Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/April 2013
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was kept by The Rambling Man 13:15, 5 April 2013 [1].
- Notified: Chasewc91
It violates WP:SYNTH by combining two different charts (Hot 100 and Bubbling Under) to state a fabricated position which is specifically listed at WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS as against policy, and has multiple dead links and bare URLs which need inline citations, and there are various other miscellaneous inconsistencies and errors with the references. Till 02:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: issues resolved Till 01:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
Comments Keep
- This list has been cleaned up and greatly improved over the last week. Great work!
References 104, 106 and 107 need to be properly formatted.Reference 52 has a dead link. Can another reliable source be found?In the Other Chart Songs section the collaboration with Elton John is listed as Non Album Song → removed the italics and make it Non-album release to match the rest of the article."Born This Way also spawned four other singles..." → Instead of "spawned" words like "produced" or "released" should be used.
— Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I did a thorough replace of all the dead links and the formatting of bare urls, removing info for which no reliable source could be found, updating stats and everything to the best of my abilities. I believe this list can surely be kept as a FL now. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we close this discussion now? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 15:18, 3 April 2013 (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 kept by The Rambling Man 13:15, 5 April 2013 [2].
- Notified: Guyinblack25, WikiProject_Video_games
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it has problems with WP:V/WP:RS and with prose quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding your mention of WP:RS do you mean that there are parts of the list that are not sourced or are you suggesting that there are specific sources in the article that are unreliable? If it is the latter can you mention which sources that you think are unreliable and why?--174.93.160.57 (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I copyedited the lead. The bit about it being "famous" should be removed. Perhaps "The series is one of Konami's most acclaimed franchises" --Tomcat (7) 14:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Lead too short. Several bare URL references. All-caps in several refs. My provider won't even let me view ref. 20 because it's deemed a security risk. All that on just a quick glance. Goodraise 23:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I will work on that list. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I expanded the lead a bit, and fixed the bare urls. I can view ref 20. Nikki, can you point out unreliable sources? Vgmdb looks reliable after looking at its about page. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- VGMdb is completely user-submitted; anyone who makes an account can add details. They may be able to moderate/edit submissions themselves, but the original information comes from users. Which is not to say it's not true, it's really quite good, but in no way can it be used as a source on Wikipedia. --PresN 20:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, then I will replace the VGMdb references. How about Square Enix Music Online? --Tomcat (7) 20:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've used SEMO in GAs and FAs before, they're good. Editorial staff, no user content, done tons of interviews with notable composers. It's what I used in List of Dragon Quest media. RPGFan is also good, same reasons, though as they only have album information if they have a review, it's not as comprehensive. --PresN 02:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the music album table, using Presn's linked article as a model. I see that some works are not referenced (books for example). Presumably they should be sourced. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist:
- Check the links which the tool thinks are dodgy.
- Lead needs expanding, this list is huge, the lead could easily be four large paras.
- Check dashes/en-dashes/hyphens and spacing (e.g. "1986–Family" and "2002-Microsoft Windows")...
- Looks like some overlinking, e.g. Virtual Console seems to be overlinked unnecessarily.
- Family Computer links to NES, why? Also, is that Famicom? Be consistent.
- Why is the Computer in Personal Computer capitalised?
- Why are some titles in bold italics? WP:BADEMPHASIS.
- Many releases aren't specifically referenced.
- Music albums table, length col doesn't sort.
- Some refs completely unformatted, and some have SHOUTING.
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am currently trying to search other sources than vgmdb, and then I will start working on the remaining issues. Here It was overwhelmingly decided that the site is not reliable enough. Regarding the lead, what exactly should be added? There is also that odd error in the music albums table which I fail to find. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well we need to meet WP:LEAD. A single para may be okay for a stub, but this is a huge list, it should adequately summarise all of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LEAD does not say that it should be four paragraphs long, only that it should summarize the most important aspects. --Tomcat (7) 12:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be expanded. It's too short. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say content is more important than length. It seems that the lead summarizes the list very well. If not then I would like to hear suggestions. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it doesn't mention any of the consoles the franchise is available on, it does mention whether they were commercially successful or not, it doesn't mention whether there was any reasonable critical reception for them, all of this is decent background to establish whether or not such a list should even exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is now completely sourced with reliable references. So I think it does deserve a featured status. Also no list mentions any critical reception for any game. Just take the example of Final Fantasy. Another thing I'll like to talk about is why hasn't anyone commented on this discussion page for a month. TransVannian (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice work. It's sad to see that it's been here for a month without discussion but that's because we have few contributors here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is now completely sourced with reliable references. So I think it does deserve a featured status. Also no list mentions any critical reception for any game. Just take the example of Final Fantasy. Another thing I'll like to talk about is why hasn't anyone commented on this discussion page for a month. TransVannian (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.