Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits/archive2
- 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 User:Scorpion0422 21:54, 13 October 2008 [1].
Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits edit
I think this list meets all of the criteria and is ready to be featured. I will, of course, try to fix any issues raised here, if any exist. Garden. 21:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Leads of lists shouldn't start with "This is a list of the largest cities in the European Union by population within city limits."
- Try to give more detail on the actual topic in the first paragraph.
- Say a little bit about the cities with the highest population e.g. London, Berlin
- I'm sure you already know but quite a lot of the external links are dead.
- Per Wikipedia:Embedded citations it'd be better to have the references as inline citations instead of embedded links, so it can display the publisher, accessdate etc.
Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no animation in the lead image, but it's advertised as such. Perhaps SVGs can animate, but the thumbnail generated is not an SVG. --Golbez (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
- As mentioned above, you need to not imbed the citations in the list like you have, because if it's being used as a reference, it needs publisher, title and last access date at the least, and if it's not being used as a reference, it belongs in the external links section.
- Please check your links with the link checker tool. Lots and lots of dead ones.
- Move the "official" links to a separate "Notes" column.
- I also fear the reliability of a lot of those sources.
Gary King (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, phew, I did a few things to the list. I've unlinked the dates in the table, changed the bold to asterisks since asterisks is more visible on different platforms, removed the periods from the ranks in the table, moved references to their own column, added multiple columns to the references, and converted the references from bare links to formatted links. Of course, some are still dead or not formatted, but it's much better than it was earlier :) Gary King (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I don't think that the paragraph about candidate countries is particularly relevant to a list of current cities. I am not really sure that the graphic showing EU history is particularly relevant either though I don't have particularly strong feelings about that. As someone else said you definitely need some prose about cities in the lead.
- "Cities marked with * are capital cities of their administrative countries". Administrative countries doesn't sound right to me. How about "Cities marked with * are member state capital cities"?
- General comment - I can't help feeling that this whole list is a bit misleading in a way. I can see that one is trying to do avoid the debate about what parts of an extended urban area make up a "city" and what is that area's population but people potentially going to be confused by the figures and positions. For example it is usually accepted that London and Paris are roughly similar in terms of population and that both places are much larger than Madrid or Rome. However this table has Paris in only 5th place. Another example is Manchester whose urban area is roughly comparable in population to that of Birmingham (and we won't get into the debate about which city is really second in England) but here comes below Bradford.
Boissière (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.