Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 7 support, 1 oppose. There is an unstruck oppose, but the concerns raised in the opposition seem to have been addressed.. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I am nominating yet another anomalous list for FLC. I have solicited some reviews from FL reviewers (they are available here, here and here). I have tried to address the original research concerns raised by one editor (and shared by myself) and two other editors' concerns over the inclusion of too much historical context in the timeline. I had wanted further reviews and tried to post the list at WP:GAC, but apparently they don't do lists. As WP:PR is backlogged beyond belief, I thought I would bring the list here, hoping it would pass (I do believe it meets the criteria), but prepared for it to fail. I am thinking of the nomination as a review, really. As far as I can tell, there are no personal timelines that are featured lists. I based my initial ideas for the timeline on pages such as the following: Vincent van Gogh chronology and Lord Byron (chronology). As you can see, though, this timeline has developed beyond those barebones lists. The reason I created this timeline was to supplement a series of articles I have been working on for a Mary Wollstonecraft featured topic (they are Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Original Stories from Real Life, Thoughts on the Education of Daughters, Mary: A Fiction, Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman, Letters Written in Sweden, Norway and Denmark (still under construction) and A Vindication of the Rights of Men (still under construction). Awadewit | talk 19:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Support - An amazing effort. This should set the standard for biographical timelines. Kaldari 19:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Support - Would recommend, however, images be taken out of thumbnail boxes unless captions are added to each of them (which I don't recommend, considering the small size). Nice work, very easy to read, and I love the context provided. --Midnightdreary 22:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• On the images: I added them after images were suggested for List of works by Joseph Priestley. I agree that captions would be ridiculous at this size. I tried to pick images that were obvious, but I am willing to remove them if that is the general consensus. Would others weigh in on this? Thanks.Awadewit | talk 22:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Midnightdreary was recommending removing the images, just not putting them in thumbnail boxes. Kaldari 01:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, how silly of me. I have removed the boxes. Awadewit | talk 04:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Support I first came across this when as a GA nom; I removed its nomination status as GA doesn't handle lists, and recommended it be taken here, as it seems to easily pass FL standards. And as noted by Midnightdreary, the "thumb" paramater should be removed from the image lines, since the only real purpose of that parameter is to make a caption visible. Given that there are no captions, it adds a superfluous box that only takes up space. One tip, add a note in the timeline sections (such as (pictured) ) where it is unclear whose picture goes with what image. For example, the cameo in the 1778 box is next to two author's names; it is unclear who this is.... But other than that, this is a GREAT list. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed the "thumbs" and added "(pictured) in all relevant locations, I think. Thanks for that suggestion! Awadewit | talk 04:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Dig it! looks fantastic now... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Support - impressive. Geraldk 13:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Needs proper date linking. Rmhermen 02:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• IMO, linking all of the dates would make the page much harder to read, would not significantly add to the reader's knowledge and would detract from the more significant links already there. I don't think that the small benefit accrued by linking the dates - they would appear in the fashion chosen by registered users - outweighs these significant costs. Most readers will obviously not have chosen a date format, anyway, as they are not registered users. Awadewit | talk 02:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would concur with that. I have always thought that the date-format issue is moot; as long as an article is consistant saying "15 August" or saying "August 15" are BOTH unambiguous. No one is going to be confused by one or the other. Its the same as the British/American usage issue: Be internally consistant, and respect what is already there. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. And see the MOS. It is not the same as the British/American usage issue. Rmhermen 15:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done for the sake of argument: it wasn't something that bothered me, as my earlier support indicated, but the MOS does indicate it should be so. (Also fixed the "-"s to "ndash;"s as appropriate, before I supported, not that anybody had raised this as a MOS issue). If anyone thinks that the [[day month]] format does make the page harder to read, please feel free to revert those changes. Bencherlite^Talk 01:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I really do feel that the dates should not be linked. Another part of the MOS, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links says that pages should not be overlinked to the point of distraction. I do feel that linking all of the dates reduces readability. I won't revert the changes, but please consider thinking about the readability of the page which seems more important than the date format requested by a minority of users. Awadewit | talk 03:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I did think about the readability of the page, by previewing it repeatedly in the course of wikilinking the dates (or "wikiliking" as I accidentally called it in my edit summary!) before saving. I actually think it makes little difference to the readability of the page, and I don't think that it's over-wikilinked by doing so. What do others think? As I say, I don't mind either way, but was only trying to help overcome the one oppose opinion. At least now people get to compare "with" and "without" by comparing the diffs. If people are happy to pass the list without linked dates, then anyone is free to undo my date-linking, as it won't bother me in the slightest. Bencherlite^Talk 03:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. A thoroughly researched and presented timeline. Interesting to read and obviously the product of much work. Bencherlite^Talk 10:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support I tried, but cannot find fault with the page. Ceoil 04:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm personally quite iffy with the table format. I ad planned to offer up an alternative, but my wiki editing kept steering me in different directions. Circeus 01:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I did try a year-by-year list (modelled on the examples I cited above), but it started to look really messy. It was hard to find the events in Wollstonecraft's life when they were jumbled in with the other events. (You can go back in the page's history and see the change - I think my edit summary was either "changing format" or "changing format AGAIN" - I went through several permutations). The way that the timeline is currently set up, readers can either just look at Wollstonecraft's life (the topic of the timeline) or spend time looking at all of the other events and their relationship to Wollstonecraft's life. It offers that alternative. A year-by-year listing does not offer the two different ways of reading. I was trying to cater to as many audiences as possible. If you have yet a third alternative that offers this dual reading style, I would be happy to see it. Awadewit | talk 02:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)