Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/December 2017

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The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC) [1].

---

Athletic Bilbao in European football

Nominator(s): Crowsus (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is a high-quality article. There are many citations for the information and many different aspects to the statistics presented, and I feel the format is easy to interpret, follows normal conventions and is pleasing on the eye. The prose is informative but fairly succinct, with a lot of scope to add further referenced detail from individual seasons if deemed necessary.

On a personal level I enjoyed creating this article, as this is my favourite team and this type of information was totally lacking from Wikipedia despite it being a fairly high-profile club. Therefore I had to source virtually all the information myself (luckily, aided by a few high-quality reliable online data sources as well as many relevant news articles). I welcome all constructive criticism which would help me improve this article and the many others I have created or contributed significantly to since joining the project in 2016; I am proud of the work I have contributed but am aware it can be even better with the guidance of experienced reviewers. Crowsus (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The immediate thing that jumps out is that the article definitely needs more than a 2-sentence lead..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Should I deal with that (and anything else) now, or wait for a certain time and try to fix lots at once? Not sure on the correct order. Thanks Crowsus (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• Agree with ChrisTheDude lead should be longer.
• There should be more refs to multiple paragraphs. The first paragraph (The Magyars and the Babes) – zero refs in 1st paragraph, only 2 in the 2nd (& at the very end).
• Under "most appearances" and "top goalscorers", use En dashes per MOS:DASH
• All tables need scope cols and rows per MOS:ACCESS (or see MOS:DTAB)
• "managerial statistics" table:
  • Refs need own column
  • Table should be sortable
  • Present doesn't need to be italicized
• "UEFA annual ranking" table:
  • Center the whole table
  • Unsort ref column
• "Results by season" table:
  • Refs should have own column.
  • The whole table could be sortable
  • Center "Round" column

These are some things I noticed that should hopefully give you a good start. Happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, thanks for comments and advice. I think I have addressed most of it (the tables definitely look better with a ref column) apart from the All tables need scope cols and rows per MOS:ACCESS (or see MOS:DTAB), I really don't know where to start with that or how much work it would involve, obviously I have looked at the guidance pages but it confused me more, very technical. I have been working on trial and error methods when creating tables and don't use any editing aids etc, not sure how common that is. I have just about managed to get the ones in this article to a reasonable level, not sure I can bear completely reorganising columns and stuff so if it's complex or a massive job then it might be a dealbreaker if it's a must for FA status. But maybe it's more straightforward than that? Crowsus (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Crowsus The coding in MOS:DTAB basically shows the more traditional way of making tables, putting everything in one line. I personally hate this method and prefer every column have their own line. Basically, what it says is you put ! scope="col" under every column before you start the table. In terms of scope rows, you usually put these under items in columns that are most specific to that specific row. For example, for the "managerial statistics" table, you would put ! scope="row" before every name in every row. I use a find and replace tool in Google Chrome to make things easier so I don't have to do it manually. Making scope rows will cause the items in the box to be bolded and centered. If you don't want this, put "plainrowheaders" after "wikitable sortable". Also, some people don't want the scoped columns shaded so you use a "|" and not a "!". If you want I can do a table for you to show how it's done. Hope this helped. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Another comment, I think the player records should be in tables as well. Having them not in tables looks weird to me. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again, and I'll give it a try but might get back to you pleading if it's a complete failure/bafflement. And will also definitely do the players in tables, as you can tell I'm not not a big fan of using them but once it goes beyond a few names with bullet points it starts to look daft, as you have pointed out. Should have sorted that before any of this FL stuff as that was obviously something that would need addressed if it was going to be beyond me and a couple of other fans of the club looking at the article. Crowsus (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It might have been a good idea to bring it to peer review first but it's no big deal. Like I said, if you want me to do one table as an example or every table for you it's no big deal because I totally don't mind. If you have any comments or questions just ask. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@BeatlesLedTV I've attempted to do the scope rows and columns, not a disaster but some look better than others and some have probably been added better than others! Could you take a look at some point? Crowsus (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Additional annoyance: Sorry, do you think I should add more scorers to make it up to 10? It does look a bit lopsided alongside the appearances, but from what I remember it'd be getting down to four goals or something, hardly a spectacular total. Crowsus (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Crowsus You did great. There were a couple minor things I fixed myself like ref cols are unsorted. I also moved a couple scope rows from the number col to the name col. And I agree, I would increase it to 10. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments, leaning towards oppose – You've put together a good account of Athletic's European history, but at present this is nowhere near featured standard if I'm judging solely on the criteria. The way you have arranged the prose makes me question why it couldn't just be an article. A wise thing to do would be taking a look at similar FLs, like Malmö FF in European football or Rosenborg BK in European football. These encompass the achievements of both clubs adequately. Some other things to ponder:

• What do and signify in the overall stats table?
• BDFUTBOL.com → BDFutbol
• I just had a quick scan at the referencing and found missing info on ref 8, needs author's name.
• As BeatlesLad points out scope cols and rows are needed, per MOS:DTT. For instance they are missing on most appearances. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and for the comments. I have attempted to address the small ones, although I think the scope rows have all been done? I just didn't make it all bold as in thought it looked better without. But maybe I haven't done it fully, not something I've had to include before.

I realise this is ideal just me showing my naivety and ignorance, but I infer that the prose I have added is too much for a good list? I mean, it would be pointless to have an article on the subject without the statistics, can't both aspects be accommodated here but it still be thought of as a list? All I really have is a short section about the unusual events of one season which are just paraphrased from the sources cited, with the rest just the pertinent stats expressed in sentences for a bit of context. It seems to be caught between the two categories; if I tried to present it to as a good article, I think reviewers would instantly say it's a list with text. Seems confusing, I suppose that's what happens when I invite others to look at my stuff, they are (justifiably) going to tell me it's wonky. Crowsus (talk)

@Crowsus: added prose is fine, my concern is more to do with structuring, style and from the briefest of glimpses, sourcing. If you have a look at the featured lists I'm comparing this to, you will get an idea of what needs to be done for it to meet the criteria. At present it's a long way off because the structure is all over the place and I'm finding it a bit difficult to navigate. I think European records and statistics are fine, but could it not be accommodated into List of Athletic Bilbao records and statistics? Other things to consider: per WP:LEAD, citations are not required in the intro unless they are quotes because the lead serves as a summary. The lead should also be engaging and sufficiently summarises the list; as it stands it's not ticking the boxes for me. Again have a look at Malmö FF or Rosenborg's pages, or even FC Porto in international football competitions to get some ideas on how to beef up the lead. I'm not saying you need to organise the lists as per, but it should be logical. Unfortunately I'm not involved in reviewing lists and articles as much as I'd like to these days, I go through bouts and any time I have is spent on content editing, so I apologise for not providing you with clear-cut feedback. I think this could easily meet FL standard within a week, but it needs another pair of eyes to look over the text, for you and someone else to check the sourcing. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Wee update, haven't been able to do much to this but thank you for further input, I'm going to go down the route of adding more prose in a chronological fashion in the hope of applying for GA status in the future. That would mean it had a better flow (I agree its disjointed) and I could just do the records as bullet points rather than trying to boost the text by forcing them into paragraphs which don't relate to adjacent ones very well. I like the style of the Porto article and its split tables for each decade so I might well go for that (if peers also like it), although Porto have a much more successfull and consistent history than Athletic so there's more to go in! I think I have a good start with the Magyars section, will just have to make sure I don't over-elaborate on recent seasons which are more familar to me. Don't know if I need to withdraw formally from this process but as stated above I'm going to go for GA in the future rather than push for FL. Please be assured that advice given was valued and has been taken on board so I hope nobody feels that their time has been wasted looking at a substandard candidate. Cheers. Crowsus (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [2].

---

List of best-performing Latin songs in the United States

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

With my current nomination List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States having multiple supports and a source review done, I am now nominating this article for FL. My last article focused on the best-selling Latin albums in the US, this time we're looking at the best-performing Latin songs in the US according to Billboard. The structure of the list is similar to my current nomination with the only major difference being is that the certifications were removed. I initially placed the certifications on the list, but after realizing this article is not a best-selling list, I removed them. I look forward to your feedback and addressing any issues that come up. Thank you very much. Erick (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments - I'm confused by this. Is this list dynamic, i.e. if a 2017 song now gets a long stay at number one it will at some point enter the chart and then rise up it? What's the difference between the list published by Billboard since October 1986 and the list they published on their 30th anniversary? Are the lists since 1986 just relevant to one week? Am I right assuming this current list is the current view of the list they started to publish on their 30th anniversary? Sorry... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• Some of the songs are not in quotes
• Table needs sorting fixes with definite articles
• Center the year col
• "As of October 2016" – that was 14 months ago shouldn't it be updated?
• "No. 1" → "number one" (You say "number one" later in the lead)
• 70 → seventy
• 41 → forty-one
• 20 → twenty
• I don't think "Disco de platino" goes in italics (my claim is verified by the link)
• "The tracks spent 123 weeks" → "the track"; you're talking about one song

That's all I got so far. Might be more to come. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Echoing some of the confusion above, this list seems to be based on a "snapshot" list published by Billboard in 2016 and is thus effectively "List of best-performing Latin songs in the United States between 1986 and 2016". TBH I am not sure how much use this even is as an article....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:, @The Rambling Man:, @BeatlesLedTV:: Right so the article was created because there isn't an actual list of best-selling Latin songs in the US published by Billboard yet like there was for the Latin albums. After reading the above comments, I'm considering withdrawing this nomination and merging this list with the best-selling Latin songs article. I can wait until Billboard shows a list of best-selling Latin songs according to Nielsen SoundScan as I am in no rush. The last time Billboard updated the best-performing Latin songs list was in 2011 and that was to commemorate its 25th anniversary. I'd like to hear what your thoughts before I do anything else. Thanks for the comments everyone. :) Erick (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm still a little unclear as to what this list represents, so until that could be explained very clearly in the lead, I'm not sure it's a starter. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The list represents best-performing Latin songs based on airply, sales, and streaming. I guessed I should've mentioned that, but it's alright. I'm withdrawing the nomination as per the comments above. I apologize for the confusions and am looking forward to having another article FLC instead. Thanks everyone. Erick (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely no need to apologise. I tend to caveat my confusion with the ownership of a four-year-old and an 18-month-old, both of whom are intent on destroying any chance of sleep etc, so things that I used to read and understand, I now simply stare at in some kind of odd bewilderment. I'll action the withdrawal. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC) [3].

---

List of New England Patriots starting quarterbacks

Nominator(s): Sportsguy17 (T • C) 21:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I worked quite hard to get this one to where it needs to be in terms of style, content, and comprehensiveness. The goal was to get it comparable to List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks, which I believe is the only FL of the kind. The statistics are relatively stable on there except for those of active quarterbacks, which change once a week during football season. Beyond that it is very stable. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 21:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments – History: I might be mistaken on this, but I believe the style of #1 is discouraged by the Manual of Style. Using "number one" would be better from a style standpoint.  Done "which put Bledsoe out for the rest of the season." Which season is this? I know, but non-football fans likely won't.  Done Might want to include a cite for Deflategate, as I don't see that being covered by the current refs.  Done A second Steve Grogan link in this section isn't really needed.  Done Why does the table have the most recent year first? In the vast majority of FLs (including the Vikings quarterbacks list), the first year is presented first, and the most recent year comes last.  Done Sortability doesn't work well with column or row span functions, which are in the team name headers. If you try sorting the quarterback column, you'll see the headings appear unhelpfully in the middle of the table. Either remove the sorting or the headers.  Done If you are going to have sorting, it should be done by last name, not first name. Sort templates are helpful with this; try looking at other FLs to get an idea of the formatting involved.  Done References 2 and 21 appear to be to the same page and can be combined.  Done Giants2008 (Talk) 21:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC) @Giants2008: I've taken care of some of the easier stuff. I'll get to the MoS and sortable stuff tomorrow. Thank you for the feedback! Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC) @Giants2008: All suggestions made are  Done! Thanks again for the feedback. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Why is the reference column labeled Stats?  Done - It isn't as far as I'm concerned. I see a "Specific" and "General" label for references, but that's not atypical for sports lists. Sorry for not explaining myself, but I meant the main starting quarterbacks table. The reference column in the table is labeled "Stats". Giants2008 (Talk) 22:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)  Done Per the Manual of Style, bolding shouldn't be used for emphasis, which is done in the main table (for AFL seasons) and the stat table. Italics are allowed, so you could try that option if you want the current quarterbacks highlighted.  Done The main starting quarterbacks table still has bolding in the year column for AFL seasons. You should remove that as well. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)  Done @Giants2008: Apologies for missing/misunderstanding those final two suggestions, but I think I was able to resolve both. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 23:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support – All of my concerns have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments "As of the 2016 season, " aren't we now into the 2017 season?  Done "of the season .. of the season" repetitive.  Done "season game for four straight seasons" seasons seasons...  Done You link the 1975 season, but not the preceding ones?  Done And you use an easter egg link, I'd prefer to see something like "1975 season" used instead of the plain year.  Done " the current quarterback" see WP:ASOF.  Done One table is sortable, the other is not.  Done Do not allow refs to be sortable.  Done Years in the stats table should really link to the Patriot seasons.  Done You use Lng in the key twice.  Done Make dates in references consistently formatted.  Done The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ensure all tables meet MOS:ACCESS.

•  Doing...

• @The Rambling Man: I am having an issue figuring out how to reconfigure the big table with all the statistics so that it is accessible. Any ideas on how to work it? I'm none too familiar with tables and how to make them accessible. Thanks, Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've done the col scopes, and one row, you can do the rest. Don't forget to do ACCESS on all tables, including the key. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• For those not familiar with American football, the lead is a bit confusing; it says they play in the American Football Conference, but then it says that they joined the National Football League. It isn't mentioned that the AFC is part of the NFL.
• The bit in brackets about Foxboro Stadium being demolished and turned into a parking lot is completely unnecessary for this list.
• What exactly is a starting quarterback? I can't see that the article ever tells me?
  • Sorry, I've just seen that this is in a note. Given how important it is to the article, I think this needs to be made clear in the main body of the article.
• "the team finished with an 11–5 record" – this notation needs explanation, it isn't common in Europe.
• Use the accessible {{dagger}} to create † rather than †. Harrias ^talk 21:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Explain what the numbers in brackets mean in the Postseason table.
• Jargon: what are Passing touchdowns, Interceptions thrown, Quarterback rating, Rushes, Rushing touchdowns?
• Screen-readers don't always inform the user of italics and bold text, so if you are using these to show something (such as active players in a table, it needs another accessible label.
• The accessdate for Tom Brady's stats is March 8, 2015, but presumably they have been updated more recently than that? Harrias ^talk 21:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Director note – The nominator hasn't edited in a couple of weeks, and there is a stack of unresolved comments by TRM and Harrias. If we don't see some activity soon, this FLC will need to be archived as unsuccessful (preferably by a delegate since I supported the list before the more recent comments) Giants2008 (Talk) 16:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the wait, I will get to it as soon as I can, I'm a bit bogged down IRL at the moment. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
    • @Giants2008: Unfortunately, with it being final exams season, I just do not have the time of day to make all the above changes in a reasonable amount of time, so it is perfectly fine to archive/close this if that is what's best. I'll try to get to some of the suggested revisions once I'm through exams, but for now, I just am unable to manage it all. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 21:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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