Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Saskatchewan general elections/archive1

List of Saskatchewan general elections

1. Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
2. Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
   • Useful: Summarieses information from 25 seperate aritcles, and allows visitors to easily compare results from successive general elections
   • Comprehensive: Covers every general election
   • Factually accurate: can be verified via Elections Saskatchewan
   • Stable: Will be only be updated every four years or so
   • Well-organised: Easy to find any required information
3. Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes of any kind, ever
4. Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
5. Images: Sole image has approriate copyright status

Tompw 14:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is the list in reverse historical order? Rmhermen 23:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, because all the other lists of provincial general elections are in that order. Secondly, because then the most recent (and therefore the ones most visitors will be interetsed in) will be at the top. You can argue it either way. Tompw 10:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this order. Normally, one will expect a list in chronoligical order, which is adopted in practically all articles. Check these FLs. CG 17:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: You've got the makings of a good article, and you've obviously put quite a bit of time into this, but I don't think it's quite there yet.

1. You need to link to the political parties (past and present).
2. Information on how the number of seats is determined (population?) would be useful (at least as a link).
3. I think that the graph would be better if the total number of seats contested was also represented.
4. The links to the indiviudal elections are somewhat hidden. I'd move the links to the year and probably delete the number column.
5. I would rename the columns "Year" to "Year of election" (increasing its prominence) and "Total" to "Total number of seats" or "Number of seats" or similar.
6. I'd also delete the Social Credit and Indpendent columns and include them all in the Other column. The Independent Liberal and Independent Pro-Goverment should probably also be included in the Other column.
7. Are the Progressive Conservatives, and the Provincial Rights party just the modern Conservative party under a different name? They could probably do with articles, or links if the articles are already there. If they're fundamentally the same party (like the British Tories and the modern Conservatives- see history) then I think you're fine including them together. If they're simply right-wing parties, I think you might have to separate them out.

Sorry for the length of this, but I think these changes will make the article better! (Oh, and I much prefer such lists in reverse historical order!) --G Rutter 11:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK... in order (I made your bullets numbered ones for ease of reference):

1. Done
2. I don't know how's its determined, and have been unable to find a definitive source for this.
3. How about something like this? (done before some of the party changes had been made)
4. Done
5. Done
6. Agree with Social Credit... but I feel there is a fundamental difference between independent candidates and those from misc. parties, so they should go in seperate columns. With regard to the Ind. Lib. and Ind. Pro-Gov.... I put them in the Liberal column, as that reflects the number of MLA's the party had who would support its views.
7. No they are not... good point. I've moved the Provnicial Rights into the "other" column

Thanks for the suggestions and comments. :-) Tompw 13:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]