Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Maine/archive2

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 not promoted by Dabomb87 23:30, 30 December 2010 [1].

List of Governors of Maine

Nominator(s): Designate (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving this another shot, as it came pretty close last time. I updated the format to match the rest. Designate (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - File:DavidDunn.jpg doesn't exist. Afro (Talk) 08:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.

"Maine Legislature[4]," ref after the comma. Does Note 1 need some type of reference. Also I'm sure most of the notes need a full stop. Afro (Talk) 17:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree about the full stop. I'm not sure about the references (see below).

Resolved comments from Golbez (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose as it presently is; it does not conform to the higher standards of the current governor FLs. Specific concerns:

- Why did you remove the "all congressmen represented Maine except where noted", causing a huge repetition of "from Maine" in the table? I think this one would benefit from the H/S style of congressional table used in some of the other lists.
  - I'd rather just have it written out. There's going to be repetition anyway ("Republican", "Democratic"), and abbreviating some of the positions with letters and symbols just seems a little obstructive. The list is the same size whether you use abbreviations or not, since most of them only had one or two positions. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll have to agree on Golbez with this. It is a huge repetition and kind of disguises those who weren't a Representative. Having a H/S style of table would present the information better at a glance and more cleanly Bgwhite (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, I switched the format. —Designate (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This needs to be upgraded to current prose standards, which is to 1) Move the constitutional information into the Governors section, so that's not so barren, leaving the intro to be about the extremes (longest, interesting, etc.). And the other high offices section needs a prose upgrade, see the California list for examples of both.
  - I'll do that tomorrow. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The top needs an image; I can understand not having an infobox, since there's a "main" article, but it's kind of barren up there.
  - OK, I threw in the state house. I think that's an appropriate image. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We use {{stack}} instead of divs now.
  - Done. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can work on some of these later today. --Golbez (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Why did John Fairfield resign?
  - Google Books, newspaper search, Senate journal, etc. don't mention his first recognition. He didn't write a letter or anything. Leaving a few days early seems to have been an unremarkable practice back then. —Designate (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I added a note clarifying that it's a known unknown. --Golbez (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Was there anyone in power between January 3 and 19, 1838?
  - No, not according to NGA or any other source. Nathaniel Littlefield was Senate president at the time but he's not listed as a governor anywhere, and no one else would've been in a position to serve. —Designate (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hrm. Littlefield should at least be mentioned in the footnote, then... interregnums are rare enough, outside of the post-Civil War era, that they need mentioning at least in the footnote (and PA actually counts the vacancy in its official list of governors =p) --Golbez (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The note about Burton Cross being governor for 25 hours needs a reference. --Golbez (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It turns out there were two one-day governors so I just simplified it. —Designate (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Would look at two paras in the lead since you have three relatively short ones right now, which looks a little odd.
- OK, I moved one of them per Golbez above. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ensure refs are post-punctuation where possible (e.g. look at [4])
- Fixed, I think. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sortable tables need every linkable item linked every time.
- Fixed. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"As of January 2010"... it's 10 months down the road now...
- Fixed. —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Maine was admitted to the Union on March 15, 1820, as the 23rd state. Before then, it was the District of Maine, part of the state of Massachusetts." is unreferenced.
- Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most notes are unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To me it looks like all the ones that need referencing are done, except for "Resigned" and the one about acting governor Burton Cross, and those indeed need it. --Golbez (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have The Rambling Man and Golbez been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

I think we should have a discussion about references. Right now most governor lists reference the "Other high offices" section but not the biographical details (except the unusual ones). That's the scheme I used for this article, but I'm not sure it makes sense. How should we handle this? —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a tad confused. Does listing references in the "biographical details" section mean listing references in the notes section? If so, based upon the last three FL governors lists ( Utah, Kentucky and Idaho), referencing is confusing. Kentucky doesn't have most notes referenced, but Idaho and Utah was asked to have notes referenced. My opinion:

Notes 9 and 15 should be referenced for sure. If those notes were in the main article, a reference would be needed.

Notes 5, 10, 12 and 13 should be referenced. They resigned under unusual circumstances... ie didn't die or resign for a higher office, so they should be referenced.

Usual resignation circumstances, ie resigned for a higher office or died... I think they should be referenced, but I'm not sure.

Other notes should not be referenced. For example, the governor's death is easily looked up on their own article. President of Senate acts as governor is already referenced in the article on why this happens.

Bgwhite (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note regarding the last comment Bgwhite, we aren't reviewing other articles so all information relevant should be presented within the article being reviewed. All content such as deaths should have the relevant references if the claim is likely to challenged. Afro (Talk) 10:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. Sometimes we simply have to let people click through. We don't need to reference when someone died in office; we have abundant general sourcing of their terms and their lifespans, so to source that they died in office is a bit too much. --Golbez (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, why do we need sorting in the other offices table? Sorting is a way to reorder information; to find out which people won a race from a particular country, or find out which cities have the most population. There's zero use to sort the other offices table except to alphabetize, and I may be in the minority here but I just don't see that as terribly useful. It's slightly more useful to allow sorting of the main table (and since there's no broken cells, it should be made sortable) but to add sorting to the other offices table seems useless. (To the living governors table makes a little sense, to sort by age) --Golbez (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We can sort the main table but we'll have to get rid of the colspan for the color bars. —Designate (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, see List of Governors of Arizona on how it's been done. --Golbez (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the other offices table and made the main table sortable. —Designate (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard H. Vose appears to have also served only one day. Should he be mentioned in the lead too? Reywas92^Talk 22:10, 6 December 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.