Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/110th United States Congress/archive2

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 Scorpion0422 23:14, 20 January 2009 [1].

110th United States Congress edit

This article was previously nominated to be a featured list in September 2007. That proposal failed because the article was deemed to be not stable enough. See discussion here: previous FLC.

The Congress has ended and this article is ready to become a Featured List. This is a well-reviewed and highly-edited article. It's useful, pretty, and part of a long chain of articles about the U.S. Congress. Frankly, I really believe it could be a Featured Article, but when I proposed that for the 109th Congress, I was told it was a List not an Article.—Markles 11:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too early. Let time pass.ABC101090 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Is that part of the requirements of a Featured List?—Markles 14:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe not, but at least in my native Finnish Wikipedia it seems to be a standard procedure even if not in the requirements. ABC101090 (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Stability is a part of the criteria and I would agree if the 110th congress was still in session. ABC101090, is there any reason why you think the article would suddenly de-stabilize? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 18:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the timing, but there is much much more that can be done to make the article better. One is that the map of Senate membership belongs in the Senate membership section, not the House leadership section. If it pushes down the list then write a longer section lead. I see that the only problem with the entire article is that all section leads need to be much longer, which is necessary for those who don't know much about US Congress. Reywas92^Talk 22:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image placement seems like a petty criticism to me. The map would interfere with the list of senators, and it is bizarre to expect anyone to come up with enough text to compensate for the significant vertical height of the image. It is especially bizarre for such a self-explanatory list: what more needs to be added to "Members / Senate" to convey that it is a list of members of the Senate? -Rrius (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, really, I know about the Congress, but people from other countries probably don't. Rather than jumping right into unexplained sections you could have a few sentences introducing them. What is a select committee? What were some other major events? That section is pretty short. And so what if it's a petty complaint? This is to represent Wikipedia's best works and I will oppose it until it is. One of my biggest annoyances on Wikipedia is misplacement of images; a map of Senate composition does not belong in the House leadership section. I suppose it's optional, but to really make this the best it would be great if the Senators were listed in a table like in 106th United States Congress and the few previous. Reywas92^Talk 02:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "A few short sentences to explain" a section would seem unnecessary for a List. If I inserted that language into this and the 111 other "Nth United States Congress"es, would it be eligible for Featured Article status? That you have a pet peeve with image placement should not be a problem for this nomination, should it?—Markles 14:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, that doesn't seem unnecessary! Say I'm from Canada; what the hell is a select committee? And I know there were way more major events than the war, cloture vote record, and elections! Maybe this should be an article; it't not really a single "List of" anything. Yes, it is a problem; Senate members have nothing to do with House leadership! Per Wikipedia:Accessibility#Section structure, put the image in the section it belongs, and this isn't just me, it's for screen readers. Reywas92 ^Talk 16:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Appears to me to fit Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. -Rrius (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now I like the layout of the list, but there are a couple issues that stand out. This article would have benefited from a peer review.

Many of the sections are missing references. If you don't want to add an inline citation to every item, add general references instead. Many recently promoted FLs use this style.
In addition to referencing, the citations themselves need source information. Web citations need URLs, web page titles, publishers (news articles often have publication dates) and last access dates.
The article needs fixing up by someone who is knowlegeable with WP:DASH. The party splits in the House of Representatives need en dashes. For example: "(34-19 Democratic)-->(34–19 Democratic). Date ranges should also use en dashes, and when one or both items have internal spaces, the en dash should be spaced. For example: "November 19, 2008–End"-->November 19, 2008 – End
What determines a "Major event"?
Not too big of an issue, but it would be nice if you could briefly summarize each piece of legislation listed. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Many of the member sections are completely unreferenced.
Lots of references need publisher, retrieval dates, titles etc.
The infobox says it had two sessions "1st: January 4, 2007 – December 19, 2007" & "2nd: January 3, 2008 – January 3, 2009", why? and what happened between those dates.
WP:PCR, for example describe what vetoed legislation means.
Per WP:DASH
- Number ranges should use ndashes not hyphens
- Timeline events should use ndashes as "em dashes should not be spaced".
A hidden note in the Enacted section says "Only include historically-significant statutes with blue-linked articles." Does that mean there are there statutes not included because they don't have articles?

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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