Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Florida/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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:33, 31 March 2012.

List of municipalities in Florida

 * Nominator(s): Mgrē@sŏn  16:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...I am a member of WikiProject Florida and my goal was to expand/update this list to match the featured List of counties in Florida. Mgrē@sŏn 16:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: Listed on FLC by The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments from  Harrias  talk
 * Why do the populations, Government type, Label and Incorp. year columns have full-stops (or periods) at the end of them when none of the other columns do? It seems rather arbitrary?
 * --During article development, I added the period to verify that I had reviewed the entry when I went through the data a second time. It does not serve a purpose now. I removed the easy ones (government type and label). The numbers require a fair amount of time.


 * In the lead Council–manager government uses and endash, but in the table it uses a hyphen. I know that they are subtly different things, but it looks inconsistent. Not really sure on this one though.
 * --I made a change to the "Council–manager government" table entries, but I don't think it's right.


 * Also, in the pie-chart a third symbol is used: a slash. The pie-chart should also be consistent with the text. It also seems odd that in the lead you cite ~70% of governments are Council–manager government, but in the chart these are split into Council/manager and Commission/manager, thus giving an inconsistent view of the statistics.
 * --I will change the slash back to a hyphen for consistency. By definition, council-manager is not the same as commission-manager, but in Florida, they are virtually the same. What is your suggestion?


 * I'm not at all keen on the pinching of the text in the lead where the map and the pie-chart squeeze the text between them. Perhaps try moving the map all the way to the top and maybe dropped the pie-chart a little too? This still won't solve it on very wide-screens, but at least on those the screen will be wide enough that the text isn't stuck in a really small column!
 * --I moved the pie chart lower so that it doesn't appear side-by-side with the state map.


 * Per WP:COLOR shading alone shouldn't be used to highlight information (such as you use for the county seat) this should be accompanied by a accessible symbol (as seen in the similar list for California.)
 * --I added a dagger to heading explanation and to each county seat.


 * I'm also not keen on the "Tallahassee ۩ Capital" – something along the lines of "Tallahassee (State capital)" would seem to work much better to me.
 * --I added an accessible symbol to the intro along with the one for county seat.


 * Abbreviations such as "Pop. rank" and "Incorp. year" need expanding somewhere for explanation.
 * --I added a line in the "notes" section explaining "Incorp. year" and Pop. rank".


 * Also, is the "Pop. rank" column even needed, given that the table can be sorted by population anyway?
 * --If a user sorts by county or area, they would have no way to know where a city ranked by population in relation to other Florida cities. Other city lists included it, so I did, too.


 * The alphabetical "Contents" table seems pretty pointless when the columns is initially sorted by population, as if (for example) you click on "M" it takes you to "Macclenny", which is then followed by "Fort Myers Beach", while "Mascotte" is a fair way further down.
 * --I added a note below the table explaining that it is only applicable when the list is sorted by place name.


 * Per WP:DTAB row and column scopes need to be defined. Again, the California list shows this in practice.
 * --Not sure I understand what you are requesting. If you are looking at the California passage,

"The first municipality to incorporate was Sacramento on February 27, 1850, while the most recent was Jurupa Valley on October 1, 2011.[5] The largest municipality by population and land area is Los Angeles with 3,792,621 residents and 468.67 square miles (1,213.8 km2). The smallest by population is Vernon with 112 people, while the smallest by land area is Amador City at 0.31 square miles (0.80 km2)", that information is already provided in the intro prior to the wikitable. Please advise.
 * Read Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial, that should explain about the row and column scopes, otherwise, I know that The Rambling Man will be able to explain them. I'm away with work for the week, and will have extremely limited web access, so probably won't revisit this until next weekend.  Harrias  talk 07:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 Harrias  talk 12:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Over three weeks later, and the table still lacks row scopes.  Harrias  talk 20:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose – Sorry, but I don't think this is up to FL standards at the moment. The key issue for me is excessive detail in the lead, which causes the intro to be too large. There are also a number of style issues throughout.

This review is incomplete. I may return with more comments.  Good raise  01:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Image review
 * File:FlaCitiesMap.PNG, File:FloridaCitiesbyPopulation.PNG, and File:FlaGovtTypes.PNG could use a better description. While this is not strictly required by WP:IUP, FLs should lead by example.
 * File:Map of USA FL.svg claims that permission for its use is granted under the following licenses: GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version; Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0; and Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic. Only one of these licenses would be necessary, but since all of them are claimed to be applicable here, all conditions for each of them have to be met. Looking at the first:
 * The GFDL v1.2 requires that "at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five) [be listed]" and that it contains a History section listing previous versions.
 * Looking at it again: All images appear to be free and are properly tagged, with the one exception named above. It's not that the image is not available under GFDL v1.2, just that attribution is inadequate. The GFDL is (intentionally) a bit of a beast in that regard. Seeing as the file is also available under two other free licenses, this isn't a problem, but it would still be nice if the File: page was improved to fix this.  Good raise  12:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the original author's name to the file page in question on the Wikimedia file page. There is only one version, but there is a history section. Does that resolve the issue you raised? Mgrē@sŏn  23:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


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