Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Alabama

List of Governors of Alabama[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: 14 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this was just nominated, but I think I've satisfied the demands of the previous nomination (here) and I also want to throw the new format for 'higher offices' to the wolves before I try it on any more articles. --Golbez 05:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the first one's always free. --Golbez 05:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments~~ I had some minor stuff to list here, but then went ahead and fixed them myself. I just don't know how to fix these two:
1. I don't think a 5-paragraph prose followed by a 4-point list is what WP:LEAD talks about.
2. In the Other high offices held there are NO REFS...just kidding. Your new format looks neat, but William Wyatt Bibb worked in the US Congress and he doesn't have a "H" and "S" next to his name. I think you need to add those two letters with a note saying that he represented Georgia because, right now, it looks as if he held some high office other than the US Congress.

I believe it's going to be promoted this time. --Crzy cheetah 06:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- My sarcasm meter is down at the moment, so could you elaborate on your first bullet point? :) --Golbez 07:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no sarcasm, okay maybe a little. Just click on "edit this page" and then count how many paragraphs(mostly one sentence) there are in the lead. And then there are those four bullet points that mess the lead. In other words, it's just not as concise as it should be. That's all. List of Governors of Maryland, for example, has the lead I am looking for - three solid paragraphs. --Crzy cheetah 08:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I consolidated some, but do you have any suggestion for the 'prior governors' list? Move it down in the article? --Golbez 09:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - To tell you the truth, I don't know how to improve that part. It just looks sloppy right now. Maybe remove the bullet points and create a paragraph?--Crzy cheetah 17:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now, the bullets aren't as bothering as they were before because I see that it's common to have bullet points in the lead. The list itself is good, though not as illustrative as California's list.--Crzy cheetah 20:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there a reason why the "Notes" section is not located at the bottom of the article, near "References"? This is not a standard format (that I know of) used in other lists. It seems that even if the Notes only apply to the upper section, they still should be located at the bottom. Raime 00:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it work now? Now it makes it more clear that these are footnotes specifically for this table... --Golbez 00:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, yes, but it also completely divides up the list. Clarification of a footnotes table isn't really necessary; as long as someone can click on the footnote link, it does not really matter if the section is directly below the table or at the bottom of the page. I was just saying, it seems like all other lists have References and Notes sections at the bottom of the article, so maybe this article should do the same. However, if you feel strongly otherwise, and there is no specified rule that states that Notes sections must be located at the bottom of a page, then I guess there is no strong reason to change the format (besides consistency). Raime 05:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like how you split the references section into general and specific citations. Looks good. Geraldk 17:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although my preference as well would be for the "notes" and "references" sections both to be at the bottom of the page, as Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions seems to indicate. Having both at the bottom avoids breaking up the flow of the page, too. However, there's more than one way of doing things, I suppose, and I won't oppose purely for that. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I still don't see a strong reason why the "Notes" section is located where it is. However, great work on a great list. Raime 01:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]