Wikipedia:Peer review/List of municipalities in Colorado/archive1

List of municipalities in Colorado


I've listed this article for peer review because I would appreciate any suggestions to improve this list.

Thanks, Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Some quick comments for a first pass: Lots here to work on, I hope this helps! Mattximus (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead is too short, could include at least the "notable" municipalities (the largest by population, land area, and most of these lists include the smallest as well)
 * I don't think a map of counties is needed in a list of municipalities.
 * The list itself is far, far too wide to be accessible to most users on most devices. I suggest keeping only: name, incorporation date, county, type of government, 2020 population, 2010 population and percent growth, land area, and population density. The rest can go into individual pages (or most likely is there already)
 * I don't think you need a list taken from within a list (for those in more than one county) as this can be made clear in the main list. This section can be deleted as it also uses outdate wording "this list below..."
 * Municipal distinction is a bit of a strange list, that is completely unsourced. Most of these can be in note form, linked from the city on the main list. Some can be brought into the lead (see first suggestion).
 * Notes need citations
 * Some notes are trivial (such as Williamsburg is served by the Florence post office is so detailed it does not belong in a general list, but only in the individual municipality page, if at all)
 * Section on legal distinction should come before you list the types of municipalities.
 * I just noticed I had done a peer review of this page already, found here: Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Colorado/archive1. It looks like I wrote many of the same suggestions. Mattximus (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I've made the following improvements: Do you think these changes helped? Do you have any other suggestions? Thanks for your help. Buaidh talk e-mail 21:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC) Does anyone have any other suggestions before I submit this list for Featured List? Thanks, Buaidh  talk e-mail 15:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I added information to the lead section.
 * I eliminated the county map and added a GeoGroup instead.
 * I cut the list down to six columns but added a link to a more detailed list.
 * I eliminated the sections "Municipalities in multiple counties" and "Municipal distinctions".
 * I eliminated some of the less important notes.
 * I left the section "Legal distinctions" where it was. We need to explain the five types of government before we can explain some of the finer points.
 * I added a seventh column for the coordinates.
 * It is better but a few more changes are needed before submitting to featured list.
 * I think you went too far with the table. It would be best to have something like List of municipalities in California where you have the 2020 and 2010 populations and the % change so that you can see the long term trends. The land area has been completely removed and even incorporation dates have been removed, both important columns! Maps and coordinates and website are not so important. This, along with population density are absolutely critical before submitting to featured list.
 * I would not split the municipalities populations based on county, and then create rows for subtotals, this is far too much detail for a main list.
 * Just to summarize, I would match the California list columns exactly (the order can be whatever you choose, just the content is important), the old list did have these columns just far too many extra ones. This format has been successful at featured list nominations and it's the one I copied for my nominations. I can do one for you, check out how clean the coding is compared to the original, much easier to update in the future as well. What do you think of this?


 * I would add the land area for both the most extensive and least extensive municipalities in the lead. But this is only if you add the land area and population density columns back like in the example above, otherwise this makes no sense since it does not refer to anything in the table.
 * You say that 75% live in these municipalities, where do the rest live? You can then link to the relevant list of unincorporated places (CDPs).
 * I would move all photographs into a gallery mode like the California page I linked, the way it is now creates very large white spaces which is odd to read. With the images moved to just above the table, it will be a much nicer format.
 * All the notes are unsourced, this would be a quick fail at featured list nomination, where this is a requirement.

I think overall it's much better, but there are still quite a few changes to be made before submitting to featured list. Mattximus (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I really appreciate your comments. I've changed the format of the table as you suggested to follow the List of municipalities in California with some exceptions. I would appreciate any and all comments. Thank you, Buaidh  talk e-mail 07:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I've kept the Maps and Coordinates columns on the far right side of the table. I think these two columns are very useful and allow the use of Template:GeoGroup to pinpoint the location of each municipality.
 * 2) Colorado allows municipalities to extend into multiple counties. This makes the table a bit more complex than the California table. I've stacked multiple counties and indicated county seats.
 * 3) I've stacked the 2020 land area and 2020 population density data to make the the table more readable.
 * 4) I've placed the municipal website link (with the official municipal title) below the place name. This allows the municipalities to be sorted by place name but display the official municipal title.
 * 5) I've eliminated all but two panoramic images above the table and placed an image gallery below the table.
 * 6) I've added references for each note.
 * 7) Each row now contains two or three lines of information. This a a different look than the California table, but I hope it is just as useful.


 * This page is much better than before! I added a bit of context to the lead and removed wording that is not appropriate for featured lists. I think there is still more to go before nominating, most importantly the entire section on municipal definition is unsourced. That would be a quick fail at the nomination. That would be priority. Other little things like using the correct pop density template so you do not have those weird superscript negative symbols. You can see my example above on how to do this. I'm not sure the stacking is appropriate for land area and density, but you can try this and see what the other say. I do think you should get rid of the website links, that's something you can get from clicking on the page itself, it's a bit too much for the list. I DO agree with stacking municipalities with multiple counties. You could also use a final row for the total municipalities in Colorado and the state itself. This is pretty standard on lists like these. The images need alt captions for accessibility reasons, this is a mandatory change for featured list. I may try to format them a bit differently, but let me know if you like it this way or not. Mattximus (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I removed the municipal website links and added references to the "Municipal government" section and several other places. I added a summary row at the bottom of the table. I changed the units for population density from "mi-2" and "km-2" to the Template:Convert defaults "/sq mi" and "/km2". I left the stacked land area and population density data for now. We need the (dry) land area for population density. Should their be any reference to total area (land area + water area)? I added captions to all photos and moved the photos to a separate "Gallery" section below the table. Not as pretty, but more conventional. I removed some of your additions to the first paragraph, but added some additional information. I don't think we need to explain what Colorado is. There is a link to the Colorado article and a map showing where it is. Anyway, let me know if you think this is an improvement. Thanks again, Buaidh  talk e-mail 00:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Overall much much better. Remember that images require alt captions for accessibility, this is a requirement for featured lists. The captions you gave the images are more interesting than the ones I had written, however they contain information and thus need to be sourced. If you want to stick with "Denver is the largest city of Colorado by population" then you don't need to source. I think the gallery should go directly above the list, breaking up a wall of text and formatting the box containing the "map the coordinates" much cleaner. Now it kinda stands out awkwardly.
 * One more suggestion, it would be best to add the county seat legend and formatting found in List of municipalities in California. I don't think simply writing the word seat next to the county would be appropriate for featured list. I copied this format in my lists and successfully passed. Mattximus (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your help. I added references to all the images (except the map) and moved the gallery above the table.

I really do not like using a symbol to indicate a county seat. I think a link is far more intuitive. To complicate matters, Colorado has three county seats that extend into other counties, so the county seat cannot be indicated in the municipality column as California does, but must go in the county column instead. If a consensus wants a symbol, I'll switch to a symbol, but I hope they don't. Thank you again, Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone else have some suggestions for improvement? Thanks, Buaidh  talk e-mail 16:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Please close this peer review. Thank you, Buaidh  talk e-mail 17:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)