Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Prime Ministers of Luxembourg
Appearance
Self-nominated. It's useful, bringing together information on a key subject that wouldn't otherwise be addressed by Wikipedia. It's entirely comprehensive, including details of each of the Prime Ministers' cabinets. It contains notes on key events, elections, titles, reasons for leaving office, length of tenure, etc, further expanding the utility of the list by putting it into context. It's fully referenced (although, unfortunately, they all come from the same reference). It has a proper explanation of the details of office for those not familar with the job. Bastin 13:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose for now:I wanted to check the references but the link doesn't work for me. If it doesn't contain the information listed in the notes (I was suspicious it might be a simpler timeline) or in the information at the top of the list, then those references should be given as well. It's nice to have a dual web/paper reference, but it should be properly cited as both a paper reference and a web one (so including date of last URL access for instance). That would also mean stating which language the reference is in. Since I can't seem to check the reference for the moment, I will take your word for it if you claim that every fact given in the article and list is contained in the reference. An explanation of the repeating start and end dates would be good too. Overall I am very impressed by this list - it will almost certainly be promoted once a couple of minor things get dealt with. Good use of the easy timeline tool too! TheGrappler 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words! You make a good point about the explanation of the smaller dates; I've added a paragraph at the top, which I hope explains it properly. I've also expanded the data on the reference so that it conforms to both web and paper standards, and given in-line citations for the introductory paragraphs.
- The reference is not a simple timeline (it's 238 pages), and it does contain all the information in the list. Almost all of the notes are mentioned explicitly by the text; a few (such as 'longest premiership', 'shortest cabinet', etc) were not, but are self-evident if the other data are accepted. It's a pity that you couldn't access the file; if you still have problems, there are a few details (in French) of the book here. Meanwhile, I've added a related web reference that unambiguously gives many of the data (the dates and membership of the cabinets), but skimps on the niceties. Besides potential problems with accessing the main reference, at 238 pages and 2MB, it's not the nicest link to offer. Bastin 13:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I like the sound of the reference not being a simple time line. In the case of the references being spread around as they are, I think it's unsuitable (well, in a "featured" piece of content at any rate!) just to refer to the book as a whole. Keep going with the footnoting, and extend it to cover the stuff in the "notes" section of the table where it is non-trivial (like "shortest" or "longest"). Do that and you'll get a strong support from me (although pictures would be nice too!) TheGrappler 11:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've added footnotes for most of the notes. Now, all PMs have at least one citation from the Thewes book/PDF; thus, the other data can be called up relatively easily, as the correct chapter is already cited once already. I think that it ought to be enough now, but, if you have any other areas that ought to be cited, I'm fine with adding more. I've addressed the pictures request below. Bastin 22:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Great improvement, great list. Strong support TheGrappler 22:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've added footnotes for most of the notes. Now, all PMs have at least one citation from the Thewes book/PDF; thus, the other data can be called up relatively easily, as the correct chapter is already cited once already. I think that it ought to be enough now, but, if you have any other areas that ought to be cited, I'm fine with adding more. I've addressed the pictures request below. Bastin 22:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I like the sound of the reference not being a simple time line. In the case of the references being spread around as they are, I think it's unsuitable (well, in a "featured" piece of content at any rate!) just to refer to the book as a whole. Keep going with the footnoting, and extend it to cover the stuff in the "notes" section of the table where it is non-trivial (like "shortest" or "longest"). Do that and you'll get a strong support from me (although pictures would be nice too!) TheGrappler 11:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. COuld you add pictures of Prime Ministers (see for example List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom). CG 17:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- It would be very difficult to add pictures for two reasons:
- The way that I've organised the page, sub-dividing premierships into separate governments and cabinets, makes the format very rigid. Unlike the UK PM list, the 'Notes' column's entries can't go over one line, as that would move the notes out of line with the dates of the cabinets. Since adding a picture of any reasonable size (75px+) would severly limit the space for the 'Notes' column, thus forcing one to remove some of the notes for the later PMs.
- Some pictures would not be easy to get hold of. I have yet to see any comprehensive gallery of pictures (including Thewes, which includes only sketches for a few of the PMs), and introducing a style for the latter PMs, when it could not easily be extended for all of them, is perhaps not advisable.
- Of course, neither problem applies to the PMs' biography pages. In due course, pictures will be added to their infoboxes, and the educational benefit of adding pictures will be realised. Furthermore, I could add a few good pictures that can be found to liven up the page. Bastin 22:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Very nice list. I also would like to see those pictures up, eventually, so keep it in a To-do list somewhere :-) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, this should have had four supports before it was promoted, but it is excellent. My only caveats are that the timelines are a bit wide for some screens. More seriously, the lining up of the date, coalition members notes are not ideal - some sort of rowspan for the first three columns seems to be called for. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)