Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Quebec general elections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] List of Quebec general elections

  1. Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
  2. Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
    • Useful: Summarises information on seats won and vote share from 37 elections, and allows visitors to easily compare results from successive general elections
    • Comprehensive: Covers every general election since Confederation
    • Factually accurate: reliable reference given
    • Stable: Will be only be updated every four years or so
  3. Well-organised: Easy to find any required information
  4. Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes
  5. Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
  6. Images: Sole image has approriate copyright status

(Self-nomination) Tompw (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. An excellent elections list which is up to the standards of many featured ones. Some suggestions:
    • The chart on the right shows the information graphically, with the most recent elections on the right. It shows that.. - Remove this self-reference to the chart, and instead explain the details shown normally.
    • "(in French)" > {{fr icon}}.
    • Move all the external links to the references, and format them properly. External links used for further reading and not to confirm facts. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank-you for your support and comments. In order:
      • I don't think "the chart on the right shows this information..." is a self-reference.... it would be a self-reference to say "the chart on the right-hand side of this article shows this information...". (Also, it wasn't a problem for List of Saskatchewan general elections and similar.)
      • Done.
      • Quite right! So right in fact, it was done before I even started... the material under "external links" *is* further reading, and is not there to confirm facts. The fact-confriming reference is under "reference".
    • Tompw (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
      • This is still a self-reference, please refer to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references for more information. The list has other self-references, but this is a one that can be fixed more easily without removing any information.
      • Well I noted that the most of the external links just contain a part of the information on the table and don't give any prose for further reading. Moving them to the references section might backup the referencing better. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Good point on the external links... sorry I didn't understand first time round. Anyway, offical sources have moved to references and the others removed, as they add nothing to the article.
          I've had a good read of the guidelines on avoiding self-references... the main point is that the article must still make sense if read on another webiste or in print. The crucial thing is that the image is part of the article; the text in the article discusses the image. In order to discuss the image, the text must refer to it, else it doesn't make sense.
          I'm rather puzzled here... how would you suggest that paragraph be phrased? Tompw (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I understand about the chart, I just felt it really bothers the general flowing of the text. I've also noted that if the text would not reference to it, the text would become a random group of facts so I guess it would be better if it remains unchanged. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • (unindent): Re the above discussion: I think the flow would improve if the info about how to read the chart were moved to the image caption. The facts in the second paragraph are not irrevocably linked to the chart, and IMO can stand just fine on their own, with the chart still providing visual support. In any case, this does not seem like a self-reference issue exactly; more a matter of style. -- Visviva 15:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I think the chart might look neater if it started at the top of the article, rather than have text flow round above and below. Colin°Talk 13:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    Done. Tompw (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • support good list Hmains 05:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice work. -- Visviva 15:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nice list. My only problem is actually in the title. The list is really about the results of the quebec general elections. By having the title as such, it threw me off into thinking there'd be more information. Should the title be "Results of Quebec general elections" or "List of..." or something along those lines as opposed to what it is now? --Wizardman 19:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)