Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Cantons of Costa Rica/archive1


 * 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) 00:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC).

Cantons of Costa Rica

 * Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Costa Rica has well defined local governments and thus was rather easy to make a list. I completely overhauled the list to bring it up to the standards of recent lists of local municipalities. Interestingly, the list is already featured in Norwegian, and I used some of the sources from there to improve this list. I look forward to addressing any comments and concerns. Mattximus (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support well-referenced for what it communicates and lavishly illustrated; good use of tables LavaBaron (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 *  Oppose Comments
 * What is a canton? A link to Canton (country subdivision) should be added ✅
 * several county representatives - county? what county? ✅
 * The map of cantons should be paced on top to be more visible
 * Removed the map entirely, it has no labels so it serves no function at all.
 * What is the original order of cantons in the list?
 * Age of canton, I could alphabetize by province if that would be more logical?
 * Alphabetizing by canton is the most logical to me.
 * Now that I've added the dates, the order now seems a bit more logical. It is also the exact order that the statistics agency uses in Costa Rica, changing to alphabetization would make it much more difficult to update the list with new data, meaning this list will be out of date quicker if we alphabetise it. I am still willing to do this if you think it will be better, but I do have reservations thinking long term.
 * Where are the administrative centers? Norwegians have them
 * There are no administrative centres, what the Norwegian article is listing are the "head" district (cabecera), but not overly important to include. It most cases they will all be dead links as English wikipedia does not have pages for most of these districts.
 * There are some numbers in front of the cantons in Norwegian wiki? What do they mean? Why are they missing here?
 * They are numbers given by the government of Costa Rica, I believe based on the time since incorporation. It does not add anything to the list, and functionally meaningless.
 * Date founded and the number of districts in each canton should be added, as well.
 * Date founded added... as for the number of districts, since there is no link (English wiki does not have district pages), I'm not sure how meaningful this number will be... it doesn't add any information to the table. Would you still think it necessary?
 * Just to clarify: you are asking that I add 5 (!) more columns to the list? The head district, the sq mi, the government administration number, the number of districts, the date founded. Surely we can't include everything and have it still fit horizontally on the page. It may be possible to add one or two of these suggestions, but not all, the formatting won't permit. Which columns do you feel are necessary for you to strike your oppose?
 * The number of districts and the date founded are a must.
 * Took a while but I've added the dates.
 * Land area should have both numbers: km2 and sq mi ✅
 * Added it, but now the table is almost too wide, it still fits with normal resolution however.
 * No, there is no sq mi
 * Should be, maybe refresh the page?
 * I purged a couple of times, I don't see it
 * It is definitely there, I tried on multiple computers. It's in the final column, in brackets beside the sq km.
 * the population density has it, but not the land area.
 * Oops, yep I see it, working on that now.
 * Done, all units are now converted to miles.
 * Population density sorts incorrectly ✅

Cheetah  (talk)  00:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review. I have addressed all your concerns above. Please let me know what more can be done to gain a support. Mattximus (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – With the fixes complete, I believe this meets the FL criteria. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley
 * "new cantons may only be created if they have at least one percent of the republic's total population" What is the population?
 * "cantons in Costa Rica have approximated the same function as municipios" approximately would be better than approximated.
 * "Each municipality president produces a number of working commissions that deal with issues specific to the municipality." A president producing a commission sounds odd - maybe "appoints".
 * No change needed but is there a reason Costa Rica had censuses 11 years apart? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review. I have made all changes. As for the census, I have no idea. Costa Rica is not the most prolific census takers, they have only had 10 censuses in the past 150 years (1864, 1883, 1892, 1927, 1950, 1963, 1973, 1984, 2000, 2011). To be honest, even the 2011 data I've put into this table is getting to be a bit out of date, but it's the best we have right now. Mattximus (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Source review by Imzadi1979:

Stumbling here from my FLC, I thought that I'd go over the sources used in the article. Each source appears reliable, so no issues there. However, there are a few formatting comments.
 * Can you provide translated titles? The various citation templates offer trans-title and that would allow those of us who don't speak Spanish to better evaluate the sources without running the titles through a translator.
 * Footnote 6 doesn't need "www.tse.go.cr" listed as the website name.
 * Footnotes 7 and 8 have "p. s. 6." and "p. s. 11." I'm unaware of what the "s." is supposed to mean, but the "p." means page. Perhaps you should be using at to manually format the in-source location being cited? The standard symbol for a section, for instance is "§", so if that's supposed to be section 6, § 6 would be more appropriate.

Another comment, but there's a huge block of white space above the table to the left of the photos. I'd suggest using  formatting to hold the photos, either above or below the table, to eliminate that unattractive blank space. Otherwise, things look good at this point.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking it over! I made the first two changes will get to the others shortly. As for the images, I believe this is a screen resolution issue, you must be on a small screen? Is there way that I can shrink the column widths so that even users on small screens can view properly? Otherwise I'll take your suggestion of a gallery. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok fixed all your suggestions. Just the small screen/white space formatting issue remains. Any thoughts? Mattximus (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a widescreen display, but I do not use my web browser at full width. Using a gallery above or below the table is still the best solution. You have a group of photos in one place, so you should treat them as such, which is a gallery. I get the same issue on my phone and tablet when I'm not using the Wikipedia app.  Imzadi 1979  →   08:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, does it look better now? Mattximus (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Much better. :-)  Imzadi 1979  →   13:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Delegate note: it looks like edits only sporadically, and is unlikely to return to formally support or oppose this nomination, though all of their concerns were addressed. I've looked over the list, and I'm going to go ahead and promote. -- Pres N  03:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.