Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of current sovereign monarchs/archive1

List of current sovereign monarchs

Nominator(s): Nightw 16:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to be a concise, comprehensive list that can be a good example for other lists on Wikipedia. It is fairly simple, but in my opinion, it effectively briefs the reader on the subject, while providing well-placed links for further information. If nothing else, this nomination will be a fantastic opportunity to identify areas for improvement. Peer reviews were conducted in September and October. Nightw 16:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, as it's very definitely a list. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sorry... Nightw 16:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5

Before I go in-depth here, there are a couple of major problems that need to be fixed.

The colors in the table are purely decorative and unneeded. They should be removed to prevent issues with color-impaired users.
We no longer begin featured lists with "This is a list of..." and the like. See recently promoted lists for examples of better lead sentences.
Sortability would be appreciated, and could be even better if this was combined into a single table rather than five. If you're worried about losing the utility of having the continent, it could be added to the table. This also removes all of the nasty rowspans and such.
If we are indeed enacting the requirements for WP:ACCESS, then all of the hidden elements like row-headers are also needed in this list.
Many WP:EGG links.

These are just a few things to start. I haven't looked at prose or structure in-depth yet. — KV5 • Talk • 16:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Golbez (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Adding to the above:

- Should not split by continent. Apart from the basic ideal of having one table, there's three transcontinental monarchies (Netherlands, Denmark, and Spain) which renders such a split useless.
- We don't need the continent at all, the country is sufficient. The "Monarchies of" links could be moved to the see also.
- Should not use a rowspan for QE2, especially when the tables are combined.
- Andorra might need a rowspan, but I would also examine looking into other methods.
- The formatting for title is uneven. Sometimes you separate "Queen" (like in the Americas section), but most of the time you combine it. Pick one and run with it.
- I must say, though, I rather like the extensive footnoting on QE2's various titles over the years, like how in PNG she used to be styled Queen of Australia.
Oppose for now. --Golbez (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, looks quite nice now. I particularly like that you're using the hacky tag-ref code to nest refs, but one comment: You don't need to do it for others. For example, {{#tag:ref||group=fn|name=Windsor}} should work fine as <ref group="fn" name="Windsor" />. I heartily wait for the day when the patch that enables alphabetical, rather than just numeric, footnotes gets created, so we can skip this pointless name parameter. --Golbez (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - All of the notes are not sourced. Many inconsistencies which I'm sure are easily fixable, Queen is seperated for Elizabeth II but not Beatrix etc. Same goes with King really. Also confused as to why Constitution of Malaysia, Constitution of Bhutan and others alike aren't linked. Also a small thing is the use of {{lb icon}} in Ref 36 confused as the article you're quoting is in English first off. also Ref 20, 24, 25, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 40 and 41 seem to cite no particular part (not sure if its just me being picky). Also a quick question why aren't the language parameters being used in the sources 32, 36 and 41. Also are the External links references? if not why are they formatted like references is this some new MOS which has recently been added? Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 22:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your catch on the {{lb icon}}. I've fixed that. Nightw 13:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All dates in the refs should be in the same format. There's also no need for the space between the "text ^[footnote]". Afro (Talk) 04:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the spaces. All the dates are in the same format (m/d/y) that I can see. Is there a particular one that you can see I've missed? Nightw 04:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 17 (also uses {{ca icon}}), 40, 56, 57, 80, 82 (also uses {{sv icon}}), 91, 92, 101 (also uses {{it icon}}. Ref 76 specifically says August 1 as well, not just August 2005. Afro (Talk) 14:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, I must be an idiot. Could you possibly explain what you mean? For example, ref 40: "Government of Japan (7 December 2007). "National Day of Japan to be celebrated". Press release. Retrieved 07-12-2010." Both dates are consistent with the date style applied: d/m/y. I must be missing what it is you mean. Is there a problem with using the language icons? Nightw 15:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First the language icons aren't necessary as there should be a language parameter within the templates used. You use the month name instead of the numerical value this to my belief is formatting the date differently. Afro (Talk) 18:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response from nominator:

Formatting: I've merged the sections into a single table, which has negated the need for rowspans in most instances. I'd like to add the sortable feature, but I don't know if it's available on the type of table being used. Anyone know? / Done
Colouring: The light shading on the monarch column was mainly added to highlight the subject of the list, given that it has not been allocated the first column. It's not a big deal, and can be removed if there's a WP:ACCESS issue. / Done
References: I'll look into identifying WP:V issues with the footnotes shortly. The "Refs" column was added to hold any inline citations, but perhaps the footnotes should be referenced separately. / Done

Thankyou very much to all who have commented so far. Nightw 13:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you need assistance with formatting the table, I can help. I will start working once you got a chance to reply here.—Chris!_c/t 03:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks, that'd be great! Even if you don't have the time, you can just show me the markup I need to add, and I can do it myself. If it's a whole change of format, I might need some assistance... Nightw 10:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to highlight the current monarch, you should do it using the "scope" and row-header markup. — KV5 • Talk • 12:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done the formatting.—Chris!_c/t 21:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate! That's perfect!

Nightw 04:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support If you successfully clean up the page, it would be a nice list to be featured. JeevanJones (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Better than the prior version.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ some suggestions:

Lead image would be useful. In fact, any image would be useful, I imagine that most reigning monarchs have free-to-use images which could be incorporated into the table.
Three dab links (Royal Standard, Yamato, List of Monarchs - although this is realistically acceptable) all need to be resolved.
Shouldn't do "for ... see..." in the prose. That's why we have either wikilinks or see also sections. Improve the prose or place in a separate section.
Table should be sortable, there's no good reason why not.
Remove spaces between information and notes in the table.
Refs -> Ref(s) as sometimes there's no more than a single ref.
A key is needed, non-experts don't know what a "Succession" means, or a "House" etc.
Al Sabah -> Al-Sabah.
Are the notes referenced somewhere?
By all means use the ISO 8601 date format but make sure it's yyyy-mm-dd not dd-mm-yyyy as you have it right now in the references.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RM! On the first point, there's a bunch of images stashed on the talk page for possible use. I wanted to incorporate the whole gallery, would this be a good idea, or an overload? Nightw 04:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the images, I'd include them in the table. See Freedom Award for an example of what I mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I thought about that at one point, but I dismissed it because a) commons doesn't have images of all of them, and b) Elizabeth II pops up in 16 different spots. I'll give it a go, though, and we'll see what it looks like. Nightw 09:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I added the images. What do you think? Nightw 09:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: I see there is a lot of Elizabeth's. What about mention just one in the antigua and barbuda row and deleting the columns, where she appears?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about how many images she has, or how many entries she has? Nightw 12:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the pictures. One photo of one person is enough imo-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Done. Nightw 16:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't acceptable. Since the table is sortable, it is not always guaranteed that Antigua and Barbuda will be first. Table rows should all be able to stand on their own. — KV5 • Talk • 16:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair point. I've added them back in. Is it acceptable to use different images of the same person? Or do you think that would be confusing for the reader? Nightw 16:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be difficult but (a) different images would be confusing and (b) I think the concern with repeating Queen Liz II's image is reasonable, it does look odd. Perhaps, now you've merged the table, go for some images down the right-hand side of it, selecting some of the more prominent monarchs? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest that too. — KV5 • Talk • 17:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...So delete the images column? Nightw 17:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but yes! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll sort it out in the morning! Nightw 17:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Nightw 11:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments or concerns? Nightw 04:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The lead should explicitly state that it excludes List_of_monarchies#Subnational_monarchies. Also, since this is a list of monarchs not monarchies, all the Elizabeth II entries should be grouped together. Also, the original name (in the native language) should be given for all non-English language entries. Nergaal (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The disclaimer you're referring to is located in the last paragraph, introducing the list itself, if I'm not mistaken. Your second point technically depends on how you define "monarch" doesn't it? Are we referring to the person or the position. In this case, the list outlines the offices, not the personalities. Nightw 13:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support: Accessibility of the table is good. In theory a caption would be an improvement, but in this case where there is only one table and it is the only element in its section, it could be argued that a caption would be redundant. Both images would benefit from alt text – even empty alt text if only to suppress the filename being read out by a screen reader. The lead image File:Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand.jpg is licensed as fair use, but there is no fair use rationale for this article. Unfortunately (as it's a great picture) I don't believe you would be able to provide a FUR, so I'd suggest you replace it with a free image. --RexxS (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for your comment. I can add a table caption if it's considered an improvement...? Nightw 05:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've struck the addressed comments. I hope you don't mind, but I've tweaked the alt text slightly. A screen reader will speak out the alt text and then the image caption, so it can be annoying if they are too similar. Use the alt text to tell the blind viewer something about the image which only a sighted viewer sees. Only a small point (and I fixed it), but when captions are sentence fragments, they don't end with a full-stop (period). As for the table caption, it's not a deal-breaker either way in this case. Many editors would argue that a table caption here would just immediately repeat the section header (Monarchs by country), and anyone using JAWS or a similar screen reader can already navigate directly to the table via that section header. Hope that helps. I believe that the article now meets any reasonable expectation of accessibility, and I would support on those grounds. --RexxS (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help and support, and for your improvement to the alt text—I wasn't quite sure what it was supposed to look like. Best regards, Nightw 15:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment – References 3 and 14 should give the page range as pp., while numbers 15 and 50 are a single page and should be given as p. If you're using the cite templates, just make sure to use the page= parameter for single-page cites and pages= for multiple pages, and that should be enough to fix it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Great catch! Thank you! Nightw 05:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments a fresh look, so ignore my comments above for the moment, I'd cap them but other editors comments are intertwined with mine...

Still two disambiguation links (Yamato, List of monarchs [although the latter is probably okay, since it's a see also...])
Remove spaces between text and notes, e.g. Hereditary and elective [fn 39] -> Hereditary and elective[fn 39]
Would be worth linking "standard" to the appropriate page.
Kuwait is missing a N/A in the standard col.
So is Brunei.
I fixed mixed date formats in the refs for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a few difficulties with these issues when they were raised previously: The Yamato page, in addition to providing links to other pages, also describes the etymology of the term and how it has come to mean different things, which is the purpose of the footnote. There is no article on the term itself, so that was the most appropriate link for further insight. If it is not acceptable to link to this page, is linking to Wiktionary appropriate? The most appropriate link for "standard" would be Royal standard, but this is also tagged as a disambiguation page. I suppose the next best would be Heraldic flag? I should also note that "N/A" in a field means "not applicable". Kuwait and Brunei both have royal standards, but they're images are not available on Wikimedia. Should this be noted somewhere in the article? Nightw 04:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and just removed the link on "Yamato". It's not a big deal, and the footnote explains the etymology in brief anyway. Its entry in Wiktionary is useless for elaboration. I've also linked to Heraldic flag on "Standard". Does that clear everything up? Nightw 07:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead of a N/A in the cells without usable flags, just put an en-dash so the blank cell isn't misleading. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nightw 05:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not clear on the status of all the various reviews; can you ask all reviewers to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nightw 04:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]