Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of female United States Cabinet Secretaries

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 Scorpion0422 23:14, 20 January 2009 [1].

List of female United States Cabinet Secretaries

edit

After working on this list, I believe it fulfilled the FL criteria.—Chris! ct 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I find the title a little awkward. Has there been any discussion about how this list is named? Jkelly (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I am open to any suggestions that would make the title less awkward. I am not sure how to make it less awkward.—Chris! ct 21:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very nice read. I also found the title to be a little awkward though. "First women" had me thinking that the First Ladies had held Secretaryships. Couple of things: why are the Party and Administration columns not sortable; and the prose in the Postmaster General and SECNAV rows needs fixing -- it's wrapping very strangely. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I am open to any suggestions that would fix the title and make it read better. I am not sure how to make it less awkward Also, the reason Party and Administration columns are not sortable is that the sorting function is not working and I don't know how to fix this glitch. Lastly, how do I fix the wrapping of the proses? I don't see anything wrong.—Chris! ct 06:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"List of first female U.S. Cabitnet Secretaries"?
Done—Chris! ct 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:FFCS table.JPG is a screenshot of the page, with the line breaks circled in read.
Fixed—Chris! ct 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. In that case I'll delete the image. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sortability glitch is if you're using Firefox with Twinkle or WikEd.. The linking for the other three columns works right; there's no reason Party and Administration shouldn't either. No big deal though.
Done—Chris! ct 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think List of first female United States Cabinet Secretaries is a lot more clear. Jkelly (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done—Chris! ct 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by User:Reywas92
  • Question: This is a very nice list, but why can't we have a list of all women who have been secretaries? I would find that more informational, useful, and inclusive than just the firsts, and there aren't that many more to add. And if it's only the firsts then Condoleezza Rice shouldn't have an image here.
    • I did thought about that but didn't do so because it is hard to show two seperate info: first secretaries and all secretaries in a single article. I would add other female secretaries if there is a nice way to illustrate that here with the first secretaries info. I know Condoleezza Rice was not the first, but her image is here because she is mentioned in the lead.—Chris! ct 19:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Take a look at this version when I have both info on the single page.—Chris! ct 19:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I significantly prefer the list with all of them. A possibility is a table of all women secretaries with asterisks indicating the firsts. Reywas92Talk 19:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, this will take some time but I think I will be able to finish it later by the end of today.—Chris! ct 20:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elizabeth Dole is no longer a Senator.
    • I really don't like much of the lead; it seems to just be listing off the firsts in prose.
      • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article content. I don't see anything wrong.—Chris! ct 19:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Four existing departments of Homeland Security, Veteran Affairs, Defense, and Treasury" is badly worded.
      • Ok, what do you suggests?—Chris! ct 19:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, You should add "The" to the beginning.Reywas92Talk 04:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent job including all female secretaries! The lead is great and less listy, and the table is very well made. Reywas92Talk 03:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

    Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

    • "The United States Cabinet has had many female appointed officers in its history." This seems a bit vague, especially for the first sentence. Can you put in the exact number?
    • "prior to"-->before.
    • "No woman had ever held"
    • "which prohibits states or the federal government" Don't you mean and "the federal government"?
    • "Since then, 24 different women had been members of the Cabinet."-->Since then, 24 women have been members of the Cabinet.
    • "Patricia Roberts Harris was"-->Patricia Roberts Harris became...
    • "newly-formed " No hyphen after -ly adverbs.
    • "was the first woman to hold a Cabinet position, "-->was the first woman to have held a Cabinet position,
    • "to serve in the Cabine"-->to have served in the Cabinet
    • "Former North Carolina senator Elizabeth Dole is the first woman to serve in two different Cabinet positions in two different administrations when she was appointed by President Ronald Reagan as Secretary of Transportation in 1983, and again by Reagan's successor George H. W. Bush as Secretary of Labor in 1989."-->Former North Carolina senator Elizabeth Dole is the first woman to have served in two different Cabinet positions during two different administrations. She was appointed by President Ronald Reagan as Secretary of Transportation in 1983, and was the Secretary of Labor during the tenure of George H. W. Bush—Reagan's successor.
    • "Madeleine Albright" You might mention her nationality?
    • "The defunct Department of Health, Education, and Welfare also has had two female Secretaries."-->The defunct Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has also had two female Secretaries.
    • "have yet to have women Secretaries"-->have not had women Secretaries. "yet to have" implies that these departments will have women secretaries.
    • Make sure to update the article when Barack Obama takes office.
    • "If confirmed, Clinton will become the first First Lady to serve in the Cabinet and the third female Secretary of State."-->If confirmed, Clinton will become the first First Lady to have served in the Cabinet and the third female Secretary of State.
    • I think that the "Secretary" column should be the second, not the third, from the left. After all, this list is about the Secretaries. Also, there is no need to highlight the whole row. Perhaps just the secretary and their postition? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All done—Chris! ct 02:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved image issue

    Images

    • File:Albrightmadeleine.jpg needs a source.
      • Contact uploader, and still wait for his/her response—Chris! ct 02:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The uploader hasn't edited in two and a half years. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Should I wait or remove the image?—Chris! ct 19:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wait a couple days, and if the problem isn't solved, remove it. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (outdent) I removed the Albright image since the uploaders didn't reply me.—Chris! ct 21:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I replaced the deleted image with a different image from Commons. I thought it looked very peculiar to highlight the second woman to be Sec'y of State, but the first. --Orlady (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source link to File:PatriciaHarris.jpg is dead.
    • Likewise for the next image (the senate.gov link redirects to the main page.
    Dabomb87 (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you made a mistake. None of the reference I used is from Asian Week. And the link for Ref 8 isn't the one you pointed out.—Chris! ct 23:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I got it. Ref 8 is dead, you are right. But the link for Ref 8 isn't the above one.—Chris! ct 23:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.—Chris! ct 23:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Sorry it is good and I enjoyed reading the lead, but currently I will oppose mainly on the first problem I raise below.

    • Because you have comments spanned across 4 rows, it makes the party and administration columns not sort.
    • For context it might be worth mentioning when all the cabinet departments were established. You do this for those where a woman has never served, but it might be useful for the rest to.
      • I can easily do it if you want, but the table is fairly crowded already.—Chris! ct 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, I am considering whether this is necessary, as it is only really relevant to departments formed after 1920's Nineteenth Amendment
    • Whilst I've seen both used going from the Obama article (an FA) I think it should be President-elect not President-Elect.
    • first to "have served in two different Cabinet positions in two different administrations", seems a bit ambiguous do you mean the first to have served in two different Cabinet positions, doing so in two different administrations. As currently it reads like she was the first person to "serve in two different Cabinet positions in two different administrations".
      • I am not sure what to do? Do you have any suggestion?—Chris! ct 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I originally thought this meant that she was the "have served in two different Cabinet positions" which was in fact Patricia Roberts Harris. I was being stupid, and this is actually fine how it is. Sorry, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might be worth adding note b to Albright in the table as well.
    • Also, just a note that this is extremely close to being an orphaned page. It has three mainspace links for "see also" sections, and one prose.
      • Is this really a problem? I can't really control how many other pages link to this page.—Chris! ct 00:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refs 13, 29 and 31 need a NYT login, which should probably be noted. Also a lot of the refs are missing publishers.

    Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Regarding your last point—which refs are missing publishers? Note that publications should be in italics, which is why they would be used in the "work" parameter of the citation template. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Work and publisher are not the same thing. For example The New York Times Company is the publisher of the work The New York Times. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, now I understand you. The publisher is really not necessary when its name is similar to the work. I've seen many Featured articles and lists not add publishers to refs. The purpose of publisher info, especially in the case of publications, is to show the reader that an established company supports/owns the publication; therefore, that source can be considered reliable. In the case of The New York Times, it is such a well-known and established publication that few (if any) people will question its reliability. It can stand alone. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Am I missing something? Refs 13, 29 and 31 do not need any login.—Chris! ct 00:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is weird they don't require one to for me now, but checklinks still says they do. However some of the other NYT ones still only give short previews and not the full articles. They are refs 2, 21, 27, 29, 32 Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • These refs still work, right. The short previews already verify the info of the articles.—Chris! ct 01:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Patricia Roberts Harris became the first female Secretary of Health and Human Services after serving as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in 1977." Probably worth noting that she was also the "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" before the department split. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_female_United_States_Cabinet_Secretaries&oldid=1143898864"