Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of colleges and universities in Minnesota/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 Giants2008 20:06, 18 December 2011.

List of colleges and universities in Minnesota

 * Nominator(s):  R uby   comment!  05:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've worked very hard in the past month entirely overhauling the article into a hopeful FL (collecting data from reliable sources, organizing it into a table, and deciding what to include in lead). This especially inspired me to work on my own state. I wish all 50 lists would eventually become as complete. Thanks in advance for your comments.  R uby  comment!  05:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Albacore (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and support. I tweaked the edit you made to the image template. Personally I like the image box there (after the lead text), but let me know if it looks odd.  Ruby  2010/  2013  02:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per all above. Great list. Glimmer721  talk  02:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support!  Ruby  2010/  2013  03:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment - This is a very good list, and appears to be on-par with similar featured lists. This statement in the lead has no reference: "While the University of Minnesota was chartered by the state in 1851, it did not operate as a place of higher education for nearly two decades." I'd say that needs a citation. I'm still going through the sources/links. AstroCog (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Breakdown of featured list criteria:
 * Ref 32 appears dead or broken. I'd say, it's best to used archived versions of websites for the links.
 * Prose: prose is good and it's straight-forward and to the point.
 * Lead: the lead defines inclusion in the list and provides appropriate context.
 * Comprehensiveness: this article appears to be comprehensive - I couldn't find any obvious omissions.
 * Structure: This list is structured appropriately and is easy to navigate.
 * Style: appropriate colors and citation style. Very few red-links. I think the image gallery could be placed differently - it just sort of dangles off the bottom of the lead. Can it be right justified to be located next to the lead text?
 * Stability: no apparent edit warring. List is curated by a single editor, who is maintaining it well.

I'd say just clean up the broken link and fix the placement of the image box and I'll be happy to support this nomination. AstroCog (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the review. I moved the image box back to its original spot, and fixed the link issue (I added an archive link so the problem doesn't arise again). The U of M statement you mentioned was actually cited in the following ref, but I moved it around so now both sentences are now clearly referenced. Thanks again,  Ruby  2010/  2013  21:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good job. You've got my support. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.