Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of counties in Rhode Island
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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 01:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is closely modelled on the Featured List List of counties in Kentucky. It is useful (pulls together information not otherwise available in one place), comprehensive (includes all current counties), factually accurate (with references), stable (assumeing Rhode Island doesn't change the county cboundires for the first time in 250+ years), uncontroversial (no disputes)and well-constructed (clearly laid out); the lead explains the historical context, and the headings and TOC are appropriate; and images are all the quick-loading SVG versions. Tompw (talk) (review) 15:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: well done. 45 states to go. Geraldk 19:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Miwanya 09:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I'm not sure this is quite long enough for FL. I wouldn't oppose it in a Featured Topic, but for a FL status of it's own, I have second thoughts. Circeus 04:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- can't you just pick out a single map for the lead?? Circeus 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I had the same concerns at first too, but the criteria don't have a specific minimum number of entries, and I felt like there was enough information here to justify it being presented in list format. 5 is probably my minimum, though. Geraldk 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We certainly can and do reject lists because of too little material. Tom should know. He was the one who nominated the twice-failed List of Nunavut general elections (although that one is admittedly even shorter in material). Circeus 18:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. But in the absence of specific guidance from the criteria, it ends up simply being a subjective judgment call. I'd love to see more objective criteria on this point, but I'm not sure how one would word that - number of entries? independent pieces of information? Geraldk 19:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don,t think we can expect any Featured Content criteria (cf. the lengthy guidelines about FA criterion 1(a)) to be completely objective, which is why we have those complicated "notability guidelines" and Consensus is the default decision-making process. Circeus 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. But in the absence of specific guidance from the criteria, it ends up simply being a subjective judgment call. I'd love to see more objective criteria on this point, but I'm not sure how one would word that - number of entries? independent pieces of information? Geraldk 19:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We certainly can and do reject lists because of too little material. Tom should know. He was the one who nominated the twice-failed List of Nunavut general elections (although that one is admittedly even shorter in material). Circeus 18:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I had the same concerns at first too, but the criteria don't have a specific minimum number of entries, and I felt like there was enough information here to justify it being presented in list format. 5 is probably my minimum, though. Geraldk 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- can't you just pick out a single map for the lead?? Circeus 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I added a map to it, lemme know if it 'works' with the article. --Golbez 13:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, nice animation. What is the purpose of sorting "Etymology" and "Origin"? Why does reference 6 call "West Kingston" the 'administrative city' of Washington County? --maclean 04:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the sorttable class allows you to pick which columns are sortable. All or nothing. --Golbez 06:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]