Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Municipalities of Tabasco/archive1

Municipalities of Tabasco[edit]

Featured list candidates/Municipalities of Tabasco/archive1

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one more list of municipalities with a standardized format that now includes 44 (!!) lists in North American jurisdictions. Inspired by real encyclopedias with consistent formatting and high standards, I'm helping to achieve this for lists of municipalities. I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks for your reviews Mattximus (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Couldn't find any issues. Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

The captions to the images of the biggest three are not complete sentences so shouldn't have full stops. Done
That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Images have alt text
Images, including the map, are appropriately licensed
Images have succinct captions and are relevant in the article.
This passes image review. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
I recommend checking your table links ... for instance, Tenosique redirects to Tenosique de Pino Suárez and back to Tenosique again.

I'm happy to make any changes but I unfortunately do not understand the comment, both the Tenosique links appear to be going to the correct place? Mattximus (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I just fixed it ... it was trying to go to Tenosique de Pino Suárez, but there's no such page. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the FLC criteria:
1. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
3b. The sources appear to be reliable (but see below), and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant 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.
Close enough for a support. Well done. My Spanish is very poor, so I can't cover all of the sources. - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]