Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom/archive2

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 kept by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom[edit]

Notified: RGloucester, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

Regrettably, I no longer believe that the list of British prime ministers can be held to such a high standard for much longer. When the list was first nominated for removal as a featured list eight years ago, the page looked rather radically different (and in my view, a much finer sight to see than the present revision that I take issue with). Indeed I have edited the article frequently over the past year or so, but the thing that has continued to bug me for quite some time are the cells within the table listing the policies and achievements of individual prime ministers. It's a largely subjective part of the table, rather cumbersome and pretty unpleasant to look at. Until that issue is reviewed, I honestly think that continuing to include this list among Wikipedia's best works is preposterous.--Nevé –selbert 19:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused why you're bringing it to FLC, given that you seem to be the primary editor nowadays on it? Why not just have a talk page discussion, or boldly remove them yourselves? I'm not seeing any such discussions on the talk page, or attempts in the history. I personally like them and think they add some interesting context assuming they're sourced, though the modern PMs get a little out of hand on length, but I can understand disliking the subjectivity involved in picking the comments. --Pres N 01:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why this was nominated. Those long "notes" section are unreferenced and do feel kinda random. They are interesting though. The strange structure of the table does make it rather confusing to read, I wasn't sure that clicking on the date under the dates linked you to the election. Little things like Blair has 3 ministries in one link, but May has 2 ministries in 2 links, seem to be everywhere. I'm on the fence about this one. Mattximus (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am the primary editor, that is correct. And I have tried my hardest to improve the article without being too radical, as I hear that it's rather taboo on Wikipedia to dramatically overhaul a featured article without a broad consensus. So coming here and having the article examined for its worth before going about attempting to gauge consensus seemed to me like a rather sensible strategy. I should note that the article is rather stagnant nowadays if you forgive my edits, and considering the fact that the article has changed dramatically since it was elevated to the pantheon of featured articles in 08, I felt it would be more orderly to come here first. Had the article not been a featured one, I probably would have expressed myself on the talkpage. In regards to the notes, I cannot but reiterate that I find them utterly unaesthetic; and as Mattximus has rightly pointed out, they are also pretty random and unsourced. The list of Presidents of the United States has a much cleaner layout in my opinion. To those who want to learn more about the policies and achievements of individual prime ministers, there are plenty of links (e.g. biographies and premiership articles) that should be of help. Regarding the ministries, yes the situation regarding that is slightly complicated and hard to follow if one is unaware of the guide at List of British governments, and there is currently a discussion going on at Talk:Blair ministry as to whether that article should be split into three separate pages.--Nevé –selbert 19:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would just remove the comments cells. They were not there when the article was promoted, and the addition of unsourced comments should be reverted. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I was WP:BOLD enough to do that. Indeed I have been tempted.--Nevé –selbert 12:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead! Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's much easier said than done. The markup is remarkably complicated.--Nevé –selbert 21:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about asking advice with a {{helpme}} on the talk page? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is looking a lot better now but there are still 'clarification neededs' and unreferenced sentences in text sections. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I am preparing an overhaul of the table in my sandbox, which should be ready by the end of this month.--Nevé –selbert 11:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Hello again Dudley. I have just implemented a comprehensive revamp of the table listing British prime ministers, to such an extent that I feel content that the issues that I had with the list back when I nominated it for removal in July have been rectified. Therefore, I withdraw my nomination --Nevé –selbert 13:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN, Mattximus, and Dudley Miles: Would it be alright if I withdrew this list as an FLRC candidate? --Nevé –selbert 14:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A cursory glance shows a much improved table! Well done! Mattximus (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It took almost four weeks to complete.--Nevé –selbert 20:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is greatly improved, but the second and third paragraphs of the lead and the 'Before 1721' section need referencing.

I do not see why prime minister in the second paragraph is in italics and uncapitalised.
Fixed.--Nevé –selbert 20:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Lord Salisbury, succeeded his father as chief minister to Elizabeth I and then James I as Lord High Treasurer from 1608 to 1612." This is confusing. You say he was chief minister as Lord Treasurer, but only from 1608, whereas he was chief minister before. Maybe "Lord Salisbury, succeeded his father as chief minister to Elizabeth I and then James I, and he was Lord High Treasurer from 1608 to 1612." Dudley Miles (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded: "Lord Salisbury, succeeded his father as chief minister to Elizabeth I (1598–1603) and later served James I as Lord High Treasurer (1608–1612)"

@Dudley Miles: Both the lead and the Before 1721 section are now adequately sourced.--Nevé –selbert 20:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your work. I think this is now FL standard, though I would look for a couple of citations to support "Modern academic consensus does not consider either man to have held office as Prime Minister" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudley Miles (talk • contribs) 20:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cited ODNB, a pretty authoritative source, explaining why Bath and Waldegrave are not listed.--Nevé –selbert 16:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN and The Rambling Man: I would like to withdraw my nomination of this article as a featured list removal candidate.--Nevé –selbert 18:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, looks like the reviewers agree, so closing. --Pres N 02:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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