Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/October 2016

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) 23:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC) [1].

---

Mongolia national football team results

Nominator(s): Gri3720 (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, aside from my belief that the article meets the general criteria to be a featured list, the list is referenced by a variety of reliable sources from several languages, including the language spoken in the area that the article is about. Images have been added to supplement the content of the article using formatting beyond the most basic. Mongolia has been a FIFA member only since 1998 so it was possible to begin a list that does not have gaps in early history, though pre-FIFA content was researched and added and will continue to be. The article will be simple to maintain and update at to the standards of a "featured list" as the Mongolia national team does not play matches often. The formatting of the article has been modeled upon other similar pages that have achieved featured list status, such as Faroe Islands national football team results.Gri3720 (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I like the design, based on the Faroes list, and this one is equally informative and well-researched. I've no problems with it at all and I think it deserves promotion. BoJó | talk UTC 16:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose All I am going to say is that the Faroe Islands that received featured list status looked like this. The Mongolia page doesn't look one bit like the Faroe Islands page that became a featured list. The Faroe Islands list has to be reverted back to the original structure or it's going to lose its FL status.--Cheetah (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I would like to say that there is not a standard format for featured lists. Mongolia's list of results should not automatically be disqualified from featured list status just because it looks like the Faroe Islands just like it should not automatically qualify because it does. There is not a single correct format.--Gri3720 (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments. @Crzycheetah: Perhaps I should have specified that what impresses me most is the research, not the design. The key words in my assessment are "informative and well-researched". I do like the design, but that is a secondary point. I agree with Gri3720 that there is no standard format and so any comments about a list design are simply "by the way" remarks. What matters is the work that has gone into the detail and, as far as I can see, that is good enough for the list to deserve promotion. BoJó | talk UTC 15:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The Faroe version that was voted as a featured list and List of Montserrat national football team results (a featured list) had a very similar structure and style. That style became a standard format for featured lists. Currently, this list is failing two points of the criteria: Structure and visual appeal. Since structure (also known as design of the page) is a part of the criteria, it is NOT a secondary point.--Cheetah (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing in this page that disqualifies it on the grounds of style, structure, design or visual appeal. Where does it say that one style is the standard one? BoJó | talk UTC 18:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't say that. It does say that It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Also, it says It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour. This list currently fails those two points. The ones I showed you as a standard format did not fail this criteria. --Cheetah (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I respect your opinion on the issue but think that the points in the description that you are referencing leave a lot to opinion and preference. Structure and, particularly, visual appeal are subjective. I do not see how the page is not easy to navigate, it includes numerous section headings, and the only table in the article is sortable. Again, "...suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour" is subjective. It would be more beneficial if you would state specifically what is unsuitable about these characteristics. Also, you cannot say that there is no standard format and then refer to the format of the Faroes and Montserrat as the standard format.--Gri3720 (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I stated what part of WP:FL? this list fails. I provided two featured lists that show what needs to be done to pass those criteria points as an example for you to model on. Unless some changes are made, I will not come back. --Cheetah (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Weak Support for now but needs more - Disagree entirely with Cheetah's comments. Personally, the tabular format in the two lists noted is not helpful, you can't go to specific years or competitions so to me would not satisfy the criterion: It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Lists like the Faroe Islands one were promoted five years ago. My personal view is that I don't think that there is a need to rigidly hold to a presentational style and more generally, I think we have moved on in terms of presentation, if anything, their FL status should be revisited.

I would however like to see more in terms of:

1. Analysis of the results, not just a list, for example something along the lines of Bhutan national football team results or Northern Mariana Islands national football team results. But then I would as I wrote those two!
2. Something that introduces each section, a couple of sentences summarising each section, which would help break up the page visually and make it more readable.

Fenix down (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive feedback. I reviewed the two pages you suggested and agree that some introduction to each section would be beneficial and potentially add to it visually. I added a new section in anticipation for the 2016 AFC Solidarity Cup and followed your recommendation (at least as well as I could based upon the limited information available at this point). I will continue to add analysis and commentary to the other sections as I can. Thanks again and nice work on your pages....it seems we both favor minnows as the subjects of our articles.--Gri3720 (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Issues

• I think there should be a better separation between FIFA-sanctioned games and other ones.
• the intro talks twice about "first ever victory"
• summary table should have a totals row
• intro shoudl clearly spell out the ~5 countries Mongolia beat, and probably mention the rough total games it played (FIFA and non-FIFA sanctioned) and how many of these were not losses).
• the intro should mention briefly leading goalscorers or possibly notable players if any

Nergaal (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – I just briefly glanced at the list and spotted a problem. None of the colored items in the tables have a matching symbol, which is required per WP:ACCESS guidelines. Please do consider fixing this, as it's going to be difficult for me to promote the article with such a clear breach of accessibility standards. While I'm here, a few of the references are in ALL CAPS, which is a style guideline breach. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Gri3720: are you returning to this candidate? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment suggest strongly that this is closed, the nominator has failed to respond despite editing lately and there's little sign this nomination is active. Archive without prejudice. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2016 (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) 22:02, 30 October 2016 (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) 23:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC) [2].

---

List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances)

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

With the 25-49 appearances list now having two supports and no outstanding issues, I now bring this here to complete the trinity. I have incorporated all the feedback from that FLC into this list too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Addressed comments from - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• "2016–17 season" → "2016–17 season" per WP:EASTEREGG
• Work in ref 6 should link to BBC Sport
• Unlink work in ref 8 as cricinfo is already linked in ref 7 per WP:OVERLINK

— Great list and I'm happy to support and have left a few comments that can be implemented if you see fit. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Done all those -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Threeohsix:, @Lemonade51:, @NapHit:, you guys all commented on the 25-49 list, any thoughts on this one.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Sorry, but I've got to oppose on criterion 5a. No-one's ever satisfactorily explained to me why this comes under Visual appeal, but the criterion requires that "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked". There are roughly 175 redlinks, which is approaching a third of the notable players, and more than 20% of the list as a whole; I can't see that as a minimal proportion. I've added a few comments below. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• there are one or two rows missing their row scopes (Osadebe, List, possibly others)
• Osadebe's Soccerbase ref belongs to someone else
• It doesn't seem to say anywhere what the source(s) are for career years or nationality.
• As you've included nationality for all the players, rather than just those who played international football, are you defining it as their nationality at the time they were at Gillingham, or their current/latest nationality?

Unfortunately, while I could probably fix the other items quite easily, I just don't have the available time at the moment to create new articles on over 100 players, so I think this one will have to be chalked up to experience, sadly........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2016 (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) 22:14, 30 October 2016 (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 not promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC) [3].

---

List of English cricket matches to 1725

Nominator(s): Jack | ^{talk page} 20:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive and widely sourced list of the earliest known matches in cricket, which is the world's second most popular spectator sport. As cricket is the oldest known professional team sport, these matches are highly significant in general sporting history too. I am rarely using the site these days but a friend has agreed to "watch" this nomination and I can quickly return anytime to answer your questions. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comments. I'm interested in this from the standpoint of early sporting history. As you have (perhaps deliberately and probably wisely) avoided online sources, it's not possible for me to check the references but the information seems to be in compliance with that in the "parent article" History of cricket to 1725, which is long-time GA-class. I've no doubts about the reliability of your sources, I should say. I like the layout and the additional information in each "notes" module, and think the additional sub-lists of known practitioners are useful summaries. The one suggestion I would make is about the specific historical individuals who became involved directly and otherwise (the Richmonds, Harley, Gage and Norfolk). There are images on the site of some of them (not Gage, though, surprisingly) and I wonder if they might be useful additions, although that could be repetition because you already have a couple in the parent article. Just a thought. Very good work overall but I don't feel qualified to "vote" at present and would prefer to see what others think, especially someone who knows about early cricket. BoJó | talk UTC 15:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I decided to take up my own suggestion. I definitely think images enhance this work and I've added four I found in their "parent articles". I think this action disqualifies me from "voting" so I will step aside now. Good luck. BoJó | talk UTC 19:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - terrible intro terrible formatting, weird and I think incorrect title, uncited section . Nergaal (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

A terrible unhelpful comment which smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, a terrible reason for opposing something. Please explain why the title is incorrect when the article is demonstrably a list of English cricket matches known to have been played to 1725, and what is "weird" about the title? Please explain your problem with the intro, which describes the scope of the article very well, and what specific problems do you see with the formatting? If something is uncited, tag it. Personally, I don't see any need for further citations apart from a few "nice-to-haves", perhaps, but it would help everyone if you could exert yourself to indicate where you think these should be. Please try to do better when you post comments as making glib remarks without any rationale is terrible editing. BoJó | talk UTC 15:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per Nergaal
  • This is a list.. - I can read the title, I know it's a list. Redundant intro.
  • A one paragraph of intro is too short and it doesn't explain anything that's worth knowing. It doesn't summarize the list whatsoever.
  • Only significant matches are listed, so not all of them? Really?
  • The correct title then should be "List of significant English cricket matches (1610-1725)"
  • The infobox is not helpful at all.
  • A wikitable should be used with col-scopes and row-scopes.
  • Very, very little wikilinks in the table.
  • The whole First mentions section looks like someone's sandbox. I don't see what purpose it serves.

--Cheetah (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You again. Are you and Nergaal the same person, by any chance? There is a strong similarity, underlined by your sudden appearance here with a response to my above comments. I don't think people with two userids are allowed to use both in the same discussion.

Your third "point" displays alarming ignorance and inability to read the author's words. He says, clearly and concisely, that it is a list of known cricket matches played until 1725 (that) is not necessarily exhaustive but does seek to highlight and summarise those matches that are significant (given that he has included some which would not normally be significant – i.e., the village cricket matches) in the sport's early history. If you knew anything at all about early sporting history, you would realise that the key word here is "known". I am not going to try and explain this any further because it is a waste of my time.

From what I can see of WP:CRIC's work, the infobox is a standard one and it adeqautely summarises the three forms of cricket that were being played during the period.

Once again, as with the Mongolian football list, you are wittering on about standard wikitables, etc. There isn't a standard and this presentation is fine, as was the Mongolian one.

You say there are not enough wikilinks. He has linked (probably) everything that has an article. Would you prefer to see a load of redlinks: what use are they to the reader who is the important party here, not you and your evident alter ego?

The "first mentions" idea is good as it provides the reader (remember him/her?) with a very useful summary of which counties, teams, players and venues were known (that word again) to be active up to 1725, given that so little is known about that early phase in the history of a major world sport. I'm sure anyone with any imagination would see its value.

Having said all of that, I agree that the intro is too short and should have three to the maximum four paragraphs. I have a wide knowledge of early sporting history but don't know enough about the details of early cricket to expand it myself and it would seem that the author has quit WP, so I guess it ends here. BoJó | talk UTC 14:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• • • Stop being rude, BoJo. It's not my fault that you have a knowledge deficit regarding WP:MOS.
      • Go check whether Nergaal and I are the same person first before accusing.
      • Yes, it does say known cricket matches, but then it says "known cricket matches that are significant". Now, you are saying that there are some games listed that are not significant. Now, do you really think that your readers will not be confused as to what items are listed on this page? I, for one, expected to see all known matches as opposed to significant only with some that are not significant enough.
      • Infoboxes are usually very helpful, but not on this page.
      • Regarding the tables, please read MOS:DTT.
      • As for the wikilinks: the pages that need to be linked should be linked at the first occurrence. He linked them at the last occurrence.
      • The first mentions section should be formatted nicely, so the readers could actually read it.

--Cheetah (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Delegate comments

• Okay, everyone here needs to chill out. There's no point getting angry over a list review.
• No, Nergaal and Crzycheetah are not the same person just because they both are opposing your list. Snidely accusing them of such without evidence is a good way to not get your lists promoted.
• Vitriol aside, there are several large problems with this list. They are not insurmountable! But they do require work.
• The title is fine, though I'd prefer "through 1725" or "before 1726", but I am American.
• The lead is anemic. An FL lead is supposed to generally summarize what the list is going to be about in enough detail that the reader, who is generally familiar with the idea of cricket being a sport with matches, can follow along. This does not.
• Lists are not meta additions to articles; they are stand-alone things. "This is a list" and "complements History of cricket to 1725" are not appropriate, nor is the later discussion of how the format differs from other articles/lists that are not this one.
• You don't need a standard wikitable if you don't care for sorting. That said, that table format is really offputting: I don't know what a standard sports template is, but something that looks more like e.g. List of Mystery Dungeon video games would be much better
• This list is short enough that I'm not sure why you're restricting it to "significant" matches instead of all matches, especially without an explicit criteria for what "significant" means.
• The "First Mentions" section has no references; even if the sources are used elsewhere in the list, they need to be explicitly cited here.
• Okay, so there's only a couple dozen matches that we know about (or were "significant") prior to 1726, but we know there were also several dozen standing teams at some point in the 100+ years? But not the points they existed at, even vaguely, for most of them. This section is missing a ton of details the reader would expect, and doesn't attempt to explain why they're not there either.

--PresN 23:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

This FLC is now approaching 2 months old, with multiple opposes and no comments from the nom in almost 2 weeks. I'm going to have to go ahead an close it; if the problems are resolved, feel free to renominate. --PresN 01:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, 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) 23:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC) [4].

---

List of lineal boxing world champions

Nominator(s): Pacphobia (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it features the most recognized champions in boxing history called lineal or "true" champions. Historic fights images have been included in the list. Pacphobia (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - lead is far far too short at just three sentences, and doesn't even explain what a lineal champion is. Additionally, all the lists are completely unsourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The lead is also a bit confusing as to who exactly is maintaining the list form which this list is derived. Is it CBZ or the TBNR? Is the entire list a copy of a particular website? The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cyber Boxing Zone lineal champions has some relevance.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per ChrisTheDude. A lot of referencing work is needed and the lead is far to short. Fails the criteria. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Lead far too short. Incorrect title of list. This is simply a list according to a website of lineal boxing champions and not the definitive one. List may need to be AFD'ed as a recreation of a deleted article as speculated above or speedy deleted per G4. Cowlibob (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2016 (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) 21:04, 9 October 2016 (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 not promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC) [5].

---

List of AFC Wimbledon seasons

Nominator(s): Jodie25 (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list for the third time as I believe that issues previously raised have now been addressed. It provides a comprehensive and accessible list of the seasons of AFC Wimbledon football club from inception in 2002 up to the season ending May 2016. Jodie25 (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Yellow Dingo

• The last sentence in the first paragraph of the lead is very long and contains multiple ideas. Try to split it up a bit.
• "2002–03 season" → 2002–03 season
• "attendance at league fixtures for their first season exceeded 3,000" → "attendance for league fixtures in their first season exceeded 3,000"
• "Wimbledon have also" → "Wimbledon also"
• "The club went on to achieve 5 promotions in 9 seasons" → The club went on to achieve five promotions in nine seasons" per MOS:SPELL09
• "them the youngest of the 72 Football League clubs" per the link in that statement that statement is wrong as the link says MK Dons is newer
• "their 6th promotion to Football League One after victory " → "their sixth promotion when they were promoted to Football Football League One after a victory"
• Quite a few of the works in the references could be linked (i.e. The Observer to The Observer in ref 1)

— Good work so far. I have pointed out a few issues above. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• My main gripe is that the list really ought to be sortable. See fellow FLC candidate List of Arsenal F.C. seasons for what I mean.
• I echo Yellow Dingo the last sentence in the first paragraph is very long. Try and split it up
• "The club's average home attendance at league fixtures for their first season exceeded 3,000 – higher than the average attendance in the same season of Wimbledon F.C., who were still playing in the First Division (now the Football League Championship)." -> An average attendance of over 3,000 during their first season was higher than Wimbledon F.C., who were still playing in the First Division (now the Football League Championship.)
• Do AFC Wimbledon hold the record for the longest period unbeaten in English football? If so, it should say hold, not have set a record to make it clear to the reader it's THE record!
• "The club went on to achieve 5 promotions..." The club achieved five promotions in nine seasons.
• "...their 6th promotion to Football League One." his makes it soumd like it was the 6th time they were promoted to League One, which is obviously not the case. Needs to be written more clearly.

NapHit (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments The users above have picked up most of the issues (which seem to still be outstanding - is any work being done), to which I would add a few other points, mainly around unnecessary information in the notes:

• "AFC Wimbledon were deducted 3-points...." - no reason for dash in "3-points"
• "....and fined £400" - no reason to mention the fine, as it had no impact on their league record that season
• No reason for "international clearance" to be in quote marks
• Don't use the term "the Darlington affair" - this sounds like something out of a tabloid headline and not encyclopedic at all
• "AFC Wimbledon were deducted 3 points and given a £5,000 fine suspended for one year by a Football Disciplinary Commission hearing" - everything after "3 points" really doesn't need to be mentioned
• "In addition the club was required to pay the costs of the hearing" - again, completely irrelevant to the club's record in the season in question, so no need to mention it
• "It was found that the player's multiplicity contract had in fact expired on 19 March 2014 and had not been renewed on that date due to the illness of a key member of the club's administrative staf" - same goes for this
• What makes katzpaw.com a reliable source?
• What makes totalworlds.com a reliable source? Further to this one, the links to that site don't work
• One of the links to totalworlds.com is listed as "Rundle, Richard. "AFC Wimbledon: Football Club History Database". totalworlds.com. Retrieved 13 September 2012." Why not just link to the actual FCHD site, rather than what I can only presume (given that it doesn't work) is some sort of copyright violating mirror of it?

Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Nominator has not responded to any concerns for over a month; closing as not promoted. --PresN 22:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, 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.