Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of defense of marriage amendments to U.S. state constitutions by type/archive1

List of defense of marriage amendments to U.S. state constitutions by type
This is a self-nomination, as Zantastik and I composed this list from scratch in my sandbox over the last few weeks. The list is useful, as it includes links to every article on the individual amendments. It is comprehensive, as it covers every defense of marriage amendment that has passed so far. Claims are verifiable in reliable sources as the list is well-sourced. Though it may need to be updated as more elections are held, the list is stable. Zantastik and I find the list to be visually appealing. It has multiple maps, including an animated gif, that were created in the process of compiling the list. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as self-nominator, of course. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Temporary object I can fix that red Hawaii issue for you. Is it supposed to be pink for the duration of the animation? --GunnarRene 21:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is (the same color it is on the other map). And thanks! · j e r s y k o talk · 21:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I added 1996 as a "before" year, and colored Hawai pink.--GunnarRene 21:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thank you very much. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now Support as long as either this edit is kept in essence, or Virginia is included somehow in the category above it. --GunnarRene 21:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support – very well-crafted, and the maps are a huge plus. That's also an awesome infobox, must explore those pages some time. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Biased Support. I compiled this list along with Jersyko and belive that at long last it meets the criteria for featured lists. -- Zantastik  talk  15:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Great list, but could you fix the last table (about Virginia) by shortening the "title" column and making the "Amendment" column wider. CG 19:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 19:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a good list but two points:
 * DOMAwatch isn't a neutral source and ideally should be replaced, e.g. with a government site.
 * Animation is generally discouraged unless movement is actually what is being discussed. It doesn't print, can be distracting, takes a while to show everything and doesn't stay put long enough to study. I strongly recommend this map be dropped (it is already on the main article page) then the other map can be moved to the standard top-right position. A map isn't the ideal format to show the chronological change since this isn't a geographically shifting phenomenon. A vertically-stacked bar-chart would be better. Colin°Talk 13:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think an animation shows this geographical change better and more efficiently than making yet another set of maps that show the development over time. We are well aware of the limitations of an animation, but in addition to the still image, the information is duplicated in the textual table and is summarized in the lead, which should make the info accessible also for the blind. I'm opposed to a bar chart, since it would be less illustrative. Also, what would be the unit measure? Number of states? Number of citizens covered? --GunnarRene 15:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with GunnarRene on this point, though please give my biased view little weight. I would like to hear what others think about the map, though. Regarding DOMAwatch, yeah, it's certainly not a neutral source (we didn't want to use it at all).  Unfortunately, however, several states have failed to keep their websites up to date (I remember Oklahoma, in particular, had only an extremely old version of their constitution online), and Zantastik and I were completely shocked at the lack of other good resources on this subject on the web for a few of the amendments.  Thus, where we had to, we defaulted to domawatch (I believe there are 4 instances in the article). · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 15:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But I didn't suggest "making yet another set of maps" and this isn't a "geographical change". Landmass is not affected by constitutional change. Either of your suggested units (states or citizens) would an improvement on square-feet! A graph showing the total or percentage of US citizens affected by these changes might actually show some detail not visible with the current page since the number of citizens in a state varies considerably. Does anyone else have an opinion? Colin°Talk 17:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean something like this? (10KB GIF file). It a bar chart of the percentage of U.S. population living in states under the different ypes of constituional amendement. (2006 population figures used throughout). Tom pw (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the sort of thing. To be useful long-term, it needs to use the population figures from each year, which might take a wee while to find. I don't think the level of primary-school maths involved in doing this counts as WP:OR? The columns could be brought closer together. Colin°Talk 20:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe that the graphics used in this list should be geographically-oriented, not based on population. This list and its accompanying article address U.S. state constitutional amendments. It does not address percentages of Americans who live in areas with ssm bans written into their state constitutions; with this in mind, the bar graph wouldn't be germane. I feel that the animated gif is useful in that it shows the spread, over time, of these amendments. If the list were full of animations it would be distracting, but this is just one picture -- the rest of the list is just that -- a list. (Obviously, as co-author I'm biased. So judge my arguments on their own merits, considering that I'm half-asleep as I write this). -- Zantastik  talk  06:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, nice list, love the animation.-- Wizardman 22:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)