Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/January 2008
- 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 00:02, 30 January 2008.
I've been working to improve this list and I think it meets featured list criteria so I'm nominating it. --ImmortalGoddezz 19:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Although it looks like it meets criteria comments would be appreciated in regards to the redlinks (keep them or unlink them?), placement of the photos (I'm not sure it could be any better but please leave suggestions), and the very few blank attendance years for some of the alumni (leave them blank, fill in with "unknown", or something else?). Any other comments would be greatly appreciated as well. Thanks. --ImmortalGoddezz 20:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Having all the tables the same width and having the comparable columns in all the tables the same width would make the article look much better. Right now, it has a lumpy appearance. Hmains (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I think I've figured out how to fix that while still using the Alum template.
I will do that tonight after I get back from classes.Thanks for the comment! --ImmortalGoddezz 15:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)- All the columns should be the same size now.
Done --ImmortalGoddezz 15:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- All the columns should be the same size now.
- Oppose - The list looks pretty nice, but I have some concerns:
- - The article mentions The Drexel 100 but does not list all it's menbers. Presumably these members are the most notable graduates of Drexel.
- - The very recent grads Tom Fulp and John Gruber don't seem to be very notable.
- -- Austin Murphy (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies for the late reply I've had unexpected internet problems at home
- The Drexel 100 includes the most notable graduates as of it's creation (1991) and subsequent initiation dates who are living. The list isn't retroactive so it doesn't include a lot of people. I realize I didn't clarify that in the article, I will do so today. As far as not including all of the Drexel 100: Drexel's ideas of notability are different than wikipedia's notability guidelines, most of the people on the list would be NN and never have their own article. A lot of the Drexel 100 initiates are people who have coincidently donated a considerable amount money to the university. (ex. Robert R. Buckley (Buckley Field), Richard A. Greenawalt (Greenawalt Student Development Center), Antoinette Westphal (Antoinette Westphal College of Media Arts and Design), John A. Daskalakis (Daskalakis Athletic Center), Albert Handschumacher (Handschumacher Dining Center), Samuel J. Korman (Korman Center), etc. ) However I will work on adding the Drexel 100 to this list.
- OK. It *would* be interesting to know who the buildings were named after though. Of course the list is a bunch of people who could potentially give a bucket load of money to Drexel or at least some academic street cred. That probably makes them at least a little bit notable. Maybe they don't need links to their names, but just a little description about how they got their name on a building.
- I will take Fulp out, I didn't realize it was a redirect. As far as Gruber he does currently have an article which presumably means he's notable at this point, if his article ever goes to AfD then I won't object to taking him out. My concerns about notability would lay with Ray Sahelian before anybody else.
- --ImmortalGoddezz 16:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies for the late reply I've had unexpected internet problems at home
- I fiddled with the photos a bit. I think the result is a better flow along the right side. More photos would be better of course, but I'm sure you tried to find them too.
- I'm against red-links, but that's just my opinion.
- If the class year box is blank, a note somewhere should explain why. For example, "attended 1994-95, did not graduate" or "unknown"
- -- Austin Murphy (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It's a good list, but I think some of the red-links should be filled out, with stub articles at least. Geraldk (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 23:51, 21 January 2008.
Can I withdraw my nomination? It was a mistake. Thank you! doxTxob \ talk 20:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The list of counties is the result of a merger of List of Tennessee county name etymologies and List of Tennessee county seats into the List of counties in Tennessee, done for the most part by User:Dan9186 with some polishing by other members of the WikiProject Tennessee.
The list is accompanied by a lead section delivering a definition of the topic and explaining the key terms used in the list to the casual reader. Consolidated City-County government is explained to the and important figures are mentioned. An image is present in the lead section to represent the topic very well. Etymology topics point to the appropriate article, if available. If the county was named after a person the date of birth and death are given, when this could be retrieved from an article in Wikipedia. The list is well referenced.
The list provides a comprehensive overview of Tennessee counties with well referenced information.
I hope that this featured list discussion can improve the list even further.
Thank you! doxTxob \ talk 03:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
PS - After the nomination a concern was raised on the talk page of the list (Talk:List of counties in Tennessee) that the term Indian lands was used but was not explained. I have addressed that issue by adding a few sentences of definition to the lead section under its own header. As the topic of Indian lands is a complex one, I kept the definition rather general, which I find appropriate regarding the scope of the list. The detailed discussion of the process could be better addressed in the respective county articles. doxTxob \ talk 23:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support with two comments: 1) Just to be sure, were there any defunct counties of Tennessee? and 2) It would be nice to have a clickable image map like on List of counties in Kentucky but I won't push that issue. --Golbez (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- 1) Yes there were two I could find on the List_of_former_United_States_counties#Tennessee, I have added that paragraph in the lead section with its own sub header. 2) The issue was discussed on Talk:List_of_counties_in_Tennessee#Clickable_Map. The main concern was the image size and the page layout at lower resolutions (a horizontal scroll is produced), partly due to the shape of the state. The question of usefulness was raised also, as every county already has a map showing its location in the state. The outcome of the discussion was rather opposition than support. doxTxob \ talk 22:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- comment 'Named for' column should not be sortable. No purpose. Hmains (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done You are right. doxTxob \ talk 00:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Why is there width="100%" in the main table? What is the purpose? I am asking because it creates a horizontal scrollbar for me.--Crzycheetah 03:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done Thanks for the hint. It added a non moving horizontal scrollbar on my screen, too. I have never noticed that. The bar is gone here at 99% instead of 100%. doxTxob \ talk 03:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The lead is pretty choppy - the sentences should be combined into relatively cohesive paragraphs. Geraldk (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, something's not quite right. Could you specify what bothers you most when reading the lead section? For me it is the demographics, especially the numbers, in paragraph 2 that disrupt my reading most. Do you have a suggestion how to improve the lead section? doxTxob \ talk 03:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, my thoughts: The third paragraph is only one sentence, and should be folded into the rest of the lead, probably into the previous paragraph. The FIPS section could be folded into the lead as well - I don't think there's any reason for it to be a separate section in the body of the article. And also, I think the discussion of the center of population and geographic center of the state is misplaced, and would better belong in an article on the geography of Tennessee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldk (talk • contribs) 15:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, something's not quite right. Could you specify what bothers you most when reading the lead section? For me it is the demographics, especially the numbers, in paragraph 2 that disrupt my reading most. Do you have a suggestion how to improve the lead section? doxTxob \ talk 03:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 17:54, 16 January 2008.
previous FLC (00:57, 28 December 2007) This was failed by a bot because of one oppose which I'm trying resolve. Buc (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment First off, it wasnt failed by a bot [1]. Secondly, I added two of the three photos in question and will concede the linking (although I still think the page is way over-linked). If this compromise is ok, I will feel secure in supporting. Also, for future reference, don't renominate one day after a list failed after having made no changes to the list.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 20:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC) - Well regardless one O is not enough to deserve a fail. Buc (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Normally I wouldn't. Buc (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Recuse I'll let others figure this one out. (Bole2, Please do not break my comments by adding comments in between my sentences, its annoying)
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC) OpposeI don't think n-c-systems is a reliable source. It seems like it is run by a guy who researches and provides all the info in his site. I mean he basically does the same thing that we do, but without providing references. I realize that many FLs already use that website as a reference, but there are so many nominations pop up that it's difficult to check the verifiability of the references in such short time. Unless that person is an expert in NFL whose opinion is valuable by NFL analysts, we should not trust him and his website. I believe this website is good to use as a guide, but not as a reference. If/When you remove these citations, your transactions are going to be left uncited; therefore, I oppose featuring this list.
On top of this, most of your transaction notes don't even have a citation now.--Crzycheetah 07:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)- Can't find anouther sourse for the transactions. Should I just remove these transaction notes. Buc (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- By removing transaction notes, this list will no longer be comprehensive.--Crzycheetah 20:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well I can't find another ref for them. So if I'm going to keep them in that the ref there going to have to have. Buc (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't understand what you were trying to say. I'll just mention that lack of refs should not be a reason to overlook unsourced info.--Crzycheetah 00:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well I can't find another ref for them. So if I'm going to keep them in that the ref there going to have to have. Buc (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- By removing transaction notes, this list will no longer be comprehensive.--Crzycheetah 20:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can't find anouther sourse for the transactions. Should I just remove these transaction notes. Buc (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not being overlooked, I looked everywhere for another sourse to use and I couldn't find anything. So I'm to have to sick with what I've got. Buc (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- My oppose can be addressed by researching the archives of well known sports newspapers and agencies. Please take a look at 2001 NFL Draft and 2007 NFL Draft and you could see how each transaction is sourced.--Crzycheetah 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes as I said before I've looked. There is nothing on the Saints offical site about this. There are a few news reports on drafts going back to 2000 ([2]) but nothing eles. The best I can do is this which just says who the pick was aquired from. Buc (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Many of your notes already do that anyway and still left unsourced; for example, notes ##2,3,5 and so on. On the side note, I would also like to know how the Saints got #26 pick. Since they traded away their 1st round pick and not getting another one in return, how did it happen? --Crzycheetah 07:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok I will work on incorporating the above links into the text. But that's all I can do. The only other thing I can think is re-pharing the notes to say something like "aquired from x details unknown" Buc (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- First thing that has to be done is to format the references for the footnotes, preferably using {{cite web}}. I still notice you have that n-c as a reference, which needs to be replaced.--Crzycheetah 21:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fine, but you're ok with my seggestion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- As long as the "aquired from x" part is sourced, yes I'm fine with that.--Crzycheetah 22:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done
- As long as the "aquired from x" part is sourced, yes I'm fine with that.--Crzycheetah 22:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fine, but you're ok with my seggestion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- First thing that has to be done is to format the references for the footnotes, preferably using {{cite web}}. I still notice you have that n-c as a reference, which needs to be replaced.--Crzycheetah 21:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok I will work on incorporating the above links into the text. But that's all I can do. The only other thing I can think is re-pharing the notes to say something like "aquired from x details unknown" Buc (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Many of your notes already do that anyway and still left unsourced; for example, notes ##2,3,5 and so on. On the side note, I would also like to know how the Saints got #26 pick. Since they traded away their 1st round pick and not getting another one in return, how did it happen? --Crzycheetah 07:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes as I said before I've looked. There is nothing on the Saints offical site about this. There are a few news reports on drafts going back to 2000 ([2]) but nothing eles. The best I can do is this which just says who the pick was aquired from. Buc (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support Not as good as I would have liked, but it's a lot better than it was first nominated.--Crzycheetah 22:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- What would you have liked? I'm always looking to improve thing if I can. Buc (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't like the "It is unknown how this pick was acquired" sentence, I just don't like the fact that the info is not complete. Also, the transaction notes should have been more professionally stated, something like "Saints traded this pick to the Team X for that pick/player on Date", as I have done in the 2003 NBA Draft. I realize that due to insufficient sources, it is very hard to provide complete information about the subject without violating WP:OR. --Crzycheetah 07:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll keep that in mind for future nominations. Buc (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't like the "It is unknown how this pick was acquired" sentence, I just don't like the fact that the info is not complete. Also, the transaction notes should have been more professionally stated, something like "Saints traded this pick to the Team X for that pick/player on Date", as I have done in the 2003 NBA Draft. I realize that due to insufficient sources, it is very hard to provide complete information about the subject without violating WP:OR. --Crzycheetah 07:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- What would you have liked? I'm always looking to improve thing if I can. Buc (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy close - nom claims it failed because of one oppose, when in reality it had one oppose, one neutral, and nom's support - not exactly a landslide. This was done one day after what he terms a "bot closing" when in reality, 2 weeks without any supports is a strong indicator that it's not quite featured material yet. My personal vote, by the way, is oppose, but it shouldn't matter, as this should be closed entirely on procedural grounds. If you're "trying to resolve" the oppose, Buc, then actually WAIT until you've resolved it before renominating. --Golbez (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Already resolved. Buc (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- What was resolved? Treat your voters with more respect. --Golbez (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean but yes it was. Buc (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- When he says "resolved," he means that the editor in question (me) has recused himself from voting because of a failure of the nom to try and come to a middle ground. Just needed to clarify that.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 20:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- What was resolved? Treat your voters with more respect. --Golbez (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Already resolved. Buc (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Well Referenced, concise, informative introduction.
- the only thing I would change, but don't know how, is to have the reggie bush image in the top-center of the big white space instead of toward the right side.
Good work. Jwalte04 (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment about canvassing Not to discredit any past voter or future voter, but there has been canvassing, here, here, and here. Buc please just let the nomination go its route, try to make the list better based on the suggestions, and everything will be fine. And in the future do not canvass individual people. A friendly note on a WikiProject talk page or something like that is ok, but we want objective suggestions to improve each article.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)- These nothing stopping poeple also giving feedback when they show support. Even if this paases I will still be looking to impove it. Buc (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- You said "You appear to be an active member of the NFL WikiProject. So I'm just letting you know that List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks is currently a FLC that still needs support votes in order to pass. If you feel it is a FL could you please show support. Thanks for any help in advance." In which you clearly stated that it still needed support and you clearly asked the person to support the list. Even if that was not your intention, you phrased in a way that isn't appropriate. Asking for people to review a list is okay, but you clearly were asking for support. -- Scorpion0422 04:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Only if they felt it deserved it. Most people have enough sence not to support something just because they're asked to. Buc (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- You said "You appear to be an active member of the NFL WikiProject. So I'm just letting you know that List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks is currently a FLC that still needs support votes in order to pass. If you feel it is a FL could you please show support. Thanks for any help in advance." In which you clearly stated that it still needed support and you clearly asked the person to support the list. Even if that was not your intention, you phrased in a way that isn't appropriate. Asking for people to review a list is okay, but you clearly were asking for support. -- Scorpion0422 04:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- These nothing stopping poeple also giving feedback when they show support. Even if this paases I will still be looking to impove it. Buc (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment *sigh* another FLC tainted by canvassing. Buc, you would do well to learn not to argue with everyone who posts a negative comment, and to listen and learn from what people are saying. What if we turned your request upside down: "You appear to be an active member of the anti-NFL WikiProject. So I'm just letting you know that List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks is currently a FLC that still needs oppose votes in order to fail. If you feel it is not an FL could you please show your opposition. Thanks for any help in advance." Does it still sound neutral, or do you think I'm canvassing for some opposition? This is not a vote. You don't seem to understand how FLC works when you don't understand why it failed last time, or why it shouldn't have been immediately re-nominated. You can't keep nominating till you get lucky. The "nc-systems" reference must go and I think sportsecyclopedia.com looks like a one-man-and-his-dog outfit too. "nflhistory.net" doesn't seem to work. If you relied on those refs for anything, it must go too (you can't just claim that the source is the best you can find, WP:V is policy). Colin°Talk 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why on earth would I can't people to oppose my nomination? Buc (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Closing statement
To avoid confusion, I will add a closing statement. The article has received two supports amongst over 7 commentators, over 18 days. As such, given the concerns over the references, and the lack of support, I am closing this as no consensus. Woody (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 05:32, 13 January 2008.
I would like to nominate this list for FL status because I feel it follows FL criteria and every detail is sourced with reliable sources. This list is a list of superstars, or wrestlers, drafted by the WWE's three brands {as stated in the article}, and I feel the list follows the style of the FL status 2007 NFL Draft article. It would be great to have this article achieve FL status and add an FL list to the WP:PW.--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 03:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have concerns over the notability of this subject. The WWE Draft was just one show and I'm not entirely sure why it's notable. -- Scorpion0422 03:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well like the NFL Draft, the WWE Draft has been an annual event for WWE since 2002 and like the yearly NFL Drafts, I, along with other WP:PW members, will work on making article for the other years. This is also notable as it changes the production of each of the promotion's show, example. New matches, new storylines, and the way WWE responds to each yearly draft.--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 03:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- You can't even begin to compare the NFL and WWE drafts. The NHL draft receives tonnes of mainstream news coverage, there is a lot of scouting done for it and it potentially affects hundreds of players and all 32 teams. The WWE draft, in comparison, is covered by small wrestling websites and it is just a one episode event on a television show. -- Scorpion0422 03:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I know, but List of WWE Champions isnt as notable as the List of Super Bowl champions. But it still reached FL status. So basically the WWE draft is important to WWE, and Professional Wrestling never recieves high media attention like the NFL and NHL. So how can this be an issue if professional wrestling isnt as notable as the NFl or NHL?TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 03:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Again, the WWE Championship has been around for 40 years and is one of the most notable wrestling championships. This page is a list about a one night thing and could easily be merged into WWE Draft. -- Scorpion0422 04:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok just like the List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE), List of WWE United States Champions, List of WWE Tag Team Champions is notable as the SuperBowl championship. But if you strongly disagreed with this article you should have said so in the WT:PW when I posted a notice about creating this page.TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 04:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Look, all of those titles have existed for years and have been held by multiple notable wrestlers and have been defended many times. This is a one night event event that also included an online version. It is basically cruft. -- Scorpion0422 08:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you are so against it being an FL, no actually a DAMN article, then put under here oppose and get on with it.TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 14:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok just like the List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE), List of WWE United States Champions, List of WWE Tag Team Champions is notable as the SuperBowl championship. But if you strongly disagreed with this article you should have said so in the WT:PW when I posted a notice about creating this page.TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 04:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Again, the WWE Championship has been around for 40 years and is one of the most notable wrestling championships. This page is a list about a one night thing and could easily be merged into WWE Draft. -- Scorpion0422 04:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well like the NFL Draft, the WWE Draft has been an annual event for WWE since 2002 and like the yearly NFL Drafts, I, along with other WP:PW members, will work on making article for the other years. This is also notable as it changes the production of each of the promotion's show, example. New matches, new storylines, and the way WWE responds to each yearly draft.--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 03:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - I support it, cause wrestling is a sport and like any other sports there is, there's always Draft lottery's and history is made. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above support should be disregarded on two counts. (1) The reviewer makes no reference to the criteria, simply expresses his opinion on notability. (2) The reviewer was clearly invited "because we need a certain number of people to support it to become a FL list". Colin°Talk 00:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I believe that this list is notable. Adding it to the WWE Draft Lottery page would make the other article too long, especially with all of the complexities of this specific draft. My only concern at this point is that I don't understand the note about Hardcore Holly. If someone could rephrase it (or give me a condensed version of what they mean so that I can rephrase it), I would be happy to support this nomination. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done - Is that better??TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 22:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, it is. I Support the nomination. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support Well done list. I don't think the draft should be compared to the NFL draft (although I don't get scorpiopn comments about the NHL draft getting tons of coverage since the only two drafts I see getting any kind of coverage are the NFL and NBA drafts. Maybe the NHL one gets coverage in Canada though). TJ Spyke 00:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't there a WP:PW consensus a while back to merge all of the WWE Draft pages? FLCs should follow the notability guidelines, and this is a one-night thing that received no coverage from mainstream news sources and is more or less cruft. If a page like this can make FL, then what's to stop a "List of the times Barney Gumble has belched in The Simpsons" from becoming one too? And now it looks like it is only going to pass thanks to WikiProject support. -- Scorpion0422 02:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Opposedue to use of unreliable sources. Please remove the sources that are personal homepages (e.g., angelfire.com and 100megsfree4.com). If any text relies on those sources, then that text must also be removed unless an alternative reliable source can be found. Once this is done, I will strike my oppose. Other comment: In the lead, final paragraph, why are four citations required? A tad excessive? Colin°Talk 00:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Concerns have been expressed that some of the opinions here have been canvassed, specifically votestacking. Certainly three supports were in response to a personal request to "join this discussion" to editors likely to be generally supportive. One must be very careful about asking for opinions of those you may believe are likely to support. As noted above, I feel one crossed the line in specifically stating that they should join "because we need a certain number of people to support it to become a FL list". One other support resulted in a thank-you note, asking "how many supports do we need" as though it was a vote. Both consensus and a minimum of four votes are required (including the nominator). IMO one support should be disregarded and the other two held as of lesser value. In other words, I'd like to see disinterested FL reviewers support before this list is featured. Colin°Talk 00:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I know and I agree with you on opposing this FL. I made a mistake asking project members to join the discussion, (this is my first time I nominated an FL). When I asked TJ Spyke whether how many supports we need, I was asking him whether he knew how long we would have to wait for this article (if it can) to achive FL status, in this case I was unaware of this whole process and was asking a general question.
- Ok now for your other comment, we at the WP:PW, find 100megsfree4 a reliable site as it is one of the only sites out there that is not what we call "dirtsheet" site, which is a site that has rumors and speculation. 100megsfree4 is really called "Wrestling Information Archive", the URL however is different. The Angel Fire reference has been removed but it is really a redirect from this site [3] which is one of the few site WP:PW finds reliable. This is what we follow as to reliable sites. TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 01:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- The "Wrestling Information Archive" explicitly states that it is a "hobby site" and one so lacking in traffic that its owner can't even afford to buy a domain and some paid-for web space. The "History of WWE" site is also a hobby page. Although the guy, Graham Cawthon, has bought a domain, he hasn't bought any web space, which is all on Angel Fire. His MySpace page boasts that he's getting so many refs on Wikipedia that he'll soon have his own page here! Dream on. Wikipedia's Verifiability policy is quite clear about self-published sources: don't use them. You need sources that are the product of someone's day-job; writers and editors whose career depends on their reputation for facts. Your Project guidelines are a good idea but you can't override policy. You might agree that Mr Cawthon is generally reliable but in WP's view, he is no more reliable than any Wikipedian (and indeed could be one). I'm sorry, but those sources have to go, and I suggest you update your project guildlines in keeping with policy. Colin°Talk 15:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Well I will suggest that, and I removed the "Wrestling Information Archive" source. Now it only has 19 references, does it make sense to still nominate it for FL status?--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 16:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed my oppose. I'll trust you that the remaining text was supported by the remaining sources; I've spent enough time on wrestling web sites today! Your nomination is still valid, but IMO you'll have to wait to see if some more folk support. Plenty time. Colin°Talk 16:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you for all your help.TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 22:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed my oppose. I'll trust you that the remaining text was supported by the remaining sources; I've spent enough time on wrestling web sites today! Your nomination is still valid, but IMO you'll have to wait to see if some more folk support. Plenty time. Colin°Talk 16:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok now for your other comment, we at the WP:PW, find 100megsfree4 a reliable site as it is one of the only sites out there that is not what we call "dirtsheet" site, which is a site that has rumors and speculation. 100megsfree4 is really called "Wrestling Information Archive", the URL however is different. The Angel Fire reference has been removed but it is really a redirect from this site [3] which is one of the few site WP:PW finds reliable. This is what we follow as to reliable sites. TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 01:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. The list does not explain where the "draft pool" came from. NFL Draft lists link to the NFL Draft article, which explains that the pool consists of players who have completed college eligibility or declared for the draft after 3 years in college. There is no such explanation in 2007 WWE Draft. This list also mixes fact and fiction, and it is difficult to determine what is real and what is kayfabe. It could get the in-universe template. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment- I dont understand your comment? You want to know how the wrestlers became elligibe for the draft? Also, what do you see that is mixed with fact and fiction?TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 00:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, where did the pool of potential draftees come from? Were all WWE wrestlers eligible for selection? Or were these wrestler-actors new to WWE? Regarding the mix of fact and fiction, the article is written in an "in-universe style," as if WWE was "real." For example, it says that the second-day picks were chosen "randomly." Were they really chosen at random by a computer, or were they actually chosen by WWE management, with the "random" selection as part of the storyline? I can't imagine the WWE would actually assign wrestlers to its various promotions at random. For an example of how a pro-wrestling article should be written, see Montreal Screwjob. That featured article clearly explains what was real and what was part of the storyline. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- That was one of my struggles when writing the article. So I could say "A computer (kayfabe) randomly selected wrestlers to be drafted" Would that be enough or would I need to state that the wrestlers were really chosen by WWE management?TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 01:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose it was easier for the Montreal Screwjob article because there are plenty of sources about the real-life machinations behind that. You might want to use phrases like, "The WWE claimed that the second-day picks were chosen at random," or "According to the storyline, the second-day picks were chosen at random." But I'm afraid that to really make this featured content, you'll have to do research and find sources on the real-life aspect of the "draft." Perhaps there are trade or financial publications that would discuss why WWE would want to assign certain wrestlers to certain promotions. WWE is, after all, a $400 million publicly traded company. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I doubt there is an article exposing that the draft is a storyline but I will attempt to do so. And saying who was eligible to be drafted is Done.TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 02:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok I found one site that exposes it as a "storyline" but it is not reliable it is Lords of Pain, heres the articleTrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment- I dont understand your comment? You want to know how the wrestlers became elligibe for the draft? Also, what do you see that is mixed with fact and fiction?TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 00:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, Would you mind changing the sentence fragments in the "notes" sections of the tables to complete sentences. I think that will make it read and look better. Also, I believe that some of the columns would benefit by being resized. For instance, the first couple of columns could be smaller to reduce white space, and the "notes" column could be made bigger so it looks less cramped in the cells with a lot of writing. What do you think? Nikki311 23:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done>>> I resized the columns for less white space. I also fixed the fragments in the notes section in the supp. draft. I also reworded some of the sentences in the TV draft.--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 01:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- That looks much better. Another thing that would really help the article is a pic in the lead. I think maybe one of the pics from The Great Khali's article, with a caption like "The Great Khali was the first pick of the 2007 televised WWE Draft", or something like that, might be good. Nikki311 20:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done-I added an image of The Great Khali to the article, is that a good image?--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 21:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- That looks much better. Another thing that would really help the article is a pic in the lead. I think maybe one of the pics from The Great Khali's article, with a caption like "The Great Khali was the first pick of the 2007 televised WWE Draft", or something like that, might be good. Nikki311 20:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong oppose There is absolutely nothing telling me in the article (nor in this discussion above) if any part of this was actually real, or if it was all kayfabe. Truco, I know you state above that you can't find sources discussing the storyline, but I fear that if you can't, then this can never be featured. There have to be tons of behind-the-scenes machinations about "Would this wrestler be a better heel if he was fighting this set of opponents?" or "Is he more likely to draw a large viewer audience if he was a part of this brand?", and I see nothing of the sort in this article. Also, the best wrestling articles- even those that just deal with a single PPV- have an "aftermath" or "impact" section about how the events changed storylines (and if there was any real-world impact), but I see none of that here. Yes, I know this is a featured list candidate and not a featured article candidate, but I would still like to see far more exposition before supporting this. That's not to say I don't think it's an excellent list; I simply think it's not of featured quality. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's ok, I really dont feel it's a FL either, someone suggested to me that it would be a good idea. But after all this discussion here, I kinda oppose it to now. Thanks for your opinion, plus that there is no article exposing it as a storyline. The only one's that do are "dirt sheet/spoiler" sites, which are highly unreliable. So no point of this conversation going on.TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 21:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I found one site that exposes why WWE uses the draft and they refer to it as "concept", is this reliable enough to put in the article? [4]--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 15:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yep. Looks reliable to me. D.M.N. (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. Thanks. Can we close this discussion now? A majority of opposition..--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 20:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I found one site that exposes why WWE uses the draft and they refer to it as "concept", is this reliable enough to put in the article? [4]--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 15:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's ok, I really dont feel it's a FL either, someone suggested to me that it would be a good idea. But after all this discussion here, I kinda oppose it to now. Thanks for your opinion, plus that there is no article exposing it as a storyline. The only one's that do are "dirt sheet/spoiler" sites, which are highly unreliable. So no point of this conversation going on.TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 21:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 04:20, 5 January 2008.
This list follows other FL Lists dealing with NFL first-round draft picks and I believe can be promoted to FL status. Bombig (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Could you remove the Table of Contents, it really doesn't do much here. Also the last sentence in the intro should be rewritten to read more like "No Hall of Famers have ever been selected by the Falcons in the first-round of the draft." This points out that as the list changes, so could this statement (If a HoF'er ever does come out of Atlanta). The original sort of speculates that the Atlanta Falcons most recent picks aren't going to go to the HoF, which we don't know. Also there are two instances (1977 and 1986) where the Falcons had two picks in the first-round, yet there isn't any note explaining how the Falcons received these extra picks. There probably should be a note of a trade that involved those picks. Fix those and I would be glad to support.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 18:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Support I fixed two typos in the table that created an extra column but other than that it looks great! Good work.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 01:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support I fixed two typos in the table that created an extra column but other than that it looks great! Good work.
- Comment Could you add the eras to the table, like it was done in List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks?--Crzycheetah 03:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support but isn't there a better free use image? Vick is facing away from the camara for goodness sake. Buc (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Checked every page of the first-rounders and Vick's was the only one I found here. Since I'm not going to go out and look for one (as I don't know the free usage rules too well), Vick's is the best I've got. At least it has the Falcons decal on it. Heh. Bombig (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think n-c-systems is a reliable source. It seems like it is run by a guy who researches and provides all the info in his site. I mean he basically does the same thing that we do, but without providing references. I realize that many FLs already use that website as a reference, but there are so many nominations pop up that it's difficult to check the verifiability of the references in such short time. Unless that person is an expert in NFL whose opinion is valuable by NFL analysts, we should not trust him and his website. I believe this website is good to use as a guide, but not as a reference. If/When you remove these citations, your transactions are going to be left uncited; therefore, I oppose featuring this list. --Crzycheetah 23:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 04:20, 5 January 2008.
I feel the article has enough material required. It not only has all the dates, but also has the important events which took place. I hope you too feel that the article meets the criteria. Thank You. Indianescence (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Honestly, I see alot of problems with the list, but I'll only mention a few to avoid piling it on:
- Updated rationale behind my oppose: the subject does not seem to warrant a list, and the shape/content of the article verifies that, I think. I recommend renominating at FAC. Drewcifer (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- The lead is way too short.
- Done
- The "Stefani's Setlist" is formatted badly all over the place ("setlist" shouldn't be capitalized, two songs have the double asteriks for some reason, things like "(album version/reggae remix)" and "accoustic" aren't backed up by the source, the source should be in the references section, not in this section, the note should be footnoted somehow, etc.)
- Done
- Looking better, though the in-line citations in the section headers isn't good. You can put that source directly under the references section in a "General" subsection. Just use the {{cite web}} template but not the <ref></ref> tags. For an example, see Nine Inch Nails discography. You should also make a note in the reference somewhere that it is the source of the set list/tour dates information.
- Will this do for you? Indianescence (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good.
- The "Special notes" section is odd. I'm not sure what makes these notes so special. Also the writing in it generally poor (why are quotations preceded with a "-"?) Also citations should come directly after punctuation, without a space. This.[1] Not this. [2]
- Partially done. I have been observing the websites for quite some time to see what all things were the highlights of the show and i shortlisted on these events i have mentioned. People might not find these special, but the sources do. I have removed the hyphens.Indianescence (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- The gallery comes out of nowhere. Is this one of those tours where she changes outfits after every song? Were the costumes consistent between tour dates? Do these pictures serve any purpose here other than to look pretty? A bit of text would be helpful.
- Will this do for you? Indianescence (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- The "Tour dates" section table is poorly formatted as well. The North America heading is a different color than the others. Consecutive cells with the same info can be merged. (ie. |rowspan="3"|United States for the first of 3 instances of United States.) the notes should be footnoted as well.
- I am not sure of this. Merging all the "United States" etc. would look very odd. Rules are rules, but we should change them according to what suits the best. Indianescence (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's no rule that says like cells should be merged, this is just a stylistic suggestion, based on what most tables look like, and based on common sense (it's redundant to keep saying the same thing over and over again).
- Looking much better! Along the same lines, you may want to do the same with repeated city names (Irvine, Santa Barbara, etc), but I could go either way on that.
- The citations are poorly formatted. the URLs shouldn't be visible. I would highly recommend using WP:citation templates, since that does alot of the work for you.
- Done
- A few more external links would be nice. Any reviews?
- Added many reviews. Will this do for you?Indianescence (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I also have some broader, content-wise issues, but I'll leave those be for the moment. Drewcifer (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking much better! I also made a few edits myself, since they're just easier to do then explain. Feel free to revert it, but I think it's an improvement. As for a few other concerns I have:
- As I said above, it might be a good idea to merge similar City/Venue cells in the Tour dates section. For instance two consecutive Irvine concerts, and two consecutive concerts at Wembley Arena.
- Done
- I added a [citation needed] tag in the Stefani's set list section.
- thanks for the note on my talk page. Never mind on this one: it seems like a very broad fact that would probably be impossible/difficult to source properly.
- I don't know if I mentioned this above, but I would highly recommend using WP:Citation templates, since the in-line citations are generally a little bit inconsistent stylistically.
- I don't feel that the current style is bad. I mean, many other Featured article use this method of citation. There seems to be no problem with this method. The references state all the important elements (i.e. site name, retrieving date, site title etc.). If all that is there, i don't feel it should be a problem. Indianescence (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- What I meant to say wasn't that the style is bad: you are correct, that format of author, link, title, etc is typical in most FAs, but most FAs do so via citation templates. My recommendation was to put the same exact information into a citation template rather than writing it out yourself, namely because it formats things exactly the same each time, as opposed to doing it by hand (which you've done so far), which makes the style a little inconsistent between the citations. That said, the template was purely a suggestion, and are obviously not a barrier to FL.
- The three canceled shows in the Tour dates section should be footnoted (in the same fashion as the footnote I redid in the set list section) and/or color the cell differently and add a foot note about it at the end of the section. I think either or both would be a good solution to having "Note: Concert Cancelled." Also, along the same lines, the later two canceled shows should be given a source, like the first one.
- Done
- The last two cancellations still need to be sourced.
- Also, like I mentioned above, things like "(album version/reggae remix)" and "accoustic" aren't backed up by the source given.
- Done, Now that you got it is a special case as the song in reality exists as a hybrid of album version and reggae remix. In short, you can say its a part of the song's name. It does not need sourcing. You can check the song's article for it.
- what I mean to say is where in the source does it mention which version of the songs were played? I couldn't find anything, so going by the source you've given, for all I know it could be the album version. This might be fairly easy to rectify with another source, however, one that explicitly says which version, or at least that it wasn't the album version, or maybe even a few adjectives describing the song as "accoustic" or "reggae".
- The source for "The Real Thing" clearly mentions,"an a capella version of “The Real Thing”, in which she..." As far as "Now That You Got It" is concerned, i have mentioned about it above. All the other songs were album versions, as you said. Indianescence (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- what I mean to say is where in the source does it mention which version of the songs were played? I couldn't find anything, so going by the source you've given, for all I know it could be the album version. This might be fairly easy to rectify with another source, however, one that explicitly says which version, or at least that it wasn't the album version, or maybe even a few adjectives describing the song as "accoustic" or "reggae".
- I'm still not sure about the image gallery. Not that it shouldn't be there, but there is no justification for it. Or, more specifically, the text should justify the use of a gallery/images in someway. As it is, it seems tacked on for no reason. For instance the section mentions the Kuala Lumpur concert, are there any images from that?
- No, there are currently no free images for the kuala lumpur show.
- Lastly, and I know this seems like a large thing to ask, but it would be great to have some reviews to go along with the Tour dates table. For instance, if there's a review of the June 18 show in Sacramento (which it appeaers there is from a souce you used), it would be great to have that review linked to in an additional column. Obviously not every show has a review to go along with it, but I bet a high-profile act like Stefani would have tons of reviews floating around. Drewcifer (talk) 07:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would not like that. There are many reviews but the number of shows are much more than that. It would look highly awkward to have them in between. I feel they are better in the critical reception section. Indianescence (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- After a little bit of research, and toying around, it seems like there's definately enough reviews to make such an addition worthwhile. Take a look at my sandbox: I did only a little bit of digging and found plenty of reviews. That said, most of the reviews are obviously mostly from the first leg of the tour, and mostly from the states, but I'm sure with a little bit more digging around more could be found. Mostly what I did was just go to various fan sites and looked around for some links. Drewcifer (talk) 09:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also, the critical reviews section is a little bit too positive. After skimming through a bunch of reviews, I would definately say that the tour was generally well received, but I did notice a few negative things here and there. Not so much completely negative reviews, but a couple reviews mentioned some not-so-perfect stuff. In the interest of neutrality, I think at least one or two negative quotes should be included, to balance things out a bit. Drewcifer (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Added two negative reviews. So now can i say that currently the two concerns are - An image of Malaysian show and adding reviews section to the "Tour Date" table?Indianescence (talk) 08:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking better all the time! To sum things up a bit, I believe the only things that are still a concern to me are:
- Adding some reviews. Feel free to copy+paste the stuff from my sandbox, though you should add blank cells to all the rows without a review. I would encourage you to keep looking. I know there's more out there. After your notice on my talk page, I did some more searching and found like 5 or 6 more easily. One thing that's been working for me is googleing
"City Name" "Sweet Escape Tour" review. Though I'm not sure how well that would work for concerts in non-english countries. You may want to ask some help from some multi-lingual wikipedians. You might also want to ask some of the moderators of no-doubt/gwen stefani fansites. I've actually had alot of luck with asking those kind of people for information.
- Done I will surely search as many as i can.
- Also, I came across something that seems very important to add: [7]. Namely, I would definately say mention of Akon and the whole Verizon Wireless thing is notable. I would also think it is important to mention any other sponsors of the concert, even if they didn't back out or anything.
- I also came across something else pretty important: [8]. Not only that, but this [9] mentions a bunch more bands. What's going on here!
- Done Gym Class Heroes was already there. Others i have added.
- Looking better, but I wonder if this information might be presented better. Namely, I think another column the tour dates section would be good, describing who opened what show. I suggest this for a few reasons: first, weren't there some shows were both Akon and Sovereign opened? Second, weren't there some shows were nobody opened? And lastly, "Cansei de Ser Sexy and Brick & Lace also joined Stefani on various shows." is a bit vague. Exactly which shows? Of course, what I'm suggesting would further complicate your life: at that point an additional column would make the table pretty wide. Which leads me to another suggestion/question: why are the column widths as wide as they are? There's alot of empty space in all the columns. If you slimmed thigns down a bit, that might make some room for another column.
- Done will this do for you?
- Looking better, but I wonder if this information might be presented better. Namely, I think another column the tour dates section would be good, describing who opened what show. I suggest this for a few reasons: first, weren't there some shows were both Akon and Sovereign opened? Second, weren't there some shows were nobody opened? And lastly, "Cansei de Ser Sexy and Brick & Lace also joined Stefani on various shows." is a bit vague. Exactly which shows? Of course, what I'm suggesting would further complicate your life: at that point an additional column would make the table pretty wide. Which leads me to another suggestion/question: why are the column widths as wide as they are? There's alot of empty space in all the columns. If you slimmed thigns down a bit, that might make some room for another column.
- A reference for the cancellation of the last two shows. Here's a good source: [10]
- Done Huge thanks for this link.
- Also, I still have reservations about the lead. I'd say you should expand it a bit more. Try mentioning the opening acts.
- Also, some contextualization might be nice. Isn't this her second solo tour? And didn't she keep bringing up the fact that No Doubt is getting back together soon and that this is her last solo tour? I'd say a little section in the beginning discussing all these things would be great. This should also be mentioned in the lead.
- This required a new section or i can include this in "Notable events" section? Indianescence (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would recommend a new section, preferably the first section. But I'll leave that decision up to you.
- I need a name for this section as soon as possible. Any suggestions? Indianescence (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would recommend a new section, preferably the first section. But I'll leave that decision up to you.
- An image of the Kuala Lampur concert.
- Switching over to citation templates.
The last two aren't do-or-die though. I just I recommend doing them. Drewcifer (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking I wouldn't consider this a list. It's a (rather messy) article about a tour, which contains some list sections. In my humble opinion, this ought to be aiming for Featured Article not Featured List. --kingboyk (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're right: the more work that goes into the article, the less of a list it becomes. Furthermore, I don't think that the ideal form for an article of the Tour is a list anyways. I was kind of waiting to bring that up after the last few issues were resolved. Drewcifer (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Even i had the confusion whether the article should be FA or FLC. I posted the question here [11] and this is the reply i got:-
- Frankly, I think all the examples I cited (as well as the Sweet Escape Tour article Indianescence mentioned) should all be featured lists, and that if FLC doesn't currently accomodate them, it should expand so that it does. Raul654 (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Therefore i nominated it for FLC. Indianescence (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. I suppose the way the article looked before all the extensive work on it was much more along the lines of a list, but now I would compare the article to a typical article about for an album: a few lists here (tracklist/setlist, tour dates/charts, etc) surrounded by mostly prose. You may want to ask Raul to take another look at the article. Drewcifer (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Is there anything else other than expansion of the lead left? Indianescence (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looking great! I would say that Introduction is a fine title for the section, unless anyone else has any better ideas. The Opening Act(s) column looks great, though I do have a few further suggestions. It does seem a little bit short, though: some additional information and some quotes might help round it out. I came across plenty of good quotes from stefani about No Doubt getting back together again, the birth of her child, her child being present at a show or two, the fact that she was only planning on making one dance album but ended up making two, etc. I think the reviews column should still be on the far left (so swap the reviews and opening acts). Also, any blank cells should say "none" instead of nothing. Also, did all those people actually open for Stefani at the October 27th show? If so, a citation might be in order, if not, some clarification would be nice. For the Sonic Festival you may want to make a special note, something n/a or something, since it was a festival, and people don't usually have opening acts at festivals anyways. But, technically speaking, was this part of the Tour in the first place? Also, in the Setlist section, it says "The Sweet Escape", with Akon, but Akon was clearly not at all the shows, right? And yea, the lead still needs some work. Drewcifer (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have swapped them. I don't agree with you on adding the things you mentioned in the opening acts colums as it would change the whole meaning of it. It is supposed to be a simple column stating the opening acts. All these things will make the article very wordy. Whatever that was very notable (like reunion of band etc. are mentioned in Notable Events section). Dance album and stuff should not be on this article. Stuff about that is already elaborated on article like Love.Angel.Music.Baby and The Sweet Escape and that is the right place for it. In the "General" section of the References, source for opening acts is mentioned. I am expanding the lead. Indianescence (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have expanded the lead. I cannot write there "none" as there may be opening acts which i do not know of. There were no sources for them. Writing none would be claiming something, which i can't till i am not backed by sources. And yes, I will make that "The Sweet Escape" feat. Akon as that is like the name of the song. Indianescence (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I realized I mixed up my sentences above, so it might have been confusing, I'm not sure. My mistake. I meant to say that the column is fine except for possibly putting in "none". I think that the gwenstafni page itself has little news things announcing who opened what shows. So those would be good to reference, and that would also mean you would know for sure which dates had no opening acts, and hence you could put "none" whenever neccessary. And I still have reservations about the Sonic festival (did those people really open for her? does anyone open for anyone at a music festival? maybe those people just happened to play before stefani, which is different.). As for the introduction, and as far as making the article "wordy," I hate to break it to you, but I really don't think this article qualifies as a list anymore: so more words isn't a bad thing. And in my personal experience, it's best to include quotes as often as possible since it takes the writing out of your hands and puts it back into the subject's "hands". Why explain something when Gwen Stefani herself can explain it to the reader? Seems like a more direct flow of knowledge, right? And elaborating information from other articles isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it gives us some insight into the topic at hand. Drewcifer (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- This article would remain a list if we don't include more things. The things you mentioned (like Stefani having babies and stuff) is pure gossip in my view. These don't qualify to be on the article. The article's main feature is the "Tour dates" table, and this is why it qualifies as a list. Adding a lot of other things, including her dance album stuff has nothing to do with the article. I feel that the current info on the article is more than enough. A tour article should have an intro, tour date table, reception and success/failure section and this article has all that. Anything else would convert this list into an article. I would surely work on Sonic Fest. And yes, i don't see any reason why we can't put n/a (not available) instead of none. That will be very stable then. No one would be objecting. If we follow gwenstefani.com and leave most of the shows without opening acts, then people will object that there were people opening for the shows. And yes, it is not mandatory to use quotes. I know it will make it better, but nothing is wrong with the current info as well. The article is saturated with wordy info and whatever that was necessary is here. I am taking a leave from wikipedia as i am appearing for my exam. If this article fails to meet the criteria, so be it. Thank you for your interest in the article. Indianescence (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, well if you disagree with me that's fine, but I'll have to stand by my Oppose vote. Namely since the topic doesn't seem very list-worthy, and should probably be nominated at FAC, not here. Good luck with your exams, and I hope to see the article renominated at FAC soon. Drewcifer (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- This article would remain a list if we don't include more things. The things you mentioned (like Stefani having babies and stuff) is pure gossip in my view. These don't qualify to be on the article. The article's main feature is the "Tour dates" table, and this is why it qualifies as a list. Adding a lot of other things, including her dance album stuff has nothing to do with the article. I feel that the current info on the article is more than enough. A tour article should have an intro, tour date table, reception and success/failure section and this article has all that. Anything else would convert this list into an article. I would surely work on Sonic Fest. And yes, i don't see any reason why we can't put n/a (not available) instead of none. That will be very stable then. No one would be objecting. If we follow gwenstefani.com and leave most of the shows without opening acts, then people will object that there were people opening for the shows. And yes, it is not mandatory to use quotes. I know it will make it better, but nothing is wrong with the current info as well. The article is saturated with wordy info and whatever that was necessary is here. I am taking a leave from wikipedia as i am appearing for my exam. If this article fails to meet the criteria, so be it. Thank you for your interest in the article. Indianescence (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I realized I mixed up my sentences above, so it might have been confusing, I'm not sure. My mistake. I meant to say that the column is fine except for possibly putting in "none". I think that the gwenstafni page itself has little news things announcing who opened what shows. So those would be good to reference, and that would also mean you would know for sure which dates had no opening acts, and hence you could put "none" whenever neccessary. And I still have reservations about the Sonic festival (did those people really open for her? does anyone open for anyone at a music festival? maybe those people just happened to play before stefani, which is different.). As for the introduction, and as far as making the article "wordy," I hate to break it to you, but I really don't think this article qualifies as a list anymore: so more words isn't a bad thing. And in my personal experience, it's best to include quotes as often as possible since it takes the writing out of your hands and puts it back into the subject's "hands". Why explain something when Gwen Stefani herself can explain it to the reader? Seems like a more direct flow of knowledge, right? And elaborating information from other articles isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it gives us some insight into the topic at hand. Drewcifer (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have expanded the lead. I cannot write there "none" as there may be opening acts which i do not know of. There were no sources for them. Writing none would be claiming something, which i can't till i am not backed by sources. And yes, I will make that "The Sweet Escape" feat. Akon as that is like the name of the song. Indianescence (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have swapped them. I don't agree with you on adding the things you mentioned in the opening acts colums as it would change the whole meaning of it. It is supposed to be a simple column stating the opening acts. All these things will make the article very wordy. Whatever that was very notable (like reunion of band etc. are mentioned in Notable Events section). Dance album and stuff should not be on this article. Stuff about that is already elaborated on article like Love.Angel.Music.Baby and The Sweet Escape and that is the right place for it. In the "General" section of the References, source for opening acts is mentioned. I am expanding the lead. Indianescence (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looking great! I would say that Introduction is a fine title for the section, unless anyone else has any better ideas. The Opening Act(s) column looks great, though I do have a few further suggestions. It does seem a little bit short, though: some additional information and some quotes might help round it out. I came across plenty of good quotes from stefani about No Doubt getting back together again, the birth of her child, her child being present at a show or two, the fact that she was only planning on making one dance album but ended up making two, etc. I think the reviews column should still be on the far left (so swap the reviews and opening acts). Also, any blank cells should say "none" instead of nothing. Also, did all those people actually open for Stefani at the October 27th show? If so, a citation might be in order, if not, some clarification would be nice. For the Sonic Festival you may want to make a special note, something n/a or something, since it was a festival, and people don't usually have opening acts at festivals anyways. But, technically speaking, was this part of the Tour in the first place? Also, in the Setlist section, it says "The Sweet Escape", with Akon, but Akon was clearly not at all the shows, right? And yea, the lead still needs some work. Drewcifer (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose
--Crzycheetah 00:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.