Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2016
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Nominator(s): LavaBaron (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is lavishly illustrated with no fewer than 41 media files - including photo, video, and audio - all copyright cleared, and provides a meticulously sourced, and copyedited list that meets all requirements. LavaBaron (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Gonzo_fan2007
Text & Table
- Per MOS:BOLDTITLE, I would recommend not bolding in the first sentence.
- Under the Description heading, is there a reason the photo is left justified? Per MOS:IMAGELOCATION, the image should be right justified unless there is a prevailing reason not to. In my opinion, it doesn't look great in its current position and I would recommend right justification.
- "one or more of its military bands as premier ensembles, though the exact terminology", recommend changing "though" to "however".
- Recommend removing "from branch to branch" to the first sentence of the Description heading, since this is implied in the beginning of the sentence by stating there are 5 branches that have these types of bands.
- "Crystallized" seems too informal. Maybe try "formalized"?
- " to a multi-service institute responsible for Navy, Marine Corps, and Army "premier" musicians in 1951" ... why is premier in quotes?
- "they generally do not have any duties other than musical performance (during wartime, by contrast, non-premier U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Army bands reconfigure into light infantry units responsible for rear-area defense and EPW security)." I recommend starting a new sentence at "During wartime" and remove the parenthesis.
- Per WP:OLINK, delink United States in the table.
- What are the "the New York-based national television networks"?
- It would help if the key to each branch was at the top of the table.
- I think the "See also" section is unnecessary. I am sure United States military bands could be linked in the lead somewhere, even if it replaces military band.
Images
- After a spot check, all of the files look good and are free to use.
- Fix disambig link in image caption Blue Room → Blue Room (White House).
- Unfortunately, per WP:GALLERY, the gallery probably needs to be removed. I personally don't like that policy, so whether or not you do it will not affect my support.
- I would recommend that all of the files on the page have a new Commons category Commons:Category:United States military premier ensembles. This would allow the use {{Commons category}} template to link to all the relevant files together. Currently most of the files are uncategorized on Commons, which doesn't affect this nomination but should hopefully be rectified.
Overall, this is a really great list and one of the better illustrated tables I have seen. Nice work @LavaBaron! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey @LavaBaron, I noticed that you have a lot going on right now. I wanted to know if you planned on addressing these comments, or if you would rather the nomination be archived for now. Let me know. Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonzo_fan2007 - so sorry for my delayed reply, thanks for the reminder. I'm going to take care of this right now. LavaBaron (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonzo_fan2007 - thanks again for your patience and valuable feedback. I think I've incorporated all your suggested changes, except for the Commons category in images, which I'll work on next. Please let me know if I've missed anything. LavaBaron (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonzo_fan2007 - so sorry for my delayed reply, thanks for the reminder. I'm going to take care of this right now. LavaBaron (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problem. Nice work on the list! It would be great if you can utilize the {{Commons category}} template to link to all of the great photos/videos that were provided and are available. Either way though, it won't keep me from supporting. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this nomination has been open for more than 2 months without getting a lot of attention, and I'm going to have to close it to keep the FLC queue from bogging down. --PresN 17:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was archived by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC) [2].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Mymis (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating it for featured list because I do believe that it passes the FL criteria. The article includes a list of various awards and nominations received by popular American singing competition series The Voice aired on NBC. Mymis (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – minor, dealing with prose
- "The singing competition searches for new singing talent contested by aspiring singers, age 15 or over, drawn from public auditions." need citation to back this up
- US$100,000 → remove US, just wikilink $ to United States dollar
- "The Voice has been very successful since the premiere" →-> replace with its
- "The Voice has won three times out of six nominations, including a nomination for Carson Daly as
ahost." - No issues with the formatting of tables, no dead or dab links. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, thank you for taking your time to look at my article. I believe fixed the listed issues. Mymis (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on style and structure. Nice work – Lemonade51 (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 14:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was archived by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC) [3].[reply]
- Nominator(s): SOAD KoRn (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this list for the first time back in November 2015, but unfortunately it failed as it didn't receive enough support to be promoted. I believe this time it will be different - the list has matured and meets the criteria for FL status. João Sousa himself has become a regular face in the ATP World Tour and is widely regarded the greatest Portuguese tennis player of all time. I kindly thank you for taking the time to review this list. SOAD KoRn (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Quite a nice job, SOAD KoRn LavaBaron (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, LavaBaron. SOAD KoRn (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review – All links are in working order and the references all appear to be reliable, as they come from tennis organizations, Portuguese newpapers, and a Portuguese TV station. Formatting looks good throughout. As part of spot-checks, I found the following:
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*The link for reference 2 from the ITF coughed up error message text a couple of times, but I got it to work. It verifies most of his junior career finals data (and the fact it's cited to), but not all of it. The dates for his finals aren't specifically given; this becomes an issue for his doubles finals, since they were often played on the next-to-last day of a given tournament. I dug through one of the tournament links on the ITF site but couldn't find specific dates of matches. If you can't find them, I suggest making the final dates into tournament date ranges, since they are included in the ITF source.
|
Comments
- "Sousa started playing in the ATP Challenger Tour in 2008" This should be on instead of in
- Same with the world Tour in the following sentence
- "and won his first top-tier ATP singles title in September 2013, at the Malaysian Open." make this a separate sentence
- "He has participated in all four Grand Slams, having three third-round appearances at the US Open (2013) and Australian Open (2015 and 2016) as his best performances." -> He has participated n all four Grand Slams, his best performances were three third-round appearances at the US Open (2013) and Australian Open (2015 and 2016).
- "In 2014, Sousa was the first Portuguese..." Portuguese player
- "...exclusively at the ATP World Tour in a single season" -> exclusively on
NapHit (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 14:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC) [4].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Wishva de Silva (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This list is considerably better than most tallest buildings lists of cities in China. It also has quite a long list of references. Wishva de Silva (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great list, but I do have quite a few recommendations.
- Why are some buildings linked to wiki pages that don't exist, and some are not. They should either be all linked in anticipation of future articles, or not linked at all.
- Outdated phrasing should be removed. Featured lists no longer start with "The following is a list of..." as it is rather tautological.
- Over time, I have seen many of these tallest buildings list decay and find that the biggest issue is the "approved" and "proposed" sections. They are very unreliable, and subject to change. I would eliminate them completely as per the policy of WP:CRYSTAL and report a list of only buildings that actually exist, not some random plan of an architect. Mattximus (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the gallery would be best removed and the images placed along the right side of the table. The table is not so wide that it would not fit.
- There are citation needed tags
- I'm not sure an "under construction" section should exist, but if it is necessary, buildings without firm completion dates need to be removed for now.
- The last 5 references appear to be incomplete citations.
- This is just a first pass of important edits. I will happily look at it again. Mattximus (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mattximus: Thanks for the suggestions, I have fixed a number of the issues you pointed out. I agree that the Approved and Proposed sections may be very unreliable over time, but would it be disrespectful to those editors who created these sections? Wishva de Silva (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Those were quick edits! Quick note, I think the photos should go to the right of the list, not as a column in the list itself. Simply because not all buildings have pictures. And as for the approved/proposed, I saw one list that had maybe 12-15 proposed buildings, all of which were cancelled. So it's not a very encyclopaedic section if they are imaginary. It is my opinion that wikipedia should report on things that exist, not things that might exist. As soon as the building is well under construction should it be included. Another way of looking at it is that I suggest removing the approved/proposed buildings for now, once they are being built they can be put back. Mattximus (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mattximus: Sorry for this rather late reply. Well, I do not entirely agree. Since if you would look at skyscraper lists for almost all major cities they almost certainly have these Proposed/Approved sections (eg New York and Los Angeles), a large portion of them of them are featured lists as well. If deletion is necessary we should discuss with others first. As long as there's someone to update the information on a timely manner this wouldn't be a significant issue--which I probably can do. Wishva de Silva (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I just checked a bunch randomly: List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque, List of tallest buildings in Atlanta, List of tallest buildings in Baltimore all do not have them. I really think it runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL... no real encyclopedia will list potential buildings that might be build in the future (but probably not). It's just not appropriate. I'm happy to see what others say. Again, once they are actually under construction then they can be added to the list. Mattximus (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mattximus: Sorry for this rather late reply. Well, I do not entirely agree. Since if you would look at skyscraper lists for almost all major cities they almost certainly have these Proposed/Approved sections (eg New York and Los Angeles), a large portion of them of them are featured lists as well. If deletion is necessary we should discuss with others first. As long as there's someone to update the information on a timely manner this wouldn't be a significant issue--which I probably can do. Wishva de Silva (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Those were quick edits! Quick note, I think the photos should go to the right of the list, not as a column in the list itself. Simply because not all buildings have pictures. And as for the approved/proposed, I saw one list that had maybe 12-15 proposed buildings, all of which were cancelled. So it's not a very encyclopaedic section if they are imaginary. It is my opinion that wikipedia should report on things that exist, not things that might exist. As soon as the building is well under construction should it be included. Another way of looking at it is that I suggest removing the approved/proposed buildings for now, once they are being built they can be put back. Mattximus (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mattximus: Thanks for the suggestions, I have fixed a number of the issues you pointed out. I agree that the Approved and Proposed sections may be very unreliable over time, but would it be disrespectful to those editors who created these sections? Wishva de Silva (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Looks like the user has given up on nomination and not addressed issues like bare urls. Mattximus (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mattximus: No, not yet. Sorry, I almost forgot about this nomination to be honest. Anyway, regarding the Approved/Proposed sections, it would not be constructive to argue about these matters and after another thought, I think you have a point there. I'll delete them first, and if necessary I may start a discussion to explain on the lists' talk page if somebody viewed by edit and reverted it. Wishva de Silva (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: Bare urls, I also had problems against to the translated titles (also publisher, newspaper, author etc.). Yes, I could accept translated titles, but not without their original one, if you have to tranlating them (I prefer only keep the original title), then please using trans_title, keep the original.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jarodalien: I agree these titles should not be translated. Can you give me the URLs with such titles so I can fix them? I have also fixed the Bare URL issue you pointed out. Wishva de Silva (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just fix one myself, you should least check every sources to make sure they all have proper template (cite web, news or journal), title, publishing date, newspaper (journal, work etc.), publisher (via etc.).--Jarodalien (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wishva de Silva: do you plan on returning to this nomination to address the reviewers' concerns, or should this nomination be closed? --PresN 20:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: Hi there. I apologize for not responding lately. Thanks for Ping-ing me. I wasn't giving up on the nomination...Let me see if I could do some fixing to the page. Wishva de Silva (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Not ready for FL status yet, still needs a lot of work. Articled hasn't been edited in 9 days and nominator hasn't commented here in the same timeframe. @FLC director and delegates: it may be time to archive this nomination to keep things moving forward. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I wanted to give the nom some time since they said that they'd come back to this, but it looks like it's not going to happen anytime soon. Wishva: no problem with you renominating if you ever get around to fixing up the issues raised by reviewers. --PresN 00:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.