Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Gallup's most admired man and woman poll/archive1


 * 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC).

Gallup's most admired man and woman poll

 * Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

In the past few days, I completely re-worked this list, and feel that it meets the FL criteria. The list illustrates that even politicians can be "most admired" people (they are!) My other FLC, List of operettas by John Philip Sousa has two supports, no oppose, and a reasonable time has passed. Over to the community for their constructive feedback. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Wasted Time R
@Wasted Time R: Thanks for the comments. How does it look now? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The most glaring problem I see is that the two women who are singled out at the top for the most appearances, Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Rodham Clinton, are only described by the article as first ladies. Yes, they were that, but they were/are so much more.  Roosevelt became world-famous for her role in the United Nations, on the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and for her presence in civil rights and women's rights in general.  Indeed, all of Roosevelt's appearances on this list come after her time as first lady had ended.  As for Clinton, she has been no normal first lady either, having been a twice-elected U.S. Senator, a U.S. Secretary of State, and a two-time presidential candidate, once getting a major party nomination.  And the majority of her appearances on the list have come after her time as first lady ended.  The article needs to give the information necessary for readers to understand why these two have the most appearances.
 * I agree, and I have added some context. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The layout, with the large image sizes, may lead to false visual clues about comparative frequency of appearance. For instance, the blocks for JFK and LBJ are the same size, even though one was on the list two times and the other four times.  And the block for Pat Nixon is also the same size, and she was only on the list once.
 * How does this version look? I made all the blocks equal in size, so it fixes the issue you mention. However, I am concerned about the large empty space in the Hillary Clinton column. Nevertheless, it all fixes once you sort the table. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In 2020, 11% chose a male friend or relative and 16% chose a female friend ... – I think these should be written as 'percent' not '%'.
 * Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That no poll was conducted in 2021 is stated twice.
 * Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Trump has been the most recent most admired man, and Michelle Obama has been the most admired woman. – I don't see the value in including this, especially since the 'honor' is currently vacant.
 * Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I have the feeling that Gallup may have given up on this somewhat dubious enterprise, and that's why no list appeared for 2021. We will see.   Wasted Time R (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope so ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Those changes all look okay. But another big issue to me is that the article should have more analysis regarding the significance (or lack thereof) of this poll.  I only see three sources – fns 4, 6, 14 – that might fit that bill, and they don't seem to be used much.  The large majority of the sources are from December/January/February of whatever year and are just reporting on who was named in the poll.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, @Wasted Time R: Aside from the sources you mention, there are many other sources which are present in the lead that discuss not just the winner, but other statistics and impact of the polls. I think the article provides well context to a non-expert reader about the stats and significance of the poll. Is there any particular source which you want me to incorporate, because I wasn't able to find anything better than all that is in the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're on the same wavelength here – there is a difference between the statistics of the poll and whether the polls have actually meant anything in practice – but I will drop the point and Support.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support and your review, and all your previous work on the article!! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

 * "Dwight D. Eisenhower and Barack Obama both have been" => "Dwight D. Eisenhower and Barack Obama have both been"
 * Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Queen Elizabeth II with 52 till 2020" - I think the last two word are redundant
 * Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Although never winning" => "Despite never winning"
 * Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Oprah Winfrey has finished in the top-10 a total of 33 times till 2020" - again, last two words not needed
 * Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "including finishing the second 14 times" => "including finishing second 14 times"
 * Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what I got on a first pass. Interesting to see that the president is always so admired.  I strongly suspect that if such a poll existed in my country (the UK) the incumbent Prime Minister would very rarely be the most admired person ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, British politics, you know! Rest, all comments resolved, @! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can I just clarify - when you say Among women, the poll has shown Eleanor Roosevelt[3] and Hillary Clinton as the first ladies with the most appearances on the list., are you saying that they have appeared in the top 10 more than any other first lady? Appeared in the top 10 more than any other woman at all?  They seem to be the two women who have appeared at number one more than any other, so maybe just focus on that?  Does that make sense.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I intended to write (for 1st position, not top 10). Regardless, Queen has been on top-10 list 52 times, more that Hillary Clinton and Eleanor Roosevelt combined, so the current statement is factually misleading. Fixed now. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What I meant is, if they are the two women with the most appearances at number one, then just say "Eleanor Roosevelt[3] and Hillary Clinton are the women with most appearances as the most admired woman" (or something better worded than that), because saying they are the "first ladies with most appearances" makes it sound like there is also someone who wasn't first lady with more appearances. Does that make sense.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I though of this earlier and was reluctant for "most appearances as the most admired woman" because of the repetition. I now changed it to "Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton are the women having top two appearances as the most admired woman". Does that work? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I reworded that section a bit and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The wording is fine! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Eviolite
Sourcing review: (for ref numbers, Special:Permalink/1075046351) Thanks in advance! ev iolite  (talk)  03:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It may just be me, but I find the "Most years the" construction informal and would prefer a different wording, maybe something like "In most years" with "has been" in place of "is".
 * Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "While the top of the list is often predictable, scholars have found appearances further down in the top ten to be illuminating; in 1958, governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas, a segregationist, appeared on the list in the wake of the Little Rock Nine civil rights episode." This is quite long thanks to the semicolon; I would recommend splitting this into two sentences, with a "For example," or similar in between.
 * Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph interleaves information about the top-10 and those about the winners seemingly randomly; I'd recommend consolidating them (like how the third paragraph has info on #1 and then statistics for the rest of the top 10 after).
 * Similar to para 3, para 2 has stats about top-10 and discusses about the winner. I am not sure if I'm getting your point. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "A portion of those surveyed choose a friend or relative instead of a public figure" - is the present tense intended?
 * No; fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The screen reader table caption, "List of winners of the Gallup's most admired man and woman poll", should not have a "the"
 * Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Technically, if it was "most admired person", shouldn't the columns for 1946/1947 be consolidated? Though I understand that would make the table headers very confusing and possibly break sorting, so it's not a big deal.
 * I'd rather not do that, due to sorting issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that some of the sources, like [66], [67], and [81], note the sample size of just over 1000, while [79] notes one of 824. Is there any information on sample sizes over the years or the methodology in general?
 * Only thing I found is this, which has an analysis of this poll, but they don't state anything major about the sample size. So I don't feel comfortable writing that the sample size of just over 1000 based on 2-3 references. Moreover, that is how most of theGallup polls are conducted. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly confused about the sourcing, because [12] does cover thet entire table, so I assume it's only used as a fallback for the few rows that don't have any contemporary/secondary sources/sources that show the top 10? But [52] is not a contemporary source, several sources don't have all of the top 10, and the many clippings written by Gallup aren't secondary.
 * Yes, Ref#12 is only used where I wasn't able to find good sources. As for the concern about other primary sources, I don't think that is an issue. FA criteria requires source to be "high quality reliable sources". But our FL criteria just requires "statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations." Moreover, we have entire featured topic which uses Billboard for Billboard lists. We use IUCN in IUCN lists. So Gallup for Gallup shouldn't be an issue. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking of, while the results for 2019 are tied to the nearest percent, the official site in [12] lists Barack Obama as the winner based on the number of mentions while "next highest had similar percentage" (as opposed to Mother Teresa/Rosalynn Carter where it writes both). I think this is worth mentioning in a footnote.
 * This states that they were tied. If I follow the approach based on statistical tie, there would be a lot of people falling in that category. Gallup has always name 1 person as "most admired man/woman", thus I have listed that one. In 2019, however, the official site and secondary sources call them both to have tied. Moreover, on Talk:Gallup's most admired man and woman poll, there was a huge debate 9 years ago on the same matter. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The scan on [28] is bad and almost unreadable, but oh well.
 * Do you have access to Newspapers.com through WP:TWL? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * [29], [39], [41], [42], [44] are also authored by George Gallup. The other ones likely are too (e.g. Princeton reporting location for several) but it's not listed explicitly.
 * Listed him in all these sources. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Was there any reason you could find that 1967 didn't have a most admired woman poll? The source gives no insight.
 * See Ref#12 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Technically, [33] doesn't explicitly say it was 1968, but there's nothing else it could be, so it's fine.
 * Fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * [40] doesn't back up the most admired woman poll for that yaer - I'm not even sure it backs up the most admired man poll because the clipping is from December 13, 1975 and Gallup's announcements for the ones before all seem to have been a few weeks later than that time of year, so the latest results might still have been from 1974.
 * Replaced by Ref#12. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like [50] also backs up 1988 (in place of [51] and [52], the latter of which I mentioned above).
 * Maybe, but even Ref#51 and Ref#52 cite 1988. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * [56], [57], [63] refer to a CNN-USA Today poll, is that the same as Gallup? (I note that some other sources say all 3 of CNN/USA Today/Gallup, but find it odd that these don't..probably doesn't matter at all) [58] also does not mention a polling organization at all. (I realize that a lot of these complaints are just technicalities as the info in the article is definitely correct, but I don't think these sources are the best possible.)
 * Replaced whatever I could. This says "The CNNUSA Today poll of 1,016 Americans, conducted by the Gallup Organization" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * [65] is authored by Elizabeth Wolfe
 * Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * [71] is authored by Natasha Metzler
 * Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @, thanks a lot for all the comments. I think I fixed/replied all. Let me know if anything else is required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks (and I apologize for making comments that, in hindsight, are way too nitpicky and unnecessary).
 * No need to apologize for that. I think reviewers should list down everything they think while reviewing, doesn't matter how nitpicky it is. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My point for paragraph 2/3 was that paragraph 2 goes from talking about the top 10, to #1 ("the incumbent president.."), to talking about the top 10 again ("In his lifetime,..."), to #1 again (Dwight D. Eisenhower..."), which may be a bit confusing.
 * Is it better now? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to JSTOR. I find it interesting that due to the open-ended format, many do not come up with a response (top of p574), but I don't know if it's helpful to include.
 * Not much. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the tie: [12] only gave one winner for that one, but seeing that everything else calls it a tie, it's fine.
 * Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have TWL access, but looking at it again, it seems you can just zoom in on it for free, so never mind.
 * That's all. ev iolite   (talk)  15:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @: Done! Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, happy to support now. Great work! ev iolite   (talk)  16:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoted. -- Pres N  01:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


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