Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Colorado statistical areas/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) 00:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC).

List of Colorado statistical areas

 * Nominator(s): Buaidh  talk e-mail 02:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this is a well designed list article which is easy to interpret despite the rather complicated topic. Buaidh talk e-mail 02:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments + Image review from Kavyansh.Singh
Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Was this nomination/the article moved after the nomination was created? Because the talk page template was asking to initiate the nomination even after being purged. I now fixed it, but the current title of this list "List of Colorado statistical areas" seems to be breaking the precedent set in other similar list titles. (See )
 * With just 635 characters, the lead is incredibly short. I know it is difficult to add when there is less context, but try to keep the lead at least 1200 characters long. It currently reads like an official record of the government, and maybe we can merge those footnotes in the prose. Try to add more facts about statistical areas particularly in Colorado.
 * 1114 statistical areas missing a comma.
 * in the State of Colorado remove "State of" from the link.
 * What is the source for File:Colorado CBSAs 2020.png? Do we have a link?
 * MOS:FONTSIZE discourages editors from using small or big fonts. Do we require it here?
 * Can we make the table sortable?
 * Column header cells need to be marked with "scope=col"
 * The list of counties with the population is a major part of this list, if not the most important part. But, particularly the two columns dealing with County name and population completely duplicates data from List of counties in Colorado. Doesn't it violate content forking guidelines? The three sources here are official primary sources, which are fine to use, but, are there any secondary reliable source particularly discussing about "Colorado statistical areas"? This might be the biggest issue with this nomination. I'll wait to hear what others think. If its just me, I'll retract this concern.
 * Why is "Colorado" added after name of every county. I guess it is quite clear, and we don't need to add the state's name every-time.
 * The See also section here has a lot of links. Keep only those which are really necessary/helpful. I also note that most of the links here are duplicated in the Colorado template at the end of this page.
 * Suggesting to archive links.
 * Quite a lot to do here. Ping me whenever you have addressed all of these comments.
 * @ Just a courtesy ping for you to address the comments by reviewers.  Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments
Reywas92Talk 18:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've read and edited other lists on US statistical areas, and they can certainly be complicated so these lists can be helpful! I see you created them all many years ago with consistent formatting, and with this one you're making some changes.
 * The hatnote at the top is not helpful, the first redirects to Colorado that's better in the prose perhaps, and the other duplicates the link at the start of the first sentence!
 * I think footnotes a, b, and c should be explained in the lead, not buried as footnotes.
 * The image caption uses "core-based statistical areas" (or "core based" without the hyphen in the table) which is also not defined in the lead.
 * Agree that the table caption doesn't need to be in large font.
 * This uses "United States statistical areas" but that's not really the name, e.g. United States statistical area has since been moved.
 * You moved the information of what's in the table from above it to footnotes, but I don't think they're really needed in either place. Like why do we need footnote [d] to tell us a column called "Combined Statistical Area" lists the name of the combined statistical area? Why does "2020 Census" need a footnote to tell us it's from the 2020 census? That could be renamed "Population (2020)" or similar though.
 * How is everything in the table sorted? Should it be sortable?
 * I don't think it's a problem to have the populations duplicate the main county list here.
 * Concur on the use of Colorado with every county name and the bloated see also.


 * I am confused why you added "Main articles: Colorado and Statistical area (United States)" back to the top of the page. The very first line begins with "The U.S. State of Colorado includes 21 statistical areas" so this hatnote is redundant and serves no purpose: Template:Main says not to use it in lead sections. Reywas92Talk 15:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I've removed Template:Main from the header. Yours aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 16:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Further comments: Reywas92Talk 14:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Most images on Wikipedia are enlargeable, so I think this can be removed from the image caption to just be "The 17 core-based statistical areas in Colorado".
 * The lead is now too short. I don't think the discussion of what statistical areas are needed to be split into a separate section.
 * "This table is initially sorted by the most populous primary statistical area, then by the most populous core-based statistical area, and finally by the most populous county." is perfectly understandable without the meaningless numerals.

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

 * Table caption should not be biggened.
 * Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g.  becomes.
 * Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell. I'm...not sure what the primary cell here would be? Things are in a weird order; each row seems to be defined by the county, but that's way over on the right side. If that's the defining cell of each row, it should be the left-most column, in which case e.g. Arapahoe County, Colorado becomes !scope=row
 * Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -- Pres N  19:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Improvements
Thank you for your very helpful suggestions. I have implemented almost all of them. This list was originally named Colorado statistical areas but was moved to List of Colorado statistical areas. I have revised the main table to comply with W3C and made it sortable. I have also added a second sortable table to show the primary statistical areas. Please give me any additional comments you may have. Yours aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 15:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Articles should not start off with "This list comprises...." Find a more engaging opening sentence
 * Nothing in the lead is sourced
 * No need to re-state the full name of the OMB every time in the lead. After the first usage the initials are fine.
 * "Most recently on March 6, 2020" - I think just "On March 6, 2020" would be fine
 * Column headers should start with capital letters eg County not county
 * What is the ordering in the table based on? It seems completely random..........
 * Some of the footnotes seem unnecessary. Do we really need a footnote on the County column to say that it's the name of the county?
 * That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Improvements
Thank you for your comments. See if these enhancements satisfy your concerns. I've added an explanation of the initial order of the first table. This table is rather complicated. The table notes include the sources of the column data. Yours aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 22:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You can put the reference in the column header itself, that's really weird to have a footnote for the ref note, and merely duplicating the wikilink. Reywas92Talk 05:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It may be unconventional, but I think this provides a clearer explanation of the column data. Your aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 08:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to have a column called "County" and a footnote against it which says "The name of the county". It looks ridiculous -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right. These column headings are pretty self-explanatory. I've removed the footnotes from the headings. Yours aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 17:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

List of Improvements
Lots of issues with this list. I will try to list a few:
 * Should not start with "this is a list of", that's old terminology no longer used for feature lists. Same with "this sortable table". "the following table" also is not appropriate for featured list, it's redundant.
 * Paragraphs generally shouldn't just be a single sentence.
 * Weird positioning of notes within the lead. I've never seen this before.
 * I don't think you need a note Under county indicating that it's a Colorado county. Several of these notes are just tautological.
 * Instead of saying next statistical areas update, is there a scheduled date when this will occur? Or a known frequency they occur?
 * Images missing alt-text so are not accessible.
 * OMB should be spelled out or linked in the second subheading (linked only once per section is appropriate)
 * Subheading Primary statistical areas could use an opening sentence quickly defining what a Primary statistical areas is.
 * I think that's a good place to start, I hope I didn't mention the same ones as above. Mattximus (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions. I've tried to address your concerns.
 * I've changed the opening sentence to "The U.S. State of Colorado includes 21 statistical areas delineated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)."
 * Much better, but I wonder if we can use a better word than delineate, which means to describe, but did they not in fact create these areas? Mattximus (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you suggest alternative language for "This sortable table"?
 * Easiest and best solution would be to take that whole sentence and make it a note (where you had the county note before). That would make the most sense. Mattximus (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've eliminated the one-sentence paragraph.
 * I've removed footnotes from the headings.
 * These seem to still be there... It's probably the most logical to have 1 note category at the end of the article (above references), under a heading called "notes" instead of 3 separate identically named headings. Mattximus (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added alt text to the map.
 * Do you have any additional suggestions? Yours aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 18:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Question
What should this list be named? I created and added the navigation bar Template:U.S. statistical areas.
 * 1) Colorado statistical areas - title used by all other states (see Category:United States statistical areas)
 * 2) List of Colorado statistical areas - current title
 * 3) List of statistical areas in Colorado - consistent with the List of counties in Colorado, the List of municipalities in Colorado, the List of census-designated places in Colorado, the List of places in Colorado, etc.

Yours aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 01:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the current established convention in similar articles, I think "Colorado statistical areas" would be the best option, but if you want to go ahead with any other name, and want to change the titles of all 50 or so lists, a larger level discussion would be more appropriate. But, none would majorly affect this FLC. Will try to take another look at the list soon. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Buaidh  talk e-mail 15:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think option 3 makes the most sense per usual naming conventions. Reywas92Talk 14:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to favor option #3 also. Yours aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 16:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Format
The format of this list when it was originally nominated for Featured list (see oldid=1051364405) closely resembled the other 51 state lists of statistical areas. The enhancements that have been made, and may yet be made, to this list should probably be reflected in the other 51 lists, so we should carefully examine this list. Yours aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 22:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh.Singh (part II)
Let me know if I accidentally duplicate any comment already made. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "The U.S. State of Colorado includes 21 statistical areas" — See MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID
 * "United States" v. "U.S." — be consistent
 * ❌ U.S. is used as an adjective and the United States as a proper noun.
 * The first sentence currently reads "The U.S. State of Colorado currently has 21 statistical areas delineated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)." Can it be re-phrased as → "Colorado is a state in the United States which has 21 statistical areas delineated by the the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The "U.S. State of Colorado" is the most common appellation for a U.S. state.
 * "These statistical areas are used extensively by the United States Census Bureau" — can remove 'extensively', seems extraneous
 * "The OMB defines a core-based statistical area (CBSA)" — '(CBSA)' is not used anywhere else in the lead, do we need to mention the abbreviation?
 * ❌ CBSA is not used in this article but it is used in many other articles so I left in in.
 * I wonder is there any use of introducing the reader of the abbreviation, when it isn't used anywhere else in the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "with the core as measured through commuting ties with the counties containing the core." — repetition of 'core'
 * ❌ This is a grammatically correct direct quote.
 * My bad ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reading through the lead, I still don't it specifically discussing about "List of Colorado statistical areas" (emphasis mine). Can anything more specific be included?
 * Better now! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Notes section should be at the end of the article, above the References section. See MOS:FNNR
 * "On March 6, 2020, the OMB defined 1114 statistical areas" — '1114' needs a comma.
 * "This sortable table" — I don't think we still use this format (which was used in few older lists)
 * The MOS:SEEALSO section is still looking odd, which duplicates most of the links present in the Colorado template.
 * Sorry if I keep persisting this issue, but still, each and every links used in the See also section is still duplicated in the Colorado template at the end of the page. The "See also" section is not compulsory. Its upto you to keep or remove it, however, I won't oppose if you disagree. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "On March 6, 2020, the OMB defined 1114 statistical areas" — '1114' needs a comma.
 * "This sortable table" — I don't think we still use this format (which was used in few older lists)
 * The MOS:SEEALSO section is still looking odd, which duplicates most of the links present in the Colorado template.
 * Sorry if I keep persisting this issue, but still, each and every links used in the See also section is still duplicated in the Colorado template at the end of the page. The "See also" section is not compulsory. Its upto you to keep or remove it, however, I won't oppose if you disagree. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The MOS:SEEALSO section is still looking odd, which duplicates most of the links present in the Colorado template.
 * Sorry if I keep persisting this issue, but still, each and every links used in the See also section is still duplicated in the Colorado template at the end of the page. The "See also" section is not compulsory. Its upto you to keep or remove it, however, I won't oppose if you disagree. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I keep persisting this issue, but still, each and every links used in the See also section is still duplicated in the Colorado template at the end of the page. The "See also" section is not compulsory. Its upto you to keep or remove it, however, I won't oppose if you disagree. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I keep persisting this issue, but still, each and every links used in the See also section is still duplicated in the Colorado template at the end of the page. The "See also" section is not compulsory. Its upto you to keep or remove it, however, I won't oppose if you disagree. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I've fixed most of your issues. Buaidh  talk e-mail 03:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Few replies above. Any update on the source of the sole image? Do we have a link? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yours aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 04:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Significant changes have been made in this list after it was brought to FLC. There are few things I might have done a bit differently, but all-in-all, I support this list for promotion as a featured list. Also, Pass for image review. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Name Change
I would like to change the name of the List of Colorado statistical areas to the List of statistical areas in Colorado. How will this impact a featured list designation? Yours aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 17:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Buaidh  talk e-mail 02:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Further suggestions
Do you concur with Kavyansh.Singh? Do you have further suggestions? Yours aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 02:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I had a few comments on the 2nd. Reywas92Talk 03:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC) ✅ Buaidh  talk e-mail 04:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The article is much better but it is still not quite at featured standard. I'll list a few more suggestions:
 * You do not need to have "currently" in the opening sentence. The lead should contain at least 1 sentence on what is a statistical area. ✅
 * "The following table displays" is outdated terminology and should not be used (it's redundant) ✅
 * "This table is initially sorted by (1) the most populous primary statistical area, then by (2) the most populous core-based statistical area, and finally by (3) the most populous county." is written as a note but it appears in the main paragraph, this could be added as a note in the header of the table. ✅
 * "The following table shows the population trends in these areas." Is redundant. The title of this section need not also include "Table of". ✅
 * The lead in the primary statistical areas section should have at least 1 sentence defining what is a primary statistical area. ✅
 * Mattximus (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestions. I have implemented all of them. Yours aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 07:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Table 1" and "Table 2" are unusual and not descriptive, use something like "Counties by statistical areas" and "Primary statistical areas" as section headers. The comment was to remove "Table of" from the headers not to only have that. Reywas92Talk 15:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Buaidh  talk e-mail 04:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is much better, great work! Just one more nitpic
 * Instead of "An enlargeable map" you can write "Distribution of the 17 core-based statistical areas in the State of Colorado" for the caption. The alt text which says "A map of ..." is good, so please don't change the alt text. Mattximus (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ I personally prefer the current legend. Buaidh  talk e-mail 14:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Featured list
Can I get anyone to endorse the List of statistical areas in Colorado as a Featured list? Yours aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 06:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I still think the lead is too short and can be combined with the Statistical areas section, but otherwise support. Reywas92Talk 14:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; while some reviewers haven't given a final comment after several pings, I'm going to go ahead and promote this- their comments were addressed, and I'm good with it where things stand. -- Pres N  19:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


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