Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Maryland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 16 days, 4 support, 2 oppose. The objections were not met. Fail. Crzycheetah 04:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
| Current Opinion | User |
|---|---|
| Support | Golbez |
| Support | Circeus |
| Oppose | Tompw |
| Oppose | Crzycheetah |
| Support | Southern Texas |
| Support | LaraLove |
Re-nominating. This list recently missed FLC due to concerns about existing redlinks that were expressed at the last minute, which have since been dealt with. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Maryland/Archive1 for previous discussion. Geraldk 17:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
supportThe presence of redlinks is not a good reason to fail. That there is a significant majority of them would be (the topic has been discussed in the heydays of FLs), which was clearly not the case.Circeus 17:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You won't find me disagreeing. Geraldk 18:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport (...put on hold)Another good list of governors. I think that a legend has to be added, something like what is in the right corner of List of Governors of Alabama. Plus, the Term column needs to be split up to Took Office and Left Office columns to be consistent with other featured lists (i.e. Delaware and the United States).--Crzycheetah 18:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and done. Geraldk 19:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Good job!--Crzycheetah 19:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Something is missing here! Where are the Lieutenant Governors? I understand there isn't many of them, but they still have to be here.--Crzycheetah 23:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I left them out because there are so few. It didn't make sense to me to put them in the table, like in Alabama, because there have been only 8 and I didn't want the long, empty column. And it didn't seem to make sense to me to have them as a separate table, since they are listed in the Lieutenant Governor article and, well, this is a list of Governors. But I can add them if you think it's essential. Geraldk 00:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, I understand that, but it still needs to be listed somehow. Hopefuly someone else may find a way to incorporate those eight into this list. I really believe it is essential to know who the right-hand man of the Governor was during his/her reign.--Crzycheetah 00:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good point, though reign might be a little overstating their power. I could add them as a section to the List of Governor's, and link from the LG article over. Geraldk 01:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that this list still doesn't contain the Lieutenant Governors; therefore, I oppose, not comprehensive enough.--Crzycheetah 04:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good point, though reign might be a little overstating their power. I could add them as a section to the List of Governor's, and link from the LG article over. Geraldk 01:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Something is missing here! Where are the Lieutenant Governors? I understand there isn't many of them, but they still have to be here.--Crzycheetah 23:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Good job!--Crzycheetah 19:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and done. Geraldk 19:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support(Aside: I think I was being overzealous with opposeing over the redlinks last time). Tompw (talk) (review) 19:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]- 'Oppose - lack of refs for "higher offices" section. 22:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- NGA reference added. --Golbez 04:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Oppose - lack of refs for "higher offices" section. 22:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
oppose over new nitpicks- The table captions repeat the headers. You can move the references at the level of those "inside-table" headers or put them as general references.
- The table headers no longer cover the last column
- Circeus 17:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the kind of nitpicking I like. Fixed both. --Golbez 20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Circeus 20:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the kind of nitpicking I like. Fixed both. --Golbez 20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Golbez 04:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Now that I take a better look at it, I think I have to
oppose.The pictures, at least near the beginning of the list, are way too sparse to be of use. For example, instead of shoving a couple of tiny pictures of Lord Calvert in there, it would be much better to take that out of the table and move it to the side with a caption. The lower portions have a nearly full complement of pictures, but the upper portions just look unprofessional as they are now. --Golbez 23:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]- So you're saying pull the pictures in the colonial governor's list out and put them along the side? Geraldk 16:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all of them, just the major ones like Charles Calvert, 3rd Baron; Edmund Andros; Francis Nicholson; etc. We obviously don't have enough pictures to populate the table, to populate the space next to it. And no, you don't have to move *all* of them, just enough to fill up the space and make it look nice. I might be alone on this, but I think it would make things better than having 2/3 of the table empty of pictures. If we had one or two missing it would probably be okay, but the way it is now makes it look - even if it's not the case - like the table is incomplete. --Golbez 18:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying pull the pictures in the colonial governor's list out and put them along the side? Geraldk 16:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I take a better look at it, I think I have to
- Having taken a stab at it, I don't think I mind which style is used; I just wish the colonial table looked better, but if that's the best we can get it, then I suppose my objection isn't actionable... Back to support. --Golbez 22:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Informative, Extensive and well done--Southern Texas 03:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThe {{Party shading/Democratic}}, {{Party shading/Republican}}, and {{Party shading/Democratic-Republican}} templates used produce a nearly indistinguishable gray shading [1] If seen without color the differentiation is lost. I cross-posted this concern to Template talk:Party shading key. --maclean 07:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I changed the shading of the {{Party shading/Democratic}} slightly so you can tell them apart now (slightly). Isn't it helpful when people address their own concerns. --maclean 04:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your "Notes and references" section is just "Notes" and should be moved down to just above the References. The [a] and [b] superscripts don't work and both the superscript and the footnote should use the same label (number, letter). Typically, inline citations use the <ref> system and notes use the old ref/note system. Colin°Talk 12:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. I would dearly love to use the ref system for both if it allowed having two separate lists for references and footnotes, but that's not possible at present. --Golbez 04:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I do, however, agree with Golbez regarding the colonial images. Particularly considering some of the images are repeated. I think it would improve the appearance the table and the article as a whole. Lara♥Love 15:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]