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

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 Dabomb87 23:54, 20 June 2010 [1].

List of Governors of Utah

Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Utah/archive1

Nominator(s): Bgwhite (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list. I have used New Jersey (most recent FL), Colorado and Arizona as guides. There are two exception in which the Utah list is different from the other three. One, Utah has photos to the corresponding Governor in the list. Two, the term column for State Governors is handled differently. The term column is the same as used by the non-FL Maine listing. During Maine's FLC, user Golbez brought up for discussion on how the term column should be handled. Nobody responded to the discussion before the FLC was closed. Personally, in Utah's case, as most governors served full terms, the term column looks cleaner. However, I'd appreciate any discussion on the matter. User Designate did the heavy lifting of creating the tables... I just swooped in for the fame, glory and money. Bgwhite (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restarted, old version.
Note I have restarted this nom, as the page was getting really long, and it was not clear what the consensus was. Can all reviewers please restate their opinions and list whatever concerns they have left? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. After reviewing the previous discussion and answers to my concerns I decided to support. I, however, would remove the colors for lt. governors as they only serve to confuse. Ruslik_Zero 17:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as contributor) I've brought this up in the past, but I think the Party column should be moved to the left of the Date columns so it's clear that it applies to the governor, not the lt. governor. But I don't object to the nomination either way. —Designate (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I look at it in terms of data priority. The most important aspect is the name; next is when they were in office. Party is tertiary. Though I can see a possible confusion, but with the footnotes, the lt. governors of different parties are set apart now. --Golbez (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the condition that you split the money with me 50-50 ;) In all seriousness, I made a thorough check and could not find any issues with the list. Good work. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ A fine well-reffed list, most remaining comments seem to be a matter of taste. Nom seems to be off since late may. Concerns from Ucucha not met by other editors, strike support. Sandman888 (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I made a few grammatical changes in the lead that slipped through, but beyond that I see no issues with the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All comments addressed. Ucucha 09:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Comment: please be consistent in giving or not giving places of publication for newspapers. More importantly, the lead at this moment is poor: it covers only the state governors of Utah, not the territory governors, which are also listed. Ucucha 18:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now, as the lead does not cover the article well. Ucucha 06:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added a little, is it any better? —Designate (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's an improvement, but I don't think it's sufficient yet. The lead still doesn't mention the governors of Deseret or the territory beyond that single sentence (indeed, those of Deseret not at all). Perhaps move some of the material on the state governors to the appropriate section in the body, so there's room for some introduction to the other governors. Ucucha 05:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I moved a paragraph in the lead into the governor's section in the body. The territorial governor now has a paragraph in the lead and Deseret is now mentioned. Bgwhite (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Struck my oppose. However, my other (minor) concern remains: for example, current refs 29 and 30 are both to the Salt Lake Telegram, and one gives the place of publication and the other does not. I don't care whether or not the place is there, but please choose one way or the other. Ucucha 06:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Fixed. Removed the place of publication. Bgwhite (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You still have the place of publication for Deseret News but not the other newspapers, but I suppose that is acceptable because Deseret News is the only one that doesn't make the place of publication clear in its title. Ucucha 09:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for my elucidation, is there a reason why the governors from Blood to Rampen have no pictures? are the pictures here are not suitable? and here for Cutler? Are there copyright issues? auntieruth (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The second link says at the bottom, "Copyright © 2010 State of Utah - All rights reserved.", and their terms of use page appears to me, a very lay person when it comes to copyright, to prohibit commercial use and alterations, apart from where fair use applies. The work of state governments, unlike the work of the federal government, are not public domain by default. --Golbez (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - that makes sense. I do agree with Ucucha (above). The led does not summarize the list. Furthermore, it is much more specific than tthat in, for example, the List of Governors of Colorado. auntieruth (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - What do you mean, much more specific? --Golbez (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.