Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/June 2024
- 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, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Lionel Cristiano? 13:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a very good list, I don't think there's anything missing. Lionel Cristiano? 13:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh Lionel Cristiano? 13:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lionel Cristiano: Why have you pinged me? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Drive-by comment - images need alt text. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment
[edit]- The lead is far too short and does not provide an adequate summary of the article
- Per MOS:BOLD, bolding should not be used to identify items meeting a certain criterion. Use a colour and symbol instead
- Why do a handful of entries have no number in the first column? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Dajasj
[edit]- I would recommend putting the map in the top right corner. It does not need to be that big in the bottom and it gives more context in the top than an image of Istanbul. If you keep it there, I would suggest changing the width to 960px (which is the default width voor Vector 2022). Dajasj (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead. - Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding
!scope=col
to each header cell, e.g.! Citybecomes!scope=col | City. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use!scope=colgroup
instead. - Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding
!scope=row
to each primary cell, e.g.| [[Istanbul]]becomes!scope=row | [[Istanbul]]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use!scope=rowgroup
instead. In your case, you're using a table class to create a first column, so I'm not sure how you would make that the row header, but since you also skip numbers for some rows I guess the city name cell should be the header. - Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 21:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Mattximus
[edit]- Featured lists no longer use self-referential sentences: "In this article, cities are sorted by official population." That sentence can be removed. As with "The rankings". Just needs a bit of a rewording. If you do need to refer to the list itself it can go in notes at the appropriate part of the list.
- Much of the lead is framed towards explaining caveats of the list and not actually summarizing the list itself. This is a major issue with this page, you need to summarize the list in the lead.
- I'm confused at the inclusion criteria, why is Greater London included (not City of London) but Greater Paris isn't?
- And we need to distinguish somehow the population estimates versus actual census counts. Estimates can vary wildly from actual population counts.
- Note for Istanbul should be a sentence and not point form, and should have a reference.
- What exactly is "official population"
- Capital cities in bold should be in legend or note as a colour and symbol.
Oppose for now, lots of issues found but not insurmountable. Mattximus (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, main contributor is blocked. I have a feeling that As some cities have narrow boundaries and others wide ones, the list may not give an accurate view of the comparative magnitude of different places, and the figures in the list should be treated with caution: for example, Paris is the second most populous urban area in Europe, but the strict definition of the administrative limits of the City of Paris results in a far lower population shown in the table.
should be copyedited and I also highly doubt the section Map needs a heading. 48JCL 22:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the lead is insufficient for an FL, which I would expect to have much more prose. "some cities have narrow boundaries and others wide ones" is too vague. The only city mentioned in the lead is Paris, for no good reason. The list could be much longer, since I'm pretty sure data is available for a great many cities below the one million mark. Also, the nom is CU-blocked. Toadspike [Talk] 14:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've edited the lead a little to fix some of the poor wording, but I still oppose this nomination, since greater improvement than some drive-by copyediting is needed. Toadspike [Talk] 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: I'm not aware of the standard policy in these types of situations, but the nominator has been checkuser blocked by Bradv. Would a closure of this nomination be appropriate, given the circumstances? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh: Yep, nominator being blocked typically means we close the nomination, unless someone immediately steps up to take it over. In this case, with multiple opposes on top of that, I think we can call this done. --PresN 18:24, 26 June 2024 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]
- Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With some precedence of alternative lists at FLC (see Outline of lichens), I am offering up a list of lists to FLC: Lists of Green Bay Packers players. This index list provides an overview of all the various player-related lists for the Green Bay Packers. This includes 16 different lists (noting that the All-Time Roster is split into 4 additional standalone lists due to length), as well as other pertinent information (the team's current roster, photos on Commons and relevant external links). Per FLC criteria, this list provides a full lead summarizing the relevant material and has 3 freely licensed images. As always, happy to discuss and resolve any comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drive by comment
@Gonzo fan2007
Excuse me if I am wrong, but why does the end of the lead say The following lists provide an overview of notable groupings of Green Bay Packers players.
Is it supposed to be like that? Sorry, I’m dumb so tell me if I’m wrong. 48JCL • (📲/📝) 01:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 48JCL I'm not sure there is a right or wrong. I just thought it was a nice way to end the lead to clarify to the reader that the following are lists, not individual entries like a typical list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, thanks for the clarification. 48JCL • (📲/📝) 01:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @FLC director and delegates: please withdraw this nomination. It doesn't seem to be moving, I will come back to it some other time. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:40, 25 June 2024 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [3].[reply]
- Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article earlier today. I have formatted the lead, tables, etc. to match the suggestions I've gotten from other FL nominations (this is my third one happening right now). Anyway, thanks. XR228 (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You currently have two reviews open; having a third nomination is discouraged. I would suggest you move to withdraw this list and, based on a quick glance, I suggest improving the sourcing in the tables (and having at least one of your open reviews closed) before resubmitting this. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded, this nomination should be withdrawn @XR228. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the nomination from the FLC page and the actual article's talk page. Also @Hey man im josh, do you think the List of Boston Bruins seasons article is ready to get promoted? The conversation on that article has been kind of dead for the past week. XR228 (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @XR228: Nominations are promoted when they get consensus from reviewers; right now no one has supported that nomination. Consider pinging the reviewers with the {{reply to}} template or similar to alert them to return to their reviews to support or oppose or add more. --PresN 03:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the nomination from the FLC page and the actual article's talk page. Also @Hey man im josh, do you think the List of Boston Bruins seasons article is ready to get promoted? The conversation on that article has been kind of dead for the past week. XR228 (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2024 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [4].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Wilfredor (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I consider it to be of high encyclopedic value, well documented, referenced, and I think it meets the selection criteria. Wilfredor (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close This is an article, not a list. WP:GAN would be the right place for this now. Reywas92Talk 14:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Several comments anyway to prepare you for a GA review:
- What do the colors in the Context table mean? I don't see a correlation with severity or percent of women affected. Also, what are the sources for this table???
- The Motivations for Entering Prostitution begins with a the name of a study in Portuguese, which is not accessible to a reader in English. This Brazilian study (and the next source) are not necessarily representative of a broader overview.
- While inclusion of the Types of Prostitutes section is good, several sections don't cover the variety of prostitution and how different the impacts may be in regulated/non-regulated places and situations.
- The paragraph on "Samantha X" is from the WP:DAILYMAIL. It's an unreliable source and I see no reason why this anecdote not analyzed by researchers should be included. Same goes for Maeve Moon.
- Cynthia Harriman – while covered in an actual newspaper, this is again just an anecdote so a standalone section on her seems inappropriate. The interspersed quotations are good, but focus the sections on more academic findings. This is also poor writing to say "a resident of Rockford" (where is that?) and the present tense "now works" regarding a 2007 article.
- Way too many sections are dependent on single sources such as Substance Abuse and Recidivism. The latter is also a PhD thesis, not a published/reviewed article.
- "Pentecostalism" is also too much of a single anecdote rather than evidence of why this denomination in particular is significant. Beginning the Religion section "Pentecostalism presents an escape route, offering spiritual redemption and a fresh start" inappropriately implies that other Christian denominations do not provide support.
- The single citation for Hypervigilance and Distrust is an unreliable source that has nothing to do with prostitution. Why is this here???
- Recovery of Self in Connection with Horses – again, a single individual's anecedote. Caring for horses worked for this person, but absolutely nothing here suggests equine therapy is a widely used treatment recognized as being particularly for prostitution or that this deserves a whole section.
- It's rather strange that the High-Class Prostitutes Study in Manhattan section fails to mention that the source is from 1958. Also, this is entirely WP:Close paraphrasing, with identical paragraph structure and sentences slightly reworded. E.g. you wrote "Most of the prostitutes analyzed had miserable childhoods; three-quarters came from broken homes due to separations or divorces. The remaining ones viewed their homes as facades, with loveless relationships between their parents." vs. the source's "Predictably, most of the girls had miserable childhoods; three-fourths came from homes broken by separation or divorce. The rest had viewed their homes as façades, papier-maché creations erected to cover a desiccated relationship, devoid of love between father and mother." That is bad and still a copyright violation, and other sections appear to do the same. Reywas92Talk 15:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for take the time to review it, I'm taking the notes about your review to fix it. Wilfredor (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close: Not a list. Should be nominated at WP:GAN. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Close - although it contains a few small tables, it isn't a list article so this is not the appropriate place for it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2024 (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. --PresN 16:40, 19 June 2024 (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) 00:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [5].[reply]
- Nominator(s): 48JCL (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Botswana is a country located in sub-Saharan Africa. It is usually referred to as one of the most democratic countries in this region, however not much attention is given to this country. Currently, WP:BOTSWANA does not have any FLs so I think having one would be nice. 48JCL (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comment from ChrisTheDude
|
|---|
|
Drive-by comment
|
Resolved comments from MPGuy2824
|
|---|
Done
Done
Already done
Will do later
Done
Not sure- pinging @Aficionado538 who added the image. 48JCL (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC) DONE- found out why. 48JCL (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Done
Done
Made clearer
Research done- found a party. Also explained more. Thanks User:Number 57.48JCLTALK 19:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comments by RunningTiger123
- "terms; and" – to be a correct compound sentence, should be "terms, and" or "terms;" (no "and")
- Need a key to list all party abbreviations in the table
- References column should not be sortable
- Not a full source review, but just from a quick glance ref. 27 seems questionable as a WP:SPS – what makes it reliable?
@RunningTiger123:, according to the AceProject that created the website, the data is compiled from EISA data, the United Nations, and more.
- Would be nice to see some citation cleanup (e.g., "www.cia.gov" is fine for the website name but not the page title)
- At the very least, every citation should have the correct page title and a website/publisher name
- No need to apply double bold font to gallery heading
- What is the source for the data used in the maps in the gallery? (Doesn't need to be noted here but should be noted on the image description pages)
@RunningTiger123: pinging @FelipeRev: who created the images.48JCL TALK 17:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @48JCL: Please do not mark my comments as resolved. Right off the bat, the double bolding was not fixed and several references are still misformatted (refs. 31 and 40 are immediately obvious). If I think the issues have been resolved, I'll give an indication of that myself. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- RunningTiger123, I have added page numbers and fixed bare url errors. 48JCL TALK 02:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by CMD
- The lead feels a bit jumbled, not seeing a lot of coherence in the subject. Off the top of my head, there should be a clear paragraph on what the elections actually do, which is elect representatives to the National Assembly of Botswana (not currently mentioned?) and its predecessors. Following that, information about the President makes more sense. A paragraph on the Dominant-party system under the Botswana Democratic Party makes sense as well, but it would be nice for a more long-scale framing than talking only about the most recent polls. The lead is missing coverage of the timing of the elections, a note on why the seat number increased over time, as well as a summary of the voting and constituency systems. The information on suffrage could be slightly expanded. CMD (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Chipmunkdavis, I would like to withdraw this nomination Is there any way to ping a FLC coordinator? 48JCL TALK 21:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I'm afraid, not one of my usual haunts, but it's an interesting topic that I hope can continue to be developed. CMD (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @FLC director and delegates: see above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Chipmunkdavis, I would like to withdraw this nomination Is there any way to ping a FLC coordinator? 48JCL TALK 21:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing. --PresN 01:12, 12 June 2024 (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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [6].[reply]
- Nominator(s): GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone! I withdrew this page's nomination last year due to lack of time to address issues that could possibly be brought forward, but I believe I'm ready now. The column scopes in the tables have been fixed as asked before. Other than that, I think we are ready for the next steps. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Drive-through comments
- Concert tours table - does everything need to be center-aligned? It would be better for the number columns (shows, gross, attendance) to be right aligned.
- "width:17.05em" seems like unnecessary precision.
- COLOR shouldn't be the only means of conveying important information. Add a symbol as well. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the centered number columns makes it easier to visualise the information, similar to the List of highest-grossing concert tours. And yes, tables all across the article are precisely aligned, I'm an obsessed perfectionist. With that said, I just made a few adjustments to meet your criteria without compromising mine too much. Sorry for not adding a symbol before, I completely forgot. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest center-aligning the "Performed songs" columns as those seem to be the most bulky with substance and are not as easily readable with how much content is there. As a fellow perfectionist, I understand the desire to center these tables, though I concur that the number columns could either be left or right aligned. I've typically seen left-aligned used for release dates in other tables, and the same could work here to help differentiate each table. There are also multiple citations that would benefit from website links and archives, as well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel like centering the "Performed songs" columns would be weird, maybe having the "Event" column left-aligned in the "Music festivals" section is a better idea to make things more uniform. As for the dates, are you referring to pages such as List of Lady Gaga live performances and List of Taylor Swift live performances when you talk about them? I find their left-alignment very ugly and they don't fit with the tour articles, centering them in the Coldplay gig catalogue was a conscious decision. Lastly, I archived all the online references already. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 03:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, my mistake on the references. I'm not too big on the alignment, and yeah, I was referring to those more popular ones. I'll leave it up to your discretion. It all looks good to me, so I'll gladly Support. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 03:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, my mistake on the references. I'm not too big on the alignment, and yeah, I was referring to those more popular ones. I'll leave it up to your discretion. It all looks good to me, so I'll gladly Support. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel like centering the "Performed songs" columns would be weird, maybe having the "Event" column left-aligned in the "Music festivals" section is a better idea to make things more uniform. As for the dates, are you referring to pages such as List of Lady Gaga live performances and List of Taylor Swift live performances when you talk about them? I find their left-alignment very ugly and they don't fit with the tour articles, centering them in the Coldplay gig catalogue was a conscious decision. Lastly, I archived all the online references already. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 03:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment
- As a procedural note,
Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support
. Your nomination on the List of cover versions of Coldplay songs has one support at the moment. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]- @FLC director and delegates: , can you please archive this nom. Per the criteria and Pseud, this is a second nom without substantial support on the first nom. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:32, 28 May 2024 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.