Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Albacete/archive1

List of municipalities in Albacete

List of municipalities in Albacete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Albacete/archive1

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC) and Alavense (talk)

We are trying to bring up the list of municipalities of Spanish provinces up to the standard seen in the other featured lists of municipalities. Alavense has made some excellent changes to this article and together we would like to create a template that can be used on the other Spanish provinces, eventually bringing them up to featured list status. This one may require some significant peer editing as it is the first one for Spain, but it will pay off as it can be replicated in the other Spanish provinces. Thanks for all your comments in advance! Mattximus (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• There seems to be a mish-mash of US and UK English used, given that I can see both "The organisation of the municipalities" and "Municipalities are categorized". As the subject matter relates to a non-English speaking country it probably doesn't matter which type of English is used, but whichever one it is should be consistent throughout.

• Found this one instance and fixed, but are there others? Should be consistent now.

• "A further concejal is added for every additional 100,000 inhabitants, although the figure can never be an odd one" - does this not contradict the previous sentence, which sets out the different levels of concejales based on population and every figure is an odd one?

• I assume it means you can never add an odd number as that would make the total even? I will try to reword.

That was my fault. I meant actually the contrary, that the final figure can never be an even one because that would allow for draws when voting any matter. But I don't think it's correct now either. I'll try to explain. We have 25 at 100,000. At 200,000, we add one and we should have 26, but, given that it's an even number, we get an additional one (27) to solve the issue. When the population reaches 300,000, a further concejal is added, so we get 27 again. I think the current wording would mean that we get 27 at 200,000 and 29 at 300,000, which is not the case. Can we maybe twitch it, Mattximus? Alavense (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I trust you guys to figure this out between you :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes my wording is incorrect. I reworded it. Does this new wording make sense? Mattximus (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

That's what I meant, Mattximus. Now it's fine. We are happy now, ChrisTheDude. Thanks. Alavense (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks! Both concerns addressed! Mattximus (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Staraction

• All images relevant to the article; consider replacing the gallery with images to the side of the table? If so, just adding the four most populous municipalities might be a little too bland. Maybe have images of other municipalities that are interesting in other ways featured as images. Although - this comment is mostly just from personal taste.

I'm not sure about this one. I think being the most populated municipalities in the province also makes them the most relevant and the ones that should be highlighted with the images.

Placing images on the side does cause some accessibility issues on small screens like phones I believe. Mattximus (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Captions relevant to the images (maybe for the second, black-and-white map, "Map of municipalities in the province of Albacete"?

Done.

• All images have alt text except for the second, black-and-white map, captioned "Municipalities in the province of Albacete"

Done.

• All images under appropriate license. AGF on self-published works.

Thanks for your good work @Mattximus & @Alavense! Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Staraction. I've made the changes you suggested, except for the first one, because I'm not sure about that. Kind regards. Alavense (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine! Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 06:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Municipalities enjoy a large degree of autonomy in their local affairs." "in their local affairs" is to vague, Maybe "in local administration".

• Agreed, made change.

• "elected by universal suffrage on a list system". You need to give details of the list system used.

• I will let Alavense respond to this one, I'm only party sure it means the registration list alluded to early in the article where everyone registers to a municipality. Mattximus (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• I've expanded the information about that, Dudley Miles. I hope it's now easier to understand. Alavense (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• "junta de gobierno local". A translation would be helpful.

• did a translation but not sure if 100% correct, will defer to Alavense's Spanish.

• I'm happy with that - Alavense.

• It would make the article more attractive to have more photos.

• Added two more, any more required?

I suggest putting a selection of images on the right of the table. It is a narrow table compared with many, so should cause less problems on phones provided a fixed width such as px is not used. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see how this can be an improvement, Dudley Miles. How many images should we add? Amongst the most recently promoted lists, I see some with fewer (or even no) images than this one. Anyway, we already had a map highlighting the province inside Spain, another map with every single municipality located and a selection of images for the most populous municipalities in a tidy row. Now, we have more images, but it's still an arbitrary selection. However, they are not in a tidy row anymore. Besides, I think it's less comfortable for those readers using the mobile app, because they have to scroll to find a table (which is, after all, the most important thing in the list) which has sunk further down. Alavense (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• All three items in 'Works cited' have error messages.

• I tried these and they all work for me, but maybe Alavense knows?

• The error messages go to Category:CS1 maint: date and year. There is a script which displays the errors, but I cannot remember which one. You should be able to get advice at User talk:Trappist the monk. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• I won't be able to use a computer until at least tomorrow, but I tried to fix it. Is it okay now? - Alavense.

• OK. The error messages have gone now. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• The 'External links' links heading for commons looks odd and is better deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Removed. Mattximus (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I disagree on images, but that is a matter of personal preference. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the references appear to be reliable and well-formatted, and no problems were detected by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)