This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This list is a current
featured list candidate. A featured list should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to
meet several criteria. Please feel free to After the list has been promoted or archived, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{ Article history}} template when the FLC closes. |
This page's layout doesn't make any sense; the congressmen are listed alphabetically (they should be listed chronologically); and the dates listed are their birth/death dates (very confusing; the dates of their appointments would be much more appropriate--especially if positioned AFTER their office!) Furthermore, the should be broken down by House and era (e.g. Territorial vs. Statehood). Iroll 17:48, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Good thots (IMO but without refreshing my memory of the article). You might want to consider each period in which the number of seats doesn't change as an "era": there's a lot of continuity, in most states, within these eras, but crossing their boundaries is confusing, e.g., the new 3rd district may in some sense be the old 2nd, with the 2nd having newly populated territory and a new face. -- Jerzy (t) 18:21, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC)
I think the addition of a simple subtitle serves to more clearly delineate the Territorial and Statehood eras of Congressional representation. Ross 15:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The PVI leans of the district are out of date-O'Halleran's district is R+1, and Sinema's is D+5. ~~Joe~~
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States congressional delegations from Arizona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for their edits! Ftr, I agree with Emk9 that the National Union Party (United States) likely isn't the "Unionist" party McCormick belonged to. Educated guess would be this is an example of 1800s sources playing fast and loose with party names, as they were wont to do—the Republican party in the 1870s sometimes called itself the Union Republican or National Union Republican party, so plausibly McCormick belonged to an Arizona affiliate of the GOP that called itself "Unionist," but that's just speculation. It's just a color in the table, so the NUP is probably good enough for now, unless someone has a better source. Nathaniel Greene ( talk) 21:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This list is a current
featured list candidate. A featured list should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to
meet several criteria. Please feel free to After the list has been promoted or archived, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{ Article history}} template when the FLC closes. |
This page's layout doesn't make any sense; the congressmen are listed alphabetically (they should be listed chronologically); and the dates listed are their birth/death dates (very confusing; the dates of their appointments would be much more appropriate--especially if positioned AFTER their office!) Furthermore, the should be broken down by House and era (e.g. Territorial vs. Statehood). Iroll 17:48, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Good thots (IMO but without refreshing my memory of the article). You might want to consider each period in which the number of seats doesn't change as an "era": there's a lot of continuity, in most states, within these eras, but crossing their boundaries is confusing, e.g., the new 3rd district may in some sense be the old 2nd, with the 2nd having newly populated territory and a new face. -- Jerzy (t) 18:21, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC)
I think the addition of a simple subtitle serves to more clearly delineate the Territorial and Statehood eras of Congressional representation. Ross 15:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The PVI leans of the district are out of date-O'Halleran's district is R+1, and Sinema's is D+5. ~~Joe~~
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States congressional delegations from Arizona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for their edits! Ftr, I agree with Emk9 that the National Union Party (United States) likely isn't the "Unionist" party McCormick belonged to. Educated guess would be this is an example of 1800s sources playing fast and loose with party names, as they were wont to do—the Republican party in the 1870s sometimes called itself the Union Republican or National Union Republican party, so plausibly McCormick belonged to an Arizona affiliate of the GOP that called itself "Unionist," but that's just speculation. It's just a color in the table, so the NUP is probably good enough for now, unless someone has a better source. Nathaniel Greene ( talk) 21:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)