Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Alberta general elections/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by The Rambling Man 17:35, 9 May 2011 [1].

List of Alberta general elections

edit
Notified: Tompw, WikiProject Canada

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it lacks citations and the table is not quite as informative as one might expect from a FL. Nergaal (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  1. Maintenance tag, bad start.
  2. Election graph uses only colour to convey information, contravening WP:ACCESS.
  3. Bad start "This article provides a summary..." we don't do that any more.
  4. Table is in the wrong chronological order, could be sortable, doesn't incorporate row or col scopes, per WP:ACCESS.

Currently it's a delist for me, but hopefully fixes can be made. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is descending order the wrong order? It should be consistent with the other provinces. 117Avenue (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should be in chronological order, no matter what "other provinces" have. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The graph is simply the main table presented in an alternate format, so I don't see a WP:ACCESS issue there. The main table, properly formated, removes all such concerns. That said, there is a lack of referencing for the body, and the body itself could be expanded significantly. I'm inclined to agree with a delist at this point. Resolute 18:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, tables and images have their own requirements for accessibility whether you see an issue or not. There's no alt text and only colour is used to convey the information in the image. The table is in the wrong order, and lacks row/col scopes per accessibility. It also appears to use a very narrow coloured bar to indicate the "winning party" with "bold" text, but we know we ought not to use bold in this way as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I changed your bullets to numebered for ease of reference).... (1) I agree the maintaince tag is bad - but what material isn't referenced? Feel free to add {{fact}} tags liberally. (2) The graph contains numbers on the chart, so it is simlpy not true to say it "uses only colour to convey information". I agree that alt text should be provided - any thoughts on what exactly? I agree about scope text. (3) Agreed. (4) Why is descending order the wrong order? To me, it pus the most recent (and useful) information at the top. However, if there's a MoS point I've missed, please point it out. I shall work on fixing the issues you've identified. Tompw (talk) (review) 20:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chronological order isn't necessarily prescribed but it's recommended, and I haven't seen a list go by FLC for probably two years which is presented in "reverse" chronological order. Alt text advice could be sought from FLC's good ACCESS friend User:RexxS. I thought the purpose of the chart was to indicate how many seats were won by which party. Sure, a number will add information, but how does that relate to who won the seats? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for the maintenance tag, I can't see where the 2008 results are referenced, but I didn't place the tag there so it could be more than that. I also can't be clear where the footnotes are referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments - delist still not good enough for me.

  • No need for bold linked Alberta in the lead, just linked is fine.
  • The colours in the graph don't match the colours in the table for each party which is confusing.
  • Table is still in the wrong chronological order (you don't have the graph in reverse chronological order, after all....)
  • Other Parties->Other parties.
  • "The winning party's total is shown in bold" I can't see this anywhere, and bold shouldn't be used alone to convey information.
  • I still don't see row or col scopes added for screen readers (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial for help here)
  • Notes A and B need referencing.
  • No mixed date formats in the references please.
  • Second general reference needs an en-dash for the year range.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notes can be verified with the external links, just like the data. 117Avenue (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources#General reference for why this is undesirable. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You guys keep saying that it is thin on the references, do you what it repeatedly tagged with the same reference? 117Avenue (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My personal advice is to deal with my comments and then we'll see about specific referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does it look now? 117Avenue (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still in the wrong order. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am still a bit upset, that the other provinces haven't been targeted, they have all the same problems, maintenance tags, "wrong" order, coloured bars in the table, using general references, graph colours not matching. 117Avenue (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well chance's are that they will be nominated here in due course if they all suffer the same issues. It's nothing personal. Please make the list chronological. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I was catching up on my watchlist, I didn't think you would respond so fast. 117Avenue (talk)


Comment very much improved. There's still Nergaal's issue about light referencing, and I'd prefer to see the years unbolded, along with the Coalition relinked on every line (to the appropriate page of course) as the table is sortable, but these, in my mind, are relatively minor. Good work to 117Avenue and Tompw. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been referenced, unless you have a specific example? 117Avenue (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • I've added fact tags where there is a blatant need for a ref. Still, the intro needs some more expansion. THe table should also have a total seats column. Nergaal (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the Lieutenant Governor call the election? Yes, I have provided a reference saying so.
  • Does an election typically get called in the fourth or fifth year? Yes, take a look at the spacing of the elections, which are verified by the Elections Alberta reference.
  • Did the first election elect 25 seats? Yes, 22 Liberal, 3 Conservative, verified by the Elections Alberta reference.
  • Was the first election in 1905? Yes, as verified by the Elections Alberta reference.
  • Did the last election elect 83 seats? Yes, 72 PC, 9 Liberal, 2 NDP, verified by the Elections Alberta reference.
  • Did the number of seats increase over time? Yes, 83 is more than 25, and a graphical summary of all elections shows an upward trend.
  • Has the province been ruled by four "dynasties"? Yes, Liberal (1905–1921), United Farmers (1921–1935), Social Credit (1935–1971), and Progressive Conservative (1971 to present), were the winners according to the winners column, which can be verified by the big numbers in the referenced data, and the graphical summary, with no party winning an election after losing their "dynasty".
  • Has no minority government ever been elected? Correct, the winning party has always been elected to more than half of the seats, as verified by the referenced data, and the graphical summary. The winning numbers were bolded, but it was suggested here to keep them unbolded.
  • Can it be said that Alberta has continuously had a dominant-party system for its entire political history? Yes, see previous bullet.
  • Can it be said that the dominant party has changed over time? Yes, see dynasties bullet.
Did I miss any? 117Avenue (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then why isn't the text referenced accordingly if the refs exist? Nergaal (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The intro shouldn't have a lot of references, per WP:LEADCITE, it would just be repeating the same citation. The intro is a summary of the following article. 117Avenue (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The referencing issues seem to have been cleared up. I just have a few comments:
  • The final paragraph of the lead is a bit redundant as it just reads out the key.
  • Could you put refs 4 and 5 in the table header?
  • Are there any voter turnout stats?

Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How should the graph be addressed in the prose, or does it need to be mentioned at all? The Rambling Man suggested that the references be spread through out the article. I could only see turnout back to 1979, are you suggesting another column? 117Avenue (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think the graph needs to be mentioned in prose at all. I can't see TRM's comment about spreading refs, and I think that placing them in the header would make it easier to read. Yes, I was suggesting another column for turnout - it is quite a major factor in elections. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am misinterpreting the 31 March comments. 117Avenue (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think so...I still don't see it. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is it? I had some difficulty getting the new column to sort correctly. 117Avenue (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It sorts fine for me. Is that all the turnout data available? Surely there is more? Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find it through Elections Alberta, and by the looks of Election by the Numbers it may not be possible. 117Avenue (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but there may be a book somewhere which has such information. Maybe ask at WP:ALBERTA. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - update required from contributors please. Otherwise, as it stands this will be closed as keep in the next couple of days. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2011 (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_removal_candidates/List_of_Alberta_general_elections/archive1&oldid=428413145"