Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Maine/archive1

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 not promoted by Dabomb87 23:23, 4 March 2010 [1].

List of Governors of Maine[edit]

Nominator(s): Designate (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it's stable and of appropriate quality. Designate (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restarted, old version.
Note I have restarted this nom, as the page was getting long with comments, and it was not clear what had been addressed and what hadn't. Can all reviewers please restate their opinions and list whatever concerns they have left? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still Support. Reywas92^Talk 22:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - images lack alttext —Chris!_c/t 19:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't peer review, but seeing as how FLC has promoted a dozen of these lists already, it seems FLC is being pushed to decide whether or not three major format changes are viable:
1. Should we switch from using the terms (i.e. # of times elected) column, which is always populated and allows for a singular clearing house for footnotes, but can inflate governors with 1-year terms versus the more popular recent 4-year terms; or use the new style proposed in this one, with a Term column (i.e. one for each gubernatorial term, which may have been shared among governors) and a separate notes column which is not always populated, and may artificially widen the rows for repeat governors but, on the other hand, does give a slightly more accurate view of time in office? Personally I rather like the idea of the Term column, but I also like Terms, and wonder if the shortcomings of Term outweigh its usefulness.
2. This one's less major, but it was proposed in the last FLC near the end: Should the Other Offices table have a separate column for House and Senate, or just include all those in the text column? The current version of this list uses the latter.
3. Much less major, but the Party column is 2nd; in the other featured lists, its 4th, after the term dates.
- All in all I withhold voting until others state their opinion. The list is quality either way, but I don't want to be the swing vote in case there's a disagreement on these two major changes. --Golbez (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If all the other FLs have party fourth, then I prefer it to be fourth. For the offices held, I don't mind. For the terms, I prefer this artcle's Term. Reywas92^Talk 02:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note I am archiving this as unsuccessful as there is no consensus to promote even after restarting; there are still unresolved issues and the nominator has not commented here or edited the list in nearly a month. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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