Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Municipalities of Oaxaca/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) 00:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Municipalities of Oaxaca

Featured list candidates/Municipalities of Oaxaca/archive1

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After a long pause, I'm continuing my goal to bring all lists of municipalities in North America up to a consistent, high standard. I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks for your reviews! Mattximus (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"more than any other state" - source?

Added the link to census which has a button to see the number of municipalities per state.

"although they may not currently function as per their intended purpose" - don't get this bit. Does the constitution say this? That they can't function as intended? Huh?
- This was added by Coyatoc who is more of an expert than I am, based on a spanish language text. I'm not sure if this user is still active but hopefully they will respond to this ping and provide a better answer than I can. They did try to explain it in the talk page. Mattximus (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It's the only entity" => "It is the only entity"
- Done
"Merged with Miahuatlán in 1891-1942" - this would be better as "Merged with Miahuatlán from 1891 to 1942" (and same for all other such notes)
- This is another wording issue from the original text, it is perhaps not known which date the merger took place but somewhere between those dates? Otherwise I don't know why the source includes a range, will as Coyatoc about this as well.
Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

"more than any other state" in Mexico? Or globally?
clarified
Why is the American date format used?
- This is the format of all the other featured list pages, I assume it's because the majority of English reader would use it this way? It is by no means exclusively American. Mattximus (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"La Reforma" should sort with "R". Check the rest.
- Having some troubles with the coding using data-sort-value="Reforma, La". Still working on a fix but if you know what syntax I got wrong please let me know! Mattximus (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got. ~ HAL333 21:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

Your work on lists of municipalities (shown on your userpage) is exemplary. I don't understand how this one got stalled ... let's un-stall it if we can.

Thanks!

"although they may not currently function as per their intended purpose": I don't know what that means. How do they function, then? If you'd rather not say how at this point, then it would be better to omit this phrase here, and bring it up at the point where you want to explain it.

This was added by Coyatoc who I'm certain can explain what this means however in their absence I will remove this phrase as I agree that it makes no sense without context.

"It is the only entity in Mexico with this particular organization.": I don't know that that means. It's the only one with this many districts? With tax districts? With autonomous districts? With any districts at all?

Clarified wording.

"According to the 2020 Mexican Census, it is the tenth most populated state with 4,132,148 inhabitants": One option: "The 2020 Mexican Census reported it as the tenth most populated state, with 4,132,148 inhabitants." "recorded" or "listed" are possible ... present tense is also acceptable, but wouldn't be my choice.

Changed wording to an active voice: "Oaxaca is the tenth most populated state with 4,132,148 inhabitants as of the 2020 Mexican census and the 5th largest by land area"

Agreed with Chris about the "merged with" wording in some of the notes ... there are options, but the current wording doesn't work, for instance in "Yutanduchi merged with San Pedro Teozacalco in 1937-1955". It's not clear what that's trying to say. "some time between 1937 and 1955" might work ... but perhaps that needs some explanation.
"tenth most ... 5th largest": Maybe there's a reason it's written this way, but I don't know why it's not "10th ... 5th" or "tenth ... fifth".

Easy fix. Both written out as per MOS.

"Municipalities in Oaxaca are administratively autonomous of the state according to the 115th article of the 1917 Constitution of Mexico.[5] Every three years, citizens elect ...": Just a suggestion ... the rest of the paragraph is clearer than the first sentence (and perhaps easier to back up with sources, I don't know). If I were writing it, I'd probaby just drop most of the first sentence, and start with something like "As established by the 115th article of the 1917 Constitution of Mexico, citizens elect ... every three years ...".
- I changed it to "have some administrative autonomy from the state". - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The largest municipality by population is Oaxaca City, with 270,955 residents (6.55% of the state's total), while the smallest is Santa Magdalena Jicotlán with 81 residents": Maybe "The census [you probably don't need "The 2020 census"] lists Oaxaca City as the largest municipality by population with 270,955 residents (6.55% of the state's total), while the smallest is". I think once you've established that this is what the census said, then it's not jarring to say "the smallest is" ... the readers will get what that means.
- I added "listed in the census". - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just made a little tweak here.
That's most of what I saw. Again, fine work, on this one and all the others. - Dank (push to talk) 00:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I try to edit the page, I get "Script warning: One or more {{cite book}} templates have errors". I generally like to support as early in the process as I can, but I can't support with a template error ... see if you can find it. (One way to find which one it is: copy the references into userspace, and then toss them out one by one until you don't get the warning.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind ... I fixed it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, all of that looks good. I've just got a few more tweaks to make; I don't see any barrier to supporting now. - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware there's been some disagreement over the captions in the gallery; I have a proposed solution, but it was a little too complicated to talk about it, so I just made the edit. Feel free to change or revert it ... but I think, if you revert my edit, you're going to continue to get pushback from reviewers until there's some kind of change to make it less wordy. I think it would be a good idea to at least keep the images in their own section, as I did, or create a subsection or draw a box around the images. After this edit, you probably don't need that "<onlyinclude>" code now, but I didn't remove it because I don't know what it's for. - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw, I don't recommend this, but I wouldn't be offended if you want to add back "fifth largest" or something to the fifth image caption. (Actually, I'm not offended by anything at FLC! It's just FLC.) But if the first caption says "largest" and the fifth caption says "fifth largest", there's no reason (that I can think of) to add "second largest" etc. to the other captions, and lots of reasons not to. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - This final form looks good to me, I'm not super attached to these captions, but it is the standard of the other lists, so I'm happy leaving this as is.
Looking at the sort order in the second column, the only one that jumped out at me is Ixtepec, Oaxaca, with the official name "Ciudad Ixtepec". That should probably sort under "I" instead of "C".
- I agree for entries like "la reforma" should sort as "R" not "L", but I can't seem to get the syntax to work! I tried using data-sort-value="Reforma, La" which has worked in the past but I don't know why it isn't working here. Any ideas what I got wrong? Below you seem ok with it, and I am too, but another editor requested this change.
The links I checked were all fine except for one: La Compañía is linking to a Chilean town. You might want to check some of the other links.
I checked List of cities in Mexico and a few other places to try to figure out how to sort, for instance, La Compañía ... so far, everything I'm seeing points to sorting this under "L". Works for me, but if I'm wrong, let me know.
Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
Checking the FLC criteria:
1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable 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 UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review, and I'll check back after a source review is done). 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. At a glance, the images seem fine.
6. It is stable.
Close enough for a support. Well done. You might have comments on my current FLC nomination ... it's shorter than my other lists, and even drive-by comments are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude and HAL333: ... Mattximus and I have both done some work on this one, you might want to check back to see if these changes work for you. This one was stalled for a while, it looks like. - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One change: I added "or create a subsection or draw a box around the images" above. - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually ... now that I'm not committed to any one solution, it's probably better for me to self-revert the "Images" section, so I did. I still recommend picking one or more of those options. - Dank (push to talk) 13:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across all your edits to this page and the rest of your comments, and I want to give you a big thank you, they are excellent. I might make a few tweaks but overall you've improved this list significantly. Please allow me some time to go through your remaining suggestions. Thanks again. I will try to review your list next. Mattximus (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I went through the comments, I think I've resolved or commented on everything. Please let me know if I missed anything! Thanks again!

I think you'll get pushback some day on the captions with "second largest", "third largest", etc., but we can work on that another day. I just changed "merged" to "was merged" in 5 rows. The link to the disambiguation page (La Compañía) will probably get fixed soon. I haven't examined the sources; I'll check back in after that gets done in the source review. Otherwise, you're good to go! - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you were asking about "data-sort" ... I used that a lot in, for instance, List of plant family names with etymologies ... check it out. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, thx for the offer to review, much appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 17:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Morogris

...more than any other state in Mexico - I saw the source you added and it is one of those where you have to manually choose what data to pull. To facilitate fact-checking for absolute statements of fact, could we perhaps use another source that explicitly mentions this? This one from FENAMM seems reliable. No need to delete the source you already have. My suggestion is this second one would strengthen the statement.

Agree with your suggestion, added the reference you mentioned, thanks!.

Several of the sources you use (the PDF ones) have tens of dozens of pages, yet you only cite the source as standalone. Could you please specify which pages in specific you used for the statements it is citing? Ref #2 has 183 pages, Ref #3 has 381, etc. I'm particularly concerned with "Estado de Oaxaca División Territorial de 1810 a 1995 (PDF)", which you used heavily. Are most facts concentrated on a few pages or are they spread out through the entire 145 pages? I'm happy to help with adding the hyperlinks for multiple pages if you need assistance.

Sorry for the very long delay Morogris, I was quite ill for the past few weeks and starting to feel better now. This is a good suggestion, if it is followed it would require the addition of around 50 new references, just versions of the same one with the page number included. The references are spread around the large document. Good news is that the pdf is searchable using the find function so it is indeed possible to do this, I just want to make sure that this is what you want as it will take quite a lot of time to add these separate references. Mattximus (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #3 should have the parameter via=Biblioteca Legislativa de la Cámara de Diputados.

Done

Mexico Company Laws and Regulations Handbook. International Business Publications. 2009. p. 42. ISBN 978-1-4330-7030-3. - Maybe it is me, but the source is broken on my end. I get an Error 404. Not a requirement to FA status but if you have an alternative link that would be nice.

Looks like google books deleted this entry as a new edition has been published, but I can't link to that as the mage references might have changed. Nice catch, I'll just leave it as a book reference. Mattximus (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats. I advise you fix the dates formats from "2021-01-27" (for example) to "January 27, 2021" for consistency. There are instances where you vary.

Nice catch, found 3 instances of this and changed as you advised. Mattximus (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is it for me. Amazing job putting this together! Morogris (✉ • ✎) 05:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this excellent review and some great catches. I've worked on a few but will get back to the rest later. Mattximus (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from outstanding questions, I believe I've responded to or completed all recommendations. Please let me know if I missed anything! Mattximus (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Morogris. - Dank (push to talk) 02:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging reviewers who did not support or oppose: @ChrisTheDude, HAL333, and Morogris: --Pres N 18:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Morogris (✉ • ✎) 21:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support--金色黎明 (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Sources 1-3, 5-7, and 9-11 are good
Source 4 needs a page number
Source 8 really has no known author? Also, is there a place of publication?

Minimal concerns here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than keep this open longer, I'll just address the source review myself: it was page 48 for source 4, and source 9 does not state an author, just the company that put it out. I didn't see a country of publication, but that's not usually stated in citations.

As a result, promoting this nomination. --Pres N 14:57, 12 June 2023 (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.