Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Territorial evolution of Canada/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by IMatthew 21:11, 29 August 2009.

Territorial evolution of Canada

 * Notified: Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, WikiProject History of Canada, WikiProject Politics, I believe Golbez already knows about this.

IMO, this article currently fails featured list criteria 1, 3a, and 5b. I believe it fails criteria #1, as I feel that the white spaces are just way too big, and that the "Timeline" section be created into a table. Second, I also believe there could be more information to be included, as a one sentence prose is practically absurd, thus failing #3a, and will also make this article look more like an article than a list, and should be nominated for GA/FA. Finally, the article fails #5a, as it has no alt text for any of the images. I would be willing to help make this article keep its status if you guys think anything is necessary to keep its star. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  06:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm.
 * Table: I don't really see how this would help; the data's not really tabular (though I could see it being tabular, but all you gain are lines around everything, what's the point? there's no sorting possible), and the layout would be little different. There'd still be large white areas.
 * The images will be included into the table, making the images smaller, though can still be seen by the readers. A table would help the article be more visually appealing. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless we're specifying how big the images should be (which is generally frowned upon) I'm not seeing how putting them into a table will cause that. I don't see how having a big grid of lines surrounding the existing text is at all visually appealing. --Golbez (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Trust me, its more visually appealing than having white spaces. :D --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  00:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * White space plus lines, or white space. Nope, not seeing the appeal here. --Golbez (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, more information should be included. I've been working on the article again, as shown by the new maps. Though, if you think it fails 3a for not being comprehensive, perhaps you could share why you think that. What entry is missing? 3a seems to be speak of comprehensiveness of the list, rather than comprehensiveness of individual entries.
 * I just think one sentence paragraphs aren't comprehensive enough. That is why making a table is probably the best way to fix this, so that the one sentence won't look choppy as having them be paragraphs. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd much rather add more information than put it into a table. I'm sure our readers would benefit from that decision as well. --Golbez (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with you. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  00:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was promoted before 5a; logically, one might think that it's simpler to ask for alt images to be placed rather than nominate it for removal because it doesn't meet a criteria that didn't exist when it was promoted, and it's not like it's difficult to add alt images.
 * I nominated this for removal because of not having enough detail in the descriptions of how the territories were changed. There could definitely be more added into the article, IMO. I only put 5a as one of the criterias that were not satisfied because, of course, there were no alt text. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --Golbez (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish you had brought these concerns to the article talk page or to me. I could slap some token alt texts up there quickly; you haven't justified your statement that it "absurdly" fails 3a; and you haven't demonstrated a reasonable way to fix the perceived failure of 1.
 * I just think having more users being notified about this would be better than going to the talk page. There is a much of work to do with this article, which is why I nominated this for FLRC. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I suppose. --Golbez (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is how the article would look like if it had a table instead of one sentence paragraphs. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  03:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of white space with lines, as I said. The data is not terribly tabular in nature. --Golbez (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But you got to admit, it looks better than what is currently on the article. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  06:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. --Golbez (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it looks a little better. Of course, if the table was sortable by date, that would be nice. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which would accomplish what? There's only one possible sortable column - date. If you want it in reverse order, may I suggest scrolling to the bottom and hitting page up? =p --Golbez (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a fair point, after all this is an "evolution" list so sorting by date is kind-of redundant in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I think a table is much better in this case since the order year, territory, notes can only be achieved that way and gives IMO a better visual appeal.
 * 2) *How would you order by territory? Many entries involve multiple territories, and WP can't order split rowspans. --Golbez (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant Image of the new territory. I don't mean sorting since only the date is relevant for the sorting, I mean the general style of having three columns one for the time, one for the map and another for information regarding how Canada evolved to this territory. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But that's how it is now. --Golbez (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved the table from User:SRE.K.A.L.24 . I think this looks much better than the previous full of whitespace list. The main reason the list isn't Featured quality is the lack of info on these territories. Mere descriptions should be expanded.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's the reason then the layout isn't an issue. I still see lots of whitespace, but with the added benefit of lines. It's a list, not a table. There's not really tabular information here. --Golbez (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) More information in the notes would surely be better, I mean something like "The British colony of British Columbia joined Canada and became a province." can be added in a caption of the image.
 * 2) Split References to General and Specific
 * 3) The Wikisource reff poses a style problem.

Comment - After 8 days, the article hasn't been expanded one bit, and I still believe it fails 1, and 3a. I think it now satisfies criteria 5b, as the table looks more better than white spaces, IMO. I wouldn't be able to fix up the article, as I don't have the time, and because I am a terrible researcher. We also need more reviewers on this, as there has only been one reviewer for this entire nomination. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  06:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a scientific method of establishing this but I would say it has the same amount of white space as before, just with some lines through it. I'll work on it now. Also, I'd like other opinions on whether or not this data is actually tabular in nature. Tables are not to be used for "pretty", they are to be used for tabular data. That's not generally enough to justify an HTML table. Regardless of if it improves the aesthetics, (which I of course disagree with) the fundamental usage needs justification. For example, other lists that consist only of date and information manage to be featured without being in a table: Timeline of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season for example. --Golbez (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, the table was inserted into the article because of visual appeal (if you believe it or not). If you can include more information about the territorial evolution of Canada, I think the tables can be removed, and there wouldn't be a huge load of white-spaces. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  21:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I said "tables are not used for pretty", you come right back and say "it's used for visual appeal". We both cannot be right here. --Golbez (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * According you WP:WTUT, you are actually right. My fault, though I still believe more information could be added into the article. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  02:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Added some content, and references, added some alt text. Still want to revise alt text somewhat, not finished going to the bottom of all the dates in the list. Work in progress.SriMesh | talk  05:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest for an alt text for a map? I know we need it, I'm not being belligerent here, I just can't think of one that's useful. "A map of Canada as it was on June 1, 1867"? --Golbez (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * is the expert on alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The basic idea is for the alt text to describe the gist of the image's visual appearance that isn't already described by adjacent text or caption. We shouldn't assume that the reader knows Canadian geography. I suggest that for the first (animated) image the alt text say something like "Series of images, described below, ending in the current political subdivision of Canada, which is a row of tall thin provinces across the southern border starting with British Columbia on the west, then Alberta, ... (you fill in the rest)". The alt text for the 1867 image can then describe that image in terms of today's subdivisions (e.g., BC unchanged, Quebec is just the southeast half of modern Quebec); and alt text for later images can build on what's been said for earlier images. In the simplest cases (e.g., the 1873 image) the alt text can just be "See adjacent text" since there's nothing more to say; but more typically the image conveys useful info that's not in the adjacent text, so that should be summarized in the alt text. Eubulides (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks SriMesh, for adding more information about the article, but now, there are no images for the added information. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  05:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I suppose I will have to fix that...will work on it on the week-end all goes well...will also try to put a request in at the map work group at wikimedia commons. SriMesh |  talk  02:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or ask the person who made the maps and has the raw files with which to edit them. --Golbez (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment This list was retained as an FL, but a couple images still need alt text per WP:ALT, and I hope that expansion efforts will continue. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.