Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mayor of Jersey City/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 The Rambling Man 16:34, 24 February 2010 [1].

---

Mayor of Jersey City

Nominator(s): Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Featured list candidates/Mayor of Jersey City/archive1

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe I have done most of the work needed to bring it up to standards. I have reviewed the only other Featured List of mayors, and modeled this extensively on that one. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I wrote the San Francisco mayor list, so I am glad to see others use that as a model. It looks good at first glance. Though, you should also include description about the mayors. Also, this article should be named Mayors of Jersey City since this include info about the position.—Chris!_c/t 21:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - looks good—Chris!_c/t 00:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Agree with Chris that this should be named "Mayor of Jersey City"; otherwise, readers might think there is a separate article about the mayor itself. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  I have no problem with the move. My question is whether to do it during the FL review, and move this page at the same time, or wait until after? Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 00:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You can move it right now. Don't worry about messing up the FLC page. FLC regulars will take care it.—Chris!_c/t 00:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, there is alreaady a redirect at Mayor of Jersey City that was created when it was moved to this title back in 2006. I have tagged it with db-move to clear the way. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 00:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

;Comments from Arsenikk Could you mention 'United States' so it is clear what country Jersey City, New Jersey is in. This is not at all obvious to a person not from the US. While this applies to all places, this is particularly important for this article, since a lot of people associate "Jersey" with a British island off the coast of France. Done. Linked as "American city of Jersey City..." I hate to be strict on this one, but "American" is a rather vague term, particularly when trying to describe a country "out of nowhere". American can be used when United Statian sounds awkward, but in this case there is no problem just instating "United States" somehow. It is always better to be clear than vague. Arsenikk (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Done. My orginal edit was unlinked later, so I have gone ahead and done t the simplest way. Jim Miller See me Touch me 19:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC) The image File:Wittpenn 01.gif is used under fair use. It not only lacks a rationale, but I would not think this article could use a fair use image of him (only his biography article or another article about exclusively about him). Removed, no justification for this article Don't think "Mayor-Council" is capitalized. Done. "All terms are four years." is a very short sentences; it would sound better if merged into another one. I reworded this into a more detailed explanation of the structure of mayor and council "Deputy Mayors", at least where used here, is not capitalized. Done Coming from a country with a very different local election system, I find the "Duties and powers" section a bit difficult to follow, in particular since it more or less requires the reader to look at the Faulkner Act (Mayor-Council) article. For me (with a "political background" from Scandinavia) it is not intuitive that the mayor is not really part of the city council. As I understand it, the mayor functions as the executive branch, where the city council is the legislative branch. Perhaps these are not the technically correct terms, but I would like to have seen a little more elaboration in the beginning of the section, although a sentence or two should be sufficient. See your comment 2 above here. Hopefully I have made this more understandable. Again, "Business Administrator" should only be capitalized if used in front of the name or in the full title "Business Administrator of Jersey City". Similar with "Acting Mayor" Done The single-sentence paragraph under "succession" should be merged with the previous paragraph. Merged with an exlpanation of when automatic succession began It is unclear what reference is actually for the list of mayors. Now there is only the one source. I wasn't sure where I would cite the NJCU source for the list Because the list is sortable, all instances of the party must be linked or unlinked. Similarly with the mayors that were in office several times. Done I don't really see why the dates need to be center-aligned. All it does is mess up the table and make it harder to read. It doesn't look much better when left aligned. The month-year dates seem to make any alignment look irregular The {{main}} under "election" should probably be {{seealso}}, since the article only cover the most recent mayoral elections. Done Could not the link to the articles on the individual elections be put into the table some how. Perhaps by linking the dates or # or something. The dates of the elections and the term don't always match up, and I don't know that linking them would make it clear what the links were for. In "United States Citizen", "citizen" is not capitalized. Done Don't use all-caps in references; all-caps is a typographical choice (just like bolding) and should not be duplicated here. Done In the notes, it is not obvious what "N.J.S.A." is. Figured out how to directly link to each section of the law, and formatted proper references for these The two links under "sources" need to be formatted. Done, for the one that is still there I don't see how the external link adds anything to the article. It is best to remove it, as an ideal article has no external links. I had left this there for the images it provides. If I remember correctly, most of those images were uploaded here several years ago, and later deleted as copyvios. I felt that the pictures added to the article enough to keep it. After rereading WP:EL, I am still in doubt about this. Personally I do not think that tit contains useful information, but if you insist, I will let it pass. If other reviewers support my motion, then I will dwell on the issue again. Arsenikk (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Arsenikk (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Looking good. I found a few more things to pick at: The MOS is very strict at using italics, and it should not be used for things like 'unknown' and 'incumbent' in the table. Also, choose between either capitalizing non-proper-nouns or not in the table (i.e. 'Unknown' and 'incumbent'). Done. This may seem obvious to you Americans, but could you just put in a word or to mentioning that the mayor is directly elected. In most countries I have studied the political system of, mayors are normally appointed by the council, even when the mayor leads the executive branch. Of course, most English-language countries have direct mayoral elections, and the US is one of a minority of countries where it is common with a direct election of a single person to appoint the executive branch. This also helps a little with the lead that is slightly short; but I cannot see anything else to put in it. Done, and reordered the sections to match the order of mentions in the lead. I find a few terms underlinked: 'charter', 'ordinances' and 'bond'. Done, although now I have found some new articles to add to my own to-do list for later. Hopefully this is all, sorry for not catching them the first time ;) Arsenikk (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry to have more, but why isn't "The next Jersey City mayoral election is scheduled to be held in 2013." referenced? Arsenikk (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Done. Probably just too familiar with it myself to realize it should have had one.

Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Very nice list and it seems any problems have been taken care of! I would suggest merging the Sources section into the References section, though with General and Specific, as in List of counties in Florida. Reywas92^Talk 03:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Done.

Resolved comments from Golbez (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

**Having worked on all of the governor FLs, it's weird to me to see the party *after* the terms, but I won't hold that against you. Another thing is that for those, we use "Took office" and "Left office", since many people take office and leave office on different dates than their actual term, and it just sounds better? *shrug* I could be wrong. :) As for actual issues... I don't think footnote [a] is necessary; he didn't switch mid-term, and by the time of his third term the Whig party had ceased to exist, so it makes perfect sense that he'd've switched. It definitely doesn't need to be in its first two locations, and I think it's not needed at all. I think it has to be referenced somehow, as listing one person with two different party affiliations would require a source. I have just removed it from the first two terms and left it on the third. The source used just lists him as a Republican, so I think the explanatory note is needed as well. You aren't using the ref tags, I won't fault you for that, as they're ugly for footnotes sadly, but you need to at least have multiple callbacks to the cited material when you have multiple calls to a footnote. Had to think about that one for a few minutes before figuring out you meant to have Note 1|a|a Note 1|b|b. Done. Nope... there's a way to do it resuing letters. I think you want something like... oh hell, let me find my old version... [2] I've thrown up a proof of concept here [] and reverted, since it's just one, but that's one way to do it; or you could hardcode the letters like in the old Alabama list version and then just do |a|1} and |a|2}. All that said, I suggest learning how to use nested <ref>s, they're so much easier, though slightly uglier. :) --Golbez (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Note [j]... in other lists, I would simply have said "Died in office." The bit about him being the first African American mayor... would you have a mention of that had he not died in office? If not, then it seems like extraneous information for that footnote. No, but I would have had to put it somewhere else. As the only mayor to die in office, there was no need to reuse the note. And a paragraph describing 39 white men, 1 woman, 2 African Americans, and one death in office seemed far worse than one extensive note. Note [g]... you should indicate whether or not he succeeded in his endeavor. Done. I note that no one leaves office on the same day as the next one took office; this would seem to be incorrect at least in the case of the acting governors, as I presume that not everyone resigned or died precisely at midnight. And does the Mayor of Jersey City indeed take office at midnight? (I know the Mayor of New York does, but that's a pretty rare arrangement in US politics I think) See next, but apparently they can take office at midnight as it happened in 1985. The external link should be moved up to general references, and be replaced with a link to the actual official page of the mayor, which already exists in the infobox so either duplicate it or remove the header altogether. The external link is to a page that hosts photographs of the portraits of many of the mayors. They cannot be used here due to copyright, so it is an external link per WP:EL. BUT, I am using it as the source for most of the dates and you are the second reviewer to mention this. I have formatted it as a source, but then those are the dates we have to use. Done. A footnote explaining the unknown party of Alexander and McMartin would be useful, rather than just supplying it at face value. Even something so simple as a note saying "It is not known what their party was" would help; otherwise, it looks as if it could be a placeholder for further research and was forgotten. --Golbez (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC) And done. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 05:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• One last comment: Inside the block above, I asked if they took the oath at midnight, and you said, "See next, but apparently they can take office at midnight as it happened in 1985." What did you mean by 'see next', because I see no further explanation? --Golbez (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to using those dates based upon the sources. I don't have sources for the older mayors that show same-day changes in office, and the sources listed under General show those dates. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Support. :) --Golbez (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Salary 1000s delimiter should be a comma in the infobox. Seems to be an issue with some browsers. The source uses a comma, but the infobox cuts off the bottom of that line in IE8 making it appear to be a period. Firefox displays it correctly. "This form provides..." no need to repeat "form" in my opinion. Done. Note c could use a period. Done. As could l, m, n and p... these are complete sentences... Done. Ref 4 has a spare . Done. Another template issue. There was a period in the source after "Co", and the template added another after the field. Sometimes you link NY Times, other times you don't - be consistent. I have fixed this so that the first use is linked, and linked a few other sources. My reading of WP:MOSLINK gives no exception for reference sections, and only the first instance of a particular source should be linked to avoid overlinking.

• Can you confirm that 9, 10 and 13 use en-dashes.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• • They do not, and I don't believe that they should. The listings do not represent ranges that would require an endash. 40A:9-131 represents Title 40A, Article 9, Section 131. An endash would indicte 9 through 131, and would be incorrect. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
    • My mistake. Fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
    • All my stuff resolved, but the cap doesn't seem to like your signature. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. I want to thank the FLC reviewers for their comments which have led to an improved list, as well as prodding some additional research which has resulted in better accuracy and expansion of some of the listed articles as well. I believe that all of the comments have been addressed to meet the FLC criteria. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Of course, you're very welcome for the comments you've received, but your support is taken as read. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

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