Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FL criteria. Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FLC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. A list should not be listed at Featured list candidates and Peer review at the same time. Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split FL candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings). One of the FL directors, either Dabomb87, Giants2008 or The Rambling Man, determines the timing of the process for each nomination; each nomination will last at least 10 days (though most last at least a week longer)—longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. After the 10-day period has passed, a director will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the Table of Contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects – |
Featured list tools: |
||
Nomination procedure
Supporting and objecting Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.
|
Nominations
List of reptiles of Michigan
- Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
As a sister nomination to the recently passed List of amphibians in Michigan...I present the state's reptiles! The formatting for this list is based on that of the amphibian list, and I have incorporated comments and improvements made to that list during the FLC into this one as well, so hopefully it is coming better prepared! I look forward to seeing your comments, and thank you in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam
Another communist-related list... :) TIAYN (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
CZW World Junior Heavyweight Championship
I'm back with another FLC. This will be the fourth CZW Title I've nominated and hopefully the fourth to be an FL. If you have a list you would like me to review, leave the link on my talk page.--WillC 07:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments very pleased that you've incorporated a neat history section, much appreciated!
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC) |
List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes
- Nominator(s): Khanassassin ☪ 11:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because, well, the list is pretty much finished: sourced with enough information :) Khanassassin ☪ 11:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Quick oppose - firstly you should familiarise yourself with the discussions initiated at the List of Friends episodes FLC about the compliance of the use of transclusions and the episode list template. That has a direct impact here.
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC) |
List of songs recorded by Chrisye
- Nominator(s): Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is a fairly complete list of songs recorded by Chrisye during his career as a vocalist. It includes all songs he recorded on his solo albums, as well as all songs on Guruh Gipsy and Badai Pasti Berlalu. There may be a few songs (not singles) on out-of-print audio-cassettes or CDs (very few Indonesian albums are reissued, especially 20 years down the road), but that's okay per FL criteria 1a) as any out there are minor songs which he did not bother mentioning in his biography or receive coverage from news outlets. I would like to thank Mark Arsten for copyediting, and note that I based this off Calvin999's List of songs recorded by Rihanna. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This is my first FL review, so I had to look at some other lists. The last paragraph in the lead is "This list includes song titles and their English translations, if applicable; songs titles that do not need translation but have a possibly unclear meaning have notes after the title. Unless otherwise noted, all songs are in Indonesian. Songs performed but not recorded are not listed." Should not this be in the "Released songs" section at the beginning of the table rather than in the lead? See for example List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Baltimore#Tallest_buildings. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 01:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- It's workable, but I think in the linked example it was put with the different lists due to each list having a different scope. Here, there's only the one list Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- Hmm. There is a similar page List of songs recorded by Rihanna. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 05:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- I meant that there is only one list of songs in the article. The Boston article has three lists, while the Rihanna one has two. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support Meets FLC. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 05:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the support! Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
|
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Imran Khan
- Nominator(s): ZiaUllahKhan Khadar Khani 16:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. This is based upon FLs Muttiah Muralitharan and Waqar Younis. Please feel free to make your comments and suggestions... ZiaUllahKhan Khadar Khani 16:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
|
1964 Summer Paralympics medal table
- Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because it think that it meets the criteria. Thanks. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
A few Comments
- The image requires alt text, (an image of a medal winner would be nice too, understand though if none are available)
- Refs 9-11 are not found (dartchery, snooker and table tennis)
- Why are Ireland and Fiji listed when they didn't win a medal? This doesn't appear to be standard practice on any other wiki pages.
- Why were there more gold medals awarded than silver (there is an explanation for bronze, but I don't see a corresponding one for gold/silver discrepancy)
- "The Paralympics are run in parallel with the Olympic Games." the dates given for the paralympics are Nov. 3-12, while the 64 olympics were October 10-24. I'm confused about this (is it a general statement, or Tokyo specific?)
- Why the link to the 1964 Summer Olympics medal table? Are the Paralympics really dependent on the Olympics? Do they not stand out as an event in itself? Perhaps a better link would be "See also: Olympic medal table" as is done on 2008 Summer Paralympics medal table or simply getting rid of it.
- Dick Thompson doesn't appear to be the same one who won medals that paralympics.
- Link United States at the 1964 Paralympics in the second paragraph (mention of most medals one), not the third (mention of Dick Thompson as multiple medalist) Ravendrop 04:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- All Done. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support Ravendrop 07:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support, looks OK to me. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 13:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- All Done. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose unless I can be convinced why this cannot be reasonably included in the main article, i.e. 1964 Summer Paralympics. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Just to tell, This list has 17 NOCs. Generally, if there are more than 10, we keep the top 10 in the main article (as in 1968 Summer Paralympics, and a separate list for the complete tally. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- We don't need a separate list if the main article is even smaller than the list itself... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, 1968 Summer Paralympics and 1972 Summer Paralympics are also smaller than their lists, however both the lists are FLs. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, as ever, just because that's the case then, it doesn't mean it's the case now. Let's see what others think. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, 1968 Summer Paralympics and 1972 Summer Paralympics are also smaller than their lists, however both the lists are FLs. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- We don't need a separate list if the main article is even smaller than the list itself... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comments from Crisco 1492
-
- If this was actually an IWAS World Games, shouldn't it be made explicit that only wheelchair users were accepted (if true)?
- The paragraph with persons who won multiple medals should have a lead-in sentence, to improve flow.
- Why is the information about the US repeated?
- Also, I'd like to note (in response to The Rambling Man above) that just because an article is a stub now, that doesn't mean it always will be; should the article ever be properly developed, I think a full medal table would be too much on top of all the text. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware that articles can be expanded, but there's really no justification now for a separate list article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware that articles can be expanded, but there's really no justification now for a separate list article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Prose looks fine (although a more skilled copyeditor may find issues), referencing looks okay, I couldn't find any flaws with the table itself. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments – Really concerned about some of the writing I found.
- The non-free image in the lead doesn't have any rationale for this article. Even if it did, you don't need a non-free logo to help understand a list better, so it would fail to meet the non-free content criteria anyway. I strongly suggest removing the image, even if it is the only one avaliable for the list.
- "The Paralympics are run in the the same city...". Repeated word here. Not sure why three editors are supporting if something like that went undetected for all this time.
- Could move the Japan link up a sentence to where its performance at the Paralympics is discussed.
- "Athletes with outstanding performance included Margaret Harriman of Rhodesia won two gold medals in archery, Serge Bec of France won two individuals gold medals". Needs a full-scale rewrite due to a disturbing number of prose issues. How was this not found before?
- Could add "the" in "Dick Thompson of United States".
- "United States's Ron Stein...". Should start with "The", and the "s" after States' isn't needed.
- Medal table: Might as well use the NPC abbreviation here, since you gave it earlier.
- Reference 5 needs a publisher. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- Done. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
List of Formula One polesitters
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that the list meets the criteria. I look forward to addressing any comments, cheers. NapHit (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments –
- I see "pole position" and "pole-position" in the lead. Which is it?
- What makes StatsF1 a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- I anticipated this would come up so i left a message at WP:F1 asking whether the project deemed the source reliable, unfortunately no one got back to me. There is not much on the site in the way of clarifying reliability, all I can say is that is regularly updated and the information is correct, that in itself does make the site reliable, but its the best I've got. Unfortunately, I'm yet to come across an alternative reliable source which offers all the information this site does. NapHit (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments
- Should "The F1 world championship " be World Championship (since you have "Formula One World Champion" in the key...)
- "Starting from pole position is important, as a driver has a greater chance of winning from pole than a driver who has qualified in a lower position on the starting grid." I think this is generally true although it sounds like original research. I know I've seen races where starting in second place was considered advantageous because of the layout of the circuit or because of dirty track on one side etc.
- Funnily enough "the driver that has qualified on pole position has gone on to win the race 347 times" means that less than half the races were actually one by the polesitter so statistically it's best not to be on pole...!
- "in as little as half the amount of races" -> "in as few as half the number of races..."
- Perhaps worth mentioning that the qualifying sessions are currently referred to as Q1, Q2 and Q3?
- For Raikkonen, shouldn't that be 2012–?
- Similarly for Hulkenberg...
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
My Bloody Valentine discography
- Nominator(s): Idiotchalk (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because My Bloody Valentine is of significant interest to a number of groups, especially alternative rock fans, Irish music fans and fans of shoegazing - a subgenre the band pioneered. Idiotchalk (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Cut the space between the start of the prose and the infobox
Done
- What makes mybloodyvalentine.net or Imdb reliable sources?
- Just noticed that per WP:RS/IMDB IMDb is not a reliable source and replaced ref 18 with another source. mybloodyvalentine.net is maintained by fans but is affiliated with Kevin Shields, as the band's web site has been inactive for almost three years. If another source is needed to verify, I'd be glad to add one.
- Since you have a "Bibliography" semi-colon, why not have a "References" semi-colon under for a separation of the two?
Done
- No scope row/col tags? See K-Ci & JoJo discography for what these should look like, and see also MOS:DTT for help.
Done
- The "Year" column is a bit redundant, since you have the year already listed under the "details" section.
Done
- The "Miscellaneous appearances" section in the infobox doesn't add up to the real total.
Done
- Ref 3... can you give me the website of Underground magazine, or some proof it exists?
- Underground doesn't have an official web site, it was an indie magazine that only was active for a few months in the late 1980s, here's some proof of its existence though.
- My Bloody Valentine' released its debut mini album, no need for apostrophe
Done
- debut mini album, This Is Your Bloody Valentine, in 1985 on Tycoon Records with its original line-up. ... consisting of who? And this implies the band later changed lineups, but nothing is said.
Done
- Overall, the prose standard could use another paragraph to summarize the entire list, references aren't up to snuff regarding formatting and reliability, and lists could use touch-up with scope-row and scope-col tags. Albacore (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Could you give me an example of bad formatting in the references?
-
- English is the default language, no need to specify. All-caps should be avoided in references, and everywhere where there is a - various artists should be a – various artists, or you could remove that part altogether. Double-bolding, such as in the Studio albums section, should be avoided, and scope-col for :""—" denotes a release that did not chart." is not necessary. There's something going on with the notes in the "Promotional singles" section, and I would prefer that the notes have a section to themselves. Albacore (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Done all of these. The only thing I didn't quite understand was "All-caps should be avoided in references." Was that referring to "ITV Chart Show"? If so, that was fixed too. Idiotchalk (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
-
Jordin Sparks discography
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it now meets the FL criteria. Oz talk 21:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Why is the director for "The World I Knew" N/A? What a pro (talk, contribs) thinks that ohhhh, ohhh, woaaah-oh-oh-ohhhhh. 10:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I put N/A there because I could not find a source of the director anywhere. Oz talk 06:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Support. What a pro (talk, contribs) thinks that ohhhh, ohhh, woaaah-oh-oh-ohhhhh. 12:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
Otherwise decent effort. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC) |
- Support good work, comments efficiently dealt with at both the PR and here. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Quick comment – No need for the excess comma after Sparks' name in the first sentence.Giants2008 (Talk) 01:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Done
List of best-selling music artists
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is now quite close to becoming a featured list. Please note that List of best-selling music artists and List of best-selling music artists (page 2) have just recently been split into two parts due to its large size. The list was listed for peer review (see here) just a few months ago, further improvements have been made since then. Should I list both split pages separately?--Harout72 (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to nominate both pages for FL, then you need to open separate nominations for both of them. However, as per the guidelines, you can't have two open nominations, so you'd need to wait for one to pass/fail and then nominate the other one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments some quick thoughts...
- I'm certainly not keen on the "continued on page 2" business. However, the slow load time of this page may necessitate a split. It may be that we need to think about renaming the list so it captures the number of sales more precisely, then we can just use See also for the other lists.
- I guess we can think about that. Although, most likely there will always be inflated sales figures we have to put up with.
- "Sections are to include maximum of seven images of the top certified artists/bands." is this note really necessary? I'm not sure the image galleries will be that popular either.
- "From available markets" -> "from available markets".
- Done.
- Sorting by "Total certified units" doesn't work.
- "2,000,000[210])(Also," weird spacing and ref placement.
- Fixed.
- Avoid SHOUTING in ref titles.
- Fixed.
- Ref 195 is broken.
- Fixed.
- Ref 206 "Carl Bialik " all other authors are Last, First... check rest and be consistent.
- Fixed. Placed Last before First for all others as well.
- Ref 214 & 220 need an accessdate.
- Done.
- Refs 229 and 232 are incomplete.
- Fixed.
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
List of municipalities in Rio Grande do Norte
I am nominating this for featured list because... it meets criteria, like all my other lists. Albacore (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC) |
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 16:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments –
|
Comments
- At least on my browser, the images on the right force the table down so there's a full page of whitespace. A possible solution is not enforce column/table widths, you really shouldn't need to anyway.
-
- Removed the column and table widths.
- Do we need two columns for area, or can they be combined, stacked on one another?
- I'm not entirely sure we need the coordinates, either; we have the map, and if someone needs the coordinates of the city center they can click through to the article, since they're all bluelinked. But I won't push for that, just offering it as a discussion possibility. --Golbez (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
List of Major League Baseball player–managers
My last nomination appears to be set to pass. I only have one question about the presentation of this table: is it best to have each player-manager get one row, or should there be one row per tenure, even if that means some players are listed in multiple rows? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC) |
Comments –
"In early baseball history, it was not uncommon for players to serve as a player–managers". Remove "a".- Recommend linking to bullpen in the third paragraph, as that is a bit of baseball jargon that could use the wikilink.
Decapitalize "General Manager" in the fourth paragraph."the White Sox considered hiring incumbent first baseman Paul Konerko to seve as manager in addition." "seve" → "serve".To expand on TRM's last point, the John Montgomery Ward caption needs a cite.Minor, but ref 6 could use a space between the pp. and numbers, for consistency with the other cites to the Stein book.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Hello Muboshgu, are you intending to address these remaining concerns? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Older nominations
List of municipalities in Florida
- Nominator(s): Mgrē@sŏn 15:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because...all of the recommendations/critiques from the previous nomination have been addressed. Mgrē@sŏn 15:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 14:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (Talk) 00:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
|
- Is a page number possible for ref 6? I'll have to get back to the library to look it up again.
Resolved comments from — Statυs (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments—
|
I believe I've addressed each of your comments. Thanks for your input. Mgrē@sŏn 16:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, I support this article becoming a FL. Everything looks good. — Statυs (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- lol, IMHO the font you used for header seems really strange...--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Comments
- Can you confirm that ۩ is accessible to screen readers?
- "utilize the strong mayor-council form " en-dash needed.
- I see two municipalities with the same population (400) so surely their rank must tie?
- "Council." why the period?
- Be consistent with decimal places. You have several xx.0 so why not xxx.0?
- E.g. "46 sq mi (119 km2)" vs "45.0 sq mi (116.6 km2)"
- Also, be consistent with conversions: "55.3 sq mi (143.3 km2)" vs "55.3 sq mi (143 km2)"
- Ref 9 appears to have an odd "/" starting the title and probably should be an en-dash in the 2-2.
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Responses
- From what I read, the ۩ is not processed properly by screen readers, so I changed it to a "#" which is in the standard character set.
- Taken care of.
- Everglades City is now ranked 378, same as Jupiter Inlet Colony
- Oversight from table creation. Has been corrected.
- 5/6/7 I originally dropped the decimals where it was needed to make the area fit within the table's box and not expand to a second row. I'll concede that it is more important to be consistent than to be neat. Those few are resolved, also.
- Corrected url for ref 9.
Mgrē@sŏn 19:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
2011 IIHF World Championship rosters
Been awhile since my last nomination, hope anything hasn't drastically changed. Anyway this list follows the same format as the 2010 IIHF World Championship rosters and is basically the same as the 2009, 2008 and 2007 lists all of which are also featured. Salavat (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC) |
Comments –
"After the start of the tournament, each team was allowed to additional players to their roster." What were they allowed to do? Add players?Photo caption: "Georgis Pujacs lead the Latvian team in penalties with 33 PIM." "lead" → "led"?Another caption: "Miroslav Satan played six games, recording three goals and two". Word missing at the end; I assume it's assists, based on earlier captions.Giants2008 (Talk) 00:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Question – Is there a reason the save percentage is in the XX.XX format as opposed to the .XXX format?
- The article page linked to states that it is listed in the decimal first format and the 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007 pages, all featured lists, have the .XXX format as well.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
List of Louisiana state parks
- Nominator(s): Michael miceli (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because it covers the topic of current Louisiana state parks well and provides short, encyclopedic information with images for each park. Almost every piece of information is cited. I tried hard to find a citation for every year, but for 2, I just couldn't. I know the years are close though. For comparison to an already featured list see List of Pennsylvania state parks Michael miceli (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC) |
- I think the "Other names" section should be incorporated into the main table's remarks column.
- I don't like the idea of having another column for just 4 state parks. Should we remove the table and then insert it into the Remarks column? Michael miceli (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's what I suggested, yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't like the idea of having another column for just 4 state parks. Should we remove the table and then insert it into the Remarks column? Michael miceli (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- The two dates which are unreferenced really need to be referenced.
- Found 2 references for year on Grand Isle State Park, still searching frantically for Cypremort Point State Park Michael miceli (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep looking! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Complete - I found one! It's from a blog and not as good a reference as I'd like, but at least it is something for now. --Michael miceli (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep looking! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Found 2 references for year on Grand Isle State Park, still searching frantically for Cypremort Point State Park Michael miceli (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Support -- I must admit though that I have along with Michael Miceli been actively working on this list. --Chrismiceli (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 11:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (Talk) 00:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC) |
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comment
|
List of 1990s UK Albums Chart number ones
- Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I have compared this article to its equivalent singles list, and I hope that this is of a similar quality. I feel that this list meets the FL criteria, and I welcome any comments about how it could be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment shouldn't the albums be in the first column and the artist in the second? It is a list about albums after all. Matthewedwards : Chat 15:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Having the artist first and then the album/single next seems to be common practice both on Wikipedia (e.g. here, here or here) and off (e.g. here, here or here). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Comments
- I think this article is suffering from a case of Overlinking. Do we really need repeated links to the same article? Should only be linked the first time.
- Unfortunately, this article suffers from the same problem I found on the 1970s article - all the dates are inconsistant with the references given. To come up with your own system of dating is major WP:OR across the whole article. To ignore the information in the references given would prevent this from ever passing.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
This seems to be one of those issues where there doesn't yet seem to be any clear consensus either way. My reasoning for using the dates that the albums that they reached number one, rather than the week-ending dates given by the OCC, is as follows:
- It's more intuitive for the reader. We've had a several comments left on the talk page of the 2010s singles article from confused readers not understanding why entries aren't listed by the date that they first topped the chart. I believe that the main reason why someone might view this Wikipedia page is to learn which album was number one on a specific date in the 1990s. At the moment, they would simply need to find whichever album was number one either on or immediately before the date in question – asking them to first add on six days makes it far more prone to errors, particularly for albums that were at the top for more than one week.
- I don't feel that it's necessarily original research. I can find a few reliable sources that talk about singles/albums reaching number one on the Sunday, rather than the following Saturday (e.g. BBC News; The Independent; STV; Newsbeat).
- I don't think it's any less verifiable either – all the dates can be taken from the OCC site (although obviously the article would need a note to mention that the dates that they list are six days after the dates that the albums reached number one). Also, searching on the OCC's search facility for, say, the number ones on 21 January 1990 shows that the Colours by The Christians was number one, rather than ...But Seriously by Phil Collins. This method continues throughout the decade.
-
- Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here but that links says 27th January 1990 not 21 January 1990. NapHit (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but the URL states "1990/1/21". So if you search for 21st January 1990, those are the number ones that comes up. This is my reasoning, at least. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here but that links says 27th January 1990 not 21 January 1990. NapHit (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- While listing by the week-ending date may be the "official" way of charting British number ones, my understanding is that Wikipedia does not necessarily use official names and methods. For example, Flea's official name is Michael Balzary, but he's referred to as Flea throughout his article, as that is more intuitive for the reader. I applied the same reasoning for this list.
- It's also how other articles have listed number ones (e.g. the list of 1990s UK Singles Chart number ones, and the list of 2000s UK Albums Chart number ones). Obviously I'm aware that "Other stuff exists" isn't necessarily a valid argument for inclusion, but both lists have gone through a significant community review, so I assumed that it would be okay to repeat the practice here.
Using the Sunday dates for 1970s albums wouldn't be appropriate, as each week's number one was first revealed on Tuesday (I've actually been meaning to change the 1970s dates; I just haven't got round to it yet). But I feel that, for the 1990s albums, when the weekly chart show was broadcast on Sundays, it would make sense to list them by the date that they reached number one, rather than the week-ending date, for the reasons that I've given above. Now, if I'm wrong about any of this or if anyone disagrees, I'm willing to change the dates. I just wanted to explain the logic behind why I've listed the dates in this way. Thanks very much, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate you taking the time to explain the issue, but the problem at the moment is that to the average reader and reviewer the table appears incorrect. This is especially so when note a states: "The artist, album, date of reaching number one and number of weeks at number one are those given by the OCC." yet the dates in the table do not match the references. You could add a note stating the discrepancy, but the problem would still be there a vast section of the table would not be referenced. I think that would stray a little too close to original research to me. I think you should use the dates given by the OCC, as that is the primary source for the tables, unless there is another reliable source which gives the dates from sunday then I think you should use the OCC's method. NapHit (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll make the change. Bear with me though, as there are nearly 300 entries to get through, so this could take quite a while. On a semi-related note, is there nothing to be said for having some way of visually separating out each year in the table? If not repeating the headers, then maybe having 10 rows that span all seven columns and indicate where each new year begins? At the moment the list looks to me like a huge, unwieldy table, rather like a page of text that contains no paragraph breaks. Just a thought. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Have now made the changes. Didn't take too long after all... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Timeline of modern American conservatism
We are nominating this for featured list because it encompasses the characteristics of a Featured List. – Lionel (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I haven't thoroughly read through this list, but the first thing that jumps out at me is that the quality of references and reference formatting are not to the standard required of a featured list. Specifically:
- Web references should have a title, publisher and access date given at the very least. Authors, publication dates, etc. should be given if available.
-
Done
- Books, including those accessed through Google Books, should be formatted with title, author, publisher, page numbers and publication year at the very least. ISBNs are often included, as well.
-
Doing...
- A person is not a reliable source for potentially controversial information about themselves. For example, the list says "Socialist Michael Harrington popularizes[90] the term "neoconservative"", with ref #90 being to an article by Harrington. No! You need a reliable source written by someone else to prove that this is something other than Harrington's own pet phrase.
-
- The reliable source is in the attached footnote: Justin Vaïsse, Neoconservatism: the biography of a movement (2010) p. 298
- For a list this long (over 65 kb) the lead needs to be longer - 3-4 paragraphs in general.
Like I said, I haven't read the whole thing. However, these need to be addressed before the article is of FL quality. Dana boomer (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - based on the complete lack of response to my comments and those of Giants, below. The issues the two of us have listed make this list stand quite far from FL status, and significant work is necessary to bring it up to speed. Dana boomer (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose – I appreciate that this is a difficult list to work on, but I'm not feeling comfortable with the writing or the formatting. Dana's right, I'm afraid: this isn't ready for FL right now.
I'm not liking the table of contents being forced into the upper right part of the page. Not only do I think it should be in a more regular position, but I think the intro would be enhanced with a photo of a prominent conservative (Reagan, perhaps?).
Why is Timeline capitalized in the first sentence? That's not part of an official title or anything, so why force improper capitalization?
1930s: "Republicans and conservatives are pummeled by a series of electoral blows in 1930, 1932 and 1934:. "pummeled by a series of blows" is really informal language for a featured piece of content. I'd recommend toning it down.
"Conservatives had been energized in 1937–38 and liberals discouraged by the a souring of Roosevelt's political fortunes...".The "a" is a grammatical error.
I see "court-packing" and "Court packing" near each other. They should be made consistent in capitalization and hyphenation (hint: I don't believe this should be capitalized).
While on the topic: "his Court packing plan was a fiasco" sounds quite POV to this independent (literally) reviewer. Again, please consider toning down the language, or provide something in the way of details that shows it was a fiasco.
"Recession of 1937–38" is another item that shouldn't be capitalized. I'm not going to point out any more of these, but please check the whole article for situations like this.
Abbreviations like AFL, CIO, and NATO should be spelled out when first used. If the abbreviation is provided in parentheses afterward, that would be ideal.
"Peter Vierick's article 'But—I'm a Conservative!' is published in the Atlantic Monthly." At first glance, this doesn't appear significant enough to be included in such a list. Is it an early use of the phrase conservative? If so, that's definitely worthy of mention here, as that would be a good reason to include it.
"Liberal icon Franklin D. Roosevelt is elected to fourth Presidential term". Feels like it's missing "his" or "a" before "fourth".
"Previously a Keynesian". What is that, exactly. I know it has to do with John Keynes because I've taken economics classes, but the general reader may not know this immediately. Don't be afraid to use a wikilink here.
1967: ""Their anti-American venom and efforts to disrupt the draft...". Venom seems like a loaded word to me, at least in this context. Perhaps a replacement can be found? Also, the space before ref 74 should be removed.
"Richard Nixon elected over Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace". Shouldn't "is" or "was" come after Nixon's name?
There are some uncited bits such as Reagonomics and the elder George Bush's election. They aren't the most contentious points here, but FL criteria demands cites for content so they should be referenced along with everything else.
-
- Question: Doesn't "November 8: George H. W. Bush is elected president" fall under WP:CK? – Lionel (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
-
Most people may know he was elected that year, but I doubt they remember the date of the election, which is provided. For a featured piece of content, I'd expect all the information to be cited anyway. It shouldn't be too much effort to find a source for this.Giants2008 (Talk) 16:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
"Christopher Ruddy starts conservative new website Newsmax.com." "new" → "news".
"George W. Bush embodies what he describes as compassionate conservatism" is a statement that cries out for attribution; otherwise it sounds like Wikipedia is editorializing in this regard.
A bunch of references need en dashes for page ranges.
-
Done also went though the body and converted date ranges, etc., for extra credit. – Lionel (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
-
You missed hyphens in ranges in refs 14 and 178 (2 in that one), and I noticed formatting issues with ref 152. Please make sure that these are taken care of, and that other similar issues aren't still present.Giants2008 (Talk) 16:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- All fixed. Btw those hyphens are recent additions, subsequent to my en masse replacement. I'll keep an eye on future additions. – Lionel (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Ref 177 still has a hyphen, and ref 135 is missing the second part of the page range. Other than those two cases, the issue appears fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
As a final note for now, I'm not convinced about the copyright status of the caricature of the 2012 candidates. I've seen likenesses of living people be used in the past to illustrate articles where there weren't any free images (Susan Boyle was one), and they were never found to be acceptable. Personally, I don't see why a composite image couldn't be made with actual photos; these drawings aren't the most flattering things in the universe anyway.Also, I don't know if the 1960 Modern Age cover is valid free-use; usually magazine covers aren't unless they're out of copyright, and I don't know if only having titles on the cover makes it non-copyrighted. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note to reviewers: the TOMAC team has assembled on the talk page to in an all out no holds barred effort to resolve all of the remaining issues.– Lionel (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Can your team do something about the massive amount of tags that are now spread throughout the page? And can all of these issues be fixed in the normal time frame of an FLC? I don't see any way that this can pass until the tags are all dealt with. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - I first found this article when it was up as a DYK nom. I opposed this article appearing as DYK because there's some serious bias issues here, tagged the article, and listed on the talk page Talk:Timeline_of_modern_American_conservatism#Bias a number of the most glaring problems. Six months later, I see the tag has been removed, but not a one single of the problems I pointed out has been fixed. There's still no mention of (for example) Jim Crowe, the Southern Strategy, the great recession, Nixon and his dirty tricks or how they come to the present through Lee Atwater/Karl Rove. Raul654 (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Raul654 has a litany of Democratic rhetorical attacks against Republicans. That's his own POV but it does not help an article on the conservative movement. Nixon (dirty tricks, Southern Strategy, Atwater) for example was more of a liberal or moderate Republican (and yes Watergate is covered). Segregation is given several entries (see 1948 and 1960s). Rjensen (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Rjensen's claim that Nixon was a liberal should give you some idea of his POV and grasp of historical facts. The reality is that Nixon was reviled by liberals and retrospective attempts by conservatives to claim 'he wasn't really one of us' are less a reflection of Nixon's policies than the fact that they want to distance themselves from a president that history has judged very poorly. (The very same thing can be said about attempts these days to claim George W. Bush wasn't really a conservative either. It's politically convenient but completely untrue in every respect.)
- Getting to the specific facts Rjensen mentioned:
- He claims that the Southern strategy was somehow an example of Nixon's liberalism. This claim is so bizarre that I'm really at a loss to respond. (A) It has nothing to do with liberalism, and (B) It wasn't just Nixon that practiced it. He started it, but every Republican candidate since has used it.
- On a related note, Rjensen says segregation and the civil rights movement are covered (1948 and the 60s). Read through the article, and see how many times you can find things mentioned about them. There's not many - especially given how important it was as a movement - and the few times they do come up the article facts carefully selected (in what is included and omitted) in ways that tend to leave the reader with a false impression. For example: Deep South Democrats lead by Strom Thurmond split from the National Democratic Party to form the pro-segregation States' Rights Democratic Party or Dixiecrat party. They are protesting support for civil rights legislation in the party platform and make Thurmond their nominee for president in the 1948 election. Nearly all return to the Democratic party in 1949. - this is factually true, in that the racist southern Dixiecrats didn't permanently leave the Democratic party until the mid-60s, after the passage of the civil rights and voting rights acts. Notice that the permanent defection is not mentioned anywhere in the article, which is interesting because Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms (both defectors) both have entries in here. (Traditional conservative Jesse Helms of North Carolina takes his Senate seat; he retires in 2002. As long-time chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he demands a staunchly anti-communist foreign policy that would reward America's friends abroad, and punish its enemies. His relations with the State Department are often acrimonious, and he blocks numerous presidential appointees. His National Congressional Club uses state-of-the-art direct mail operation to raise millions for conservative candidates and for Helms' own sharply contested reelections.[103]) This article has been carefully written so as to avoid giving the reader the impression that they joined the Republican party because the Democratic party had made it clear it would no longer tolerate racists. Here's another example, where the article glowingly mentions that Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL) plays a key role in passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to end segregation Reading this, a reader would be left with the impression that the Republicans played an important role in ending segregation. Frankly, it's hard to imagine something further from the truth.
- Notice that of the things I mentioned on the talk page six months ago: - Southern strategy, (B) Jim Crowe, (C) Nixon's Dirty tricks, (D) Lee Atwater/Willie Horton/Karl Rove, (E) Iran Contra, (F) The Great Recession - not a single one is mentioned by name, and only one of them is even tangentially covered (Watergate for dirty tricks). It seems the standard response of the article's authors is to claim that these don't relate to conservatism. And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
- I'd go on, but frankly I think it's beating a dead horse. This article's authors don't listen to feedback, so I don't really think it's worth wasting more time spilling ink over it. Raul654 (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Raul certainly has his opinions but he does not have any sources for his POV. He is simply out of touch with modern scholarship. Segregation is mentioned several times (it would be mention more often in the Timeline of Liberalism article). Dirksen did play a major role. "Jim Crowe" gets mentioned twice by Raul654; the spelling is "Jim Crow" and it's actually the informal name for segregation. As for Nixon/ Dirty/Tricks/Atwater, no Nixon was not on the conservative side of the GOP -- better read Joan Hoff's book--he's famous for imposing price controls, detente with USSR, expanding the Great Society, imposing Affirmative Action by exec order, expanding NEH and NEH, and creating the Environmental Protection Agency by executive order. That's pretty liberal for a Republican. Did liberals like Raul654 hate him? obviously he still does! Rjensen (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Once again Rjensen is simply saying that all the problems identified above aren't really problems. And once again, his claims about Nixon are so divorced from reality it's hard to know where to start.
- Regarding sources - I would supply them if I thought it was worth wasting time arguing with the POV pushers from wikiproject:conservatism who own the article. It's not, but just for everyone's benefits I'll supply one of them: Here is a blog entry by Keith Pool, a University of Georgia professor who has built his academic career on quantifying how liberal or conservative politicians are. Notice that, unlike Rjensen's laughable claims above, Nixon is most definitely conservative. Very, very conservative. More conservative than any democratic president was liberal, and more conservative than other republican except Reagan and the Bushes. And his list of Nixon's "liberal" accomplishments aren't really all that liberal. In his later years, Reagan saw an improvement in Soviet relations too. Does that also make him a liberal? Environmental protection was, until very recently, essentially a non-partisan issue. (It still is too, at the state level) Conservatives like breathing clean air and drinking clean water too.
- Dirksen did play a major role. - Did you even read what I said above? I'm not disputing the veracity of this statement. What I said was that it's problematic to give credit to one republican while simultaneously not mentioning (A) the much greater support the bill got from the majority democrats in the congress (in absolute terms, not proportionally) and President Johnson; and (B) that the republicans used the aftermath of the bill to capitalize on the political environment to woo racist white southerners to the republican party. (The Southern Strategy) Not all facts are equal, and mentioning certain ones without mentioning other more important ones tends to leave readers with a false impression, which is *exactly* the problem throughout this article.
- As for Nixon/ Dirty/Tricks/Atwater, - you *do* realize that Atwater worked for Reagan and Bush Sr, right? And that Karl Rove, Atwater's protoge, worked for Bush Jr. Once again you have ignored this most inconvenient fact to push your fun-house mirror brand of historical revisionism.
- Segregation is mentioned several times - Well, let's see. Although this is subjective, the Civil rights movement was probably one of the four most important social movements of the 20th century. (Along with the Wilsonian Progressives, the New Deal and the Reagan Revolution. And it was lasted far longer than the Reagan or New Deal movements - from Post WIII until about 1970) I count *exactly* five mentions including one in passing (Strom Thurmond/1948, the 1960s intro paragraph, "...and civil rights be included.", Wallace/1963, 1964/Civil rights act). As I've already mentioned above, two of these are misleading (Derkson and Strom Thurmond). Not one of them mentions the general defection of the south to the Republicans that has been the defining political reality of the parties for most of the last thirty to fifty years.
- And you *still* have not responded to the other 5 or 6 topics I've already mentioned that get no mention in the article at all. Raul654 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Raul654 still has not found any reliable sources for his personal POV--note that the article he challenges has over 150 different citations to RS. As for segregation/Jim Crow he said it was ignored; he now finds we had five different mentions. (He misses the section on Wallace, which explains some of the defection of the South) Dirksen played a key role in the civil rights legislation as the RS say. The complaint seems to be that liberals are not given as much attention as conservatives. That is indeed true in an article on conservatism. Raul654 would be more constructive by starting an article on the timeline of liberalism, which clearly interest him much more than this page. Rjensen (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Raul654 still has not found any reliable sources for his personal POV - I would have provided citations, except (A) you would simply ignore it, as you have done time and again in this thread when I have debunked your talking points, and (B) talk pages like this one are not articles, and citations aren't mandatory unless there's some factual dispute. Nothing I've said above is particularly contentious as to require a citation. You're the one making preposterous claims like Nixon was a liberal, or that having lots of citations somehow means this article isn't absurdly biased in its selection of facts for inclusion or omission. (A point that seems to have gone miles over your head)
- As for segregation/Jim Crow he said it was ignored; he now finds we had five different mentions. (He misses the section on Wallace, which explains some of the defection of the South) -- Bzzzzzt. Wrong again. What I said was "Notice that of the things I mentioned on the talk page six months ago: - Southern strategy, (B) Jim Crowe, (C) Nixon's Dirty tricks, (D) Lee Atwater/Willie Horton/Karl Rove, (E) Iran Contra, (F) The Great Recession - not a single one is mentioned by name, and only one of them is even tangentially covered" - Jim Crow is not mentioned by name, nor are the Southern strategy, dirty tricks, Lee Atwater, Willie Horton, Karl Rove, Iran Contra, or the Great Recession (Notice that every single one is important enough to merit its own article) I admit that it should have said *two* of those six are covered instead of one, as segregation is mentioned, but nitpicking aside, you have still not addressed my larger point.
- The complaint seems to be that liberals are not given as much attention as conservatives - Nice strawman. As I'm sure pretty much anyone reading this now should realize from the last three times I said it, this article's authors have carefully chosen which facts to include, so as to (for example) give conservatives credit for civil rights achievements that were primarily the work of liberals, while simultaneously omitting fifty years of conservative race baiting. And as I've already mentioned several times - to which you have very obviously failed to respond - there are many other things about conservatism that have been selectively omitted from this article, such as thirty years of opposition to science, or how conservative opposition to regulating the derivatives market led directly to the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. (Even Alan Greenspan himself now says this was a mistake).
- And in your next comment, it would be very welcome change from your past replies if instead of constructing strawmen to tear down or nitpicking one or two details while ignoring the broader arguments I'm making,, if you could actually produce a meaningful response. Raul654 (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- get some sources. Rjensen (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- For what, exactly? Citations aren't here for masturbatory pleasure. Is there something I've said above whose factual accuracy you disagree with? If so, I'll provide a source. Otherwise, I'm not wasting my time digging up citations for obviously true statements such as "Lee Atwater worked for Reagan".
- Also, as you have again failed to respond to any of the points I've made above about bias in the choices of facts to include or omit from this article, I'll take your continued non-response as a concession of the point. Raul654 (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- concession? No your complaints are poorly stated because they are based on person POV and not any reliable sources. Wikipedia can only use RS and is not allowed to edit based on POV. As the tag line (below SAVE PAGE) says, "Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view." I fear that none of Raul654's personal complaints meet that criterion. Rjensen (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- get some sources. Rjensen (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Raul654 still has not found any reliable sources for his personal POV--note that the article he challenges has over 150 different citations to RS. As for segregation/Jim Crow he said it was ignored; he now finds we had five different mentions. (He misses the section on Wallace, which explains some of the defection of the South) Dirksen played a key role in the civil rights legislation as the RS say. The complaint seems to be that liberals are not given as much attention as conservatives. That is indeed true in an article on conservatism. Raul654 would be more constructive by starting an article on the timeline of liberalism, which clearly interest him much more than this page. Rjensen (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Raul certainly has his opinions but he does not have any sources for his POV. He is simply out of touch with modern scholarship. Segregation is mentioned several times (it would be mention more often in the Timeline of Liberalism article). Dirksen did play a major role. "Jim Crowe" gets mentioned twice by Raul654; the spelling is "Jim Crow" and it's actually the informal name for segregation. As for Nixon/ Dirty/Tricks/Atwater, no Nixon was not on the conservative side of the GOP -- better read Joan Hoff's book--he's famous for imposing price controls, detente with USSR, expanding the Great Society, imposing Affirmative Action by exec order, expanding NEH and NEH, and creating the Environmental Protection Agency by executive order. That's pretty liberal for a Republican. Did liberals like Raul654 hate him? obviously he still does! Rjensen (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Raul654 has a litany of Democratic rhetorical attacks against Republicans. That's his own POV but it does not help an article on the conservative movement. Nixon (dirty tricks, Southern Strategy, Atwater) for example was more of a liberal or moderate Republican (and yes Watergate is covered). Segregation is given several entries (see 1948 and 1960s). Rjensen (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
At this point, I think it's pretty clear the article's authors aren't interested in feedback or improving this article beyond its current highly-biased condition. Rjensen's above response is pretty indicative of the problem here -- laundry lists of problems go unresponded, except for repeating requests for sources that do not specify what is being requested. I'm done here. It's not worth wasting my time trying to educate someone who doesn't know how to edit within Wikipedia's framework. Raul654 (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Well I agree that Raul654 has wasted his time. Rjensen (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I for one welcome any and all suggestions for improving the timeline. But before I go into the issues Raul has raised, I'd like to say that I think he mischaracterizes the "article's authors." The implication is that there is a vast right wing conspiracy taking ownership of the timelime. That could not be further from the truth. In fact 6 mos. ago I wrote:
Most of the editors from the AfD are here... This group of editors, who often butt heads against one another, have a real rhythm--let's get as much productivity out of this esprit de corps while it lasts, ok? (ital. added)
- I for one welcome any and all suggestions for improving the timeline. But before I go into the issues Raul has raised, I'd like to say that I think he mischaracterizes the "article's authors." The implication is that there is a vast right wing conspiracy taking ownership of the timelime. That could not be further from the truth. In fact 6 mos. ago I wrote:
- Well I agree that Raul654 has wasted his time. Rjensen (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- The roster of editors at the article is representative of a myriad of ideologies and viewpoints: from the right and the left. Even amongst Rjensen and myself there is not unanimity. E.g. I favor including S Strategy--Rjensen is opposed. To address Raul's particular points,
- Jim Crowe: the establishment of these laws pre-dates this timeline. And as Rjensen points out the effect was segregation. Segregation is covered.
- Southern Strategy: IMO it did affect conservative politics--Rjensen disagrees however.
- Great Recession: I never thought of this as a conservative issue. I don't see how adding that the Democrat-sponsored CRA and the Clinton repeal of Glass–Steagall caused the recession is within the scope. Oh and btw Greenspan is a libertarian. We have to keep in mind that every RS posits a different cause for the recession. There is certainly no consensus that it was caused by conservatives.
- Nixon/dirty tricks: Raul is misquoting Rjensen. Rjensen did not say that Nixon was a liberal, he said Nixon was a liberal Republican. There is a word (and an article) for Nixon: Nixonian!!! This is not the Republican timeline, it is the conservatism timeline.
- Lee Atwater/Willie Horton dirty tricks: the only entries about elder Bush are (1) his election and (2) defeat. Elder Bush is just not that impactful on conservatism. His interest was in foreign affairs. The only reason he's in the timeline is because he broke a tax pledge. And that angered conservatives. Horton is a barely a blip in the grand scheme. Horton rates a brief mention if anything. Regarding Atwater, there are no campaign managers in the timeline. He is UNDUE.
- Karl Rove dirty tricks: so he was extremely successful in masterminding W's election. That's what good campaign managers do. Not one Bush administration member is in the timeline: not Colin, not Condi, not even Darth Vader.
- Iran/Contra: it isn't as much a conservatism issue as it is an issue relating to a prominent conservative, Reagan. Brief mention on how it affected Reagan's polling.
- The topics that Raul wants included for the most part are (1) beyond the scope and/or (2) not DUE for this timeline and/or (3) noone has gotten around to it. E.g. Nixon was not a conservative: Reagan was. Atwater was only a campaign manager: he is not DUE for this article. On the other hand, both of these personalities would feature prominently in the Timeline of the Republican Party.
- Another thing, I don't appreciate Raul issuing orders on the talk page and then deriding the editors when his pet projects aren't completed according to his schedule: this timeline is not FAC. We're volunteers here and we work on what we want to work on. The fact of the matter is that the diverse group of editors at talk just doesn't assign the same importance to Raul's agenda that he does. And while the timeline is very large, there is still an enormous amount of information to be added. It covers 90 years! We don't have Cheney, vast right wing conspiracy, gun rights, and dozens of others. It will never be finished. That said, this timeline is well written, extremely well sourced, amply covers the topic--and will make an excellent FL--even taking into account its shortcomings.– Lionel (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Let me interject and say that I've seen multiple instances in this discussion where it has been said by the nominating team that the list isn't complete. If that's the case (keeping FL comprehensiveness requirements in mind), shouldn't this have the dynamic list template, as seen here, to recognize this? As you say, this is not the type of list where inclusion is easily defined, and I think it's best to make that clear from the beginning. Also let me note that I think your team should have gotten together and fixed the many issues requiring tags before coming here, as that would surely have saved a lot of trouble and stress, and made the list more appealing to reviewers. Just something to think about if you have any future nominating plans at FLC or FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- The roster of editors at the article is representative of a myriad of ideologies and viewpoints: from the right and the left. Even amongst Rjensen and myself there is not unanimity. E.g. I favor including S Strategy--Rjensen is opposed. To address Raul's particular points,
-
Nebula Award for Best Novella
Now that novels has passed through, here is the list of Novella winners/nominees for the Nebula Awards- American sci-fi's Emmys. This list is basically identical to the novels list, but with different authors and works filling up the table. All FLC comments from the novels list have been incorporated into this list as well. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC) |
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
|
Support with just one comment:
- "Novellas published by themselves are eligible for the novel award instead if the author requests them to be considered as such." - Do we know if this has happened before?
This is quite minor, however, and more of a curiosity issue for me, so I am adding my support. This is a great series of lists to see brought to this quality! Dana boomer (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
List of Atlanta Thrashers draft picks
- Nominator(s): Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this meets the criteria and is on par with other NHL FL draft lists. Cheers. Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
|
- Support (made a couple of minor changes, hope that's okay). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments (edit conflict)
instead of just leaving them blank
NapHit (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
List of The Doon School alumni
- Nominator(s): Merlaysamuel : Chat 02:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this list has great potential to become the first Featured List from India (schools). I have worked tirelessly reforming it. There is a dearth of featured lists from Schools category (only 3 as of now) and therefore it'll be great if this can achieve FL status. Moreover, this seems to be the only potential alumni Featured list from India (schools, colleges and university included). I will be deeply grateful for all your suggestions and comments. Thanks!Merlaysamuel : Chat 02:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
OpposeComment I appreciate the hard work that the author of this list has put in, but sometimes a list is simply not notable enough for FL. The list is mainly a Who's Who of the smugly corrupt elite that has garnered India its exceptionally high position on the Corruption perception index. There are scores of schools in India that take in the children of the privileged. Why single this one out? More pertinently, why not a list of schools that India's less privileged—80% of its population—go to? A featured list of Government schools, whose students, lacking a putrid parental legacy of ill-gotten gains, lacking decent class rooms, decent teachers, and any playing fields, are nevertheless able to make a decent life for themselves. Why are people who dropped out of the school in the list of alumni? I can easily spot a few (Rahul Gandhi who was not in the "Class of 88," but rather dropped out in 83, Sanjay Gandhi). I'd like to see proof that the rest of the people listed actually graduated (and didn't just spend a year or two as the Gandhis did). Why is the lead so innocuous sounding? Why nothing critical about the school? I'm sure reliable sources abound. Why is Karan Singh, for example, listed as a harmless upper house politician? Why are we not told that he was the Sadr-i-Riyasat of Kashmir and the last of the unpopular Hindu Dogra "Royalty" of Kashmir which after having purchased the Kashmir valley from the British in 1846 then proceeded to screw the 96% Muslim majority of the valley out of house and home for upward of a century? The lead is poorly written. It is an airbrushed picture of the school. It has inadvertent humor: "was founded in 1935 by Satish Ranjan Das, who sought to establish a public school that would be adapted to Indian traditions and culture. Its first headmaster was Arthur E. Foot, a former science teacher at Eton College." Wikipedia can't give its imprimatur to lists that really should be alumni pages on private websites surfed in the never-never-land of whiskey and soda. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Hi there Fowler, I've been asked to comment here since I am one of the editors currently working with Merlay and DoscoinDoon to get The Doon School up to GA. Now, I've never even looked at a FL and have no idea what the criteria are, but what does the notability of the list have to do with passing or failing? Maybe FL is completely different from other Featured/Good areas, I don't know. I understand your concerns about the general airbrushing...I've been working on that at The Doon School as well. Any explanations would be gratefully appreciated. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 02:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Hi there. Well, articles themselves need to be notable. Doon is a relatively new school (opened in 1935). (The British opened thousands of schools in India both during Company rule (especially in the 1830s, 40s, and 50s) and during the Raj (especially during the years 1857–1887). Many, many of these schools have alumni that are more notable. For example, the List of alumni of Alfred High School, Rajkot, which includes Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, is historically more important, and is likely more notable by Wikipedia standards. When non-notable lists, such as Doon's, (for which I note the principal author has recently created dozens of pages to hastily accord the listees belated recognition) appear on FL, they sap the time and energy of reviewers who could better employed in other Wikipedia related endeavors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- To which I roughly say, so what? So there's another article that would be better off as featured...ok, I'm sure you know the whole Vital articles problem (Vital articles are one of the most important and least maintained groups). We don't say that articles about individual species can't get to GA because Animal is not there as well. If FL actually looks at the content of the list itself and judges it bases on other more "important" lists, that's fine: I've never seen anything in the criteria other than content, formatting and sources though. If this list is not completely comprehensive that is one thing, but saying that Alfred's alumni list is not featured so this one shouldn't be either seems really odd. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 14:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, not quite. If an individual species page gets the FA star, we don't say it is in danger of becoming more vital than Animal. Here, by contrast, by assigning the FL star, we can make an elite private school which, has produced some upper level politicians, bureaucrats, and army men in India, but nothing exceptional (no Nobel laureates, no outstanding musicians, no famous scientists), into something that may begin to appear vital. By assigning the FL star we are indirectly implying that mediocre but successful politicians, business men, bureaucrats, and army men, are just as vital as India's exceptional citizens (a Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, a Rabindranath Tagore, or a C. V. Raman) none of whom went to elite private schools. Anyway, this is as far as I go. I'm tired. I'm traveling and editing in snatches of time. I have little interest in Doon School. If you guys want to spend your time pushing the fluff, its your business. I've registered my opposition. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I understand, and thank you for your comments. As I said before, I realize that there is a problem with the fluff, am not pushing it (I wouldn't have advised filing this FLN until some of that had been sorted out) and had you opposed on those grounds I would have thought it entirely justified. I just don't quite get the point about making this list appear more vital then it deserves (and that point applies to a lot of list/articles)...that may be the case, but isn't it up to the editor to decide what articles they want to improve? IFF the list meets the FL criteria (absolutely no comment from me on that) then the list should go featured, right? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 16:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, not quite. If an individual species page gets the FA star, we don't say it is in danger of becoming more vital than Animal. Here, by contrast, by assigning the FL star, we can make an elite private school which, has produced some upper level politicians, bureaucrats, and army men in India, but nothing exceptional (no Nobel laureates, no outstanding musicians, no famous scientists), into something that may begin to appear vital. By assigning the FL star we are indirectly implying that mediocre but successful politicians, business men, bureaucrats, and army men, are just as vital as India's exceptional citizens (a Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, a Rabindranath Tagore, or a C. V. Raman) none of whom went to elite private schools. Anyway, this is as far as I go. I'm tired. I'm traveling and editing in snatches of time. I have little interest in Doon School. If you guys want to spend your time pushing the fluff, its your business. I've registered my opposition. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- To which I roughly say, so what? So there's another article that would be better off as featured...ok, I'm sure you know the whole Vital articles problem (Vital articles are one of the most important and least maintained groups). We don't say that articles about individual species can't get to GA because Animal is not there as well. If FL actually looks at the content of the list itself and judges it bases on other more "important" lists, that's fine: I've never seen anything in the criteria other than content, formatting and sources though. If this list is not completely comprehensive that is one thing, but saying that Alfred's alumni list is not featured so this one shouldn't be either seems really odd. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 14:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there. Well, articles themselves need to be notable. Doon is a relatively new school (opened in 1935). (The British opened thousands of schools in India both during Company rule (especially in the 1830s, 40s, and 50s) and during the Raj (especially during the years 1857–1887). Many, many of these schools have alumni that are more notable. For example, the List of alumni of Alfred High School, Rajkot, which includes Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, is historically more important, and is likely more notable by Wikipedia standards. When non-notable lists, such as Doon's, (for which I note the principal author has recently created dozens of pages to hastily accord the listees belated recognition) appear on FL, they sap the time and energy of reviewers who could better employed in other Wikipedia related endeavors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Umm... perhaps, Fowler, you should take a look at:
-
- WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLEGROUND- Wikipedia is not a soapbox or battleground for your favorite cause, including critiquing Indian elites (elites on which, in matters such as the variety of racism known as caste, I suspect I have more agreement with you than you might think).
- WP:CENSOR - Wikipedia is not censored to eliminate the mention of organizations that offend you, nor information about them.
- If you want a listing of government-run Indian schools and/or their notable alumni, then I invite you to put one together, instead of spending your time critiquing this list for not being what you're looking for. You may well have some valid points in what you've written above, but thanks to the rest of it, nobody is that likely to listen to them. Allens (talk | contribs) 03:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- What you see as soapboxing is simply a provocative way of pointing out that the list is shamelessly biased. Why have list of cabinet ministers? Why not list of cronies of Rajiv Gandhi who have been accused of corruption? There are likely more reliable sources attesting to the latter, including on their own pages. See for example: Kamal_Nath#Controversies. Are there any Wikipedia guidelines that don't allow those section titles? I can easily add them and make this article more balanced. How about a section that has a list of Doon school children of India's impossibly rich? I'm sure that section will be quite long. A section, on the other hand, of scholarship candidates at Doon School, is in danger of never starting. I am claiming that the manner of choosing section titles biases the reader into viewing the school in a favorable light. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I can certainly see labeling any alumni who have been convicted of corruption, and perhaps anyone who has been formally charged (although any immunity laws in India may cause a problem with convictions/charges as a criterion); allegations/accusations can happen to anyone, innocent or guilty. How do you define "impossibly rich" without bias? I am uncertain regarding how to display such an additional grouping - is it customary to have entries of people under more than one category (if all the categories are applicable)? Allens (talk | contribs) 14:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, many alumni appear in multiple categories. I'm sure one could replace "impossibly rich" with something quantifiable, perhaps even millionaires" (in a country whose per capita income is less that $2,000). I just noticed too that the sourcing is quite sloppy. An author's google book page is used as the source for the author as writer; I even noticed some CVs. The School's web site is used for some assertions favorable to the school, and so forth .... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I can certainly see labeling any alumni who have been convicted of corruption, and perhaps anyone who has been formally charged (although any immunity laws in India may cause a problem with convictions/charges as a criterion); allegations/accusations can happen to anyone, innocent or guilty. How do you define "impossibly rich" without bias? I am uncertain regarding how to display such an additional grouping - is it customary to have entries of people under more than one category (if all the categories are applicable)? Allens (talk | contribs) 14:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- What you see as soapboxing is simply a provocative way of pointing out that the list is shamelessly biased. Why have list of cabinet ministers? Why not list of cronies of Rajiv Gandhi who have been accused of corruption? There are likely more reliable sources attesting to the latter, including on their own pages. See for example: Kamal_Nath#Controversies. Are there any Wikipedia guidelines that don't allow those section titles? I can easily add them and make this article more balanced. How about a section that has a list of Doon school children of India's impossibly rich? I'm sure that section will be quite long. A section, on the other hand, of scholarship candidates at Doon School, is in danger of never starting. I am claiming that the manner of choosing section titles biases the reader into viewing the school in a favorable light. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Why are people who dropped out of the school in the list of alumni?" • Alumnus: 1. a graduate or former student of a specific school, college, or university. • In this respect, "list of alumni" differs from "list of graduates." --Raven (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Comment for Fowler To begin with, I am a Doon School student in Grade 9th and though I could have been biased by supporting this list, I'll only like to refute each on of Fowler's sloppy arguments, and that too by Wikipedia guidelines not through my biased opinion. Let me take them one by one-
(i)The very first thing you say a list is simply not notable enough for FL well, we'll leave that for more experienced school editors to decide and let the readers decide for themselves.
(ii) The list is mainly a Who's Who of the smugly corrupt elite - Notable alumni, in fact, comprises the Who's who, so I can't really understand what you mean by that comment. Also, to make a sweeping generalization that they are smugly corrupt elite is your personal opinion. Why then don't you mention Bunker Roy who opened the Barefoot College Tilonia college and spending his entire life for the underprivileged or Kobad Ghandy who is fighting for the Naxals. You might be just looking at 1-2 politicians and that might have driven you to make the trite remark.
(iii) There are scores of schools in India that take in the children of the privileged. Why single this one out? More pertinently, why not a list of schools that India's less privileged—80% of its population—go to? - There is no such thing as singling out a list. It just happened that this list already existed and the editor only worked hard to bring it to FL level. Also because finding Wiki articles for the alumni was easier. If you're really concerned about the others, why haven't you taken any step towards it? Why didn't you start a list? Do you not practice what you preach? It just shows double-standards! This is not a forum to show your sympathies for the 80% as you put it but to objectively review somebody's hard-work!
(iv) Why nothing critical about the school? I implore you, by all means, please add whatever you think is critical of the school alumni in the list with reliable references. I will be only too happy to see it. You come out of nowhere and just say 'why nothing critical?' without giving a thought that there is a possibility that there is nothing overtly critical about it...! Do you do this everywhere on Wikipedia..just go to each article and spout 'but what is the critical point?'
(v) Why is Karan Singh listed as a harmless upper house politician? Why are we not told ..... Now this is what should be called singling out. This sort of information should be placed on Karan singh's page and not next to his entry. And, just for the record, how do you say he is listed as harmless upper house politician?? He is just there with all other people with appropriate categories..!
(vi) The lead is poorly written - Why do you say that? It's easy to make allegations and shallow-comments. Tell us why if you can make any significant contribution. Don't just vent in the air...!
(vii) It has inadvertent humor: "was founded in 1935 by Satish Ranjan Das - I'm either too obtuse to grasp the humour in that line or there isn't any. I really don't know what's the inadvertent humour in it??
(viii) Your very last line just escapes me. I really don't understand your motives here. I re-iterate my previous point:- why are you making sweeping generalizations against innocent and praiseworthy people? Not all of them are what you think they are. Not even some of them I reckon judging by your comments.
Conclusion - I believe Fowler has something against The Doon School. S/he is not objectively acknowledging the work that the editor has put in to make it a presentable list. Fowler, may I request you to distance yourself while reviewing it and not go hysterical. Because your comments are just a slap in the face of everybody associated with the list. Please hold your emotions..this is not the right platform. The time you took writing all that baloney could have been well-spent in making a Featured list for other schools which couldn't have been singled out, and that would have done us all proud! Thank you!
DoscoinDoon (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
P.S:- Fowler, if you have anything to say to me regarding this, please do so on my talk page. Don't waste this space please. We are all looking forward to hear from more serious and objective reviewers. Thanks! DoscoinDoon (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not to worry; there's no danger of that. As for serious and objective reviewers, be aware that I've reviewed a featured article or two in my time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment, tending toward Support (BTW, while I've done some editing on the related The Doon School article, including some mention of critical material - some of which I see is now in the list article - I've never edited this article):
-
- I'm not sure what the faculty:student ratio or the IB have to do with a list of alumni. The second paragraph has rather more to do with with it. Please clarify the relevance of, or remove, most of the first paragraph. (I realize that some introduction is necessary to give people an idea of what Doon is, but I doubt the faculty:student ratio or use of the IB has that much to do with it, without further evidence otherwise.) RESOLVED
- The notability of the list is rather firmly established by the lengthy listing of references, the material in the second paragraph, etc. I do see a few (not many) inclusions without their own articles; such should have at least 2 independent, secondary-source, reliable references to establish notability, not only a reference to establish their being Doon school alumni (although this can be combined with one of the two references for notability).
- There is some confusion as to whether someone should be termed an "alumnus" if he did not actually graduate from the Doon School (although evidently such a person would qualify as an "ex-Dosco", having formerly been a "Dosco"). This criterion should be made clearer; perhaps a different coloring or other marking could be used if the person did not actually graduate, if such are to be included? RESOLVED
-
- There need be no confusion on that point: a "list of alumni" would include both "graduates" and "former students." A "list of graduates" would include graduates only. Definition given and linked in my comment above, but please feel free to check other dictionaries as well. --Raven (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- The formatting initially looks good, although I'll have to take a look at current FLs to compare.
- I can see an argument for the mentioning of admission criteria; that it's male-only (and the criticism of this) should be rather clearer.RESOLVED
- There are quite a few links to "MD" - which is a disambiguation page; please be more specific in what is meant. If it's "medical doctor", link to that page, and note that this is not a position in a corporation, unlike "CEO" - "MD of Ranbaxy" is not correct terminology.RESOLVED
- That's all for the moment; I will see if I can come up with more comments.Allens (talk | contribs) 03:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for resolving some of the above; note that the "peer reviewer" (accessible via the toolbox) is finding a few problems, most notably a contraction ("can't" - of course, this may be in the title of a reference or something...) and, more problematically, a dead link. I also note the problematic sentence fragment in the second paragraph of "Doscos have achieved prominence in politics, government service,". I've done a bit of copy-editing on the last lead paragraph. Allens (talk | contribs) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment a quick scan of Google News items seems to reveal that Doon School (of which I've never heard) has received sufficient coverage to be notable, and therefore an alumni article of a notable school is generally agreed to be notable as long as every member of the list is indeed notable and referenced per our criteria. Fowler&Fowler has doubts this list should exist, let alone a nomination here for FLC, I'm not sure I understand why. For what it's worth, this is a 2012 featured list candidate, not a 2009 WP:FAC, so I'm not sure of the relevance of the link to a set of old FAC reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- The last time I looked at the Indian dailies, most stories carried by them did not constitute reliable sources. Sentences such as "Back in the 1990s, the Economist said ....," the kind of chatter you might hear in a pub, were not uncommon (and was in fact being used in this article until I removed it). In my view, a list which is being overwhelmingly cited to Indian dailies is not necessarily notable. Since you seem to be reposing implicit faith in Indian news, I'm happy to take another look at the sourcing. Perhaps they have improved as dramatically, since 2009, as you seem to be implying Wikipedia has. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, firstly I couldn't see the relevance of reviewing 2009 FACs when this is a 2012 FLC, different criteria, different types of article. Secondly, I just did a Google News search on Doon School and found many BBC reports (including this and this) which seem to assert reasonable notability... I don't recall mentioning the legitimacy of Indian news sources anywhere.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
It is a spurious, if not preposterous, thing to say that Indian dailies can't be trusted. The Doon School is an Indian school and therefore its Media coverage will be by-and-large Indian. Though I will be only too happy to show you the Doon school in global papers such as The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Independent...a few I can think of right now... Fowler, I don't understand what your issues are here. You are not reviewing the list, which you should do, instead you're just rambling on why it shouldn't be here or why other less-notable schools don't have a list. As for The Economist reference, I have been trying relentlessly to get access to The Economist's Archives. It's not an easy thing to procure a reference from the 1990s + an indian daily such as The Economic Times is a reputed one and till the time the primary reference is found, that reference should be allowed. I'll also be glad to see, Fowler, any lists you've been working on lately for which you've shown us your utmost sympathies in the posts above... Merlaysamuel : Chat 09:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, you have your work cut out for you. It says, "Back in the 1990s ..." If the Economics Times journalist is remembering right, you only have ten years to search. Until then, I'm afraid, the Economics Times will not do as a source for what the Economist said. Do you seriously believe that Doscos constitute the world's second most influential network after Harvard? (Oxford, Cambridge, Eton, Harrow, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Mayo College, KGB, Communist Party of China... are all trailing in their networking?) I've rewritten the lead. Made is more realistic and removed the grandiose fluff. It is now better sourced. Both David Macdougall's book (Princeton) and the Outlook magazine article by Anjali Puri are more reliable references. When I find time, I'll look at the actual list. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment First, let me compliment the creators of the list on the obvious labor of love that has gone into creating something this well referenced and apparently reasonably comprehensive. You're all probably too mad to notice this but Fowler's acerbicness has taken an already good lead one notch higher. About notability, I don't see that as a criterion in the featured list criteria but, regardless, I believe, that the Doon School is notable enough. I'm inclined to support making this a featured list but a few nits:
- As I've indicated in the talk page, I don't like the idea of an Indian school highlighting royalty. That is fine for Harrow and Eton but Indian ex-princes do not have the same notability as do British Dukes and Barons. I suggest moving that section to the bottom of the list. Imo the sections should be in alphabetical order for neutrality but, if not, royalty should not be highlighted.
- I suggest removing the separation by nationality. It makes the list jerky and is unnecessary because there are few non-Indians on the list anyway. For example, Syed Mustafa could be labeled as Ambassador of Pakistan to Indonesia, etc.
- In some sections, there are large gaps between the section header and the first item because of image placement. These need to be fixed.
Other than that, great work! --regentspark (comment) 11:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment about sourcing I just went through the sourcing for the Cabinet Ministers section. I'm afraid it is might not be up to par. In some cases, the link is what a Google search would throw up if you searched for "Doon School" and "Mr. X". In other words, the link might have those two expressions but not in the same place and not applying to each other. In other instances there is a reference to the "Doon School buddy" but nothing is said graduation or alumni status, no reference to the Cabinet post or the years of tenure. I've refrained from posting my objections here; I simply left them in in-line tags in the text, but if this is a fair sampling of the entire article, then I'm afraid the sourcing will need reworking. I know the author has put in a lot of work and that he is a new Wikipedian. I don't want to discourage him, but at the same time FL sourcing standards will need to be maintained. Perhaps, one option would be to seek help from an expert such as user:Fifelfoo; the author could also temporarily withdraw the FLC, work on it without the pressure, and then resubmit in a few weeks when it is more rigorous. There's nothing shameful about withdrawing and resubmitting. (I did that myself with the Mandell Creighton FAC in late December 2011, when it became clear that it would not be resolved before my travels began.) I would have liked to help myself, but I'm traveling and often unavailable. This might also mean that some entries in the list will need to be taken out until such time as rigorous sources become available. One last point: it might be best to have all refs in one format, the "citation" format. This will likely be my last post here. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- PS All three current Featured Lists in Wikiproject:Schools are alphabetical: List of Old Guildfordians (Royal Grammar School, Guildford), List of Benet Academy alumni, List of Boston Latin School alumni. That, among other things, prevents double listing and triple listing, as seems to be the case with this list. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Fowler, as I pointed out earlier, alphabetisation cannot work with this list. The featured lists you mention are different because they are short. And also, each school is different. We do not have to necessarily adopt their model. I am afraid alphabetical list will be of no use here.
Merlaysamuel : Chat 10:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I have only glanced at the list, but looking at the sourcing, has me worried. You have a number of references that have not been formatted properly, remember featured lists are supposed to represent wikipedia's best work, so this is an absolute must. In one ref you have The Indian Express and another Indian Express, consistency is essential between refs. I'm also not convinced of the reliability of some of the sources. For instance what makes socialedge.org and careers360 reliable sources. The tables also do not meet MOS:DTT, and tables with multiple entries could be sortable. There is too much work to do on this list for it to pass in the timescale of this nom, I would recommend withdrawing it, working on it and then getting it peer reviewed, before bringing back again. NapHit (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment The nominator of this FLC hasn't edited since 22 April, so I'll be moving to archive the nomination in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
List of Somerset CCC Twenty20 players
Another cricket list! This one is based upon the international player lists. It details the players who have played Twenty20 cricket for Somerset County Cricket Club. As usual, all comments and advice is welcome. (Note: I am competing in the WikiCup). Harrias talk 16:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Image review: The one image used appears to be free and properly tagged. Goodraise 17:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC) |
List of New York Yankees owners and executives
This list has been structured similarly to List of Philadelphia Phillies owners and executives, which recently passed FL. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Jujutacular (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
Jujutacular (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
|
Support Jujutacular (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
|
I see supports from four users. Shouldn't this list be promoted? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I see two supports and two sets of resolved comments from two of the FL directors. Perhaps engage folks from the baseball project to come over and have a look? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis
- Nominator(s): Aaron • You Da One 12:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because... I created and expanded this list entirely, and have been working on it for the past four weeks. I've made sure that comments which helped List of songs recorded by Rihanna be promoted have been applied to this list as well, such as the Key, templates and table format. Aaron • You Da One 12:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments Seems to be nearly on a par with the Rihanna list from my brief look over. I've made a few edits myself (see here). But the thing that struck me most when looking over the article was that a lot of the lead is uncited – there are no citations in the first paragraph at all, and only two in the second. I'd look into finding some sources to confirm some of the sentences in the lead (like that she'd recorded an album before winning The X Factor, for example).
Nice work, overall. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
|
- Had another look over the lead and made a few more edits (see here). In all, I think this meet the criteria so, assuming that the comments below are resolved, I support this nomination. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks :). Aaron • You Da One 16:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
upright, but should not be forced to other sizes.
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC) |
- Comments —
- Looking down at the writers, Leona is certainly not a singer-songwriter. She's a recording artist, who occasionally writes.
- She has co-written 31 songs in this list. The bio also says singer-songwriter. Aaron • You Da One
- Four studio albums? Maybe my math is wrong but Spirit, Echo and the upcoming Glassheart only equals three.
- I had included Best kept Secret.
- The lead sentence is just way to long. Try reading it aloud, if you can't do it without having to take a breath, it should be condensed, or separated into two sentences.
- Same as Rihanna's, which is an FL. Aaron • You Da One
- Doesn't matter whose label it is.
- Among other what?
- Producers. I didn't write producer again to avoid repetition. Aaron • You Da One
- Official debut album, and I missing something?
- Who cares when the singles were released? This isn't an album article.
- It's talking about the re-release of the album, and a new song. Aaron • You Da One
- Honestly, from there on, the lead just keeps getting worse. Good on Simon for conceptualised (which is properly spelled conceptualized) "Footprints in the Sand" and receiving a writing credit! What does that have to do with her songs? She has about 30 or so released songs, correct? Picking a few and putting random little facts about them in the lead doesn't summarize the article. Just sum up what her songs are generally about, name a few (covers would probably be best to do).
- It's a list about the songs she recorded, if Simon hadn't of conceptualised it, it's 99% probable that she never would have recorded it. The list lists the songwriters, so this is perfectly acceptable.
- Pedantic comment - "conceptualised (which is properly spelled conceptualized)" - as this article is about a British subject, WP:ENGVAR says it should use British English, therefore the "proper" spelling of the word is with an S ;-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's a list about the songs she recorded, if Simon hadn't of conceptualised it, it's 99% probable that she never would have recorded it. The list lists the songwriters, so this is perfectly acceptable.
- Having Leona Lewis in the artists section seems redundant. Who else is the song gonna be recorded by? This is a List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis.
- Same as Rihanna's, which is an FL. Aaron • You Da One
- Remove "Music from the Motion Picture" from the titles.
- I don't see any reason remixes should be included. They aren't new songs. Unless they were re-recorded or with additional vocals by another artist it shouldn't be included.
- Included on the tracklisting Aaron • You Da One
- Video interludes? Unless they were included on the live CD part of the release, it's not a song.
- Either way, she recorded them in a studio.
- Remove the Glassheart unreleased songs. You don't know if they will not make the album.
- No, they are currently unreleased. This is where they belong. When the albums tracklist is revealed, then I can sort them into the released table. Aaron • You Da One 13:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Have the alt titles as notes.
— Status (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but if you insist to not correct the errors I have pointed out, I am going to have to oppose. "Same as Rihanna's FL" is not a valid reason to not do something. WP:OSE — Statυs (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- I know I haven't done everything yet. And you said on your talk page that they are suggestions and that I don't have to do them. Aaron • You Da One 15:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment
- Ref 15 has a spelling mistake I believe -- Lemonade51 (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Aaron • You Da One 12:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment - you do realise there are other comments I've made that you haven't resolved, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments –
|
- The publisher of refs 11 and 12 (Idalator) is a blog. What makes it a reliable source?
- It's a blog? Aaron • You Da One
- More blogs aren't reliable sources than are. Are the authors experts in the music field? If not, the sources aren't going to be reliable enough for FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- The publisher of Idolator, Buzz Media, also publishes OK! Magazine. Aaron • You Da One 17:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'll leave this out to see if anyone else has any thoughts on it. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- The publisher of Idolator, Buzz Media, also publishes OK! Magazine. Aaron • You Da One 17:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- More blogs aren't reliable sources than are. Are the authors experts in the music field? If not, the sources aren't going to be reliable enough for FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's a blog? Aaron • You Da One
Comments
- I question whether there is any necessity for this list. It seems a lot of lists of songs have been popping up lately and would be interested to know your thoughts on how much material an artist should have before it is a worthwhile list. My instinct is at current this list is borderline, there really aren't that many songs and they are mostly covered by two albums articles.
-
- 2 studio albums, both have over 15 songs. There is a demo album, and there is also another demo album I had forgot to add called Twilight. There is an EP as well as featured/charity singles. Also two albums worth of unreleased songs. She is also recording for her third studio album. There is definitely enough songs to warrant the list.
- Good enough for me.
- "four studio albums" - I understand you are including Best Kept Secret, Spirit, Echo and Glassheart in that but I think it leads to confusion as the articles refer to Spirit as the first and Echo as the second, and the discography states two albums in the lead. Perhaps something like "...recorded material for a demo album, three studio albums and an EP"?
-
- Yep, changed to that. Aaron • You Da One
- Do we need to know the value of the record deal?
- I think so :D Aaron • You Da One
-
-
- I think it's too much detail but certainly a minor point that I'm not going to quibble over.
-
- I feel like on the whole the lead is very cover heavy, it mentions almost every cover released by her. I would suggest removing some of the less notable covers and possibly replace with a more notable song if you see fit. I would personally ditch I Will Be and Stop Crying Your Heart Out.
-
- Yeah. I'm removed those two.
- "harder" is meaningless without context - harder to writer, harder to sing, harsher sounding?
-
- Gave it context. Aaron • You Da One
- Again I understand it's difficult to summarise the songs on the album, I would have tried to pick up the more notable songs eg Happy and My Hands, but I presume you went for Love Letter and Don't Let Me Down as they had the most significant writers?
-
- Yes. Aaron • You Da One
- I find the change of tense very jarring in that sentence, anyway you could reword it? Or even just change finishes to finished.
-
- She is still recording for Glassheart though. Aaron • You Da One
- Link EP either here or in the opening sentence if you add it there.
-
- Done. Aaron • You Da One
- Incredibly pedantic but technically with the pushbacks of the album Collide could be left off the tracklisting so "its single" may not be accurate. Though I accept it more than likely is.
-
- At the moment it is still cited as the lead single from the album. Aaron • You Da One
- "features"? A collaboration with Avicii perhaps
-
- Changed. Aaron • You Da One
- "not being released" -> "not yet being released"?
-
- Changed. Aaron • You Da One
- Is the performance of Glass Heart relevant when (again being very pedantic I know) there's not a recorded version released?
-
- A song called "Glass Heart" has been recorded and performed live for Glassheart. So I think it's relevant. Aaron • You Da One
- Link The Labyrinth in the image caption.
-
- Linked. Aaron • You Da One
- Sex and the City should come before I Remember Me.
-
- Done. Aaron • You Da One
- Would it be better to rename the second heading to Demos and unreleased songs and move Best Kept Secret down there? I understand your inclusion of it but it feels a bit out of place.
-
- No, Sony released it commercially. Aaron • You Da One
- I wouldn't have included the video interludes but I understand your logic as to why you did.
-
- It's not the video I am talking about, it's the fact that she recorded them in a studio. Aaron • You Da One
- As a side note I'm confused as to why you say only the Ne-Yo demo version of Can't Fight It leaked as Leona's version leaked ages ago.
-
- Because I couldn't find a source for Leona's/I didn't know if she had even recorded it. Aaron • You Da One
- I still feel it's not quite there yet, how about "British singer-songwriter Leona Lewis has recorded material for a demo album, three studio albums and an EP, as well as charity singles, soundtracks and collaborations on other artists' albums"?
-
- I put into two sentences so it's not quite so abrasive. Aaron • You Da One
-
- You mention some of the producers she worked, as the article lists the writers of the songs rather than the producers it may be more relevant to discuss some of the writers she worked with.
-
- It's commonly referred to as working with producers though. I can change it if you like. Aaron • You Da One
-
- Well since Ryan Tedder was one of the significant writers I don't think it would involve much change. Have a go and if you don't think it works just leave it.
-
- Just changed from producers to writers. Aaron • You Da One
- I think it's difficult to summarise the songs on the albums when they were written and produced by lots of different people, and I think that if these lists were kept for artists with a slightly more substantial back-catalogue they would be easier to summarise.
-
- Okay. Aaron • You Da One
- Likewise more guitar driven doesn't mean much when there is no indication of the amount of guitar in Spirit. I think you could maybe find a better way to describe the album, preferably in your own words rather than quoted.
-
- Reworded. Aaron • You Da One
-
- "Echo was very guitar orientated than Spirit"?
-
- Reworded. Aaron • You Da One
- I think the opening sentence could use some work:
-
- "British singer-songwriter Leona Lewis has recorded material for her four studio albums" - I instinctively pause after that and think to myself well of course she has, would be a bit weird if someone else recorded the material.
-
- I don't want to be labelled as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I promoted List of songs recorded by Rihanna to FL last month and this article for Leona follows the same structure, so I don't see a problem with it. Aaron • You Da One
-
- I know but that was the first list of its kind so it will likely take a few revisions to get everything spot on.
- I would lose "as something", possibly even "as something to bridge the gap for fans".
-
- No, because that is the primary reason for the EP. Aaron • You Da One
-
-
- I know you've tried different words instead of something but "as something to bridge the gap" isn't brilliant prose. "...in December 2011, to bridge the gap for fans while she finishes" conveys the same information.
-
- Changed. Aaron • You Da One
-
- I think there should be some mentions of the fact that she has featured in several soundtracks, I See You is a pretty notable recording.
-
- Added. Aaron • You Da One
-
-
- "Lewis appeared on the soundtrack to the 2009 film Avatar called "I See You (Theme from Avatar)"" the soundtrack wasn't called I See You.
-
- Changed. Aaron • You Da One
-
- Some typos - I'm Here, Leona Lewiss
-
- ? Not that I can see. Aaron • You Da One
-
- I'm Here should be I'm You, Lewiss is at Here I Am
-
- Corrected. Aaron • You Da One
- Some of the artist credits are wrong eg Jennifer Hudson & Leona Lewis, Helping Haiti artists (which probably should be linked)
-
- Lol, it is Jennifer Hudson & Leona Lewis. They are both on it. There is no link for Helping Haiti artists. Aaron • You Da One
-
- It should be JH & LL not LL & JH. Either Helping Haiti or Helping Haiti artists
-
- Switched those two around. Linked Haiti. Aaron • You Da One
- There is a mixture of linked and unlinked Leona Lewis, I would suggest unlink all.
-
- I'll link them the one that doesn't. Aaron • You Da One
-
- Still unlinked at You Bring Me Down.
-
- Linked. Aaron • You Da One
- The images only cover the songs up to F and there are two for Collide. If you're going to have them you should spread out what songs they are for.
-
- Not when ones after that don't have pictures :). Aaron • You Da One
-
- Well there are free images of Avril Lavigne, Noel Gallagher, Michael Jackson, Ryan Tedder so you could spread it out a bit more. At least change it so there aren't two images for Collide.
-
- I don't think this is that big of an issue tbh. Before I added Best Kept Secret, the last picture was next to the bottom of the table. It's more a case of not cramming too many picture as oppose to not being able to find them. Aaron • You Da One
-
- I don't think it's a big issue either, I just thought they should represent a spread of songs and not just the ones from the first six letters of the alphabet.
- The youtube reference is a copyright violation and should probably be referenced used cite episode.
-
- Have changed to the cite interview template. Aaron • You Da One
- Ref 49 isn't working for me.
-
- I've removed a few since so I don't know which one you mean now as there are 47 references now. Aaron • You Da One
-
- You've removed it so that's fine.
-
- Related to the above Best Kept Secret is not the only pre-X Factor recording she did, there is also Twilight and It's All For You, though I suspect you would struggle to find much in the way of reliable sources on them.
-
- Yeah I just said about Twilight above. I've never heard of It's All For You? Is that an album or a song? Aaron • You Da One
-
- It's All For You is an EP. I think if you can get a good source for either they should be mentioned at some point here.
-
- I can't find a sourced for the tracklisting of Twilight. Is this reliable enough to source It's All For You ? Aaron • You Da One
-
- I'm not sure but would err on the side of caution and say no because Yahoo's not always that reliable. It's not a very notable recording so I don't think it's an issue to not include it since you can't find a source.
- "for duets and featured songs on albums and charity singles" - A lot of ands in the second half of the sentence. Has she actually been credited as featured on songs? Might want to add soundtracks?
-
- It's a new sentence now. Yes she is credited and I've added soundtracks. Aaron • You Da One
-
- Which songs is she credited as featured?
-
- Inaspettata Aaron • You Da One 12:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Pedantic point but that is one song whereas lead says featured songs. And Itunes and Amazon both have it credited as a duet not a feature.
- I think you have a little bit too much detail on Best Kept Secret in the lead. "licensed by UEG Entertainment but
not released.[1][2] UEG spent approximately GB£70,000 on the singer's recording and production, but the demofailed to capture the interest of [a] record labels or executives.[1][2] It was released by UEG in 2009, who claimedthat they had[to own] the rights to the album, even though Lewis revealed that she never signed a contract which stated that Best Kept Secret couldpossiblybe released" - Just some suggestions you can modify as you wish.
-
- An editor above asked I expanded it, so I did. Aaron • You Da One
-
- How about adding that extra detail to note one and condense it in the lead slightly?
-
- Huh? Lol. Aaron • You Da One
-
- The lead has more detail about Best Kept Secret than Echo despite it being a much less notable recording. If you want to keep that level of detail I was suggesting you could add it to "Best Kept Secret was recorded under licence by UEG Entertainment before Lewis entered The X Factor in 2006. However, Sony UEG released the album to iTunes in January 2009." at note one and reduce it slightly in the lead.
- You don't mention the genre of music she sings anywhere.
- I will add them in as I edit some of her articles. Information for Leona is harder to find than for other singers on here. Aaron • You Da One
- Would be good if you could add something regarding the general style or content of Spirit, I'd imagine it must be fairly easy to find a source saying the album is ballad heavy or something along those lines.
-
- I'll see what I can find in reviews. Aaron • You Da One
- Perhaps mention Leona wrote more songs on her second album?
-
- I don't think there's a source which says "Lewis wrote more on Echo". Aaron • You Da One
-
-
- The album liner notes?
-
- Can that be used for "Lewis wrote more songs" ? Aaron • You Da One
-
- Yeah it's a basic piece of information that isn't contentious so referencing both Spirit and Echo's notes is fine.
-
- The lead seems over-referenced, the lead should summarise the contents of the article and if referenced within the article there is no need for a reference. I would only expect references for the extra information added to give a bit of context and make the lead less dry.
-
- I was told by another editor to add references in to those parts. Aaron • You Da One
-
-
- Per WP:LEADCITE references are only really needed for contentious info. Things already referenced in the articles don't need a duplicate ref in the lead.
-
- There aren't that many references. Aaron • You Da One
-
- Did you try out different versions of the table before you found one that worked well? I only ask because I'm curious about listing each writer on a separate line, its a bit jarring going between really wide rows like Can't Breathe and Angel to one line rows. Did you consider using a format more like List of Kelly Clarkson songs which just uses commas between writers? I know it would be a lot of work but I would consider ditching the images down the side and using that to display the writers. I say this because on smaller screens the images squish the table and then the writers column shrinks and it is unclear where one writer ends and the next begins. At the very least you should add commas after each writer's name.
-
- Ohhhh god yes. Look at the history of Rihanna's list. If I hadn't of used this style for Rihanna's, or for any of list of songs I do, two particular editors would have refused to support. Aaron • You Da One
-
-
- Fair enough but I think you do need to add commas between the writers.
- That doesn't look good. Aaron • You Da One
-
- Looks fine to me. Not going to insist on you changing it but I think conveying the information in the best way possible is more important than the appearance.
-
- Several songs are missing like Heartbeat and Inaspettata
-
- Inaspettata is there. Where is Heartbeat from? Was is a B-side? Aaron • You Da One
-
-
- B side to I Got You
-
- Added Heartbeat. Aaron • You Da One
-
- It doesn't feature on any version of Echo so you can't have that as the album.
-
- Removed Echo and put a footnote there instead. Aaron • You Da One 20:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- I don't think you should include remixes.
-
- Even though they were included on the album? Aaron • You Da One
-
- It's a list of songs not a list of tracks which feature on an album by Leona.
- I think you need a better way to differentiate between the different versions of Spirit and Echo. I suggest either adding a note for all songs that don't appear on every version of the album or for every song. Either the way you've added a note of Best Kept Secret or to denote songs as a remix.
-
- I added a note to the Spirit deluxe songs saying that they were included on the re-released. Aaron • You Da One
-
- I don't think that's enough. I think it's clear to someone who is very familiar with Leona's stuff what it means but any casual fan would be completely confused as to why Run has the note but Forgive Me and Misses Glass don't and then some track they haven't heard of called Myself is. And then North American people would look at other tracks and be confused. I'm not sure what is the best way to present the information clearly. Perhaps use the international version of the album and then add notes to the ones that differ on the North American release?
- I asked in the Rihanna FLC what Year meant and you said it was the year recorded but it's clearly not in this case. It looks like it is the year the album was released which creates some anomalies like A Moment Like This and Forgive Me both having 2007 as a year.
-
- Just typos. Aaron • You Da One
-
- So what is Year meant to be? Year released?
-
- Yes. Year of album release. A Moment Like This is a little different though.
-
- Well you have to remain consistent on what that column is used for. At present You Bring Me Down, Forgive Me and Forgiveness say 2007 but the versions of the album featuring those songs were released in 2008. Heartbeat doesn't feature on any version of an album but was released in 2010 not 2009.
- Again I don't think Originating album is the best title if you want to include muliple albums for one song. Either stick to the actual originating album or rename the title to Album(s). I think Album(s) would be the best way forward and you should include B-side to Forgive Me or whatever in that column.
-
- Album(s). Aaron • You Da One
-
- It's not been changed.
-
- It has. The column clearly says "Originating album(s)" Aaron • You Da One
-
- Ah right, from your comment I was expecting "Album(s)" not "Originating album(s)" so didn't notice the change. I still think the B-sides should say which single they appear on in this column too.
- Why have you referenced all the Spirit songs to ref 5 apart from Better in Time and Bleeding Love? Also I don't think you can reference them all to one set of album notes seeing as all the tracks don't appear on one version of the album.
-
- I just used ASCAP/BMI for those ones. No biggie. Aaron • You Da One
-
- Lol just my OCDness. I do stand by my thoughts that you can't reference them all to one set of liner notes. You've referenced the US version which doesn't contain a number of the tracks.
-
- Still the same though. Aaron • You Da One
-
- Well no it's not, the code 8 86970 25542 4 applies to the North American version, which doesn't have a number of these songs.
- Unfortunately I think a large part of the unreleased section isn't supported adequately by the references. Many of the references simply list Leona as a writer, with no mention of her recording it, which album it was intended for and whether it leaked. I would think the leaked column would have to go as whilst it has some use it will always be a nightmare to reference.
-
- I don't see any problem. Aaron • You Da One
-
- The reference for 1000 Lights doesn't mention she recorded it or it leaked. Another Land doesn't mention she recorded it. Burn doesn't mention she recorded it or what album it was for. These issues are true for almost every song on the list and need addressed.
-
- 1000 Lights is on Youtube and is logged on BMI. Burn and Another Land are alos logged on BMI. A song can only be logged if it was been written or recorded for that singer, and Leona's name is next to them. Aaron • You Da One
-
- I'm not disagreeing that she wrote the song, this is a list of songs she has recorded so there has to be a source saying she recorded it which is not the case for many of these songs. The ASCAP sources mention her as a performer but the BMI ones do not so for all you know she wrote them for someone else and never recorded her own version. On top of that around half of them make no reference to which album they were intended for.
- I had a quick skim over the references and there quite a few inconsistencies in linking, publisher mentions, date formats and at least one error in the writer's name.
-
- Have gone through and corrected all that I could see.
-
- Daily Mail isn't linked in ref 2, Gordon Smart is the writer for 15, Broadcast Music is linked at 20 so doesn't need to be at 28.
- Why have a different colour for a foreign language recording? Why does it matter that she sang in English and Italian?
-
- Because it's clearly a foreign language song title. Aaron • You Da One
-
- Well if it's clear why is a different colour needed? According to the ref on the discography page it was a single which would mean it should be purple, though there seems to be no other information out there on the single release.
Quite a lot of issues. Some of this is nitpicky and personal preference so I don't expect every single issue to be changed, but I do think quite a lot needs addressed. Sanders11 (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick responses, seems to be good progress so far :) Sanders11 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. have addressed every point now. Aaron • You Da One
There are a lot of comments above from several users that appear to still be outstanding. Is there a plan for when they are going to be addressed? This is more comments than there are at most peer reviews, and FLC isn't a peer review service. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah sorry I will do it today. If you look at my contributions I haven't been very active over the last few days. Aaron • You Da One 15:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
List of Georgia Bulldogs head football coaches
I am nominating this for featured list because it incorporates all of the comments from the six previously FL promoted SEC coaches' lists (Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Arkansas, LSU and Vanderbilt). Hopefully this will get through with minimal issues, but as always am grateful for any comments to make this list even better. Thanks again to all who take the time to look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC) :Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
CommentSupport –"Four of those coaches also won conference championships". The first coach mentioned after this is Herman Stegeman, who didn't lead a team to a bowl game. This means the sentence is inaccurate.Giants2008 (Talk) 22:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)- Good catch. Reworded to make better sense. Thanks for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC) |
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
'Comments
NapHit (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
|
List of accolades received by Millennium
wait ... worry ... who cares?
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Although the list isn't that long, it's not a long way off other accolade FLs in terms of the number of awards discussed, and in terms of prose size it's substantially larger than some of those I took as examples (this, this or this, for instance), so I'm confident that WP:FL? criterion 3 is met. MOS:DTT should not be an issue, as the table formatting has been modelled on my previous successful FL candidate, List of accolades received by David Lynch; col and row scopes are included for screen readers and colouring is, for the most part, done with greyscale visibility in mind (barring the {{won}} and {{nom}} colours, everything is in a progression of monochrome that will translate well to grey). Stability is not an issue as the series in question is deader than Dillinger, so no updating will be required in future. The lead and overall structure are both thought out with ease of navigation in mind, with the article broken down by awarding body alphabetically and further introduced in prose within each section. Lastly, for those interested in context, Millennium was a mid-90s teevee series which tried to translate the darkness of films such as Seven and Manhunter into a detective show built on a study of objective morality. Also Bishop from Aliens and Kendall from Alias duke it out and that's got to count for something. GRAPPLE X 04:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- God, I loved this show. It was among the greatest two seasons of TV ever produced. What's that, you say there was a third season? Nonsense.
- "Millennium starred Lance Henriksen, Megan Gallagher, Klea Scott and Brittany Tiplady; with both Henriksen and Tiplady earning award nominations for their roles." That semicolon looks out of place; I think if you add a serial colon after Scott, you can change the semi to a colon. Also not sure if 'both' is necessary.
- "début" I could be wrong but I think this is sufficiently Anglified that we don't need an accent.
- "In its three-year tenure, the series earned a total of twenty-one award nominations, with cinematographer Robert McLachlan and actress Brittany Tiplady providing the series' only individual wins, the first season episode "Broken World" earned its only episodic win, while a People's Choice Award for Favourite New TV Dramatic Series was the only award won by the series as a whole." This seems to run on too long and could be split up. If kept as a single sentence, at the very least, the colon after 'wins' should be a semicolon, and "win, while" should become "win; and".
- "Millennium has been nominated for four American Society of Cinematographers awards, without winning any of them." I could be wrong, but since Millennium has been long cancelled, I don't think we need present perfect here, and can go with 'Millennium was nominated'. Same deal in the Canadian and Emmy entries.
- I'm a little sad there's so many blacklinks, but I agree with these not being redlinked.
- The Genesis entry is different from the others; the others, even the ones that are only winners, begin 'received x nominations,' but this one starts 'won an award,' which, compared to the rest of the article, leaves out how many noms it got. I know it got one, it's in the table, but the prose stands out in the article by not stating this.
- That's all for now. --Golbez (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC) |
- Comment – I'm unconvinced that this meets criterion 3b. There are 21 items in the lists, and all of the lists linked above have at least 30, so there is a distinction in terms of size. Similar lists of similar size to this one have been delisted in the past (see here, here, and here). Can we really say that this can't reasonably be merged into another article, like the one on Millennium? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I felt that the relative paucity of individual awards would be balanced out by the fact that they're discussed in prose to an extent which would would be disproportionate if just slotted into a larger article. If criterion 3 is judged on the number of entries alone then I guess there's nothing I can do about that, but it'd be a shame to have things sit in a grey area between being large enough to warrant existing but too small to go anywhere. I'll defer to your judgement here since you have the experience with these judgments. GRAPPLE X 02:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Item counting is bad. That said, I believe this article appears large because the information is presented in the form of several tables in subsections. Converting all (or most) of it to prose would make it fit nicely into Millennium (TV series). Thus, I'm opposing this as failing criterion 3b. Goodraise 21:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- I felt that the relative paucity of individual awards would be balanced out by the fact that they're discussed in prose to an extent which would would be disproportionate if just slotted into a larger article. If criterion 3 is judged on the number of entries alone then I guess there's nothing I can do about that, but it'd be a shame to have things sit in a grey area between being large enough to warrant existing but too small to go anywhere. I'll defer to your judgement here since you have the experience with these judgments. GRAPPLE X 02:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Image review: No complaints. Goodraise 12:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
List of Friends episodes
- Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this meets the WP:FLC criteria. Apart from prose, my main concern is does the list violate 3b in that season synopses have by and large been obtained from the main article. This was a suggestion from the peer reviewer because articles for many episodes have hardly been created so synopses would be understandable for the reader. The list's overview section and ratings mirror that of List of The Simpsons episodes and List of Family Guy episodes so the requirements might have changed from that of a year or so ago. I welcome any comments, suggestions, criticism, feedback, et al, cheers -- Lemonade51 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Matthewedwards : Chat 15:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
Matthewedwards : Chat 05:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC) |
- Support Everythink looks alright from here. Matthewedwards : Chat 15:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 11:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Oppose – Lack of reliability in the source department is my biggest concern.
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comment
Whoops, have added, cheers! – Lemonade51 (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC) |
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
|
- Image review:
Nothing to review. No images used.Goodraise 11:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC) - The one image used depicts a logo that may be copyrighted, but probably isn't. See File:Hercules 1998 Intertitle.png for an example of how to deal with such cases. Goodraise 12:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Have added 'PD-textlogo' license. Would that be sufficient on its own? – Lemonade51 (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Remove link of "The One with the Sonogram at the End", as it only redirects to Friends (season 1). Also, what is "Friends: The Stuff You've Never Seen"? I assume it's a behind-the-scenes show, but a summary would help. It is included in Friends (season 7), but as it's not a regular episode a description in this list would be helpful. Glimmer721 talk 01:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Have removed link. A summary of 'Friends: The Stuff You've Never Seen' is in the final paragraph of the lead. Unless you want it in the list itself? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I'm posting the following because Lemonade51 asked me to post my 2 cents here.[2] Changes made to List of Friends episodes since it was nominated go against standard practices with TV articles and against common sense. {{Episode list}} makes it easy for editors not versed in table construction to easily add content to list articles. [[List of <foo> episodes]] articles are normally created using {{Episode list}} and built upon. List of Castle episodes is one such article out of many. Once large enough, or when there is extra content beyond just tables listing the episodes, these articles are split in accordance with WP:SPLIT and Template:Episode list#Sublists. The episode lists in the individual season articles are transcluded into the main episode list article, as was the case with List of Friends episodes before it was nominated.[3] Removing transclusion and building tables that duplicate what is already in the season articles will (I've seen it too many times) result in duplication errors. The coding used in the edits since 1 March 2012 has blown the article out from 14,184 to 82,569 bytes with this edit, and that's without any episode summaries for the 236 episodes and 3 specials. This is a phenomenal amount of code compared to other similar articles. Lemonade51 claims that transclusion has been discouraged here. If transclusion is not used, in order to eliminate duplication errors, episode tables will need to be removed from the season articles. This doesn't make sense though. With transclusion, all content related to each season is within the season article. Without transclusion, content is in two places, which doesn't help our readers. Additionally, episode summaries will need to be moved to the list article, blowing it out to an enormous size which will justify a WP:SPLIT. But if we don't transclude, how does that happen? If "Lemonade51's version" of this article reaches FA status there is precedent to make articles for other series' follow suit. Some season articles contain little more and will really not need to exist. Instead, we'll just end up with bloated episode lists. The present system of transcluding the sesson articles seems to work just fine. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if someone can make the template meet the requirements of WP:ACCESS & WP:MOSBOLD then we could reconsider its use. While the code size has increased, I'd be interested to know if the load time has increased because there are significantly fewer templates to load (which are notoriously slow to load). Addition of other episodes is moot here because the series has finished. And as for the complexity of code, I think that's in the eye of the beholder, I personally find intricately coded templates a bind compared with plain table coding. It's a personal thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- There's nothing to reconsider. The template is used in 5,068 articles. It's standard practice to use it in TV lists. Changing an article to introduce coding that isn't understood by most editors (that's why we have templates) and duplication errors is not the way to fix a problem. Nor is it appropriate to introduce such a problem under the guise of making a list, which is intricately linked to several other articles, a featured list. The correct, and most appropriate, process is to change the template if it's deemed necessary. While addition of new episodes is moot, duplication errors are not. People will edit the episode list and not the season article, or vice versa. If a side effect of making an article featured is causing errors, then not being featured is preferable. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well just because it's used in a large number of articles, it doesn't make it right, does it? Templates aren't used because coding isn't understood by most editors, where's the evidence supporting that? Templates are convenient, sure, but their overuse can result in very slow page load times. In any case, as I said, we need our featured lists to meet the manual of style with regard to both visual and non-visual appearance. What goes on behind the scenes is irrelevant to whether this list should be featured; if it meets WP:WIAFL then it should be featured. If someone would fix the template (our resident expert in ACCESS matters, User:RexxS should be able to assist with exactly what needs to be fixed) then there'd be no need for the discussion. As it stands, this list now meets the requirements mandated by the MOS, which is correct for Wikipedia's finest work. Just because 5,068 other articles don't comply with MOS, I don't see why this one shouldn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- (Edit Conflict) It was standard practice to send Jews to concentration camps. Didn't make it right, even though some people believed it was at the time. Are you seriously saying that the majority of editors don't know how to construct tables? Well if they don't, we have plenty of help pages guiding editors on how to build them. We shouldn't find a workaround for them so that they continue to stay in the dark about it. You keep talking about duplication errors, don't you mean non-duplication errors, because surely the error will only be duplicated when it is transcluded? If there is no transclusion there can be no duplication, so one page will be correct, which is better for readers than having two pages with incorrect information. If you're worried about it, include notes to editors at the top of each editable section in hidden tags <!-- like these --> that ask editors to make changes at the 'other' page. Matthewedwards : Chat 14:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Templates are certainly convenient, and we use them for because of that, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that most people seem to have difficulty with coding tables. People screw tables up all the time. Most of the table damage I see just happens to be in TV articles. There may be help pages for tables but they're clearly not understood based on the number of basic errors that I've had to fix. Templates simplify table coding enormously. Unless you're Superman, or Mr Data trying to stop a core breach on the USS Enterprise, slow page load times really don't affect most articles. A few milliseconds here or there just isn't noticed by the average human. What goes on behind the scenes is very relevant to featured list discussions. If an article can't be promoted to featured status because it uses standard templates, then there's something wrong with the system. Instead of sticking heads in the sand and altering the article almost completely so that it does comply, the issues with the templates should be addressed so that the article doesn't need a complete rewrite.
- "You keep talking about duplication errors, don't you mean non-duplication errors" - If the same information is included in two different pages the content should be duplicated exactly on both pages, so the content isn't contradictory. Inevitably though, the information will become out of sync and the information will not be duplicated exactly on both pages. This is what the changes to List of Friends episodes will cause. There is no proposal to remove the episode lists from the individual season pages. That's not part of this nomination.
- "If you're worried about it, include notes to editors at the top of each editable section in hidden tags" - OK, I haven't looked at your profile but I assume from that suggestion that you live in Utopia where nothing ever goes wrong. People ignore hidden comments all the time. Sometimes it's a never-ending battle trying to stop people from ignoring notes. Have a look at the notes in the "
|starring=
" field of the infobox at The Big Bang Theory. They're always being ignored. Articles on TV programs that have ended constantly have "<foo> is a" changed to "<foo> was a", even when the note is right next to is. "International broadcast" tables that have a note at the beginning of the section saying "please add countries to this list in alphabetical order" are often re-ordered, or added to by somebody to whom the alphabet apparently starts with "azfkewpb". - "It was standard practice to send Jews to concentration camps" - Now this is getting silly. It was standard practice in Nazi Germany only. It was a practice rejected by the rest of the world. Do I need to invoke Godwin's law here? --AussieLegend (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- It was just Data, not Mr Data as far as I recall. And your comments are very interesting reading, but seem to ignore one key issue. The templates don't comply with WP:MOS. Make them comply and we'll be happy to use them. While they don't comply, we shouldn't use them. If fixing them would improve over 5,000 articles, why not just do it and then we can move on? But before that, can you tell me where you get the misguided idea that "What goes on behind the scenes is very relevant to featured list discussions." is true? Can you show me a discussion that consensually backs up your opinion? Ooh, and finally, overuse templates certainly does result in problems and load times. Just look at List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.... zOMG. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I know it was Data, but I was trying to cater for people who have a life outside Star Trek, if there are any here. (BTW, Picard and Riker often called him Mr Data, but it doesn't really matter.) Your response ignores the fact that bolding is not an issue if you use "
|RTitle=
" instead of "|Title=
". Stating "Make them comply and we'll be happy to use them" ignores the fact that the template is used in over 5,000 articles, or over 100,000 times, since it's used multiple times in each article. Not using it in List of Friends episodes won't stop it being used. In any case, it's not actually used in the article at all. The template is used in 10 other articles and the content of those articles is only transcluded. It's pretty arrogant for a handful of editors to say that they won't use the template when it clearly has wide consensus for use, even "if" it doesn't comply with the MOS. "What goes on behind the scenes is very relevant to featured list discussions" is not misguided at all. Cause and effect. By demanding changes to an article that has been built in compliance with a significant Wikiproject you're affecting that project and the work of hundreds or thousands of other editors. It's not just one article being affected here, it's 11 directly, 10 of which aren't even nominated and the changes have a carry-on to any other TV list. Instead of changing the article and expecting other editors to work out why, you should be going to WP:TV and saying "Hey, we can't promote TV lists to featured status if you continue to use a template that doesn't comply with the MOS" and then work with the people who look after {{Episode list}} to fix it so you can promote lists without completely rewriting them. If you want to force people to use raw code, rewrite WP:DTT in a way that most editors can understand. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)- No, you entirely misunderstand. This article meets our criteria. It doesn't matter that it doesn't use a foul template that isn't correctly coded. That's your issue. The fact you can't understand MOS:DTT is your issue, hundreds of lists recently promoted proves that people who bother to care about it do understand it. You have raised an issue but seem unwilling to do anything about it. The community here is content that this is a very good piece of work and uses coding to help those who need a little bit of extra thought. Rattling out the mantra that something used 5,000 times makes it right is nonsense. We have nearly 4 million articles. Who cares if these 5,000 articles don't give a damn about those readers who aren't just looking at pretty templates? I will never go to a project and say we can't promote a list if it meets WP:WIAFL. How ridiculous. You need to re-read the criteria and tell me where it says we need to use the templates you prefer. It's more than arrogant for you tell me it's arrogant for us to refuse to use a shoddy template that doesn't meet MOS. Classic lemming. You've made the fuss about this approach, you deal with the fallout. And I look forward to the day when I can encourage our editors to use a decent template that actually cares about all of our readers, not just the ones you think need to read Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- You entirely misunderstand that every TV episode list could meet your criteria if they were built the way you want them but that virtually none of them are. Friends certainly wasn't before Lemonade51 started playing. They're nearly all built the way that Friends was because that's the standard way that episode lists are built. You might care to read what I wrote again. All I suggested, since it is a problem that you seem to completely understand, is that you go to WP:TV and explain that {{Episode list}} has certain problems that need to be fixed so that articles using it can comply with your requirements. There's no point me doing it. I've already identified that there is a problem but I don't know how to fix the template. I don't understand why it doesn't comply. It looks fine to me based on what I can understand of the source.
- "It's more than arrogant for you tell me it's arrogant for us to refuse to use a shoddy template that doesn't meet MOS" - LOL. It's arrogant for you to expect me to fix a template that I can't because I don't know the specific problems, but you do. Next. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's WP:MOSBOLD and MOS:DTT. How many more times? You shouldn't bold text unnecessarily, you need to use row and col scopes, and you need to gain an appreciation of what it's like to browse Wikipedia's finest articles when you can't necessarily see each and every detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- How many more times does someone have to say that if you use RTitle instead of Title, bolding isn't an issue? --AussieLegend (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- How many more times do I have to say MOS:DTT to you? If you can't be bothered to read it, and understand it, that's one thing. Hundreds of lists have proved that's not beyond the wit of man. But if you can't be bothered, that's your problem, not mine. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- You only needed to say it once. I've read it and understood it. Your assumptions are incorrect. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- How many more times do I have to say MOS:DTT to you? If you can't be bothered to read it, and understand it, that's one thing. Hundreds of lists have proved that's not beyond the wit of man. But if you can't be bothered, that's your problem, not mine. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- How many more times does someone have to say that if you use RTitle instead of Title, bolding isn't an issue? --AussieLegend (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's WP:MOSBOLD and MOS:DTT. How many more times? You shouldn't bold text unnecessarily, you need to use row and col scopes, and you need to gain an appreciation of what it's like to browse Wikipedia's finest articles when you can't necessarily see each and every detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, you entirely misunderstand. This article meets our criteria. It doesn't matter that it doesn't use a foul template that isn't correctly coded. That's your issue. The fact you can't understand MOS:DTT is your issue, hundreds of lists recently promoted proves that people who bother to care about it do understand it. You have raised an issue but seem unwilling to do anything about it. The community here is content that this is a very good piece of work and uses coding to help those who need a little bit of extra thought. Rattling out the mantra that something used 5,000 times makes it right is nonsense. We have nearly 4 million articles. Who cares if these 5,000 articles don't give a damn about those readers who aren't just looking at pretty templates? I will never go to a project and say we can't promote a list if it meets WP:WIAFL. How ridiculous. You need to re-read the criteria and tell me where it says we need to use the templates you prefer. It's more than arrogant for you tell me it's arrogant for us to refuse to use a shoddy template that doesn't meet MOS. Classic lemming. You've made the fuss about this approach, you deal with the fallout. And I look forward to the day when I can encourage our editors to use a decent template that actually cares about all of our readers, not just the ones you think need to read Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I know it was Data, but I was trying to cater for people who have a life outside Star Trek, if there are any here. (BTW, Picard and Riker often called him Mr Data, but it doesn't really matter.) Your response ignores the fact that bolding is not an issue if you use "
- It was just Data, not Mr Data as far as I recall. And your comments are very interesting reading, but seem to ignore one key issue. The templates don't comply with WP:MOS. Make them comply and we'll be happy to use them. While they don't comply, we shouldn't use them. If fixing them would improve over 5,000 articles, why not just do it and then we can move on? But before that, can you tell me where you get the misguided idea that "What goes on behind the scenes is very relevant to featured list discussions." is true? Can you show me a discussion that consensually backs up your opinion? Ooh, and finally, overuse templates certainly does result in problems and load times. Just look at List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.... zOMG. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- There's nothing to reconsider. The template is used in 5,068 articles. It's standard practice to use it in TV lists. Changing an article to introduce coding that isn't understood by most editors (that's why we have templates) and duplication errors is not the way to fix a problem. Nor is it appropriate to introduce such a problem under the guise of making a list, which is intricately linked to several other articles, a featured list. The correct, and most appropriate, process is to change the template if it's deemed necessary. While addition of new episodes is moot, duplication errors are not. People will edit the episode list and not the season article, or vice versa. If a side effect of making an article featured is causing errors, then not being featured is preferable. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Without transclusion, content is in two places, which doesn't help our readers" Readers don't care that content is in two articles. Lazy editors might, though. Next you'll be saying that we should transclude article content into the lede section (or vica verca) so people don't have to type repeated stuff there too.
- "Removing transclusion and building tables that duplicate what is already in the season articles will (I've seen it too many times) result in duplication errors." Transcluding from many articles means that when those articles are edited incorrectly or vandalised, both pages display errors. (I've seen it too many times.) I'd rather have one page display an error and another page display the right thing.
- Why do the summaries need to be moved to the list just because there's no transcluding? I don't get that. About 4 years ago none of the featured episode lists transcluded from the season pages, and they didn't have the summaries. Matthewedwards : Chat 14:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Readers don't care that content is in two articles. Lazy editors might, though" - Lazy editors have nothing to do with it. Readers shouldn't have to look in multiple articles to find content that is intimately related. It makes absolutely no sense to include everything about a season except for the episode list in one article, and the episode list in another. That's why, when TV list articles are split we include everything in the season article and transclude only the actual episode list, with no summaries, back to the main list.
- "Next you'll be saying that we should transclude article content into the lede section...." - Well, at least you didn't mention the Nazis, but it's almost as silly. The content in the lede is a summary of the entire article. The episode lists are one section and it makes no sense to include them anywhere other than the season article. It makes perfect sense to transclude the content, rather than duplicate it, because then only one article needs to be edited and you don't end up with two articles that contradict each other because somebody edited one article and not the other.
- "I'd rather have one page display an error and another page display the right thing." - If you have one page correct, and another that's wrong, how do you know which one is right? Sometimes the incorrect information goes undetected for months, even years. I've had to go through the process of repairing a TV series where errors existed in the episode list article as well as the season articles and it was hell trying to fix it all. With transclusion, the error can only occur in one article because the information only actually exists in one article.
- "Why do the summaries need to be moved to the list just because there's no transcluding" - It's a fairly basic principle that content only exists in one article. (We regularly delete articles that duplicate existing articles under WP:CSD#A10) If we already have an article on one subject we don't create another article with the same content. We link to it, with {{tl|see also||, {{main}} or some other similar link, and include the basics from the other article. For example, the "Political divisions" section of United States doesn't duplicate U.S. state. It uses {{main}} to link to U.S. state and sumamrises points from U.S. state. The tables that were created at List of Friends episodes substantially duplicate the tables that are in each of the season articles. Only the episode summaries are excluded. For reasons that I've explained at length, identical, or almost identical content shouldn't exist in two places. Because the episode numbers exist in the main list, they shouldn't also exist in the season articles. That leaves the episode summaries orphaned, so they should be moved from the season articles to the main list.
- "About 4 years ago none of the featured episode lists transcluded from the season pages, and they didn't have the summaries." - That was then, this is now. {{Episode list}} wasn't in as wide a use as it is now. It was only created in 2006 and by the time it became widely used, lots of TV lists already existed using custom tables. Now, most, if not almost all, TV lists are created using {{Episode list}} and we have to adapt. If the table is flawed, it needs to be fixed. The only dicussion about bolding seems to question whether MOS:BOLD actually applies to tables. In any case, this is not a real issue. Using "
|RTitle=
" instead of "|Title=
" avoids the bolding issue. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)- Fix the template so it meets WP:MOSBOLD (we do apply it tables, it's an accessibility issue, not a prose vs table issue) and MOS:DTT (for screen readers, predominantly to tell a blind or partially sighted reader where rows and columns start and aid them in understanding the content) and it fixes the issue. You're the one making the fuss about it, so suggest you fix the template and then we'll be happy to use it. In the meantime, hand-crafted tables (which are used in 100s of 1000s of articles, not just 5,068 articles which fail to comply with our MOS and prejudice those who need WP:ACCESS to be applied correctly) which comply with our requirements for FL will be the way ahead. It could be that you simply aren't interested in making sure the readers of Wikipedia with limited sight or visual perception shouldn't enjoy the site, but I doubt that. That's why we insist on these things. I hope you understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Unlike others here, I've posted at both WT:TV and Template talk:Episode list regarding this matter There's little more that I can do. I don't have any control over {{Episode list}}. I can't edit it because I'm not an administrator. Perhaps you know one? --AussieLegend (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Pardon? What has being an admin got to do with getting a community consensus to make a crappy template meet our own MOS? Nothing. I look encourage your efforts in resolving this issue with the poor template and look forward to seeing a great outcome where we can improve 5,000 articles rather than trying to force more and more articles to use rot-laiden templates which prejudice against those with limited or no vision. And from the looks of things, your request has (per normal for these niche issues) fallen on dead ears (we, i.e. WP:FLC have tried this discussion before you know....) ... (by the way, the second link doesn't work).... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- You keep telling me to fix it. How can I do that if you can't? You can gain consensus just as well as I can and since you seem to know specifically what's wrong with it, you have a better chance than I do. However, I've made the best request that I can. I can do no more. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you claim that we must use this god-awful template ("because everyone else does" [paraphrased]) then you need to get a consensus to do that. There's no rule anywhere that says that using a poorly formatted template is better than using correct markup. If you keep insisting on the use of code that prejudices others then that's one thing. If you can go off and solve your own problem, that's another. I've told you, WP:MOSBOLD and MOS:DTT are the issues. Hundreds of FLC editors can deal with it. I see no reason to compromise just to use something that "because everyone else does" ([paraphrased]).... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- You've misread what I said, which was that rather than completely rewrite articles so that they comply, it's far better to fix the template so that completely rewriting articles is unnecessary. Fixing one template makes a lot more sense than rewriting 5,000 articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- So help fix it. I see that you've put a few messages out there. What's important to know is that we've tried this sort of thing before and because no-one cares about ACCESS details, especially those who craft these intricate and delicate (and MOS-failing) templates. We seem to be getting somewhere, thanks to Matthewedwards, but in any case, there's no reason for us to compromise here just because you want to use templates, and we all want to use MOS-compliant coding. (By the way, those 5,000 articles probably aren't featured, so no-one cares about them, unlike this list....) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have been helping. As you've noticed, and as I've pointed out here, I've made several posts at relevant WT:TV and Template talk:Episode list, including an edit request that has prompted some action. You may have "we've tried this sort of thing before" somewhere, but you don't appear to have done so at {{Episode list}}, which is why I was asking you to do so there, since you seemed to know what the problems were. You can't expect others to help you if you aren't willing to take some action yourself. Nobody is asking you to compromise; it just makes a lot more sense to fix one template than have to rewrite every TV list that is nominated. As for no-one caring about those 5,000 articles, that's not the case at all. You may not care but you aren't everyone. If you did care, you could use the fact that those 5,000+ articles will never reach FA/FL status with the template in its current form to force WP:ACCESS changes to the template and save a lot of work in the future, when some do come up for nomination. You need to look at the bigger picture. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Heh, as I said before, fix the template and we'll use it. That is the bigger picture! In the meantime, we'll just stick to compliance with MOS. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have been helping. As you've noticed, and as I've pointed out here, I've made several posts at relevant WT:TV and Template talk:Episode list, including an edit request that has prompted some action. You may have "we've tried this sort of thing before" somewhere, but you don't appear to have done so at {{Episode list}}, which is why I was asking you to do so there, since you seemed to know what the problems were. You can't expect others to help you if you aren't willing to take some action yourself. Nobody is asking you to compromise; it just makes a lot more sense to fix one template than have to rewrite every TV list that is nominated. As for no-one caring about those 5,000 articles, that's not the case at all. You may not care but you aren't everyone. If you did care, you could use the fact that those 5,000+ articles will never reach FA/FL status with the template in its current form to force WP:ACCESS changes to the template and save a lot of work in the future, when some do come up for nomination. You need to look at the bigger picture. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- So help fix it. I see that you've put a few messages out there. What's important to know is that we've tried this sort of thing before and because no-one cares about ACCESS details, especially those who craft these intricate and delicate (and MOS-failing) templates. We seem to be getting somewhere, thanks to Matthewedwards, but in any case, there's no reason for us to compromise here just because you want to use templates, and we all want to use MOS-compliant coding. (By the way, those 5,000 articles probably aren't featured, so no-one cares about them, unlike this list....) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- You've misread what I said, which was that rather than completely rewrite articles so that they comply, it's far better to fix the template so that completely rewriting articles is unnecessary. Fixing one template makes a lot more sense than rewriting 5,000 articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you claim that we must use this god-awful template ("because everyone else does" [paraphrased]) then you need to get a consensus to do that. There's no rule anywhere that says that using a poorly formatted template is better than using correct markup. If you keep insisting on the use of code that prejudices others then that's one thing. If you can go off and solve your own problem, that's another. I've told you, WP:MOSBOLD and MOS:DTT are the issues. Hundreds of FLC editors can deal with it. I see no reason to compromise just to use something that "because everyone else does" ([paraphrased]).... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- You keep telling me to fix it. How can I do that if you can't? You can gain consensus just as well as I can and since you seem to know specifically what's wrong with it, you have a better chance than I do. However, I've made the best request that I can. I can do no more. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Pardon? What has being an admin got to do with getting a community consensus to make a crappy template meet our own MOS? Nothing. I look encourage your efforts in resolving this issue with the poor template and look forward to seeing a great outcome where we can improve 5,000 articles rather than trying to force more and more articles to use rot-laiden templates which prejudice against those with limited or no vision. And from the looks of things, your request has (per normal for these niche issues) fallen on dead ears (we, i.e. WP:FLC have tried this discussion before you know....) ... (by the way, the second link doesn't work).... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Unlike others here, I've posted at both WT:TV and Template talk:Episode list regarding this matter There's little more that I can do. I don't have any control over {{Episode list}}. I can't edit it because I'm not an administrator. Perhaps you know one? --AussieLegend (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Fix the template so it meets WP:MOSBOLD (we do apply it tables, it's an accessibility issue, not a prose vs table issue) and MOS:DTT (for screen readers, predominantly to tell a blind or partially sighted reader where rows and columns start and aid them in understanding the content) and it fixes the issue. You're the one making the fuss about it, so suggest you fix the template and then we'll be happy to use it. In the meantime, hand-crafted tables (which are used in 100s of 1000s of articles, not just 5,068 articles which fail to comply with our MOS and prejudice those who need WP:ACCESS to be applied correctly) which comply with our requirements for FL will be the way ahead. It could be that you simply aren't interested in making sure the readers of Wikipedia with limited sight or visual perception shouldn't enjoy the site, but I doubt that. That's why we insist on these things. I hope you understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment only just noticed all the edits made despite ongoing discussion as to the way ahead. How disappointing. Well, for now it's an oppose based on the use of the template which fails MOS in its current form. Sorry about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Would your decision change if it was reverted (I had intended to do so when the edits were made)? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I certainly wouldn't oppose any longer it as it would meet MOS. But I won't encourage edit wars either... perhaps we need to ensure that, at the very least, the transcluded information complies with MOS, so change all the season templates to unbolded text and ensure they have row scopes implemented.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Since multiple editors reverted your changes, it would be unwise to revert as the changes are clearly contested. Before any reversions, you need to discuss on the article's talk page. Remember, in any content dispute you should follow WP:BRD and the status quo prevails. There's now some discussion at {{Episode list}} and the template will probably be changed, so any changes made at season articles should be limited to edits that won't need to be reverted when the template is "fixed". Wikipedia is not working to a deadline so there's no urgency to "pre-fix" things. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hence why I haven't reverted in the first place. Heck, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination until the problem has been fully resolved. But I assume this could be sorted out in weeks, not months. BTW, I know the WP:MOSBOLD can be resolved; has it been possible to correct the row scopes? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree. And you're being very reasonable about all this reverting after all the work you put into it, so I'm grateful for that. I think we may have a solution for the row scopes, but regarding the unbolding, you'd need to be sure that the various other places where the episode lists are transcluded are happy having their version unbolded. That could start its own edit war (predominantly because some people seem to prefer ignoring the MOS rather than complying with it). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, as I feared, the discussion over removing the bold text looks likely to last a while... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hey Lemonade51, having done plenty (read: too much pointless) discussion into this issue, and noting that the TV project people are basically playing these lists into a corner (i.e. you must use the template, and you can't change the template, simultaneously), my advice now is to skip the use of the Episode list template and revert to the hand-crafted table which is just fine per WP:FLC. The only data that is transcluded is the episode name in this instance and I can't see a good argument that it will suddenly be out of synch with other uses of the title. Unbold that (per the Simpsons etc) and we've got a winner! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hence why I haven't reverted in the first place. Heck, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination until the problem has been fully resolved. But I assume this could be sorted out in weeks, not months. BTW, I know the WP:MOSBOLD can be resolved; has it been possible to correct the row scopes? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Nominations for removal
Provinces of the Philippines
- Notified: Seav, Chipmunkdavis, Tambayan Philippines wikiproject — it was hard to find good people to notify, as almost everyone with more than four or five edits is presently inactive.
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it's the worst featured list I've ever seen. I'm quite confident that our featured list standards don't permit pages with substantial awkwardness in wording, sections with just three words, multiple sections with no citations whatsoever, and bulleted lists of facts that aren't in prose. This page fails WP:FLCR #1 (poor writing), #4 (too-tiny sections), likely #5 (I doubt that the MOS permits long bulleted lists of facts), and core requirements such as WP:CITE. Other criteria aren't problematic (for example, aside from an uninterrupted string of edits by the same person last week, it's had about 40 edits all year, so it's quite stable), but these are enough to remove it easily. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delist. This will take a lot of work to get (back) up to standards. Goodraise 23:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delist I'm not sure how to deal with the sections that use bullets in another way, but it fails sourcing, if nothing else. CMD (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delist bit of a mess frankly. The timeline could probably spin off to a "Timeline of the provinces of the Philippines" article, there's really weak referencing (i.e. most refs aren't refs at all), and more failures to meet WP:MOS than I could cover here... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delist Way out of date with MOS, don't think those issues can be resolved during the timescale of this nom. NapHit (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
List of winners of the Boston Marathon
Successful nomination: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of winners of the Boston Marathon
- Notified: Knowledgekid87, Gr5,WikiProject Running
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it was approved wih no barometre but simply vote counting. Seeing the FAC it involves a vote count of comments that said nothing for the reasons for support. And sources are poorLihaas (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why someone thought this list should be featured. I never noticed it was featured until today. It's a well done list and it is useful but I agree the sourcing could be better. Gr5 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delist. No longer up to standards. The first three words ("This page lists ...") speak volumes. Goodraise 23:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delist per not meeting our current standards for excellent prose, for having an unresolved maintenance tag, for having much of the lead unreferenced.... I don't think it's far from being a decent nomination candidate, but right now it's not our best work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment – I'll refrain from offering an opinion here since another director has already declared himself, but suffice it to say that quite a bit of work will be needed to bring this up to modern FL standards. In particular, more thorough referencing is necessary. Giants2008 (Talk) 11:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Madonna albums discography
- Notified: Legolas2186, WikiProject Discograpies, WikiProject Madonna
This 2009 FL has several references to offline magazine articles that may have been fabricated. A thread on WT:FLC brought up issues concerning this editor, leading me to do some searching on ProQuest. A full tally of what I found is available at User talk:Legolas2186/Fixing citation problems. To make a long story short, I found three extremely questionable cites (refs 53, 121, and 146), and User:Binksternet discovered a fourth (ref 110). Either these refs must be found to exist, replacements must be found for them, or this needs to be delisted. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly, the bad cites and any dependent text must be removed, if the text cannot be supported by other sources. I think that's the first step. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Okay, I removed the four bad "sources" from the article and replaced them with fact tags. The article should be examined for proper use of legitimate sources. Binksternet (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Image review: The one image used appears to be free and properly tagged. Goodraise 17:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment not seeing any maintenance tags now, but a few content issues (5 million -> five million, bare Url for ref 68 etc), but otherwise no major trauma here for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
List of winners of the Mathcounts competition
I hate doing this kind of thing but while browsing the queue of lists at WP:TFL I re-encountered this. It's, essentially, a list of non-notable people. Worse, it can easily be merged back into its parent article at Mathcounts. This, and a gut feeling that this is no longer our "finest work" has led me here to nominate this for delisting. Note: the primary editor hasn't edited for a year and I wasn't entirely sure which projects would be interested, so if anyone cares to notify interested parties, I'd be very grateful. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm only OK with this article being delisted if concensus is to merge it with Mathcounts. If List of winners of the Mathcounts competition is going to be kept as a separate article, I'm willing to put the work into getting it up to FL status. Neelix (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delist. Can reasonably be included in Mathcounts. Goodraise 13:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)