Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2014
- Nominator(s): Caponer (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I am nominating this list because it has been written and formatted according to the precedent set by previous featured lists of American colleges and universities: List of colleges and universities in Michigan, List of colleges and universities in Minnesota, List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, List of colleges and universities in South Dakota, etc. etc. Please review and provide guidance so that I may improve this article to FL status! -- Caponer (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2014 (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- Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close.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. - SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Caponer (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I am nominating this list because it gives an exhaustive listing of former plantations once operational in the present-day U.S. state of West Virginia, and provides a comprehensive introduction. The list also features images of the majority of the plantations accounted for. I am also nominating this list because I feel it meets most FL criteria and can easily be improved to meet the criteria not already achieved. -- Caponer (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- This list has also been approved for Did you know. The DYK review is available here. -- Caponer (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Quick Comments - I didn't read the text yet, just skimmed for obvious problems
- Lists shouldn't start with "this is a list of" any more than articles start with "this article is about"
- Modified to conform with this suggestion. -- Caponer (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- You can't use just color to differentiate things in a table- use dagger symbols or the like as well
- Would it actually make more sense to remove the NRHP reference number column altogether, and just include the symbols in the name column? -- Caponer (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you think the number is useful to have in the table, then just do symbols - like "03000346†" for NHL, and "03000346‡" for NRHP. If you don't think the numbers are useful, just stick the symbols after the name and drop the column entirely. Your call. --PresN 04:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'd like to keep it, so I've added the symbols to each row. -- Caponer (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Your table isn't sorting names that start with "the" correctly- see the {{sort}} template for a way to fix it
- Fixed! -- Caponer (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- The notes column is completely empty- why is it there?
- Removed. I had originally thought to place facts about each property in that column, but could not decide upon consistent content for each. -- Caponer (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- You don't need access dates on real book souces- unlike websites, they don't change
- Removed the access dates. -- Caponer (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- --PresN 03:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- PresN, have I properly addressed all your above concerns? -- Caponer (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Another quality, interesting article from Caponer, I see. :) One (easily remedied) concern I noticed is your long sentences, which could be split or at least injected with a semicolon to ease readability. I've included a few of these below, along with a few other minor issues:
- Plantations initially developed in the counties lying within the Northern Neck Proprietary of Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron within the Shenandoah Valley and South Branch Potomac River valleys, carrying over the practice of slavery from the plantations of the Piedmont and Tidewater regions of Virginia, where plantations had become the foundation of society and industry -- can this be split at all? It's a bit long and consequently confusing.
- I've split the sentence to read as follows: "Plantations initially developed in the counties lying within the Northern Neck Proprietary of Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron within the Shenandoah Valley and South Branch Potomac River valleys. These plantations carried over the practice of slavery from the plantations of the Piedmont and Tidewater regions of Virginia, where plantations had become the foundation of society and industry." Thanks for the catch! -- Caponer (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- The Washington family sentence is also long; it could do with another comma at least.
- I've split this sentence up as well, thus moving the listing of plantations to its own sentence. -- Caponer (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- You mention the American Civil War in the paragraph after the discussion of secession and statehood. This seems odd, especially for readers unfamiliar with the war or its dates. I recommend making this a bit more chronological.
- The article is written in chronological order, but the link to ACW should definitely be moved up in the text, so I've moved the full link to the section discussing the Reorganized Government of Virginia. Good catch! -- Caponer (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- You end the lead a bit abruptly with the ending of slavery. Could you add some more information on what became of some of the houses? Something like, "Since then, many of the plantation houses have acquired places on the National Register of Historic Places, an official list that includes sites, buildings, and structures deemed worthy of preservation..."? Also, who owns these houses? (are they largely privately owned still, or does the government have ownership now)? I realize some of this information might be difficult to find. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 15:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ruby, thank you for suggestion an extension to the lead as it was quite abrupt. I've added a modified version of your suggested sentence, and have also added a sentence about many of the houses serving as private residences. I'm not sure what citation would go here, as this information is gleaned from the NRHP registration forms and the sources listed at the bottom of the page in the bibliography. Few, if any, are owned by a government entity, with the exception of the mansion at Blennerhassett Island Historical State Park, which was rebuilt by the state of West Virginia. Ruby, as always, thank you so entirely much for taking the time to review this list and to provide your incredibly valued guidance! It's always a pleasure working with you on Wikipedia! -- Caponer (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the speedy reply. Your changes look great, though I did make one small one and move the NRHP content to the end of the lead -- this just seems to fit better there (especially as you bring it all the way up to 2014). Also, it looked weird in the opening paragraph due to the lack of a transitioning sentence. I am happy to now support this list for promotion. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 00:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ruby2010, thank you for your thoughtful suggestions and support! Should you have any additional suggestions in the meantime, please let me know and I'll incorporate them into the article ASAP. -- Caponer (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ruby2010, thanks again! Did I address all your above concerns properly? -- Caponer (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, you did. The list looks great! Ruby 2010/2013 02:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
| Comments by Cirt (addressed) — Cirt (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
— Cirt (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
|
- Support. I can now most comfortably Support this list page for Featured quality. My thanks to Caponer for responding so well to my recommendations. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2014 (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. - SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Vjmlhds 22:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because... This list meets all qualifications for WP:FL status. It is well referenced, makes solid use of images, is concise, and is pretty much to the point of what it represents. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Strong oppose: and suggesting a quick fail. This article strongly fails Wikipedia:Featured list criteria #6 which states: "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." - this article is constantly involved in edit wars, even making the news over being one of the biggest topics to spark edit wars on Wikipedia. Also changes day to day due to the obsession some editors have over listing wrestlers as "inactive" or not. Gloss • talk 22:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose, and suggest nominator withdraw. The instability in the edit history is very concerning. In addition, the lead is poorly referenced, and many of the references for the body are incomplete and/or poorly formatted - bare urls, incorrect capitalization, unreliable sources, etc. Dana boomer (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- The nominator has withdrawn here. Gloss • talk 17:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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 SchroCat 10:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC) [2].
- Nominator(s): Samjohnzon (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. The list contains table-sorting facilities and is very easy to navigate, contains images and is a stable article. Samjohnzon (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comments
- Her debut single "American Girl" was released in 2013—but the table lists "Trouble" and "Somebody" from Trouble (2004) as singles?
- You don't need the refs in the lead and the photo-captions for stuff that is referenced in the table. Remove them.
- She was named Rolling Stone's "Best Secret Weapon" in 2011—this sentence makes it seem like an official, major honour ("she won for Best Album at the Grammys), when it's likely just an off-the-cuff remark.
- McKee is perhaps best known for collaborating with fellow singer-songwriter Katy Perry—the cite at the end doesn't seem to back this up. I also think it's a bit much to call Perry a "singer-songwriter"; it makes it seem that she is in the mould of McKee.
- "Thanks For Nothing" → "Thanks for Nothing". Audit for similar throughout per the rules of MOS:CT.
- Decapitalise the all-caps titles in the references per MOS:CT. The "(Legal work)" is also unnecessary.
- I urge you to use WebCite or something to create a backup of your BMI refs, just in case they change their URLs suddenly (it's happened in the past with several industry websites).
- Some of the refs are missing publisher name; some are wrongly name "BMI | Repertoire Search". Please audit all your references for errors.
- Not a fan of the separate table for the chart toppers; mostly a redundancy. Instead I suggest two things, choose either: a) list UK and US chart positions for all the songs in the main table or b) create a hat-note or symbol for the chart-toppers (separate ones for UK and US).
- Those three notes right at the bottom need a better home, and also should be alphabetised instead of numbered to prevent confusing with the ref nos. I suggest doing what I did at List of current Indian chief ministers (see below the main table).
- In the "Contents" you should remove the alphabets with no entries; "0-9" and "N", for eg.
- The "Indicates songs written solely by McKee" symbol is unnecessary IMO. That she wrote it solely is self-evident from seeing her name alone. Also it seems to only apply to her Trouble songs.
- "Indicates promotional single release" should be replaced by a hatnote since it's a single occurrence.
Lots of niggling problems, but no biggies as far I can see. Once these are resolved I look forward to supporting.—(locked-out) User:Indopug 122.172.11.178 (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Done Should have fixed all of these problems now, thanks for the feedback. Samjohnzon (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I'll take another look in detail and give my support after the weekend. Indopug 122.172.46.163 (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry I forgot about this. One last thing: you haven't added a source that verifies the songs that topped the charts.—indopug (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Support once the above comment is taken care of.—indopug (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is quite well referenced throughout, and also has great tabular presentation and formatting that looks high quality to me as compared with previous Featured Lists. One small issue with this particular one: the notes at the end of the list, the four last notes at the end of the subsection Songs, should be contained in their own separate subsection called Footnotes. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Comments
- No need for that bold start in the lead, certainly no reason to have bold links.
- Image captions which are not complete sentences do not need to take a full stop.
- No need to repeat McKee three times in the first three sentences.
- "McKee is well known for co-writing" this sounds like an opinion without a reference.
- ""Dynamite" became the second-best-selling song by a British artist in the digital era." is this claim referenced?
- Notes are typically referenced if they make claims which aren't referenced elsewhere.
- Check ref titles for WP:DASH compliance.
- Avoid SHOUTING in ref titles.
- Check refs have publisher information, e.g. check ref 37 for instance.
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've taken care of these with the exception of:
- ""Dynamite" became the second-best-selling song by a British artist in the digital era." is this claim referenced?
- Notes are typically referenced if they make claims which aren't referenced elsewhere.
- Check ref titles for WP:DASH compliance.
- Check refs have publisher information, e.g. check ref 37 for instance.
- I'll leave these for the nominator who likely has more knowledge of the subject than I do. Gloss • talk 21:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Comments
- I'd lead in with the 50+ credits and move the number of number ones to later one (probably just a straight switch). You want to define your scope clearly from the outset and then move on to more specific information; as is the opening sentence sets up expectations of a very brief list.
- I'm not convinced the table needs indicators for number one singles; this can easily be set up either in the lead, in referenced captions along the side (for example, the Katy Perry one could be expanded with a list of which five, followed by a ref; this would also fill up a little more white space). As we have it, it just seems odd to focus so up-front on only two markets.
- Where has this woman been all my life?
- Consider alt text for your images to better comply with WP:ACCESS.
- "Eight of these have topped either the British or the American charts" -> I'd explicitly mention and link the UK Singles Chart and Billboard Hot 100 here
- "In 2012, McKee co-wrote three songs on Adam Lambert's album Trespassing and two songs for Ke$ha's album Warrior, "C'Mon" and "Supernatural", the former of which served as the second single from the record." -> Overly long. Best bet might be to name the Lambert songs, end sentence, start a new one for the Kesha songs.
- ""Dynamite" became the second-best-selling song by a British artist in the digital era." -> Big claim, needs a ref. Might also be worth clarifying what the "digital era" is (given that compact discs are digital media, is this from the mid-80s on, or is this from the advent of downloads in chart figures, or somewhere in between?)
- There are songs in the table with no artist or album, which I assume are just owned by a label until they're assigned to an artist; it might be worth clarifying this situation in the lead (it'd be more valuable as information than, say, what song was a single from which album).
- There's a few instances of refs preceded by an unnecessary space.
- I've never seen the point of alphabetical anchors in a sortable table, but that's just aesthetic on my part really.
- Not sure it's optimal to have "N/A" sort in the midst of real entries; would it combine with {{sort}} to be shunted off to the end? If not, don't worry about it.
- If "BMI" is Broadcast Music, Inc., pipe it.
- Remember that the lead and table are due to date soon; information on the new album should be incorporated as soon as it can be reliably sourced.
- Comment I also question whether it is really necessary at all to indicate which songs were number ones in the US and the UK. Why just those two nations? For example, "Let There Be Love" apparently topped the US Hot Dance Club Songs chart, and "Ooh La La" was number one in South Korea. Wouldn't that make them "number-one singles"? That's just my initial thought about this list, I'll give a fuller review when I have the time. Overall, it seems to look pretty good. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - the claim about "Dynamite" by Taio Cruz seems to be based on this source. Although it doesn't specifically say, I think these figures relate to America only, not the whole world, so that should be made clear. Also it seems to relate to "the Nielsen SoundScan era", which is probably not exactly the same thing as "the digital era", whatever that is...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - This nomination is pushing two months old. Please deal with the comments as soon as possible, or the nomination may be archived. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. – SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- Nominator(s): ViperSnake151 Talk 18:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a particularly notable subject; in line with the NC-17, its interesting to see that relatively few "mainstream" games have ever dared to receive an AO rating, and I bet you most people don't even realize there's something higher than M! I did a lot of cleanup lately, adding some more backstories, filling out references, adding a lead, etc. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Quick comments by Mattximus (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not too impressed with the list itself. The note section only has a few notes, most have a dash, one is blank. Maybe a year column would benefit? What is the difference between "PC", "Windows", and "Windows PC"; all three are under that one column. You have a cancelled game, a game that was re-rated, there seems to be no real criteria for inclusion here. I'm confused.
- These are all video games that were rated AO by the ESRB; how can the criteria for inclusion be any clearer? And I fixed up those formatting issues. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Comments
- I'd mention when the ESRB started, probably at the end of the first paragraph.
- Might also be worth mentioning its equivalents in other countries, or that it's like NC-17, if you can find sources.
- "was given the AO rating for its violent content, so much so that when its publisher" - 'so much so' what? It was rated so much? Sentence needs reworking.
- Since the platform column is sortable, every instance of each term should be linked.
- I'd add a release date (or at least release year) column, as well as a developer column.
- You seem to have notes only on the non-sexual games- any way to get notes for the others, or would they all just be "digital nudity and explicit sex"?
- The Joy of Sex should sort under J, not T.
- If you add notes to the other games, you can drop the sorting on the notes column, since the result is arbitrary.
--PresN 05:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I fixed up the Thrill Kill mention, but I can't seem to find release years for those remaining AO games that are otherwise unremarkable and lacking notes (aside from Lula 3D; which I also got a chance to add to List of video games notable for negative reception as well). This table is sourced directly from the ESRB pages, which don't distinctly list developers or release years. ViperSnake151 Talk 06:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Comments from Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past...:
- Tables need to comply with MOS:DTT and utilize column and row scopes.
- Do we have any more info about the games? Usually lists of video games include title, developer, publisher, and year. I'm not pushy about needing a developer column since we have the publisher list, but I think a column with year of release would be helpful and necessary to make this a complete list. I can see PresN noted this, but I would say it's necessary to meet criteria 3a of WP:WIAFL. You may want to try using IGN or Allgame to fill in some of the information on some of these games.
- Instead of having a ref next to the game title, it might be better to place it in a separate column since there are individual references for each title here and not one overarching reference. See List of Sega 32X games for a suggestion on how this might be accomplished, and would neaten up the title field.
- Though not necessary, you may want to place {{portal}} in the See also section to add a link to the Video games Portal, which may be helpful for readers.
- There's an extra ] next to the word Windows in the last paragraph of the lead.
Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 22:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Reiterating the need for release dates, or at least release years, especially for the blacklinked items. If the only source used does not contain them then it is not an adequate source for an FL, we'll need more. --Golbez (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - no response from nominator or edits to article for a month regarding adding developer or release date to table; that you would have to find another source beyond the ESRB for those is not a valid excuse. --PresN 19:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is certainly useful, but valid concerns have indeed been raised above. I think the refs from the Title column should be moved instead to the Notes column, for uniformity with other FL quality list pages I've come across. Also, I've left a helpful reminder note about this ongoing discussion page at user talk for ViperSnake151. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose I have to agree with Red Phoenix here about 3a. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)