Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of brain tumor patients/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by IMatthew 21:11, 29 August 2009 [1].

List of brain tumor patients

[edit]
Toolbox
Notified: Colin, Durova

I am nominating this for featured list removal because many of the references are dead or are from non-reliable sources. There's some pretty dubious prose going on, a lot of "best known for", "best remembered for", "acclaimed"... some MOS breaches (MOSBOLD for instance), it almost certainly needs a notice to say it's probably incomplete... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Image needs alternative text. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When the referencing issues are addressed, the lead needs to be improved to current standards. List of cutaneous conditions is an excellent example of a medical featured list, although I don't expect the lead to be so long. The last paragraph talks about statistics from 2005, and the last sentence cites a reference from 2006; should this be updated? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep All challenged domains have been double checked and adjusted as needed. Only two of the fourteen entries required moving to the talk page. Nominator had failed to check that some of the challenged domains were acceptable as self-published sources and refuses to supply a subject name for a domain that does not appear on the page. Wikipedia's manual of style is an open edit page that has changed in four years; WP:SOFIXIT. Nominator's tone is uncooperative, bordering on combative. Prompt response to this unusual nomination has delayed ongoing work on existing priorities, specific to things discussed here. This is the most complete and best-referenced list of its type ever assembled, and nearly everything challenged checks out. Do with the list as you will; this discussion leaves me distinctly less inclined to contribute another featured list in future. Durova288 19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Nearly everything challenged checks out"? Why would someone so commensurate with featured content accept that a list with 27 dead links and 11 links to IMDB (as noted above) is still considered "Wikipedia's finest work"? Not to mention the lack of alt text, MOS breaches and poor prose in the list? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not all dead links are bad. The link can be removed but with many the source is still valid, it just is not available online. The Associated Press ones for instance. I do agree that the IMDB references have to be replaced. Garion96 (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec) It's too bad The Rambling Man didn't supply a complete list of problems when requested. The manner in which this nomination has been pursued is so off-putting that I am unwatching the page. Durova288 20:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Durova, you're made your position clear. This is not important enough to warrant your time. That's unfortunate. The fact that you did not wish to attend to dead links (which were mentioned in the initial nomination), the poor prose (which was mentioned in the initial nomination), the unreliable sources (which I picked at random - I think 10 of the 14 you fixed, so it was obviously worth noting), the IMDB references (which two editors noted, but you ignored) nor the MOS breaches (noted in the original nomination (i.e. MOSBOLD) is a real shame. We're not here to hold you hand - that's why the toolbox is so important. I could have copied and pasted each and every deadlink from there to here, but that's really not my job. It's down to the community to fix it and that's why you were notified, in case you wished to help. I understand you're busy, and perhaps too busy. But FLC criteria and standards have changed. FLRC is not a personal indictment, it's simply a way to ensure our current featured lists are the best Wikipedia can do. And right now, this list is far from it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please do not put words in my mouth. The featured list program has been having trouble retaining contributors. There is something to be learned from this interaction, and for the sake of the program it would be good to learn it. Durova288 21:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I'm not sure how or why these exchanges soured, but what exactly did The Rambling Man do wrong? He clearly stated the problems with the list, and on being asked, provided a goodly amount of issues to be resolved. As for the reliable sources, it is usually on the onus of the nominator to prove what makes a site reliable. Indicators of reliability include being cited by multiple reliable sources, being backed by a major media company that would have a reputation for fact checking, or the fact that the site uses a reliable method of fact checking. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I'm probably being dense, but I don't understand your comments about the "featured list program" having "something to be learned". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With most types of featured processes, editors attempt to discuss issues before nominating for formal review unless the problems are really extensive or severe. I had another list featured at around the same time, and subsequently supported its delisting (without any hard feelings) because site standards really had changed in meaningful ways that would have been difficult to re-reference. This was a poorly constructed nomination: the nominator clearly hadn't double checked the alleged problems, was unprepared to give specifics, and his mislinked notification to a different list suggests the review was prompted more by the candidate's duration of tenure as a featured list than by any actual faults. It is not an effective strategy to go to the creator of Category:Hyphen Luddites and argue that adherence to the manual of style raises the standards of a featured process; over at featured sounds we had someone who supposed it was a step forward to oppose a featured sound nomination over an en-dash (yes, really). That sort of reviewing signals the rise of superficialities over substance, of form over content, and regarding such matters as that I certainly do have better things to do. Was willing to resolve issues of sourcing to the extent the nominator was willing or able to articulate what they are, but either uncooperativeness or disorganization prevented doing so in any time-efficient manner. If this is the direction featured lists regards as progress, then I'll step off the train. Thank you kindly for the ride. Durova288 22:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or to be more specific, this list was inspired by Michael Finley's 2001 article "Liz Taylor's Brain Tumor"[5] and Steve DePesa's earlier "LIVING WITH A MALIGNANT BRAIN TUMOR: A Patient's Survival Guide".[6] Various lists circulated within the brain tumor patient and caregiver community during the late 1990s and early 2000s, each of which carried a different set of names and was unreferenced. In 2001 I compiled a referenced list that was more than five times as long as any of the previous ones and circulated it internally. The National Brain Tumor Foundation requested permission to use the list and still publishes a truncated version of it on their website with my original notes, minus the original sourcing.[7] NTBF has reused it many times in other venues (a couple of examples[8][9]) and it's been amusing to see how frequently those reuses presented names in the same order I gave them to NTBF. If any of those reuses reappear at the Wikipedia list those citations weren't my additions; I've been careful about not cannibalizing my own research. It was refreshing to bring that to Wikipedia and see other people add to it far beyond its original scope; four years ago that showed the wiki process in its best light. If editors these days are too caught up in superficial procedure to care about that, (shrug)... Durova288 23:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well. I apologise for the mislinked notification. But other than that, the list needs a lot of work. Standards and criteria have changed a lot since this list was promoted, so FLRC is the ideal location for issues to be addressed. As for specifics, did you want me to copy the results of the External links check (from the toolbox), and or copy "MOSBOLD"'s content here? You changed 10 of the 14 sources I pointed out (after a cursory glance), there are 27 dead links, still MOS breaches, no alt text, poor prose and a weak lead, so when you say "nearly everything challenged checks out", we're not talking about the same things. A list of this magnitude needs a number of individual reviewers to look it over, and right now there's a clear "to-do" list. The featured list process, by the way, is alive and kicking, not "having trouble retaining contributors", and I think the only thing we'll learn from this is that you "have 288 featured credits, and could probably create three more in the time that nomination bodes to waste". Good luck in your future featured endeavours, I'm sure the community here will do their best in your absence. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Let's make this simple: 24 hours from now, if no one objects, I will speedy close this nomination as successful and defeature the page. Brain tumors are the leading form of childhood cancer death in the United States. This list humanizes a terrifying illness; that's why it's been circulated by a leading charity for nearly a decade. If you had simply talked reasonably this would have been sorted out, but this conversation has been so glib it's macabre. Rambling Man, please do not post to my user talk again or attempt to contact me for any reason whatsoever. I hope someday you feel as ashamed as you ought to be. Durova288 14:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the nomination will run, as expected, for two weeks. No-one doubts the significance of brain tumours but the list (which is what we're here to discuss) is not up to current standards. And no, I have nothing to be ashamed of whatsoever. Your seem horrified that someone would review one of your featured works as currently sub-standard, that's unfortunate. If we can fix the dozens of broken links, the MOS breaches, the lack of alt text and improve the lead and general prose, the list stays featured. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The to-do list
  • Fix deadlinks - currently the Checklinks tool is showing:
    • 41, 62, 68, 71, 73, 75, 92, 99, 108, 113, 121, 128, 134, 136, 146, 163, 164, 187, 190, 194, 212, 214, 218, 221, 242, 247 and 249 as dead.
    • 17, 44, 55, 67, 89, 140, 157, 171, 193, 207, 223, 226, 269 as connection failed or remote server error
  • The IMDB links, as noted above.
  • The difference between work and publisher in citations and ensuring all have accessdate fields. done
  • The image requires alt-text. (WP:WIAFL criterion 5b) done
  • The names should not be in bold per WP:MOSBOLD. (WP:WIAFL criterion 5) done phew
  • The lead is of the traditional "This article provides a list of notable people...." so needs reworking. As Dabomb87 pointed out, the recently-promoted List of cutaneous conditions is a good example of what we're looking for (per criterion 2).
  • Statistics are out of date (2005), or at the very least, up to date stats should be sought if possible.
  • Sortable tables would also be useful (per criterion 4).
    • Comment by Colin: Sorting is less useful due to the splitting into arbitrary categories. Only name and birthdate would be sortable. What would sorting a small category by birthdate achieve? Colin°Talk 16:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, survival time and diagnosis could be sorted too where available, but yes, the arbitrary category split (which may need addressing since, as you say, it is 'arbitrary') renders the overall sorting scheme less useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And actually, the notes column pretty much covers the sub-section headings, and moreover, we have a "Miscellaneous" heading which is not particularly useful. Perhaps it's worth considering removing the sub-sectioning altogether and produce a single, sortable list. As age is mentioned in the lead, perhaps age upon death should be a column which would be sortable as well... just thoughts. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose describing the members of the list needs reworking (per criterion 1). done

It would be great if interested members of the FL community could help with this. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If I get some time later today, I'll audit/fix/remove the referencing. Can someone else fix the lead to avoid the "This is a..." style. Colin°Talk 08:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Colin. I think the lead will benefit from a brief explanation of brain tumors, the types of diagnoses, and an update for the statistics (from 2005 to as close to present day as possible). We would need an expert in the field to cover this adequately. As Dabomb87 pointed out, the List of cutaneous conditions shows an example of what is now expected from a lead in a featured list of this type. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree that the lead need be as extensive as List of cutaneous conditions. That is a list of varied medical conditions, the scope of which is a medical discipline and the lead is effectively an introduction to that discipline. This is a list of people, who have nothing in common save for a diagnosis, and as such are not generally studied or written about as a whole except for epidemiology. We should briefly mention the common types of brain tumour and their prognosis and any epidemiological facts. I don't think an expert is required for the level of detail here. The source we have for cancer stats has been updated for 2009 so we can update this (however the figures are based on the 10 years to 2005 and I suspect just extrapolated to the current US population). It would be nice to have non-US stats too. Colin°Talk 15:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, a list of this length could easily host a detailed lead, and as you say, mentioning the common types, prognoses and other epidemiological facts will be fine. The example was merely to show what would be considered "engaging" and "complete". If you feel happy to write about the various conditions then that's absolutely brilliant, the only reason I suggested an "expert" was to satisfy ourselves that the lead was factually accurate, especially as, noted by Durova, the list is used in a number of places external to Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The length of the list has nothing to do with how long the lead should be. The brain tumor article is the place for detail about tumors. Other than briefly introduce the medical condition, the lead should really focus on the people, to the extent that anyone has studied "people with brain tumors" as a group. Compare hep C, polio and epilepsy. The latter of these three has the most to say about people and lists as they have been studied and speculated about for centuries. We shouldn't need say much more about brain tumours here than can be found on any brain-tumour-charity website in lay language. If you like, I'll ask one of the Wikidocs to check it once we've improved things here. Colin°Talk 16:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not strictly true if you follow WP:LEAD, but then some argue this shouldn't apply to lists but I'm not so sure myself. Anyway, it needs rewriting and yes, I think you should include, as you indicated, a brief description of the different types of tumor etc. You're right that it should be in lay terms, there are some heavily complex terms used here. And yes, it would be appropriate to have it double-checked. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Also, interested that the median "survival" statistics table is in this list of people article and not in the brain tumor article itself. Perhaps a summary of that table here and the table moved to there? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm on holiday till the 12th August. Will resume work then. Colin°Talk 16:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update. I'm happy the list is once again at FL status. Do others agree? Many thanks to Dabomb87, DO11.10, Durova and The Rambling Man for their help. Colin°Talk 21:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost there. "This article provides a list of notable people who had a primary or metastatic brain tumor (either benign or malignant) at some point in their lives, as confirmed by public information. " FLs no longer begin like this. Great job in general though. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did ask if someone else could rephrase the lead sentence. I didn't have any problem with the old "This is a list of..." style at FL and think moving away from it makes it harder for someone come up with a consise way of specifying the scope of the list in the lead sentence (the scope of the list is, after all, what the topic is; the topic is not brain tumours). Perhaps someone can surprise me with a clever new-style lead. Colin°Talk 07:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, goodness, my bad. ;) I'm okay with GAs, but it's obvious that I usually don't get near featured content. JamieS93 17:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment do we still need the arbitrary sections? Since the notes column contains a wealth of information about each person, would it be reasonable to merge all the tables into one list? I've never been keen on a section called "Miscellaneous"... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find the classification to be one of the most useful and interesting aspects of these lists. The notes column is not a substitute. If you can find a classification system that avoids MISC then great, but I would be opposed to removing the groups from long people-lists like this one per FLC 4. Colin°Talk 09:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)a[reply]
My suggestion comes from the perspective of having a list which is sortable in its entirety rather than based on arbitrary classifications, which, in my opinion, are pretty redundant given the notes. For instance, in the "Acting" section, every single note includes the word Actor or Actress... There is also the issue of crossover categorisation as well - see Ray Bumatai who is listed as being an actor in the Music section. But it's just my opinion and if no-one else is bothered about the redundancy or crossovers, then no problem. FLC criterion 4 does say "make it easily navigable" and this can be taken in different ways, for instance being able to sort the whole list by survival or diagnosis rather than just a subsection of the whole list. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word "acting" in the notes section does not enable readers to group people based on the profession of acting; it only allows them to see that entry in position 93 is an actress. I think sorting is more of a pointless exercise than grouping as this is an unbounded dynamic list whose entries are influenced by the availability of data both via current media reports and current medical diagnosis. Will sorting by date tell me the first/most-recent person to have ever had a brain tumour? Do I want to know who has the alphabetically least surname among the list? The survival/diagnosis sections aren't even populated enough to be useful for sorting. Please don't remove the useful grouping to make the less useful sorting appear more comprehensive (it wont as that's an illusion -- this list has no first or last, no matter how you sort it). Colin°Talk 12:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain as to why sorting per "actors" is any more or less useful than sorting by survival time. Other usages of this list outside Wikipedia seem to have removed the arbitrary subsectioning, but as I've already said, it's just my opinion and I'm not going to act on it as I'm a lone voice. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could combine the tables into one, and then create a new "Profession" (there's probably a better word) column, in which we put "Actor", "Film/TV" or whatever the person did. That way, it would be one table but still have the ability to look at a group of people by the work they did. Obviously, that would take some time, but we don't necessarily have to hold up the FLRC over it. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this isn't an FLRC matter and could be taken to the talk page for a different audience. Grouping is not the same as sorting. Once you combine this into one column, people will make the "Profession" or "Life" field into whatever they want, to the detail they want, and suddely you have "Trapese artist" next to "Technologist" and it is pretty useless. The reason sorting by survivial time isn't useful is just a practical one -- we mostly don't know it, sometimes it is months, sometimes years and sometimes a start-year, open-ended. Same goes for diagnosis. The main reason for not having one big list is that any reader confronted with 250+ rows in one big list will just be put off by the monolithic size of it, and lose track of where they got to as they read through it. Chunking is a necessary human-interface concept that people need. Not many readers will even know that tables can be sorted. Colin°Talk 15:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/List_of_brain_tumor_patients/archive1&oldid=1136093485"