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, 1 November 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Cambodia[edit]

Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Cambodia/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Tone 06:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know I still have to work on some lists of WHS in Europe, but I'll take a detour to Southeast Asia now. Cambodia has 3 WHS and 8 sites on the tentative list. Most of the sites are ancient cities and temples. The style is standard for WHS lists. The list for Italy, which is currently nominated, is seeing some support already (I know that list is massive, so this one is on the shorter side). Tone 06:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

"The site was immediately placed to the" => "The site was immediately placed on the"
"was the site of the capitals of the Khmer Empire" - is capitals (plural) correct?
"along a 800 m (2,600 ft) axis" => "along an 800 m (2,600 ft) axis"
"Koh Ker was the capital of Khmer Empire" => "Koh Ker was the capital of the Khmer Empire"
"king Jayavarman II declared the independence" => "king Jayavarman II declared independence"
"and then often took to the nearby execution site of Choeung Ek" => "and then often taken to the nearby execution site of Choeung Ek"
"The temple is decorated with Buddhist motives" => "The temple is decorated with Buddhist motifs"
That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks! Yes, capitals, plural. I added the word "different" to make it clearer. Tone 09:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns by Z1720[edit]

Thanks for nominating this FLC. I want to raise my concern that the only publication used in this article is UNESCO. Since this list is selected by UNESCO, I think they would be considered a primary source and thus some secondary sources would be necessary to help verify the information. Furthermore, the description section has lots of information that can be verified in other sources that would be of a higher quality than UNESCO such as academic sources. I am not saying that the UNESCO references should be removed, but that secondary sources need to be added to this article. I am not posting this as an "oppose" because I want to give the nominator and others a chance to respond or make changes to the article. Please ping me if there are any questions or responses. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of the issue, it has been raised in some previous WHS nominations. There seems to be a rough consensus that the UNESCO is the reliable source that is sufficient here. Of course, most information could be sourced to other sources but the key thing is why some site is on the list (or tentative list), and this is always according to the UNESCO justification of outstanding universal value. I sometimes add third-party sources when the UNESCO one is lacking information, though. Tone 08:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading through the descriptions more closely, and the text is doing a great job describing the site, but it doesn't explicitly mention why it was picked to be a WHS. I suggest adding secondary sources for the descriptors and a brief, one sentence explanation that says something like "UNESCO chose to recognise this site because..."

I also think that most, if not all, of the statements currently in the description section should be cited to higher-quality, academic sources. Statements like, "The Angkor area, one of the largest archaeological areas in the world," can probably be verified to a better source. It makes sense for the UNESCO data column to be cited to UNESCO, but I find it harder to support the descriptions using only one source. Z1720 (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citing each detail to academic sources is probably an overkill. The UNESCO sources are considered reliable and everything is there, so this should be sufficient. The justification is in the descriptions, if you look at the sources, this is under criteria i-x, when writing, I am always paying attention to that part and try to summarize it in the description. The description ideally always states what the site is and why it is important, so we don't need specifically state that "UNESCO chose to recognise this site because...". In the 20 or so previous nominations, the sources were always fine, so I think we can keep it as it is. Tone 14:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

"due to its remote location, is well preserved". The source says mainly due. The qualification is important and should be retained.
"the concept of God-King, a government system that existed in Cambodia and Thailand until the 20th century". This wording is confusing. The source says "It remained a concept that was fundamental to the political and governance systems of Cambodia and Thailand until the beginning of the 20th century." The concept was fundamental to the system, but it could not be the system.
" It was the site where king Jayavarman II declared independence from Java in 802, from the city of Mahendraparvata." Also confusing. Perhaps "It includes the city of Mahendraparvata, where king Jayavarman II declared independence from Java in 802." Dudley Miles (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all, thanks! Tone 17:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

I'm happy to have my comments challenged. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like the "Cultural heritage consists of monuments..." and "Natural features..." should mention that these are UNESCO definitions, but perhaps it's already obvious enough from the context and references.
I suggest adding a few words to explain "tentative list" in the intro. (I know it's already explained in the Tenative list section.)
Some refs are out of numerical order ([7][4][5])
I am in sympathy with Z1720's comments about adding secondary sources. WP:SOURCE says "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources" (emphasis added by me). I guess there could be some incentive for countries to add to their tentative lists for reasons of tourism, so I think the argument for tentative lists being reliable is weaker than for the WHS list. However, I have no evidence for this, and if there's consensus that these type of articles can be based just on UNESCO/state sources then I'm not going to oppose on this point. (I see from the UNESCO site that "The sole responsibility for the content of each Tentative List lies with the State Party concerned")

Thanks for checking! I fixed the refs order. As for the first two points, yes, it is kind of clear that this is UNESCO terminology, and stating what tentative lists are would be repetitive. As for the sources, it will always be either UNESCO or related ICOMOS sources that primarily state why something is of outstanding quality, and this is the relevant part. All other sources will be directly derived. Of course, we could source the fact that X temple was constructed in the Y century to a scholarly paper or a book, but this would be adding extra references to an already valid and reliable one, so it is redundant. Speaking of, yes, the tentative list sources are often of lesser quality than the main list ones, because several nominations are old and have not been updated. Yet still, this is the place where it is explained why the property is nominated. --Tone 19:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Thanks for replying to my points. I couldn't see any other issues. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Similarly to another World Heritage Sites lists that I just looked at recently, the sources used are reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool turned up no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --Pres N 14:15, 31 October 2022 (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.