Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Pennsylvania

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 20:12, 11 May 2008.

List of Governors of Pennsylvania

Another month, another list. In the tradition of the other featured ones (most recently List of Governors of New York), I offer this list for your consideration. --Golbez (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The scroll bar is gone and the list looks fine.--Crzycheetah 20:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good, and excellent lead. Marrio (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Bold links in the lead must go. It's a breach of WP:MOS. It doesn't matter if other lists made it through, they're in breach of the MOS too. Six wrongs a right don't make. See Straight repetitions of the title in the opening sentence for an on-going discussion about this very point, and the lead-in sentence.
  • Done. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note [E] is in the wrong place, place it after the comma.
  • Done. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "prohibited governors from succeeding themselves" I found this a little perplexing - do you mean they're disallowed from having consecutive terms?
  • Right, if I governor in 1808, I would not have been allowed to run in 1811, but I would be allowed in 1814.
• Also, since you use "suceed themselves" in consecutive sentences, it'd be worth rephrasing one of them to avoid repitition.
  • Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "totalling 54 terms in both offices" is totalising these terms of any significance?
  • I suppose not, though some sources (like the NGA) record Ed Rendell as the 54th (or 52nd, even) Governor. This was an attempt to head some of the numeric confusion off at the pass. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Check image captions are not fragments - if so, remove the period.
  • Done. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately, WP:COLOR is being enforced more strongly these days, particularly the bit where it says "Ensure that colour is not the only way used to convey important information. Especially, do not use coloured text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as italic emphasis or footnote labels. Otherwise blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a colour screen will not receive that information." so simply colour coding is to be avoided.
  • I agree completely, and have been a fierce defender of that notion. However, nowhere in this article is color used as the singular method of conveying information. It is only used to communicate party, and in every single case (the top table, the middle key, and the color in the main table), it is accompanied by a party name. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Line 33, Lt Gov "vacant" shouldn't be small.
  • Aww, why not? See WI, that is mainly my template.
    • That don't matter. WI is wrong, wrong, wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But why shouldn't it be small? I mean, I have no problem with changing it, but what's the reasoning? (preparing for counterquestion "what's the reasoning for making it small" in 3, 2, 1...) --Golbez (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, yes, good question, why small...?! In fact you have Office vacant in the same table in normal size font. It doesn't add anything to the table and simply makes it more difficult for people with reading difficulties. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. --Golbez (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, it fails to cite enough sources. Not every person listed on the list has a cited source. GreenJoe 17:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It cites two general sources which handle every entry in the first, second and fourth lists; the third list is cited separately and specifically under the NGA ref, with specific references as needed. I see no logic in adding a notes column with just the same two references in the entire table. Every piece of information is either in the two general references, or specifically cited. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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