Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Indiana state symbols/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 23:45, 6 January 2008.
I feel this list fits all featured criteria. It has every symbol of Indiana listed and nearly every one of them is refereced with 18 in all. It is currently uncontroversial and stable. With the table format it is well-constructed. I generally based it on the symbol lists of Maryland and Kentucky, also featured lists. It has relevant images, categories, links, templates, and notes. This is a self-nom and I made nearly all of the list, but I do think it can pass as featured. Reywas92Talk 02:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The info itself is good but you really need to get rid of all the white space in the tables. Format the column width to the same size used in List of Maryland state symbols. Also the lead section is very short and probably should be expanded to "summarize the scope of the list and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in sections subsequent to the lead."
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 03:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- The column width was already the same; I made the images smaller to reduce some white space. Hopefully I can address the below and lengthen the lead (you're right; I really should have done that before) tomorrow. Reywas92Talk 03:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good work.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good work.
- The column width was already the same; I made the images smaller to reduce some white space. Hopefully I can address the below and lengthen the lead (you're right; I really should have done that before) tomorrow. Reywas92Talk 03:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your specific references are not formatted correctly. You're missing publishers info and retrieved dates on most of your references.--Crzycheetah 03:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Done References changed to Template:Cite web and the lead was expanded. Reywas92Talk 19:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good list.--Crzycheetah 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done References changed to Template:Cite web and the lead was expanded. Reywas92Talk 19:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Great list with pictures and references. HoosierState 20:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Suggest a new column be added called 'Notes' and the reference notes be moved from the Year column to the new column. Why: the footnotes do not explain the year column, they explain the entire entry. Hmains (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an idea, but it clutters up the list with another column. If you think it would really be better, Year could be changed to Year/Ref. I think it is self-explanatory, though, as every listing has one. Reywas92Talk 02:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I agree that a notes/references column would be nice but looks great even without. CameronCrazie56 (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an idea, but it clutters up the list with another column. If you think it would really be better, Year could be changed to Year/Ref. I think it is self-explanatory, though, as every listing has one. Reywas92Talk 02:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.