Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of premiers of British Columbia/archive1

Add links
From 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[edit]

I am nominating this article because I believe it covers all the FL criteria. This is also my third nomination for the FLC contest. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 00:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

—Chris! ct 03:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just link presidency. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 05:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just notice that there is no reference in the lead
The references are at the bottom. I am just copying the format of List of premiers of Alberta. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 05:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added more references. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 05:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "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 List of premiers of Alberta. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 05:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, List of premiers of Alberta is not up to standard anymore in my opinion.—Chris! ct 05:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—Chris! ct 05:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you want me to do? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 05:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, remove the unnecessary ... from the table and add a emdash in non-applicable cells.—Chris! ct 05:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the table to see if I did it right. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 15:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, looks much better. —Chris! ct 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. Nergaal (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic.gnome wikilinked Assemblies to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. I hope this clears things up. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 21:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

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. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 01:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"while" should only be used to emphasize contrast or the idea of an action occuring during the passing of another event. Is the sentence emphasizing contrast or two simultaneous actions (this is not a rhetorical question)? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll just put and. Just wondering, how about the word "though"? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 01:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because "though" is used to convey the idea "in spite of the fact that". Dabomb87 (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 01:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 01:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 03:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 03:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "primers" Should this be premiers?
  • "Presidencies"-->Presidents.
That shouldn't be so. Just read the wiki article, Presidency. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 01:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that the sentence was referring to the presidential administrations as a whole. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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 WP:MOS said that only numbers ten or lower should be written out? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 01:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MOS also says that comparative quantities should all be written the same, i.e. "five died in office, and sixteen resigned" or "5 died in office, and 16 resigned." Dabomb87 (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 01:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This article"-->This list
We are talking about the article itself, and only the table is the list. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 01:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to the joining"-->Before the joining...
Before the joining would not make sense at all. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 01:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Before" is a simpler version of "Prior to". Dabomb87 (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, this isn't Simple Wikipedia. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 01:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See explanation above

Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE the ones without comments on them. -- 'SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 01:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 list has "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... -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 00:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 00:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images and other comments:

  • Why is there a duplicated image in the lead and then in the list?
Because they are in different sections. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is party affiliation given by text and by color coding?
It said so on WP:MOS. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask a image professional do to that. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask a image professional do to that. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask a image professional do to that. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask a image professional do to that. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask a image professional do to that. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--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. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_premiers_of_British_Columbia/archive1&oldid=1148848881"