Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses/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 NapHit 21:40, 1 October 2012.

List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses

 * Nominator(s): Savidan 21:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a list of federal officials convicted of public corruption. If consensus is reached to promote this list, I hope to use the style to raise the similar lists for state, local, and territorial officials to a similar standard, with an eye toward a featured topic. Efforts to ensure comprehensiveness include: searches for reported judicial decisions on Westlaw and Lexis, a read of "Political Corruption in America: An Encyclopedia of Scandals, Power, and Greed" on Credo, a review of this and similar lists and categories, searches of news databases, and, of course, the research that went into the main article. I would be happy to address any comments or concerns. Savidan 21:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Interesting but the first sentence is lacking a verb; can't expect much after that. Nergaal (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. My apologies for the error. It was an artifact of changing the lead in response to Rambling Man's comments. Savidan 01:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, but the intro does not discuss/summarize at all the contents of the table. Nergaal (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I must confess I don't understand what you mean. I have added the count of the total number convicted and the names of the two least-used statutes which were previously not mentioned in the intro. What else do you have in mind? Savidan 01:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First ones that come into mind: list states with at least 3 officials, earliest high-level official, some sort of summary of conviction totals per period, perhaphs in the second paragraph give totals for such crimes, perhaps talk a bit about the entries that are not HoR members. Nergaal (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the states with 3+. I was able to find sources for the first cabinet member, senator, and judge. I was not able to find a source for the first House member (although I am VERY sure of the right answer, it would be original research.) I also worry that totals per period would constitute original research depending on how the periods were drawn. I haven't seen to reliable source that adds up the totals per period. I don't understand what you mean by "talk a bit." Do you want me to explain the "story" of the 7 convicts that weren't House members? I feel like that goes way beyond the scope of the list. The point is to list all 40+ of them. Not to tell 40+ stories. Savidan 05:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The list seems fine to me. Nergaal (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I really like this table. Tables are very useful to organize large gobs of similar material in a way that the reader can interface with directly and they also make for a lot of "did you know" reading as other things besides the one sought are seen in context. I was surprised in this table by how few people were convicted of anything before 1930 and how many after. Structurally I like the arrangement where the table has photos second from left column which draws the eye down the page very rapidly.  I think it's very helpful to be able to rearrange the data by name, year or state.  The only thing I see that I would change is either the sentence "The year of conviction is included (if the official was convicted multiple times due to retrials, only the year of the first conviction is included)" or the inclusion of "Mario Biaggi" two times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  Ellin Beltz  (talk • contribs)  17:30, 26 August 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. Biaggi was convicted in two separate cases arising from totally separate sets of conduct. The sentence quoted refers to situations where an appellate court reverses a conviction and the defendant is re-convicted at a retrial. Savidan 16:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support as is, no comments.  GregJackP   Boomer!   02:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.