Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of sister cities in Florida

List of sister cities in Florida
Thanks to all who commented.

The format for this list was based on featured List of sister cities in Maryland.

Checking against Featured list criteria:

1. It is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed.
 * (a) the table is "Useful".
 * (b) "Comprehensive": list all the Sister Cities relationships - active, dormant and cancelled.
 * (c) "Factually accurate" The list is checked against the official list by Sister Cities International and complemented by the State of Florida lists and media articles. The lists contain only relationships that have been filed with them and remove cancelled partnerships. The goal here was to create a more comprehensive list with former and current relationships. The meta:cite format is used.
 * (d) (e) (f) "Uncontroversial", "Stable", "Well-constructed": I hope so :-). The table will change once more partnerships are announced.

2. It complies with the standards:
 * (a) the lead summarizes the list scope.
 * (b) besides the lead, there is a little explanation on how the list was constructed.
 * (c) There are two tables in the article. One for the entire State of Florida and other for cities and counties. Although this makes a long list, splitting it would work against the sortable feature.

3. Images: I added some illustrations showing cities on the list.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank for the peer review that some editors made.

--Legionarius 18:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support; I just changed the reflist to a 2-column format, but with over 150 references (grand job on the referencing, by the way), maybe three columns should be used, since that's done with the similar number of refs on 9/11 (around 140) and United States (around 200). --Golbez 19:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words. Now that the quotes have been shortened, I think 3 columns can be used. Your take? --Legionarius 21:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment There's something wrong with ref #18. I can't figure it out. -- Crzycheetah 19:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed a wrong replace that I made before. Now it is "ref#7".--Legionarius 21:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you go over all of your refs? Some of the .pdf references are missing the format part, and a couple of them didn't open (I fixed them, but there may be more). I support anyway, but I would feel safe if the refs were formatted properly. :) -- Crzycheetah 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Some search replace screw-ups, plus some stuff that escaped my eye the first 27 reviews. I hope all are fine now. Thanks!--Legionarius 23:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support; well done. Geraldk 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support good work. 16:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tompw (talk • contribs)
 * Support. I bail for a few weeks, and come back to find a fancy box in which to place "opinion"? -- Phoenix2  (holla) 01:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. Feel free to not fill it, it was something I added in my noms (I was filling it by hand) and GeraldK like the idea and implemented it for other noms as well.--Legionarius 02:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)