I am nominating this for featured list because I believe all issues raised by the previous FL nomination prior to my extended wikibreak were taken care of, unfortunately I went on a break thinking everything was done and it would be promoted. Another editor came with concerns while I was gone, I have addressed those that are addressable, other concerns that I found to be incorrect or impossible have not been fixed due to obvious reasons (ISBN is not possible to put for a 1880 source for example) or that I found nitpicky (location for publisher I find unneeded on sources; format of diagram I am not compromising by turning into a table).Camelbinky (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Refs 4 and 5, which were identified as, at best, being of questionable reliability, are still present. The research still looks lacking and limited to what is available online. Courcelles 23:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I find references 4 and 5 to be reliable and am willing for it to be brought to RS/N and abide by their decision. Research, even if it was limited to being only online (which it wasnt) would not be a problem for FL status from what I recall of the criteria. The claim that online sources must be backed up by something physical is a strange request, some of the books sourced to an online source like Google Books are ones I do physically own, but linking to Google books seemed a good help to users since this IS an online encyclopedia. Second- Courcelles asked in the previous FL whether I had looked at a full source or just the "50 word summaries of each page", makes me think Courcelles does not know how Google Books works, as the entire book is available on Google books and he/she seems to have been confused by the where the link drops you off at.Camelbinky (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
First, you can't prove unreliability, you have to prove reliability and you've made no attempt to do so. One would be entirely justified to oppose this on 4 and 5a grounds without considering the quality of research- the structure and visual appeal are lacking, and the entire thing is quite difficult to understand as a result of the stylistic choices. Courcelles 23:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Quick comments - the onus to prove reliability of questionable sources is on the nominator. I agree with Courcelles that (as a minimum) refs 4 and 5 need to be demonstrated to be reliable. How you achieve this is up to you, but if it's anticipated to take more than a couple of weeks, I suggest you find alternative sources which are reliable or withdraw the nomination. In other news...
Several "double period" issues in the references caused by use of the template and a period at the end of a field, e.g. ref 15.
Don't mix date formats in the references.
Should La Grange be LaGrange (like our article on it?)
"The timelines only represent which town(s) a particular town was created from and does not represent.." shouldn't that be "and do not"?
Images all seem to be individually set for different sizes. Not ideal. Use thumb and upright where applicable.
Is there an explanation of the difference between solid and dashed lines?
Why is Chester placed as it is? Its line crosses others, are they supposed to merge? It's unclear to me.