Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Lloyd George ministry/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 The Rambling Man 19:14, 31 May 2012 [1].

Lloyd George ministry[edit]

Featured list candidates/Lloyd George ministry/archive1

Nominator(s): RGloucester (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is well done, provides a nice, simple intro. It also easily lists the cabinet members of the Lloyd George Ministry, and provides a nice table for the full list of ministers. Recently, I’ve done a lot of work on the British ministry articles (List of British governments). This one, I think is worthy of featured lists, and if it were chosen, would bring more people to these articles... RGloucester (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is based on one general reference, "D. Butler and G. Butler, Twentieth Century British Political Facts (Macmillan, 2000)". Is that really sufficient? I'm not saying every word has to have a blue number after it, but for there to be no blue numbers anywhere... not something I'm used to seeing these days in featured content. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, there is no other source of lists of members of British ministries in current existence. That one referenced, that was the first ever comprehensive list. It was copied in the early 2000s for the reference of ministries prior to 1900 (British Historical Facts) series. While some sources may list cabinet members (even these are very few), this is the only one that lists junior ministers and all the members of the ministry. I think this is a unique case. This is in direct opposition to both Canada and Australia, whose governments provide their own comprehensive lists of ministries (online, no less). I don’t know why Britain has no such list, but perhaps it is because of its longer history. Believe me, I’ve done the research while fixing up these articles….it was a pain in the neck….RGloucester (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see I forgot to add references for the intro, I had them on hand, so I’ve added them in to make sure that that is cited. RGloucester (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Lead is too short. Check WP:LEAD for what I'd expect, say three paras.

Will work on it. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it "ministry" or "Ministry”?

This is a matter of some debate, but, properly, because this is not an official title (proper noun), it is “ministry”, just as one would refer to the “Thatcher government”, and not the “Thatcher Government”. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image caption is an incomplete sentence, so it doesn't need a full stop.
Perhaps link "honours" in the lead, not clear to all readers.

Done. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of headings is odd, why have a 1 then 1.1 and 1.1.1 when you don't have any others (like a 1.2 or a 1.2.1 or 1.2.2)?

There is a 1.2 etc? The wartime cabinet (1.1) and the peacetime cabinet (1.2) have separate sections, with changes to each being listed under 1.1.1 and 1.2.1 respectively. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinets section could use some introductory text.

Will work on it. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly important, but plenty of redirects, mainly in the government positions. If you edit the article, you could resolve those.
All of the Cabinets section is unreferenced.

This comes from the same source as the junior ministers list. It simply highlighted who was in the cabinet in the list, which makes life easier for those who only care about the cabinet. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Members of the Cabinet are in bold face." - see WP:BADEMPHASIS.

Done. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 1 and 2 look identical to me.
Overall, referencing is weak, just one offline ref for the entire article?

As said above, there are no other available references. If you were to go to the library and get that book, British Political Facts, and read the introduction, you would see that it is the first of its kind, and that even the compilers of that book had EXTREME trouble with finding out who the ministers of a government were. No other comprehensive source exists. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to some independent third-party sources that would consider a "Lloyd George ministry" to be notable or relevant? Not trying to be difficult but what's the significance of this list?

Anyone that is interested in the characters that made up Lloyd George’s government, specifically if they are wondering about British leadership during the Great War, could use this. I’d say it is important. As a far as a source, the only one I would again point you to is British Political Facts. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal - I suppose I will withdraw my nomination for now. I do not have time to complete this many edits now, but I will continue to work on this article and return here when it is complete. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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