Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2023

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) 00:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [1].

---

List of accolades received by The Batman (film)

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 15:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Massive cleanup allows me to nominate this list in a similar layout to List of accolades received by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. Chompy Ace 15:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "Made on a production budget of $185–200 million budget2 - repetition of "budget"
• "At the 76th British Academy Film Awards, the film received was nominated for" - at least one stray word in there
• "at the Grammy Awards's 59th ceremony." => "at the Grammy Awards' 59th ceremony." (plural nouns just take an apostrophe for the possessive, not an apostrophe +s)
• Two of the awards are shown as going to "Colin FarrellColin Farrell" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude, done. Chompy Ace 07:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn until further notice, so I do not want any more questions during my inactivity. Chompy Ace 01:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• @FLC director and delegates: Pamzeis (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2023 (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• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close.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.

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) 00:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [2].

---

List of LGBT characters in The Simpsons

Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Like many aspects of The Simpsons, its LGBT characters and how it portrays them have received attention in pop culture articles, books, and at least one scholarly journal. I've compiled all of the characters that are mentioned in reliable sources with brief descriptions, including prose sections for characters that have their own articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

PresN, I'm opting to withdraw this FLC. Not only has it reached an impasse, but there's a good chance that it's going to be converted to a non-list article soon, rendering the point moot. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "The Simpsons has historically been...." - I would briefly introduce what The Simpsons actually is for the benefit of the four people on the planet who don't know ;-)
• "or identified as possibly being portrayed as such in the future" - bit of a mouthful. Maybe "or identified as such in episodes set in the future"...?
• For the characters who merit a full section, you have a "main article" template but then immediately use their name as the very first words, so you may as well just link those words
• "The gender and sexuality of Kang and Kodos has been portrayed...." - specify that Kang and Kodos are aliens
• "Waylon Smithers was widely alluded to as gay throughout the show's run" - suggests that the show's run has ended, which I don't believe is the case? I think rather than "throughout the show's run" you need "for much of the show's run" or "for the first N years of the show's run"
• "Dewey – A romantic interest for Dewey Largo" - just to confirm, they're both called Dewey....?
• Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  ChrisTheDude I've cut the part about future portrayals because it's essentially redundant, and I fixed all other issues in the text. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

FOARP

• I'm new at FLC so please forgive me if anything I write here appears dumb.
• This is valid as a list, but isn't the real topic here the theme of LGBT representation in the Simpsons in general? If there's already an article (or article-section) on that on Wikipedia, it should be linked. If not, for full coverage of the topic there's a number of topics that should be covered somewhere (Fox's - and other networks? - threatened censorship of episodes featuring LGBT characters, the reported positive effect on closeted gay people of LGBT representation on the Simpson encouraging them to come out etc.).
• Has there also been criticism of LGBT representation in the Simpsons, or of these characters? Except for the reference to stereotypes in the lead section, there seems to be a large amount of positive coverage on this page. Not saying there has to be more negative coverage, but it would be unusual if there were not, particularly retrospectively. Looking at the sources (e.g., the Game Rant article) the coverage is not quite as positive, at least from a quick read-through. May be worth thinking about for full WP:NPOV.
• What is the difference between a supporting character and a minor character? This is not obvious to the casual reader and probably requires a bit of context, especially when some of the minor characters may have appeared in numerous episodes.
• Going down the criteria I get:

1) Prose - Good.

2) Lead - OK.

3)

a) Comprehensiveness - questions above.

b) Citations - I'm going to AGF on this.

c) Meets WP:SAL.

4) Structure - OK.

5)

a) Visual appeal - OK. I tend to like a nice image right at the top to make the article really "pop" which this doesn't have, but I understand that may be difficult to get given the copyright protection of the Simpsons.

b) Media files - in as much as it is possible for someone who is not a US lawyer to confirm the licensing data on this, the files appear OK.

6) Stability - stable.

• And that's all I've got. FOARP (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  FOARP, notable characters have their own sections. If you have any ideas on how to clarify that for the reader, I'm open to suggestions. For your other questions, there is such a section on another article that covers the topic, so I've added a hatnote link to it, though again I'll take suggestions if there's a better way to incorporate it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably there should be a stand-alone article about LGBT issues in the Simpsons but until there is the link to that section is good enough. "Notable" is a Wikipedia term - if we're using the distinction that some characters are "minor" and others are "supporting" that should be substantiated somehow, or another way of sorting the characters should ideally be used, since a character being "supporting" or "minor" is conceivably something that someone could challenge. Some of the "minor" characters have been in a lot of episodes (e.g., the Dewey Largo character). FOARP (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

FOARP, there's never a perfect way to organize info like this, but I think this is adequate. If you have any alternative suggestions that might be better, I'll hear it out. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien - A structure based on number of episodes in which they appear would at least not require a source since it is effectively just simple maths (e.g., "recurring characters" and "other"). I note that we have List of recurring The Simpsons characters so this is at least a structure used elsewhere on Wikipedia. FOARP (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

FOARP I wonder if this is something where it might help to get more eyes on it. This is one of those issues where the best answer is probably going to be subjective. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It's entirely because the statement that a character is "minor" is entirely subjective that we should instead prefer an objective way of organising the characters. FL status should not be conferred for an article with unsourced statements. FOARP (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Jake

I appose this article for inclusion as a Featureted list due to the fact that it is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy (Deletion page) Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 14:38, 16 July 2023 (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.

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) 12:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [3].

---

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Juan Manuel Fangio

Nominator(s): Radioactive39 (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because in my opinion, the following list seems to be like a well-written and compactly summarized summary about the statistics and achievements (in this case: grand prix wins) from one of the pioneers in Formula One, who dominated the sport during his career and is widely considered as one of the greatest Formula One drivers of all time. Radioactive39 (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but I am not convinced that this lists meets the WP:NLIST criteria.(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SSSB (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Never actually included in WP:FLC. --PresN 01:54, 3 July 2023 (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.

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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [4].

---

List of covers and tributes to Coldplay

Nominator(s): GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

After extensive research, I believe to have placed together a cohesive list with a level of maturity and quality which warrants being featured. I'm a big fan of Coldplay and my goal here is making information about the band more widely available. This page helps to further paint the picture on their wide cultural impact across the music industry. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

General comment: What is the selection criteria for items in this list? Many of the covers are simply sourced to YouTube/Apple Music/etc., which fails to demonstrate significance. List items do not need stand-alone notability like articles, but they "should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence". For instance, this lists 42 covers of "Fix You", which feels excessive (yet it fails to include the version by Young@Heart Chorus, which is the cover that receives the most coverage in the song's article). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I looked for covers on WhoSampled then included only the ones from artists who have a Wikipedia page, which – in theory – means they are notable. I did not paid much attention to the song articles now that I think of it. Perhaps is best to withdraw the nomination then. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 01:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, hadn't noticed that about the artists. That seems reasonable to me, though in general I would prefer to see more secondary sources where possible. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I just counted them and 143 references (less than half) are from Apple Music, Spotify, etc. I understand the concern and I can try to look for a few more secondary items, but the older covers are particularly harder. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 02:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments on lead only

• "According to BBC" => "According to the BBC"
• "they are the most covered group in Live Lounge history" => "they are the most covered group in the history, a segment on BBC Radio 1 during which acts usually perform a song by another artist"
• "Pitchfork mentioned Coldplay attained" => "Pitchfork mentioned that Coldplay attained"
• "while BuzzFeed News stated Chris Martin's duets" => "while BuzzFeed News stated that Chris Martin's duets"
• "Meanwhile, the band have been referenced in [....] as well" => "The band have also been referenced in..."
• "have all organized" => "have all organised" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• Also worth noting that all the notes expect the last two are not complete sentences so should not have full stops -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  All solved. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 12:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Initial comment on the table

• The sort order of the table is all over the place. "Naturally 7" is sorted before the A entries, for no reason I can tell. "Vox Angeli" is listed with the As when it should be with the Vs. "Twelve Girls Band" is under B when it should be under T....? "Out of the Blue" is under B when it should be under O. "The Petersens" is listed between the Gs and the Hs, which makes no sense at all. The whole thing's just a mess...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  I used the "Sortname" tool, like the one seen in the directors column from Coldplay videography, isn't that the way for names? GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 18:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  It's the way for people's names (which sort based on the person's surname). Names of bands don't sort under whatever happens to be the last word. Any name that is a band not a person should be located alphabetically in the table and sort based on the first word, unless that word is either "The" or "A", in which case it should be based on the next word -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  What about a solo artist with an artistic name? GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 18:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  I am not sure what you mean by that, can you give an example? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  Joy Electric was a single person, then became a band, but now is a solo artist again. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  There's also Chance the Rapper. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  Based on my reading the article about this act I had not previously heard of, I would say that Joy Electric should be listed under J as it's not a [forename] [surname] name. Chance the Rapper should definitely be listed under C -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  How about Plan B? 50 Cent? Should I sort B.o.B as Bob? I made some corrections, please see if they satisfy you. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 21:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  All those should simply sort normally, there is no need to do anything unusual. Basically, personal names which are in the form [forename] [surname] should be sorted based on the surname. Anything else should just sort as normal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  One more quick point while I am here: "Polkarama!" does not sample the Coldplay track. It is a medley of lots of songs performed by Al in a polka style, so it should be in the covers section -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Solved. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 14:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Just made a few changes based on that. How do you think I should sort Ian Sweet? I was thinking "I" since it's an artistic name, but technically it does fall into [forename] [surname]. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 14:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, and I put Black Cobain and Rockie Fresh under B and R, but I'm in doubt now too. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 14:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47

I am leaving this up as a placeholder, and I will try to get back to this sometime early this week. I do not think I've seen this kind of list in the FLC space before so I find that interesting, although I could be wrong as I have not been active with FLs/FLCs in a number of years now.

My only question right now is about the BTS image. Why is BTS and their cover of "Fix You" notable enough to be so prominently featured in the lead over all others? In my opinion, it gives it undue weight. If a single cover was going to be represented in the lead, I would think it would go to Willie Nelson (who is prominently featured in the lead already) or a rapper like Kanye West or Jay-Z to further illustrate the Pitchfork quote about Coldplay and rock samples in hip hop. The current BTS image just seems random. Aoba47 (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I was inspired by the List of cover versions of Madonna songs, but after seeing the List of Gwen Stefani tribute albums, I decided to make further inclusions (samples, albums and events), as I don't think they warrant one Wikipedia page each. The BTS image was picked out of sheer convenience, as I already had used it in Coldplay videography (the alt caption was ready to go). You have a point though, so I'll be searching for a Willie Nelson photo. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the links to the other lists. I was not sure if a similar list was ever promoted to a FL before. I think this type of list really adds to a reader's understanding of a certain artist or group as it does give a clearer picture of their legacy and impact on music. While I do understand the desire to use an image from another FL as it has already met the requirements for a FL, I would more so make sure that it fits the list and is appropriate, and I think a Willie Nelson photo would be more ideal. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Just changed it! GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• I would add a note for the Glee entries to specify who is actually performing these covers? I know that they are just marked as Glee cast on the album, but it shouldn't be difficult to find the actual performers for these two songs. For instance, it seems that Matthew Morrison is the primary performer for "Fix You".
• I am uncertain about the following sentence: The band have also been referenced in R&B ("Should I Go" by Brandy) and pop music ("Coldplay" by Lizzo). This is a rather large claim, and it is only sourced to Coldplay being referenced in one R&B song and one pop song. If Coldplay has more references in either of these genres, a much stronger source that explicitly discusses this will need to be used. Otherwise, it just reads as random, and I would suggest removing it.
• I am uncertain about the "Country" parameter in the list. While I do think it is interesting and can show how Coldplay has a global impact, there are questionable entries here. For instance, Camila Cabello has both United States and Cuba, and that just seems like a stretch. Cabello was born in Cuba, but she moved to the U.S. at the age of six and is primarily identified as an American artist. I think this category could open up issues regarding how individuals are tied to countries. Another similar instance is Rita Ora. She was born in Kosovo, but I think she is primarily considered a U.K. artist. The article for Antoine Dufour does not mention France at all, instead connecting him with Quebec, and that is very different and separate from France. I know that a majority of the entries are more simple with a single country, but these outliers do make me question the potential issues here and make me wonder if this category should be removed altogether.

I hope these comments are helpful. To be clear, I have only looked at the prose, and I have not looked at the citations at all. Let me know if you have questions about my comments, and once everything has been addressed, I will look through the list again to make sure I have not missed anything. I hope you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• I feel like putting the name of everyone who performed the covers in Glee would make the artist column too cluttered. But if you insist, I think we can agree have the main performer followed by "Glee cast".

• I did not say that the names should be added to the column. I said that they should be added as an end note. Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me, English is not my first language, could you please elucidate what exactly I have to do? GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 03:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You use end notes in this list. That is the "Note" section at the end. You could just keep Glee cast in the table and put a note that directs toward the bottom of the list, along with the other notes, and include the specifics on who sings the song out of the cast. Aoba47 (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Done! GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 11:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• The "referenced in R&B and pop music" line was meant to express it isn't just rappers who sample them, I just changed it to "referenced by R&B and pop artists", sounds less broad to me now, what do you think?

• It is still a no from me. The two citations do not support that Coldplay was "referenced by R&B and pop artists". It supports that Coldplay was referenced by two specific artists only (Brandy and Lizzo) and a bigger statement about the band's legacy and impact on two entire genres of music cannot be made based on two songs alone. Unless a citation can be found that explicitly says that Coldplay has been referenced by R&B and pop artists (and by that I mean more than just two), this should be removed. Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Solved. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 03:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Still seems a little random in my opinion, but it should be fine now. Aoba47 (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I changed it to "The band have also been referenced by R&B and pop singers Brandy ("Should I Go") and Lizzo ("Coldplay")". Doesn't sound random to me. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 11:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Just a difference in opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• As for the countries, I removed Cuba and Kosovo from Camila and Rita Ora's columns, but the rest was based on each article description. If there's no mention of Antoine Dufour being French, it's a problem from his own article, I edited both now.

• Still seems odd to me. I have not seen other similar lists use this type of parameter. Just something about it still seems off to me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The List of cover versions of Madonna songs, which I used as an inspiration, has the countries column. I understand your concert over expressing an artist's nationality but I don't think the list, as it stands right now, would be controversial. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 03:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

To be blunt, List of cover versions of Madonna songs is not a FL so it is not the best point of comparison to make for a FLC. I will wait to hear other reviewers's opinion on this matter, but the fact that this parameter could potentially lead to issues makes me skeptical of its placement and role here. Aoba47 (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I just checked all pages under the "Lists of cover songs" category and none of them are featured. Whatever the consensus turns out to be (I personally don't see why the countries column would lead to issues), we'll be setting a precedent! GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 11:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed response, but my issue is that errors did end up in this list regardless until I pointed them out. And even though I could see the appeal of this parameter (i..e. showing global impact and influence as I have said above), I think there leaves room for error and does not have a clear cited reason for being there. I would not just base nationality on the Wikipedia article. Although a majority of the times it is correct, questions of nationality have lead to heated discussions on biographical article. Again, I fine with it staying if consensus goes that way, but the fact that 1) there were errors in this list during the FLC review process and 2) nationality can be a contentious issue on its own makes me less than certain on it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• I'm not seeing a clear reason authors are not included in the refs.
• Bustle and BuzzFeed News are is not considered the most reputed sources, especially the latter. Their opinions on subjective things should not be included
• What's the criteria for inclusion? Two YouTube covers are included even though seemingly no secondary source reported on them, but there are hundreds of thousands of other Coldplay covers on YouTube that aren't which is quite confusing.--NØ 17:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  • I created most references manually and didn't really thought about it since it's not mandatory.
  • Why is BuzzFeed News not considered a reputable source? Genuinely asking.
  • As I mentioned earlier, I used WhoSampled as a starting point and picked up only the covers from artists who have a Wikipedia page, so the criteria for inclusion would be their own notability.

  GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies for jumping into another person's source review, but I would believe both Bustle and BuzzFeed News are considered reliable sources even in featured contents. Despite it having BuzzFeed in its title, BuzzFeed News is actually well-respected and has won major awards for its coverage. I've personally never had any issues with Bustle, and I think it is appropriate for these kinds of pop culture topics. Apologies again for intruding on this, but I wanted to assist both the source reviewer and the FLC nominator by clearing this point up. Aoba47 (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  The reliability of Bustle is "unclear" according to WP:RSPSS, so I have to disagree with this other person that it meets the high-quality standard for featured content. It creating a list ranking Coldplay songs is not relevant or suitable for inclusion. Struck comment about BuzzFeed News as I confused it with the regular BuzzFeed. Since FLs are meant to "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work", I would consider author names a basic expectation. I don't like the insinuation that I have been excessively harsh here. Also, this is not "another person's source review", just drive-by comments as indicated.--NØ 13:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  I did not insinuate that you were being harsh here and I have never done that in general. Apologies for calling this a source review. I had misread this part for whatever reason. I agree that author names are a basic expectation and should be there of course. Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn
I am back from vacation in college, so I would like to withdrawn this nomination until further notice. I need time to address the issues that will be brought to me in the future the way I want and right now I don't have that time anymore.GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 June 2023 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [5].

---

Boston Bridge Works

I am nominating Boston Bridge Works as a featured list. Although the article is short, as there was not a lot of information about the company available, i believe it fits the criteria. Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 09:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• The left-aligned image at the very top of the article, causing pretty much the entire lead to be sandwiched, doesn't look great...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Done. Thanks for the input. Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 08:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

FOARP

• This is essentially an article about the Boston Bridge Works company.
• "was a popular engineering firm", "a popular bridge style of that period" - editorialising. If you mean the style was common, say that. Done
• I'm not seeing WP:SIRS in the sourcing here. This is about a company, so the standard to be met is WP:CORP. I'm not sure how WP:AUD is met here.
• Looking through the sources that, judging by the titles, are actually about the company, I'm not sure how these are WP:SIGCOV of the company. These appear to be short articles about the company in local newspapers covering WP:RUNOFTHEMILL stuff about the company. Not seeing WP:ORGDEPTH. FOARP (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  @FOARP:Thanks for the input, I didn't realize that the list was in that much diss-repair. I am ok with a disapprove, and/or taking down the nomination. Unfortunately, there really isn't that much more info about the company out there. Thank you again! Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 09:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think I can support this one without much better sourcing. We shouldn't be promoting articles to FL status that have big question marks about notability. FOARP (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 11:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments from nominator

• As both the nominator and original creator of the article, I am ok with archiving/ deleting the nomination. Thanks everyone for their input. Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 07:07, 18 June 2023 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

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