Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/United States Secretary of Energy

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 19 days, 4 support, 1 oppose. There is active opposition, but I think it has been addressed appropriately. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate, infomative, well organized, and visual pleasing--Southern Texas 18:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Support
  • The lead is too small and informative
  • There are no headings other than References; put the list under a heading
  • I assume the colors are there for party, but this should be explained
  • Each person has only been under one president, so the (s) in the far right column is unneeded.
  • (Personal opinion) The numbers between 1-9 should have a zero preceeding them: 01, 02, 03...
  • Not only is the one reference not done correctly in line with {{cite web}}, but it's not in-line, and there should be more references (if applicable)

--十八 20:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose, mainly what Juhachi said, but to add my own comments:
  • The intro is woeful. deficient.
    • I'd still like some more information about the people in the intro. Perhaps the colors can be removed (they are somewhat misleading without context, and I still want the key-table gone - either include the text in the main table for those with accessibility issues, or don't include any color at all) and a mention of Carter's picking a Republican can go there. Mention if any of these are the first female, first hispanic, etc. cabinet members, if applicable.
      • Much better now.
  • There's no citations or references of any kind. Oh, wait, I see it, that lonely external link? Cite it.
  • I disagree strongly with including leading zeroes, though.
  • Split term of office into took office and left office.
  • Add footnotes explaining why a secretary left office if notable.
    • Looking at the secretaries, the only one who resigned in any kind of interesting fashion was Schlesinger. Handled in intro.
  • I'm not sure if we need inline images AND gallery images.
    • I don't mind.
  • Also, please explain how a non-partisan appointed post can have a party shading, especially if it can be different from the president?
    • The key table simply can't be there, as major info cannot be communicated solely through formatting. I still think a non-partisan post should not be colored, and will change it myself if I think it'll stick. :) --Golbez 21:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, this is only a list, so it should be renamed List of United States Secretaries of Energy or something similar. --Golbez 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's better to have the party in the table, since blind people can't see the colors. However, I still want to know why party affiliation is relevant for a non-partisan appointed post. The only relevance seems to be that Carter appointed a Republican, but again, it's non-partisan. --Golbez 22:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would disagree that any cabinet position is non-political, this person is at meetings with the president and informs him on his agenda. I do think it is interesting to know that Carter crossed political lines and nominated a Republican. I have the pictures on the sides because they give more information about certain notable Secretaries that can't be explained fully in the table.--Southern Texas 01:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• New issue: The ref you've added needs to be properly cited. --Golbez 21:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've done some work to it; Southern Texas, I really suggest you take a look at my edits, and this isn't impugning your work, but I suggest you learn a bit more about wiki syntax (like there's almost no need to ever use a BR, and the cite web format) before bringing another article to a featured candidate. That said, I upgrade to weak support. --Golbez 21:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much.--Southern Texas 21:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nominator--Southern Texas 21:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. There were some factual problems with the part about the duties of the secretary; specifically, the section on duties listed and referenced the US code about the duties of the SecEnergy with respect to Methane Transportation, not the general duties of the secretary. I've since deleted that part of the list to make it accurate. In addition, there were some major spelling / grammar errors in the article, which I've also now fixed. At this point it looks pretty good, so I will give it a weak support for being the featured list. However, it could be further improved by adding more references, and adding a section about the current duties and responsibilities of the secretary (general duties, not ones just about the Methane program). A little more history wouldn't hurt either. --CapitalR 12:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose None of the references provided give the information included in the table. Also, the second paragraph of the lead needs referencing. Geraldk 17:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I referenced everything in the second paragraph and the external links provide the information included in the table.--Southern Texas 19:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]