Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Districts of Bhutan/archive1

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 18:21:10 23 July 2019 (UTC) [1].

---

Districts of Bhutan

Districts of Bhutan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/Districts of Bhutan/archive1

Nominator(s): TryKid (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because —  I've worked on this list for quite some time and I think it meets the criteria. I got it copy edited by two editors on Guild of Copy Editors (thank you both). I thought someone may argue that it could be reasonably included in Dzongkhag page but Dzongkhags have much richer history than what is mentioned in current version of the page. If I merge it now, it'll have to be separated some time in future when Dzongkhag article develops further. Regards, TryKid (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• I can't see much to pick up on this one, other than:
  • I think you should combine the content of the lead into a smaller number of longer paragraphs as opposed to five pretty short ones
  • Our article on Chhukha doesn't have the double H - which is correct? If both are valid then cover it with a footnote as you have done elsewhere
  • Similarly the title of our article on Lhuentse is spelt differently
  • ....and Pema Gatshel
  • In the first note, don't use a contraction ("they're") -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs). I've fixed all five issues. Put notes for three dzongkhags spelled differently, fixed the contraction and merged the middle three paragraphs into one. Thank you very much for the review. Regards, TryKid (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support – Like Chris, I don't think there's anything major. The only thing I can think of is the lead image seems a little big but that's just me. Great job on this! – zmbro _(talk) 21:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Zmbro:, thank you very for the review Zmbro. I'm very grateful. I realize this is very late, but better late than never. Regards, TryKid (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Mattximus (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• I do agree that it should be included into the Dzongkhag article, but I will review just as a list:
• Try not to use unencyclopedic words like "sandwiched" which can be difficult for people who don't know what sandwhiches are to understand.

Done.

• The third sentence seems odd, since Bhutan is made of Dzongkhags, "shouldn't eastern slopes of the Himalayas in South Asia" apply first to Bhutan, perhaps in the previous sentence? Maybe something like: "Bhutan is located between the Tibet Autonomous Region of China and India on eastern slopes of the Himalayas in South Asia".

Done. Copied your words. Maybe I should change it to "The 20 contiguous dzongkhags of Bhutan are located in....." What do you suggest?

Only if there are non-contiguous dzongkhags... otherwise that word does not make sense.

• " (as of the 2017 census)" can be taken out of brackets and moved to the front of that sentence since it applies to both populations.

Done.

• In the first sentence of the last paragraph you should mention that Thimphu is the national capital.

Thimphu city is the capital, but not Thimphu dzongkhag.

• A citation is needed for each of the 3 statements (most populous, largest, and highest population density).

All citations in the table. It shouldn't need to be cited twice. I've based everything on List of states and territories of the United States.

I still think you need the source at least at the end of the paragraph if it contains information from all three sentences.

Done. Cited the census.

• Subheading should not be called "list", but "List of Dzongkhags" or just "Dzongkhags"

Done.

• Current featured list standards remove any sentence that is tautological, for example "this list..." "this table"... so the sentence "The table below lists the 20 dzongkhags with their population, population density, area data,[B] and number of National Assembly representatives.[C]" Should be removed. However, the census date should be placed in the population column header, and the note C should be maintained but also placed in the column header.

Again, I based it on FL List of states and territories of the United States. But I'll remove it and do as you wish. Done.

This list is out of date and is due for a once over. A good model would be List of municipalities in Alberta which was not made by me, but acted as the model for all of my similar lists. It is more modern and up to current featured list standards.

• I don't think there should be a subcolumn for ISO numbers. These are not useful at all for general readership. Simply calling that column Name would be much better.

Same as above. This time, I don't think they should be removed. The ISO everything looks pretty "professional" and doesn't take that much space. Shouldn't be a reason to oppose.

This one I think you should reconsider. Remember our readers, not one in a thousand would even know what the ISO code means or does, and serves no real function unless under extreme niche conditions. A better column would be the 2005 population and a population change column like the Cantons of Costa Rica article that you mentioned above. That would indicate to readers if the dzongkhag is growing, shrinking or stable in population. If you would like I can make this column for you. I can do it very quickly.

If you can do it more efficiently, then it'll great. Thank you so much for not only the review but the help as well.

What do you think of this new table? I added a total row as well as a change column. I also formatted the land area to use nts formatting.

Much better. Thanks for this.

• Population column should not have note, but actual date in brackets.

Done. But now it says 2017 census both in brackets and in efn. Any suggestions?

Removed census, so now it's just date.

• Does area mean "land area"? or "total area"? The first excludes lakes and other water bodies.

Well, like the efn says, All data from 2017 census. The census report makes no distinction. What do you suggest I should do?

Usually this is a big deal since lakes can significantly change not only the area figure but the population density as well. The document you cited says "It is the ratio of the total population of a given area to the total land area expressed in square kilometres " and cites again that it is not total area but land area. This column header should be changed to say that and the problem is solved.

Thank you so much for pointing that out. I changed it to say total land area (km²).

• Citation 8 is a dead link and is the basis of all the information on the page. This is critical to fix.

Done. Very weird, the original link worked while the archive was dead. A previous archive works perfectly though.

• I would recommend labeling the population density column simply "Population density" and use the "Pop density" template for each population density so the units are present in the table itself. This will make the table look less strange since now it's the largest column for the smallest numbers.

Done.

I think you should respect the original source and round the pop density to 0 decimal places. This can be done with the prec=0 part of the pop density template.

In PHCB's first chapter, on page 16, there's a population density map that states the population density to one decimal place. I've decided to round it to one demical place in the table too. Text replace tool came very handy for this. I think rounding to two decimal places would be even better. What do you suggest?

• Other spellings should have a reference for each one.

Name spellings shouldn't need references, I think all of them are already present in their respective articles. If not, I'll put them with a source in their articles. Is that good enough or do I need to make this "Done" too?

Are the alternative spellings found in that large source #8? If so you can use that reference for all the names.

I'll add news articles that use alternative spellings as citations. Should be done by the time you see this.

• I think that this page could use an image for the several of the most popular Dzongkhags, either justified right of the table, or in a gallery between the subheading.

Copyright free images of Bhutan are hard to come by. This shouldn't be a big reason to oppose.

Surely there is at least one nice one of Thimphu? Maybe something like this: [File:View_of_Tashichodzong_from_the_NE.jpg]

I've added some images but I can't seem to get it right like it is in Cantons article. It'll be great if you can change it to look better. Images from commons:Bhutan.

I see you took the approach I've used on my pages with the gallery, however in this case, due to the lack of images, I think a subtle one on the right is better. What do you think?

Looks good. I'm fine with your improvements. I consider this done. It'll be great if you strike it out.

I will strike it out since there is at least 1 image, but there should be more pictures from some of the other Dzongkhags somewhere...

commons:Bhutan has some of Paro as well.....

• Is there any administrative purpose of zones in Bhutan? Do they serve any function? If so, they should be added in a column. They are divided this way in the template at the bottom of the page. If they serve no function, then I can see reason to leave them off. If they are added, their function should be mentioned in the lead.

Zones went defunct in before the start of the century I think. Democratisation and the Local Government Act sealed the deal. Zones are useless now.

• The map has the German spelling for India, this is an easy fix since you can just copy the A from china in paint or some other program and the image would be English. I can do this later this week if you do not know how. But it should be changed before promotion.

@Mattximus: The image is a vector image, you can just copy the code, paste it in a txt file, search for INDIEN and replace EN with A in the text file. Replace the .txt with .svg in filename and it'll be done. Re-upload the SVG file with same name as current one but with en instead of de. I think you're familiar with uploading images on commons, placing categories, templates and putting that new map is derivative of TUBS German map. Since I don't own a computer (I edit from my phone, sometimes putting desktop mode to see how it'll look on a computer), I couldn't do it myself. To extract SVG code, click on "original SVG file" on file page on commons. You'll see a page with embedded image and nothing else. Now, open page source and copy everything to a txt file. Or just ask someone who's familiar with the process like TUBS himself. He could do it all in seconds probably. TryKid (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit: I've asked commons:User:TUBS for help. I think he'll be able to do it. Regards, TryKid (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Great work so far! I'm leaning oppose for now, since there is quite a bit of work needed to bring this page up to standard. But I'm happy to review again when changes have been addressed. 02:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Mattximus, I've done what I could do, but I think I need further comments. Thank you very much for the review. TryKid (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mattximus: sorry messed up the previous ping. See above. TryKid (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Correction: Images of Bhutan are easy to come by but I have no idea what to use. Maybe something similar to Cantons of Costa Rica made by you. But I can't find good quality photos of most populated (or most anything) dzongkhags. Maybe pictures of Dzongs of some dzongkhags? It'll be great if you can suggest something. Regards, TryKid (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Great work so far with the comments but there is still a bit more to go before I can support the page. Mattximus (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mattximus:, I've done further improvements. Please check it out. Regards, TryKid (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, I've been trying to run IA Bot in this page to archive the new references but IA Bot isn't working for some reason. IABot. You try to use it too and if it doesn't for you too, tell me and I'll manually archive all links. TryKid (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Only 1 issue (German map) left. Regards, TryKid (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Further comments above. Any reason for not adding total number of National Assembly constituencies (47) in the last column titled "Bhutan"? TryKid (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Nope, good idea! Mattximus (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: Trying to get hold of graphic guys is hard. Most of the people who designed these maps are inactive. Graphics village pump on commons is very inactive too. I don't really know ins and outs of commons so it's probably needlessly hard for me, but this is going to be a great learning experience. TryKid (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

While we wait for someone to do free work for this article, @Mattximus:, I've to ask something. Do you think I should italicise the word "dzongkhag" in the title? And which one of the following is better:-
The word dzongkhag translates to district. In English uses, specific Dzongkha words, including the word dzongkhag, are italicised and only translated the first time they are used.
or
The word "dzongkhag" translates to "district". In English uses, specific Dzongkha words, including the word "dzongkhag", are italicised and only translated the first time they are used.
Regards, TryKid (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Mattximus:! Got your last comment resolved too! German map replaced with English one by NordNordWest. Regards, TryKid (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• All comments resolved, and the page looks much better! However I am becoming convinced of Reywas92's argument. This list can be merged into Dzongkhag and that can be an excellent article. I'm not sure if it then counts as an article or list, but if it's a list, it will need renomination. I would be happy to review and likely support this new merged page. It doesn't really make sense to have a bullet point form list in Dzongkhag and the table in List of dzongkhags of Bhutan when the latter can replace the former significantly improving the page. Mattximus (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comments
• To your last question there, I would italicize the word for the first usage only, and without quotation marks, per the current footnote format. No need to italicize the title. The translation part could be ("district" in Dzongkha).
• However, the article should be titled List of districts of Bhutan. If this is a word that means "district" in the local language, it would not be appropriate to use a foreign language word in the English Wikipedia. E.g. we have States of Germany not Bundesländer of Germany and Provinces of Nepal not Pradeshaharu. Dzongkhag should likewise be Districts of Bhutan.
• But the two pages should in fact be merged to the latter name – Even if more information can be told about their history, this list/table is certainly short enough that there would not be a need for separate pages regardless of if more content is added. Looking through List of administrative divisions by country, the US appears to be the only country with both a list and a topic article, and most countries' lists manage to have both a table and prose with historical content. Therefore I must unfortunately oppose this under criterion 3c. It does not serve the reader to have this content split across multiple pages, nor would it even when there is additional history. I'd rather that be split to a "History of districts of Bhutan" if necessary; see the other FLs at Wikipedia:Featured_lists#Miscellaneous_10 like Counties of Romania. Reywas92^Talk 08:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

About the first point. Dzongkhag is bit different from Pradeshaharu and Bundesländer. In its English documents, Nepal and Germany probably don't use the native terms. But in nearly every Bhutanese document, the word "District" is used only at either the last or first pages and that too to just indicate what dzongkhag actually means. Nobody really uses "District" to denote the first level administrative divisions of Bhutan, even in English uses. District is pretty much just a loose translation and nearest thing available to what dzongkhag actually means. About the second point. Yes. You're probably right. I see that now. This can probably be moved to Dzongkhags of Bhutan or just replace Dzongkhag with this, whichever is better. And add a political structure section, like Cantons of Costa Rica. The question is: Does this FLC gets failed because of the move and I have to renominate it and repeat all this or we just keep going after the move? I hope it's not the fail option. Even after the move, it'll stay a list article, after all. Failing because page move sounds too bureaucratic. I wonder if FACBot is going to be confused because of all the page moves. Finally, pinging @Reywas92:. Regards, TryKid (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Germany's English-language Constitution actually does use Land and Länder throughout, as I would expect for government documents. I see how within the country people would still use the native term, but outside it makes sense to use English, as the article was called before it was moved (and there's still Category:Districts of Bhutan). "Districts of Bhutan" gets plenty of Google results, as do the likes of "Bumthang District", and the Daily Bhutan uses district (though also dzongkhag). I don't think you'd have to start a new FLC for it, depends on the amount of content the list gains if you're ready. Reywas92^Talk 19:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Reywas92, are you proposing a new page merging Dzongkhag and List of dzongkhags of Bhutan into a new page called Districts of Bhutan? If so, I also think that would work, but I'm sure this would require TryKid to create a new nomination, no? Mattximus (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the most consistent with naming conventions (which was also the name of the list prior to this month). Not sure about the rules around a moved nomination, but it's really not a big deal if it has to be a new one. Reywas92^Talk 20:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I had moved it from Districts of Bhutan to here. But now it seems that the previous name was better. It still think it shouldn't be called Districts but we'll that later. So, first I move it back to Districts of Bhutan, then merge Dzongkhag page into Districts of Bhutan and that shouldn't change this nomination, right? I'll start by Dzongkhag into this article and then moving it to Districts of Bhutan. I hope that sounds right. TryKid (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

That works for me. Mattximus (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Merge completed. @Mattximus:, can you check it it even qualifies as a list now and review the new additions? You can move it to your desirable title as you see fit. Also @Reywas92:. Regards, TryKid (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind I did it myself. I hope the review isn't effected by this. TryKid (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mattximus:, can you review the new changes? And maybe support if it's good enough? TryKid (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Text does need a bit of a copy edit, but I can do a review next week. I think for a start, the first paragraph of the history should be better sourced, instead of just having 2 citations at the end. Looking at it now, it was a good idea to merge them, this is a much better page already. Mattximus (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Reywas92:, can you also review the new changes? TryKid (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Mattximus's comments but you've made good improvements already. I don't have time to do a source review yet but it looks good.

• • The Provinces of Bhutan should be mentioned somehow, likely in the History section. I see that they ended in 1907, but briefly mention that that transitioned to the unitary state then and then when the districts were established. The map says Districts of Bhutan, 1987–1992, but neither of those years are mentioned for their relevance in the local government organization. Does that mean the current boundaries in the main map were established in 1992? What about the period of 1981 to 1987, was that just a development phase?
  • Rather than "20 dzongkhags (transl. districts)" use the more consistent format of "20 districts (Dzongkha: dzonghags)". For the later translations, the "transl." isn't really necessary, it's implied that it's the English meaning. Reywas92^Talk 20:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Reywas92:, I've done what I could for provinces. About the map: So, either I can remove the map or add this questionable paragraph — "In August 1987, the territory of Gasa dzongkhag was divided between Punakha and Thimphu; Chhukha dzongkhag was formed by merging the parts of Samtse, Paro, and Thimphu. In 1992, Gasa dzongkhag was re-established and carved out from Punakha; the same year, Trashi Yangtse dzongkhag was carved out from Trashigang.". Your call. About the last point, I think that the templates look better. I can remove them if you insist, but personally, I think it looks better with them. Regards, TryKid (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Removed the templates. Anything else?

• That sounds like a good way to put it, though yeah the source isn't the best but has other good information, could be hard to find a better one though depending on how well you speak Dzongkha. I'm still not clear by the line "with the formation of a dzongkhag yargye tshogchung ("DYT", district development committee) in each dzongkhag" since it hasn't been said when each dzongkhag was created and the provinces were abolished – was it during this "process of decentralisation of local administration" in 1981 or before? This source says 1991...

Yeah, I've no idea when dzongkhags were created. Probably with the DYT. Previous version of page mentioned 1959 but without any sources. The site you linked copies stuff from Country studies: Nepal and Bhutan. It's available in Library of Congress, in public domain. It merely states what was the situation in 1991, not that the zones and districts were created in 1991.

• The source also provides capitals of the districts – this certainly seems worth including and linking to these cities. (and are the districts simply named after their capitals?) It was in the the older version of the article.

The information given seems to be wrong. Dzongkhags don't have capitals. Someone named the capitals after the dzongkhags it seems. Dzongkhag administration is run from dzongs (castles). It can be said that the location of the castle is the capital of the dzongkhag, but there are problems with that too. All in all, not adding captials will be good for the articles.

• That version also mentions zones (dzongdey): It's not clear if these are official administrative divisions or simply unofficial geographic groupings but the constitution says there are nine provinces. [2] says the zones are defunct so if you agree it would make sense not to include them but I'm wondering what led you to remove them. Someone made articles for them (eg Central Dzongdey) that includes a map, though those should probably be redirected here with a mention in the history.

The Constitution you linked is draft constitution and it's outdated. Penlop (provincial lord) posts still exist but they are appointed by the king. Provinces are totally defunct though. There isn't a particular date for when everything went defunct, it seems to have happened slowly. Yeah, a small mention of zones will make sense I guess, I'll add it. The second site (country-data) you linked seemed to use familiar wording. Turns out it's from Library of Congress country studies of Nepal and Bhutan, published in 1991.

• That version and Bhutan#Political_divisions gives the Dzongkha name as well, could be worth including. Reywas92^Talk 21:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I talked about it in the talk page, I don't think adding native spellings are anything more than trivia though.

I'll ping you when I complete these. I'm working on it. TryKid (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Reywas92:, I believe that I've addressed the issues. Anything that I may have missed? TryKid (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Reywas92:! Mattximus has completed his review. I believe that I've also resolved the comments you presented. Can you provide any further comments in case I missed something? TryKid (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I was out all of yesterday, you don't need to ping me again right away... Thanks for your responses to my questions, that covers it pretty well though I'm still bothered that we don't know even when the dzongkhags were established. I know Wikipedia:WikiProject Bhutan isn't active and finding a Dzongkha speaker may be difficult but it would be nice to have someone who knows this first-hand take a look. Otherwise the history seems good for the sources available with good description of the current status and list, so I can support. Reywas92^Talk 18:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I've requested CFynn to take a look, but he's a busy man. He has quite a lot of experience with these topics, he has worked with the Bhutanese government to design fonts and other stuff. TryKid (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's a book that may be useful if you can see enough by trying various search terms: https://books.google.com/books?id=qyRXAAAAMAAJ&dq=dzongkhags+established&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=dzongkhags Reywas92^Talk 18:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments round 2

• The English/Dzongkha translations are a bit messy, and some consistency should be applied. The opening sentence should read "20 districts (Dzongkha: dzongkhag)" since the page is now called districts. The note itself should be cleaned up since it doesn't make grammatical sense, or simply removed (this is probably the best option).

I'll remove it then.

Much better but the first dzongkhags should be italicized.

Done.

• should penlop be italicized and followed by (governor)?

Done.

• "(centered in present-day Bumthang)" should be removed because it looks strange to qualify only one of the provinces.

Done.

• What is a "Provincial lord"? Is that the same as penlop? In which case the above should read penlop (provincial lord).

Done.

• Druk Gyalpo needs to be italicized

Done.

• The sentence "in each dzongkhag" doesn't make sense, because you say "Before the country was reorganized into dzongkhags", so how can it happen in a dzongkhag without there being any dzongkhags yet?

So, it isn't clear when the dzongkhags were established. But it was somewhere between the establishment of House of Wangchuck and DYT. Maybe with the DYT.

As long as this sentence is accurate, it's much better.

• Dzongkhag Yargay Tshogdu Chathrim needs to be italicized and translated in brackets.

@CFynn:, can you help with all the translations? And maybe with the issue just above this one? Done.

• Same with dungpa, thromdes

done.

• gup and the mangmi needs translation and differentiation

Done.

"Dzongkhag tshogdu are tasked with balancing socio-economic development, promoting business, protecting consumers, coordinating government agency activities reviewing gewog regulations and ordinances, and representing the dzongkhag in national referenda" needs a reference

Yeah I'll reword it to match the LGA09. Page 13 of LGA09. LGA09 is already cited. I see. Should I remove this? I can't find any sources for it. Removed it since I can't find anything.

It's a good sentence, just needs a reference. Is there any way to find out where this is originally from?

It seems to be mostly a synthesis of different parts of LGA09, everything mentioned in there can be found somewhere in LGA09, it's all on different pages. Should I do cite every point individually? Or the LGA09 cite at the end will do?

• citation #1 is incomplete, as is 9, 10, 11

Not incomplete. See how Franz Kafka is using references for example and WP:INCITE. If you click on the link, it'll lead to the full reference. It's Harvard style or something. It looked like a good way to add multiple citations from one book, so I added it, but now that you're asking to remove first efn, it probably won't be needed for the first book.

Oh I see, I think you should just write it twice, since there are only 2 instances. I think that alternative citation method is for when a specific text is referred to many many times. That should fix the next comment too.

Done. This solves the issue below too.

• I'm not sure why there is a "sources" subheading. If these documents are cited in the text they should be considered references.

Same as above.

Mattximus (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to solve some issues, but I need some time, I'll ping you once everything is done with the issues you mentioned. TryKid (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks pretty good! Just a few more comments then I'll read it once more then we should be done. Nice work! Mattximus (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mattximus:, made some improvements, further comments? TryKid (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mattximus:, I've added and removed some stuff. Any comments? TryKid (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Very close to finishing my review:

• "Each dzongkhag has its own elected local government " do you mean just "government", since there are local governments within a dzongkhag correct?
• First instance of thromde needs a translation, you have it on the second.

• Ok that's it just more comments then the review is complete from my end. Mattximus (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mattximus:, I believe that I've resolved both issues. TryKid (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

In the last paragraph of the lead, I've changed the number of residents from rounded to exact, if this was not a correct move, you can revert it. TryKid (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope that works, great job! Support Mattximus (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the comments and review Mattximus. I'm very grateful. TryKid (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Reywas92:, @Mattximus:. Following conversations is getting harder, so I'm replying to the unsolved issues here at the bottom of the page. You can reply here. Or just at the above thread if you think that'll be better/easier to follow. Thank you.

• The only big issue remaining is the establishment date of dzongkhags. There seems to be no information on when dzongkhags were created. I've tried to "tape" this issue by adding "newly created" before "dzongkhag". Maybe you guys can suggest a better wording. The Shivakoti ref says dzongkhags were created in 1981 but it also says that all 20 dzongkhags were created in 1981. The second statement seems to be false, as the Statoids website says that dzongkhags were split up to get to the current number of 20. So, I wouldn't trust it enough to add that dzongkhags were created in 1981.
• I've removed the historical dzongkhag map and replaced it with a dzongdey map and added a paragraph about it. The paragraph doesn't seem to be very good to me, you can make any changes in it to make it better. Is the Constitution and the LGA09 strong enough source to say that zones went defunct? Or do I need a source specifically saying that "zones went defunct"? Edit: I'm colourblind so I'm unable to add a legend to the dzongdey map. Can someone add one to the image? Here's a guide: "Zone I, including four western districts, seated at Chhukha; Zone II, including four west-central districts, seated at Damphu; Zone III, in-cluding four east-central districts, seated at Geylegphug; and Zone IV, including five eastern districts, seated at Yonphula." From the LOC study. That paragraph should be added to the article. Will add it. added legend with a image colour picker website. added the paragraph.
• Other issues that I may have missed:

I'm removing the names and number of provinces since it's so suspect. I cannot find any reliable source supporting it. The given source on Google Books is set to "no preview". And when I search "Byakar", one of the given province name, using the feature that lets you search up something on a book even if it's no preview, I gives no results. I'll probably also replace the given source with something more accessible. TryKid (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

TryKid (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Source review

• Content that comes from the government of Bhutan is acceptable for this list. Kuensel is the national paper of Bhutan and has journalistic standards. Text sources have reliable publishers; Europa Publications is part of Routledge. The Library of Congress is also reliable. Sourcing is consistent, support. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 16:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for temporarily striking my support, TryKid, but I raised a concern and happened to put it on the wrong FLC. My one concern is that there is no clear indication about where the 2005 data is sourced from. That's the only issue I can find, so if that's fixed I can return it to support. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 14:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@DanielleTH:, it is sourced from the same PHCB2017 page 102. That page has a table bit similar to one on this page. Contains 2005 data too. I've cited PHCB2017 again there too. I can cite 2005 census again if you really want it, I probably will after this reply is done. But the 2017PHCB is good enough too. Regards, TryKid (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@TryKid: Great, returned my support. The 2017 data is acceptable, my only concern was that there was no source listed on the column. Great work on the list! DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 15:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• It's been two weeks since a source review, can this be closed (as promoted, hopefully?) now? TryKid (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed, with one date fix made; promoting. --PresN 18:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.