Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Arkansas/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 03:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of municipalities in Arkansas[edit]

List of municipalities in Arkansas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) and Straughn (talk)

We are nominating this for featured list as it follows the same format of successful nominations from the other twelve featured lists from other states. With reviewer help, our goal is to bring the lists for all states up to the same high standard. These lists are fairly standardized by now and this one should be of the same high standard but there is always room improvements. We are happy to make any recommended changes. Thanks again for your input. Mattximus (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "City of the First Class has [....], City of the Second Class has [....] and an Incorporated Town" - add the indefinite article to the first two to match the last
  • I remvoed the indefinite article from the third so all three match, does that work?
  • "Any expense over $20,000" - can you be more specific about what this covers? Currently it could be interpreted as referring to any time that anyone in the city wants to spend $20K eg when Dave wants to buy a new car :-)
  • Good catch, the source document doesn't specify but I added "municipal expense" to eliminate Dave's car.
  • "at least 5 members" => "at least five members"  Done
  • "Incorporated towns" - needs a capital T for consistency  Done
  • Photo captions are complete sentences so need full stops  Done
  • Inconsistent use of Arkansas'/Arkansas's in the photo captions  Done
  • Two rows have no date of incorporation - is this genuine or an accidental omission?
  • This is genuine, there were actually more but Straughn did some digging and filled in what they could (with appropriate references).
  • Yes, I got in touch with the State Library, the Encyclopedia of Arkansas, and the Secretary of State, but none of them could provide information on dates of incorporation for Corinth or Patterson. -- Straughn (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some rows have two dates of incorporation - would be good to explain how/why this is
  • Added note; some towns and cities were reincorporated at later dates. -- Straughn (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • Note d - accounts vary between what and what?  Done
  • I added a specific note for each case, I believe I have all the cases sourced, so I removed the general note in favour of the specific. Does this work?
  • Added explanatory sentence but the wording is directly from the source, I hope that doesn't count as plagiarism as it's very hard to reword.
  • I made most changes, need some time for the others. Thanks for the excellent review, you caught some really hard to spot errors! Mattximus (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like we have completed all requested changes! What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "Arkansas is divided into 75 counties and contains 501" As the number is not fixed, you should say "As of date"  Done
  • "the smallest by population is Victoria with 20 residents". No change needed but as a Britisher I find it remarkable how small US municipalities can be. If half of Victoria residents are voting adults and it has five council members then presumably half the voters have to be councillors? However, the system is much more democratic than the British one, which has boroughs with very large populations.
  • No idea how these tiny municipalities deal with the legal obligations for number of council members... it is very odd indeed.
  • Maybe have photos of smallest muncipalities as well as the largest?
  • A picture of the smallest municipalities would be, without much exaggeration, a person's house surrounded by their property. There might be privacy issues around that.
  • Made the one suggestion, but thanks for looking it over! I know they are quite standardized but happy to make any changes! Mattximus (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.  Done
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. | Party becomes !scope=col | Party. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.  Done
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | [[Adona, Arkansas|Adona]] becomes !scope=row | [[Adona, Arkansas|Adona]]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a colspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.  Done
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 18:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for looking into accessibility. I'm glad to know about this for all my future edits. I've updated the tables in the article and believe they should meet accessibility standards. Straughn (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I normally check sorting on all sortable columns, but not when the table is this number-heavy. I sampled the links in the table. (Otherwise, if you can deal with PresN's concerns above, that should cover the table review.)
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, the best I can tell, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment from Goldsztajn[edit]

  • The captions for the pictures of the top 10 municipalities are somewhat repetitive ... given the title "Largest cities and towns in Arkansas by population" might it be simpler to write "1st Little Rock (state capital)" "2nd Fayetteville" etc? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, I had the same reaction, but I wasn't sure what to say about it. - Dank (push to talk) 11:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mixed up the phrasing a bit so that it's less repetitive, how is it now? I still think sentences are best rather than point form (which for me looks strange in a caption), but if it's not diverse enough I'm open to other suggestions for wording. Mattximus (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've already supported, but if you're asking, and if it were my list, I'd create an additional table with 10 rows ... the first column would be just "1, 2, 3 ...", then the image of the city, then a notes column ... maybe another column. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          This is not a make or break issue for me, happy to support, but the changes don't really address the problem. I'm not sure about another table and if using ordinal numbering is a problem, what about adding the actual population number? ie "1. Little Rock (state capital), pop. 202,591" etc and change the title of the image gallery to "Largest cities and towns in Arkansas by population (2020)". Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hwy43[edit]

Here are comments from my review.

  • Reference 4 is an edition from 2007. Surely there must be a more recent edition of the publication that can be used as a reference instead. Perhaps something has changed in past 15 years. Also, on iPad I can only see the first page of the 2007 edition. Done: Added 2019 edition. This section did not change in this edition. Straughn (talk)
  • References have inconsistent date formats. At least three different formats are in use.  Done: Straughn (talk)
  • Convert reference 5 from ALL CAPS to Title Case. It doesn’t matter that the source itself uses ALL CAPS. Done: Straughn (talk)
  • Reference 13 is missing an access date. Done: Citation was also updated and corrected from Google Books. Straughn (talk)
  • Municipality classifications are not proper nouns. They should all be lower case throughout prose.  Done
  • Not a single reference is from state legislation associated with municipalities. A review of such would verify that municipality classifications are not proper nouns.
  • Ref #4 does cite specific passages from state legislation, page 5 specific to your inquiry. They seem to use both proper nouns, and not, interchangeably. I would agree with you it looks better with lower case, so I made those changes. Is it worthwhile citing primary sources for this (the law themselves) or will this secondary source suffice? 03:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Ref 4 only erroneously uses title case in the table. Every other instance throughout is correctly lowercased. Legislation being a primary source is a grey area for me for this list. The applicable legislation is here that verifies lowercase. Hwy43 (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • Thanks for this link! I added it to the page, and it has a lot of information. I will assume the guidebook did a good job of summarizing it as it is the official document given to municipal officials, and use those main points int he paragraph. Mattximus (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an instance of "City" still capitalized in the "City (second class)" section. Hwy43 (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arkansas is a state located in the Southern United States." The word "in" renders "located" redundant and unnecessary.  Done
  • Lowercase "census" in 2020 United States Census to match article title?  Done
  • "incorporated municipalities". Municipalities are incorporated by definition. No such thing as unincorporated municipalities AFAIK, so no need to distinguish from non-existent "unincorporated municipalities".  Done
  • There is an WP:OVERLINK infraction in the opening paragraph.  Done
  • Seven of eleven sentences in second paragraph are unsourced.
  • The seven you refer to all come from the source at the end of the last (of the seven) sentences. If they are all in sequence, is it proper form to cite once at the end of the seven sentences, or should there be seven references to the same source? I'm happy either way. Mattximus (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don’t know if it is proper form but the absence begged the question. May comment further on this once the sectionizing comment is resolved. Hwy43 (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphens missing in instances of "four year term".  Done
  • Lowercase "Police Department" as it is a common noun.  Done
  • Second paragraph in lead Lead is too long. Break it up by sectionizing into discussions on each of the three municipality classifications.
  • I see what you are saying, but in this case, each trait of the three classifications is defined *based on the other classifications*, often in opposition. So to separate them will become quite redundant in the wording and quite lengthy, and some parts will not make sense (without seeing how the trait compares to the others). If this makes sense? I can give examples if this reasoning isn't clear. Mattximus (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not convinced. There is content at the start of the second paragraph that can remain in the lead if further summarized, and then repeated in detail in the sections. The sections can be ordered to respect the hierarchy of the three classes, whether top-down or bottom-up, that can allow building off the traits of each other. Hwy43 (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have amended my comment. This is about the second paragraph's length, not the length of the lead overall. It runs on in a complicated fashion and is difficult to understand. Hwy43 (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I have done what you suggested, was this what you were looking for? Mattximus (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is much better. Thank you. In the "City (second class)" section, in addition to the capitalized "City" instance mentioned above:
    • the opening sentence refers to first class when it should be second;
    • there are two overlink infractions in the first sentence (linked in previous section);
    • the second sentence first refers to a recorder and then refers to a city clerk at the end; and
    • the final sentence refers to city clerks rather than recorders.
    In the "Towns" section, the second sentence refers to cities of the second class and city councillors, while the final sentence refers to "city clerks or treasurers" when it appears it should refer to "treasurer-recorders". Hwy43 (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • List section heading is needlessly redundant and lengthy. "List of municipalities" would suffice after sectionizing as just described.  Done
  • There is a space before a period in one of the photo captions.  Done
  • A list of 501 entries would greatly benefit from a Template:Compact TOC. Done: Straughn (talk)
  • Four column headings are without sources.
  • Change and population density are calculated columns; this has been fairly standard in articles like this, in the various population change templates, and in the Infobox:Settlement templates. I've added sources for Name and 2010 population. Straughn (talk)
  • Okay. So if the US Census Bureau doesn’t have population count tables with change and density similar to other countries (like this) then I am okay with the templates calculating these figures without references. Hwy43 (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Type column uses "City I" and "City II" yet such short form is not introduced in the prose. Is this an official short form used in a source? Nope, fixed it.  Done
  • Not fond of the solution as it can convey a link to social class concepts instead. In the municipal classification system for cities, "city" is primary while the assigned class is a descriptor. Suggest "City (first class)" and "City (second class)" instead. Hwy43 (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • Why no day in dates of incorporation for Adona and Cherokee Village? There may be others I didn’t spot missing the day as well.
  • This information is not available anywhere. I've been in touch with the State Library, the Secretary of State, and the Encyclopedia of Arkansas to try to find this information (and the information in question below); there is simply nothing out there. I added a clarifying note for Cherokee Village, which has a complicated history. Straughn (talk)
  • Why no month and day in second dates of incorporation for Bryant and Vandervoort? There may be others I didn’t spot missing the month and day as well.
  • What is going on with Hector's incorporation date?
I got Hector's date from a photograph of its water tower on their website. I'll delete that, since that seems like a very shaky source to use. Straughn (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Hwy43 (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When were Corinth and Patterson incorporated? Just saw this was previously raised and answered. Not a deal breaker, but an explanatory note for both blank cells stating that incorporation dates are unknown might help answer a begged question.  Done
  • For final two rows, the contents in cells within the fourth through sixth columns do not match justification of contents in same cells for all individual municipality rows.  Done: Straughn (talk)

This likely covers most of my quibbles. Hwy43 (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a quick note I am on vacation and could not respond in the past week, but will return in September to finish off the comments! Mattximus (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Source review – To add to the points Hwy43 raised, references 15 and 21 both need publishers added to the cites. On the positive side, reliability of the sources appears okay and the link-checker tool doesn't show any dead links. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've filled in the missing information for reference 15 (Springdale & Bethel Heights). Reference 21 (Hector) can't be expanded any further - the information came from an image on the page's scrolling gallery. There is simply no other information about the publisher to be had. Straughn (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the delay in my response. It appears that those earlier issues have been resolved. One more quick thing I just saw: current ref 14 could use an en dash for the year range in the title, for style purposes. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Straughn (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With that done, I'd say the source review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 03:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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.

@Straughn and Mattximus: although this was closed and promoted by PresN, some of these comments remain unaddressed. Hwy43 (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep @Hwy43:I have not forgotten about your excellent suggestions. I'm just going through a busy period at home with a new baby but will get to your final comments as soon as possible! Mattximus (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_municipalities_in_Arkansas/archive1&oldid=1112320149"