Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Surrey Central/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 not promoted by Giants2008 23:22, 27 February 2012 [1].

---

Surrey Central

Surrey Central (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/Surrey Central/archive1

Nominator(s): maclean (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I want a formal review to definitively ascertain whether these electoral district articles are list-class or not and to identify what is expected for a featured-class electoral district article. This was the simplest electoral district I could find: it is defunct and only held two elections, both in modern times. As seen in others (like Victoria (electoral district)) they can get quite long. The only other electoral district to undergo a formal review was Lorne (electoral district) which got GA-class in 2007. I propose these are actually list-class articles; they are lists of elections and politicians; the only reasons for the electoral district to exist are to hold elections and have a politician represent people within a defined geographic area. maclean (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments yes, I would tend to side with the idea that this could be a list-class article, just one with quite a bit of prose, which isn't unprecedented. You say "It existed from 1997 to 2004" but the infobox says it was created in 1996. The use of "electoral district" four times in consecutive sentences makes the prose rather bland. 36th Canadian Parliament is overlinked in the lead. "House of Commons again expanded." which was when? 152 km² -> convert to Imperial as well. "(Bill C-69)" not keen on this kind of inline linking, use a proper citation. " district in BC" if you want to use an abbreivation, use it consistently and put it (BC) after British Columbia for the avoidance of doubt. Why wasn't the 1996 census used to estimate electors at the 1997 election? diennial -> looks to me that the census happens every five years, not every ten. Last para of "History and demographics" is unreferenced. Member of Parliament section is unreferenced, and what do the colours mean? If it's the party, then the party name should be within the colour box (see WP:ACCESS). " 1997 election" is all wikilinked, "1993 election" just 1993 is wikilinked. Be consistent. Expenses -> table heading is Expenditures. Ref 1 should use an unspaced en-dash, not a spaced hyphen for the year range. Ensure MOS:DTT is met, row and col scopes etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your notes. I think I took care of all these issues with these edits: [2] Btw, the "decennial census" is a defined term in legislation referring to the census in 1991, 2001, etc. The mid-decade census is different (mostly in terms of scope). I don't know why Elections Canada didn't use the 1996 census for the 1997 election turnout calculations - it is possible the results had not been compiled for the electoral districts yet. maclean (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments – This is one of those hybrid article/lists that can go either way as far as FL/GA goes. I have no problem with it being at this process, and won't object on that basis. Quite a few prose issues lurking, though. Geography: "of the City of Surrey and the Barnston Island portion of the Greater Vancouver's Electoral Area A." Should either have the last "of" removed or be "of Greater Vancouver's Electoral Area A." History and demographics: Don't think multiple Surrey North links are needed in this section. One will do. "as well as increased the total number of seats in the House of Commons from 295 to 301." "as well as" → "and"? That's a little less wordy that the present version. Elections: Comma before "was an advantage" doesn't look like it helps the flow of the sentence. Consider removing it. "and Dysart accused the Reform Party of being bias in favour of seeing somebody from an ethnic minority group winning the nomination." "bias" → "biased"? Or would they say "bias" in Canada? Next sentence has two "being"s in four words, which looks really awkward. Can that be adjusted? The "and for struggling with an image of extremism" doesn't work that well with the rest of the sentence. I think removing "for" would be enough to solve the issue. "to avoid further splitting Indo-Canadian vote." Add "the" before Indo-Canadian? Would be nice if RCMP could be spelled out in its first use, and if the abbreviation was given in parenthesis immediately afterwards. "prevented active officers from being a candidate for political office...". Conflict between singular ("a candidate") and plural ("officers") elements. They should both be either singular or plural; mixing them like this doesn't help the prose. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks. I've made the suggested changes [3] What do you think of the article as a whole? Is there anything left wanting? or anything confusing about why its there? maclean (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Hard for me to say, since I'm not used to reading political articles (I'm more of a sports guy myself). The content seems reasonable to me, but as I said I'm perhaps not the first editor you should ask. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• I posted a notice asking for a review at WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada maclean (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • If, as I suspect, this is akin to a peer review where we may see considerable changes to the article in a short space of time, I would suggest you request archival of this nomination and a renomination, if appropriate, in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't expect fundamental changes. The wikiproject only has a couple of consistently active participants (but many incrementalists who update elections as needed) who can provide comments here. This article follows the standard template of all such Canadian electoral district articles. From the WikiProject perspective, the only deviations from the norm are that I filled in the Geography/History/Demographics section which usually have minimal content (like Fleetwood—Port Kells) and created a narrative for the local elections. From the FLC perspective, I expected a formal check on whether the referencing is clear and the structure optimal. But if someone does think fundamental changes are needed, then closing the review would be the correct move as it could have wide-ranging impacts. maclean (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Let's see then! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support: For what it's worth, I don't personally believe that the GA and FL processes are mutually exclusive, and would be quite comfortable reviewing this page or others like it at GAN; the "Note" parameter of the nomination template there can also be used to inform reviewers that you have an eye to bringing it to FLC in the future and to treat it as a prose-heavy list. On a more specific note, the phrase "Its dismemberment sent the western side..." doesn't sit right with me for some reason. Now, I know nothing about electoral districts beyond Belfast South and Upper Bann, so if "dismember" is actually the correct technical term that's fine, otherwise it seems too figurative a word to use in an encyclopaedic context. If the word is just being used figuratively then I might suggest replacing it with "reapportioning" or rephrasing as "The new delineation sent the western side...". Other than that I don't see an issue with this one. It's an interesting enough genre of article I'd never really encountered before. GRAPPLE X 07:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. Your point-of-view as someone who has not spent much time on these types of electoral district articles, beyond the two you mentioned, is valuable. The "dismember" was used figuratively, and "reapportioning" does sound much better. I made the switch here. maclean (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I think it's extremely odd that in a potential Featured List, the lists are hidden and the user needs to click the [show] button. From an WP:ACCESS standpoint, this is unreasonable, especially since the largest of these boxes is 15 rows by 10 columns. Let's hope no one wants a printed version of the page or has disabled javascript because they using a slow browser. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed, the version I reviewed did not have this format, it was introduced here by a change of template. See WP:COLLAPSE. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I changed the template, so now the reader can collapse the content if he wishes. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Sorry for the delay in responding (busy out of town). It appears to have been a template edit that caused the automatic collapse, but GreatOrangePumpkin has made the box show as a default. Is this ok, or is there another action that needs to be done? maclean (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well it's better, for sure; but still, I don't know why you'd want to give the reader the opportunity or option to hide the very thing we're saying is what makes it stand out above the rest. <shrugs> I've stricken my oppose anyway. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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