Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/United States congressional delegations from Indiana

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 Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [1].

United States congressional delegations from Indiana

I have added a lead, section leads, links, and references to this list, and I hope that it can become featured. All 50 states have tables like this but this is the first to be expanded. I would like to note that, after receiving comments on the Peer Review, this list does not go in-depth enough to include information such as partial terms and reasons; this list is too long and that info goes on the subarticle List of United States Senators from Indiana. I will address all concerns. Thanks, Reywas92 ^Talk 22:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought of these ever getting to featured quality (I made most of them, then regrettably abandoned them some years ago), but you've done a great job with this. A few comments:
1. Some of these lists have gone to having a separate table for each apportionment; i.e. "19xx-19xx: 4 seats" "19xx-19xx: 5 seats", etc, which eliminates the huge table and gives a little more context; it also has the benefit of not having congressmen constantly shifting seats in a growing or shrinking state. Has that been considered for this one? I'm not sure if I'm wanting it, per se, but I'd like to mention it. It does have its merits, but having the huge table has its merits as well.
2. The governor lists have gone from having the whole cell colored to just a tiny cell; however, for a large list like these, I can definitely see why it's better to have the whole cell. Cuts down on clutter, and allows for a very quick visual aid of which party was in control at which time.
3. The delegate table sticks out. These are still members of the House of Representatives, and served for specific congresses; it should use the same format as the congressman table.
4. I almost want to say "There's room here for a notes, i.e. people who died in office, resignations, etc.", but the article is not about the people, it's about the delegations. (Which does bring me back to point 1, which could make it easier to figure out who is in what delegation) A properly done list of representatives could fill that hole.
So in the end I guess I have no real complaints, just a few process questions. Except for the delegate table. That needs fixing. --Golbez (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Golbez! For 1, I have seen that type as on other lists as well, and I agree with what you said, though I didn't consider it because it's a lot more work, and I think that with an intro to reapportionment one table with blank columns is enough. I will work on a delegate table, though that creates more vertical length. I would like to create a list of representatives at some point, but with 313 of them I'm a bit apprehensive. Thanks! Reywas92 ^Talk 01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A list would best be done by district, I think; that way it becomes very easy to indicate which ones were moved during reapportionment. --Golbez (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean, but that's a later story. I converted the territorial delegate list into a table like the others, though I can't get the table syntax to work right. Can you get it to show that Parke and Thomas each served for half of the 10th Congress? Reywas92 ^Talk 01:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, tables don't want to display complex rowspans like this. I don't know of any way to really get past it. :( --Golbez (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I mean by that, in the list of reps, do it by district; i.e. "here is a chart of people who served in district 1", etc. It's better than an alphabetical list, IMO. --Golbez (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the charts and the pictures are way too big especially the map of the Indiana districts next to the lead. It would look nicer if the pictures and even the charts were smaller. It is too big. World ^tcs 22:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a second look, the charts are fine, but I still think the pictures are way too big. Also, is the key supposed to have its own section and be located at the bottom of the page? World ^tcs 22:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard not to force a certain size of images. They should be the default size of 250px (I think) or whatever is set in your preferences. The tables list all members from Indiana; they should not be too big. Yes, I believe the key normally has its own section at the bottom, where it is not distracting. To Golbez, now I see what you mean, though there's always sortable lists that can combine everyone! Reywas92 ^Talk 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sortable lists would make it difficult to show who was shifted between congresses; and if people want a purely alphabetical list, that's what categories are for. But this is an entirely other topic. :) --Golbez (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

It makes more sense to have the key above the table.
"Each state elects two Senators statewide to serve for six years, and Indiana elects them to Classes I and III." This sentence doesn't do a good job of explaining the class system.
"Members of the House of Representatives are elected to two-year terms, and Indiana currently elects nine Representatives, one from each of its congressional districts." Split this sentence up. What does the term length has little to do with Indiana's current number of representatives?
"A total of 342 people have represented Indiana in Congress, 17 of which in both houses, with an average term of seven years" "A total of" is redundant. Reword "17 of which in both houses", that is awkward and doesn't make much sense.
"Of the 44 men"-->Of the forty-four men (comparative quantities should be written out the same)
"Indiana has nine congressional disricts, the number of which a state has is reapportioned based on the state's population, determined every ten years by a census."-->Indiana has nine congressional disricts—this number is reapportioned based on the state's population, determined every ten years by a census.
"This gives Indiana the fourteenth-largest delegation, though from 1853 to 1873 the state had the fifth-largest." "though"-->although.
"313 people have represented Indiana in the House" Don't start sentences with numbers. I understand that it would be awkward to write out the entire number, you may need to rewrite the sentence.
"Indiana's current House delegation incudes" Typo. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two more dabs need fixing. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On that, however, Progressive_Party_(United_States) is not an actual link on the page. It is from the transcluded legend template. That link should be left ambiguous. Fix the other one. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Reywas92 ^Talk 17:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Done, though I think the key is a little distracting at the top. Thanks for your comments! Reywas92 ^Talk 01:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that John H. Baker links to a disambiguation page. There does not seem to be an article, so you may need to unlink, redlink or write a stub article for him. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. It was John Harris Baker, which is hidden in the dab. Reywas92 ^Talk 02:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, I support for featured status. I see nothing else in need of improvemnet. Great Work! World ^tcs 18:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yah, 1 thing I forgot to mention. Most articles (I think 99%) of articles have a bolded word or phrase showing the articles main idea within the intro. Is this required for lists? World ^tcs 18:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. It would be akin to starting an article on Mexico with "This is an article about Mexico." --Golbez (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have moved away from that boring verbatim repetition of the title. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about just bolding the title, lists have different guidelines from articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:59, 19 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.