Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Alabama/archive1

List of Governors of Alabama

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: 15 days, 3 support, 2 oppose. Fail. --Crzycheetah 17:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10 Days Ends July 24
Current Opinion	User
Support	Rebecca
Oppose	Tompw
Neutral	Aleta
Support	Geraldk

Working off the 'template' User:Acdixon and I developed for the Kentucky list (FLC nom below), I've brought this article up to what I think is featured status. --Golbez 13:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A lot of work has gone into this, and it shows - I doubt one could do a better job of it. Rebecca 13:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's no references section, and there are no images to illustrate the list. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've referenced some specific statements that needed referencing and created a references section. As for pictures, personally, I find images in lists like this bloat the list, (and make it awkward when older pictures don't exist) but I'll see what I can do. --Golbez 18:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I put in the pictures we have, I'm going to email the state about the ones on their website, but there's still going to be a lot of garish gaps in here. I'd prefer not to include pictures if there's going to be any gaps at all. I'm going to remove the version with the pictures, as I think the one without is more up to featured quality, but you can check the old version here. --Golbez 19:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - oooooooor I could work smarter, not harder; I was inspired by List of Governors of Florida and will merely pepper the article with notable governors! --Golbez 19:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean to suggest there should be an image for every govenor, merely some images (notable governors is a good plan). The list still needs refs for the "Higher offices held" section. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That information is derived from the individual articles, I'm going to be unhappy if you make me source each one. :P --Golbez 20:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given those articles (hopefully) contain refs to back up the information, provviding refs should just be a copy-and-paste job. Tompw (talk) (review) 11:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where are the Lieutenant Governors?--Crzy cheetah 19:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I think the Kentucky list spoiled you. --Golbez 19:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. --Golbez 20:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You bet it did. Thanks, it was interesting to see that some of them were from different political parties than the Governors. --Crzy cheetah 21:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is there a specific reason why you don't use the {{Party shading/Independent}} template?--Crzy cheetah 21:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ignorance of its existence. --Golbez 04:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I disagree with tompw. Every governor that can be illustrated should be, per our various existing state leaders lists. Actually, I think I'll nominate a few for removal for that reason... Circeus 17:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes the table ugly, and aesthetics do matter. I prefer to have a few images peppering if a full list isn't possible, like it is with the list of presidents of the US. --Golbez 20:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See List of Quebec premiers or List of French monarchs. They look just fine to me. I fail to see how properly illustrating this list would suddenly make it unable to become featured. Circeus 02:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps you should pick ones with more than 2 images missing for comparison; as you can tell, around half of the governors in this list lack images on wikipedia at the moment. But since I've fulfilled your requirement, let me know what you think. Certainly this doesn't "properly illustrate the list". --Golbez 02:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll pull out of the discussion for now. I want to concentrate on some other stuff, and Featured content candidacies are proving more distracting than I thought. Circeus 20:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Every govenor should have at least one citation listed. Sorry if that makes you unhappy. It certainly should be doable. Aleta 11:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - I'm changing my opinion to Neutral. I see the point about most of it having one source, and not needing to repeat that. I don't think the list needs to have a picture for every single governor. That would just be way too unwieldy. Aleta 21:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Every governor in the main list itself? We're going to have to defeature a lot of lists if that's now a requirement. Since when is having a blanket reference, plus individual citations where needed, not sufficient? I'm not trying to belligerent, but some of these requirements seem unreasonable. --Golbez 11:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then maybe your references section can become a featured list in itself! Suppose I should also let you know that this page has been wikien-l-dotted [1]. For what it's worth ($0.00) I think it's a great list, Golbez. Good luck. —CharlotteWebb 11:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree with Aleta. Providing the references clearly verify all information within the list, there is no need to "tag" every single name. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Same here. A number of existing FLs use that system. Circeus 20:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't retract my initial statement, but I admit to being unfamiliar with the standards used on other featured lists. So, you can factor that into the weight given to my ~~"vote"~~ opinion. Aleta 22:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a voting process, it's a consensus process. So there is no weight that can be given to your vote. If it's your position that every single entry on the list needs citation, despite precedent, than it will likely sink the nomination. WP:WIAFL says, "(referencing) involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations." I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to have a separate citation on every single entry to what is effectively the same source. Geraldk 22:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used "vote" in quotes because I wasn't sure what else to call it at the time, even though I know that isn't technically correct. I just changed it to say opinion. As for weighing, it, of course you can weigh some opinions as more useful/valuable than others. I gave you the reason mine may not be as informed as some others. I still think what I do, but recognize that may not represent the general concnesus on what should qualify for FL status. Aleta 07:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've seen on FAC more than once where an editor nominates an article where three sentences in a row have the same source. And each time, they're told to combine the notes so it only has one after the last of the three sentences. This is the same concept - every entry in the table has the same source, so there is a summarizing reference at the end of the table. I support after added referencing and addition of images. Geraldk 13:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lack of images--Southern Texas 03:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The {{Party shading/Democratic}}, {{Party shading/Republican}}, and {{Party shading/Democratic-Republican}} templates used produce a nearly indistinguishable gray shading [2] If printed in black and white (seen without color) the differentiation is lost. --maclean 06:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the article supplies text for the parties as well as colors (I am fully familiar with accessibility needs), I can't see how this can be used against the article. --Golbez 16:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just an area for improvement, that's why we are here, right? to make the best possible list we can? It seems the easiest way to tackle this is by changing the colors the templates are using. I raised the issue there at Template talk:Party shading key#Color blindness and moved the {{Party shading/Democratic}} over a shade. What do you think? --maclean 04:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I care not what colors it uses, as long as it's blue and whatever. Since it doesn't require an edit to the article, and since you're handling the issue better than I could, perhaps you could reevaluate your vote? --Golbez 02:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - They change should be sufficient. Isn't it helpful when people address their own concerns. --maclean 04:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fairly extensive for a list of governors. -- User:Docu