Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of counties in West Virginia/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 21:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of counties in West Virginia

edit

List of counties in West Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Coal town guy 06:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first nomination of anything on Wikipedia. My area of interest and contributiuons has been unincorporated communities within WV, and certainly KY, PA, VA etc etc. However, having a FL list for WV counties is paramount for WV history and the associated portals throughout Wikipedia. All data is accurate and the current list represents substantial changes in quality and accuracyCoal town guy (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Congratulations on your first nomination! I can tell you've put a lot of work into this list. I was just wondering if you've had a look at other counties lists, such as Florida and Utah? I think consistency is usually good with these types of articles, and it wouldn't be too much work to convert some of your sections into four lead paragraphs. Just my two cents though; I'll let others weigh in. Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 16:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that alot, believe it or not. In this instance I wanted to use seperate paragrapha because of the concepts. Example If I said Rights and Functions, I better have 2+ paragraphs, at least, that was my thinking. VERY much appreciate the comment. I did however take heed of your advice and others who helped. I used the more recent FL county lists as a template. I was totally blown away by New Jersey. EGAD....However, FL, MA, NJ, and KY each had pieces that really make a county list function well. Coal town guy (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done I removed the headersCoal town guy (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments welcome!
  • Image caption needs work, it's not actually telling me what I'm seeing. Sure, it's given me instructions on how to use the clickable map, but you need to describe what the image is as a primary goal. Done
  • Don't list "See also" articles that you've already linked in the main article. Done
  • "6,000" vs "6000" be consistent. Done
  • " the framers of the new" maybe just me, not sure about the use of the term "framers" here. Done
  • Avoid overlinking, e.g. don't link West Virginia more than once in the lead. Done
  • In the origin col, what is the point of (VA) for some entries? Done
  • WP:YEAR suggests that a year range within a century needn't repeat the century.Done
  • Ref 8, 10 has no space after "p." for the page number, other refs have a space. Be consistent.Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done after help from Orlady
As far as why I still have (VA) in origin col those counties with (VA) are currently part of VA. Should I remove them (the (VA)) in totum??Coal town guy (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When indicating that a particular county was part of the state of Virginia, you need to spell out the full name of the state. Don't assume that the postal abbreviation "VA" is sufficient. --Orlady (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, for all instances and for any others in entire tableCoal town guy (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Orlady
  • One thing that favorably impresses me about this list-article is the inclusion of authoritative sources on county government functions in West Virginia and the history of these functions. I wish we had similar information about all U.S. states. I was bothered, however, that the section included some verbatim quotations from books that were used merely to present factual information. I accessed the books online and rewrote the passages to eliminate direct quotations. Along the way, I learned about the state's 1863 constitution and added some information about changes in the structure of local government between the 1863 and 1872 Constitutions and between the 1872 Constitution and the 1880 amendments. My apologies to Coal town guy for messing with the article, but I believe I improved it. --Orlady (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel any apololgy is required. I stressed the usage of texts for one odd reason. Virgil Lewis was the founder of the WV Historical Society. After working for a brief time with the WV Historical Society, I was rather imprerssed by the fact that Virgil Lewis is still used as the de facto reference, some 120 plus years later. IF asked, I will say YES, with pride, that I do own an original text by Lewis. I wanted to use direct quotes to show with certainty that I was not in any way using assumptions, many thanksCoal town guy (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Direct quotes are good if you are quoting directly from a document like the state constitution or if the quotation adds some sort of special flavor, but in this situation I think it's better to use original wording, with a good citation to the source. --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I believe this list now meets the all FL criteria. I have just one small question: What is the reason for including the list of state symbols as a "see also" item? I couldn't figure out the value it's supposed to add. If I were linking any "see also" items for this list, it would be the lists of cities, towns, and villages (which lists aren't anywhere near good as either this one or the list of state symbols). --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done and THANKS for Support. I have added List of WV Governors (a FL) and List of National Historic places in WV. The State symbols list was removedCoal town guy (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I concur with Orlady that this list now meets all the featured list criteria following the edits by Coal town guy and those made by the editors addressing all the issues and comments raised above. Coal town guy did an extraordinary job framing the importance of counties in the governance of West Virginia in addition to the origins of their nomenclature and associated geospatial data. -- Caponer (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why two different references to Bakestress and Rice? Why not make life a little simpler by removing the page number for the references, implementing the <ref name> feature, and citing individual pages with {{rp}} after the </ref>? Our citation guidelines permit both styles (although of course you can't use both in the same page), so there's absolutely no reason for you to do this if you don't want to. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answer The data cited was either a span of pages, or on a specific page. I chose that specific style, both could be done. The page was submitted to GOCE and was reviewed twice. No preference for citation were stated. As to Rice and Bastress, Bastress is far better at the specific code and historic dates for the WV constitution, Rice is better at its interpretation. Both are effective, however for the point being made, I chose those references specifically. Does that address your concern? If not, let me know Coal town guy (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, that's not what I meant; I wasn't attempting to question your use of sources. In the first Rice citation, why don't you change <ref> to <ref name=rice> and drop the page number, change the second Rice citation to <ref name=rice /> (deleting everything else from that citation), and then append {{rp|153}} to the first one and {{rp|247}} to the second? And why don't you do something comparable to the Bastress? Of course, "I don't feel like it" is fine; I just thought you might find it more convenient. See what I've done with citation #2 at Mechanicsburg United Methodist Church for an example. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, I found the accepted style I used to be easier.......and yes, I didnt feel like it might be a good part of that. used what I thought to be an easier style for the fact that the list in the form I found it required ALOT of content and work, an easier and accepted ref style made it better for me at least. I do however appreciate the info on another form of accepted refs. Otherwise, if there is something you do not support or do support, let me knowCoal town guy (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No complaints; I just wanted to make sure that you used a different style because you wanted to, not because of ignorance. My only substantive question also concerns the citations: on several of them, the end of the citation is a parenthetical statement, like (WV County Founding Dates and Etymology) or (WV State Boundaries). What's the point of those? Is it perhaps some note-to-self, which could simply be put in <!-- hidden comments -->? I don't see how they're necessary, but I don't want to remove them if you have a good reason for including them. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The County list page is a great place to show the literature of the state and if a person were inclined to contribute more to a specific county article, they now have a reference, with a parenthetical that would guide them. There are a few County pages I would LOVE to have ANYONE get to and correct a few boundary issues (no finger pointing), a few of the origin issues etc etc. They now have a source should they go to the county list page. Hope this helps as this does not violate a Style rule or guide.Coal town guy (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it did, I wouldn't know about it, since I virtually never read WP:MOS. Thanks for your responses! Sorry for speaking earlier as if you weren't familiar with the ref name idea; I completely overlooked the fact that you're using ref name for other citations. I only meant to introduce the rp template, and with both it and the parentheticals I only was commenting, not objecting to the current format. Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No apology is required at all. This is a learning experience for myself and really what a FL should be at this point on wikipedia. I cant learn these things unless, others show me, and point them out, and everyone here has in a very positive mmanner. Hope you support this FLC. I would not have it here unless you and many others pointed me in a constructive directionCoal town guy (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Orlady (part 2)
  • I thought I was through here, but I seem to be back. Nyttend's comments about the comment in the citation to Lewis caused me to dig into that source (one I didn't delve into earlier). The book apparently doesn't have an ISBN number and the citation gives an Amazon ID number for the book. I gather that Coal town guy was using an old printed copy of the 1896 edition of the book. I find that Amazon is selling a paperback version of the book (date of edition not indicated) for US$30.99 [2] and Google has the 1904 edition as a free ebook [3], wherein the county name etymologies are on pages 403-408. IMO, it's not kosher to indicate the Amazon edition as the source if it wasn't the source used and it isn't kosher to identify any one business as a vendor if they aren't the only vendor. Accordingly, I suggest that the citation should clearly identify the source as the 1896 book, but it should include some sort of a note (I'm not sure how it should be presented, but WP:MOS or WP:Citing sources may have suggestions) identifying sources for other editions of the book. --Orlady (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. While I own a hard copy of the books in question, I used an ISBN in the instances of the books that were too old to have a ISBN. No preference was meant, I will look, NOW at the guides to see if there is a way to notate thisCoal town guy (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at BOTH WP:MOS and WP:Citing Sources there are 2 things I can do. 1)Remove the ISBN. ISBN is not a required field at all when citing a book AND 2)I can provide in the parenthetical an explicit statement that this is an original text and of course state its a first edition in the citation. Example (Etymology original text) Does this address your concern?Coal town guy (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It's always good to tell readers how they can access sources; taking that information away doesn't benefit readers. I haven't yet found good suggestions on formatting/presenting this information, but I'm imagining a citation that looks something like this:
Lewis, Virgil (1896). History and Government of West Virginia. New York NY: Werner School Book Company. pp. 264–270. (WV County Founding Dates and Etymology) [Other editions of book: ASIN B009CI6FRI. Google Books.]
The idea would be to cite the source you used, then provide convenience links to sources for other editions of the book. --Orlady (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After reading [Wikipedia:Convenience link]], I suggest the wording "other editions available at ASIN B009CI6FRI and Google Books" at the end of the citation. --Orlady (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doing now thanks for the formatCoal town guy (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Many thanks, learned alot about refsCoal town guy (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this earlier and have just re-read it. It has been greatly improved and I find it now meets the FLC criteria. I have one suggestion - "Wyoming" is a Lenape (Delaware) word, which this reference (which is already cited in the article) confirms. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done and thanks for support added Lenape prefix, many thanks for your help in this effort!Coal town guy (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jujutacular (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "The U.S. state of West Virginia has 55 counties. Fifty of them existed..." This intro overtly shows the ignoring of the the rules at WP:NUMERAL ("55" is written as a numeral and then "fifty" as a word). I will note that all the other county lists start out with the same numeral. I'm personally okay with this, and I believe noticing this was pretty nitpicky, but I wanted to hear your thoughts.
    • I promised Coal town guy I'd jump in if I could help. I think the present usage is acceptable. The general rule, per WP:MOSNUM, is that numbers greater than nine should be rendered as numerals, thus the usage of "55" is correct. The subsequent usage of "fifty" is also correct, however, as it is the first word of a sentence, a concern that trumps the usual rule, according to the manual of style. All that said, it is possible that the second sentence could be refactored to avoid starting with a number. In that case, the general rule of using numerals for 50 would again apply, and consistency would be achieved. I don't really think that's necessary, but I'll leave it to my esteemed friend, the nominator, to determine whether it is worth the effort. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 23:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Numbers greater than nine that consist of one or two words may be written in word form or numeral form; it is the editor's discretion. So the idea is that we should be consistent. Coal town guy: per Acdixon, if you want to change it, please refactor the sentence so that doesn't begin with a numeral. Jujutacular (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • And reading again over WP:NUMERAL, Acdixon is indeed correct that the format used before my review was actually totally within MOS rules. It just struck me as odd to see "55" and "Fifty" right next to each other in different forms. Use your discretion. Jujutacular (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC):Done, my English Prof would kick my posterior if I used a number.[reply]
  • "Randolph County is the largest by area (1,040 square miles, 2,694 km2); at 83 square miles (215 km2), Hancock County is the smallest." -- listing the sizes of the counties next to each other makes this sentence difficult to parse. I initially didn't notice the semicolon. Would a rewording be possible?:Done. I made the sentence simpler. Good eye!
  • Please add the information that the population data is based on the 2010 census.:Done. Ref 7 in reference section states they are 2010 figures.
Done. Sorry I missed what you meant. I have that in the lead nowCoal town guy (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: checked about ten random population figures, verified accurate.
  • I suggest re-sizing the lead image to 500px for better readability in default settings.:Done. I used 480, another editor shrank it to 350

Overall, a great list. I especially admire the in-depth information of county powers and organization. Great work. Jujutacular (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC) All Items Done and Many thanks Hope I can count on your supportCoal town guy (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you for taking the time. This has been a learning process for certainCoal town guy (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the table should at least include a caption per WP:ACCESS, row headers are objectionable since the table is not complex. Why are the FIPS codes not sorted, ie some numbers are missing (2, 4, 6). Were there any former counties? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions I do not at all understand what you mean per tainig to tables. When you say you want a Caption and not a header I do not understand....How is this done. I have looked at WP:ACCESS and have no idea what to do, can you please help?
Done with FIPSThe FIPS codes are the exact FIPS code for each county that is provided for WV. There are no missing counties there are other states which also have gaps in the FIPS codes, New Jersey, as an example. The numbering is not always a sequence. The current values are sorted properly. No data is missingCoal town guy (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Coal town guy (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at all County FL lists, I am not able to see a caption on any of these at all, ANY help would be wonderfulCoal town guy (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done but need help added a table caption and it does not display. I also looked at every county list for the United States, none have a caption. Please help me out hereCoal town guy (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The template {{Countytabletop}} doesn't have the facility to include a caption (although I'd like to see it edited to add this feature - it just needs a line something like {{#if:{{{caption|}}|{{!}}+{{{caption|}}} }}). A caption confers the advantage that it makes the table self-contained for re-use and it allows some screen readers for visually impaired visitors to navigate directly to the table. However, the consensus has been that tables which are placed immediately below a heading gain sufficiently little benefit from a caption that we don't insist on having them. The reason is that most screen readers can jump to a heading just as easily as to a table caption, so the caption is somewhat redundant in those circumstances. The Countytabletop template correctly marks up its headers as table headers with a scope of "col", but I'd also like to see the template {{Countyrow}} mark up the name of the county as a table header with a scope of "row", as that would improve the ability of some screen readers to use the name of the county to identify the row when a screen reader user is navigating around the table.
In brief: there's not much you can do to improve the accessibility further without modifying templates that are used in 40+ other articles, and that will often require forging a consensus with the editors of those other articles. For now, the list is reasonably accessible, imho, although it could be improved. I'd certainly support it as a FL. --RexxS (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the info, feel free to add your support, it is always appreciatedCoal town guy (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also unsure of what you mean by "row headers are objectionable since the table is not complex". If you are referring to the column headings, these are absolutely necessary in order to identify the information. Jujutacular (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the row headers. The table does not need them if it has no complex features. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but noticed two minor problems.
    1. It says "Reforming public education became a county function in 1933. In May 1933, a county unit plan was adopted. Under this plan, the state's 398 school districts were consolidated into 55 county school systems." but it is unclear if education itself is currently a function of counties?
    2. I have a problem with sentence: "This enabled public schools to be funded more economically and saved West Virginia millions of dollars". This looks like an opinion not a fact, but it is stated as a fact. It should be probably attributed to the authors of the book to make it clear that it is their opinion.
Ruslik_Zero 16:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done and thanks for support. I added the word current to clarify that this practice continues today. As to the saving mllions of dollars, it is part and parcel of the Rice source on page 247, hence why I places the ref tag there. Many thanks for the supportCoal town guy (talk) 16:46, 19 February 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_counties_in_West_Virginia/archive1&oldid=1079394454"