Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of presidents of the United States/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC) [1].

---

List of presidents of the United States

List of presidents of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of presidents of the United States/archive1

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The list of the lists! With an annual readership of about 6.67 million, it is the most viewed list on Wikipedia and one of the most viewed page on the entire encyclopedia. A highly important list, this was a FL from 2005 to 2008, until it was delisted. This is a humble attempt by me to take this list back to the featured status.

A few fundamentals first. The structure of the list received a consensus in a recent RfC with the view of not to duplicate cells when using the sorting feature. The images for individual presidents have been decided to be same as those in the info-boxes of their respective pages (in a RfC). Exceptions to this include Barack Obama and a few others; in those cases, talk page discussion had consensus to use the other images. As for the lead image, we had a RfC without any consensus for a particular image, but the overall consensus was for image of some kind (See RfC). Any suggestions about that are also welcome.

I, along with the help of few other editors, to whom I am grateful, worked on the sources of the list and added citations for everything. The prose and "Notes" have also been re-worked till some extent. All constructive feedback is more than welcome!!! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Thank you for all of this KS! Due to this list's prominent status on WP, I may be a little extra picky, just so we can get it right. Aza24 (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Formatting

• Source formatting is generally excellent
  • Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• You could consider adding more author links, as I suspect some of the ANB biographers have WP articles
  • I don't usually add author links, and have removed the sole author link from the sources. They appear consistent now, is it fine? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Merely a suggestion! Consistency is the goal here so your choice is fine by me. Aza24 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• You could also consider archiving the urls
  • I tried using the "Fix dead links" from the history page, but it is not archiving the references. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    • No worries, I tried doing so and didn't work for me either. Aza24 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Reliability

• If alternative sources are available, I would strongly suggest switching out the rather old sources Goldman 1951, Fairman 1949, Seasongood 1932 and perhaps Willis & Willis 1952 (each of which have a single ref use I believe). AP (1932) is on the older side as well.
  • Done mostly all except one. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Surely there is a more recent Coolidge biography that could be used instead of Fuess? Not a huge deal since the only thing being sourced is a single date, but thought I'd throw it out there.
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Verifiability

• Is a page range really needed for the Fuess (1940) ref? Surely the date August 3, 1923 is not said over five pages? Aza24 (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Changes Ref. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Aza24, I responded to the points above. Thanks for the source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I fixed up a few smaller things myself and added an oclc to the book too old to have an ISBN. Sourcing looks great, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Golbez

• I have accessibility concerns with the split cells. I do not have a screenreader so I don't know how they're handled but semantically I don't think they fly. For example, the Election column for George Washington contains two discrete entries separated by a visual element. This was done because consensus was that, if we had sorting, we couldn't allow the sorting to split up rowspanned cells (... It's hard to explain unless you've seen it, I can find a diff if anyone's interested), so they got rid of the rowspans. But the replacement, a visual (i.e. not structural like a table cell) divider, I don't know how that will be handled by screenreaders. This type of splitting is also used in the Party and Vice President column.
  • That said, I personally disagree with many of the decisions made here but I won't be petty and oppose solely on that. The accessibility issue, however, needs to be addressed. --Golbez (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    • The basic idea behind this table format was to avoid duplication of cells when using the sortability feature. We had to get rid of multiple column cells within a row of a single president to avoid unnecessary duplication. An image of the issue could be seen here. The current table format was proposed and had consensus. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
      • I understand that. Consensus does not trump accessibility, however. --Golbez (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
        • I strongly agree with you. But it appears that, per FL criteria and MOS:DTAB, that the list meets general accessibility requirements of table caption, scope of headers, and the general table layout. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Also pinging @PresN if they can tell us if the current table format is an issue for the screen readers. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
      • I actually don't know how screen readers handle the "four-dash" lines; I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#Question about how screen readers handle List of presidents of the United States. The list seems fine from an accessibility perspective otherwise. --PresN 18:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
        • They'd read them as either "separator", something like "four dashes", or maybe nothing at all ... all of which are fine by me. Graham87 03:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
          • Thanks a lot, Graham, much appreciated! @Golbez, it seems that those four dashes are not causing any accessibility issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from GoodDay

• Were the changes made to the page-in-question, also made to the List of vice presidents of the United States page? GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  That is simply irrelevant to the matter at hand. If you have concerns about the List of vice presidents of the United States, bring them up there, not here. Aza24 (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Was not the last RFC meant to cover both pages? GoodDay (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  I have no idea, and either way it is still irrelevant to the FL candidacy of List of presidents of the United States, which is judged on its own merits. I have no idea where you're going with this. Aza24 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Aza24. Feel free to let me know if you have any specific constructive concerns about this list. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  @GoodDay: FLC is solely the process for promoting (or not) individual lists to featured status after review; it is not a mechanism for enforcing RFC, Wikiproject, or content discussion standards (beyond how they shape reviewer opinions), and is especially not for shaping the content of pages beyond the nominee. In my opinion, yes, the VP list should use a similar structure to this list for accessibility (and general presentation) reasons, but that's a discussion for that list and has no bearing on this FLC. Nominators are under no obligation to edit other, un-nominated lists, even if it makes sense from a consistency point of view. --PresN 18:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  One page at a time. I see. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• Is there an image that could go in the lead? It looks a bit bare without one......
  • I agree. As I specified in this nomination statement, the overall consensus in the RfC on lead image was that we need image of some kind, but couldn't agree on which one. I think which image needs to go in the lead can be discuss independent of FLC. (See RfC) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• "45 people have served" - may as well say 45 men
  • Sure, but I wish this to be changed to "people" again soon! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Notes e and t are not complete sentences so do need a full stop
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot, Chris. All addressed except the first! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I suppose the lead image isn't that big a deal. And well done for picking up on what I actually meant with my last point considering that I inadvertently typed the exact opposite of what I meant! :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks! And yeah, coincidentally, even I misread it is "do not need a full stop"!! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Pseud 14

A well-written and informative lead for an article that is rather prominent.

• Very minor comment, perhaps we can link "Four presidents died in office of natural cause", since this refers to heads of government or people in position.

That's all from from! Fantastic work.--Pseud 14 (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Pseud 14, done. Thanks for the comment. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support --Pseud 14 (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Goldsztajn

• "The president of the United States is the head of state and head of government of the United States" ... Is United States necessary twice? Could this be: "The president is the head of state and head of government of the United States"?
  • I think we should be mentioning the full title of the office, at-least in the first sentence. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Then what about "The president of the United States is the head of state and head of government, indirectly elected to a four-year term via the Electoral College."? As the very first sentence of the article, it's somewhat clunky reading having United States twice (not to mention United States in the title appearing directly above that ... it's not as if anyone will be mistaken that we're talking about a different country). Goldsztajn (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
      • What if, in the current version, I replace the second United States with US? Would it be better? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

        For me, that wouldn't be an improvement. It's not an issue which changes my support ... happy to leave it. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• "...giving rise to the discrepancy between the number of presidents and the number of persons who have served as president." ... I think this would be less ambiguous if written as "giving rise to the discrepancy between the number of presidencies..."
  • Your suggestion appears better, fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Goldsztajn! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Welcome! Support and regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Aza24

Some brief comments:

• Wouldn't the death/resignation notes make more sense next to the date their term ended rather than their name? Seems out of place currently
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• You might consider linking "unaffiliated" in Washington's row to Independent politician, but up to you
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• You might also use the abbreviation template for the 'b.' for living presidents, e.g. {{Abbr|B.|born in}}
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• I don't really understand the relevance of "The most recent to die was George H. W. Bush, on November 30, 2018"—is this going to be updated everytime a president dies? Seems like a huge waste of time and rather pointless. Was there a discussion that put it there? Aza24 (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Technically, since the lifespans are in the article, it already has to be updated every time a president dies. So if that's a problem then we should remove the lifespans. --Golbez (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

    That's not really the main point of my comment. I don't see how it is relevant for someone reading the "List of presidents of the United States" to know which one died most recently. That is the very epitome of unneeded trivia, and is not meaningful in any way. Aza24 (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

    • I agree; however, removing that sentence doesn't change the amount of time wasted updating death dates every time a president dies. I find the lifespans equally pointless. --Golbez (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

      • Keeping my personal opinion aside, as the nominator of this list, I must abide by the consensus. The consensus here is that, that particular sentence should be in the list. See this talk page discussion. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• One more: though they are all redirects, my initial instinct is that it would be good to link to Resignation of John C. Calhoun, Resignation of Spiro Agnew and Resignation of Richard Nixon in their respective notes, as it points to context that a reader might very well out upon seeing the note. Aza24 (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Aza24, for the comments! And sorry it took a while to address them, have recently been busy IRL. I hope you are feeling more encouraged and would continue on Wiki! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks! The list looks great, so I would definitely support its promotion. Aza24 (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 20:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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