Wikipedia:Peer review/List of British Columbia general elections/archive1

List of British Columbia general elections and others

"Others" being:

• List of Alberta general elections
• List of Saskatchewan general elections
• List of Manitoba general elections

I'm grouping these togther because they are all very similar in format and content, and so any comment which applies to one almost certainly applies to them all. Their peer-review sub-pages should re-direct here. I'm seeking general comments and sugegstions for improvements, in particular answers to questions like:

1. Could / should there be more prose to accompany the list, or wuld this full outside the scope of the article?
2. Is there any related information that is worth including on the page?
3. Each list has a graph of seats per party for each election.
   1. Should this be full-size (like in the SK list) or a thumbnail (like in the others)?
   2. Should the bars indicate number of seats won (so the overall height varies according to the number of seats in the leglisaltive body, like this), or should they indicate the proportion of seats won (so the overall height is constant, like this)?
4. Should the lists have most recent or oldest results at the top?
5. How do the lists compare with List of Ontario general elections and Quebec general elections (which are in a very different style)?
6. Is it worth having coloured bars to denote the winner, as per List of New Brunswick general elections?

For the record, the SK list is former featured list candidate (sub-page). It failed due to insufficient support.

Thanks in advance for any comments! Tompw 14:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

---

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. If this is helpful, ask on my talk page and I will run the program for the other lists too. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 21:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. (Alberta)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. (Saskatchewan)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. (Manitoba) Ruhrfisch 02:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Given most of the points are the same, I shall reply by point raised:

• Infobox: Nope, none exsist
• Length/comprehensiveness: As they are lists, relevant criteria are at WP:WIAFL... "the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set" - which is the case for all except the Manitoba one (which lacks only 19th century details). So, the Manitoba list needs completeing.
• Footnotes/references: Added a specific references section, depsite there being only one reference used/needed. (Namely, the provinical election authorities)
• Copyediting: I would say the prose in the lists is well-written, but it is hard to judge ones own writing. I would welcome someone elses comments on this one.
• Length of lead paragraph: Oddly, AB and MB have this, but not BC or SK. I personally feel that the lead paragraph is of an apropriate length.
• Section ordering: made sure "references" section was after "see also".

Thanks for all this. Tompw 16:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)