Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of states and territories of the United States/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 Hahc21 10:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of states and territories of the United States edit

List of states and territories of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked quite vigorously over the past few days to get this up to standard, and I believe it now meets the criteria. This list goes over the key aspects (name, capital, population, area, congressional districts etc.) of each state, as well as Washington, D.C. and each US territory. All area measurements are in square miles, but are also converted to square kilometers to conform with policy and aid readers who are not familiar with US/Imperial measurements. The lede itself gives an overview of the states and their role in the federal union, an overview of territories and their classifications, and a quick overview at state extremes such as the most and least populous state, and the largest and smallest territories. Overall, this list gives the topic the sort of coverage it deserves. Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • You really don't need the key repeated every time, and I question where it's necessary at all. People know what area is. You can include rounding and the year it was obtained in a footnote. Please remove all of the keys.
    • The 'city' column isn't needed for DC, it seems random. Not largest city, just "city". The footnote saying Washington is equivalent to DC is sufficient. Or, change it to 'largest city'.
    • The area column for the uninhabited territories is too wide.
    • Said column needs a footnote explaining that these territories apparently have no water area.
    • You could combine many footnotes into "Represented by a non-voting delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives", rather than having five footnotes saying the same thing for five regions. --Golbez (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed all of these issues. Toa Nidhiki05 23:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The name of the country is pretty basic...you don't need to list the different names used, nor the obvious abbreviations, and definitely not "USA or U.S.A." I don't think I've seen that one before. (Periods are discouraged for acronyms anyway: WP:ABBR)
  • The start of the lead should focus on what a state is, not that they each have senators and electoral votes: Talk about how they have their own laws and governors and such, not how the decennial census apportions House seats. Not that this is bad information, but these are not key characteristics of states and should be mentioned later.
  • Number of unorganized territories should be corrected to ten.
  • There is no 2012 Census.
  • What are the days Colorado, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Tennessee became states?
    • Fixed; there was an error with the template, so it has been removed. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The area note needs to be removed from that column, nor do I think it's even necessary to point out that values are rounded; technically all measurements are.
    • Well, the only reason it needs to be there is, because the figures are rounded to the nearest whole number, some 'total area' measurements are off by either 1 or 2 square miles. Noting how it was rounded would be a bit helpful in explaining that. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use "Acquired" rather than "Claimed" for the territories, and that DC was established rather than approved.
  • Put the capital column of the territories to the left to be consistent with the state table ordering.
  • The Washington note needs to be removed from the territory area column.

Reywas92Talk 09:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • See also section goes before references

Great, I'd also suggest a higher-quality map that may have full names, but otherwise Support. Reywas92Talk 15:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not to mention a map that includes the territories; the article is about them too. --Golbez (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Few drive-by comments
  • Remove note A (about area being rounded) from the "Became a state" column and replace with a reference or citation listing all states if possible
    • Removed; as for the second part, a direct citation is not needed because it is cited in the 'general references' section. Any section that is not directly cited is cited there. 01:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Is there somewhere where you can link the terms "Unincorporated", "Incorporated", "organized" and "unorganized" used in the territory lists. The meaning and significance of these terms, to me at least, is not immediately obvious. The mention in the lead definitely helps (though I read after I asked the question), but if there does exist somewhere where more information is located, it would be handy to link to it.
    • Those have been linked in the lede now; if you think it is needed to link in the tables, I can do that as well. Toa Nidhiki05 01:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A note on the "Largest City" explicitly stating what you mean by "city" might help. For example, looking at Florida, Jacksonville may be the largest legal city, but Miami has a larger metropolitan area. I'm not suggesting you change the criteria, just clarify it in case someone wants to argue.
  • Are the areas of the inhabited areas rounded to the nearest whole number as well? If so, add the note to remain consistent.
  • I wouldn't mind having the abbreviation column sortable as well. Just for example Iowa (IA), by abbreviation, is ahead of Idaho (ID), but behind based on the full state name.

Ravendrop 22:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • re the "Largest City" issue - List of U.S. states used to have a footnote by 'largest city' if it was not the anchor of the state's largest area. So, Kansas City for Missouri would have a footnote explaining that St. Louis was the state's largest metro area. Note that sometimes this was not always anchored in that state; for example, New Jersey's largest metro area is New York City. This could be done here as well, but it would require adequate sourcing. --Golbez (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of those appear to have been sourced, and I can't find any source to confirm them. At this point, however, I don't feel any more notes are needed - we already have 12 notes, and that would probably double if metropolitan areas were added. Toa Nidhiki05 19:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would strongly recommend adding another column entitled "Location" to the territories section. Most people have no idea where some of those entries are located. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think this list lacks an image like File:EU OCT and OMR map en.png to emphasize the location of these territories. Nergaal (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added both; there is no more room for one in the inhabited territories table, so I have mentioned those in the lede as well. I've also added an image of all eight uninhabited Pacific territories; unfortunately, one territory, Navassa Island, is located in the Caribbean , so I did not include that. I have instead mentioned its location in the image caption itself. Toa Nidhiki05 20:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the new map. However, I would still prefer a full map also, that can be centered, either before or after the territories tables. Nergaal (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by 'full map'? Toa Nidhiki05 21:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Map showing the entire world and the location of states and territories around the globe. Nergaal (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would be pretty hard to do considering the US spans both sides of the globe and no globe map includes state lines. Even globe maps that include that would lack the territories, because they are not considered 'integral areas' of the United States. Toa Nidhiki05 18:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think a map of the US showing state lines, instead of a global map, would suffice. If people want to know the location of the United States within the world, they can go to the article on the United States. --Blackhole78 talk | contrib 04:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added such a map; I agree with Blackhole78's sentiment here. At his point, most people probably know the US borders only Canada and Mexico. If people don't know that, they can just go to the page on the United States. It is much more important to show which state (or territory) is which on this page. Toa Nidhiki05 14:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really dislike how my comments end up being ignored. The current map shows only the states, BUT this list is ALSO about the territories, therefore they NEED to be featured too. Since the EU map ALREADY exists, I see absolutely no problem in having a similar one for the US. Nergaal (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The territories are featured. I just got a map up showing the location of all territories on a global basis. Toa Nidhiki05 21:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map is great! A couple of minor points
" the United States has control over a number of territories. The United States has control over fourteen territories"
it might be better to switch the order of the last two paragraphs in the intro (moving the Puerto Rico sentence to the other para).
"(4,002 2)"
you have "square kilometers" "sq mi" and "km2"; try to stick to fewer notation types

Nergaal (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Observations by MONGO:

  • Is it necessary to have the map at the beginning of the article be so huge? I reduced it to 500px and did a preview and it looked fine to me...but whatever works best I guess.
    • I had made it so large in hopes that most people could read it, but since it is readable at 500 I'll switch it to that. Toa Nidhiki05 19:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks better now that the text is less crowded at the left margin.--MONGO 16:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The territories had a map right aligned and the table left aigned...so I switched the map to left align...maybe this section would be best center aligned? I don't know if there is a MOS on such things, or I'm just being nitpicky.
    • I don't believe there is a MOS rule on it, but it does look good centered so I have switched it to be centered. Toa Nidhiki05 19:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for Piped links...[[Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|that are not delegated to the federal government]] looks odd.--MONGO 17:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Issues should be fixed or responded to. Toa Nidhiki05 19:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might change Became a state to simply Statehood in the first table...basing this on List of U.S. states by date of statehood.--MONGO 16:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support promotion to featured list. I'm not an experienced FLC participant, but comparing it to similar FL's, this one appears to be equal to or better than most.--MONGO 05:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those maps are not bad, but there are a few issues that make them unsuitable for this page. The first image does not include the District of Columbia, while the second image is very oddly designed; individual territory names are not given, and the initials for the mainland make no sense. Toa Nidhiki05 01:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The District of Columbia can be added to the first map at request. And I don't see what is wrong with the second one. The territories are represented by ISO 3166 codes as seen here, as well as the reference AL–WY on the mainland (Alabama to Wyoming). Regards; Felipe Menegaz 02:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ISO codes aren't included anywhere in this article, though, so that might confuse readers. AL-WY makes sense somewhat, but I've never heard anyone refer to the mainland United States that way - typically the states are grouped by location (ie. contiguous US, Alaska, and Hawaii), not abbreviation. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the abbreviations used in all tables (except for the uninhabited territories) are equal to the ISO codes. Nevertheless, the list should make use of the ISO codes as the abbreviation standard, since it is the only one which provides abbreviation for the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands. As for the map, it is part of a huge effort on the standardization of maps at Wikimedia Commons. I don't think it is unsuitable just for using an atypical representation of U.S. mainland.
The primal point here is a standardization that will facilitate the creation of similar lists from other countries and, therefore, provide a better experience for readers. Cheers; Felipe Menegaz 14:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither map you linked appear to be helpful to this list. The second one you link is downright confusing.--MONGO 15:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was a suggestion after all. There are several versions of these maps here with different labels and arrangements, maybe one of them is suitable. I personally don't like the current map of territories in use, it looks amateurish, specially when there are professional-level maps available. Best regards; Felipe Menegaz 16:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure...I understand but the second one in particular with the AL-WY abbreviations is very odd. I haven't been able to get the clickable boxes to open right on my two different browsers. While it's important the article has an international compatibility, a simple map with the actual names of places is better in my opinion than ISO designations most people have no idea about.--MONGO 16:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support this if the 4 tables are merged into a table per section. Nergaal (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly do you mean by that? Merge all the tables into one big table?
      • No. A table with states + DC (with DC in gray background) and a separate table fro territories. Nergaal (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why should DC be in a table for states? It misstates a common misconception (that DC has similar autonomy to states) that confuses many people who are not Americans. Aside from that, merging the territory tables is impractical because it would require adding ISO codes to the main table, increasing an already large table. Toa Nidhiki05 22:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please remind me what is the point of having a table with a single entry? Why not have a sentence instead? Nergaal (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Even though it only has one entry, the table is required because DC is a distinct legal entity - it is not a state, nor is it a territory. The fact there is only one federal district does not change the fact that 'federal district' is distinct from any other group. Toa Nidhiki05 01:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Using this rationale then the article name should be moved to to "... states, federal district(s) and territories of US". Nergaal (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Possibly, but that is a very long title and might not be the first thing people would search for. If the name is in fact an issue, I'd like to see some other people step up and say so - I don't want to unilaterally rename a featured list candidate in the middle of the nomination. Toa Nidhiki05 16:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Tables need to be fixed up to meet MOS:DTT with regard to row and col scopes (for screen readers).
    • What areas of the tables need to be fixed? Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rows and columns need to be identified using a scope= parameter, per the link I've given you. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 10th amendment to the Constitution" tenth.
  • " federal Congress - a bicameral legislature" en-dash.
  • In the table, the Congressional Districts column is far too ward considering that it hosts, at most, a double-digit number.
    • I've tried shrinking it a bit - the main issue seems to be that the name for the column itself is forcing it be wider. I've shortened it to 'House seat(s)' to make it a bit smaller. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the date of statehood referenced?
  • Often, it's best to right-align columns with large numbers, so the units align accordingly.
  • Why is the Federal District table sortable?
  • If all inhabited territories are "Unincorporated, organized", there's no need for a column. It's unlikely to change soon!
    • It would be great if that were the case, but all inhabited territories aren't organized - American Samoa is unorganized, mainly to help the islands retain their traditional laws. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why suddenly include ISO 3166 codes for the uninhabited territories? I thought they applied globally.
    • They were for an image that was removed; I have removed them now. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for bold in the notes.
  • Seems to be too many External links.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2013 (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_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States/archive1&oldid=1140113781"