Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Former municipalities of Norway

Former municipalities of Norway

This list has underwent a peer review, albeit with no constructive response.

This list is useful (vast majority of blue links), comprehensive (more so than the Norwegian version it was based upon), factually accurate (good references), stable and uncontroversial. I also reckon it is well-constructed, I hope the table is fully understandable. The lead section provides a good background and overview, hopefully not too long. Self-nom by Punkmorten 14:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it meets fl criteria. - Tutmosis 16:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think we've had a featured list of things that don't exist. Rather than one big table, could you group them into counties (as with Municipalities of Norway), or have the county boundaries changed too? I think that would make a big improvement to navigability. If this isn't possible, could you add the county as a column? Currently, there are two each of Borge, Borgund, Eid, Mo, and three of Nes. Rename the "Other" section to "Notes". It might be nice to include a translation of your reference's titles? I guess we'll just have to take your word for it on the references. Colin°^Talk 16:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Translation put on talk page. Renaming to "notes" done. ~~I will look into the county issue on Wednesday.~~ Punkmorten 12:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now listed the entities by county. Better? I would rather see the same width for all the tables though... Punkmorten 11:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I can't help thinking that one or more maps would help. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither can I, but alas free map images are hard to come by, especially for entities that exist no more. I might find some in the future though... Punkmorten 12:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - an image in the lead should be added though. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough to be featured, but, agreed, an image should be in the lead. Hello32020 22:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with placing an image in the lead. Qjuad 04:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]