Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Louisiana/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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of municipalities in Louisiana

Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Louisiana/archive1

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the help of many others, I am attempting to create standardised, high quality featured lists of municipalities in all states, provinces and territories in North America. This will be the 12th such nomination and I believe this article is a complete and comprehensive list of all cities, towns and villages within the state of Louisiana. I have modelled this list off of my recently promoted List of cities and towns in Montana and List of cities and towns in Alabama so it should be of the same high standard. I've incorporated suggestions from recent reviews to make this nomination go as smoothly as possible. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Thanks again for your input. Mattximus (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support This very nice list is well organized and nicely presented. An Earwig checks show the potential of copyvio unlikely and WC3 indicates no dead links. Referencing is light, but heavy referencing seems unnecessary and everything is correctly sourced in the table headers to RS. The LEDE complies with WP:LEDE and represents an accurate summary of the list. I have an issue with the use of the "%" sign instead of "-percent", however, MOS:PERCENT has always been vague and unclear so will defer on that point. Images are sufficiently illustrative of the article and are all correctly licensed. I found no incidences of spelling or grammar issues. The article is stable with no outstanding disputes evident on the Talk page (last discussion was ~3 years ago) and no substantial, recent edits other than those of the nominator.

This is, overall, an excellent and important list presented in such a way that its expansion following the 2020 census will be fairly easy to accomplish, thereby ensuring its long-term utility to the project. Very nice job, Mattximus. LavaBaron (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! And yes that whole 2000 census column will be deleted and replaced by the 2020 census results since it's already quite out of date. Mattximus (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Hwy43

Comments by Hwy43

For all intents and purposes, the state is in the middle of the pack in terms of population and area. While this might just be a style thing, the word but in the first sentence that splices the state rankings of population and area together infers significant contrast. Since the rankings only differ by eight places, there is little contrast. Consider simply using and instead.

Good call, changed.

The opening sentence of the second paragraph states "... any unincorporated area with a population greater than two hundred inhabitants may propose to incorporate as a city, town or village." This then appears to be contradicted in the following sentences, where the minimum population thresholds for city, town and village status are stated to be 5,000, 1,000 and 200 inhabitants respectively. It is therefore evident that an unincorporated area can only incorporate as a village, and not a town or city, if it has more than 200 inhabitants.

I added "depending on the population requirement" and the next few sentences describe this requirement. Does this make sense? An unincorporated area that has 5,000 people may incorporate as a city (just 200 is the minimum for incorporation of any kind).

Still doesn't work. What about "... residents of any unincorporated area may propose to incorporate as a municipality if the area meets prescribed minimum population thresholds"? This introduces there are thresholds, then the next sentence introduces the three types of municipalities, and then the following sentence spells out the thresholds applicable to each. Hwy43 (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, that flows much better. Changed.

The second-last sentence in the second paragraph ends in a wordy way. i.e., "... so as to take the municipality out of its present municipal class." Can this be simplified?

Significantly simplified sentence. Now reads "The governor may change the classification of the municipality if the board of aldermen requests a change and a census shows that the population has increased or decreased to the extent that it is removed from its present municipal class"

I still struggle with it. What about "... increased or decreased making it eligible for a different classification."? Hwy43 (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me, changed. Mattximus (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, a community that is "incorporated" is a "municipality". Thus, using "Incorporated" in the section heading, within an article about "municipalities" seems superfluous.

Removed 2 instances of incorporated municipalities including header. Left one instance of the word "incorporated" since the next paragraph contrasts with unincorporated. Would that work?

There is unnecessary capitalization in the label for the first legend item below the images. When speaking of a parish in general terms, it is common noun rather than a proper noun. It is usually only capitalized when part of the parish's official legal name (e.g., Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government).

Good catch, changed.

Reverse the order of the two legend items since the second one appears first in the default ordering of the table.

Done

There is inconsistent spacing between the dagger/double dagger and the last word in the two legend items. Fix the inconsistency and double-check a consistent approach is applied to all affected entries within the table itself. That said however, are the daggers/double daggers even necessary? Can't just the background colour do the trick?

Changed. I was told that for accessibility reasons you must include a dagger of some kind when shading a box with a colour.

Ah. I thought that might have been the case upon thinking further about it this morning. Hwy43 (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Houma is not its own municipality (it is instead part of the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government), exclude it from the list, just like how the urban service areas of Fort McMurray and Sherwood Park, which are unincorporated communities deemed city-equivalents for certain purposes, are not listed as municipalities at List of municipalities in Alberta. There, content was provided instead explaining these two communities were not municipalities, but sub-municipal geographies of their respective municipalities.

This is interesting. I will remove it, but I wonder if I should then add Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government, as it seems to function like a municipality. What do you think? If so I will have to add the three other consolidated governments: Lafayette, New Orleans, and Baton Rouge. There are only 4 in Louisiana.

Yes, I think adding the four would be appropriate, and then you can include a note in the Terrebonne entry explaining that it includes Houma. If there are similar situations in the other three, add notes to their entries as well. Hwy43 (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does the State of Louisiana also consider parishes to be municipalities? If no, is the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government an exception to the rule and considered a municipality?

This is a very good question, which I do not know the answer yet. I will try to dig around. If so there is then another issue, since Lafayette city and parish are also under a Consolidated Government but within this parish are other independent municipalities (Lafayette,_Louisiana#Government_and_politics). I'm not sure how to proceed here, I will have to think about it, but welcome any advice!

I did find this quotation that makes it look like consolidated parishes are functional municipalities. "The City of Lafayette's status within Lafayette Consolidated Government as stated within the charter is a legal entity with "urban service districts" and "...shall exercise all powers granted by general state law and the state constitution for municipalities..." and "[the 5 other municipalities] did not want to be integrated into the parish government when the vote was taken. They each continue to elect their own mayor and own council.". So it looks like this "municipality" governs the entire parish minus those 5 incorporated places which continue their independent municipal corporations. [2]

According to legislation, the term "municipality" is defined to include "any incorporated city, town, or village." Meanwhile, the Louisiana Municipal Association (LMA) states "The LMA is a statewide member organization that advocates for all 303 municipalities and 2 parishes". The 305 members can be viewed in the municipal directory by simply clicking "Find" without filling out the form. So the article says 304 municipalities and the LMA says 303. Meanwhile, the LMA says 2 parishes and your research above indicates 4 consolidated governments. Could you audit the LMA municipal directory with the list in the article to determine which one entry in the list article might not be a municipality and which two consolidated governments aren't LMA members? Hwy43 (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes my list is based on the 304 that were present at the time of the 2010 census, but I will begin auditing to find the discrepancy. The link you sent also lists the incorporation date, which I'm tempted to add as another column. This may take a while, so I can send you a ping when I'm done. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does it also every refer to cities, towns and villages collectively as "urban municipalities"? If so, consider renaming the section heading from "~~Incorporated c~~Cities, towns and villages" to "Urban municipalities" or simply "Municipalities".

I have not seen the term "urban municipalities in any reference so I chose the latter of your suggestions and just called it "municipalities"

That is all for now. Great list per usual. Look forward to hearing back. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! I have made all the changes except for those related to the consolidated government as I'm wondering what your opinion of those will be. I have also applied your suggestions to the other 4 American lists I've brought up to Featured List: List of cities and towns in Montana, List of municipalities in Maryland, List of municipalities in Mississippi, List of cities and towns in Alabama. So your review is going a long way. Mattximus (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. A couple of replies for now. I'll look at the others later. Hwy43 (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus, thank you for addressing my minor observations thus far. My responses to your responses is complete. I don't anticipate going any further and look forward to your replies. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hwy43, thank you for your thorough review:

I have taken your advice and added all 4 consolidated governments to the list, as well as incorporation dates. The first two were easy, both New Orleans and Terrebonne Parish had census data that was coterminous with their parishes. However, both Lafayette and Baton Rouge appear to govern the city and the unincorporated territory of their parish. To calculate these numbers I took the Parish population and area and subtracted the municipal units that are not government by the Consolidated Governments. Would this be considered original research, I've added notes to these which I hope are thorough?
I've also found the discrepancy in the municipal directory you suggest I audit. It appears Jefferson Parish is on the list [3] and I have no idea why. It does not appear to be a municipality at all...

Please let me know if my approach was acceptable. Other than that, I believe I've answered all your comments. Thanks again. Mattximus (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support with pleasure. I'm satisfied. Great work! The only final things I recommend are centering the numerical contents of the final four columns just as done to the three numeric columns before them, and making sure the quantity of municipalities mentioned in the lead is correct with the recent additions to the table. Hope you don't mind my subsequent copyedits. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

"Municipalities are granted powers to perform any function required by local governments" Are no powers reserved to state level?

Changed the wording by removing "any". Does that work?

"The largest municipality by population in Louisiana in 2010 is New Orleans with 343,829 residents, and the smallest municipality by population is Mound" I do not think you need to repeat "municipality by population".

Nice catch, changed.

As there are only three notes I would not put them in three columns.

Good idea, however I'm now thinking of adding a new column for incorporation date now that a new source has been found, meaning the notes would then become necessary.

Is the overall decline in population between 2000 and 2010 worth commenting on?

I considered this (talking about the effects of Hurricane Katrina), but I thought it might be a bit beside the main point of the article, and also the 2000 data is quite out of date and I have templates created for easy transition to the new census data when it is done in a few years. A new population trend will emerge with different explanations.

Looks fine. These queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Mattximus (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm not sure if you have time, but I've made population and area changes to two consolidated governments (Lafayette and Baton Rouge) by adding the unincorporated areas of their parishes into their population total, since the municipalities also govern these lands. I've added notes detailing why, but I'm not sure if this is original research. I've also added a column on incorporation dates. I'm not sure if these changes warrant discussion/change your vote. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2017 (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.