Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Government of Maryland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Government of Maryland

Self nomination. I believe that this article covers all of the major aspects of Maryland's government and goes into an appropriate amount of depth on the several topics covered. It could provide a helpful model for articles on the governments of other states (or provinces, etc). Jacob1207 01:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. If featured, then please just Maryland. --ThomasK 05:45, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not sure what you are objecting against? Please comment on the quality of Government of Maryland, if you want to nominate Maryland go right ahead, but it is of lesser quality for sure. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 07:57, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

• I object against the featuring of the aricle Government of Maryland. There should be no goverment featured on the main page. --ThomasK 04:12, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

• We're not voting on whether this article should be showcased on the main page. I guess it can be somewhat confusing, but only certain featured articles are shown on the main page (and the selection is done by others). I suggest you read What is a featured article to see exactly what it is that is to be decided here. Also, see above on this page, which says:

If you oppose a nomination, write "Object" followed by the reason for your objection. All objections must give a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page, unless such suitability can be fixed (featured articles, despite being featured, may be marked so as not to be showcased on the Main Page).

Respectufully, Jacob1207 05:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• If noone has issues with this articles comprehensitivity, I support. Well written & structured.--ZayZayEM 13:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• This is about as complete as you could get. I support, with the disclaimer that I started the article and have done some additional work on it. (Jacob has done the lion's share, and deserves most of the credit.) Isomorphic 23:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Tuf-Kat 03:20, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. No discussion of the state constitution and its amendments. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 03:57, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

• The constitution itself is discussed in Maryland Constitution, which is linked to at several points in the article. Government of Maryland does mentions throughout the powers granted to various officials and bodies and the requirements for the offices, all of which come from the constitution (which is implied, even if not explicit in every instance). Additionally, Government of Maryland also mentions: (1) when the constitution was modified to create the Lt. Governor position; (2) when the constitution first created the Board of Public works; (3) when the constitution was amended to create the Court of Special Appeals; and (4) the several times when the constitution was amended to change the way counties function. The third item of which I just added. What other such changes can be made to improve the article? Jacob1207 05:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I think there should be a summary-style section at Government of Maryland, which links to the main article at Maryland Constitution. Like this:
    • ==Constitution==
    • Main article: Maryland Constitution
    • Blah blah blah (a summary) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 23:06, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
• I have added such a section (and rewritten the intro section). Please take a look and see if this addresses your concern. Jacob1207 02:19, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Solid info on a non-whiz-bang topic.--Pharos 06:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Object. The lead is too short: specifically, it needs information on what makes the government of Maryland different from that of other states. At the moment, the lead essentially says "Maryland is like every other state", which is not very informative and hardly encourages people to read on. I'd suggest two possibilities: either mention some of the most notable distinguishing features, or identify a pattern/reason for the differences (e.g. Maryland's legislature has a particularly powerful role, reflecting the historical influence of the agrarian section). As an additional objection, there is no References section. Mark¹ 05:00, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Comparing and contrasting the Maryland government with those of other states is an excellent idea. I have made numerous changes in response, and I think they improve the already comprehensive article. However, I do not think that that information is best put into the intro section. There are far too many differences to include usefully in the intro and it seems to me that any sort of statement to the effect of "the Maryland government has similarities to and differences to other state governments" is not at all useful either, due to it being completely obvious (after all, there is no Every state government in the United States article). If there is some way the intro can usefully be expanded (to include anything) without being clumsy, I am all for it. Jacob1207 16:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Concerning the references section: I don't think it is necessary to have a separate "References" section as all of the information in the article (and much, much more) can be found in the various links. The Maryland Manual is a publication put out by the MD gov't every 2 years and was the most important source for the article, which links to it. Of course, if a separate references section would add something of value, I'd be all for adding it. But I don't think it is necessary to have a "References" section just to say it's there if it's not adding anything. Jacob1207 16:25, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• It is adding something. As noted below. - Taxman 21:18, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

• You might want to start by putting something more explanatory in place of saying that the government "like the rest of the 50 states, is republican in nature". Republican redirects to the very general article Republic, so as a non-US reader, I'm left mystified. Are all the states non-monarchies (I knew that), or are they all non-Democratic (I for sure didn't know that)... ?--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 12:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I have redirected the link in question to Republicanism#Republicanism in the United States, which, I think, is much more explanatory about what "republican" means in this context. Jacob1207 16:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support The article seems to be well-written, with lots of logically placed links, and doesn't force the reader into too much detail in any one area. Other than perhaps including ranking comparisons or such, I agree that any detailed comparison to other states' governments would be diverging too much from the topic. Just trying to compare with what I know of Virginia and several other states tells me that such comparisons would be quickly become lengthy and varied. I speculate that there are substantial differences between the governments of all 50 states. Such details are way too much information for a single state article such as this one. Bottom Line: Good writing on a subject of limited interest. Good and prompt response to fac critics and suggestions. I'd love to see the writer(s) do the same quality job on Government of Virginia. <gr> Vaoverland 10:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Object. Not enough and/or ambiguous references. It does need to list explicitly what sources were used as references and which were not. Otherwise it is ambiguous, and there may be one real reference or four, and the reader cannot be sure which one. Wikipedia:Cite sources tells how to cite external links used as references. Additionally are you saying there are no print references for this topic? I find that hard to believe. The article needs more references if possible; 3 or 4 is pretty minimal for a featured article. Whatever is the most reliable information on a topic and is used to add or confirm material in an article can be formatted as a reference. - Taxman 21:18, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have (I think) corrected the problem. I have both added many more references to the page but also reorganized that whole section to indicate which are true references and which are only links for further information. Please take a look at this and see if it addresses your concern. If not, please provide further information on what you think would improve the article in this (or any) regard. Jacob1207 15:55, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is great, except they are not formatted properly as per the above link. Otherwise the article looks well written, though I admit not being able to finish reading the whole thing. - Taxman 17:12, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)