Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/List of counties in Delaware/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 17:25, 29 February 2008.

List of counties in Delaware


I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because having I believe it is of sufficently standard. It is Well-written, comprehensive (covering all relavent topics), factually accurate (and suitably references), neutral (hard to be biased in this subject, and stable (minor edits only of late). It includes apropriate images and I think the length is right for the subject (any longer would just be woffle). Tom pw (talk) (review) 15:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is this an FAC and not an FLC? It is quite clearly a list article. -- Scorpion0422 15:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair question... see Featured list candidates/List of counties in Delaware. The consensus was that three items was too few for a list. You'll note it's a GA, and lists are inelgiable for GA status, so it's not a list. The name should arguably be Counties of Delaware, there's a need for consistenty with the other 49 state county lists. Tom pw (talk) (review) 15:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it quite clearly is a list because it links together a series of existing articles in a table format, and almost 1/3 of the page is the table. Yes, it's a small list, but it is a list. The consensus is that three items is too small for a Featured list. If it's too small to be an FL, why should it be an FA? -- Scorpion0422 16:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (I thought I might have this difficulty...) Because I'm not nominating it as list, I'm nominating it as an article. It is an article, so whether or not it's a list is a moot point. If it meets the FA criteria, then (presumably) it will get promoted. Yes, there's a table, because that's the best way of presenting the information in question. Tom pw (talk) (review) 16:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose as a featured article. The lead is far too short. There are two citations needed, which is a big no no for an FA. Additionally, the writing is not quite professional; for example, there are too many passive phrases (was governed, was left). Reference 4 doesn't seem like a reliable source, and reference 5 doesn't list any information. It looks more appropriate for FL, but there are still things to be done. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Picking up refences first... The URL for #5 seems to have become outdated, and has now been corrected - thanks for spotting that. I am puzzled that you don't consider The Historical Society of Delaware (i.e. ref #4) reliable... I felt I had something cast iron solid there. With regard to the passive voice... I cannot honestly see how to rephrase something like "After this division, Lewes became the county seat of Deale, which was later renamed Sussex County". If you have a better way of phraseing it, please, go and ahead say so. I agree the lead could be longer... what would you suggest be included? Thanks for your comments Tom pw (talk) (review) 22:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a WP:FA. If you ever renominate it at WP:FLC, I would support.  The article is too short to have the breadth of scope required at WP:FA, IMO.  I do think given the more recent county promotions to WP:FL a renomination might be considered. I have seen articles promoted from GA to FL before. If not, there is nothing wrong with being a WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the article doesn't meet criteria 1b ("Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.)? If so, what major facts and details have been omitted? Tom pw (talk) (review)


 * Oppose. This should be renominated at FLC, as it is a list and not an article.  If it were an article, I would label it non-comprehensive, as it provides no more than an incredibly brief overview.  I have concerns as well that there are external links in the body of the article, the sources are not formatted properly (no publisher on some), and some of the sources do not appear reliable (Click and Learn?). Karanacs (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A list is an article: anything in mainspace is an article. I have already given the reasons why I haven't nominated it at FLC. With regard to comprehensiveness, what material do you think should be included/expanded? Thanks for your comments about publishers - I've corrected it now. Tom pw (talk) (review) 19:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I read your previous FLC nomination and you had one support, one neutral, and one oppose. I don't understand why you didn't renominate it there - that's a pretty decent distribution, and it may just need a different set of eyes (or, more likely, more eyes).  If this were going to be an article, the number one change would be the name of the article. For this to be a comprehensive article, I would expect to more detailed information about what the counties have historically been responsible for and how that responsibility has changed over time; how the structure of county government has changed over time and what it actually looks like; how county officials are chosen; a deeper analysis of why Delaware's county system is different from that of other states and how this evolved; and, ideally, a comparison of the different counties - are there major differences in topography, in economies, in culture, and why is the population so different in one of them.  Please also take a look at the sources that are used, as pointed out above.Karanacs (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose on procedural grounds, as this is clearly as list. The name is, after all, "List of counties in Delaware".  Even if refocused and renamed, I don’t know that this could stand as an article.  With each of only three counties having an article, would it really be necessary to have a fourth article summarizing the three?  Wouldn't that article just be Delaware itself?  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See my comments above - no point in repeating myself :-) . I shall just add a question: where in the Featued Article criteria/nomaintion proceedures does it say lists are ineligable? Tom pw (talk) (review) 19:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The existence of WP:FA and WP:FL (and their relative counterparts, WP:FAC and WP:FLC) and the separation of the two in the content list on Template:FAC-instructions implicitly indicate that lists and articles are to be evaluated separately. WP:FAC is simply not the appropriate place and, to inject my own OR, I suspect you know that, as this was brought to WP:FLC first. After some cleanup, I could support this as an FL, but the GA status should probably be revisited.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, as I stated at the top of this page, it was brought to FLC first (by me). FLC is for lists, FAC for articles, but to quote the second sentence of WP:LIST "Lists may be found within the body of a prosaic article, or as a stand-alone article" - hence it's both an article and a list. I'm nominating it as an article, so merely ask that it be judged against the FA criteria. Those comments that been made so far about its quality as an article have been very useful, and I await further such comments with interest.
 * I’d argue that’s a mischaracterization of a style guideline. Specifically speaking, this is an issue about whether it’s a standalone list or an embedded list.  Obviously, this is one of those articles on the line; I suppose I’ll buy that it’s embedded, but, if that’s the case, the title is inappropriate (something like “Delaware counties” would be better).  In any case, featured content is featured content regardless of categorization.  Featured articles and lists have different criteria pertaining to content.  As identified by the concerns mentioned by Karanacs, going the "embedding route" has profound content ramifications.  Also, to give you some 1A concerns from just the lead: 1) First mention of U.S. should not be abbreviated, 2) lead does not adequately summarize article, per WP:LEAD  and 3) grammar (number agreement), “The origin …  go back to”  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 20:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose it's a list. The title contains the word list for goodness sake. Buc (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (This is clearly my day of edit conflicts). See comments above. Tom pw (talk) (review) 19:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I read that and I disagree with you. It's not up to you to say what is and isn't a list. Buc (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Move to Featured list candidate/List of counties in Delaware, however it doesn't respect the criteria of a featured list. MOJSKA   666  (msg) 13:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read my comments above about why I nominated it for Featured Article rather than Featured List. Tom pw (talk) (review) 21:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, everybody say that you must move this page to a featured list candidate... MOJSKA   666  (msg) 21:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.