Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of California/archive2
List of Governors of California edit
- 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: 11 days, 0 support, 2 oppose. Fail. --Crzycheetah 19:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
| Current Opinion | User |
|---|---|
| Oppose | Tompw |
| Oppose | Geraldk |
Along the same lines as the Kentucky and Alabama lists nominated below, I think I've done pretty much all I can with this one, and - bonus - every entry has a picture!--Golbez 23:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was waiting for this nomination yesterday. Anyway, I made some minor changes, getting rid of that white space. I still have minor concerns:
- The green color for the progressive party remains unexplained.
I hate that there is a sentence in the lead that starts with a numerical symbol. (38 people...)- What is the purpose of the Notes column if you have notes listed in the lieutenant column?--Crzycheetah 05:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the color, I don't know, that's just what the party shading template folks came up with. :P As for the number, I agree, I'll fix that. And as for the notes, those notes are specific to the lieutenant governor. The notes column is specific to the governors. This is a list of governors, not lieutenant governors, so I only wanted to give the barest amount of information to people wondering why a lieutenant governor's term ended or what not. Perhaps I should remove it, and move all that to the list of Lt Govs. --Golbez 05:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The lieutenant governors have to stay in here.
I think you should scrap the Notes column and move all of those citations to the Governors column. The reason I think so is that the Notes column will always be mostly empty, it's not like you have note for every governor.--Crzycheetah 17:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Just as a thought, but we have three extremely similar Lists of Governors on FLC right now, with three drastically different vote totals. It's getting difficult to keep up when ideals change within the space of days. As for Notes, I wanted them to be easily found, rather than scattered all over a table. It's mostly empty, but it was a lot worse before I moved everything to footnotes. =p I know the Lt Govs have to stay there; I meant move the notes to the List of Lt Govs, not the whole column. --Golbez 22:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Forget about what I said. The lead section is more of a concern for me now. I don't like that one sentence paragraph in the beginning, it just looks stubby and unprofessional. Kentucky and Maryland are fine, but Alabama and California have that problem. Oh and Delaware, an FL, has that, too. Apparently, they are not as identical as you thought they were. --Crzycheetah 08:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't mention Delaware. And I was referring to getting supports and opposes on the same things. For example, Geraldk supported Alabama but opposed California on the higher offices table - which he didn't mention in Alabama. That was what was really frustrating me - how can he have the same vote for both? How can I fix this without fixing the other, which is apparently acceptable there so why not here? However, mentioning something like the intro is different, since I agree that the intro is different and probably lacking. --Golbez 09:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Forget about what I said. The lead section is more of a concern for me now. I don't like that one sentence paragraph in the beginning, it just looks stubby and unprofessional. Kentucky and Maryland are fine, but Alabama and California have that problem. Oh and Delaware, an FL, has that, too. Apparently, they are not as identical as you thought they were. --Crzycheetah 08:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a thought, but we have three extremely similar Lists of Governors on FLC right now, with three drastically different vote totals. It's getting difficult to keep up when ideals change within the space of days. As for Notes, I wanted them to be easily found, rather than scattered all over a table. It's mostly empty, but it was a lot worse before I moved everything to footnotes. =p I know the Lt Govs have to stay there; I meant move the notes to the List of Lt Govs, not the whole column. --Golbez 22:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The lieutenant governors have to stay in here.
- As for the color, I don't know, that's just what the party shading template folks came up with. :P As for the number, I agree, I'll fix that. And as for the notes, those notes are specific to the lieutenant governor. The notes column is specific to the governors. This is a list of governors, not lieutenant governors, so I only wanted to give the barest amount of information to people wondering why a lieutenant governor's term ended or what not. Perhaps I should remove it, and move all that to the list of Lt Govs. --Golbez 05:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Lack of references... should be a general one for the governors themselves, as well as specific oens for the "higher offices" section. (A brief explantion of what counts as "higher" would be a welcome addition). Tompw (talk) (review) 16:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There were two general references listed in the external links section, I moved them to the references section. All of the info in the higher offices section I believe came from the National Governors Association website. If you click on each governors name in that NGA website, it lists the higher office held by that person.--Crzycheetah 17:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All came from our individual articles on the governors, some of those may have come from the NGA though. I do know the NGA mentions this stuff. --Golbez 18:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - It matters less where the information came form than that a reader be able to tell where the information is. 'Higher offices' needs a note specifically mentioning that the information came from the NGA site listed in the references section. Geraldk 13:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as I hate to steal votes from my other nominations, you didn't have the same objection to the Alabama list. (people, the two lists are identical except for the matter of picture placement; it is extremely frustrating that not only do the Alabama, Kentucky, and California lists have such different vote totals, but that they are so drastically different.) Furthermore, I gathered the information from our articles on the subjects, each of which has their own citations, and not directly from the NGA, though the NGA has the same information. --Golbez 17:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - It matters less where the information came form than that a reader be able to tell where the information is. 'Higher offices' needs a note specifically mentioning that the information came from the NGA site listed in the references section. Geraldk 13:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All came from our individual articles on the governors, some of those may have come from the NGA though. I do know the NGA mentions this stuff. --Golbez 18:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There were two general references listed in the external links section, I moved them to the references section. All of the info in the higher offices section I believe came from the National Governors Association website. If you click on each governors name in that NGA website, it lists the higher office held by that person.--Crzycheetah 17:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've improved the intro. --Golbez 19:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]