Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Israeli cities

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 19:10, 28 April 2008.

List of Israeli cities[edit]

This article is based on List of United States cities by population and is of a high standard. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice. Drewcifer (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Definitely an interesting, well-constructed list. I do have a few suggestions however:

Done My main concern is with the two population columns. Since Wikipedia is not meant to be a repository for statistics, I don't see any point in having two columns for two different years. Only the most current population is necessary. However, I would argue that those columns are necessary in the tables where the change is actually important, namely "Cities with a declining population" and "Fastest growing cities". So I guess I'm just saying there's no point in it being in the main cities table.
Done The widths of rows should ideally be kept consistent between tables.
Done The images don't need to be numbered.
Done In general, columns with numbers should be center aligned.

I tried to see how to do this. Can you please give some guidence.

No problem: it's pretty easy, but might be a little time consuming. Each cell that needs to be center aligned should start with So the code for the Betar Illit row should be:

Drewcifer (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Also in general, the name of a column shouldn't be a symbol (ie %).
Done "(formerly separate towns)" should be a footnote, not in the table itself. Drewcifer (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done The data in percentage change columns should have a percent sign in each cell. ie. "70.9%" "49.1%" and so on. Drewcifer (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Why not List of cities in Israel by population?
You could also remove the area column, and make a List of cities in Israel by area article
Done I don't really understand the need of the second paragraph of the lead. I would say that poulation#s to importance may be true for a lot of cities in all parts of the world. One sentence begins with "Because", too, which is gramatically incorrect, and the parenthesesed part, "(and people's perceptions)" should be referenced.

Other than that I agree with all of Drewcifer's comments. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. To be honest, I was weighing up making two lists in my own mind before but just thought with the sortable tables it would give two almost identical pages so I personally am not sure whether it is worth doing this although if you feel it would be very beneficial/the general feeling is this, then I will go ahead. Is there a way of ordering it automatically or is it a manual job? I removed that paragraph also. Thanks again. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Done A bit of over-capitalising - Common Name could just be Common name... etc.
Can the area be given in metric and imperial as well please. You could embed the {{convert}} template in a {{sort}} template to ensure sortability is maintained.

Sorry - I dont understand how to do this.

Well you need to first use the {{convert}} template to convert from km2 to miles2, and then use the {{sort}} template to ensure it still sorts. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to right-align the population so the commas align. Same for decimal point alignment of area.

I have an issue here as I was told by Drewcifer3000 to center align the numerical figures. Either way, I still dont know how to do it.

You can right align large numbers like this by using align=right in the relevant cells... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was told by Drewcifer to center align them! Im not sure what to do.

Population doesn't seem to sort correctly for me - Jersualem is in a weird place.

I dont seem to have any issues. Let me know.

I have problems in Safari with both Jerusalem and Kafr Qasim when sorting on population. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I dont use Safari - its fine on IE. I dont really know what to suggest here.

Why do two entries not have Arabic translations? Worth a note.

I'm getting these at the moment.

Done References should be in numerical order, there's a [6][4] for instance.
Done 12% is an arbitrary level of growth, isn't it? Is there a reason why it's not 10 or 15%?

I have no idea why that's like that but its now 10%

Done "large immigrant population" - large is POV.
Done "Immigrants are considered those who arrived in Israel after 1990." - according to whom?
Done Note c could use a full stop.

Some issues there for me with POV, so I must oppose at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully Ive now addressed the bulk of these issues. The arabic names should be on their way. I dont really know how to do the conversion template although will be happy to do so, and dont have any issues on my comptuer with the sorting. Theres a contradiction between you and Drewcifer over alignment - what do I do here. Thanks for your comments. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. As per previous nominations, I do not believe that the status of the cities in the West Bank is adequately explained. The sentence "The list includes three cities in the West Bank to which Israel has not applied its sovereignty with which it is roughly contiguous" is virtually unreadable - I certainly can't figure out what it means. What is "roughly contiguous" with what? In order for me to support this list, I think it needs three things:

Done Rename to "List of Israeli cities" rather than "List of cities in Israel", in order to define the cities by what rather than where they are. A city which is in the West Bank is ipso facto not in Israel, just as the British embassy in Paris is not "in" Britain, even though it might be considered to be British territory.
Done A paragraph in the intro properly explaining the status of the three (four?) West Bank cities, including some mention of the view of the international community as well as the Israeli view.

I've put it under List of Cities though because I dont feel it is notable enough to be plaed in the intro.

Done Some similar explanation of the status of Jerusalem. It may not need a full paragraph, but at the very least it needs to state whether or not the figures for population and area include East Jerusalem (I assume they do) and why that might be controversial. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, this is in the same paragraph as the West Bank

Hope this is ok. Thanks for your comments. I dont see why the Jerusalem and West Bank bits cant go as notes because they only apply to 5 of 74 but if it is neccessary I have no real issue keeping it here. Thanks again. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Much improved, thanks. I'm still not sure about this sentence: "The list includes four cities in the West Bank to which Israel has not applied its sovereignty". It's not clear whether "not applied its sovereignty" refers to the West Bank as a whole or whether to just the four cities - I assume the former, but it's ambiguous as written. Subject to that being clarified, I'm moved to support. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now support. Thanks for your rapid responses. One other small point - could you please have a look at footnote C. It uses the same awkward wording that I pointed out around "roughly contiguous". --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Coherent, understandable, and informative. A spot check of references turned up no problems, and a cursory glance through the article revealed no glaring grammatical or factual errors that I could detect. I might suggest editing some of the prose for smoothness and flow, but even as it is now, it's still better than 95% of the prose I've seen on Wikipedia. Good job by all involved. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets all requirements. Good work :-) Tompw (talk) (review) 20:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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