Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Dutch (in)formateurs and scouts/archive1

List of Dutch (in)formateurs and scouts

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to turn it into a Featured List in the future. I have a few specific questions:

Is the introduction good enough for anyone not familiar with the topic?
Does the default sorting method make sense, or should I do ascending on date? (I prefered the most recent at the top, as I can imagine more readers would look up the more recent ones)
Should I include the end date, given that the table is already wide (and I can be deduced from the number of days)?

But any feedback is welcome Thanks, Dajasj (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite familiar with the topic, but still think I can give some pointers. I like the default order, but I'm unaware of any specific MOS elements. Don't include the end date, as this would pose an accessibility issue if the table is too wide. Other nitpicks

The Maas book doesn't have a translated title. Might want to add for consistency. In citation 106, the "De" of de Bruijn is not capitalised. I assume we use Dutch rules for this and capitalise?
I wouldn't capitalise Prime Minister
However, some formateurs were instructed to do preliminary informing work --> I don't know what the word informing means in this context. Can it be omitted? I assume it refers to the work the informateur does, but not sure it translates to English.
For all roles, they are often members of the largest party --> The roles are often filled by members of the largest party (awkward prose).
Evaluatie kabinetsformatie 2017 is too meaty a document to not have a page number.
Until 2017 -> Before 2017
It was customary for a formateur not to accept the assignment immediately, but to consider it until the formateur believes there is certainty that the cabinet can be formed --> it was customary for a formateur to delay accepting the assignment until confident that a cabinet could indeed be formed.
Since 1989, it has been customary for the first informateur to receive an assignment to explore the possibilities for a cabinet within a short period of time. --> Since 1989, the initial informateur is tasked with quickly exploring cabinet possibilities. (or coalition possibilities)
The text doesn't mention why we need so many steps in the process. That is to say, that there is an increasing number of parties that form part of a possible coalition. I think this is important historical context.

Hope that's helpful! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I have adressed all but two of them. I will need time more time and sources to look into the word "informing" and the last point (I have not come across that yet explicitly in sources). Again, thanks for taking the time to review this list! Dajasj (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to your last point, I have searched for an explanation, but none of the sources I have read explicitly state that the number of parties or complexity are a reason for the introduction of the informateur or having so many phases. There is a source that states that fragmentation is a reason for longer formations, but the summary (the book is too niche and too expensive for me) does not mention anything about the number of phases. Dajasj (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking! The longer length of the formation itself may be worth mentioning in the lead for extra context. Two more comments:

You introduce the changing role of the formateur before you introduce the informateur and scout in the last paragraph. I understand what You're doing, but it doesn't quite work for me.
The tense in the last sentence should be "have been appointed". The sentence works better if it starts with " Since then"

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have changed both points and will look into the length of the formation asap. Dajasj (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have looked into length of the formation. It is obvious from the list that formations have become longer, but there is no source specifically saying that. I could create a graph in the future, but if I remember correctly, the templates are still down.

I could include information about what makes a formation, but that would make more sense on the page List of Dutch cabinet formations. Dajasj (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]