Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Lists of Candian federal elections/archive1

Lists of Candian federal elections
These articles together provide a summary of the results of all of Canada's federal elections. They fulfill the requirements: I know this something new for the Featured Topic process, being a collection of lists rather than normal articles, which people may feel is not suitable for FT status. Tompw 16:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Clear similarity
 * 2) Nine articles
 * 3) Linked via Elections in Canada
 * 4) No gaps
 * 5) All of good quality (would meet Good Article crietria is they allowed lists). References are given at main result pages
 * The articles are in the same category (Category:Canadian federal elections)
 * The structure of the articles is similar.


 * Oppose. None of the mentioned articles have any meaningful content (in prose). It is just a collection of nice tables. Even though meant to be lists, an introduction into the given elections is essential; like the pre-election campaigns, controversies, major figures, etc. Also, most of the articles require serious clean-up. Some of them have flowing texts in See also section, while most others are just a farm of red-links. Even the main article is just a timeline with hardly and coherent prose. It doesn't even touch the topic why it is chosen to start the count from 1867 (i.e. info about British North America Acts). Definitely not ready to be a Featured Topic (even if lists were allowed). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK... large number of points raised here:
 * I agree that lists should have an introduction, however breif (something I will add). However I cannot agree with adding commentry on indivdual elections to the results pages. The articles exsist to provide a list of general elections *results* within the given timespan - hence their titles. Commentry belongs on articles relating to indivual election (e.g. Canadian federal election, 1972 as a random example).
 * I agree with your comments about the See Also sections, and have cleaned things uip accordingly.
 * Saying the main article has hardly any coherent prose is just not true - there's over a thousand words of prose! I shall try and add to the main article intro about the 1867 buisness - good point.
 * Please note: I am not saying these are up to featued list standard (they'd probably fail on 2f and possibly also on 3) - but that's not required for FT status. Tompw 20:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The operating word in my objection is "cohesive". How many groups of (say three) sentences is the main article are a part of a single theme? None before 1993, that means it is true for the majority of the article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nomination was not promoted on 15:32, 7 December 2006 - rst20xx (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)