Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Counties of Romania/archive2

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 Dabomb87 22:29, 28 October 2010 [1].

Counties of Romania

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am renominating this for featured list because it was (just) closed without any outstanding comments. I would appreciate any points regarding weather this list passes or not FL? Many thanks! Nergaal (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 19:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody??? Nergaal (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Outstanding list from a first glance. I only have time for a quick check through right now, but I'll give it a more through review later if I get the chance.
Why is Bucharest's name highlighted in a different color? If it is because Bucharest is the capital, it should be noted as such in a key, and the color should be accompanied by a symbol.
- Bucharest's status is similar to Washington DC in the USA or Berlin/Bremen in Germany. It is of a different color because it is not a county, but a municipality with an identical status to that of a county. The key right now is its entry in the county seat. i.e.: "Municipality of Bucharest" (instead of county) is put in italics and in parantheses. Nergaal (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah that makes sense. Could you maybe append a note to the italicized "Municipality of Bucharest" cell to explain that it's not technically a county? Nomader ^(Talk) 03:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Added note. Nergaal (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the area column not cited like population and FIPS code? Nomader ^(Talk) 13:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed it. Nergaal (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support After an FLC which was closed because of a lack of supports, I won't let this one meet the same fate when it meets the FLC criteria. Nergaal's addressed my minor comments and it's time to finally make this featured. Nomader ^(Talk) 22:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyvm! Nergaal (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but just one comment: is there an extra "the" in "... the administration at the judeţ level being reintroduced until the after the war."? I'm not sure if that's on purpose, that's why I'm asking. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdly how I missed that. I've fixed it. Thank you very much! Nergaal (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to miss. After several run-throughs you tend not to see some words, especially small ones like these. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments:

1. the administration at the judeţ level being reintroduced until after the war I do not understand what it means. Does it mean that judet was reintroduced before the end of WWII or after?
  switched to "and the administration at the judeţ level was reintroduced after the war" (it was poor prephrasing of previously-longer sentences Nergaal (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Due to Bucharest's significantly larger population and size I do not think the size of Bucharest is so large.
  rm "and size"; should I keep "and its size" instead? Nergaal (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  I think I'd remove "size" altogether. The point Ruslik is trying to make is that physically, it's not a large geographic area– the reason why its separate is its concentrated population. No need to repeat that point. Nomader ^(Talk) 06:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Ok, there is no mention of size currently. Nergaal (talk) 06:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik_Zero 19:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I see no more problems. Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, since all my comments in the previous candidacy have been addressed and the list only got better since then. bamse (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use ! scope="row"| and ! scope="col"| -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | [[User talk:

~~Could you translate that into a more useful alnguage for readers? Like Chinese? Nergaal (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

WP:ACCESS is part of the manual of style so its not something 'we' dreamed up. Then changes I am asking to be made (of which I will facilitate help with examples) are necessary because they make things accessible. The whole point of accessbility is it improves an article's readibility by calibrating wikitables for Screen Reading and Assistive Browser software. Such changes are necessary so that users hard of sight, color blind users and users of no sight can still access/read/use articles. It is not an idealism rather it is consideration for those who are less able than you or I. There is no massive ask here. For some more background on the situation see WP:ACCESS and this. I urge you to keep an open mind and actually consider what's being asked instead of judging a book by its cover. An example of the changes needing to be made can be found here -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not patronise our regular contributors with the aims of WP:ACCESS. Instead, direct them precisely to the sections of WP:ACCESS (not help pages like WP:Wikitable) which their lists currently (in your mind) don't meet. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry the correct thing for me to say should have been... per WP:ACCESS#Data table there are changes that should be made to make this list/article of a better standard. I've retracted my earlier comments. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support! Reywas92^Talk 20: 30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent lead and history section; very informative.
The FIPS code is just an identification system used by the US government, so I'm not sure why they're really relevant here.

I modeled the list after the US counties FLs which is where I got the FIPS form. If people think it should go out I would have no problems removing it. Nergaal (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else have an opinion? I don't really find them necessary; whereas the other codes may have some use the FIPS is more obscure. Reywas92^Talk 16:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the codes and added the link to the external links. Nergaal (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the population and area of a county is much more important and useful to the reader, so I think they should be placed further to the left of the table next to region; I don't see why postal or NUTS code should come first.

The reason it is grouped this way is because some of the codes are linked to the development region so I thought they might sit near them better. Also, having the area right near the map is a bit more natural because you can see the relative area visually. Nergaal (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.

~~See also goes before referenced.~~

Moved. Nergaal (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Reywas92^Talk 01:23, 20 October 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.