Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/June 2012

Kept

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 Giants2008 19:04, 22 June 2012 [1].

---

List of Pennsylvania state parks

Notified: Ruhrfisch, Gerry D

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list removal because, in general, it fails to meet WP:WIAFL. More specific issues: Failure to comply with MOS:DTT. A WP:DAB link. Tool shows many issues with dead refs. It's far from being a poor list, but it's not our most excellent work. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks, I will work on these. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC) I knew you would, and sorry if it's all a little officious, I just started an "audit" from 2007, there are probably 20 Canadian political lists that need addressing, so I move on (I'll get back to them!) and found this one. Thanks Ruhrfisch for your diligence, as ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks. I fixed the dab and changed the first sentence of the lead so it no longer reads "This is a list of..." Will work on refs next. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC) All references have been checked and their access dates updated. Most also had to have update URLs. I have also checked almost everything, and updated / tweaked some information - there are now three parks with commercial ski areas (not four as when this passed FLC) and Colerain State Forest Picnic Area is no longer shown on either the official DCNR web page or map for Rothrock State Forest. I also ran all the tools and there are no issues except for a lack of ALT images and the DTT issue listed above. I will work on DTT next. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC) The tables are all up to date with WP:DTT. Working on alt text for 120 park pictures. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC) I have fixed all of the issues I am aware of with the list, and await any other issues that need to be addressed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Excellent, good work. Nit-picks: Bold italic links aren't ideal (in the galleries). Lakes in table heading doesn't need to be capitalised. Nor "Alternate" nor "Park Name" nor "Counties". And "Former Park Name" etc... Remarks col in second table doesn't need to be sortable. Photos->Image. "Allegheny River State Park" row seems to be differently formatted (I'm guessing it's missing a row scope?) Also messes with the sorting.... Just double-check consistency with the use of periods in the remarks columns. Usually only complete sentences need them. Avoid blank cells, what does a blank mean in the "date jurisdiction changed" col mean? "Panoramic view of the Pine Creek Gorge from the main vista terrace in Leonard Harrison State Park" no need for bold link. Check ref titles comply with WP:DASH (e.g. ref 35) and check date format consistency (e.g. ref 49), also works (e.g. The New York Times) should be italicised. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks! I think I have addressed all of these now too, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, a clear keep then from me. Good work, nice doing business with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 16:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Found a handful of small issues in checks of parts of the list, but I don't see anything at this point that shows a need for delisting. History: In "Parks were added sporadically to the 1930s", should "to" be "into" or similar? A couple sentences later, I think the parentheses after the colon can be removed after "which became Pennsylvania state parks in 1945 and 1946". On a scan of Current parks, I notice a broken wikilink in the Bald Eagle State Park remark. Other names of current parks: In the Whirl's End State Park remark, en dashes would be helpful for the year ranges. Other names of former parks: Space needed after ref 43. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks very much - I believe I have fixed all these, but am sometimes blind when it comes to dashes, so if you could please double check those, I would appreciate it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Delisted

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 19:14, 22 June 2012 [2].

---

List of Lupin III Part II episodes

Notified: WikiProject Anime and manga, WikiProject Television

I am nominating this for featured list removal because:

• The tables (which are transcluded) don't meet MOS:DTT.
• I have no idea why "www.lupinencyclopedia.com" would be considered a reliable source.
• Starts "This is a list..." which we don't do any more.
• En-dashes need to be used throughout per WP:DASH rather than hyphens for year ranges etc.
• Image caption doesn't need a full stop.
• Any reason why "original air date" is in yyyy-mm-dd format? We're humans, so why not make it human-readable?
• " Episodes 27 was broadcast on Adult Swim as a replacement of episode 3, " grammar and there is no episode 3 in this section.
• You need an explanation of # here, or use "Series No." and add a column in each table for "Season No." to make it clear.
• "For episodes 100-104,..." episode 104 isn't part of season 3...
• What makes "www.nausicaa.net" a reliable source (refs 14 and 15)?
• Ref 11, what does "For full reference, see the References section" mean?

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather than complaining about the article maybe you or some editors can help it out a bit? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

See above, those are my suggestions, go for it! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The list is being reworked, so please help out and hold off on voting for a few days. This is kind of why these things should go through an assessment before they get nominated for delisting...--AutoGyro (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand the process. The assessment is above. There is so much wrong with this article that it needs to be addressed quickly. It's embarrassing to consider it the best Wikipedia can offer. I'm glad you're addressing the many concerns. Don't worry about "voting" (we don't actually do that), this nomination will run for at least ten days (see the instructions for further information). Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Weak Delist THe formatting f the page is out of date and is hard to follow, as per nominates reasons it would fail FLC now, if the page can be be fixed which i do not think would take much work i would change my view to keep but in it current format it needs to be delisted.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delist, I actually did bring up the sources as an issue long ago in the WikiProject. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Note: The Nausicaa.net sections cited in the article are considered by WikiProject Anime and Manga as reliable sources per here — Preceding unsigned comment added by AutoGyro (talk • contribs) 01:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)‎

• It seems Nausicaa.net was assumed to be reliable based on the following assertions. "Nausicaa.net has been cited in both Japanese and English magazine articles, books, and such. Dr. Susan Napier used Nausicaa.net (and the associated Miyazaki Mailing List) to conduct research for some of her books. It's widely considered a reliable source for information regarding Miyazaki, Studio Ghibli, and related topics."[3] What's missing here is citations. As much as I'd like to take a fellow editor's word for it, as a featured list reviewer, I have to ask for more than that before I accept a fan website as reliable. Goodraise 23:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Anime Essentials: Every Thing a Fan Needs to Know by Gilles Poitras, page 122: A fan site focusing on the works of Studio Ghibli and its directors, most notably Hayao Miyazaki. One of the most impressive series of web pages I have ever seen on any topic, it is like an online reference work for the fans of one of the best animation studios in the world."
• Roman Album Ghibli, published by Tokuma Shoten and Studio Ghibli (2000), pp.86-87. Goes into detail about how the site gives very detailsd and accurate coverage of Miyazaki, Isao Takahata, and Studio Ghibli (and related topics). Just after this information, it also talks about three sites run by three of the members of Team Ghiblink, the group which runs Nausicaa.net. It will take longer to find the information about Dr. Napier as I will have to comb through the archives of the Miyazaki Mailing List where the research was conducted and publicized. These two sources should be enough for the moment, though. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Could you quote this source as well? It would help improve WP:ANIME's list of online sources (provided consensus accepts it as reliable of course). Goodraise 04:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• It would involve typing 1.5 pages of small-print text, and I don't have the time to do that. I may find time to scan it so someone else can do that if they wish. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• I may just take you up on that offer. Depends on how this discussion turns out. So no hurry. Goodraise 05:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• I will look into that. In the meantime, I was wondering if you might be able to review the conversation on the RSness of LupinEncyclopedia.com. Only 2-3 people have given their opinion and it would be good for a new person to review the conversation and evidence and assist in reaching a decision :) many thanks! --AutoGyro (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Quite a bit of text there. It's obvious you care a lot about this. But five years (that's how long ago this list was promoted) is a long time on Wikipedia (which is only 11 years old itself). Expectations have risen. At this point, sources like that only make the cut with a lot of goodwill. I agree with most of what the respondents have said there and I suspect the silence by others indicates consensus along that line. Sorry. Goodraise 03:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• You can't assume that. It like just means no one was aware of the discussion or they didn't have any additional comments to add. Silence != consensus. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• I advisedly used the word suspect. Goodraise 04:45, 6 June 2012 (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 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 19:14, 22 June 2012 [4].

---

List of post-confederation Prince Edward Island general elections

Notified: WikiProject Canada

I am nominating this for featured list removal because:

• Maintenance tag, in-line references are absolutely necessary.
• Multiple MOS fails (bold, dashes)
• Lead starts with "This article..."
• Table uses HTML markup, and bold for emphasis, see MOS:DTT.
• Table should be in chronological order.

Clearly not, right now, Wikipedia's finest work. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments. Other issues that were brought up in Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Alberta general elections/archive1 include:

• Table could be sortable
• The colours in the graph don't match the colours in the table
• Table doesn't have row and col scopes

Hopefully this will be the start of all 13 lists being upgraded. 117Avenue (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• For now, delist per above. Goodraise 21:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delist - Since the start of the review absolutely nothing has been done since to address the comments raised above. An outstanding maintenance tag and a complete lack of references in the lead are the most major issues, but accessibility issues run a close second. Dana boomer (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.