Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Saskatchewan general elections/archive1

List of Saskatchewan general elections
Tompw 14:33, 19 September 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: Summarieses 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
 * Comment: Why is the list in reverse historical order? Rmhermen 23:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly, because all the other lists of provincial general elections are in that order. Secondly, because then the most recent (and therefore the ones most visitors will be interetsed in) will be at the top. You can argue it either way. Tompw 10:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this order. Normally, one will expect a list in chronoligical order, which is adopted in practically all articles. Check these FLs. CG 17:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Normally" and "practically all" do not mean "always" and "all". I fully agree that chronological order is and should be the norm. However, for a list of this type, I strongly feel that it is better to be reverse chronological order. Further, the Featured list criteria state only that the list be "easy to navigate" (which is undeniably is). Tompw 19:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also: if you look at the election results for any given seat or riding, then the results are almost always given in reverse chronological order. Tompw 13:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments: You've got the makings of a good article, and you've obviously put quite a bit of time into this, but I don't think it's quite there yet.
 * You need to link to the political parties (past and present).
 * Information on how the number of seats is determined (population?) would be useful (at least as a link).
 * I think that the graph would be better if the total number of seats contested was also represented.
 * The links to the indiviudal elections are somewhat hidden. I'd move the links to the year and probably delete the number column.
 * I would rename the columns "Year" to "Year of election" (increasing its prominence) and "Total" to "Total number of seats" or "Number of seats" or similar.
 * I'd also delete the Social Credit and Indpendent columns and include them all in the Other column. The Independent Liberal and Independent Pro-Goverment should probably also be included in the Other column.
 * Are the Progressive Conservatives, and the Provincial Rights party just the modern Conservative party under a different name? They could probably do with articles, or links if the articles are already there. If they're fundamentally the same party (like the British Tories and the modern Conservatives- see history) then I think you're fine including them together. If they're simply right-wing parties, I think you might have to separate them out.
 * Sorry for the length of this, but I think these changes will make the article better! (Oh, and I much prefer such lists in reverse historical order!) --G Rutter 11:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK... in order (I made your bullets numbered ones for ease of reference):
 * Done
 * I don't know how's its determined, and have been unable to find a definitive source for this.
 * How about something like this? (done before some of the party changes had been made)
 * Done
 * Done
 * Agree with Social Credit... but I feel there is a fundamental difference between independent candidates and those from misc. parties, so they should go in seperate columns. With regard to the Ind. Lib. and Ind. Pro-Gov.... I put them in the Liberal column, as that reflects the number of MLA's the party had who would support its views.
 * No they are not... good point. I've moved the Provnicial Rights into the "other" column
 * Thanks for the suggestions and comments. :-) Tompw 13:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional support. Sorry for the delay! I like what you've done (and I had a small tidy myself- you needed more links to the important concepts and parties in the introduction). When you've changed the image to an updated version of SK2 then feel free to remove the "conditional"! If they exist, links to things like the Farmer-Labour party and to a history of the legislature would also be useful, but not essential. --G Rutter 18:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please present your source more prominently, preferably formated using cite web. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 09:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - I prefer the new graph, and also would prefer chronological order too. I agree that the sourcing needs to be more explicit - in particular, there is no references section, and only one source is given - are no other sources relevant?  -- ALoan (Talk) 10:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The source which is given (to the Elections Saskatchewan website) is sufficient to verify all the information given in the article. I hardly it is worth having a references section for one source. Tompw 15:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)