Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Canadian Newsmaker of the Year (Time)
Self-nom. Hm, first time here, so I'm sure people will have suggestions. References, most of which are paper, no fair use images. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
CommentsSupport. Pretty good, but I believe it should have went through the peer review process prior the nomination. My suggestions:- Rename to the article to List of Canadian Newsmakers of the Year (Time) for a more proper list format.
- Lucien Bouchard (left) - Not all users use the same font sizes and screen resolutions. I myself see the text a lot lower than the picture.
- Please use citation templates on references per WP:MOS.
- It is not to be confused with the Canadian Newsmaker of the Year according to the Canadian Press - This is a very confusing sentence, does the Canadian Press verify this fact? I suggest rewording it to It is not to be confused with the Canadian Newsmaker of the Year of the Canadian Press.
- Sole years shouldn't be linked, neither to the year itself or the year of the subject. However, lists are an exception to this and as such only the instance in the lead need to be removed.
- Alternate names should be provided in the first sentence of the article in addition to the primary one.
- How was the 1996 Canadian Newsmaker of the Year named? Also "Headliners: Canada"?
Watch the punctuation; ...," > ...",.- The selections have received some external media attention - Any examples?
- Please use
class="wikitable sortable"on the table for easier navigation among years and names.
- Once those are dealt with, I will fully support. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually sole years aren't linked. For example, 1995 in Canada is used instead of 1995. I'm not sure what you mean with respect to the pictures- I wasn't trying to match them up with the text, I went reverse chronological order. Change it? As far as I can see not all lists start with "List of..." The Canadian Press and Time have two separate newsmakers- I'll try to make that more explicit. The external media attention, I thought, could be illustrated by the discussions throughout the list. Also, I'm not quite sure what wikitable sortable is and what it would do. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I tried that new table... seems to rearrange by year, not sure what it's doing whenever you click the box for the awardees though. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment AFAIK, the citation templates have never been required per MOS. The mechanism isn't important, just the fullness of the citation. Also, I disagree about wikitable sortable. It doesn't sort any of the columns correctly except the year, which was sorted quite sensibly to begin with. There are tricks you can do to help sort dates and names but IMO it isn't worth it for such a small table. Colin°Talk 20:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- As for the external media attention, there's now a couple examples in the lead, since I found one talking about the topic in general. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I've converted to citation templates, if there are any more comments. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- As for the external media attention, there's now a couple examples in the lead, since I found one talking about the topic in general. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually sole years aren't linked. For example, 1995 in Canada is used instead of 1995. I'm not sure what you mean with respect to the pictures- I wasn't trying to match them up with the text, I went reverse chronological order. Change it? As far as I can see not all lists start with "List of..." The Canadian Press and Time have two separate newsmakers- I'll try to make that more explicit. The external media attention, I thought, could be illustrated by the discussions throughout the list. Also, I'm not quite sure what wikitable sortable is and what it would do. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I still endorse a rename; it should be made clear the article refer to the list of newsmakers, rather than the column itself. Michaelas10 (Talk) 23:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is about the column itself, in that it reflects the literature about the column, most of which is about the individuals who've won it; I think there's merit in keeping articles at the shortest and simplest possible titles. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- In case you choose to focus on the column, you may expand the prose and submit it on FAC instead. I believe a better solution to this would be splitting it to both an article and a list. Michaelas10 (Talk) 23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure if it's notable enough for two articles- do we demand Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc be split into a pure list and an article with new 40K prose on.... what exactly? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is a bit different example. Take a look at this article which has been split. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure if it's notable enough for two articles- do we demand Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc be split into a pure list and an article with new 40K prose on.... what exactly? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- In case you choose to focus on the column, you may expand the prose and submit it on FAC instead. I believe a better solution to this would be splitting it to both an article and a list. Michaelas10 (Talk) 23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is about the column itself, in that it reflects the literature about the column, most of which is about the individuals who've won it; I think there's merit in keeping articles at the shortest and simplest possible titles. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I still endorse a rename; it should be made clear the article refer to the list of newsmakers, rather than the column itself. Michaelas10 (Talk) 23:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)