Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/October 2021
- 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]
I am nominating this featured article for review because there seem to be a number of issues such as spelling errors, duplicates and places that don't appear to exist. I posted a comment at Talk:List of Shetland islands#Large number of errors in June 2018 which was replied to since I was using the list to create Commons categories for the islands. A number of fixes were made by me and Ben but I didn't remove those I couldn't find on the OS since I wasn't sure if they had a different language name like many Outer Hebrides islands do but most Shetland islands appear to just use the English name. I'm concerned many more errors exist since as noted I didn't remove those that I couldn't find. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Crouch, Swale: and @FAR coordinators: - This is a featured list, so it belongs at WP:FLR. Hog Farm Talk 17:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hog Farm: Shall I just nominate it at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates and remove this page from Wikipedia:Featured article review? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that ought to be fine (although it turns out it's actually WP:FLCR, as FLR is revision flagging. Recommend moving this page to Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Shetland islands/archive1, as well. Hog Farm Talk 18:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, I think I've fixed the template. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that ought to be fine (although it turns out it's actually WP:FLCR, as FLR is revision flagging. Recommend moving this page to Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Shetland islands/archive1, as well. Hog Farm Talk 18:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hog Farm: Shall I just nominate it at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates and remove this page from Wikipedia:Featured article review? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources are also dubious. Shetlopedia appears to be a wiki, and I'm not convinced that Orkneyjar is particularly reliable. There's also some uncited text. Hog Farm Talk 23:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for a slow reply - I am not very active these days. Quick overview of issues:
- There are names that are duplicated on the map and IRL so I'll need some guidance as to which ones you think are erroneous.
- 'Horns of the Roc' (referred to on the articles's talk page) is simply a typo. Having taken out my magnifying glass I see it is 'Horns of the Roe' underneath Rulkies Hill on the west coast near Grimister.
- I have had a long look at Yell. Arguably one or two entries are too small to list but I think better to have a few too many than miss one of substance. ‘Brough’ is = https://canmore.org.uk/site/1240/yell-the-brough in the NW. There is also an islet with a Broch by the Sound of Brough at Holm of Copister in the south but the OS do not name it and I don’t see it on Canmore. In short that section looks OK to me. Ben MacDui 17:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at another at random - Bressay. There could be all sorts of dialogue about details but for the purposes of this exercise everything seems in order. This took about 20 minutes. I am afraid I don't have time to look at them all in this way! Ben MacDui 13:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are others you couldn't find I'll need a list. More I think than any other Scottish archipelago there are issues of definition. Shetland has lots of tiny little stacks and the distinction between a genuine island and storm-washed rock is not always clear from the maps.
- Shetlopedia was used a bit long ago but yes, it is not a reliable source. Very easily fixed.
- Done.
- I don't have any problem with Orkneyjar myself. It is not an academic publication but then, neither are a lot of our sources and this is a part of the world in which 'local coverage' is sometimes all there is of various issues. I have never found it to be in error. Like Shetlopedia this is used once.
- Added a ref from scotlandsplaces.gov.uk
- I will have a quick look for unsourced text - any hints would be gratefully received.
- Added a couple of citations.
Ben MacDui 10:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now been round 80% of the 'Surrounding Islands' section and corrected a few typos. There are also a couple of names I want to check - it can be hard to tell from the OS what feature is being named sometimes. 'Big-nev Geo' for example, sounds like the embayment and it is possible the islet is actually 'Big Nev'. Ben MacDui 08:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Uyea, Northmavine: Big-nev Geo – is indeed the bay and Big Nev, or ‘Big Niv’ the islet. Little Nev is close by. See here.
- Housensellar is a ‘bay’ according to the OS (although clearly a cove). Assuming so there is an unnamed islet offshore.
- Hesti Geo on Foula does not sound like an island, although again there is an apparently unnamed islet offshore.
- Swarbacks Minn & Olna Firth: My old notes suggest that Skult or Skults might be the unnamed island between Vementry and Ward of Hostigates but I can’t find any concrete evidence of this.
- All the above amended. Ben MacDui 12:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking into a few more tweaks, but without further input I don't think there's much more I can do. There may well be for instance, "places that don't appear to exist" but I can hardly confirm or refute this without knowing which places might be involved. Ben MacDui 15:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'm going to go ahead and close the nomination as kept. The main issue seems to have been resolved as much as is possible, and with no other calls for delisting or any movement for a month, I think we can consider this as resolved. --PresN 14:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- 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 removed by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC) [4].[reply]
- Notified: Tompw, WikiProject Elections and Referendums, WikiProject Governments of Canada, WikiProject Politics
I am nominating this for featured list removal because on the lead alone, it comprises of a single sentence. Moreover, references are provided, but inline citations are not used. The table is not sortable. It was promoted way back in early 2007, and has not been reviewed since. Currently, it fails WP:FLCR#1, #2, #3b, and #4. Various similar lists since have been de-listed, due to particularly the same issue. Unfortunately, it doesn't meet the current Featured list criteria, and should be delisted. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yikes. There is literally no context in this list at all. I can't imagine that this would be promoted in this state today. Hog Farm Talk 05:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article is amazing. The time, effort & accuracy put into it, is awesome. GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @GoodDay – But it simply doesn't meet the criteria, and wouldn't pass if nominated in its current form. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just one voice. GoodDay (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @GoodDay – But it simply doesn't meet the criteria, and wouldn't pass if nominated in its current form. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Unusable to anyone with color blindness. Completely useless information in its current form, offers no names or voting numbers/percentages with a virtually nonexistent lead. Not a single inline citation, and starts with the obsolete "This article is"... the problems are endless, should be delisted ASAP, unless someone is willing to do a complete rewrite. Aza24 (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Problems with articles are never endless. Numerous maybe, but not endless. :-) Tompw (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which part of FLC #4 does it fail? It's easy to navigate, and has section headings. (It's not appropriate for the 'table' to be sortable.) I plan to work on some of the other issues, but that's not a reason to consider the article in its current state. Tompw (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Tompw – Of FLC #4, it fails navigability. As Aza24 pointed out, it cannot be navigated by anyone having colorblindness or and other visual issues. In most of the table, color is the only method used to communicate important information, which should not be the case per MOS:COLOR. I an happy to know that you plan to work on the issues. Please let me know anything I can help with. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks @Kavyansh.Singh :-) Tompw (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Tompw – Of FLC #4, it fails navigability. As Aza24 pointed out, it cannot be navigated by anyone having colorblindness or and other visual issues. In most of the table, color is the only method used to communicate important information, which should not be the case per MOS:COLOR. I an happy to know that you plan to work on the issues. Please let me know anything I can help with. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist There is a lack of context about the evolution of canadian politics, the tables are very information-dense, and one does not feel after reading the list that they either have a good understanding of how canadian politics have changed over time, nor other good articles where one could learn more. The summary for example, is more of a counting result than a good summary of what one was meant to derive from the list. Is it a bad list? Not in my opinion. Is it of featured list level? Also not in my opinion. Additionally, I agree with color-blindness concerns, using Coblis ([5]) to test for Tritanopia—hard to distinguish BSC and ASC. I hope this list can get back to FL tho, as I see a lot of potential on this topic. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 20:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist as nomination – Some changes have been made to improve the list, and it is better than before, but it really needs significant changes to meet the FL criteria. Few citations are converted to inline, but there is still no context. With almost 3 weeks passed, I think it should be delisted. I'll be happy to strike my vote if anyone returns to make the changes. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - Lack of context; MOS:ACCESS issues. Hog Farm Talk 05:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been removed, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:11, 18 October 2021 (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 removed by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC) [6].[reply]
- Notified: Joffle, Sephiroth BCR, Ryan Vesey, WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, WikiProject Sweden
I am nominating this for featured list removal because this was article was made an FL in 2008, and no longer meets the requirements for it today. Most notably, there are no sources that verify the affiliation that some of these individuals had to UPenn. The general source at the bottom article does not cover several of the entries on the list, and notably excludes Martin Luther King Jr., who has a tenuous relationship to the institution at best. The list claims that he was a "Graduate Student, 1950–1951", but even UPenn itself only claims that he audited three philosophy courses while studying at the Crozer Theological Seminary. [7] MLK's article does not mention UPenn in any way. The lede contains little information on the list itself (I would hardly consider the exact size of the cash prize of the award over time useful for this sort of article), and leaves the criteria for inclusion on the list incredibly vague. Punctuation of degrees is inconsistent (the style guide indicates that there shouldn't be any). The article does not the accessibility requirements for FL, and none of the sources are archived. Most egregious, however, is the fact that the number of entries on the list and count presented in the article match neither the number of laureates stated in List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation or by the university itself; every other article on a specific school's Nobel laureates is presented as an offshoot of the "official" List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation page, which makes me think that this list is nowhere near comprehensive enough. Josefaught (talkM) 19:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The list needs fixing up on these issues, but it's very salvageable. The relation column, which at first glance seemed unreferenced, is actually covered by the general source at the bottom; all that needs to be done is for it to be moved to the column header. The MLK entry can be removed or modified to clarify his relationship. The lead needs some updating ({{Inflation}} is there for a reason), but generally the info is relevant enough, and I like that it doesn't try too much to repeat the list itself. The inclusion criteria are stated in the sentence
The University of Pennsylvania considers laureates who attended the university as undergraduate students, graduate students or were members of the faculty as affiliated laureates.
Degree punctuation and alt text are trivial fixes, and archiving can be handled by IABot, which I have now run. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] - Delist besides the issues raised above, the text portion of the article seems unbalanced, devoting less than half of its space to the actual topic (nobel laureates at the specific institution). I also doubt the notability of the topic. Practically all the sources are primary sources and many are affiliated with UPenn. If this intersection has not gained attention in secondary sources, why have a list of it? (t · c) buidhe 03:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist and consider bringing to AfD. There is a much deeper problem at play here: Nobel Prizes are not awarded to universities, but to individuals. Universities have an interest in claiming Nobel laureates and Prizes as "theirs"—it's a matter of prestige—but that's simply not how the Nobel Prizes work. This is not like the Olympics where the athletes formally represent their countries, and there is no generally agreed-upon way to assign credit for Nobel Prizes/laureates to universities. That is to say that there is no consensus external to Wikipedia that the specific collection of criteria used to construct this list is a meaningful way to define a set of individuals. This is not a trivial issue, this is a fundamental scope problem. The university itself has a list that uses different criteria: unlike ours, their list does not include Semenza, Shirakawa, or Kuhn, but it does include Robert J. Shiller who is not on our list. TompaDompa (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and close this as delisted. There hasn't been any movement on this after 2 months with multiple editors agreeing to delist; additionally, I agree that the entire subject is questionable. "Associated with" is suspect, as UPenn had nothing to do with the prize itself, and in most cases nothing to do with the research beyond being somewhere that the researcher once went to school. It's an arbitrary slicing of the data to give unearned prestige to a school. --PresN 14:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been removed, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.