Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cities in New Brunswick/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) 00:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of cities in New Brunswick

Featured list candidates/List of cities in New Brunswick/archive1

Nominator(s): B3251 (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like New Brunswick. I found this nice little list full of eight cities in need of major work, so I've completely rewritten the introduction, made a full revamp to the list and made any necessary updates. Feedback appreciated. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"New Brunswick saw a reduction from 104 municipalities to 77" - New Brunswick isn't alive so can't see anything, so suggest "The number of municipalities in New Brunswick was reduced from 104 to 77"
"Municipalities in New Brunswick, of which cities, as well as towns and villages are referred to as, are included" - rather mangled wording here. Would be better as "Cities, towns and villages in New Brunswick are referred to as municipalities and all are included"
"in Local governments in the province" - no reason for capital L, mid-sentence
"has wards in their municipal governments" => "has wards in its municipal governments"
"has a "Hybrid" council type," - don't think the H needs to be a capital (also in the note)
"As of 2021, the largest city by population in New Brunswick is Moncton" => As of 2021, the largest city by population in New Brunswick was Moncton" (2021 was three years ago so present tense is not appropriate)
"and the smallest is Campbellton" - as above
"Additionally, Saint John is the first incorporated city in future New Brunswick and Canada overall" => "Additionally, Saint John was the first incorporated city in the future New Brunswick and Canada overall"
That's what I got. Nice work on expanding the article. I have been to New Brunswick but I don't recall if I liked it as it was over 40 years ago :-S -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and Done. B3251 (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second one still needs doing..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude Missed that one, whoops. Done B3251 (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At 8 entries, this seems a little short to be a featured list, but more importantly, it's also unclear why it exists at all given List of municipalities in New Brunswick (FL) exists. It's the first 8 rows of that table, with the council type/size added (and different incorporation dates, for some reason). How is this not just a content fork? --Pres N 20:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair question to ask, though I am not the one who created the article so I'm unsure if I could answer it. All that I've pretty much done is do as much as I possibly could to expand onto the article so it stands better as a standalone list, though both articles (list for cities & list for municipalities) were created/promoted as FLC through the same editor. Would it be worth pinging them to ask? Furthermore, would it be beneficial to include former cities to provide leeway for more content to be included into the article? B3251 (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hwy43: Pinging article creator for further opinion. B3251_(talk) 21:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While no nomination is the same, here is an example of another successful FLC with eight entries. In Canada, we have numerous topics for populated places. {{Canada topic|List of communities in}} is inclusive of both incorporated and unincorporated communities. {{Canada topic|List of municipalities in}} is for those communities that are incorporated only. That topic contains 13 FLs – one for each province and territory. {{Canada topic|List of cities in}}, {{Canada topic|List of towns in}}, {{Canada topic|List of villages in}}, etc., are subsets or child lists of their parents within {{Canada topic|List of municipalities in}}.

In the past, there have been discussions on these. There are contradictions between WP:NOTPAPER and WP:CFORK. The best way to address CFORK is to make sure this list article has sufficient additional detail that expands upon the content at List of municipalities in New Brunswick specific to cities in New Brunswick. To do so, I have suggested additional information on former cities and other communities that are eligible for city status. See List of cities in Alberta as compared to List of municipalities in Alberta. The former/child list has more detail with respect to administration of the cities compared to the latter/parent list. It also has the two additional sets of info I just mentioned.

I know that New Brunswick has at least one former city – Portland, New Brunswick. Riverview, New Brunswick, Quispamsis, and Rothesay, New Brunswick all appear to be eligible for city status.

@B3251: can you explain why the incorporation dates in this article differ than those in the parent municipalities list? I have a theory why but don't want to assume. Hwy43 (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hwy43:, thanks for the response. I looked for a specific incorporation date for each city, when they were incorporated as a city, if that’s what you were wondering is different. I sought each specific date that each municipality was declared city status, so there may be a difference there in comparison to its incorporation as a municipality.

Pinging @PresN: for thoughts on the above comment. B3251_(talk) 11:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very well done list, but isn't this just a fork of List of municipalities in New Brunswick? Mattximus (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Mattximus, please refer to my reply to PresN above regarding this. I don't think I could give a clear answer on this as I'm not the creator of the list, I just did as much as I could to improve/expand onto it and make it more standalone-specific for cities rather than being what information was already provided in List of municipalities in New Brunswick. This list article was created by the same editor who co-nominated the municipalities list with you, so I proposed pinging them here to hear from them. If you would like to possibly give your opinion, that would be much appreciated. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell; you have them for most, but they're missing on the second row of headers.
Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. || [[Bathurst, New Brunswick|Bathurst]] becomes !scope=row | [[Bathurst, New Brunswick|Bathurst]]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --Pres N 20:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Screen-reader caption, !scope="col" added to second row of headers, !scope=row added to primary cells (city names).

I've made the fixes with some additional changes with the sortbottom classes at the bottom that may/may not have needed to have been made. How did I do? @PresN B3251 (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good from that standpoint, though see my comment above. --Pres N 00:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

Reliable enough for the information being cited
Consistent date formatting
Consistent and proper reference formatting
Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

Ref 15 – Please downcase to title case instead of all caps

Source review passes. Support (without taking into consideration whether this should have been split). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not get a response on here, but I do see that you downcased the reference appropriately. Thank you. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not responding sooner. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --Pres N 18:54, 25 June 2024 (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.