Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Municipalities of Guerrero/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) 00:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC).

Municipalities of Guerrero

 * Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is yet another list of municipalities with a standardized format that now includes 42 (!!) lists in North American jurisdictions. Inspired by real encyclopedias with consistent formatting and high standards, I'm helping to achieve this for lists of municipalities. I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks for your reviews Mattximus (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Steelkamp
 * Should the "S" in Southwest Mexico be capitalised? From Googling, there seems to be a mixture of capitalised and non-capitalised, which indicates that Wikipedia should not capitalise it. There is no Wikipedia article on Southwest Mexico, but Guerrero does not capitalise the term.
 * I don't have a strong opinion on this, but grammatically if it's a direction it's not capitalized but if it's a region or place, it is. So I can see why it goes either way since it is both.
 * Seeing as there is a mix of capitalised and non-capitalised, it should be non capitalised on Wikipedia, as MOS:CAPS says "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia".


 * Should census be decapitalised? ✅
 * Can Mexican Census link to Censo General de Población y Vivienda instead (a redirect from Mexican census)? ✅
 * Can the population density column be split into two columns similar to land area? That column really stands out by having the units and two different measurements all in the same column, and with the size of my screen, there are some rows which have the km2 and sq mi on different lines which makes reading down the column hard.
 * For this I don't really have a strong opinion either way, your suggestion is probably a bit better than it is now. I'm not sure why this format was chosen originally but almost all lists for all Mexican and American states have this format. It would be odd to make this one stand out with a different format than all the others, and it would be too onerous to change all 85 other lists (including dozens of featured lists) to then match this one. Not sure if this is a critical change you are suggesting? Mattximus (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I do truly believe this would make this list better, and the other lists too. If it's too onerous to change all lists over right now, you can change this list over now and the other lists over time. Is it really that big a deal if there is a slight inconsistency with the lists for a while? Steelkamp (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

That's all from me. Steelkamp (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For the first image, the alt text shouldn't really duplicate the caption. One solution is to set the alt text to "refer to caption" as per Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images. ✅
 * Thanks for your review! I've resolved or asked a follow up question for all comments. Mattximus (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: I received a comment in the talk page about updating 4 new municipalities. I've updated one so far. Mattximus (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Just making sure you've seen this message. Steelkamp (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've now completed all changes and fixed all errors posted on the talk page. I've reflected upon this last change and I'm wondering if it's a dealbreaker. It would take dozens and dozens of hours to change all the featured lists to your suggested format, but it would be odd to have this one stand out as different. Mattximus (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I still think the the population density should be split into two columns. This would come under the Visual appeal portion of the featured list criteria. Steelkamp (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging ... No rush on this, I'm aware that sometimes  you like to weigh in on formatting questions. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My opinion is... overall, I don't think it has to be split. Persons/sqkm and persons/sqmi are equivalent and will always sort the exact same, it's just two different ways of expressing the same concept. I do think it's slightly odd to have it split for area but not density, but given that it took more than 40 lists (and FLCs) before the point was raised, I think it's a very minor issue. (It also makes the table even wider- I did a quick find-and-replace with a regex ( -> , which misses some rows), and it really squishes the table more than it already is.) Ultimately, I wouldn't not promote if that was the only outstanding issue. -- Pres  N  20:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, I support. Steelkamp (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Dank

 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * Typos in the notes section: "there are no ... information" and "in May 23, 1874 then" (missing comma)
 * Checking the FLC criteria:
 * 1. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
 * 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
 * 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
 * 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but that tool is mainly focused on English-language sources, and this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
 * 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
 * 4. It is navigable.
 * 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
 * 6. It is stable.
 * Close enough for a support. Well done. Note that I don't speak or read Spanish, so more input will be needed on this FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 16:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't read Spanish either and had another user help with this. I have fixed the two typos you mentioned above. Thanks for the review! Mattximus (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed (with schoolboy Spanish); promoting. -- Pres N  16:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


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