Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of counties in Iowa/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates‎ | List of counties in Iowa
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:The Rambling Man 06:52, 29 August 2008 [1].

List of counties in Iowa edit

After a bit of a break, another US County list... it has professional prose, a suitable lead, comprehensive (covers all 99 counties), clear structure, good visual appeal and is stable (no edit wars). Tompw (talk) (review) 11:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from SRX
  • Oppose
    • Many problems and does not meet FL criteria.
      • Lead: This is a list of the ninety-nine counties in the U.S. state of Iowa. - instead of saying that it is a list, it should begin something like The U.S. state of Iowa contains nintey-nine counties. In this way you do not have to bold the title per WP:MOSBOLD and link in the bolded text per WP:LEAD.
        • The table below shows land area, but the Constitution deals with total area (including water area).[3] The number in the column headed "#" is the one used on the map from the National Atlas of the United States, shown on the left. The Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) code, which is used by the United States government to uniquely identify counties, is provided with each entry. The FIPS code for each county links to census data for that county. - I feel this prose can be under the section List of counties in Iowa. Because it is explaining the parameters of the table.
      • List of counties in Iowa
        • 1) We already know it is a list, so no need in saying the "List of counties in Iowa", simply "Counties" or "Counties in Iowa" will suffice.
      • Extinct counties
        • Poor word choice for section header, how about "former counties."
        • The following counties no llonger exist: - llonger?

Many problems against C1, C2 - the lead needs to be a bit longer, and C5--SRX 15:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, in order:
    1. I've changed the phraseing on the opening sentence;
    2. Good point, I've moved it to the section containing the table;
    3. I've changed the heading for the section containing the table to "County information", which I think resolves your comment;
    4. I agree, "Former counties" sounds much better, and I've changed things accordingly
    5. "llonger" - well spotted :-)... that's changed now
    6. Length of lead... this I haven't done anything to address yet. What information do you think should be included in the lead that shouldn't be?
    Thank-you for your suggestions and comments. Tompw (talk) (review) 15:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been addressed against C1, C2 and C5. The lead has also been expanded, I will give me Conditional Support if the prose of the lead is made into 2 paragraphs instead of 4 short ones.--SRX 00:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Lead is too short for a list of this length. Talk about Iowa, some of the history of the state and its division into counties, the defunct counties, maybe the largest, smallest, most and least populated etc. Use your imagination but it needs to be much longer. Plus avoid squashing text between two images per WP:MOS#Images. If you make the lead longer this shouldn't happen but if you don't you'll need to remove one of the images.
    • ninety-nine->99.
    • Established dates don't need to be wikilinked.
    • Etymology col could do with being left aligned and the red links should be sorted out.
    • I think there's a better link for president of the US than just president. Plus I imagine its capitalised.
    • President should be linked each time (to the relevant page US presidents page) as the table is sortable.
    • "signer" - is that a signatory?
    • "hero" - really? Reads a little WP:PEACOCK else reference him being called a hero.
    • Some of the etymology looks confusing, "Louisa Massey, woman who avenged the death of her brother, or Louisa County, Virginia" probably needs a footnote to explain the etymology in these cases is uncertain and provide suitable references to back that up.
    • Is it really necessary to link Irish? If so then do it all the time.
    • Link Fox (tribe) each time - it's a sortable list.
  • The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for recommendations concerning the lead - I shall work on that. I think having the etymolgy column left-aligned would look out of place, because the rest of the table is centre-aligned. (Also, other similar FLs use the same layout). I take your point about the conufsing eytmolgy, and will work on that as well. The rest of the issues you raised have been addressed. Thanks for the comments :-) Tompw (talk) (review) 19:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've attempted to deal with the multiple etymolgy issue - feedback would be apreciated. Tompw (talk) (review) 13:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've expanded the lead... what do you think now? Tompw (talk) (review) 19:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
???? What makes them unreliable? I take your point about publishers/deadlinks though, and will try and get them sorted. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To further explain on the above, to determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on you to show they are WP:RS Tompw, so please do that. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Since "County" is the name of the first column, can you remove that word from every square in the column? Tony (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Reference [7] after punctuation please.
  • Images in the lead are useless unless you actually click on them. Can you specify a size of thumbnails? I think 250 is the max for the lead.
  • Agree with Tony. No need to repeat the word "county" in the county column.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:02, 28 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_counties_in_Iowa/archive1&oldid=1138486230"