Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Municipalities of Jalisco/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) 00:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Municipalities of Jalisco[edit]

Featured list candidates/Municipalities of Jalisco/archive1

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) and Coyatoc (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are continuing our goal of bringing all lists of municipalities in Mexico up to a consistent, high standard (9 states already have their municipality lists featured using this standardized format, along with dozens of other list of municipalities in North America). We have updated the information to reflect the most recent census and tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations. The page should be pretty standardized but there can always be improvements. Thanks to everyone who regularly reviews these lists! Mattximus (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

;Comment

The article seems to be written in American English based on the format of the dates, so shouldn't the second sentence refer to "kilometers"?
There's two identical entries for Ameca Done
Arandas is listed as the municipal seat of two different municipalities - is that correct? Done
There's two identical entries for Hostotipaquillo Done
That's all I've got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:Cobblet got to most of these before I did. Thanks for the review! The dates could be changed to the more international English, are you referring to the format in the references? Mattximus (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: - no, I meant the dates of incorporation. These are written in the format "August 15, 1823", which is the US date format. That's fine, but in that case the rest of the article should be in US English. I'm pretty sure the only word that impacts is "kilometers" (that is how it's spelt in the States, isn't it? Correct me if I am wrong......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm the conversion template used is hardcoded to spell it kilometres, and that is closest to the Spanish spelling. I see dates written like the incorporation date format in Canada which also uses the kilometres spelling, can we say it's consistent that way? Mattximus (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a big deal so support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your review! Mattximus (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Is note i written correctly? Same goes with note o and v - not sure the second "and" is needed. Done
I would rewrite note j San Gabriel was renamed Venustiano Carranza between 1934 and 1993. The "between sounds like the date of renaming is sometime within a date range. Done

That's all. Solid work. I'll go ahead and support given the above is addressed. ~ HAL333

Thanks for the review! Mattximus (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Aza24[edit]

I'll be back to do a source review, but some non-source comments first:
An RFC recently passed a few months ago asking for captions on all tables (MOS:DTAB) Done
The pictures look rather odd on my screen, on my smaller screen they're stacked 2 on top of 3 on top of 1; on my bigger screen they're stacked 4 on top of 2–both leave huge white space, and looking very awkward. I don't really know what a solution for this would look like, but the current formatting is less than ideal
- Part of the issue here is this is all happening before the table—a.k.a the main part of the article—creating a weird buffer in between

Yep I see what you mean. I experimented with a bunch of different formats, this seems to be the best one for my screen, how does the new format look for you? Mattximus (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's better but still a little awkward—I think the root of the problem is the second, Municipalities of Jalisco image. I see some of your other FLs (though I haven't checked the all) don't have such a map, perhaps remove? Though it is a cool map, the fact that its without labels for the various municipalities makes its actual helpfulness negligible imo. Aza24 (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Done[reply]

Yep that did it. It fixed it on my screen too. Since it's unlabeled, I agree that it serves little value. Mattximus (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really get the lack of TOC; if the vertical one is messing up formatting, why not add a horizontal one.
Otherwise seems solid. Aza24 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is very strange, I see nothing in the code indicating the removal of the default TOC. I have no idea why it was removed. Do you know how to get it back? Mattximus (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe articles with 3 or less sections makes the TOC not show up, in that sense I would suppose it's alright to not have one. However, if you're so inclined, you could add __FORCETOC__ or for a horizontal one, simply, add {{horizontal TOC}} anywhere. Aza24 (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I tried adding the FORCETOC and I see now why the default is no TOC with 3 sections, it looks kinda funny. But I don't hold a strong opinion. I'm inclined to just leave it off as the default recommends. Mattximus (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I have two questions for you above. Mattximus (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly ping for User:Aza24, wondering if you had a chance to see my two questions above? Mattximus (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping! I forgot to add this one to my list to check back on Aza24 (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Aza24 for your great suggestions! I believe all your concerns are now addressed. Mattximus (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support Aza24 (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --Pres N 22:41, 23 April 2021 (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.