Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Municipalities of Colima/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Municipalities of Colima

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I aim to create a template for which to apply to all other Mexican list of municipality pages. I did nominate this list before, however due to lack of interest it was not promoted. I understand that the list is small, but it is complete, and am very open to any suggestions for improvement. I've made all recommended changes in the previous nomination and used previous municipality lists as a style guide in an attempt to standardize these types of lists in wikipedia. Mattximus (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

"it is the least populous state" This is obviously accurate but to me it implies a low population density, whereas it has double the Mexican average. How about "has the smallest population"?
"Municipalities in Colima are administratively autonomous" I do not understand what "administratively autonomous" means in this context.
How is the municipal council chosen - elected?
"the cleaning and maintenance of public parks" Cleaning of a park does not sound right to me. I would leave it out as maintenance covers cleaning.
"Since 1984, they can collect property taxes" This also does not sound right. Maybe "they have had the power to collect"
""than from their own collection efforts" "efforts" seems odd to me. Maybe "from their own income"
A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review and your suggestions, all have been made. Please let me know if it flows better now. Mattximus (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cobblet

When were the municipalities established? You may find this source somewhat helpful.

I've searched everywhere for a source on this and have not been able to find one. The link you provided only gives the date for 1 municipality unfortunately, unless I'm reading it incorrectly. If we can find a source I'm very happy to include it. In most list of administrative divisions I do this.

This information is usually available in each municipality's entry in the Enciclopedia de los Municipios y Delegaciones de México. I should've mentioned that. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, take a look at this comprehensive historical report on the territorial division of Colima, especially page 67. Cobblet (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the dates to reflect this source. Do you think it is the best one? It contradicts the previous one. I will mark as complete unless you think there is a better source for dates. Done

I don't mind checking the sources myself if you can point out other discrepancies you saw, but for Colima proper, I think you have the correct date now – I'd distinguish between the mere founding of a settlement and the establishment of a municipal administration within a legal framework. Cobblet (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with using the last reference you cited. By the way, I just want to thank you for such a thorough review. The article is becoming much better thanks to you. I will be away for a few days but will return to complete the rest. Mattximus (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it. I'm very happy to see someone else taking an interest in Mexican municipalities as I myself have just started creating articles on the missing ones. Cobblet (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is/are the enabling statute(s) for the municipalities of Colima? Is the Ley del Municipio Libre del Estado de Colima all there is (I have not checked whether that link contains the most recent version of the law), or are there also other relevant statutes?

See also Title 7 of Colima's state constitution (Articles 87–96) which also deals with the establishment of municipalities. Pages 89–90 of the territorial division report I linked to above seems to suggest that the Constitution and the Organic Law are the two controlling provisions. Cobblet (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Putting that statute into Google Translate, I notice that it translates regidores as "trustees" and síndicos as "councillors." An OECD publication also does the same. Any translation we provide should be cited.

Great suggestion. Done

Article 45 enumerates the powers of the municipal councils. Can you check that what you wrote and cited regarding Mexican municipalities generally also applies specifically to municipalities of Colima?

Done Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles 60 and 61 provide for the existence of local auxiliary authorities (autoridades auxiliares), and a quick Google search and browse through the Enciclopedia de los Municipios y Delegaciones de México indicates that these are operational in several (if not all) municipalities in Colima. These seem worth mentioning to me especially if it is true that not all municipalities of Mexico have them, as is claimed in that article.

Done Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that every major source on Mexican municipalities seems to have a different set of land area statistics. For instance, your source gives Armería's area as 341.6 km²; the Enciclopedia gives 408.38 km²; and SEDESOL's Cédulas de información municipal gives 410.051 km², citing INEGI's Marco Geoestadístico 2010. I would prefer to use the last of these sources as it was adopted for the 2010 Census and the underlying GIS data is available.

I was frustrated with this problem as well. It's surprising how hard it was to find data on the area of a municipality. I clicked on the link you gave me, but it just links to shape files. Would you be able to point me to the area numbers? If so I will update the list and correct the densities as well.

Sorry, I should've been clearer – each municipality's entry in the Cédulas de información municipal (click on their names) gives their land area, citing INEGI's 2010 data. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the source. It was way off of previous numbers, but searching around they are all over the place. I've updated all area figures and densities to the reference you suggested, it seems like the most legitimate of all options. Done Mattximus (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current arrangement of the gallery seems a little awkward as its title "Largest municipalities in Colima by population" might be perceived to apply to the table as well as the gallery. Maybe put the gallery under the table, or even arrange it vertically to the right? Cobblet (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I used to agree with this, and this was how I organized the images when I first started making these lists. However after over a dozen featured lists, the unanimous advice was to place them in this gallery style format, and not to the right as I originally had it. Their reasoning was that placing images on the right of a table causes issues on screens with low resolution. So for accessibility and consistency reasons, they are formatted like this. Mattximus (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I don't see anything wrong with my other suggestion of placing the gallery underneath the table. It's a minor point though. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, I'm waiting on a few points above before moving on to the remainder of the points. Thanks again for helping bring this article up to featured status. Mattximus (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update, I think I've reached my ability to update this article. Cobblet is absolutely correct in the comments above, however I tried to use their links but since I can't read Spanish I think I will have to give up. Thanks again to Cobblet for the excellent review, and if they are willing to help with some of the actions above that would be fantastic and the list can be featured. Despite the other supports I have to agree with Cobblet in that the article needs a bit more technical information on local municipalities before becoming featured. Hopefully he/she can help! Mattximus (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad – the article wasn't far off. I might have time to work on it about a month from now. Cobblet (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cobblet, I'm also still willing to support the completion of the lead, I just couldn't read the Spanish references you gave me, so I felt I had to take a pause. I'm happy to wait a month and we can bring it up to featured list. Mattximus (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus am I reading the above correctly, you'd like to wait a month before completing this? Should I withdraw it on your behalf at this time? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did my best on the article and did receive several supports. Some of the actions mentioned above by Cobblet are good suggestions, but I can't follow through with them since I can't read Spanish. I would love to see the article promoted, but not all suggestions can be completed due to the language barrier. What do you think the proper procedure should be? Thanks The Rambling Man for your input! Mattximus (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you believe it's not comprehensive then it would be the right thing to do to withdraw it and maybe request some Spanish-language assistance with expanding it accordingly, then re-nominate? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Cobblet's suggestions are valid. Perhaps they can assist in incorporating those changes when they return in a month? And re-nominate then? Mattximus (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should have time to do some work on it this weekend if we can wait till then. Cobblet (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there's no rush to close this, I just wanted to ensure it was still active. Let's see how the work goes over the weekend and decide afterwards if a re-nomination is necessary in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the issues from my review are now resolved except for the placement of the gallery, which I still find somewhat odd; but that alone does not stop me from supporting the list's promotion. I welcome further input from others on that issue or on any of the changes I've made. Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cobblet! I just rearranged the paragraph, but your changes all look good to me. I no longer need this review put on pause and believe it's now at featured status. Mattximus (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --Pres N 21:02, 3 January 2018 (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.