Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of governors of Georgia/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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 21:14:07 27 October 2019 (UTC).

List of governors of Georgia

 * Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Another state, another list of governors. This one was hard. I've been going generally in alphabetical order, and Georgia is the first state that was both a colony and secessionist, so it had complications from all corners. The fact that there were, at one time, as many as three schismatic governments didn't help. The state finally supplied a list from a blue book from the '70s that helped a lot in filling in the gaps, and I think it's ready. Golbez (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments from ChrisTheDude
 * The most immediate thing that jumps out is that the lead is far far too short. It should have three good-sized paragraphs, not three sentences.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fleshed out. --Golbez (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "The governor of Georgia is the head of the executive branch of Georgia's state government and the commander-in-chief of the state's military forces. The governor also has a duty to enforce state laws, the power to either veto or approve bills passed by the Georgia Legislature, and the power to convene the legislature." - none of this seems to be in the body, so it needs citing here
 * Done
 * "the state capital of Savannah was an early battleground in the American Revolutionary War" - same for this
 * Done
 * "The state seceded and was part of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War," - ....and this
 * Done.
 * "each of which served two full four-year terms" => "each of whom served two full four-year terms"
 * Done.
 * "The current governor is Republican Brian Kemp who assumed" - need a comma after his name. Also I would tag this onto another paragraph so that we don't have a one-sentence "paragraph"
 * First part, done. Second part, What do you propose? The previous graf is about extremes in the office, so it seems improper to just latch this on to it for the sake of avoiding a single sentence graf.
 * I think it would fit OK onto the end of the very first paragraph.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * Governors section starts with another one-sentence "paragraph" - join this onto the next para
 * Done.
 * "This article relies on" - we try to avoid using "this article" or "this list" within an article, so find a way to re-word this bit
 * Done
 * Maybe it's because I am dumb and/or British, but I really don't understand why the first governor is number 7. The note says "It begins the numbering from the colonial governors" (which, BTW, should really be "it continues the numbering....."), but our article on the colonial governors says there were 10 of them???
 * Each state has a unique method of numbering. Alabama ignores acting and repeat governors; some states don't. Georgia and Connecticut number starting from their colonial governors. According to the source, that puts Bulloch at #7. I haven't looked at our other list, so I don't know where they get ten governors. I have to use exactly what is in the source, because there are so many different ways of counting and listing Georgia governors that once I found the source, which is the closest I'm going to get to an official source, I had to rely on it entirely. Deviations are handled in footnotes and text, but the numbering should stay. Either we start at 7, or we come up with our own numbering system. Changed to 'continues'. For fun, looking at the colonial list.. our source omits their #1, since he was a trustee, not governor; it omits their #8 and #9 because they were military/provisional governors; and #10 is the same as #7, and they don't number repeats.
 * Once you're re-sorted the table, it's impossible to get back to the original order, because there are 3 nulls in the "no" column. I suggest using hidden sort keys to make sure these appear in the appropriate place when sorting by number.
 * Done.
 * Quite a few of the notes are unsourced.
 * I'll work on this.
 * Done. --Golbez (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Some notes are not full sentences are therefore don't need a full stop
 * Is this really that important? :P --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it isn't correct as it stands.... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * oh fine. --Golbez (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's it from me at the moment -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments from Reywas92
 * I know this isn't the place to go into detail, but "local rule was re-established" (used twice) is quite the euphemism for "the right of black citizens to vote was no longer protected"! "exerted some control" also obscures that it enforced the US Constitution, the fifteenth amendment being relevant here. I'm not sure the best way to word this but Georgia during Reconstruction should at least be linked.
 * It's nicely euphemistic, isn't it. But that is the terminology near-universally used for the end of reconstruction. I did drop 'some', as the generals had dictatorial power.
 * I support your decision to go with your source on numbering to begin at 7, but this should be explicitly stated in the prose, not just hidden in the footnote. The numbering in List of colonial governors of Georgia should be made consistent with this source then, since it also goes through 7.
 * Made an attempt.
 * No comma after "provided for a lieutenant governor"
 * I dunno, that makes it seem like the constitution provided for the Lt Gov to serve the same time, etc ... no, it provided for a lieutenant governor, stop, which also has these other qualities.
 * The second paragraph could be split to be more chronological
 * I don't know which paragraph you mean.
 * The final paragraph seems out of order, should be more chronological
 * You mean the one about the Battle of Savannah? I thought it would be useful to mention it right before the list. It's also a separate topic from the constitutional changes, so making it chronological doesn't seem to help...
 * The entire thing being chronological may be the clearest. It reads as early history - statehood - civil war - back to statehood, term limits, and succession - civil war again and term limits again - back to succession, back to term limits - finally back to the revolution era for some reason? I know you're doing history of the state - everything in the constitution chronologically - facts relating to numbering, but it feels quite jumbled. It would would be more cohesive to do everything chronologically (the cleanest, which puts the line on readmission dates and the capture of Savannah near the relevant constitutional changes, or do one paragraph with everything about term limits, one with everything on succession, one with Civil war changes, etc. Subsections either way could also work, but not the best if a couple only have one paragraph. Reywas92Talk 20:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I combined the first two grafs, since they're purely about when it became a state. As for the ordering, I agree. When I wrote this I probably thought chronological was needed, but yeah, it works better going by subject. I still think we need a notice why the list is going to be so different from most lists online, and it doesn't work "chronologically". --Golbez (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The final sentence is not grammatical, I think "which" and the comma should be removed.
 * Dunno how the 'which' got there, but I don't know which comma you mean.
 * The one between clauses, I got it.
 * Update see also link to First Ladies of Georgia (U.S. state)
 * Done. --Golbez (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * "The early days were chaotic with many gaps and schisms in the state's power structure, as the state capital of Savannah was an early battleground in the American Revolutionary War." 1. "The early days" is vague and the word "early" is repeated later in the sentence. 2. The sentence is a non sequitur as a battleground does not necessarily cause schisms. Maybe "The state capital of Savannah was an early battleground in the American Revolutionary War and between x year and y year the state's power structure was chaotic with many gaps and schisms."
 * Tried to fix.
 * "as the state capital of Savannah was captured". "as" implies that the capture was the sole cause of the schisms. Is this correct? Otherwise, I would profer "and" or "partly due to". Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * All sources linked say or indicate that the fall of Savannah was the sole cause. On the other hand I have no sources that state any other cause; therefore it would be incorrect to offer a sourced statement of "partly due to", wouldn't it?


 * "The state was solidly Democratic-Republican until the 1830s" Only from 1789.
 * Parties didn't exist before then. I tried to fix.
 * "split elections" This sounds odd to me. Is it AmEng?
 * Don't think so? They split elections, they went back and forth. Like how you might split your time between work and home. Not sure how better to write this.
 * How about " the governorship swung between the Whigs and Democrats"? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Tried something.


 * The rest of the paragraph is vague on dates and I suggest clarifiying.
 * Is it? It has few dates at all, because it's prose, not a rote list of dates. That's what the list and later paragraphs are for.
 * The second and third pagragraphs of 'Governors' are the wrong way round.
 * I'd disagree but since I rejiggered that section anyway, this criticism is moot.
 * "While the 1861 secessionist constitution kept the office the same, the other constitutions surrounding the American Civil War brought lots of changes." "surrounding the American Civil War" does not sound right and "lots of changes" is too colloquial. Maybe "The 1861 secessionist constitution kept the office the same, but later constitutions during the American Civil War and Reconstruction brought many changes."
 * In the above-mentioned rejiggering I fixed some of this. Did a little more editing.
 * "An amendment in 1941..." This belongs in the next paragraph, not the one about the Civil War period.
 * Moot, I think, since I moved things around.
 * "The revolutionary government was thrown into disarray by the capture of Savannah in 1778, which led to two governments with varying levels of influence; they would reunite in 1780. The Official and Statistical Register of Georgia ignores the Council of Safety of William Ewen in favor of Archibald Bulloch's government, and omits the government of William Glascock and Seth John Cuthbert.[26] The Register also begins the numbering at 7, including the previous colonial governors." 1. I think it would be better to merge this with the first short paragraph of 'Governors'. 2. I assumed at first that the omitted governors were British appointed, but I see that this is wrong. I think you should clarify this, particularly for Ewen as he is not mentioned in the note. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried clarifying this. I still strongly think that a paragraph explaining 'why is this list different than all the others' is about more than just chronology, it's important info.
 * I still think you need to clarify that Ewen, Glascock and Cuthbert were not British appointees. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? There's nothing in the article to indicate that they were British appointees. --Golbez (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review! --Golbez (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 21:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.