Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/April 2006

Nominate and Support. Fourth list Formula One nomination's post Driver's, Driver's Champions and Contructor's Champions. Another Formula One list clearly and concise. Piniricc65 15:24, April 14, 2006

• Oppose. No references. Pepsidrinka 14:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Will it have references? Afonso Silva 20:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I created this list, only using Formula1.com (now listed on the article) as a reference. However, as someone noted on the talk page, half points were awarded 1975–1978 (see here for example) but F1.com doesn't say anything about this. So I'm not sure if it can be guaranteed the list is 100% accurate everywhere else as well, so on those grounds (and the fact I don't personally find the list that interesting/"exemplifying Wikipedia's best work") I can't support it being featured either. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 01:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination. Looked back at the previous nomination and other successful featured article canidates to learn how I acted in error.

The most prominent qualms were fair use rationale insertion on images, neatness, and the inclusion of the skills gained by each protagonist in each iteration. I've been constructing minor updates and tweaks, ammending these, and constructed a seperate list (List of Mega Man skills and attacks) for complete inclusion purposes. I made links to that list as well, where appropriate, in each series subsection.

I studied the proper orginazation of reference sections and changed that too, digging up all the FAQs possible, explaining the summeries for each weapon. I also updated some images, to keep the reader in line with appearences. There's still some discussion on naming conventions concerning the ambiguity of the term "weaponry", but its more or less gone nowhere, and so I attempted a comprimise by merely making notes why the lists were seperate, as well as distintive comments in the article. It has been a long, grueling task, but I think the lass is ready for Featured List status. -Zero^Talk 12:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, at least some of the uparrows on the references don't work properly. Suggest using references/cites per http://meta.wikimedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Cite/Cite.php -- I@n ≡ talk 14:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it was an error. I tried creating the references and migrating the topics there, but I found out that it wasn't so simple, so I'm resigned to keeping it the way it is. Thank you for the link; I'll get to fixing it. -Zero^Talk 14:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persevere. Once you get the hang of it, the new way is much simpler and user friendly. -- I@n ≡ talk 14:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Its such a lovely way of referencing on wikis, as there's many ways of formatting depending on the editor. It seems that when you insert an over abundance of text into the ref or note template (Oh, say about 4 letters), the linking goes all willy nilly. Anyhow, I've now fixed the reference links so that they correspond to the respective URl and citations. -Zero^Talk 18:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The criteria asks for it to be ...bringing together a group of related articles, but not one of the list items is a link to an article. Nevertheless, this is a fine article and is a credit to the author. Sorry, but it's not a FL for me. -- I@n ≡ talk 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a interesting point that was brought up on project talkpage here. The original article was also Z-Saber, merely the summary of it in one article. It was later nominated for afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z-Saber), and the conclusion of the debate was a merge into a larger, comprehensive list. So here it is. The items simply aren't expansinve enough to warrent seperate articles, especially when its more plausible to do so collectively here. -Zero^Talk 14:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object I've been looking at the fair use rationale; you might want to double-check it. The few I picked at random all say "Capcom has released many works of art to the public domain." You're probably meaning to say the opposite. If this were true, it would severely weaken any fair use claim. I also see "The image does not limit Square's ability to sell the game." This is true, as Square's ability to sell this game is already zero. Rationale aside, I think there are too many fair use images - I count thirteen at the moment and I don't think they are all necessary.

The article looks like it needs a copy edit; I see problems just looking at the lead, such as number disagreement (they uses) and a pronoun without an antecedent. I'm concerned that all but one of your inline references are to FAQs on GameFAQs. Pagrashtak 04:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I slipped up on the fair use summeries. I'll fix that. As for the copy edit, I'm quite utterly hopeless and some assistance concerning that would be great. -Zero^Talk 08:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the fair use rationale; thanks for the heads up. I'll start on the copy edit for that opening pharagrah. Anything else...? -Zero^Talk 08:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the copy edit to the pharagraph is done as well. In the future, if you spy some silliness like that in a pharagraph, please feel free to ammend it. -Zero^Talk 08:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination. The list is comprehensive and I have significantly improved its format and facts. I have added all the pics and references. Certainly a useful list for Liberian politics. Helmandsare 20:35, 30 March 2006 (EST)

• Support - This list is well-composed and easy to navigate. It follows all criteria as I can see it. -- Tankette7 21:34, 30 March 2006 (EST)
• Object:
  1. The image Image:Gyudebryant.jpg has no source information.
     • The cited source for the image almost certainly did not create it and probably does not own the copyright.
  2. The cited source for Image:Ruth Perry.jpg almost certainly did not create the image, and the image certainly is eligable for copyright. The cited source probably does not own the copyright to the image.
  3. The source link for Image:Sankawulo.gif does not work. The image certainly is eligable for copyright.
     • The cited source for Image:Sankawulo.gif almost certainly did not create the image and probably does not own the copyright.
  4. I can't find Image:Amos Sawyer.jpg on the website cited as the source of the image.
  5. The licensing on Image:Doe.jpg is entirely wrong: it is not a screenshot of a Wikipedia page, and the Romanian Wikipedia copy of that image provides neither source nor copyright status for the image.
  6. The image Image:Ellen Johnson.gif has no copyright information.
     • There is no evidence that Image:Ellen Johnson.gif is from a press kit or equivalent.
  7. The "fair use" claim on Image:Moses Blah.jpg is almost certainly incorrect. Since Reuters is in the business of selling things like images of newsworthy figures, our use of the image competes with theirs.
  8. The image Image:Charlestaylor.jpg does not indicate what "government tv" it's from. Since the image itself is not particularly noteworthy, it probably doesn't qualify for fair use.
  9. The cited source for Image:Tolbert.gif, Image:Edwin Barclay.jpg almost certainly did not create the images, and the images certainly are eligable for copyright.
  10. The image Image:William Tubman.jpg certainly is eligable for copyright.
  11. There is no evidence that Image:Daniel Howard.jpg, Image:Charles King.jpg, Image:Arthur Barclay.jpg are in the public domain, or as to when their creators died.

  --Carnildo 07:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, pretty list, but image concerns need to be addressed. Phoenix2 17:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed the copyright information on most of the problem photos to fair use. I hope this is sufficient to end these problems with the copyright on these photos. I can continue to address problems should they come up. Helmandsare 20:25, 5 April 2006 (EST)
• Support, Very well-designed list, glad that copyright images were addressed. I support the list becoming featured. Awesome101 20:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Very good list, especially now during the time of Charles Taylor's trial. It follows all obvious protocols. bengriffyjr 18:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I have continued to correct the copyrights of the photos in the page.
  1. Most of the problem photos are from http://www.info-regenten.de/regent/regent-e/liberia.htm, which cites the owner website as the author, which is the Liberian Embassy in the US (the website it lists is inactive, though the embassy still exists). They have therefore released this image to promote their political figures and these images therefore qualify as fair use.
  2. Image:Charlestaylor.jpg is a screenshot from his resignation speech and is most definately a noteworthy image in his presidency.
  3. New, valid images of Samuel Doe and William Tubman have been uploaded and their sources and authors are listed.
  4. The sources and authors for Image:Amos Sawyer.jpg and Image:Ruth Perry.jpg has been corrected.

Again, I believe I have corrected all copyright problems, though I can continue to work on them should the need arise. And a special thanks to all the support voters. Helmandsare 20:25, 5 April 2006 (EST)

If Image:Charlestaylor.jpg is from his resignation speech, then it should be used in the article on him, not in the list of presidents. About the only "fair use" images that can be used in a "list of people" are press kit images, and I'd rather not even have those. Further, just because an image is from a given website does not mean that it's part of that website or organization's press kit -- for example, the Google logos on http://www.google.com/holidaylogos.html are not promotional materials. --Carnildo 03:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have changed, as you requested, the picture of Charles Taylor on the list. However, the license on the other pictures you are against do not have a "press kit" tag, they have a promotional tag, which say that the image has been "released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit." As I read it, this tag does not mean that only images in press kits can be used, but rather, photos that are released by an organization to promote or inform people about their organization, such as a picture for a press kit, but not only that, can be classified as fair use. These images have been released by the Liberian embassy to promote their organization and are under a promotional tag. They can be used under fair use and be featured on this list. --Helmandsare 00:45, 9 April 2006 (EST)

I think that this is a useful little list. It meets all of the criteria, and I don't think it needs a picture. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - Hmm - that list is really pushing the bounds of "useful"ness - the abbreviations themselves are not linked (and I doubt linking the two- / threee- / four-letter acronyms would be very helpful). Ideas for improvement: a map of Canada, with the provinces/territories marked would be good; what are the French names of the provinces/territories; can you add dates when the "former" abbreviations were in use. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the English and French names. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I don't really agree it's a list. I think it is a poor and stubby article suffereng from prose deficiency. For one, there is no "list" in the title, so I would assume you would tell more about history/use of those abbreviations. Also, having a list of 13 items... hm... how useful it is? In any ways, even if it judged to be a list, I think it is pretty poor and does not represent the best work of Wikipedia. I agree with ALoan's suggestions above. Plus more prose would be good. For example, how does it work with Canadian postal code? Renata 13:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, not really that useful IMO. Phoenix2 22:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: Could we remove the "Abbreviations alphabetically" line from the table? There is way too much shades of grey there and it doesn't seem at all necessary. Rmhermen 15:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took that out. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting a nom to FLC after about six months. Had some free time with me so I tidied this article up. No free images available unfortunately. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I should say this list in not ready for featured status. First, the list itself is small so a longer introduction is needed. More background: how they are elected, what do they do, what powers do they have, why 5 other union territories don't have the Chief Ministers, etc. etc. Second, you have lists of all historical CM for every state, why not to put in those links? Third, it's talk page is on Chief Minister of India. Fourth, one reference is not enough. Fifth, who is going to maintain this list? Renata 14:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your review:

  1. I would prefer to go with a split in the article as Afonso Silva suggests below on the lines of List of Governors of India and Governors of India. The suggestions on CMs will be addressed on that page. (Will expand it later this week)
  2. Extra column on former CMs added.
  3. Fixed links.
  4. May I ask why is one reference not enough? I can understand it for articles on history, geography etc., but this is just a list of widely available data. The source is from an Indian government portal, which would classify it as a primary source. I sincerely don't think additional sources would be of any use.
  5. I don't see a problem in the maintainance of the list. It has been frequently updated, and anons have taken part: See the article's history. Also the data is not volatile. An average of 30 updates per 5 years is not too high. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will be adding more info on the powers, functions, election on Chief Ministers as a whole (as I did with Governors of India and List of Governors of India). I was going to do so when I moved Chief Minister of India to List of Chief Ministers of India, but I didn't have time, and I still don't have any. But I'll be sure to try.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this lists just the names of the current Chief Ministers, further explanations, such as their powers and electoral system should be present on the Chief Minister article, this is just a list and it lists all the names, along with the respective state and party, so I think it is complete. If only one reference was used, and I don't see any reason for more, it's enough. But I agree when Renata says that the talk page should not be redirected and we could also have those historical links. About maintenance, the content is not so volatile. Anyway, if we find an agreement, I'll support it, for me it is good. Afonso Silva 15:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of present CMs are available here but not of good quality, but as the parts of the list may be helpful. I am not sure about license policy of the website. Shyam ^(T/C) 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those images are copyrighted and thus are not free. :( =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]