Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in California/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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 12:46, 31 October 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it's a solid list. Former FA candidate before there was FL Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - doesn't pass FL criteria. Lead is a bit short. No in-line citations. References not formatted properly.—Chris!c/t 21:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Chris, does not meet criteria 1, 2, and 5b. There are plenty of images that could accompany this list but do not. Geraldk (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some comments:
- Instead of telling us to see a law, link to it.
- The wording is poor. Was Cabazon the only one to unincorporate, or the only one to do so in 1975?
- Needs to be sortable, perhaps don't even split into multiple tables.
- The asterisks should not be part of the wikilinks.
- Delink the dates.
- Explain why township is obsolete.
- Why mention Willow Glen, et.al., if you aren't going to supply a list of defunct municipalities? I suggest adding such a list.
- Oppose. --Golbez (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SNOW oppose. The above comments are all legitimate; this list doesn't fulfill the featured list criteria. Please consider peer review as an alternative before nominating at FLC. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.