Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mayor of Pichilemu/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 The Rambling Man 10:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Mayor of Pichilemu

Mayor of Pichilemu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/Mayor of Pichilemu/archive1
• Featured list candidates/Mayor of Pichilemu/archive2

Nominator(s): Lester Foster (talk | talk) 02:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Last nomination failed because it lacked comments. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it complies with the criteria; furthermore I have based it from two other featured lists (Mayor of Jersey City, and Mayor of San Francisco). The article makes extensive use of authoritative local sources (Pichilemu News, maintained by a former city councilor, and El Expreso de la Costa, a monthly local newspaper). It deserves to be a FL, please consider this nomination and comment! Thanks! Lester Foster (talk | talk) 02:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with this nomination? To date it is the only "current nomination" that has not received a single comment. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 07:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with it, I think there's a tradition of avoidance in some relisted nominations. Sorry you haven't had any feedback, I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I tend to think it's more of an issue of people are hesitant to review nominations on topics that are unfamiliar to them. I've had the same issue with List of Sega 32X games still here almost a month later with only two commenters. That being said, I'll do my part here and see if I can help generate some comments. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 14:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Quick comments Shouldn't you use formal terms such as "Libertador General Bernardo O'Higgins Region" for the region?" "The mayor presides the" maybe because I'm BritEng, I'd say "presides over". "Forty individuals, including acting mayors, have held the office of mayor" not consistent with table. clarified by saying that forty different individuals have held office as mayor "Córdova was re-elected to a full term on 28 October 2012. His current term will end on 6 December 2016." merge these two short sentences to avoid repeating term. Background section has no references. "at most in April;" do you mean "usually in April"?< Per WP:COLLAPSE should avoid auto-hiding information. Avoid the unnecessary bold text in the Council column. I dislike immensely the rowspan "None" between 30 and the one before 37 for "Council". Don't unnecessarily merge cells like this, it makes navigating it, both visually and screen-reader, difficult. I'm not so sure, uncollapsing the council lists would make the table too large, maybe I should simply remove it? Where do the colours for the political parties come from? Chilean politican parties are almost never associated or connected with colors; however, some representative colors were added for the style's sake. Blue color seems to be representative for the Conservative Party and the Independent Democratic Union [2], the Christian Democrat Party has the yellow color (but I can't think why; it was added by someone else), I chose the yellow color for the Party for Democracy (it's the central color of their logo [3]), the Socialist Party uses the color of its logo too [4], while the Progr. Union of the Centrist Center uses red in its logo [5]. Ensure all tables comply with WP:ACCESS for row and col scopes, per MOS:DTT. Doing now. done The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the comments! Lester Foster (talk | talk) 18:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

*Comments from Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... Red link in background paragraph for the word "subdelegations"... what's it intended to link to? I think you have too many subsections, and it shows in how short the list's paragraphs and sections are. Consider merging together your first four sections; perhaps starting with the one paragraph about historical background, then elections, duties and powers, and finally succession. Duties and powers paragraphs need to be merged together. There's not enough individual info in each paragraph to warrant its own, especially with only two or three sentences per paragraph in this section. Sentence fluency issues: In the lead section, "The mayor..." is the start of three straight sentences. The lead should be reworded to avoid this. Likewise, three straight paragraphs start with "The" in the duties and powers paragraphs, but if merged together per the above note, this should be rectified. I just noticed Mayors of Pichilemu timeline in the See also section. Could this information be merged over into the list, and placed in its own subsection? I believe it would aid the comprehensiveness of the list, and I don't think the timeline itself warrants its own article when the list serves that purpose adequately. Is there anything notable that can be said about the mayor position in the lead? Perhaps something of interest about a particular mayor or two, or something else that might be notable. This would help to expand the lead and make it catch the reader onto the list. That ought to get you started. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 14:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Hi, thanks for your comments. I have (apparently) addressed all of them, if there is something else that needs to be done, just yell! :) Lester Foster (talk | talk) 04:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - My concerns have been addressed, and I think this comes out as a strong list. Very nicely done! Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Excellent work on a list that, in my estimation, meets the six critera for inclusion a featured list. The prose quality is informative and professional. The Lede meets the requirements of the MOS and draws the reader into the article. It is comprehensive and a thorough examination of the topic (especially with both the list and timeline), and very well-organized. I do not see any issues of disagreement with the expectations of MOS and other guidelines, nor do I see any issues concerning stability. I applaud the work of the list's editors, and thank the nominator for presenting a well-prepared article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments – List: The title of this section is plain and not descriptive at all. How about Mayors, which is informative without having too much wording? Comma after Iniguez should be removed. Bolding in the Council column shouldn't be there per the Manual of Style. You could italicize the text if it's really that important. There's nasty red text where note 2 should be. Might want to check the formatting there. Note 21: The em dashes shouldn't be half-spaced and half-unspaced; they should be fully unspaced, if you want to use them. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Hi there, thanks for your comments! I seem to have fixed everything up! (and actually found a way to remove the bold text from the collapsible list!) Regards, Lester Foster (talk | talk) 21:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Looks good. I would just add format=PDF to ref 61 – Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi there, thanks for supporting my nomination! I have just added that to that ref, and spotted a couple of other PDFs/Excel spreadsheets/text files that were missing that. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 02:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.