Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cities and towns in Montana/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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC).

List of cities and towns in Montana

 * Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This is my 9th nomination for list of local governments. I have completely reworked this one to now include more demographic data than anyone really needs. I've also tried to standardise formatting to be consistent with other local administrative lists (List of cities and towns in California, List of cities and towns in Alabama etc...). This time I've tried using more templates to make the list a bit more aesthetically pleasing. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Thanks for your input. Mattximus (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: It would be nice if in the Type Column, you also mention the class of the cities. For example, Billings would be City (First Class). Black hole78  talk 19:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I have tried what you proposed in my last list, List of cities and towns in Alabama, but I'm actually considering removing them for several reasons. I'm unaware of any single source that lists which city is which class. Population doesn't automatically change the class, there is some procedure to do so, thus it is impossible to know what class any particular city is (see Birmingham, Alabama for one such anomaly). For the Alabama list, I assumed this to be the case, but no source backs it up, which is not very encyclopedic and is the main reason I'm going to remove them. Secondly, they don't actually mean much functionally. If you have a source that gives either the classification of all cities, or what the functional legislative differences are (there may not be any), I will be happy to add both/either to the list. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support: I can see you take care the sort problem this time, good work.--Jarodalien (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jarodalien, getting better each time. Mattximus (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have just a few minor points. Other than these, it looks fine. Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 23:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Havre is a county seat but is not indicated as such.
 * Belgrade has the cross icon when it doesn't need it.
 * You should keep the accessdates consistently formatted. Refs 1 and 2 are in Month Date, Year, while the remainder are Year-Month-Date.
 * Refs 3-6 could have publisher information, probably the Montana Legislature. That seems to be common among these lists (California, Utah) and having more information in references never hurts.
 * Thank you for the review, and your eagle eye, especially catching the first two errors! I've made all your changes, and appreciate your time looking it over. Thanks again. Mattximus (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Happy to support. - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 08:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Review by PresN


 * It's a bit odd that you're using British English for an American state (organisation, reorganised, etc.), but whatever
 * You're linking municipality twice in the lead
 * "municipalities are divided into four classes by state statute based on the population of each municipality" -> "municipalities are divided into four classes by state statute based on their population"
 * "Under certain exceptions municipalities with a population of between 9,000 and 10,000 may elect, by resolution to be either a First or Second Class city" - no comma before "by resolution". Same for the next two sentences.
 * "And finally, municipalities" - don't start sentences with conjunctions.

Not too much. Also did a Source Review: Pass. -- Pres N  16:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review! I've made all your changes, they were good catches. Mattximus (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, and Source Review passed -- Pres N  15:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support; my only suggestion would be perhaps to right-justify the population and growth columns, since they're numbers, but as it is it's great. --Golbez (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. I agree that numbers normally should be right justified, but I tried it and it actually looks better like this (I don't know why). If you noticed I also left justified the density column for the exact same reason. It just looks better this way (subjectively of course). Mattximus (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

– Gavin (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.