Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/110th United States Congress/archive1

110th United States Congress

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: 11 days, 1 support, 4 oppose. Fail. Crzycheetah 23:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: It's nominated for both FLC and FAC because I'm not sure if it's an article or a list. please discuss both options here as both FAC and FLC discussions link/redirect here. —Markles Also note: I'm not trying to "fight" for Featured status for this article. I nominated this article to make it the best possible article it can be.—Markles 15:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidacy

Support. It's been through a lot of edits (by more people than just me). If it's not good enough for "Featured" status, then we need suggestions on how to improve it so it IS good enough.

List or Article: It's quite clearly a list Raul654 17:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. However, it's a bit prosy at the beginning before it gets to the monotony of the lists. Is there a good standard that differentiates the two?—Markles 17:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List. Suggest removal from FAC. (Please sign your entries.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a list

Oppose This is not quite stable enough in my opinion for criterion 1(e), and can become outdated far too easily. It's practically an ongoing event until the next elections! There are also issues with presentation (wildly different from a section to the other), forking (duplicates in part Current members of the United States Congress) and structure (huge table of content). Circeus 04:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are few (if any) edit wars. It does not change daily. It only changes when: new significant legislation is enacted or membership changes. Otherwise, it changes only when reviewers improve it as per criterion 1(e). Is that too unstable? It is an ongoing event but that doesn't mean it's unstable does it?—Markles 15:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article is far far away a featured one should be!--Hadrianos1990 11:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell me why?—Markles 15:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't get beyond the opening few words, which are inconsistent with the article name. Either amend them or move the article. --Dweller 14:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean. It says, "The One Hundred Tenth United States Congress is the current meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, comprised of the Senate and the House of Representatives." Can you tell me where the inconsistency is? I'm really just trying to do everything I can to make this a top-notch article.—Markles 15:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I was vague. 110th vs The One Hundred Tenth is the inconsistency. --Dweller 18:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an unfair criticism I think, since we often use the 'colloquial' title in the name, and the official one in text. --Golbez 23:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We do? Even if you're right, it seems a bit pointless - and it looks silly to have an inconsistency in the very first words of an article. --Dweller 00:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've spent much of the last half hour or so flicking through a bunch of FAs and current FA candidates. Inconsistent names are normally used either where the article name includes disambiguation, or where abbreviation has been used. This is neither. I can't see any good reason to do anything other than stick to the official nomenclature. --Dweller 00:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too unstable. The list of major legislation alone will almost certainly change, as will the membership. This is not like a list of governors or presidents, those change once every four years. This could change every two weeks depending on what events happen. Will support nomination in January 2009, however. (get back to me then :)) However, if you want some actionable criticisms: 1) I think more needs to be said about the Democrat takeover, especially considering the context of the War and the 2004 Republican hold; 2) Events is a bit sparse, even if the congress is only 9 months old; 3) no explanation of the blue shaded boxes is given, and I'm not sure it's needed; 4) However, I do like listing the affiliations for each time period. --Golbez 00:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What if I/we nominated its predecessor, 109th United States Congress, instead?—Markles 17:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it were brought up to the standards of the 110th, I'd look at it. As it is, it's pretty bare-bones. --Golbez 19:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have made many improvements and I've now nominated 109th United States Congress for FL. Please comment there. —Markles 23:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with everything above. Wait until this session (is that what it's called? I'm not even sure) is over and done with. I would also suggest nominating previous congress articles, and 109 would be as good an article as any. Drewcifer 21:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]