Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Idaho/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 promoted by Dabomb87 23:05, 6 October 2010 [1].

List of Governors of Idaho edit

List of Governors of Idaho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Bgwhite and Golbez

Another Governor's list that is coming down the pipe. Idaho follows the recently made FL List of Governors of Florida. Bgwhite (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Nomader (Talk) 05:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • These are mostly about just the infobox and the list itself– prose isn't my strong suit so I'll let someone else take a look at the lead and the other paragraphs. From the quick glance I took at it, it's a nice list, well done.
  • John P. Hoyt was only appointed, but does not have a note as to why he did not take his post like the others. Are there any sources to explain the discrepancy?
  • Jim Risch is listed as "Jim Risch" in the table, and he's named as "James Risch" in his picture's caption-- you should choose one and stick to it.
  • In the infobox the F in "four years" should be capitalized.
  • For George F. Moore and J. H. Hutchinson, it mentions in the notes that they were part of a fusion ticket-- were they serving consecutively or simultaneously?
    • Consecutively. Governor served two terms and each Lieutenant Governor served one term. Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you source John N. Irwin being the Governor of the Arizona Territory? I figure if all the others are cited that one might as well be for consistency. Nomader (Talk) 17:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grrrrr... I missed that one. Done Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 17 contains a bare URL reference, which should be cited in footnote form (if it's kept against Golbez's comments).
    • Note 17 was removed via request by Golbez Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a minor point, but I think that Idaho should be wikilinked to somewhere in the article, maybe in the lead? I wanted to read about Idaho while I was browsing the list and realized at no point does the article link to the state's page until the infobox at the bottom. Nomader (Talk) 18:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure that's minor, it was a huge oversight frankly. Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. You've adequately addressed my concerns, and I have no doubt that you'll get around to The Rambling Man's notes as well. It's a nice list, well done. Nomader (Talk) 05:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Golbez (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments
    • I've added prose to the 'other high offices' section. Please check it out. I've also rejiggered some referencing.
      • I agree with you in that I also prefer NGA/Bioguide refs. However, in the case of cabinet secretaries, I also like to add a ref to the to the Department they headed.... The Department being primary and NGA/Bioguide secondary in these cases. Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How did Thomas M. Bowen leave office a month before he took office?
      • Grrr, wrote it in my notes wrong. I'll be up at the University this Friday and will look at the book again. Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done, I had the dates reversed. Bgwhite (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need sourcing on the fusion tickets in notes 14-16.
    • Do we really need note 17? Constitutionally, the governor's term ended/began on January 2, 1905 (the second monday in January), regardless of when they actually took power. I say omit it entirely.
    • Should we include Gossett as having resigned to take a seat in the Senate? I mean, technically, he did it so that he would be appointed, rather than a sure thing... in the past, when someone resigned to run for a seat that he later won, I've omitted that as "resigned to take" since it wasn't a sure thing yet. But this is more sure than that. :P I mean, I guess I'm saying include it, I'm just justifying it out loud or something.
      • I say keep. Gives the reason why he resigned. Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Golbez (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I can support, being conommed by Bgwhite, but I support it. :) --Golbez (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Link Idaho first time round.
  • "David W. Ballard had the longest term of almost four years" while the list says April 10, 1866 to July 1870, which is well over four years. Bennett also appears to have had a term of over four years.
    • Changed 'almost' to 'over'. --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the lead seems to miss out how the governors are appointed.
    • It states it's done by the president; what more is needed? --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those who took office but later resigned etc, why do you just have "resigned" rather than actually fill in the "Left office" column? The notes can handle the fact they resigned or whatever, surely? I get the fact that Hoyt never took office at all (so no start/end dates at all) but the others seem to have real start/end dates which should be here.
    • Four separate governors were appointed but never took office, not just Hoyt. The intro has been corrected. --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You relink Idaho Territory but not Union. Why not?
  • "Since then, it has..." it could be Union or Idaho here.
    • Not sure I agree, but added 'the state'.
  • "president pro tempore of" suspect you could use some italics here to emphasise the fact that pro tempore is Latin.
  • Should "speaker of the state house of representatives" be capitalised?
    • I don't think so; we capitalize titles. Their title is probably Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives. It's not Speaker of the State House of Representatives, I figure. Could change 'state' to Idaho to fix this. --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the key you have "(Official numbering)[note 10]" but what does it relate to?
    • The small numbers by each party, indicating how many of each party have been governor. It's a needed distinction because some states don't count repeat governors, and sometimes we have to use an unofficial numbering (looking at you, Florida) to account for a discrepancy between official and the number in the list. --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You relink Lt Governors in the second table but you don't relink Appointed by's in the first.
    • True, linking.
  • [34][7] numerical order is preferred.
    • Even when one is more relevant than the other? If 34 were the better reference, and 7 just supported it? (nonetheless, swapped) --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some notes end with a period, some don't. Consistency please.
    • The general rule has been, full sentences get a full stop, fragments do not. But I agree, it's generally better to use periods. --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spare period in ref 22.
  • "In addition, two people who were appointed... " is this referenced?
    • Nope. Should be. Can't do at the moment. Bgwhite? :) --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All dates but four are individually referenced in this table. Why those four?
    • Good question. Bgwhite? --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will get 3 of 4 tomorrow. The 4th, George Shoup, doesn't need a reference as Idaho became a state on that day. Bgwhite (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok Done. Check the notes created to see if they are alright and make sense. On a side note, it is always interesting to visit Special Collections at the University library. Today had a person researching how the Book of Mormon and Bible came from Egypt as part of a history of visiting aliens. Bgwhite (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 07:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments
"Idaho Territory was created from Dakota Territory, Nebraska Territory, and Washington Territory on March 4, 1863. Initially, the territory included all of modern-day Idaho and Montana, and most of Wyoming. On May 26, 1864, Montana Territory was split from Idaho Territory, and most of the Wyoming portion was reassigned to Dakota Territory. The portion east of the 111th meridian was split off as part of the new Wyoming Territory on July 25, 1868, giving Idaho Territory its final borders." All of this is fairly well known among U.S. historians... but it still needs citing in this article.
  • Fixed. Looks like the reference was deleted at one point. Added it back in. Bgwhite (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the president pro tempore of the state senate is next in line, and then the speaker of the state house of representatives" Some capital letters and wikilinks to the actual bodies (I know we have articles somewhere for the House and the Senate of Idaho) would be good here.
Ref 33 has a publication date available.
For the NYT refs, it is "The New York Times", not "New York Times"
Ref 36 needs location and publisher
  • It has a publisher, added location. Unless you mean 35, which doesn't need a location. --Golbez (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the notes need referenced. 1, 14, 20, 24, and 26 contain information not in or reasonably derived from the table.
  • All of those are referenced by the general references (primarily the NGA), just as the table is. If they were not, I would have sourced them specifically. Since some of them are used multiple times, that would require multiple identical footnotes. Is this a needed thing? I mean, you could say that you have to hunt a general reference to find them; on the other hand, that's the case for every other piece of information in the table. --Golbez (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles 06:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep, the notes should be able to stand on their own-- the reader shouldn't need to go back and look at the table to find the references. I'd add them into the notes even if many of the references will be the same as they are in the table. Nomader (Talk) 17:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 18:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments. The list is very close to becoming featured but there are a few problems:
  1. Idaho Territory had 16 territorial governors appointed from its organization in 1863 until the formation of the state of Idaho in 1890, who were appointed by the President of the United States. This is a convoluted sentence. 'appointed' is repeated twice and the last clause can be merged with the first.
  2. The state's first governor, William H. Wallace He was not a state's governor. He was a governor of the territory.
  3. Can the lead include information about how many governors have belonged to each party?

Ruslik_Zero 16:45, 3 October 2010 (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_Governors_of_Idaho/archive1&oldid=389298723"