Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Indiana

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 by User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [1].

List of Governors of Indiana

User:Golbez, User:Charles Edward, and I have collaborated on bringing this list up to FL quality. It is based on other Governor FLs, and I believe it is finally ready to be promoted. Reywas92Talk 17:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will co-nominate this article since I have also spent considerable time on it and have access the book sources that were used and a fairly extensive knowledge of Indiana history :) Charles Edward (Talk) 02:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I co-nominate with but reservations; I'm unhappy with the 'days' column and the party chart at the top. I think the days column is a bit too much (It gives a different view of the date data without really adding any information, IMO, that isn't readily visible with the more abstract terms column; such information, since it requires constant tending, should be in its own list IMO), and the party table gives undue weight to people who were elected once over those who were re-elected, and doesn't really enhance one's knowledge of the subject. Furthermore, it's simply counting certain rows in the table, so it's not new information at all. I'm also unsure about the terms, adding parts of a term together with +, etc, as I think it complicates what is already not an entirely intuitive column; but others would disagree, saying it simplifies it. To each his own. :) --Golbez (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do get your point about the party table. I don't understand why the days would need constant tending. I added a template that automatically updates the current governor. It's nice to be able to sort them by length of time in office; that can't be done with terms. For Morton's terms, it shows how he only served one full term with some on both sides rather than two terms when added. Reywas92Talk 15:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that, I'm still used to the old days. :P As for the "served part a term, then was elected, then served part a term" problem, I brought up the Clinton/Tucker/Huckabee part of the Arkansas table. It's not great, but I still think it's better than all the addition. --Golbez (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the party table. Reywas92Talk 16:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "The second and current constitution of 1851 lengthened terms to four years, with the governor's term commencing on the second Monday in the January following the election."-->The second and current constitution of 1851 lengthened terms to four years; the governor's term commences on the second Monday in the January following the election.
That doesn't sound right.
Whoops, forgot to add an "s". My issues was with the with + -ing sentence structure, which is awkward and ungrammatical. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still not so sure about the semicolon here. I'll try to think of something else. Reywas92Talk 03:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no source against this and a grammar expert said it was acceptable. The constistution specifies the date, so a semicolon splitting the clauses doesn't work, and nothing else seems to be parallel. Reywas92Talk 16:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises#A common problem—noun plus -ing. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. How's "The second and current constitution of 1851 lengthened terms to four years and set the commencement of the governor's term on the second Monday in the January following the election."? Reywas92Talk 23:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's better, but the sentence is a bit winding. Give readers a break with the semicolon: ""The second and current constitution of 1851 lengthened terms to four years; it set the commencement of the governor's term to be the second Monday in the January after the election." Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about "The second and current constitution of 1851 lengthened terms to four years, and it set the commencement of the governor's term to be the second Monday in the January after the election."? The semicolon is a too abrupt splitting of clauses that go together. Reywas92Talk 18:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That will work. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the only instance of this is when James B. Ray succeeded William Hendricks."-->this has happened once, when James B. Ray succeeded William Hendricks.
Done
  • "Isaac P. Gray and Henry F. Schricker are the only governors to serve non-consecutive terms. "-->Isaac P. Gray and Henry F. Schricker are the only governors to have served non-consecutive terms.
Done
  • "The longest-serving state governors are Otis R. Bowen, and Evan Bayh" Comma not necessary. Should it not be "were", since this happened in the past (I assume)?
Previously it said "Shricker, Bowen, and Bayh." I must have forgotten to remove the comma when removing the incorrect Schricker; Done. No, they still are the longest-serving.
  • "who served only two days"
Done
  • "The most recently-serving governor"-->The most recently serving governor...
No, I think the hyphen is correct. "Recently-serving" is one phrase. Think about "the recently-servingest governor," not "the recentlyest serving governor."
See
MOS, -ly adjectives should not have hyphens following them. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:HYPHEN: "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb...unless part of a larger compound...Some words ending in -ly function as both adverbs and adjectives," which this is. The example "a friendly-looking driver" would become "the most friendly-looking driver." Reywas92Talk 03:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, I understand now after looking at the larger context a couple times. The sentence was a bit obscure. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use em dashes in the empty cells in the table.
In this case I don't think it's really necessary; it's clutter and the other FLs don't have it either.
I disagree that they are "clutter", but it is a minor issue and since the other governor FLs don't use them, I will let it be. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a white color (for independents) to the legend.
Done

Dabomb87 (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Images[reply]

I'm not experienced in image tagging, but it says it was by Rembrandt Peale and is now in public domain.
OK, I organized the file page. We still need a source (where did the image come from?) Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a picture person. Can I just use http://www.lib.niu.edu/1998/ihwt9806.html? Shouldn't the fact we know it's PD be enough? Reywas92Talk 16:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link will work. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I just replaced it with another pic of him, File:Thomas Marshall, bain photo portrait, circa 1912.jpg.

Sources

Done. It was actually from Indiana Business Magazine and hosted on Allbusiness.com.
  • On the citations from the Indiana government website, use "State of Indiana" as the publisher instead of IN.gov.
Done Reywas92Talk 03:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is ready for featured status    World   tcs 20:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kensplanet

  • It is recommended that you have atleast one map of Indiana at least for people outside the US. KensplanetTC 09:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Reywas92Talk 16:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree strongly with this suggestion; should we include a map of every area that we have a list of executives for? A map of Nepal for its kings? A map of Bavaria for its list of minister-presidents? I think the link to the location is 100% sufficient to find out just where it is. It adds no real information for a list of governors. --Golbez (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there is no need for it here when there is a link. The important thing is that readers know that Indiana is a state in the US; its location in the country itself is not important enough for this article to warrant adding an extra image. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought the same, but I added it because of his suggestion. It is now removed. The capitol photo's okay though, right? Reywas92Talk 23:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree: It need not be a recent map of Indiana. Maybe a map of the 1800s will work. KensplanetTC 05:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But Kensplanet, why is a map necessary? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we only had a map from the 1800s... Indiana is linked to in the lead. Reywas92Talk 18:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by the Days in Office in each Table? How did you consider this. Are they exact?KensplanetTC 17:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are exact. It is the number of days that passed from taking office to leaving office, exclusive.
It's just referring back to the years he was governor. Reywas92Talk 23:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This

WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Governors_of_Indiana&oldid=1126718547"