Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of capitals in the United States

List of capitals in the United States[edit]

Looks fine to me. Though I'm not associated with the article at all I'll try to look into any objections. PhoenixTwo 07:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overall a pretty good list, but some states need sources. Electronic sources for some states are hard to find; I've looked for many of them.— Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 17:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per tiny lead. Renata 23:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice that a chunk of your objections here cite a short lead. Anything in particular you want to see added here? -Phoenix 01:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ya, well, this is especially big "sin" of lists: leads are usually one sentence self-reference ("this is a list of..."), so featured lists should set example for the rest, therefore the objection. Lead should give background info on the topic, introduce terms, and highlight general trends. So for the capitals some statistics could be added: the first capital, last change, biggest capital, etc. Why did capital change? How capitals are changed? etc. Renata 15:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I agree with Renata that the lead could do with more info. I suggest you include a definition of what a capital *is*. Tompw (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the following reasons:
- Lead could be expanded some and rewritten some, to remove self references, and better summarize the evolution of capital cities in the U.S.
- Formatting issues: the Leesburg Va. entry is signifcantly different than the rest, its glaring. Also, the National capitals are a bullet list, while the state capitals are a table? Why the change in format? Also, the Louisianna ref tag needs to me moved for consistency
- References: Someone added this information while reading something, I am certain. Where are those sources for:
  - CSA
  - Rep of Texas
  - Kingdom & Rep of Hawaii
  - A whole BUNCH of states

Overall, the article looks good, but I cannot support this promotion until these problems are fixed. If they are, I will change my vote. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There were two areas that stuck to me that needed improvement. First, the lead-in to the list needs to be expanded to give a little summary about the history. Second, it was difficult to read going from bullet points to a table. This list could be done using strictly tables. I like what you've done here, but it just needs a little more work to reach the guidelines established by WP:FL. RyguyMN 03:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments...I reiterate, I didn't do any work on the list, just saw it and though it looked alright. I'll work on converting the bulleted section to a table. -Phoenix 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to fail this list, because not much has changed since the nomination (diff), and so I don't feel the objections are being "actively addressed". The list is sound, but the poor lead and lack of references mean it cannot pass as it is. Tompw (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although Tompw has already failed this list I would like to note that I would have oposed on the grounds that the Oklahoma list is incomplete. There are dozens of Indian tribes in Oklahoma, and most have a declared capital. (For two exaples, the Osage capital is Pawhuska and the Lenape tribe has capitals in Bartlesville and Anadako. Dsmdgold 16:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]