Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of European Union member states by political system

List of European Union member states by political system
Well, I s'pose you were expecting a second European Union member states list from me, weren't you? This time around, it's a list of the member states by form of government, houses of parliament, and so on. It's referenced to death (around a hundred references), and as detailed as I could make it; if you find any flaw with it, I'm more than happy to correct it. :) &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose . 1) Too many of the references are to non-English language sites, many of which are only to the index page of that site.  2) The article says that a section is incomplete.  3) Too much over-linking of repeated terms.  violet/riga (t) 11:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Nope, almost all of those pages are *also* in English, with exactly nine official websites of national institutions which are *not* available in English. The link to the index page is meant to be a reference to the existence and names of the respective house of parliament or office. 2) Well, help me complete it, then; I haven't been able to find any polls or essays about the issue for the remaining three countries after googling for about 90 minutes. 3) Where, apart from linking to the country names more than once? I don't think linking to a single country twice in the text in unrelated paragraphs and once in the table is "overlinking"... &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Alternative sources for those nine should be found where possible, for the others the link should be directly to the English version of the home page. 2) I have no interest/knowledge about the topic so can't really help.  3) The "Listed by form of government" and "Listed by type of parliament" have a massive repeat of the same link.  violet/riga (t) 12:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I'll try. 2) Well, I'll try to find sources for the remaining three. 3) I think it would be non-sensical *not* to link to the countries in a table *about* the countries, don't you agree? &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Sorry, I wasn't clear - I was referring to the other links ("parliamentary unitary republic", for example). violet/riga (t) 14:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, *that* was what you meant. Corrected that. I haven't been able to find anything regarding Luxembourg, but I've got some info on Spain and Belgium now. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 14:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Links have been changed, English links have been added. That takes care of all of your criticism except for the fact that I don't have a source yet for Luxembourg; is that such a big problem? We'll find one sooner or later. ;) &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 15:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support now - thanks for the changes and well done with the article. violet/riga (t) 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - I haven't checked all notes and references, but it looks nice. Maps are particularly useful. Good encyclopedic stuff. Afonso Silva 19:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC) - changed username to Mário.
 * Question - At the time of my support, the article didn't included the "freedom map". Where does the information come from? Freedom House? It seems so, therefore, I don't think it should be included in the article. Mário 16:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is certainly a reliable source, and one of the most reputed agencies evaluating democratic development in the world; if you've got other ratings which you consider more relevant, please share them. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 16:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't consider Freedom House a neutral source, this way the list should be named List of European Union member states by political system according to Freedom House. However, if the map is removed and the Freedom House considerations are moved to a secondary level inside the article, I'll glady support, otherwise, I object. I'm not saying the article is bad and that you didn't made a great work, of course you did, as always. I just don't think the opinion of an American think tank should be the basis for an article intended to be neutral, don't you agree? Mário 16:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you've got a better source for rating democracy and political freedom, feel free to share it; unless you do, though, I still consider Freedom House the best source available for the statement regarding the European Union's member states' democratic status... &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 09:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Informative in list, prose and maps.  Personnally I could do without so many references, but I know that wouldn't fly :)   Jo  e  I  20:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The "Monarchism and republicanism" section reads more like an article than an introduction to a list - there are already links to the independant articles monarchism and republicanism, and the bulk of the description should occur in those articles, not in the list.  I'd recommend that it be shortened to look more like the "Degree of self-governance" and "Forms of government" sections. --Tim4christ17 08:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Moved to Monarchism in the European Union. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 08:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Looks nice, seems to be correct. —  Shir Khan  (?-"-!) — 19:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I Like the look and the layout. Interesting and informative topic also. Sotakeit 13:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Very nice. It's well referenced, that's for sure. --Nebular110 19:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Great list even though there's a little eulogy to the democratic system of the EU countries. CG 13:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you've got specific proposals as to how to amend the part that's too eulogic, go ahead. :) &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 14:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Nightstallion has impressed me a thousand times over and this is nothing less than the perfect example from one of the strongest editors here. This list - and I mean this - could be printed out and used in schools. Bravo. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow — thanks. :) &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 06:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support; excellent maps, can't find a single flaw. I second Doktorbuk's gushing praise. smurrayinch e  ster( User ), ( Talk ) 20:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose – the centre-aligned text makes the table look untidy. 2. Capitalise the first letter of the See alsos eg: form of government --> Form of government 3. Redundant words and copyediting needed: technically, incidentally, equal partners, "dawn of the" dawn?? --> more encyclopedic terms needed. 4. having a mix of black and blue in the government column is untidy.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. See below, I don't think that's a viable reason to oppose.
 * 2. seems to contradict, as does usage in many other articles; I don't think this is a must, and I think it looks untidy to capitalise terms when they needn't be capitalised.
 * 3. What's wrong with those?
 * 4. No, I'm afraid you're wrong on that; over-linking, as has been criticised above, would be the alternative, and there's a policy (or style guideline, whatever) for only linking terms when they first appear, generally. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 06:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you may want to copyedit according to Nichalp's suggestion (3) before I promote the list. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 13:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify what is wrong with those words or phrases, or how you would like them changed? You're also welcome to change them yourself, of course, but I frankly don't know what's wrong. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 16:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - and I disagree with Nichalp's points 1 and 4. Center aligned text looks fine when some terms are spanning more than one column. And the mix of black and blue is because terms are correctly only wikilinked once. That doesn't need to change. Rmhermen 18:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I just did a small copyedit of the lead, it seemed in the worst shape of all the prose. Though, I left an inline citation, so please address it. Thanks --liquidGhoul 14:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Addressed through simplifcation. :) &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 16:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - I have copyedited, hopefully addressing Nichalp's objections (although I couldn't spot the specific issues mentioned - perhaps they were already picked up). My only question is whether something more interesting (and less wasteful in terms of creating whitespace) can be done than the uniform image placement on the right, and "br clears" that appear at the end of each section.  I also abhor "tocright", although I can see why you used it. :) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)