Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/November 2015
- 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 PresN 17:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Notified: WikiProject Cetaceans, WikiProject Mammals, Gamaliel, Materialscientist, ShaneGero, Neelix, Neil916
This FL was promoted in 2007. Since then, it has suffered from a lot of IP vandalism (due to the similarity of "cetacean" and "citation"). Note that the user who brought this to FL, Chris huh (talk · contribs), is long-term inactive. Looking at WP:WIAFL, this list violates many of the criteria:
1. it does not feature professional standards of writing.
2. the lead section is quite short.
3. the citation needed (or, more accurately, "cetacean needed") tags need to be addressed, and many list items are unsourced.
4. from a quick glance this is fine.
5. more images are needed.
6. the edit warring means that the list cannot be considered stable. sst✈discuss 18:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to expanding the lead. As for the images, I'd say that's fine; I don't understand what more images would have to be added. The "citation needed" templates are calling for citations for pretty basic stuff, so that'll be easy for me to fix. I'll just replace all the "cetacean needed" tags with unknown (since they're all referring to a lack of information which remains to be unknown). I'll try to fix right now. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 23:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the ones I've list above, but what do you mean this list does not feature a professional standard of writing? What sections need to be improved? Also, could you review the new lead, I'm not sure if it suits the article? Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 01:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The new section is much better. Thanks for your work! sst✈discuss 02:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does anything else need to be addressed? Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 15:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77: Apologies for not coming back to this sooner. One dead ref needs to be addressed, please format citations consistently (I see bare URLs and one missing or empty |title=), and images need alt texts. Thanks for your prompt response, and take your time. sst✈discuss 15:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Would that also include the {{IUCN status}} templates with just the url included? I've reformated one of those (next to Balaena mysticetus) but I'll stop there until I get a response. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 23:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added alt texts to all images and have placed misplaced refs into notes. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 00:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77:@SSTflyer: I'd like to KEEP this as FL, please let me know how to help. I can get a team of cetacean biologist working on this in December but not within the timeline of 14 day review ShaneGero (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – in my opinion the work done by Dunkleosteus77 is sufficient to keep the featured list status, when compared to the WP:WIAFL criteria. sst✈discuss 08:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this nomination as Keep; problems cleared up, nominator happy, no other concerns raised. --PresN 17:34, 20 November 2015 (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 PresN 17:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Notified: Adam Cuerden, WikiProject Composers, WikiProject Opera
While reading some FL-related talk pages, I came across a link to the old FLC task force, where I found this list. It fails to meet the modern FL criteria in many ways:
- The lead is very short and it seems designed to make the reader go to other articles for background that may provide added context, instead of attempting to briefly summarize the background as a newer FL would. I'd expect a lead of three paragraphs or so for such a significant topic.
- The introduction isn't much better than the "This is a list of ..." openings that have gone out of favor.
- It doesn't appear that all of the content in the composer notes is cited. Often, there are cites in the note, but not at the end; it therefore becomes hard to determine if the cites are meant to apply to the content, or whether it was added after the fact.
- In particular, none of the notes in the Female opera composers section appear to be sourced.
- I'm unsure whether the method of determining consensus for inclusion by checking 10 major sources holds up to modern standards. For one thing, have there been any major opera history books published that deserve to be included in what the article calls the "sample" of sources considered? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - I would agree that this should be de-featured unless anyone wants to extensively rewrite it. The crux is the absence of any clear deinition of 'major', together with some confusion as to whether we are considering major operas or major composers. In addition to the points made by Giants2008, I note (amongst many other issues): John Gay is not a composer, and Pepusch a very minor figure (if Gay and Pepusch why not, e.g. Gilbert and Sullivan?); what is the point of specifiying a Mozart extract as being 6 mins. 49 secs., which could suggest to the uninformed that this is its authorized duration?; why Gershwin, Schreker and Pfitzner?; no male born after 1950; female composers listed very doubtfully qualify as 'major' composers, I'm afraid - perhaps better separate lists of male and female composers? The whole thing needs a complete rethink. --Smerus (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist the lead is full of inappropriate tone AND too short, and the article is underreferenced Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per Smerus.4meter4 (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this nomination as Delist; no major work done and consensus to delist. --PresN 17:32, 20 November 2015 (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 PresN 17:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list removal because there are not nearly enough in-text citations to be up to par with FL requirements. There are only 9 total, and much more would be needed for a list containing dozens of works and any accolades received. The lead also needs work; things like "the eight-season" and "He has starred in western, action, comedy, and drama films" simply are unnecessary and don't really read well. Additionally, details on whether he was a lead or secondary role within films are better suited for their respective articles rather than here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – There are so many problems in this list and it does not pass FLC most surely. Coupled with the fact that FLC standards are so high nowadays, this definitely does not cut it. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 15:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – The whole table is unsourced and don't have a sort. The lead also needs some real work and the note section seems redundant. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note – I would like to work on it in coming weeks. Please don't close it before that. -- Frankie talk 19:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – Notwithstanding FrB.TG's comment above, sourcing needs a lot of work. —Vensatry (ping) 16:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this nomination as Delist; no major work done and consensus to delist. --PresN 17:32, 20 November 2015 (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 delisted by Giants2008 23:05, 8 November 2015 [1].
Nominating this FL for removal due to the large amount of references lacking in specific areas. Seems to be a victim of not keeping up with rising standards since its promotion back in 2008. I've applied reference tags where necessary, but to sum up:
- None of the release dates in the article provide citations.
- 1 digital album is unsourced.
- 5 extended plays are unsourced.
- 1 digital extended play is unsourced.
- 22 singles do not provide citation to prove they are singles.
- 1 video album is unsourced.
- All 16 music videos are unsourced.
- 15 other appearances are unsourced.
Was unsure who to notify, as the main contributors all stopped maintaining the article as late as 2011. Azealia911 talk 20:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per extensive referencing concerns Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - This is no where near the quality required to be featured. MaranoFan (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - significantly below the standards set by recently promoted discography lists; several unsourced sections Spiderone 10:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been more than a month since this FLRC was opened, no progress has been made to the article and four editors including myself have recommended this to be delisted, what else are we waiting for? Azealia911 talk 19:39, 1 November 2015 (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 delisted by Giants2008 23:05, 8 November 2015 [2].
I think this looks like being a victim of the rise in standards over the years. We insist on having citations for the tables now - and neither the film or televison table is supported by reliable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist too many unsourced roles. The "entertainment career" section is also unnecessary and contains needless details. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – unbalanced lead, unreferenced tables. —Vensatry (ping) 15:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.