Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of female United States Cabinet Secretaries


 * 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 Scorpion0422 23:14, 20 January 2009.

List of female United States Cabinet Secretaries
After working on this list, I believe it fulfilled the FL criteria.— Chris!  c t 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I find the title a little awkward. Has there been any discussion about how this list is named?  Jkelly (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but I am open to any suggestions that would make the title less awkward. I am not sure how to make it less awkward.— Chris!  c t 21:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Very nice read. I also found the title to be a little awkward though. "First women" had me thinking that the First Ladies had held Secretaryships. Couple of things: why are the Party and Administration columns not sortable; and the prose in the Postmaster General and SECNAV rows needs fixing -- it's wrapping very strangely. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I am open to any suggestions that would fix the title and make it read better. I am not sure how to make it less awkward Also, the reason Party and Administration columns are not sortable is that the sorting function is not working and I don't know how to fix this glitch. Lastly, how do I fix the wrapping of the proses? I don't see anything wrong.— Chris!  c t 06:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "List of first female U.S. Cabitnet Secretaries"?
 * Done— Chris!  c t 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:FFCS table.JPG is a screenshot of the page, with the line breaks circled in read.
 * Fixed— Chris!  c t 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. In that case I'll delete the image. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The sortability glitch is if you're using Firefox with Twinkle or WikEd.. The linking for the other three columns works right; there's no reason Party and Administration shouldn't either. No big deal though.
 * Done— Chris!  c t 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think List of first female United States Cabinet Secretaries is a lot more clear. Jkelly (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done— Chris!  c t 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Excellent job including all female secretaries! The lead is great and less listy, and the table is very well made. Reywas92 Talk  03:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that ref 8 http://www.asianweek.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=ec058dc49ba86eafad5319127b1f4bc7 dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you made a mistake. None of the reference I used is from Asian Week. And the link for Ref 8 isn't the one you pointed out .— Chris!  c t 23:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I got it. Ref 8 is dead, you are right. But the link for Ref 8 isn't the above one.— Chris!  c t 23:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.— Chris!  c t 23:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose  Sorry it is good and I enjoyed reading the lead, but currently I will oppose mainly on the first problem I raise below. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you have comments spanned across 4 rows, it makes the party and administration columns not sort.
 * Done— Chris!  c t 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For context it might be worth mentioning when all the cabinet departments were established. You do this for those where a woman has never served, but it might be useful for the rest to.
 * I can easily do it if you want, but the table is fairly crowded already.— Chris!  c t 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * True, I am considering whether this is necessary, as it is only really relevant to departments formed after 1920's Nineteenth Amendment
 * Whilst I've seen both used going from the Obama article (an FA) I think it should be President-elect not President-Elect.
 * Done— Chris!  c t 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * first to "have served in two different Cabinet positions in two different administrations", seems a bit ambiguous do you mean the first to have served in two different Cabinet positions, doing so in two different administrations. As currently it reads like she was the first person to "serve in two different Cabinet positions in two different administrations".
 * I am not sure what to do? Do you have any suggestion?— Chris!  c t 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I originally thought this meant that she was the "have served in two different Cabinet positions" which was in fact Patricia Roberts Harris. I was being stupid, and this is actually fine how it is. Sorry, Rambo's Revenge (talk)  10:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Might be worth adding note b to Albright in the table as well.
 * Done— Chris!  c t 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, just a note that this is extremely close to being an orphaned page. It has three mainspace links for "see also" sections, and one prose.
 * Is this really a problem? I can't really control how many other pages link to this page.— Chris!  c t 00:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Refs 13, 29 and 31 need a NYT login, which should probably be noted. Also a lot of the refs are missing publishers.
 * Regarding your last point—which refs are missing publishers? Note that publications should be in italics, which is why they would be used in the "work" parameter of the citation template. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Work and publisher are not the same thing. For example The New York Times Company is the publisher of the work The New York Times. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  01:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I understand you. The publisher is really not necessary when its name is similar to the work. I've seen many Featured articles and lists not add publishers to refs. The purpose of publisher info, especially in the case of publications, is to show the reader that an established company supports/owns the publication; therefore, that source can be considered reliable. In the case of The New York Times, it is such a well-known and established publication that few (if any) people will question its reliability. It can stand alone. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something? Refs 13, 29 and 31 do not need any login.— Chris!  c t 00:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is weird they don't require one to for me now, but checklinks still says they do. However some of the other NYT ones still only give short previews and not the full articles. They are refs 2, 21, 27, 29, 32 Rambo's Revenge <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  01:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * These refs still work, right. The short previews already verify the info of the articles.— Chris!  c t 01:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Patricia Roberts Harris became the first female Secretary of Health and Human Services after serving as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in 1977." Probably worth noting that she was also the "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" before the department split. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  10:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done— Chris!  c t 19:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.