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].
- Nominator(s): Jim Miller See me | Touch me 20:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox |
---|
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Support - looks good—Chris!c/t 00:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments from Arsenikk
Arsenikk (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Looking good. I found a few more things to pick at:[reply]
Hopefully this is all, sorry for not catching them the first time ;) Arsenikk (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] 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)[reply]
|
Support Arsenikk (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. Reywas92Talk 03:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
Resolved comments from Golbez (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
**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.
|
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Okay. Support. :) --Golbez (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Can you confirm that 9, 10 and 13 use en-dashes.
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- My mistake. Fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.