Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of current members of the Maryland Senate/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 promoted by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009.

List of current members of the Maryland Senate

 * Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is modeled on a previous FL Current members of the Maryland House of Delegates. Credit should go to User:Marylandstater for maintaining it in my absence and providing the wealth of pictures. He's working on getting the rest of the pictures, but doesn't have them yet. However, I don't think the lack of a couple images detracts from the overall quality of the list. Geraldk (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - nice list, but images are way too small and the column should not be sortable.— Chris!  c t 22:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chris. Either make room for larger images or remove them altogether. When do they take office after being elected? You may want to center the district and elected columns. Also be sure to improve Maryland Senate while you're at it. Reywas92 Talk  03:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both for suggestions. Have implemented all of them, including doubling the size of the images. In the case of the question about when they take office, the only place I was able to find specific mention was in the state constitution itself, but it does not explicitly explain when those who are appointed to their seats take office, so I've not mentioned that. And I will definitely be getting to the Senate article - am slowly working towards a featured topic on the assembly as a whole. Geraldk (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the page title and the lead both use Maryland State Senate, yet that article is Maryland Senate. What's right? I'd move this list to just List of current members of the Maryland Senate.
 * Vacant Seat in the composition table should not be colored, or better yet not even there.
 * The executive nominations column looks terrible because the dashes are centered but the words are to the left. I would just center the entire table with.
 * Rather than referencing column headings, those should probably just be general references.
 * I think that's all. Reywas92 Talk  18:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All done. With the reference, I separated out as a general reference any ref that was on a column header. Unfortunately, a lot of those same references were used in portions of the lead, so the lead now looks under-referenced, but it didn't make sense to list a reference as both general and specific. Let me know if the current ref formating works or if I should look for another solution. Geraldk (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support looks good. Reywas92 Talk  02:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * The shades of blue and red in the map and in the first section are different than the ones in the table. Consistency ?
 * I've changed the first section to match the rest of the table. The map I'd like to leave be as the darker shades provide more visual contrast. The other option, of course, would be something like List of governors in Alabama, but I don't frankly think there's much reason to change it. Either one works pretty well. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dashes are needed in the "Executive" column; blanks look incomplete.
 * Done. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it really useful to sort the "Counties" column even though there are more than two on some rows ?
 * In some ways it is. It allows for the major delegations (Baltimore, Montgomery, Prince George's) to be sorted, although it doesn't sort as well for the senators who represent multiple counties. I'd like to keep it in the interest of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, but let me know if it's a major sticking point for you. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Online or On-line?
 * The sources calls itself 'On-line' so that's the spelling I've gone with. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Notes should be separated from the references
 * Done. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are general/specific shown as subsections? I doubt anyone would click on "specific' from the TOC.
 * No longer a problem. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The general reference is the same website as the current #2 website. I don't see any use for that "general reference".
 * Eliminated. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The See also section needs to go. That link is already in the template below.
 * Eliminated. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you could find more categories, that would be great.
 * After much hunting, found one more. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

-- Crzycheetah 05:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thorough review and the comments. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What does the green area in the map mean?
 * It's the inset area for Baltimore City, which is separated out to the left. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It could be mentioned in the caption.-- Crzycheetah 05:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Geraldk (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what's the "Government Majority - 19" part supposed to mean.
 * It's the difference between the number of Democrats and the number of Republicans. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and why do I need to know that? -- Crzycheetah 05:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah, you and your logic. Does there really have to be a reason for extraneous information that can easily be calculated by a reader? This is Wikipedia, where every piece of information, however trivial, can find a home... Dropped it. Thanks. Geraldk (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support and thanks for the compliment.-- Crzycheetah 01:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support — Chris!  c t 19:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good enough. – ( iMatthew  • talk ) at 01:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * I'm basing my review off the List of current Canadian senators, which is also a FL.
 * I think that one looks tidier and is easier to read. I think the lack of coloured rows is a big part of it. Would you consider removing the complete colour from this list and switching it a method similar to what is used in the Canadian list? Some of the Governors FLs use a similar method, ie. List of Governors of Arizona.
 * Does the "Current party composition" need an entire section? I would almost argue that the table isn't needed, since there are two parties and the numbers aren't complex, but having comparative numbers is useful. Perhaps you could merge it with the "current leadership" section? (again, I would debate whether it is needed. Perhaps you could switch to a notes method like what is used in the Canadian list?)
 * I hope that helps. -- Scorpion 0422  22:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer not to reduce the color to a single column, but will if you insist. I'm looking to keep this list as similar as possible to its sister list, List of current members of the Maryland House of Delegates, and frankly I don't particularly see the reason for one method being chosen over the other. With the current party composition, again, it mirrors the sister page, and also I think it's useful as a quick glance chart for those who don't take the time to read through the entire lead. But, again, if you insist, I can merge it somehow. Geraldk (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.