Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Saskatchewan general elections

List of Saskatchewan general elections
This is the second time this list has been submitted for featured list status (first time) It failed due to lack of support, rather than opposition. The suggestions amde last time round ave been incorprated. The list was put up for peer review (read), anmd the few comments made have been acted on. Tompw 14:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
 * 2) Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
 * 3) * Useful: Summarises information from 25 seperate aritcles, and allows visitors to easily compare results from successive general elections
 * 4) * Comprehensive: Covers every general election
 * 5) * Factually accurate: can be verified via Elections Saskatchewan
 * 6) * Stable: Will be only be updated every four years or so
 * 7) * Well-organised: Easy to find any required information
 * 8) Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes of any kind, ever
 * 9) Standards  / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
 * 10) Images: Sole image has approriate copyright status
 * Support. Looks good. Labour-Liberal and Unity Party should be linked somewhere, though even if it is a red link. Rmhermen 16:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Red and blue links respectively. Tompw 17:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * support Good list and more Hmains


 * Object. As I voted in the previous nom, I still object the chronoligical order of the list. CG 09:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you point out exactly which of the featured list criteria this list fails to satsisfy as a result of your objection? Crtieria 1f states that "the list is easy to navigate, and is annotated with additional information, as appropriate". This list satisifes that. Tompw 12:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment A good list order comes under "professional standards of writing and presentation" and also "easy to navigate". So I think this complaint is technically valid but the closing editor should judge how important it is. Three editors questioned/opposed the reverse-chrono order in the last review. Personally, I think there are good arguments for reverse-chrono and think the presentation would be satisfactory in either order. Clearly, there are advantages for all the related Lists of XX general elections to be consistent in their order. Colin°Talk 13:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Taking the lists of general elections for the other Canadian provinces and territories where someone other than me fixed the order:
 * Ontario's and Northwest Territories's are earliest first;
 * Quebec's, New Brunswick's, Nova Scotia's, Prince Edwards Island's, Newfoundland and Labrador's and Yukon's are latest first
 * (Nunavut's, British Columbia's, Alberta's, Saskatchewan's and Manitoba's all had their order set by me, so don't really count in this argument).
 * So "latest first" is in the majority by six to two. Changeing SK's to earliest first would make it less consistent. Please note I'm *not* saying earliest first is wrong. I'm saying both are acceptable, so there is no need to change (like UK vs. US spelling). Tompw 14:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Rephrase the "click the year" bit. Colin°Talk 13:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Tompw 14:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. s d 3 1 4 1 5 talk • contribs 19:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, but consider replacing class="toccolours" with class="sortable toccolours" to the top row of the table; it's ideal for this sort of table, and allows users to sort the table automatically. La  ï  ka  22:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When I first saw this in action, I also thought it would be ideal. However, a few issues emerged:
 * class="sortable toccolours" doesn't allow any wikilinks in column headings. This means no party wikilinks, and no footnotes (see Renata's point below).
 * It sorts numbers alphabetically, not numerically. So, sorting by the NDP column puts the 1982 row (9 seats) ahead of the 1991 row (55 seats), and also puts the 1934 row (2 seats) in between the 1967 row (22 seats) and the 1938 row (10 seats).
 * Sorting by anything over than year means no nice alternate pale grey/paler grey row backgrounds.
 * Consequently, I've reverted back to class="toccolours". If they ever get the numbers and wikilinks issues sorted out, I'll use it. Thanks for the suggestion though :-) Tompw 15:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 *  Oppose for now  - I would prefer if the wording in the "Summary" section would be less self-refering. It can be done by adding a "Notes" section and using ref tags. For example, add a note to the heading colunm on Conservatives that "Results in Conservative column include all results for the Progressive Conservatives". Also spelling out CCF and NDP would not hurt. Renata 22:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've now done a "Notes" section, and spelled out CCF and NDP. I think it's now sufficiently non self-referenceing. Tompw 15:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Change to support. That looks much neater! But when you find a second, learn to use tags. See Footnotes. It is a lot easier and quicker. Renata 02:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not uncommon to use the old ref/note system with letter labels for true footnotes, and keep the system for numbered inline citations. This article has no inline citations. Colin°Talk 09:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I prefer to keep footnotes and inline citations (even ones that don't exsist yet) seperate. See Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal for an example of why this is a good plan. Tompw 09:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Very good- keep up the good work! As I said last time, I think that if the list were in chronological order, not reverse-chron it would actually be less useful. --G Rutter 13:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)