Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Ohio


 * 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 User:Scorpion0422 20:34, 19 June 2008.

List of Governors of Ohio
Back again, following the promotions of List of Governors of Pennsylvania and List of Governors of New York, here we are again. A preemptive comment - yes, three governors were Postmaster General, but only one was when it was a cabinet-level office, which is why only that one is mentioned in the listing of higher offices. --Golbez (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Very nice, well laid out, informative. Good job.  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  19:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King ( talk ) 03:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments Otherwise, it looks very good. —Salmar (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The H's and S's in the "Other high offices held" table should probably be centered like in the other governor Featured Lists
 * The page range in note [C] needs to have an endash, not an emdash
 * While it's obvious after a moment what it means, at first glance note [17] makes it sound like two terms were three years long; perhaps "thus, Pattison's term (completed by Lieutenant Governor Harris) was extended to three years" or something similar
 * All done, not necessarily by me. --Golbez (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good, support —Salmar (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I must admit, I like the list alot, but one thing really confused me: why are the in-line citations in letters not numbers like every other article I have ever seen on Wikipedia? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! I think somewhere along the lines the citations and the footnotes got swapped around. But that's my best guess. Is this intentional? Drewcifer (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. See the other featured governor lists. The prime reason for this is that we don't have two true classes of footnotes available with the ref tag. Ideally, I would be able to  for the table notes, and use  for the citations for the notes. Unfortunately, while the group parameter does exist now, we can't nest them, which defeats the whole purpose of splitting footnotes from citations. So until such capability is supplied, I see no way to totally separate footnotes and citations except to use both s and s. The way I do it has been to use s for the footnotes, and s for the citations ; List of Lieutenant Governors of Wisconsin, a related list done by someone else, flipped this around, since if that one was done that way, it would have run out of letters. So, long story short - this is the best way, at present, to separate footnotes from citations. I would love to be able to use all ref tags, but since they cannot be nested this is not yet possible. --Golbez (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Support: I like the way this list was organized! I have just one suggestion:
 * In the lead, please link the first mention of "lieutenant governor" to Lieutenant Governor of Ohio.--Dem393 (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Golbez (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Cr 1, 6.


 * Many folks will find it strange to think of military and naval forces of a US state. Can it be more explicit, further down, rather than privileging this claim right at the top? Why are both words linked?
 * Why? Because it was the template I copied. I'll link specifically to Ohio National Guard.
 * "six out of"—which word can go?
 * Fixed.
 * an election.
 * Fixed.
 * removed/moved
 * Fixed.
 * MOS breach in piping of OHS ref., among others. See en dashes.
 * You're going to have to clarify this, what do you mean by "MOS breach in piping"? --Golbez (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The old "noun plus -ing" grammatical problem: "11 days after the governor preceding them resigned". Euuuw.
 * Fixed, I think.
 * Etc. Needs a careful copy-edit throughout (not just these random examples), preferably by someone fresh to the text.
 * I agree, more eyes are always good. Like yours! --Golbez (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why no brief explanation of the parties/party names? They seem to have evolved during the period covered by the table.
 * That's actually a good idea, explain the major shifts in party power over the years. (Though really the only major shift was to the Republican Party in the 1850s; everything else has been due to the growth and death of parties)
 * Strickland pic badly interfering with the table; so is the Cox pic. Others elbow into just the right-most column. Rather large pics, some of them. Why not put more of the pics in the lead and move the mini-list there down? TONY   (talk)  03:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC) PS Check MOS on right-facing portraits.  TONY   (talk)  03:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I work on a huge monitor so such picture/table issues escape me; however, I shrank my window and still saw no specific problem with Strickland and Cox. What problems are they causing? As for rather large pics, I think that's for the user to decide, isn't it? I used to force pics in these tables to 130px but now I leave it to the user's specifications. What resolution are you running at, so I can see what you're seeing? As for the MOS, I'll take a look at that now... OK, I see, though I chose the pictures based primarily on availability, and secondarily on notability. If I switch to use only left-facing photos, I'll have to change a few of these to possibly inferior choices... --Golbez (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from
 * Golbez, it's a very good list, as usual.
 * I've taken the liberty of following WP:IMAGES and made all the images  thumbs.  This means they're all the same size, regardless of their original size/orientation etc.
 * Oh. Well. Nice to know that exists, then, I'll make use of that in the future. :)
 * I feel that the text in the Governors section (e.g. "New York ceded its claim in 1782") could use citation.
 * Good idea, since looking at state cessions et.al. this seems poorly sourced. Done.
 * Now, incomplete sentences (fragments) in the notes. Strictly speaking fragments shouldn't have periods.  What do you think?
 * I think it's cleaner to have them all have periods. I think the current image MOS is that if you have one image with a full-sentence caption which requires a period, it's best to put periods at the ends of all the captions, even if they are fragments (I could be very wrong on this but that's what I recall); I see no reason to not do the same with footnotes. :)
 * Higher offices held table. Very expansive.  I'd force the col widths as on my display (only 1280 wide), the Term col looks ridiculous - almost three times too large with the dates crammed up on the left hand side.
 * Or, I could simply get rid of the width enforcement, I see no reason it has to be 100%.
 * Strickland looks like he has an em-dash in that table - ranges should be en-dash (and maybe you could add "Present"?)
 * But shouldn't open ranges have emdashes? Either way, it's -present now, though I prefer an emdash! :P
 * All fixed. --Golbez (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.