Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/December 2009
Kept
[edit]- 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 removed by Giants2008 21:15, 15 December 2009 [1].
- Notified WikiProject Canada and User:Miss Madeline
Honestly, I don't think this list meet any of the FL-criteria. It has no significant text, so criterion 1 has nothing to be based on. It lacks a lead (and starts with "this is a list of..."), failing criterion 2. Okay, it is not comprehensive, lacking any explanatory text (criterion 3). It is not sortable (criterion 4) and it lacks alt-texts (criterion 5b). I will admit it is stable. The main concern is that it has one reference (not cited in-line), and makes several pretty bombastic claims (the world's largest, second-largest and fourth-largest country) without reference, and mentions how water is counted (without any sourcing). Arsenikk (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - clearly doesn't meet the FL criteria—Chris!c/t 22:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My !vote still stands because the lead is still a bit short.—Chris!c/t 04:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - while the list is aesthetically attractive, it certainly no longer meets the current, more stringent FL criteria. It was, after all, passed in 2006. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is still not nearly FL standard; it should be longer. Perhaps a small amount of information on how the Canadian provinces and territories came to be? The article relies on only two sources. The notes above the tables should be converted to footnotes. The colored row in the tables is purely decorative and doesn't add anything; suggest removal of color. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I added references, made the tables sortable, and added alternate text to the pie chart. I don't know how to do it for the map, I'll have to check. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eubulides (talk · contribs) is the expert on alt text; I'll contact him. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid the alt text still needs work; please see the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page. The flags all should be delinked as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. You can do this by replacing, for example, "
[[Image:Flag of Nunavut.svg|30px]] [[Nunavut]]" with "{{flag|Nunavut}}". The diagram and map need alt text that explains the gist of what the diagram and map convey to the sighted reader; please see WP:ALT#Diagrams and WP:ALT#Maps for guidelines. Eubulides (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I believe that I have fixed the alt text problems. As for the map, it comes from {{Template:Canada provinces map}} and that template doesn't offer alt text. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the template doesn't offer alternative text, then the template itself should be edited to provide it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that I have fixed the alt text problems. As for the map, it comes from {{Template:Canada provinces map}} and that template doesn't offer alt text. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid the alt text still needs work; please see the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page. The flags all should be delinked as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. You can do this by replacing, for example, "
- Eubulides (talk · contribs) is the expert on alt text; I'll contact him. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist (as nominator), this is nowhere near FL standards. The lead is far to short, and should contain information such as total size and a larger discussion about the topic. Further down in the article, there are other unreferenced claims, such as "Freshwater area consists of lakes, rivers, and reservoirs. It excludes territorial waters claimed by Canada in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans. Canada has no significant inland areas of salt water." This has three sentences of that all need to be verified by a reliable source. Reference 2 is incorrectly formatted, as it contains no publisher information. Arsenikk (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per those above. Not a 2009 FL. Wizardman 18:30, 12 December 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.
- 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 removed by Dabomb87 00:13, 9 December 2009 [2].
- Notified: WP:MILHIST, British military history task force, myself..., User:Ranger Steve, User:Anthony Staunton
This may seem odd, but as the original developer of this list, I am nominating this for featured list removal. Simply put, it does not meet the standards for comprehensiveness (3.) or accuracy at the moment. When I developed it I used the original structure of the list that was moved over from Mike Chapman's website (see VC migration project for background) and used that basis for nationality. For a long time I have considered the issues surrounding nationality: what defines nationality, particularly given the difficulties surrounding British Empire recipients: for example a soldier could be born in India, fight for the "British Empire" within a British Indian Army unit commanded by British Army officers and then settle down somewhere else in the Empire; it gets complicated.
Discussions have started regarding how to define the nationality of recipients and how to categorise them at Wikipedia_talk:MILHIST#Manx_VC. Until the results of those discussions are implemented and we have a well-defined basis for these lists in terms of categorising nationalities, I don't think it should retain its status as "exemplifying Wikipedia's best work." Regards, Woody (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with Woody and congratulate him on having the integrity to request that the article be delisted now problems have emerged with the sources. Nick-D (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not quite sure what is going on. Is this one of those procedural FLRCs, where it's already been decided that the list doesn't meet the FL criteria and this list must be delisted, or should I expect tangible improvements during this period. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More procedural. There are a number of large-scale changes needed to made that require a wider consensus to put through onto the article. Discussing how to define nationality and then instigating that will take longer than 2 weeks. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the heads up Woody. I think there is an issue with the definition of nationality currently used for these lists, which obviously has a lot to do with this list in particular. But personally I don’t want to see a featured article get delisted because of it. As the issue we need to discuss is directly related to improving this article I’d prefer to discuss and implement, and skip the delisting bit (My comment on the Manx VC discussion was more concerned with the need to discuss this soon rather than a threat to the article). That said I am obviously concerned by the duplications in this list, so if it is likely to take some time to debate the issue then perhaps FLRC is best if that is the consensus. But I’d rather use it as a impetus to come to an agreement on the matter and make the necessary changes. I’d like to think we could do it in 2 weeks (or a little bit more), but I accept we might not….. Regards Ranger Steve (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS... doesn't help much in my hope above, but I'm afraid I'll probably be offline for the next week while I move home. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If a list is actively undergoing improvements, the FLRC can be kept open for much longer than two weeks. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS... doesn't help much in my hope above, but I'm afraid I'll probably be offline for the next week while I move home. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouble at the moment is that I am extremely busy in real life and not really on Wikipedia at the moment. For me it is less about the duplication in the list, than it is about the mis-categorisation. The duplication is a by-product of that. Every recipient in this list needs to be checked against sources and against an as-yet undecided set of nationality criteria. If we can get the criteria sorted then I think this list can be worked on and kept. Woody (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the categorisation is the issue that needs sorting out (but the duplication is the most obvious by-product that causes me concern). I would prefer us to be tackling the categorisation first, and I'm happy to try and do as much as I can on it. Like Woody though, I'm going to be off-wiki for a bit, and I'm afraid I don't actually have any books on the VC.... Ranger Steve (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thank Woody for the notification and support his proposal for featured list removal. I am a subject expert on the Victoria Cross with an extensive library on the subject as well as being an author of a number of books and numerous articles on the Victoria Cross. Until there is consensus as to the definition of nationally and how the information is displayed it is not appropriate for it to be a featured list. Anthony Staunton (talk) 03:31, 1 December 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.
- 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 removed by The Rambling Man 14:48, 4 December 2009 [3].
- Notified WikiProject Canada and User:Miss Madeline
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not meet the criteria. Criterion 1 is not met, since I can spot several flow and style issues. The entire lead is unreferenced, despite making several claims (such as only NWT having a drop in population etc.) Also, the article starts with the archaic "this is a list of..." and breaches the MOS, for instance by wikilinking years (criterion 5). Images lack proper alt-texts (criterion 5b). Arsenikk (talk) 20:45, 18 November 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.
- 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 removed by The Rambling Man 17:54, 1 December 2009 [4].
Notified: WP:RECORD CHARTS and User:Efe
I am nominating this for featured list removal because the list is not verifiable. Please check the external links with the tool on the right side of this text. This page does not meet basic Wikipedia guideline, let alone a featured list criteria. I realize that all dead links come from the Billboard website and can be fixed easily. The main reason I am making this nomination is to expedite the fixing because these links are dead since August 2009. Cheetah (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm recusing from closing this, since I reviewed the article when it was at FLC. Now, as a reviewer, isn't this a concern that could have been resolved on the talk page first? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought it would be ignored on the talk page. Here, the motivation to improve the page is higher.--Cheetah (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but FLRC is usually more effective when the list has many problems, rather than just one issue; you could have at least notified the primary contributor and WikiProject about the problem first. Anyway, since we're here, hopefully somebody will find the time to fix the dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:00, 15 November 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.