Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2010: Difference between revisions
+1 withdrawn |
quick-fail 1 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Justin Bieber/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battleships of Austria-Hungary/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battleships of Austria-Hungary/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Recopa Sudamericana winners/archive2}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Recopa Sudamericana winners/archive2}} |
Revision as of 03:46, 12 July 2010
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 03:46, 12 July 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): Rp0211 (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it shows very high quality. Looking at other lists under the "Lists of awards by musicians" category, it matches the quality of other lists in the same category. According to the Featured list criteria, this article:</noinclude>
- Uses Prose. It features professional standards of writing with correct grammar, punctuation, and sentence flow.
- Uses Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
- Uses Comprehensiveness.
- (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
- (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
- Structure. It is easy to navigate through and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
- Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
- (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked.
- (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly.
- Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 03:07, 11 July 2010 [2].
- Nominator(s): White Shadows stood on the edge 17:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I have already taken it through an ACR though Wikiproject MILHIST and it was promoted. As a result I feel that it meets all of the criteria for a FL and any comments would be welcome. Thanks, White Shadows stood on the edge 17:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- No sign that Sokol's book on the A-H Navy was consulted, the fundamental reference on A-H ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, haveing read through it on GB, I found no information in it that was not cited by the other refrences that I've included. Must I really over ref sentences?--White Shadows stood on the edge 19:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And just to let you know, there is no way that I'm going to purchase a $130 book that re-states everything that is in this list and is well cited.--White Shadows stood on the edge 19:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't control, nor would I want to, your actions. But I have a real problem believing that you read through Sokol when the link that you sent me contained no more than the few lines usually accessible through snippet views. You also failed to look through René Greger's Austro-Hungarian Warships of World War I, but have relied on third-tier sources like Conway's, etc. There's usually not a whole lot of detail available when the history of an entire class of warship is summarized in a page or less, which is the case for most all of your sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like many libraries have it[3]; could you try inter-library loan? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not anytime soon. And the closest copy is 119 miles away....--White Shadows There goes another day 21:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You never know what ILL can get you. I've gotten books from that far away in a reasonable amount of time. Also, you might consider looking a little more thoroughly for used copies; just looking at Amazon there's one available for US$59. Parsecboy (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out. If only I had a few more dollars....--White Shadows There goes another day 15:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You never know what ILL can get you. I've gotten books from that far away in a reasonable amount of time. Also, you might consider looking a little more thoroughly for used copies; just looking at Amazon there's one available for US$59. Parsecboy (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not anytime soon. And the closest copy is 119 miles away....--White Shadows There goes another day 21:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like many libraries have it[3]; could you try inter-library loan? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't control, nor would I want to, your actions. But I have a real problem believing that you read through Sokol when the link that you sent me contained no more than the few lines usually accessible through snippet views. You also failed to look through René Greger's Austro-Hungarian Warships of World War I, but have relied on third-tier sources like Conway's, etc. There's usually not a whole lot of detail available when the history of an entire class of warship is summarized in a page or less, which is the case for most all of your sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And just to let you know, there is no way that I'm going to purchase a $130 book that re-states everything that is in this list and is well cited.--White Shadows stood on the edge 19:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Formatting for citations is inconsistent. p. for individual pages as well as page ranges, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me. I ment skimmed through it with that little snippet view. If you'd like I can try to add it in with just that little snippet view as my "window into the book". I've also (I think) fixed that little inconsistency.--White Shadows There goes another day 02:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright I've fixed the inconsistency issue. Strumvogel, do you happen to know the ISBN number of the book? I think I've got a plan....--White Shadows There goes another day 17:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still have a problem with a comma after the author(s). Some cites have one, some don't.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can a fresh set of eyes point one out to me? I don't really see any example of this...--White Shadows There goes another day 22:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Gardiner, Chesneau, and Kolesnik, p. 272" vs "Gardiner and Grey p. 333". Also, Halpern or Haplern? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't the Gardiner, Chesneau, and Kolesnik one supposed to use commas while the Gardiner and Grey one should not since there are only two authors. As for the Halpern or Haplern issue, it's Halpern and I have fixed that.--White Shadows There goes another day 19:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first comma is necessary, the second you could take or leave (see serial comma if you're interested), but the third one is the inconsistency that Sturmvogel points out: why is there a comma between the authors and the page number(s) in one citation, but not in the next? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've removed the third comma. Thanks for pointing that out to me.--White Shadows There goes another day 23:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first comma is necessary, the second you could take or leave (see serial comma if you're interested), but the third one is the inconsistency that Sturmvogel points out: why is there a comma between the authors and the page number(s) in one citation, but not in the next? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't the Gardiner, Chesneau, and Kolesnik one supposed to use commas while the Gardiner and Grey one should not since there are only two authors. As for the Halpern or Haplern issue, it's Halpern and I have fixed that.--White Shadows There goes another day 19:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Gardiner, Chesneau, and Kolesnik, p. 272" vs "Gardiner and Grey p. 333". Also, Halpern or Haplern? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can a fresh set of eyes point one out to me? I don't really see any example of this...--White Shadows There goes another day 22:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still have a problem with a comma after the author(s). Some cites have one, some don't.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright I've fixed the inconsistency issue. Strumvogel, do you happen to know the ISBN number of the book? I think I've got a plan....--White Shadows There goes another day 17:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've just placed an order for the $59 version of Sokol's book. I'll get it between July 14 adn July 29 though I'm heading to Canada in a few weeks.--White Shadows There goes another day 00:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the FLC backlog and that this FLC would have to remain open until the book arrives, would it be a good idea to withdraw and re-submit when the article has been updated with the information in the book? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? There could be more comments and it's just a week or so until I get the book? If the backlog is that bad then I guess that I can withdraw it but I think that it'd be a waste of time to simply withdraw, add in the book and then resubmit.--White Shadows I ran away from you 02:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can't promote this until this issue is resolved, and it's unfair to other nominators to keep this open indefinitely when reviewer resources are stretched thin. I notice that the same issue was brought up at the A-Class review; you said you would get another user to add information from the book, but it doesn't seem like that has happened yet. These are issues best resolved outside FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The issues at that ACR were not addressed because Parsec did not have the book and hs had no clue when he'd get it. I know that I'll be getting the book in the next few days but in order to lessen the load over at FLC, I'll withdraw. As soon as I get the book and add it in, I'll resubmit :)--White Shadows I ran away from you 02:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine. Thanks for your understanding. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The issues at that ACR were not addressed because Parsec did not have the book and hs had no clue when he'd get it. I know that I'll be getting the book in the next few days but in order to lessen the load over at FLC, I'll withdraw. As soon as I get the book and add it in, I'll resubmit :)--White Shadows I ran away from you 02:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can't promote this until this issue is resolved, and it's unfair to other nominators to keep this open indefinitely when reviewer resources are stretched thin. I notice that the same issue was brought up at the A-Class review; you said you would get another user to add information from the book, but it doesn't seem like that has happened yet. These are issues best resolved outside FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? There could be more comments and it's just a week or so until I get the book? If the backlog is that bad then I guess that I can withdraw it but I think that it'd be a waste of time to simply withdraw, add in the book and then resubmit.--White Shadows I ran away from you 02:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the FLC backlog and that this FLC would have to remain open until the book arrives, would it be a good idea to withdraw and re-submit when the article has been updated with the information in the book? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 02:13, 11 July 2010 [4].
- Nominator(s): Jamen Somasu (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it has complied with every requirement in the FL criteria. Jamen Somasu (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
Several issues from the last FLC are still outstanding, especially regarding sortability. These should be corrected before reviews are made. — KV5 • Talk • 15:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sandman888 (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- it is not clear whether previous concerns have been met.
- lede cd use a copyedit, and peer review
- re:sortability, i dont care, don't think it's particularly needed.
- center align emdashes
- Use of non-free image which is purely for decoration
- FINALLY I figure out a way to sort the table and make it decent. Now everything is done.Jamen Somasu (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- what do you mean? It doesn't look sortable to me. (I don't care about sortability, but nevertheless). Sandman888 (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comments from MicroX
- Wouldn't it be better that the winners be bolded instead of italicized? It's easier to spot bolded text than italicized text like here.
- Unfortunetly, that is the sort of problem I ran into the first time (MOS:BOLD).
- I think we should make an exception here because the bolding practice comes from the cup articles when a team advances in the bracket; we bold the team to indicate which team advanced. In addition, there are several other instances where we bold text, like when bolding the honors in club articles. --MicroX (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For that year when Olimpia won both tournaments, wouldn't it make more sense for Olimpia to appear under the "winners" column only and the rest be spanned by "N/A"? After all, there was no score, opposing team, or opposing country that edition. --MicroX (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and changed it. Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- "Despite the fact that Sao Paulo also won the two qualifying competitions". A less wordy version of this would be "Although Sao Paulo also won the two qualifying competitions".
- You're right. I fixed it.
- "Argentine clubs are the most successful of the tournament". "of" → "in"?
- Done.
- Has the point system changed over time? I ask because I notice that Nacional apparently won 3–1 in the first competition with a win and a draw. Or is the figure given incorrect?
- It is accurate; back then, a team received two points for a win, not three like today.
- Agree with the comment above about the non-free logo not being a necessity here.
- It is not a requirement, true, but it is an added touch that "helps the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey". Call it a bonus for being specific.
- What makes Soccerway (reference 2) a reliable source? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right again. I replaced that link with a more trusted source. Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
- RE: The previous table format I suggested:
- I'm concerned about the unneccesary use of headers constantly switching between "Home team" and "Winner". By using an (a) and (h) [and (n), if neccessary] you can make seperate two legged matches with <br/> and then everything can fit under a Winner column. In my opinion this is a massive simplification and advantage. This would also give the option to add sortability (but I'm not too worried about that).
- Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 14:19, 7 July 2010 [5].
- Nominator(s): sk8er5000 yeah? 02:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second nomination I have made for this article, after this earier nomination failed. I have fixed the objections raised here, and think the list is now suitable as a FL. Regards -- sk8er5000 yeah? 02:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Going back to the last nomination, I have to concur with Reywas92 that I think doing individual years is oversplitting it a bit. You say that this list is large enough and whilst this is true that is only because the table is unnecessarily large and the referencing could be reduced. For example, references 2 and 4-54 could all be replaced by this one reference which WP:CHARTS seems to favour as a source. Personally, I think following a decade system like this is preferable. Citing other FLs is not helpful and I think this needs meaningful discussion. One other point, why has the list changed names (I've added the old nom to the toolbox for you). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn by nom (I'm not sure how to do this). Will look at above suggestion before renominating. -- sk8er5000 yeah? 11:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 15:57, 6 July 2010 [6].
- Nominator(s): Yarnalgo talk to me 19:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... it is a complete list of all the inductees and I believe it meets the criteria. Yarnalgo talk to me 19:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a list of notable people shd not be a collection of redlinks. Sandman888 (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the use of a non-free image which doesn't seem to meet criteria 8:
- "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I hardly see that fulfilled.
- Your right, removed. --Yarnalgo talk to me 18:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead cd go into greater detail on the selection proces.
- Done. I've tried to add more to the lead. --Yarnalgo talk to me 18:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could not this be merged with Lacrosse Museum and National Hall of Fame ?
- Per WP:SALAT, a list of people who are all notable themselves is an appropriate topic for a stand-alone list. --Yarnalgo talk to me 18:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The selection proces, it's not great prose but too list-like. Cd you do something? Sandman888 (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Nomination and induction process: "and return ballot to the Nomination Committees." Missing "the" after "return"?
- Done. --Yarnalgo talk to me 18:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the table headings, de-capitalize Affiliation in both.
- Done. --Yarnalgo talk to me 18:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a lot of red links among the inductees. There is a "minimal proportion" of redlinks requirement in the FL criteria. I'm not a big fan of that criterion personally, but have my doubts as to whether the list meets it at the moment. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what can be easily done about this (besides creating a couple hundred articles right now) because they should all be linked because they have all "received a well-known and significant award or honor" which makes them all notable per WP:ANYBIO. I actually was planning on creating the articles for each member after this nomination is over. --Yarnalgo talk to me 18:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now. Aside from Giants' concern, I don't like the sorting currently. Use template:sortname to make it so there written out normally, yet can be sorted alphabetically. I'll do a full review upon completion of that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.