Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cities in Nevada/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, 31 August 2017 (UTC).

List of cities in Nevada

 * Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I am continuing my attempt at standardizing all list of municipalities in North America. Thanks to the reviews of many wikipedians, this will be the 15th such nomination after 14 successful nominations (such as: Montana, Alabama) and I believe this article is a complete and comprehensive list of all cities in Nevada

I have modeled this list off of recently promoted lists so it should be of the same high standard. I've incorporated suggestions from recent reviews to make this nomination go as smoothly as possible. I hope I caught them all. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Thanks again for your input Mattximus (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from N Oneemuss
This looks very good to me on first glance, but I do have some comments. Note that this is my first featured list candidate review, so if you disagree with my feedback then you're likely right!
 * I don't think that United States should be linked in the lead sentence, per MOS:OVERLINK (and WP:SEAOFBLUE). I would replace it with one link to Western United States.
 * I think in this case it's important to link to the USA, since this is a geography based article, USA is really the parent. It shouldn't' affect WP:SEAOFBLUE since no blue would be lost (just replaced with Western United States). What do you think?
 * It does fall under WP:SEAOFBLUE because there are two links next to each other that look like a single link. Still, it only says "where possible", and your argument about United States being relevant to a geography article makes sense, so I think it's fine as it is (also, I notice your other featured lists have the same links in the first sentence).


 * This might be an American thing (I'm British) but I think the second sentence is missing commas. I would put them before "with", "but the" and "spanning". ✅
 * Again, possibly this falls under WP:ENGVAR, but "less" should probably be "fewer" because inhabitants are countable. ✅
 * The repeated use of "are population category" seems a bit odd to me. Aside from being repetitive, I think it would sound better if something like "are part of population category" were used instead.
 * Does "in population category" work? If not I'll use yours, I have no strong preference.
 * Your version seems fine to me. N Oneemuss (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Consider linking wards and city clerks. ✅
 * Again, I think there should be a comma before "which" in the final paragraph of the lead. ✅
 * The dates in the last sentence of the lead can't really go on their own; it should read something like "Carson City, which did so on March 1, 1875".
 * added just "on" instead of "which did so on", would that work?
 * I think it does work, but it might be worth adding either a comma before "on" or putting the whole phrase in brackets, i.e. "(on March 1, 1875)". N Oneemuss (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC) ✅


 * I made one minor edit (fixing a capital letter).
 * I might be wrong, but isn't independent city Carson City's legal description (which would make the first sentence of the second paragraph wrong)? Or is that a different sort of term?
 * Yeah they are different terms, should I make it more clear? Independent means there is no 2nd tier administrative unit above it (no county or merged county), the legal description (is it a town, or city, etc.) is different, so in Carson city's weird case, it has no description.
 * I think it would help if you could make it a bit more clear, actually. It would certainly help non-US readers in my opinion. N Oneemuss (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm I tried making it more clear, but I think it ended up being more convoluted. What do you think of the wording: "Incorporated places in the state are legally described as cities, except for Carson City, which has no legal description, but is considered an independent city as it does not reside in any county".
 * I think that wording is pretty good. I don't think there should be a comma before "but", though, and I'm also unsure about the use of "reside" seeing as that word usually applies to people – how about "it is not located in any county"? N Oneemuss (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC) ✅


 * The photo captions' use of the word "largest" threw me off a bit. I know that they have a heading ("by population"), but something like "most-populous" might be easier to understand and less repetitive. (Feel free to ignore this one, it's just my opinion). ✅
 * You don't need to write out Henderson, Nevada because the caption already says that it is in Nevada. ✅
 * The table looks fine to me.
 * Maybe add List of counties in Nevada to the See also section. I know it's linked in the table, but that link isn't very obvious and the See also section would be a more natural place for it in my opinion. ✅
 * I just noticed that per MOS:SEEALSO, the links in the See also section should be ordered alphabetically. N Oneemuss (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)✅


 * Why does one reference have "in English" when none of the others do? It seems unnecessary to me, but either way it ought to be standardised. ✅

Overall this list looks great, and once my comments are addressed I will be happy to support. Your project is very ambitious; I wish you the best of luck with it! N Oneemuss (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review, I haven't had time to address all of them but I've check off the ones I've tackled so far. Mattximus (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks N Oneemuss! I believe I've addressed all your recommendations above. A few points require your approval but other than that, thanks for the review. Mattximus (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've gone through all of your comments and I only have one minor suggestion left (I did make one very minor edit to the list, adding a comma). It's just a wording issue though, so I'll support. Great work on this list! N Oneemuss (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Made that one change you suggested, and thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley
 * "and the smallest municipality by population" I think it is still clear and reads better if you leave out the repetition of "municipality by population". Ditto with repetition of "to incorporate" below. ✅
 * I would mention in the lead that Carson City is the capital. ✅
 * Notes looks odd, presumably because it is in columns even though there is only one note.✅
 * Maybe comment in the lead on the dramatic increase in population, especially in Clark and Washoe?
 * Surprisingly those are not terribly dramatic increases relative to other municipalities in the states which have doubled or tripled in population. I'm also hesitant to include trends such as this since the new census will be out in a few years and I will delete the whole 2000 census column (which is already out of date). This would mean those cities will inevitably grow much slower, and no longer be notable to include in the lead.


 * Looks good. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review Dudley Miles! I've made you first three changes, and presented a point for your consideration on the fourth. Mattximus (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Sandvich18

"United States Census Bureau" is overlinked in the refs and the notelist doesn't need to have 30em columns (both issues appear in other FLs of yours, too). Other than that, everything looks good. Sandvich18 (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sandvich18, made both changes. Mattximus (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Then that's a support vote from me. :) Sandvich18 (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review passed (fixed one minor formatting issue); promoting. Good to see another of this series out the door! -- Pres N  14:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


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