Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Municipalities of Quintana Roo/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Municipalities of Quintana Roo

[edit]

Municipalities of Quintana Roo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) and Coyatoc (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I'm happy to nominate another list of municipalities in Mexico (9, nearly 10, states already have their municipality lists featured using this standardized format, along with dozens of other list of municipalities in North America). We are continuing our goal of bringing all lists of municipalities in Mexico up to a consistent, high standard. 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) 14:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Opening sentence could do with a comma after "seven municipalities" to break up the flow a bit Done
  • In the second sentence, twenty-fourth is spelt incorrectly Done
  • "The largest municipality by population is Benito Juárez, with 911,503 residents" - no need for that comma Done
  • "Cozumel is fourth largest municipality by population." => "Cozumel is the fourth largest municipality by population." Done
  • The state capital indicator is against the municipality. Should it be against the city? Surely it is the city that is the capital? Done
  • Note a contains "in 2011" twice, no need for both  Done
  • Think that's all I've got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ChrisTheDude for the review! All changes were made, no questions, all easy fixes. Mattximus (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Southeast should be lowercase if it's just directional and not a named region  Done
  • "is the 19th largest"  Done
  • Can you clarify "administratively autonomous of the state" for me, is it any different from us counties? Can't tell from the responsibilities so I'm not sure why it would be stated that way
  • Cite [6] to the handbook doesn't work, but I don't think slaughterhouse regulation needs to be enumerated, seem oddly specific among types of facilities
  • Othón P. Blanco isn't the state capital, Chetumal is, right? I see this is consistent across the states but it seems the municipality shouldn't be highlighted for these.  Done
  • I moved the dagger to Chetumal so it matches the legend, is that sufficient?

Otherwise nice as usual. Reywas92Talk 02:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

  • It appears that Reywas's review is proceeding nicely ... I'll check back to make sure in a few days.
  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. Most reviewers frown on linking countries (Mexico) ... I can see a reason for linking it once, and I'm not complaining, but if any other reviewer objects, then I'll agree that the link should go. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. ("rowspan=2" is unexpected, but it's not screwing anything up.) I checked sorting on all 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 article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any 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. The images add a lot, and aren't problematic.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. (I hope you'll drop by my plant list nominations every now and then, but they tend to be long, so don't sweat it.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "of Benito Juárez in " overlinked.  Done
  • "by a plurality voting system who heads" because of parenthetical interruption, this reads weird, like the "who heads" relates to the voting system, suggest a gentle re-word.  Done
  • You could link Federal government of Mexico.  Done
  • "and user fees" what does this mean?
  • I think it refers to fees to use municipal facilities or programs, but I'm not sure. This was translated from Spanish by someone else so as a non-Spanish speaker cannot tell if there is an elaboration on this point or not...
  • "The largest municipality.." suggest this is caveated with "As of 2020..."  Done
  • "12,939.30 km2 (4,995.89 sq mi)" probably don't need second decimal place of accuracy, plus the table has "4,995.5" as the sq mi conversion, so something's not quite right here.
  • I don't see all those incorporation dates in ref 9.  Done
    Amazing catch! The pdf link was linked to the wrong page, easy fix, but great find! Mattximus (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table has more than two sort outcomes for each numerical column for me.  Not done
  • Seems strange to have two columns for area but to have both units in a single column for population density.
  • Yep I don't have a strong opinion. I formatted this off of someone else's style but then I standardized it to dozens of featured lists, so they are all like this now. I'm hesitant to change just this one so it's different from the dozens of others just like it....
  • Ref 1 needs en-dash in title, not spaced hyphen. Done
  • Retrieval date formats in refs should be consistent. Done
  • ISBN formats should be consistent. Done
  • Ref 4, PDF is ~250 pages, so page numbers required.
  • This is an interesting one, the reference is for the state having it's own constitution, not a specific page from the constitution. Any thoughts?
  • Ref 8 needs en-dash.  Done
  • As does ref 11. Done

That's enough on a first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • I see you have a trans-title for ref 7, for consistency and verifiability I would recommend adding to all  Done
  • for refs 3 and 4 it is a little odd that the Article/Act names are only in English, while the title is only in spanish. I would recommend using both (like the titles above)
  • I think I see what you are saying. To use Artículo instead of Article? I agree with you but the template provided spits out English regardless of initial language. Any thoughts? Mattximus (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, I'm not really sure what I was thinking with something this minor—it seems fine how it is, and would perhaps be a little silly to add "artículo"! Aza24 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 11 is missing a publisher/work  Done
  • You have "Mexico:" for ref 9 but not for any of the other INEGI refs  Done
Reliability
  • Seems fine
Verifiability
  • This is an interesting one and you are the second reviewer to ask this. I cited this reference to show that the state has it's own constitution. I don't refer to any not a specific page from the constitution, just the fact that it exists and if anyone wants to read it they can click it. Any thoughts? Mattximus (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah I see, thanks for the clarification. I would see maybe add a "See" before the template, e.g. <ref>See {{cite... </ref> perhaps? Not really an issue either way now that you've explained the reasoning. Aza24 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, I'm not sure how I missed this (twice now!). I've left responses to both items in question, but neither issue is pertinent enough to prevent a pass. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! I'm ok with adding "see" or not, doesn't really matter to me, there is no see in the other noms so it may be easier to leave as is. But thank you for the review! Mattximus (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "municipal council (ayuntamiento) responsible for providing all the public services". But it seems not all as you say the council only assists in education etc.  Done
  • "The municipal council consists of a variable number of trustees and councillors" This ambiguous whether you mean variable within councils at different times or between different municipalities. Are the trustees nominated? If so, maybe "The municipal council consists of nominated trustees and elected councillors"
  • You may be correct but I'm not sure myself of how they are nominated/elected so I can't with certainty change the wording, but to answer your first case variable number of trustees/ councillors. I'm happy to change this any other way, but I just want to be sure that it is accurate.
  • "although more funds are obtained from the state and federal governments than from their own income." This seems wrong as funds from govts are also income. "than locally".  Done
  • Having three notes in four columns looks odd to me.
  • Agree.  Done
Image review – Pass
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Municipalities_of_Quintana_Roo/archive1&oldid=1040164806"