Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of premiers of British Columbia/archive1
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 not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 20:53, 22 November 2008 [1].
List of premiers of British Columbia
I am nominating this article because I believe it covers all the
]Comments by Chrishomingtang
Comment
- The lead looks a bit thin. Perhaps you can say more about the premiers. (eg. Who was the oldest? Who served the longest term? Who died in office?)
- Why is the "Assemblies" column bunched up like this? Can't you give it more space?
—t 03:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE ALL -- ]
- Can you explain more about what "Presidencies" is?
- I'll just link ]
- I just notice that there is no reference in the lead
- The references are at the bottom. I am just copying the format of ]
- Added more references. -- ]
- "Until 1903, British Columbia did not use a party system" need a reference
- "The premier acts as British Columbia's head of government, while the Queen of Canada acts as its head of state and is represented by the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia. The premier picks a cabinet from the elected members to form the Executive Council of British Columbia, and presides over that body." need a reference
- Why did you have "..." in the "Assemblies" column?
- I'm just copying ]
- Well, t 05:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well,
—t 05:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So what do you want me to do? -- ]
- Well, remove the unnecessary ... from the table and add a emdash in non-applicable cells.—t 05:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the table to see if I did it right. -- ]
- Well, remove the unnecessary ... from the table and add a emdash in non-applicable cells.—
- So what do you want me to do? -- ]
- Support Yes, looks much better. —t 01:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question sorry, but what is an assembly in this case? You have a whole column dedicated to it yet you don't explain what do 1st, 2nd, etc mean.
]- ]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
"British Columbia has used a unicameral"-->British Columbia has had a unicameral..."The premier acts as British Columbia's head of government, while the Queen of Canada acts as its head of state and is represented by the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia." "while"-->and.
- I think while is more appropriate. -- ]
"if the Governing party" Why is Governing capitalized?"legislature, by the defeat of a supply bill or tabling of a confidence motion." I don't think there should be a comma."Prior to that date"-->Before that year...
- I don't think your version will make sense. -- ]
- My version is the same as yours, it is just that "before" is a simpler version than "prior to" and the sentence was referring to a year rather than a specific date.
- I going to put "Prior to that year", since this isn't Simple Wikipedia. -- ]
- My explanation was bad, I meant that Before makes for tighter prose, it has nothing to the level of understanding. Prior to is an example of wordiness, why use two words when you can use one? If you want the opinion of someone other than me, see User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Misplaced_formality, by Tony1, one of the best grammarians on Wikipedia. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So do I have to do that to get your support, or was that just a suggestion? -- ]
- Well, I hate to be stubborn on such a small thing, but criterion 1 states "Prose. It features professional standards of writing." Since this is a Featured List candidate, Yes. It won't hurt, I promise :) Dabomb87 (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think "Prior to" looks more professional, but to get your support, DONE -- ]
- Well, I hate to be stubborn on such a small thing, but criterion 1 states "Prose. It features professional standards of writing." Since this is a Featured List candidate, Yes. It won't hurt, I promise :) Dabomb87 (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So do I have to do that to get your support, or was that just a suggestion? -- ]
- My explanation was bad, I meant that Before makes for tighter prose, it has nothing to the level of understanding. Prior to is an example of wordiness, why use two words when you can use one? If you want the opinion of someone other than me, see
- I going to put "Prior to that year", since this isn't Simple Wikipedia. -- ]
- My version is the same as yours, it is just that "before" is a simpler version than "prior to" and the sentence was referring to a year rather than a specific date.
"primers" Should this be premiers?"Presidencies"-->Presidents.
- That shouldn't be so. Just read the wiki article, ]
"Of the individuals elected as Premier, five died in office, and 16 resigned."-->Of the individuals elected as Premier, five died in office, and sixteen resigned.
- I thought ]
"This article"-->This list
- We are talking about the article itself, and only the table is the list. -- ]
"Prior to the joining"-->Before the joining...
- Before the joining would not make sense at all. -- ]
Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE the ones without comments on them. -- ']Comment Please get an experienced image reviewer (i.e. User:David Fuchs to verify that all images are properly licensed/attributed. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by SatyrTN
- Alexander Edmund Batson Davie's row is all messed up. There's a ")" missing after the "no party affiliation". The date span probably belongs in the last column rather than the one it's in. I suspect the "Period" column is missing.
- The "Elections" column confuses me. It has some of the same information as the "Period" column. Also, some of that info wouldn't seem to belong - if the column is "Elections", shouldn't it only have entries like Elected October to December 1871? Alberta's listhas "Period" and "Reason for leaving", which seems to work - consider using that format?
- Hm - now that I look further, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Ontario all have the same format as this one. I'm not sure why this bothers me, but maybe the heading of the column could be changed?
- I really don't know... -- ]
- The general reference "The Canadian Encyclopedia (2000). (1999)." has two years. The ISBN is for the 1999 version - maybe remove the "2000"?
- At the moment, a Weak Support is what I'd say. If you could fix the "Election", "Period" and/or "Reason for leaving" situation, I'd strongly support. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE all. -- ]
Images and other comments:
- Why is there a duplicated image in the lead and then in the list?
- Because they are in different sections. -- ]
- Why is party affiliation given by text and by color coding?
- It said so on ]
- Image:McCreight.JPG, Image:Beaven_r.jpg, Image:Smithe.jpg, Image:Alexander Edmund Batson Davie.png, Image:John Robson.jpg, Image:Theodore Davie.jpg, Image:John Herbert Turner.png, Image:Joseph Martin.png, Image:James Dunsmuir.jpg, Image:Richard McBride.jpg, Image:Harlan Carey Brewster.jpg, Image:JohnOliver.jpg, Image:John Hart.jpg, and are all either missing information (source/author/date of publication, et al) or do not have the information presented in a clear manner. I would use the description template.
- I will ask a image professional do to that. -- ]
- Image:Charles Semlin.png - need evidence of free use (pubdom) in United States, and all the missing info.
- I will ask a image professional do to that. -- ]
- Image:Edward Gawler Prior.jpg - get rid of all the bot crap and put the actual pub info in the template fields.
- I will ask a image professional do to that. -- ]
- Image:Byron Johnson.jpg - missing information, duplicate image.
- I will ask a image professional do to that. -- ]
- Image:I 61926.gif - duplicate image, no evidence of how the license was obtained.
- I will ask a image professional do to that. -- ]
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on these comments
- I suggest you not to tell users here, since this is a FLC nomination, and is not my fault for these fixes that are needed to be done. -- ]
- You're the nominator, and thus you're responsible for making sure the candidate meets all the criteria, including images. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comments. doesn't things like "Resigned (scandal)" break WP:BLP without citations? I would oppsose' this unless the reasons for resignation are cited. the dates i can take on faith, as being trivial to cite, but reasons, especially those that reflect on the persons character, need citing.Yobmod (talk) 21:33, 20 November 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.