Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/109th United States Congress
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
109th United States Congress[edit]
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 18 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 23:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My nomination for 110th United States Congress is failing, and quite rightly perhaps. This article, however, is well-developed and has been reviewed by many people. I hope it meets reviewers' high standards. If not, this is also a good time/place to make real suggestions for further improving it. I think that there is some argument for this being an FA instead of an FL, but I 've been told not to try for FA. —Markles 23:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's my comments so far:
- Not a single mention of the election day for this congress is made. (Done. —Markles 14:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I think some mention of the fact that the house remained the same party as the executive should be made. (Done. —Markles 14:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I think personally the 'events' needs to be expanded. Elaborate on the ones that aren't immediately obvious: imo, that means the "nuclear option", the "CIA leak scandal" (Mention Valerie Plame by name; you mention Tom DeLay after all), and elaborate at least a little on the list of scandal-ridden members. Explain why Ney, Cunningham, and Jefferson were part of a scandal. This is a list article, sure, but it shouldn't require the user go to another page for any information beyond the link title. There should be some kind of summary, IMO. Also, it's redundant, you mention Ney AND the Abramoff scandal - condense these, like "Bob Ney was the highest-profile casualty of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal". The Mark Foley scandal should stand alone, since it didn't involve money like the others.
- If the senate did not change makeup at any time, please say such. And maybe state how many times the House seats changed. In other words, a little prose ahead of the little tables would be useful. (Done.—Markles 15:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I don't know why Bernie Sanders gets linked as an independent in the party-makeup table, he's not special. :P (Done. —Markles 15:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I'm not sure the "miscellaneous facts" is needed, especially since, so far as I can tell, none of the facts have anything to do with the 109th congress, only the members of it. If any of these changed parties *during* the congress, that would matter, but none did.
- I'm not sure if people will like you referencing other wikipedia articles but I have no problem with it, as long as they themselves are properly referenced. (Note: Those references are more like "further explanations" or footnotes. From those articles sufficient supporting references are provided. —Markles 19:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I'd like a full date for the end of Jeff Trandahl's/start of Karen Haas' term. (Done. —Markles 19:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- You mention the DFL but don't mention that they're nationally equivalent to D; that should be noted somewhere I think. (Done. —Markles 19:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Were the successors appointed or elected? This strangely matters to me. :P (Done. —Markles 19:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I think that's all for now. --Golbez 04:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks much better, the only comments I have right now are that I may have been a touch pedantic with the DFL thing ;) But who knows. The only other comment is, the only mention of the Stem Cell bill is in the header; shouldn't it also be listed somehwere in the major legislation? --Golbez 22:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC) (Done. —Markles 23:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- When I have been involved with FACs, commentors have been adamant about red links. Some of the administrative seats (toward the end of the article) remain red links. They may lack the notability to ever have articles of their own, and should then be unlinked. Or, if they warrant articles, stubs should be created for them. Either way, I think the red links may preclude this List from meeting the Featured criteria as is. I think there should be a paragraph about the budget. Two of the functions of congress are to acquire and spend the people's money. This congress ran an historically huge budget deficit, while the whole topic is skipped over here. --Appraiser 13:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It looks good to me, there's no red links, I've just removed the extra links to less important proposed bills / bills that silently died in commiteee. (In many cases those articles themselves need a complete rewrite; [I do note that if one of those was rewritten corectly then the 110th congress should link to it.]) Jon 14:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks great cant wait to see it on the home page Gang14 16:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support If the bold stays off in the "Enacted major legislation" section (vetoes in bold are fine, though an image could be used for visual marking if the bold goes). Maybe add a specification in "Changes in membership" that successors are only given if they came into office during the Congress? (or give the successors and specify that they came in during the next house election). Circeus 17:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]