to use abbrevations or symbols in the tables, so I guess we're not supposed to throw away the units entirely (from each row). Not sure how to make Dillypickle happy while still obeying the MoS. I did shrink the font a tiny bit more for more compactness. We could use a / instead of () to save a little more space. hike395 (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I change all the () to /.—Chris! ct 02:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Chris. That's better. I'm just about to go on a trip, so I cannot do any tedious editing for about a week. hike395 (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The map (showing high and low points for each state) looks great except for one thing: it's missing the low point of Vermont. Assuming it lies along the shore of Lake Champlain, you can't show it as a point but you can show the lake.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind; I resolved it.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck Delist; filing Keep.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference date formats should be consistant; currently more than one formats are being used.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed—Chris! ct 06:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You left out a bunch of commas. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.