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) 12:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC) [1].Reply[reply]

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Sri Lanka[edit]

List of World Heritage Sites in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Sri Lanka/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Tone 09:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sri Lanka has eight World Heritage Sites and three sites on the tentative list. The format is standard for the WHS articles. The list for Laos is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 09:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

• "Following the destruction of the Anuradhapura" => "Following the destruction of Anuradhapura"
• "Through centuries, it was abandoned" => "Over the centuries, it was abandoned"
• "The complex also comprises restored entrances, a pond, and residential buildings" => "The complex comprises restored entrances, a pond, and residential buildings"
• "It was active until the end of the Anuradhapura era, until the early 11th century" => "It was active until the end of the Anuradhapura era in the early 11th century"
• That's it! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Fixed all, thanks! Tone 11:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Support - that was easy :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from NapHit[edit]

• "a tree that grew from the cutting from the Bodhi Tree." feel like this should 'a cutting' as 'the cutting' suggests it's the only cutting. Unless of course, it is the only cutting
• "Buddha's tooth relic was moved to another location." Assuming we don't know where that location was? If we do, should be mentioned
• "after having his father King Dhatusena killed." having is redundant here
• "The shrines got their present form in the 18th century." how did they get their present form? Got isn't the best word to use here as it doesn't describe how the process was achieved

That's it from me. I also have a list that could with a review here if you've got the time :)

Thanks for checking! Fixed the first one, removed the part of the tooth in the second one (the source does not say where they moved it immediately, and it is probably not relevant). Having is key here, he did not kill him himself. The last one, there were several renovations and what we see now dates to the 18th century. I think the wording works but I am open to suggestions. --Tone 17:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, slightly misread the second sentence I mentioned. In that case, I think 'his father King Dhatusena was killed' works better than having his father killed. The last point is tricky as there multiple renovations. I was thinking acquired instead of got but I'm not sure that works either. Maybe the sentence needs to reflect the fact there were multiple renovations so something like, 'The shrines underwent several renovations until the 18th century and have remained the same since.'? NapHit (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed it now. And having killed is better because it shows who was behind it, small details ;) Tone 17:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support – I changed the 'having' to 'he had' as it was only seeing your most recent comment I realised what the sentence was trying to say. Great work regardless! NapHit (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

• In the province column, you have entries like "Sabaragamuwa, Southern". I would change those to "Sabaragamuwa and Southern". The current form makes it seem like the first province is a subdivision of some larger political unit.
• "as well as some exquisite" Not very encyclopediac lingo
• I would capitalize the first "s" in "several sites"
• "Ancient pilgrim route" --> Should that be "pilgrimage route"?

That's all. And I hate to turn this into a quid pro quo, but can you check out my featured list nom if you have the chance. Thanks, ~ HAL333 23:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed, thanks! I'd leave a small s in several, as I've been using this style before - to make it clearly different from provinces. The pilgrim route is in the UNESCO source, I wouldn't want to change that. I'll check your nomination ;) --Tone 09:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

• Perhaps worth mentioning that 194 countries are signatories. See [2].
  • Interesting point but maybe too detailed for the particular article?
• "city was finally destroyed in 993 by Rajaraja Chola". He does not seem to have been known by that name. Maybe "the Chola emperor Rajaraja I".
  • Fixed.
• "The style of these frescos remained influential in the following centuries". What does "remained" mean here? I would suggest "was influential".
  • Fixed.
• "Kandy is the place where the relic of the tooth of Buddha is currently stored". A bit clumsy. Maybe "The relic of the tooth of Buddha is stored in the city".
• "(following the tradition of moving the relic when changing the capital)". This implies that Kandy is the capital of Sri Lanks now.
  • Restructured this part. "Former tradition" should clear the confusion, I suppose.
• "The flora is a relic of Gondwanaland and there are many endemic species....The area is also home to numerous species of birds, mammals, butterflies, and amphibians." I think there is more to say about why this site is important. I suggest deleting "and there are many endemic species" and changing the last sentence to "numerous endemic species". Then you could say "The flora is a relic of the ancient Gondwanaland supercontinent, and it is important for the study of biological evolution and continental drift." Dudley Miles (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Perfect, fixed. Thanks for checking! --Tone 10:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Source review – All of the references appear to be reliable and well-formatted, and a look at the link-checker tool didn't turn up any issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 01:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.