Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of British Columbia general elections/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 not promoted by  Pres N  22:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC).

List of British Columbia general elections

 * Nominator(s): --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This article was previously promoted to Featured list status in December 2006 (and subsequently became part of a Featured topic in January 2007). However, earlier this year, in April 2015, this article was delisted as a Featured list due to its lack of inline citations, out-of-date referencing, and MOS-type problems with its table-lists (e.g. not adhering to WP:SALORDER, and antiquated table coding, etc.). I have spent the last few weeks attempting to resolve those issues, and I believe this article is now ready to be relisted as a Featured list, so I am (re-)nominating this article for Featured list status. (Most of the other Canadian provincial elections lists articles have also been delisted as FL's, outside of List of Alberta general elections which is still a Featured list, and I hope to fix those other articles, and renominate those over the next couple of months... But I am starting with the British Columbia article, as the one closest to being completely renovated enough for WP:FL status.) I look forward to working through this process. Thank you! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Just some drive-by comments, no time for a full review yet.
 * "This article provides a summary of results" is no longer considered appropriate for featured lists, nor is "The chart on the right shows", and "The table below shows"...
 * (Interlacing my replies here.) OK, I have eliminated that kind of language from the lede. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead should summarize the table, for example include sentences on any trends over the years, and referenced explanations. It needs to be substantially rewritten.
 * I have substantially reworked the lede. I doubt it's anywhere near "perfect" yet, but hopefully it's getting there. I based the first paragraph off List of Alberta general elections, but reworked the intro sentence so it's not just a "copy" of the Alberta one. (That intro sentence may be "clunky" as a result – if so, please let me know...) But hopefully the lede is at least more "professional" now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The second graph is missing the latest election results.
 * That second figure is a problem. I can't tell what it was worked up in, but I don't think it was Microsoft Excel. As a result, I doubt I can just whip up an "updated for 2013" version of that one that'll look similar to the way that figure looks now. Additionally, it seems wholly redundant with the article's first graph-figure. As a result, if there's no objection, I'd like to just remove the second figure from the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of "Elections prior to provincial political parties" has a reference, but I can't find any of that information on page 6 as indicated.
 * OK, I hope it's OK to quote the source verbetim for the purposes of this discussion, but I'm going to do so (this is from p.6, as per the reference at the article): I think this section of the source pretty much confirms the first paragraph of the 'Elections prior to provincial political parties' section, as well some of what's asserted in the second and third sentences of the last paragraph in the lede. However, it's certainly possible that both of these can be worded better to align them more closely with the quoted text from the source, above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The entire second paragraph of "Elections prior to provincial political parties" is completely unsourced, missing any wikilinks and needs to be written more clearly. That whole paragraph is painful to read.
 * I've added wikilinks for the premieres. (In terms of sourcing I'll see what I can dig up, and come back with what I find...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Full details on any election are linked via the year of the election at the start of the row" is almost tautological for any wikipedia user. And is written twice in the article.
 * You're right – I've removed that sentence. But, follow-up question: Is the phrasing "The table below shows..." in this section still acceptable language? Or is that also antiquated for FL's, and so needs to be reworded? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely improved since it was demoted thanks to your efforts, but there is still quite a bit of work to get it back to featured status. Mattximus (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And, noted! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Round two: Looking close to a support! Mattximus (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Round Three: Looks much better overall than before, I think my nitpicking is complete. If you do get a chance to change that opening graph, in addition to making the background white, I would also remove the horizontal lines as they weave in and out of the bars making it quit distracting. The only part preventing me from supporting is the unsourced last paragraph. It contains interesting stuff, but it needs to be sourced. Mattximus (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead is much, much better than before. Just a minor quibble: the last sentence is bit clunky, and can be fixed by being a bit more clear by writing something like ... "which won every election since 2001" or "all subsequent elections since 2001" or something like that.
 * I reworked the last sentence of the lede – I think it's better now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes better to scrap the second image since the information is contained within the first one anyway. The first one is good, but it would be much better if the grey background was white, but that's not a reason to oppose the nomination.
 * Yes – I put in a request to the original author to update that second figure, but have heard nothing back. As it is redundant to the first figure in any case, I have simply removed the second one from the article. As to improving the first figure, I think it was worked up in Microsoft Excel – I was thinking about trying to recreate it anyway to, among other things, get rid of the gray background (which was the default background color for graphs in certain versions of MS Excel...). I will probably be busy this week, but I will try to get to that soon... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the table, I'm not sure if the explanatory paragraph is needed at all. Maybe it can be removed and the title changed to "Summary of election results", especially since the 1903 cut off is explained in the paragraph below and the paragraph above. The table looks good but can it be left justified?
 * I've left the intro paragraph in for now, but this particular question is an important one because if consensus is that these tables need no direct "intro text", that will affect all of the other Canadian Provincial election articles as well. So I wouldn't mind hearing from others for their opinions on this question... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops – forgot to mention that I removed "centering" on the main elections table, so it is now 'left-justified'. Do you want the second (pre-1903) elections table also left-justified? – I'll admit: I prefer that one "centered" as it's smaller. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The paragraph under "Elections prior to provincial political parties" needs a bit of rewording. For example: "Until the 1903 election, political parties in BC had no official recognition" is needlessly passive. Can be written "Political parties in British Columbia had no official recognition until the 1903 election. The next sentence does not make sense. Can get rid of "however" and start with Some candidates.... "and were considered as "Government" candidates"..."whereas those not in support of the present administration were considered "Non-Government" or Independent." What is meant by "did not bear out"... that should be clarified.
 * Again, reworked this paragraph. Let me know if it still needs work!--IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph needs to be rewritten to be more clear.
 * FTR, I'm still going to look for some sourcing for that paragraph – if I can't find adequate sourcing, I intend to just cut it from the article entirely. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this nomination has been open for 2 months without a support, so I'm going to have to close it as not passed. Feel free to renominate in the future, and remember that the best way to get more reviewers for a nomination is to review other nominations yourself. -- Pres N  22:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


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