Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead/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:The Rambling Man 15:45, 17 September 2008 [1].

List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead[edit]

I'm nominating this list, which I feel is an excellent Featured candidate, with an interesting subject and an excellent layout (although i'm hardly the most neutral person to judge that). Over the last two weeks i've built it from the ground up in my sandbox (compare before and after.) I've completed the list, created articles for every Member of Parliament who is present and put paragraphs after each date heading detailing particularly interesting resignations, as well as a little column to display which party the resigning MP was a member of. Ironholds 10:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 1 (O'Donoghue) needs a last access date.
  • Current ref 2 (A New England?) needs at the least a publisher and last access date. This is a book? It should be formatted as such with an author, etc.
  • What is "Baston, (2004)? I don't see another reference by that author listed? References need at least title, publisher and page numbers, and need authors, etc. when known.
  • Current ref 4 needs a last access date (BBC)
  • Is current ref 5 a book or a magazine article? Titles in " "'s usually means a journal article. Also, you should list it with the author's last name first to fit the other references.
Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All done. Last access dates, ISBN's, so on; the whole kit and kaboodle. Ironholds 14:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • No "This is a list of..." intros any more please.
  • WP:DASH - date ranges etc should use en-dash, not hyphen to separate.
  • Consider linking the pound sign for international readers.
  • Three short paras in the lead - I'd consider merging and expanding.
  • One or two sentences in the lead probably should be explicitly cited, e.g. "historically several other offices have also been used."
  • Be consistent with date formatting.
  • Don't abbreviate political party without a key.

*Other claims should probably also be cited e.g. "During the ensuing scandal James became the first QC in British history to be disbarred." And explain QC if I were you since it's significant that James was the first of his type to be disbarred.

  • "in his disastrous prosecution " - a little POV? outruled, but i'll specifically cite.
  • See WP:CITE for where to place your citations - where possible immediately following punctuation, no spaces.
  • "were found in the bushes" very euphemistic. Explain encyclopedically please!
  • "protest at the Anglo-Irish Agreement ." -remove the space.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Disastrous prosecution is anything but POV; not only was the suit thrown out but wilde was then counter-sued and jailed. The rest i'll correct. I thought all my citing was done post-punctuation; can you direct me to any particular cases? Ironholds 19:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you wish to stick with "disastrous" then I suggest you cite it directly, thanks. As for your citation issues, "(£1.74 billion at 2003 prices[2]) on new ocean-going vessels, including 10 new battleships, and £5 million (£406 million in 2003 prices [2]) on the supporting infrastructure. [3]" has three problems out of three citations... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. They all reference the same inflation chart, so i'll just cite them all together after punctuation. Could you give particular links to the date formatting issues? I assume at some point i've switched between month/day/year and day/month/year; i'm not sure exactly where. Apologies for the excess work on your side; this is the first Featured thing i've put up and I honestly wasn't aware of any issues. Ironholds 19:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No problem at all, it's why I'm here. It's nice to have constructive criticism appreciated and acted upon. As for your date formats, well it's more a case of the commas being an issue - the ones you wikilink have a comma between month/day and year while the table has no commas (and no dates are linked - which is good). So I guess I'm saying two things - (a) wikilink only the very essential dates, and (b) when you don't wikilink keep all dates consistently formatted. If that makes sense...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see what you mean. Would you be able to help with something? I'm not that good with tabling; how do I get the table in the current format (with the abbreviations) to look decent? I'm trying to align it with either the TOC or the intro, but it keeps looking like a bit-part in Morph. I've redone the three intro para's and also cited the "historical offices" bit. Ironholds 19:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okeydokey... advice on the current version.

  • Remove the spaces between the en-dashes and the years.
  • For the "key" I'd have a look at an NFL or NHL featured list for advice (sounds odd I know but...) - say List of Atlanta Thrashers players (ignore the fact it's a bit long in tooth FL-wise - I feel like nominating it for demotion as it happens, but look at the code for the three column table - it's probably a good start for you).
  • Any appropriate images you could use, just to brighten the article up a bit?
  • "Unspecificed Irish Nationalist (Pre 1922) party" - try for "pre-1922"
  • "Liberal Party (pre 1988)" - pre-1988.
  • You still need citations for the "mini-lead" for each section.

Hope that's still helping. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The help is excellent; again, sorry for bringing it forward in such an unprepared state. The NFL/NHL thing; do you think I should have it in a set of tables rather than one long one, then? I've removed the spaces and cited the mini-para's. I have a few appropriate images but, similar to the tables, I cant work out how to put them in without warping the text. Ironholds 20:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, well I'd have a single table with maybe three or four columns before the tables. As for adding images in then I'd look at some excellent work from (ahem) a "friend of mine", check out List of UEFA Cup winning managers for a nice and simple way of adding images down the right-hand side, to brighten things up... The Rambling Man (talk)
        • Three or four columns before the tables...? I've added what images I could find. Ironholds 20:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've fiddled with cols - what do you reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Much nicer; thanks for the help! :). Do you think the downsized text might still be good? Ironholds 20:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen on downsized text. Most of the time it depends on the browser as to how the downsizing is interpreted and implemented. So when I can, I'd avoid it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't forget to add captions to the images you're including... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • okie-dokes, image captions added. Anything else? (That's not meant to sound sarcastic, the internet is a bad way to transmit vocal cadences). Ironholds 21:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries, I get it. I'm going offline shortly. If I think of something else I'll let you know but otherwise it's a big improvement so far. I'll let you know more in due course. All the best... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments cont. - okay, it's been a week, so a nice review with a fresh mind...!

  • Expand the lead now. I know I suggested merging but that didn't mean you should only end up with one para - I'd suggest at least one more meaty para, maybe discussing some of the more interesting Stewards?

**I've expanded the lead additionally; surely the paragraphs interspersed throughout the list discuss the more interesting resignations?

  • Consider an image for the lead, just to get the reader a little more interested and engrossed in the subject matter.
  • I reckon you can link to a decent Member of Parliament (UK) article.
    • Link to a decent MP article.. you mean for the intro?
  • ""office of profit under the Crown" - the article this links to refers to it as The Crown rather than the Crown...
  • Place (MP) after the first use of "Member of Parliament" so the abbreviation is obvious to all.

*Some would question the (seemingly) arbitrary divisions of time periods applied here - any logic or just looks good?

    • I believe it was originally due to elections at that point combined with it looking good. I'll add columns linking to the 1885/whatever general election.
  • With the tables in their current state, it appears a good opportunity for making them sortable - this would allow me to see how many Libs took the position for example.. but that way you'd need to merge all the tables... maybe not a bad idea.
    • The tables were initially merged, but for that i'd need to get rid of the para's in between. Could I not just create an additional table with the numbers?
      • It's no big deal either way for me, just something you could consider. Sortable would need merge, unmerged means no need to sort as the sort would be incomplete. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think i'll stick with unsortable for now. Merging the whole thing would get rid of all the interesting resignations and images and make the list a lot more dreary than it currently is. Ironholds 22:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Prince of Wales. [3]" - remove the space after the full stop, per WP:CITE.
  • "nfrastructure.[4] [5]" - remove the space between the citations.
  • "party. [6]" - remove the space.
  • Football pool? Usually referred to in the plural isn't it?
  • Suit is linked and leads to a disambiguation page. Either delink (recommended) or link to the right kind of suit.

*Force the column widths of each table (if you wish to keep multiple tables) to the same width from section to section.

    • One of them is forced down by an image, so i'll try and extend the para's there
  • "On 17 December 1985 15" - comma after 1985 otherwise this (as I'm sure you'll agree) looks a little odd..

*MPs or MP's?

    • This would change depending on whether i'm talking about MPs (plural) or MP's (something belonging to MPs.
      • Quite so, therefore you need to adjust the caption which says "more prominent resigning Ulster MP's". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*" holding one of the offices for a " - one of the offices? I'd reinforce that there are two offices which could have been occupied for this purpose here. *I may be wrong (so check the WP:MOS) but I think See also sections go before References?

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article, but I have several concerns to be resolved before I could support it as a featured list:

  • It's not obvious why the tables are separated by date. Is there some historical significance to the dates 1885, 1900, 1918, 1931, etc., or were these chosen simply for convenience? Clearly, some of these years had general elections, but not all general elections are used as subdivisions. If there were changes in the procedures or other circumstances at these dates, say so. Otherwise, the article organization seems odd.
    • It was like that when I got it; I appreciate it's a poor excuse. I've contacted the user/admin who styled the original page asking why it is so. Ironholds 21:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also not obvious why the general elections of 1885, 1900, etc., are entries in the table.
  • I think there is too much detail here about some of the specific resignations, notably those of James, Beresford, Hastings, and Belcher. Presumably the scandals related to these resignations are covered amply in other articles; it seems unnecessary to provide full treatment in this list article. (Indeed, I wonder whether it might be possible for the table(s) to include notes about the reason for each MP's resignation.)
    • I thought that it might be interesting, and a good way of dividing up endless tables with interesting notes and pictures. Including a notes column might be awkward in terms of the width of the page. Ironholds 21:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The descriptions of the specific resignations lack necessary context. I am particularly bothered by the way the "Before 1885" section begins ("A prominent resignation during this period of time was..."), since the only information the article has given me on the "period of time" is the section heading.
    • Should be solved by the decision of above discussion. Ironholds 21:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The References section should be subdivided to identify "Index of Appointees to the stewardships of the Manor of Northstead and Chiltern Hundreds since 1850" as a "General" reference, while the numbered entries are "Notes." (For an example of this, see List of sister cities in Florida.) --Orlady (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean? So the Index is a seperate section to everything else, or do you want notes as to where each name appears in the document. Ironholds 21:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My thought was that the References section could be subdivided into two subsections: (1) "General", to hold the one reference that appears to have been the primary source for most of the article, and (2) "Notes" or "Specific" or something similar, to hold the footnoted reference citations. This type of split has been used in other lists (as well as non-list articles); List of sister cities in Florida is one example. Additional examples are New York Yankees seasons and List of Archbishops of Canterbury. --Orlady (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, that should be easy enough to do; i'll get onto it now. I'm going to post BrownHairedGirl's response below (about why the tables are so divided)
BrownHairedGirl's response
I thought that it would me more useable if divided up, and that general elections marked the logical dividing points, but that a section per Parliament was both too fine a division and too uneven. So in this edit I tried to choose elections which would divide the list into roughly equal chunks.
Where possible, I also tried to use elections which of themselves marked some sort of turning point, hence 1979 (beginning of the Thatcher era), 1918 (end of WWI, big extension of the franchise), 1885 (another franchise extension). Some points where a section break seemed appropriate didn't offer quite such a clearcut historical turning point, and 1900, 1931 and 1950 are not such clear points. I'll try to explain why I chose the dates I did, but I know that there was no clear standout date in those cases:
  • 1900 election wasn't of itself anywhere near as critical a point as 1906, but I chose it as the turn of the century and because it split the 1885-1918 period more neatly.
  • Some split was needed around 1930, leaving a choice between 19229 and 1931. Of the two, 1931 seemed marginally more significant as a change of era, because it ushered in 14 years of national govt.
  • Therefter, 1945 was much more of a political turning point than the alternative split point of 1950 general election, but 1950 privided a more even split. It a handy round number, but it also marked a major set of boundary changes, which seems relevant to MPs.

I've merged it all to one table, added a resignations column (about which i'm open to alternative wording suggestions) and seperated the refs. The merging now allows TRM's sorting suggestion, although I worry that might make it a bit table-heavy. Ironholds 11:51, 17 September 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_Stewards_of_the_Manor_of_Northstead/archive1&oldid=239052304"