Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom
I've completely redone this list - it now includes a summary of the key events and notes of the PM's time in office. I'd like to see this as a featured list! Talrias (t | e | c) 20:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comments It's a good list. It needs a "References" section (officially oppose till this is rectified). Some explanation of what the political parties are would be welcome (particularly for non-British readers). Some piccis would be welcome too, as would comments on the term "Prime Minister" not actually being used until the beginning of the twentieth century. See List of popes or List of Presidents of the United States for further ideas of improvement, jguk 09:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Also see the impressive List of Presidents of Venezuela, promoted to FL status today, jguk 14:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The only sources I've used are my historical knowledge, 10 Downing Street's website (which is in the external links) and the various Wikipedia articles on the Prime Ministers. The key events are all factual events, without analysis, so there's not really a need to have many sources. What do you recommend? Talrias (t | e | c) 16:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, could you explain what you mean by explanation of the political parties? Do you mean explain their political philosophy? Talrias (t | e | c) 16:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If the external link is really a reference, then it should be placed under a "References" section. There is a need to back up the factual events - that could be by having references from them all or by linking them to WP pages that themselves have references. By explanation of the political parties, I'm only looking for a brief one or two sentence explanation of what they stand for. For instance "Labour" could be described as a socialist party up towards the mid-1990s, when it became more left-centrist. "Conservatives" as moderate right-wing, etc., jguk 18:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, technically the WP pages are already linked from the article. :) The heading has been changed, and I've added in a (somewhat) brief explanation of the political parties' ideologies. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Support - looks excellent. I especially like the way that the party affiliation colour is just a small bar down the side rather than colouring the whole list. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Really good and genuilely useful list. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment Looks like a wonderful list, but surely some images would help. --Sophitus 19:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Of every Prime Minister? I would hope we have images of them all, but in case there aren't, what do you suggest? Talrias (t | e | c) 23:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps then only pictures of the most historically significant. --Sophitus 17:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've added in two pictures, of Sir Robert Peel and Clement Attlee. I don't think any more can fit in, it would distort the table. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. I believe this list is amazing &mdash; simply fascinating! &mdash;Hollow Wilerding 22:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Support Hollow said it best. This is beautful. karmafist 00:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I support this crucial Wikipedia list. Information is well presented. Phoenix2 23:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment Would it be appropriate to explain why each Prime Minister left office - which died, which were deposed, which retired, which lost an election (did I miss anything)? Morwen - Talk 01:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The default is 'just lost an election' unless noted. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't note that Thatcher was deposed, or that Wilson resigned - I haven't checked others. Morwen - Talk 01:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * NOTE from one of the FL directors: OFFICIAL OPPOSE I was about to promote this when I noticed that whilst the reference cited supports the names, years in office and political parties, there is no reference for the precise date they became or ceased to be prime minister. I'm assuming that the key events by each prime minister are listed on the Downing Street website one link away from the reference that is cited, but could the list's sponsor confirm this? I'll allow 4 days for this objection to be dealt with (and for other comments, if desired), jguk 08:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Who's the objection from? The dates the PMs become PM and cease to be PM are from their Wikipedia articles. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And what are the references for those? jguk 18:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You'd have to look in the individual articles for each Prime Minister. I think it would be rather silly to have 50 or so references to a biography of each PM in this article. It's clearly a list of articles, so the information is gotten from the articles. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Support, excellent list which meets the criteria. Previous voters wishes should be respected and this nomination should have been promoted before my vote - based on consensus within gained within ten days, regardless of the FL directors concern about refs. Question: Does an official oppose carry more weight than a support vote? -- Ian &equiv; talk 16:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Support - I have no idea what an official oppose is, but this list is great. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: The official oppose is because the dates PMs became and ceased to be PMs are not referenced in the article and referencing is an absolute must for a featured list. The "official" bit is a reference to ALoan and myself being the de facto featured list directors (though I'm sure more would be welcome) and therefore one of us takes the decision as to whether to promote or fail an article. In this case, the article is clearly on its way to being featured and has a lot of support, so failing it would be utterly inappropriate. But on the other hand, the contents of the list must be referenced if the list is to become featured. Hence my approach of putting the promotion on hold for 4 days so that the issue of referencing the dates can be resolved, at which point I fully anticipate being able to congratulate Talrias on a great featured list:) jguk 18:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to sound rude in my question, and after reading what I wrote, it could sound a bit that way. I apologise for that. The point I was making was that the criteria is for a references section to be present, but not specifically that that every last fact in the article be verifiable against the refs quoted. It just seemed to me that having a concern about one detail in the list not being in the refs was splitting hairs, especially considering the nom effectively had 100% support. -- Ian &equiv; talk 00:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)