Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Michigan/archive1

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 Hahc21 17:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

List of Governors of Michigan

List of Governors of Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Michigan/archive1

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been working on this list on and off for a few months, and think I finally have it in shape for a FLC run. I've based the general format off of the other featured governors lists, but, as always, formatting lists is not my strongest skill. Thanks in advance for your comments, Dana boomer (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Quick comments

• Restrict the colour to a band like in the Alaska list.
• Not sure the point of "Other offices held" in this and similar articles. This should be a simple list of a state's governors, why complicate it with a list of everything else the governors have done in their life? Of course, if a governor went on to serve as President or something very senior in the federal cabinet, you could mention it as a note or in the lead, but another table is overkill.
• Living former governors: similarly, you could just add a § symbol against each living governor in the main table and add a note explaining so.—indopug (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • (I haven't worked on this article [yet] but I made the other featured governor articles) I've been wondering about these tables. My personal rules - which are perhaps arbitrary - has been to include: Congressional offices; High executive (President, VP, Cabinet); Governorships; District Court Judge or higher; Ambassadorships; the previous entries for both the USA and CSA; and major foreign posts, like president of another country. Some states have an extraordinarily long list of people who fit into this; just see New York, with, among others: six VPs, 2 Chief Justices, 4 Presidents, and 7 top cabinet secretaries. This was originally expressed as a simple list, I wanted to change it into something more formal. However, I agree: It's a little beyond the scope.
  • As for the living governors list... this too seems extraneous. If you want to see who the living governors are, click a few links; no state has more than a handful. It's not really vital information that needs to be shared, and it raises the maintenance costs of the article.
  • If it's the will of the FLC voters, I'll go through all my previous featured governor lists and prune these out, or convert to text where logical. And this one could serve as the new template, with work. --Golbez (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I have yet to have it explained to me why a band of color is better than a full cell of color. As I've said before, I won't revert if someone else goes through and makes the change, but as far as I know, the current format is not counter to WP:ACCESS or anything other guideline. I think the "other offices held" is quite interesting, and would be much less handy in notes, and very unwieldy in the lead. Expressing the number of House and Senate seats held in prose, rather than as part of the list, would help cut down the size. Would that help? I've removed the living governors section, and instead included the information in a couple of new sentences in the lead. That seems easier for people using screenreaders, etc. then having even more symbols/columns in the table. Dana boomer (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I certainly wouldn't suggest it being in footnotes, as that's not the point of the table. It's a list of governors, not a list of people who have been governor; it's a subtle distinction. --Golbez (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Colour—in the current format the colours overwhelm the table and affects the list's appearance (5a). Remember, the point of the colours is only to give a quick indication of affiliation; you don't need a colourful table for that.—indopug (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess I don't see the color as overwhelming - to me the color draws the eye across the table and makes the flow a bit better. If other reviewers disagree, though, I'll go ahead and change it. What are you thoughts on my suggestion above (in the comment on 31 March 2013) on condensing the "other offices held" table? Dana boomer (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Background color on table cells is an accessibility issue. Blue-on-red and blue-on-blue are both very difficult to read. (On a less important note, it's just gaudy.) —Designate (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to list things like house, senate, ambassadorships etc... Successful politicians (which state governors obviously are) usually hold a number of positions in their lives. As for the lead, I meant doing something like "X went on to serve as President of the United States, while Y became Vice President"; just as a shoutout to a couple of people who got the highest jobs among the lot.

Living people in the lead—this is a little too detailed (with the brackets, date ranges and birth dates). I'd change it to "As of January 2013, four former governors were alive, the oldest being William Milliken (born 1922). The others are James Blanchard, John Engler and Jennifer Granholm. The most recent governor to die was George W. Romney, in 1995."—indopug (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I attempted to transfer the list over to the color scheme preferred by all above, but unfortunately failed. I can't figure out how to get the formatting to work with row and column scopes, and none of the other governors lists have row and column scopes to allow me to shamelessly copy :) If any of the formatting gurus here could do a row as an example, I would be quite grateful. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, Golbez has figured out the formatting (thank you!!!) and so the colors are now switched over. I've removed the governorship dates from the living governors in the lead, but left the birthdates, as these are useful and not found elsewhere in the article. I've converted House and Senate appointments to prose, which leaves us with several governors who also held ambassadorships, Supreme Court positions, etc. As is shown by the fact that there are only a few, this is not something that most governors do, and I think it's interesting information and useful to readers. Can we maybe get a compromise position here, since quite a bit of what you have suggested has been implemented? Dana boomer (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

*Comment Why are the "Notes" and "Source" columns sortable? Does that provide some useful functionality that I am not aware of? Cheers, Rejectwater (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC) My apologies for taking a few days to get back to this; I didn't see your comment up here until just now. I've removed the sort function for these columns. Are there any further issues that you see? Thank you for the comment, Dana boomer (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Comments "Forty-eight individuals have held the position of state governor, with the first female governor, Jennifer Granholm being elected in 2003." This sentence doesn't feel right to me. My impulse is to say there should be a comma after Granholm and "being" should say "having been". Also possibly no comma after the first governor. "Governors originally held the position for two years, until the 1963 Michigan Constitution changed the term to four years." What does "originally" mean here? From the creation of the territory? Also, a term was two years, but the office could be held longer than that. Be more precise. "Should the office of governor become vacant, the lieutenant governor becomes governor. Prior to the current constitution, the office would devolve upon the lieutenant governor." What if there is no lieutenant governor? Is there an order of succession? If so, is it within the scope of the article to mention it? Also, the second sentence there seems redundant, as if is just restating the previous sentence. There is a huge difference between "Become" and "devolve"? Be more precise. Why are some lieutenant governors from a different party than the governor? The section of the article preceding the list should at least explain that prior to the 1963 constitution the two positions were elected separately, and also state that now they are elected on the same ticket. Take a look at List of Governors of Alaska, the way it explains how it is done now, and how it later talks about differences that existed under previous versions of the state constitution. Rejectwater (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the further comments. I believe I have addressed them all. Dana boomer (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments (sorry for how long it's taken to get here by the way...) Four paras in the lead is at least one too many, especially when two of them are just two-sentence paras. First para of lead, all four sentences start with "The (G/g)overner..." You could link term limit in there somewhere. Never like the hash symbol for "number", can we use "No."? Any reason the table isn't sortable? E.g. I may wish to see all the Republicans in one block... You have Lieutenant Governor linked in the table heading but not in the lead. You have "U.S. state" but "US House"... don't mix these in the same article. Note a is unreferenced but note i is referenced, yet they provide similar information... Note d needs a period. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you, TRM! I was actually about to ping you to see if you would comment :) I believe I have addressed all of your comments; please let me know if there are further issues. Dana boomer (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC) No worries! Just one thing, now the table is sortable (good thing!), you need to link every linkable item every time.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC) OK, I think I have addressed this. Dana boomer (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments – No need for two George W. Romney links in the lead. The tables should be sorting by last name, not first name. There are sort templates that can help with this, if you encounter trouble. There's no advantage in making notes columns sortable, so I suggest dropping sortability there. Same goes for the Source column in Other high offices held. Note 4: "Resigned to take an seat in the United States Senate." "an" → "a". Refs 11 and 12 should have their page ranges formatted like ref 9, with en dashes and pp. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the comments, Giants. I believe I have resolved all of the above. Dana boomer (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Support - Reads very smoothly and looks very sharp. Appears to be quite well-referenced, and in my mind meets all of the criteria. Well done! Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 21:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the support, Red Phoenix! Dana boomer (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 21:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Support - Meets all the criteria, in my opinion, and I can find nothing else to nitpick. Say yes to Michigan. Rejectwater (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Support - I think everyone above me has gotten everything sorted out; lets kick this thing out the door. --PresN 18:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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