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 not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 15:52, 25 October 2008 [1].

---

List of Governors of Arizona[edit]

For the contest, but I've been working on this one a while. So, someone finally told me that #tag has been updated so that you CAN nest refs. So I had a happy happy happy time this weekend, finally able to create a clean article without using letters. (You can see why it mattered; there are more than 26 each of notes and cites!) The only thing I'm concerned about at this moment is the paragraph explaining the history of the land; I'm not sure anymore if I should go all the way back, or just go as far back as the last whole entity that contained the territory, which in this case would be 1863, New Mexico Territory. After all, before then, the identity of the land had nothing to do with Arizona Territory. So I'm thinking about removing the "see the list of governors of Sonora and Alta California", and some of the detail of how the land came to be, especially since the list of Sonora governors doesn't go nearly far enough back. But beyond this, I think it's featurable. --Golbez (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

• En dashes wherever needed, per WP:DASH, such as "Goff pp. 76-77"
• Consistency; "McClintock p.346" should be "McClintock p. 346"

Gary King (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. --Golbez (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://jeff.scott.tripod.com/Murphy.html
    • See below.
  • http://books.google.com/books?lr=&ei=TRPvSPjXCIqEywTKmbDYBg&client=firefox-a&id=QG5VAAAAMAAJ&q=%22April%2C+1892%2C+and+at+that+time+he+resigned+as+Governor%22&pgis=1 (A self-publishedg genealogy book)
    • Ooh, you're good. I'm glad to see people are checking refs. :) That he resigned is not in dispute; that he did it in April is not in dispute; that he did it to attend to family business is not in dispute. This was, however, the only Google Books snippet I could find that includes all three in the single snippet. I'll see if my source for Goff's book can offer more detail, so I can switch this to a Goff cite.
  • http://members.tripod.com/~azrebel/page15.html
    • This was the last remaining 'lay' cite, and I'm now browsing google books for an acceptable replacement.
• Should probably put the Jeffrey Scott ref to "Scott, Jeffrey" to fit the rest of the refs
  • That was an error; I meant to link to Jeff Scott's page, not to the specific Murphy page. As to what makes it a reliable source, I suppose I should move him to external links. He sources from the same books I am, but with the advantage of actually being able to read them, rather than snippets from Google Books. He also has more biographical detail. The facts seem to check out, so I'm confident in recommending him for further reading (though I deliberately didn't use him as a source, since I went for the primary works).
• Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals in refs even when they are in all capitals in the original
  • Fair enough.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Golbez (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've fixed all of the above, and redid the Confederate section with all new sources. --Golbez (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose

• Seems a little anomalous to link "veto bills" and not "convene the legislature" - be judicious in your linkage.
  • Mmm, good scrutinizing. I've delinked all of the things in the lede that aren't specific to Arizona or knowing what it is. Let me know if I delinked too much.
• years. [2] - remove that space.
  • Done.
• " i`nstead" - what's this?
  • No clue. :P Fixed.
• First half of the lead is cited, second half is uncited. Be consistent.
  • The fourth graf is cited by the table, which is cited by the references, whereas the first three are best specifically citable through constitutions and such. I don't need a source to say that X had the longest, or Y had the shortest, terms, as that's easily gleaned from the sourced table. However, it would be good to find one that confirms it's the only state where a woman has succeeded a woman; fortunately, the NGA says that, so I'll add a ref to that. Let me know if you think anything else in that last graf needs citing.
• You could make the table sortable. And not sure why the hash column is required, but not too fussed about that.
  • No, I couldn't; the ... oh, wait, there's no Lieutenant Governor column in this one. In that case, I suppose I could. As for the hash column, I find it useful since Napolitano is officially referred to as the 21st governor, and it's nice to show how they get to that number. (Such a problem is why I haven't been able to do Virginia yet; no one seems to know which governors count).
  • Done making all tables sortable. --Golbez (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "See the list of Governors of New Mexico Territory for the period before Arizona Territory was formed." - make this a See also, don't include in the prose.
  • Done. I've put it after the graf; does it have to go before?
• "from April 2–5, " - grim. Can we use prose instead? Like "between April 2 and April 5.." or similar?
  • Done.
• "of 33° 40' N." - explain - non-experts won't have a clue.
  • Any ideas? If it were just 33° then I could say "33rd parallel north" but they had to go and include minutes.
• "The territory ceased to exist with the fall of the Confederacy in April 1865." citation?
  • None, really, except the fall of the confederacy itself. Easier to just remove that line, since for all intents and purposes, the territory ceased to exist in 1862.
• WP:COLOR suggests that you ought not use just color to define a particular property.
  • This is the fourth or so time this has been brought up on my FLCs. It is NOT just color; there is TEXT there. Republican. Democrat. If I didn't have that column, then yes, I would need some kind of symbol to delineate which is which for those who cannot see the color. But I do have that column. I apologize for getting a bit angry here, but after explaining this several times it's getting old.
    • mea culpa - feel free to be angry with me. I apologise for blindly pursuing MOS without actually thinking straight. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Spanish-American probably needs just a hyphen, not an en-dash?
  • I used en-dashes when the articles did; in this case, both Mexican-American War and Spanish-American War articles use the en-dash in their titles.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments, I've been hoping for deep scrutiny like this. :) --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SatyrTN

• (ec) There's too much text. You have four paragraphs in the lede, plus another one in the section section, plus another one to describe the Territory, plus another three to describe the Confederacy. Trim as much as you can out of that - people can follow wikilinks if they want more.
  • Each graf, in order:
    • Two sentences to describe the office.
    • A paragraph describing length of term.
    • A paragraph describing succession.
    • A paragraph describing specific notables.
    • A graf concisely explaining the evolution of the territory; I'm open to trimming this, though. Originally, I included all past governors here; see governors of Sonora, of Alta California, etc. I decided it was best to just limit it to the last common ancestor, which in this case is New Mexico territory.
    • A tiny graf giving context to the formation and life of the territory itself.
    • A tiny graf explaining the first governor.
    • Confederacy:
      • One graf to explain the first governor of the provisional territory.
      • One short graf to explain how the provisional territory became a confederate territory.
      • One graf explaining the second governor. I'm not sure if there's any trimmable fat in this section.
    • A tiny sentence saying when the state was admitted, to give some prose at the top of the table.
  • What do you suggest be trimmed? I see all of this as being necessary to understanding how and why certain people become governor.

I think I see what's going on. You've basically combined an article (Governor of Arizona) with a list (List of Governors of Arizona). In my opinion, much of the prose you have here should go in the article, leaving the list to be just that - a list. See, as an example, Governor of California and List of Governors of California (an FL). I do see that there are other List of Governors similar to this one, even ones that have made it to FL status. But, in my opinion, this is a mashup of a list and an article and isn't FL status.

No, I didn't. An article on the governor of Arizona would include information on its history and trends, on the powers of the office, on how they have changed over time. All this article does is handle how you become governor, for how long, and how you are succeeded; in other words, how you transition from one governor to the next, which are important aspects for this list.

• I was surprised not to see the Arizona flag anywhere.
  • Seems superfluous; where would you suggest it be? At the top?
    • Yes - Napolitano may not be Governor in 2011, but Arizona will still be a state.
• First table:
  • Sortability for "Name", "Took office", "Left office", and "Appointed by".
    • Already done.
  • The first column "#" is redundant to the "Took office" column.
    • In this case, I suppose you're right. Done.
  • Left justify "Name" and "Appointed by". You could also left justify the dates, but that doesn't matter much.
    • Done. I much prefer centered, and other people I've talked to agree. --Golbez (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Second table:
  • Sortability for "Name", "Took office", and "Left office".
    • Already done.
  • The first column "#" is redundant to the "Took office" column.
    • In this case, no it's not. I find it useful since Napolitano is officially referred to as the 21st governor, and it's nice to show how they get to that number. (Such a problem is why I haven't been able to do Virginia yet; no one seems to know which governors count).
  • Left justify "Name". You could also left justify the dates, but that doesn't matter much.
    • Done. I much prefer centered, and other people I've talked to agree. --Golbez (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion: Move the images down so they start right above the first table? They don't need to be to the right of the "Governors" and "Governors of Arizona Territory" text, and having them next to the table is good. If you move the images down, and move J. Napolitano down, they should just fill the space to the right of the tables.
  • I can't control how large people's screens or windows are, so I gave up trying to "fill the space". I'd rather there be too few images than too many. And since Napolitano is the current governor, why not? (Note that if we had images for all governors, they'd all go in the table and I probably WOULD put the flag on the top. But we don't. So they can't.)
• I'm not fond of the "Other high offices held" and "Living former governors", especially coming as they do after the Notes section. It may just be me, but "Notes" in wikipedia are one of the last things on the page, so seeing any content after that bugs me. Plus those two seem tacked on and unnecessary.
  • The notes are specific to the governor tables; nothing after them has notes. I found other offices held useful mainly due to the New York list, since it includes lots of presidents; I figured, if they can have it, so can everyone. It's interesting to see who else was a governor or what not. I'm open to nuking living former governors altogether, but ten lists and no one's made a strong argument for it.
• Oppose without some major work. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments, though I disagree it needs "major" work. --Golbez (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've done quite a bit of work on it already, what with reworking tables and such. That to me qualifies as "major" :) I'm still opposed to this being promoted, due almost entirely to my belief that this is a mashup of a list and an article. You've done good work on it, and consensus may go your way, but that's my gut feeling :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to the mashup issue. It's a list with all the prose needed to explain how the things in the list transition from one to the next. An article on the office might include these but it would also include lots of information not included here. --Golbez (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment "The territory was to exist until such time as an official territory were created, but the U.S. Congress rejected calls for a territory at that time." 'Territory' is very repetitive, and the sentence as a whole reads funny. Could use a rewrite. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done a try. --Golbez (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've undone the left-justification, the list looks much better, IMO and some others' opinions, centered. --Golbez (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tried a new color system, looks much better. --Golbez (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per some of the above. My biggest problem is the use of fractions in the Terms column of the table. You can't really say that one governor served half a term and another a third of a term. I see the value of listing terms served, but fractions do not work. Reywas92^Talk 15:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They aren't to be taken literally (and there is a note saying just that), they simply show when a term was shared among governors. It's a better solution, I think, than extending a column between governors, as that would have more readability issues. As for "per some of the above", since most of the above has been dealt with, can you please be specific? --Golbez (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.