Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of U.S. states by population

List of U.S. states by population edit

First nomination a while ago didn't end up going anywhere, looks alright now. -Phoenix 22:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everything on the list looks great. The only area of improvement needed is that the map should be updated to reflect 2006 data to go along with the information in the table. RyguyMN 16:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done -Phoenix 15:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*OpposeThe table lists electoral votes and HoR seats as well; yet the lead mentions nothing of this. Seems to beg that a paragraph be included in the lead that explains how these are apportioned, since the table includes them. If this is fixed, I will change my vote to support.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I added a paragraph on the two items, and also merged the little bit of trivia onto the first paragraph. -Phoenix 17:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm.. I don't think I got my point accross. Plus, the lead was too self-referential ("these figures" and "this list", etc.) I cleaned it up some myeself and put in what I was looking for. Hope you don't mind my boldness. Check it out and see if it sounds better. ~~However, I still oppose this nomination on the grounds of the unreferenced "trivia" section at the bottom. It's cute, but unneccessary.~~ --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I certainly don't mind the boldness; I nominate these lists with the hope that others will step in and make some edits. I added the little trivia section with the hope that it would increase the value of the list. You claim it's unreferenced, but the source of the WY, TX, and MT tidbits come from simply sorting the list by population, electoral votes, and population per house seat, respectively. For the California bit, I simply glanced at the list of countries by population. Nevertheless, I can remove it if it's your sole reason for objecting. -Phoenix 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that they add anything. The list is great just being what it tells you it is going to be. The extra trivia doesn't seem to add anything really. See WP:AVTRIV. Fix that and the article should be great.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And away it goes. -Phoenix 02:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support All fixes made. Looks great now! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A fine looking list! Just make sure not to expand anymore on your summary or it could become too overwhelming. RyguyMN 02:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cough, cough, Jayron might have something to say about that -Phoenix 02:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - no, not really after all, anyone should fix anything they think needs it. :) --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Complete, as far as its topic goes. —Lowellian (reply) 15:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination is over, it's already featured. -Phoenix 18:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]