Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Prime Ministers of Vietnam/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 Giants2008 23:22, 2 November 2012.

List of Prime Ministers of Vietnam

 * Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam... --TIAYN (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Arsenikk (talk)  17:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments
 * I think there's much more repetition in the lead than is necessary. A good copy-editer could likely turn it into much less dull of a read. (WP:GOCE) Some examples:
 * Done "he is ranked he is third in the Political Bureau (Politburo) ranking"
 * Done "elects the prime minister. The prime minister is responsible"
 * Done "to the National Assembly, and the Assembly elects"
 * Done "has been 8 prime ministers" (WP:NUMERAL)
 * "According to the Prime Minister's website" – Why do we need this?
 * Because its official conformation. --TIAYN (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't explain to me why we need the in-text attribution, but fine, it's a minor point anyway.
 * Done "the modern office of the Prime Minister traces its lineage back to Hồ Chí Minh" – Is there also a dated office of the Prime Minister?
 * Done "office of the Prime Minister" – Shouldn't this be the "Office of the Prime Minister"?
 * Done Why no link to South Vietnam?
 * Done Why are there two "No." columns in some tables?
 * The one em dash in one of the "Rank" columns makes me curious. Could an explanatory note be added?
 * This is explained. See the notes. --TIAYN (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Which one?
 * Beneath the column No. on all the tables: [note 2] --TIAYN (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * [note 2] doesn't explain what an em dash in the "Rank" column means. I suppose Phạm Văn Đồng had no rank at that time, but I'd like to understand why or how that occurred.


 * Done The last table in particular is in violation of MOS:DTT.
 * Explain.. --TIAYN (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done "Do not place column headers in the middle of a table to visually separate the table." Please see MOS:DTT for details.


 * Though not mandated by guidelines, please consider using fewer col- and rowspans for the benefit of our readers using text-only browsers or screen readers.
 * Explain. --TIAYN (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see User:RexxS/Accessibility. Minor concessions to visual appeal can greatly improve the reading experience for users of text-only browsers or screen readers.

For now, I'll have to oppose promotion of this list.  Good raise  07:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Revisited.  Good raise  10:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment: FLC isn't peer review. By listing an article at FLC you make the implicit claim that it meets the featured list criteria, which includes complying "with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages." Reviewers are not here to give you step-by-step instructions on how to improve the article or to explain content guidelines and policies to you. Rather, it was your responsibility to have read and understood relevant guidelines and policies beforehand and to have made sure the article met those requirements before listing it here. I'll gladly answer all your questions relating to my comments, provided you at least read the pages to which I'm pointing you. Moreover, it is not enough to fix the examples I give. You'll have to identify and fix similar problems in the article as well.  Good raise  08:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never had these problems with other FL nominations; such as those with column and violation of MOS:DTT... That is why I have been asking these questions. --TIAYN (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

More comments
 * Done There's two stray "]" in the article. Easily fixed, but one really shouldn't find these kind of flaws in featured list candidates.
 * Done I'm also not happy with how the scope of the article is defined in the first sentences and then expanded in the last paragraph.
 * Done The "Rank" columns seem out of place. As properties of the politicians' holding the respective office rather than of the office itself, it would seem to make more sense to place those columns after the "Name" and "Portrait" columns.
 * I disagree on the grounds that I think its better for readability for having them there. Secondly, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam and Chairman of the National Assembly of Vietnam were accepted without any fuss on where the rank column was placed. --TIAYN (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Remaining opposed.  Good raise  08:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done [note 2] confuses me. From what it says, I'd expect the first number to be higher, not lower than the second.
 * The reviewer is not responding... --TIAYN (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My concerns were not addressed to my satisfaction. As it stands, the best I can do is strike my oppose. Support this nomination, I can not.  Good raise  18:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, but you have to say what is not good enough so that I can fix it; it doesn't help me if you just say its not good enough.. How can I further improve the article??? --TIAYN (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm giving you advice, but not because I'm under any kind of obligation. Read the guidelines. Fix not only the examples I gave, but the issues they exemplify. Make the list clearly define its scope. And have a decent copy-editor work on the prose.  Good raise  21:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm having troubles why you are not supporting because I've done everything you've told, but okay. --TIAYN (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done At least for myself I am waiting for you to remove the excess "scope=row" from the presidency column in 1969–1976. If that is the sole issue Goodraise is asking for, I am not certain of. The colspan in 1981–1992 will also make that table incomprehensible with a text-only browser. Arsenikk (talk)  21:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed all the scope things.. Better??? --TIAYN (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Goodraise is not responding, and I'm not sire what he thinks I should fix... What should I do?? --TIAYN (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.