Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/April 2019

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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:08:49 28 April 2019 (UTC) [1].

Nominator(s): Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FL criteria. It feature professional standards of writing, its lead clearly defines the inclusion criteria, layout and style, etc., it is comprehensive in that it includes every single poet with an entry identifying them as the writer of a poem in Nakanishi Susumu's authoritative Man'yōshū Jiten. It is structured in English alphabetical order with alphabetic section headings, and the layout/organization style was checked by a number of other editors when I requested assistance in formatting it, it complies (as far as I am aware) with all MOS guidelines, and is about as stable as could be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the lead definitely needs a lot of work. Lists shouldn't start "This is a list...." and the lead should be much longer than five sentences. At the moment the lead is basically a key written in prose form. I would expect to see two or three paragraphs giving much more background/context on what the Man'yōshū is, information on the most prominent poets, etc. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I've done a bit of work in giving a brief outline of the anthology and its most prominent poets (as determined by Donald Keene, who gives multi-page bios and critiques of the poetry of those poets he considers noteworthy). I had been assuming linking to our Man'yōshū article would be sufficient for this purpose, but it is in a rather sorry state I'll admit. I might have misinterpreted your second sentence in outright removing "This is a list..." despite having already added extensive commentary above that so it was no longer the "start". Your opinion on the new content would also be much appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a proper review later when I have a bit more time, but the lead looks immeasurably better now. Re: your point about simply linking to the main article, in essence each article should stand alone, so a reader shouldn't have to leave this article to get the background/context of what it's about -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really think this list would look better in a table format, the way it looks now in columns is very confusing and messy. Also try to avoid "in the following list " as stated above. An alternative would be "Numbers are assigned to...". Also the prose needs a bit of work, it's a bit clunky in places, but that will have to wait a full review. Mattximus (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: I'll get working on your prose/wording suggestions shortly. As for the table thing, I'm amenable to that, but it seems like a pretty big project and so I'd rather wait for more people to weigh in before starting to implement it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: See my response to BeatlesLedTV below. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion from BeatlesLedTV

I agree with Mattximus, I think the list would look better in a table. Right now, the list looks odd because K's are right next to O's and so on. Just make a table format with their name, maybe birth and death year (if applicable) or KKTK number(s), notes, and a ref col then you'd be good to go. Make sure they have scope rows and cols per MOS:ACCESS (see MOS:DTAB). Also, are their any pictures you can add? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatlesLedTV: Okay, two is enough, so I'll start implementing it now. It's my first time, so if you see anything I'm doing wrong please don't hesitate to tell me. Cheers! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 Make sure you have scope rows in the name col. Also, make the note and ref cols unsortable. And shorten "Reference(s)" to just "Ref(s)" BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatlesLedTV: I think I've done most of it all right, but I'm not entirely sure what "scope rows" are. I may have accidentally done so, but I somehow doubt it; but I've definitely done the rest and if you can clarify what I should do regarding the scope cols I'd be happy to do so, even if I've accidentally made more work for myself by doing everything else before checking. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm afraid in my opinion it doesn't meet the FL criteria, failing 5a, specifically a minimal proportion of items are redlinked., I would guess that 75 to 80% of the items listed are redlinked. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: It is my intention that English Wikipedia will ultimately have articles on all the poets listed here, since every single poem in the MYS has been subjected to a high degree of scholarly scrutiny, and so even those poets whose biographies are unknown to us could still have good articles written about their work (and they definitely all meet GNG). However, would you prefer that in the short term I address your concern by unlinking all the entries that don't already have articles? Technically it is not a criterion for FL that the linked articles already exist (and it's certainly not a criterion that entries actually have articles, or even theoretically meet GNG), just that the list be visually appealing, so unlinking all of them in the short term would definitely solve that. However, it's pretty subjective -- you're not the first person to tell me you think my redlinks are not visually appealing, but I don't personally agree (I personally find them neither attractive nor ugly) -- so I'd rather not move ahead on that unless I'm certain you'd support this promotion if I did so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would rather wait until you have created the majority of the articles before nominating this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you think I should write the majority of 500 articles on mostly obscure historical figures before nominating a list of said figures? That's not actually one of the FL criteria... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If each of them are notable then yes, that's my personal opinion. There's no deadline. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There may be no deadline, but I've gone to a lot of effort to make this list meet the FL criteria specifically as they already exist, and while I would like to create all those hundreds of articles eventually, I really would rather not see this nomination fail in the short term because the list doesn't meet a separate unwritten criterion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said, it's just my opinion as a reviewer. If indeed each entry is notable then they should be linked. If there are too many redlinks, it fails the criterion. That's just how it is as far as I'm concerned. And your work has not been wasted in any sense, simply a case of creating the majority of the redlinked articles and you no longer fall foul of that criterion. Unlinking them is, in my opinion, inappropriate and tantamount to gaming the FLC process. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the criterion actually just refers to the visual presentation of the list, not whether it should be failed because there are too many entries on the list that meet the notability criteria but don't have articles yet. The redlink issue could be dealt with very simply by unlinking the entries that don't have articles yet, but I don't agree that the redlinks are ugly so I don't want to do that unless I think doing so will change your opinion on whether the list should pass. The majority of entries must have standalone articles" is not one of the criteria, and the criterion you have been citing refers exclusively to unattractive presentation of a large number of redlinks; removing the redlinks until the articles are created would not be "gaming the FLC process" at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree. If we think these are notable individuals, they should be linked. I'm sure others will have different opinions, but I cannot support this list right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 22:08, 28 April 2019 (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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:15:24 28 April 2019 (UTC) [2].

Nominator(s): H9v9n9 (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because all the information from this list is qualified and sufficient to meet the criterion for featured list.H9v9n9 (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the current standard is to have all the awards in one table like in List of awards and nominations received by Kylie Minogue, not in lots of tiny tables..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! --H9v9n9 (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any plans to change the article to that format......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure! Thanks! --H9v9n9 (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apologies for interrupting the conversation, but the list still has not been reformatted. Aoba47 (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know if @H9v9n9: is failing to understand my comments, but there has been no attempt to update the table to the current standard, so regrettably I have to oppose until such time as it is done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, suggest closure - No attempt is being made to update the article to the new format. It's also not up there in terms of prose quality with offtopic fancruft-y brags like "her hit single 'Havana'", "Her debut album [...] debuted at No.1 on the US Billboard 200 Chart", etc. thrown in there. Off grammatically and references do not have a consistent date format.--NØ 09:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — See MaranoFan's comment.--Lirim | Talk 08:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 22:15, 28 April 2019 (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 unsuccessful by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 09:55:48 5 April 2019 (UTC) [3].

Nominator(s): The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because is in pretty decent shape now and is a vital high level important article in astronomy. It was prepped up for FLC some years before by me but due to very unfortunate turn of events, it did't made it. So fingers crossed for now. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments (not a full review):

• I don't see why this list is separate from Messier object itself- there appears to be about 2 paragraphs worth of text in that article that are not in this list, and it may not be useful text. I think that this list should be merged into Messier object; the result would just be this list with some extra text, so it could retain this nomination.
• The lead starts out with numbering things as "Messier 1", transitions to "M 31" without explicitly stating that its common to abbreviate that way (maybe it's obvious enough you don't need to?), but then has e.g. "M108" (no space); it's unclear to me if this is a formatting mistake (space vs no space) or if either abbreviation is fine, but since the table has no space I think that it should be "M31" instead?
• It's unclear what the distance column is sorting on when there's a range- some sort of average?
• It's a little odd that the ascension column has both Xm Zs and also X.Zm? Feels like it should be one or the other
• There's a disputed tag on M104
• Citations have mixed date formats- you have both yyyy-mm-dd and Month dd, yyyy and dd Month yyyy

--PresN 16:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The distance is in range values for certain objects when there is uncertainty in determining the exact distance and an average will not yield a correct value due to the shapes. The ascension column is represented in Hours minutes and seconds as per Sexagesimal system and is as per the normal representation of right ascension. Rest all is cleared up. Thank a lot for the quick review and waiting for the full one, if any. :-) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with a merger with Messier object, but keep it as a featured list nomination. There doesn't seem to be much sense in keeping both articles. Mattximus (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems logical. On it. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for such a merge, and the merge proposald should be discussed with WP:AST/WP:ASTRO. I have reverted this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I will be a third support for a merge: The main article is not at all long enough to justify a split, leaving the intro to this list quite redundant. This seems obvious and I don't quite understand Headbomb's revert; does s/he have a reason beyond just "no consensus"?

Nope. S/he stated no consensus as the only reason.

You can start a discussion at Talk:Messier object and ping the three of us for some support.

• "kly" should have a tooltip key.

Done.

• So the definition of Messier's Object is simply that it was described by Messier? So what is the astronomical relevance to this besides naming? Can you add a couple sentences about astronomical cataloguing and how this fits in?

Sprinkled some NASA wesite dust over it. Should be more clearer now.

Uh there's something off with the construction of that sentence. Good ref to add though. Reywas92^Talk 22:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please include a brief description of what each of the types of objects are (e.g. open vs. globular cluster and nebula vs. planetary nebula vs. supernova remnant)? Why is M1 Crab Nebula a remnant rather than a nebula? I just think a Featured List should be able to stand alone and not necessary rely on following links for understanding but this doesn't need to be too detailed.

I've thought about it but since the list is of 10 objects and every object is different sometimes. So adding a definition for each and every object would be overkill I think. If needed, a tooltip can be added but piping to the main article would be more concise. But if they are to be defined, it can be done in another section.

• The star chart caption doesn't need a period.

Done.

• Not necessarily something that needs to be added to the article but star chart doesn't address this, but what are the green line and the axes on the chart? I'm guessing the ecliptic, right ascension, and declination? Reywas92^Talk 06:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. Should they be mentioned as some key? Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you could put that in the caption if you want. Reywas92^Talk 22:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usually its not marked in any star charts and is left like that. Certain star charts have ecliptic marked on the chart itself. But the ascension axes can be mentioned. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Lists and editions section could use a few more citations but I don't see any other issues. Maybe move the Observations section before the list. Reywas92^Talk 07:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • I would place the whole of what is currently the third paragraph of the lead right after the first sentence and then have a paragraph break before "A preliminary version". You need to explain what is in the catalogue and its significance before you go into its history, not leave it right till the end.
  • "ranging from star clusters, nebula and galaxies." - if you are going to use "ranging" then it has to range from something to something.
  • "M 31" in para 2 - no other M references have a space.
  • "Since catalog......" - catalog is spelt incorrectly (compared to the previous sentence). Also it should be the catalogue
  • "Since catalog includes astronomical objects that can be observed from Earth’s Northern Hemisphere, deep-sky objects that can be viewed, a characteristic makes Messier objects extremely popular targets for amateur astronomers." - this is grammatical gibberish and I don't understand what it is trying to say at all.

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done..The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I only just noticed the disputed tag against M104 - that definitely needs to be resolved before the list could be promoted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's been resolved as a lenticular galaxy..just fixed it now. Thanks..The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Update the proposed merge has been complete. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Happy to support now that the merger issue has been resolved -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• "Catalogue des Nébuleuses et des Amas d'Étoiles": the quotation marks are probably not needed here.
• Certain scattered instances of single quotation marks (e.g. Messier’s, Earth’s) should be replaced with apostrophes.
• first appeared in Memoirs: a "the" should be required before "Memoirs".
• Messier 102 could be linked in the lead. A brief explanation in the article of the designation scheme used would also be preferable.
• star clusters, nebula to galaxies: needs an "and" in there; "nebula" should be in plural; terms could be wikilinked.
• supernova remnant and spiral could also be linked to their respective articles.
• English: Knowledge of Time: no need to specify the language, it's obvious that this is in English; the translated title should be enclosed in quotation marks.
• Alt text must be provided for all images.
• Also in terms of accessibility, the table headers should have defined row and column scopes.
• The legend above the table could be formatted more neatly.
• The width of the table probably shouldn't be limited here.
• NGC/IC Number and Right Ascension: should be in sentence case (without capitalisation of second words).
• If kly is already linked, an abbreviation is unnecessary.
• The references in the first column would look better if placed in a new, separate column at the end of each row.
• A second header (footer?) row at the bottom of the table is not required.
• The sorting of the NGC/IC number and Declination columns needs to be checked and fixed, in order to sort properly.
• Right ascension and declination: echoing PresN's comment above, decimal minutes could be converted to seconds. Also, a bit more consistency in the precision of both values could be better.
• Some values appear to be incorrectly formatted: e.g. the declination of M39 (+48° 25′ ″) and the right ascension of M42 (05^h 35^m 17.3).
• There could be a more thorough description of the star chart for its caption.
• References: a consistent date format is in order.

So far, a generally well-written and adequately sourced article, but needs some work. Do let me know what you think. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done. The moving of the references to another column seems to be redundant I presume as the scope headers for each row is the name of the Messier item number and hence its justified. Can be changed if you are not fine with it. thank you.

The references in the first column wouldn't stop me from supporting per se, but it would seem much neater if they were moved to a separate column, as is generally standard among featured lists. The NGC and declination sorting also haven't been fixed – ensure that the three-digit NGC designations are sorted at the beginning and that the declinations sort from negative to positive (these could be accomplished with data-sort-values, see WP:SORT). I've also taken the liberty to make some minor edits to fix punctuation and the like. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Consistent use of the word "catalogue" please, as based on Messier's work. So the tragic Wikidata infobox "catalog" -> "catalogue" and "cataloged" -> "catalogued" etc. Check throughout to ensure consistency. And "Messier Catalogue" or "Messier catalogue"??
• "17 of the 45 objects being Messier's" -> the object's weren't Messier's, the discovery of the objects were down to Messier.
• " range of astronomical objects, ranging from " no need for the second (and repetitive) "ranging"
• Glyn Jones' addition is mentioned twice in the lead.
• Why has Globular cluster suddenly become "Cluster, globular" in the table? Looks really weird.
• Not sure about the utility of a sortable Picture column.
• I (like nature abhors a vacuum) deplore empty cells, either en-dash or N/A or whatever.
• NGC/IC col isn't sorting correctly, e.g. NGC 205 sorts between 1982 and 2068.
• M104 has some markup visible.
• "Messier Star Chart depicting " -> star chart.
• See also has "List of Messier objects" which is actually this very article.
• What makes http://www.messier.seds.org/ a reliable source? It looks like a personal blog.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald my comments have been here 10 days, and I see you haven't edited for almost a month, so unless you let me know otherwise, we'll close this nomination down in a few days time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been unsuccessful, 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 unsuccessful by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 09:54:06 5 April 2019 (UTC) [4].

Nominator(s): ArturSik (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a well sourced, comprehensive list of Keegan's awards that I worked on over the last two days. The lead could've been a bit longer but it includes all the important information and I couldn't really think of anything else I could write about there but that's probably because she hasn't got that many acting credits and most of her awards are for her role on Corrie. ArturSik (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Combine first two sentences, thus eliminating a sentence of just six words
  • "numerous critically acclaimed" - seems a bit of a bold statement to say "numerous". Numerous suggests a very large number, and I'm reasonably sure Keegan has not actually starred in a very large number of critically acclaimed shows.
  • "The awards were formerly known as TV Quick and TV Choice Awards" - IMO all of the title should be italicised (i.e. including the word "and") otherwise it looks these are two separate former titles. If you don't feel italicising the word "and" is appropriate, please find a way to reword it so it doesn't suggest that the awards have two former titles.
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you:) ArturSik (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks OK now. As you said, the lead seems a bit short, but maybe there's not much else to say.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from BeatlesLedTV

• I agree with ChrisTheDude, the lead does seem a little short. I also find it interesting how she's won/nominated for awards for only three pieces of work. Seems kinda short but I'd love to hear other editors' opinion on the subject. Til then I'll wait before giving my support or oppose. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree but there's nothing I can think of that I could write other than what we already got. Yes, she's been in acting business for 10 years but for the first five she was on Corrie and did nothing else during that time. That's how it usually works when you're in a soap, at least in the UK it does. And that's what she's got most of her accolades for. Since leaving the show she only did few TV shows that weren't very big except for maybe 'Our Girl' but she didn't get many awards for it either. Can't really do anything about it but I can assure you that that doesn't mean the list is incomplete, she simply wasn't nominated for her other projects as much as she was for her role on Corrie. I hope it makes sense. The list isn't big but as long as it's complete I think it meets the FL requirements. ArturSik (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I agree. You can't help it when there's really not much to work with, but as you said the list does seem complete and meets FL standards, so I'll give my support. Sorry it took so long I completely forgot I commented. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thank you for the support. ArturSik (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm afraid that I'm not as comfortable with the length of the lead as everyone else is. By my count it comes to 822 characters, which wouldn't even qualify it for WP:DYK, let alone WP:FL. The leads of similar articles (e.g. List of awards and nominations received by Megan Fox, ... Amy Adams, ... Jennifer Lawrence, ... Emma Stone) are about three times longer – is there really nothing else that can be said? There isn't a huge amount of content in the parent article (i.e. Michelle Keegan) either – frankly, I'm thinking that this entire list could quite conceivably be merged into the biography. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm with A Thousand Doors on this one. The lead is certainly inadequate for this article and does beg the question as to whether the table of awards should just be merged back into the main article as no real additional analysis or text exists here right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — My apologies but there’s not enough awards to justify a separate list, let alone an FL listing. Would support merging if a discussion about it was opened.—NØ 14:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's twice as many wins and 25% more nominations than on List of awards and nominations received by Megan Fox, which is a FL........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your other stuff exists argument doesn’t change the fact that Keegan's bio has just 2.8k characters of readable prose and there’s really no reason this list should be separate.—NØ 21:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps standards have changed and the Fox list could be reincorporated into the main article. Perhaps an WP:FLRC is in order to gauge the consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

Most of the opposition votes seem to focus on the length of the lead as opposed to the amount of awards/nominations. I have no issue with the Fox list being put up for a FLRC (I was the nominator of its FLC), but it seems a little weird to me that "standards have changed" so much when the Fox list was only just promoted at the end of last year.

It may help to expand the lead to comment on how she received multiple award nominations in similar categories (i.e. as the best newcomer, her sex appeal). You mention her multiple British Soap Awards for her sex appeal, but she also received similar nominations for Inside Soap Awards and TV Now Awards. Those may be worth mentioning. The lead also does not mention the nomination for Ordinary Lies and it refers to only one of her nominations for Our Girl. I think if these parts are added/expanded to the lead, then it may sway some of the oppose votes (or at least more comments). I personally think there is enough awards for a stand-alone list, but I agree that the lead could use some expansion in general. Hope this helps out. Aoba47 (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArturSik are you going to attempt to continue with this nomination or would you prefer to withdraw it? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been unsuccessful, 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 withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 19:43:59 20 April 2019 (UTC) [5].

Nominator(s): Namcokid47 (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the article has both passed its peer review, and is what I believe to be stable, informal and properly sourced from reliable areas. Namcokid47 (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from BeatlesLedTV

• Table needs scope cols and scope rows per MOS:ACCESS (see MOS:DTAB as well)

Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me know if you need any help on this, or just copy List of Square Enix video game franchises. Also, since there's so many items in the platform column's cells, I don't think it should be sortable- because you can't actually group most of the consoles together when they're not single-platform releases. --PresN 15:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of these "sources" are just links to official websites. I don't see this ever becoming a FL in this state. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the website not be a reliable source? Can you please elaborate on that?Namcokid47 (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate on this? Namcokid47 (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like to have you elaborate why the franchise's official website would not be a reliable source for these entries, because simply saying "these sources are official websites, this will never be a featured list" is not even remotely helpful when I'm trying to fix issues that other users have brought up. For a final time - can you elaborate on this? Thank you. Namcokid47 (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NatureBoyMD

• "Bandai Namco Holdings" doesn't need to be in boldface per MOS:BOLDAVOID.
• "and is currently based in Minato-ku..." (See: MOS:RELTIME)
• "The company was formed following the merge..." Change "merge" to "merger".
• "formally called Namco Bandai Games..." If you mean it used to be called this, it should be "formerly".
• "with over $12.8 billion as of 2016..." Is this U.S. dollars? If so, make it "US$12.8 billion" per WP:$
• "Currently, the company is the third-largest video game company in Japan, the seventh-largest in the world, and the largest toy company by revenue as of 2017." If this is all as of 2017, make it "As of 2017, the company is the third-largest video game company in Japan, the seventh-largest in the world, and the largest toy company by revenue." (See: MOS:RELTIME)
• Second paragraph: strike all three "currently"s (See: MOS:RELTIME)
• "Bandai Namco currently owns former developer Banpresto, who currently operates as a toy company..." Change "who" to "which".
• References (as mentioned by previous reviewer): Sources on Wikipedia should be from reliable third-party sources. While it is reasonable that a developer or game franchise's website is accurate, it doesn't meet the third-party standard. See if you can find sources from reliable games news websites (IGN?), a reliable database of games, or print sources.

NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all of the issues you brought up. I'll start looking for references now. Thanks! Namcokid47 (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Namcokid47: If you're still working on this, in addition to the source of the references, the formatting needs work. Examples:

ref 1) "Corporate History". BANDAI NAMCO Entertainment JP. Retrieved 1 December 2018. - ALLCAPS on the name, should be linked to the company's article, should be the name they use in branding (Bandai Namco Entertainment), BNE is the publisher, not the work (which is typically the field for magazine/news websites)

ref 2) "World of Warcraft Leads Industry With Nearly $10 Billion In Revenue". Game Revolution. Retrieved 1 December 2018. - the article is by Jonathan Leack, date is January 26, 2017, both should be present

ref 8) "BANDAI NAMCO Entertainment America – More fun for everyone!". www.bandainamcoent.com. - ALLCAPS, again BNE is the publisher not the work, and the website url is neither, you should use the actual site name at minimum if not the company name.

That last one is the one that caught my eye, because you do it a lot- ugsf-series.com should be just Bandai Namco as the publisher, www.grouvee.com should be Grouvee, etc. This is not a full source review, but all of that will come up in one. --PresN 04:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Namcokid47: are you still involved in this nomination? --PresN 16:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've left Wikipedia quite some time ago to focus on other projects, although I could have made this more obvious on my user page. I guess I could try improving this page to fix the issues you brought up before I throw in the towel, but it will take some time. Namcokid47 (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Namcokid47 you seem to be editing from time to time, are you going to address this FLC or should we archive it? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I've actually decided to come back to Wikipedia for several reasons, and I'm in the middle of getting the City Connection page to good article status. Once I finish work today I'll finish up the rest of the sources on the Bandai Namco franchises page. Namcokid47 (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Namcokid47 hey, did you plan on returning here? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more sources yesterday and I plan on finishing the rest this afternoon. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links in the article have been fixed and/or replaced. Namcokid47 (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at just the first five online references in the table, and none of them verify the information presented (especially platforms and release dates). Some the articles were about other games with only passing mentions of the games being referenced. I encountered the same with a few other randomly checked sources, too. I'm afraid this list currently fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. I better fix all of it then. Namcokid47 (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Namcokid47 how is this going? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up on this thing. Archive it, if you will. Namcokid47 (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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 withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 16:01:38 15 April 2019 (UTC) [6].

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have extensivley worked on it according to List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s, which already is a FL. Thank you for every comment! Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - should this not be at List of Romanian Radio Airplay Chart number ones....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comments
  • "which lists the top ten most broadcast Romanian and foreign songs" - don't think "Romanian and foreign" is needed

It needs to be mentioned since they publish the top 10 most broadcast Romanian and the top 10 most broadcast international songs.

OK, I am super confused now. I checked the Media Forest site and (as you say) they publish the international and Romanian top 10s separately each week. So how is there only one number one song listed here for each week? For example, for the current week, DJ Snake is #1 on the international chart and Ioana Ignat is #1 on the Romanian chart, yet only DJ Snake is listed here, why is that? Are you picking whichever of the two number ones had the higher number of plays and deciding that it's the "overall" number one? If so, are there any reliable sources which do this and crown an "overall" Romanian airplay number one each week? If not, it seems like OR to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: This is OR then. Maybe we should just shut down this nomination. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cartoon network freak: - don't be hasty, let's see what other people think. The other approach, of course, would simply be to list both number ones for each week..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Indeed... I'm sorry :) Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Just for other reviewers that may join this discussion — the scope of this list is to list the most-played song on Romanian radio stations every week. While Media Forest does not directly 'pick' a number one, it's clear that there is one each week since it's got the most plays. ChrisTheDude mentioned the possible OR here, which I think is discussable. Listing both the number ones on the 'Romanian' and on the 'international' column would be unnecessary, at least in my opinion, and that would not meet the scope of this list. Maybe the article should be renamed to something like "List of most broadcast radio songs in Romania" (just an example). I'm waiting for opinions... Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • "based on the full broadcasts tracks receive on the aforementioned radio stations" - no idea what this means. Do you mean "based on the number of times tracks are broadcast on the....."
  • "During late 2000s and the 2010s," - just say "Since the chart began in 2009....."
  • "more than 100 singles reached" => "more than 100 singles have reached"
  • ""Shoulda" (2012) by American recording artist Jamie Woon has spent" => ""Shoulda" (2012) by American recording artist Jamie Woon spent"
  • "Smiley with eight number-ones" => "Smiley with eight number ones"
  • "As of 2018," - we're in 2019

Sure, but the source is from 2018. We can't say anything about 2019 for now at least.

• • "As of 14 January 2018, the current number one" - obvious typo here
  • No need for a key item to indicate the current number one, the last one listed is obviously the current one

I think this is quite helpful actually and also symbolizes that the chart is still running. However, I can remove it if you want be to but it's also in the List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s article

Surely the date against that row indicates that the chart is still running.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • The Notes section refers to about eight songs which it says made number one but they are not in the table They need to be listed, as they reached number one and without them the table is inaccurate. See List of Most Played Juke Box Folk Records number ones of 1945 for an example of how to handle songs being joint number one.
• Hope this helps - the last point is the big one for me - I would not be able to support a list of all the number ones on a chart if the table did not actually list all the number ones..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Hi and thanks for your comments! I do not think a "List of Romanian Radio Airplay Chart number ones of the 2010s" is required, since the Romanian Radio Airplay Chart isn't Romania's main music chart, so it would be unnecessary having both this page AND the List of... page. The Romanian Radio Airplay Chart page would be nearly empty then and with the same info as the List of... article. I will address your other comments eventually today. THANK YOU!! Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Hi again! I solved all your comments and responded to selected ones. Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lirim.Z

• Why is the artist the scope? It's about the song not the artist.
• As of 2018, Cat Music have had a large impact on Romanian broadcasting starting with the chart's establishment year, having signed artists such as Delia Matache, Smiley, 3 Sud Est, Elena Gheorghe and Voltaj. Every year, the label has released songs that have gone on to be featured on the list of the most broadcast ones in Romania. These sentences do sound in my opinion ridiculous awful. I would change it to "The romanian record label Cat Music, has a huge impact on the chart. Multiple artist signed to the label, for e.x Delia Matache, Smiley, 3 Sud Est, Elena Gheorghe and Voltaj, reached the list of the most broadcast ones in Romania. or something like that.
• I would turn By artist and By song into one section. For e.x: Statistics and then these both. It's quite useless to give each table such a small extra section.
• --Lirim | Talk 00:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lirim.Z: Hi there and thanks for your comments. Regarding the sentence, I think it sounds quite good and it was also allowed for List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s (which is a FL now) after it had been worked on. As for your other comments, the separate "By song" and "by artist" sections are manual of style for such lists, so I'm hasitant about changing that. The same goes for the separate Artist column in the list; also, isn't he/she a crucial part of the song? Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right: Support. Lirim | Talk 20:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Please notice I would like to archive and dismiss this nomination... Many thanks; Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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 withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 18:54:33 2 April 2019 (UTC) [7].

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third political list of mine in a row. I feel it meets the FL criteria's. As always, looking forward to your helpful comments. Thank you. Yashthepunisher (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All good. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "In accordance with Article 65 of the Constitution of India, the vice president discharges the functions of the president when a contingency arises due to the resignation, removal, death, impeachment or the inability of the president to discharge their functions. They are also the ex officio chairperson of the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the Parliament of India." - this makes it sound like these are literally the VP's only responsibilities. That surely can't be the case?

There are a few more. Some of them are mentioned in the second para.

• "There have been a total of 13 vice president," - missing S
• "The first vice president of India, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, took oath at Rashtrapati Bhavan" - what is Rashtrapatu Bhavan? Is it a town? Add an appropriate link if one exists
• The map isn't sourced, but then I don't think it really adds anything (not least because the individual states aren't identified)
• "The complete list of Vice-Presidents of India includes the persons sworn into the office as Vice-President of India, following the adoption of the Constitution of India in 1950. Some of whom later became presidents." - don't think any of this is actually needed. The first sentence simply duplicates part of the lead. The rest isn't a complete sentence and I don't think it's needed (although I suppose you could add a symbol to cover those who later became Prez).
• Why no % for Pathak?

HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude Thank you for the comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this list is excellent and I don't see any major problems, but I do want to recommend consistency between this article and List of Presidents of India and List of Prime Ministers of India. They don't need to be identical, but similarity in their table layout would be a good idea. I like how this list combines the year elected and vote share; those could be combined in the Presidents list (which has a whole lot of columns to begin with). The Prime minister list could also use the birth and death dates the other two have in the Name column. The presidents list could also use "Portrait" instead of "Photograph".
• On this VP list the Party can be sortable.
• The title should be consistent with Vice President of India, which does not have a hyphen. The linked official website does not either. Reywas92^Talk 02:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 All done. Thanks for the comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude and Reywas92, Can you please revisit this page? Your comments have been resolved. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with the Rambling Man actually; neither the list nor article is particularly long. The election disputes section can be trimmed and Term can be shortened and combined elsewhere. The table looks good though. Reywas92^Talk 17:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this list could easily be merged back into the main Vice President of India page, and then still renominated at FLC. We don't need two separate articles right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw the nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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 withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 18:04:23 2 April 2019 (UTC) [8].

Nominator(s): Colonestarrice (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I worked 12 hours on this and think it looks magnificent. Colonestarrice (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Chancellor is a common noun and should be lowercase in most instances, as should government, vice-chancellor, and ministers.
• Comma after "Republic of German-Austria"
• "Dollfuss's Assassination", per MOS:POSS, or reword
• "Federal Chancellor, the first" fix comma splice.
• "Arthur Seyss-Inquart which" He is not a thing, should be "who" preceded by a comma
• Austria didn't become known as the Second Republic, its government did
• "allied-occupation" is not hyphenated
• "parties have almost fully dominated every aspect of politics" This isn't a remarkable statement; most republics have had parties all century. Could be reworded that the Peoples Party and SDP have dominated politics.
• It's also the People's Party.
• "other governments, the" Another comma splice
• The last sentence of that paragraph should also be reworded.
• "days however, after" again
• Table problem at Klaus
• Annexation row doesn't need to be in large font size
• I don't think there should be images in the President column; leave that for the Presidents list and focus on the chancellors here
• Same for the presidential term of office - it misleadingly has the same formatting as the chancellors' lifespan!
• Dollfuss is inconsistently spelled with an ß
• Where are your references?!?! Even if it the list is covered by the Bundeskanzleramt you need to source the history and succession and the rest of the lead and maybe give a duplicate for the details – that link doesn't give the exact dates of the terms or years of elections so where is this coming from???
• Definitely not magnificent yet... Reywas92^Talk 20:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, expect for:

• I don't think there should be images in the President column; leave that for the Presidents list and focus on the chancellors here – removed the President's term of office but kept the image, because it would otherwise be too plain.
• and maybe give a duplicate for the details – that link doesn't give the exact dates of the terms or years of elections so where is this coming from??? – I don't know what you mean by that. Colonestarrice (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to cite everything...which citation says Christian Kern took office on 17 May 2016? That Sinowatz was chancellor 24 May 1983 to 16 June 1986? [9] only gives the years so you need to cite something else beyond that. There are no citations AT ALL here for the chancellors before 1945, nor for the acting chancellors!
• I'd also suggest a different image for the lead...that one just duplicates four that are already in the table. Reywas92^Talk 23:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added the refs but kept the pics – they have an informative caption. Colonestarrice (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on the lead. At six paragraphs it is far far too long, and out of the whole thing only three sentences are sourced. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead in its current state gives a quick and summarized overview on relevant statistics, the history of the office, the officeholders and the cabinets. All of its unsourced statements are based on sourced main articles, I therefore think that oversourcing the lead in this case is superfluous. In addition, it has pretty much the same length as the prominent List of Presidents of the United States. Colonestarrice (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"All of its unsourced statements are based on sourced main articles" - that's not how it works. Everything needs to be sourced in this article. Until that is addressed, my oppose stands -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Colonestarrice (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice one. Some further points:
  • In the image caption, you can't say "from left to right" when two of the pictures are above the other two.
  • "which besides them also" => "which also"
  • "After Allies declined" => "After the Allies declined"
  • "uphold the dictatorship" => "upheld the dictatorship"
  • " who held the office for two days up until" => " who held the office for two days until "
  • "completely lost every autonomy" => "completely lost autonomy"
  • "Following parties never had a chancellorship" => "The following parties...."
  • In that sentence, why are all the numbers written as digits but then the last one is randomly written as a word?
  • "as far as the President did not already replace the Chancellor" => "if the President has not already replaced the Chancellor"
  • "only for twenty days however" => "but only for twenty days"
  • "25 men have served" - can't start a sentence with a digit
  • "Bruno Kreisky was with 4778 days the longest serving Chancellor" => "Bruno Kreisky was the longest serving Chancellor with 4778 days in office"
  • Same point re Seyss-Inquart
  • Source for the cabinet composition column?
  • Source for the appointer column?
  • Renner's 1945 row is missing the last cell
  • Image in the last cell of the row below is a red link??
  • Image on Faymann's row is a red link??
  • "The oldest living Chancellor is" => "The oldest living former Chancellor is" (he isn't Chancellor now)
  • "The youngest living Chancellor is" - well obviously, because he's the only living Chancellor. I presume what you mean is "the youngest living current or former Chancellor"
  • "who died 26 July 2001" => "who died on 26 July 2001"
  • "Franz Vranitzky, the oldest living Chancellor, would surpass" => "Franz Vranitzky, the oldest living former Chancellor, will surpass"
  • "who died 25 July 1934" => "who died on 25 July 1934"
  • Dollfuss's name is sometimes spelt with ss and sometimes with ß
  • Same with Seyss-Inquart
  • Why are the columns right aligned? This is not standard formatting.
  • ....except that some of the cells are left aligned? Be consistent.
  • What makes scrapbookpages.com and eclecticatbest.com reliable sources? I'd imagine for such major historical events there are much better sources available..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, expect for:

• "Source for the appointer column?" – the appointer is the President, the two exceptions—the State Council and the Soviet Union—are sourced.
• "What makes scrapbookpages.com and eclecticatbest.com reliable sources? I'd imagine for such major historical events there are much better sources available" – I have no idea if they're reliable but "scrapbookpages.com" is the only website that covers the Allies declining a union between Austria and Germany, and "eclecticatbest.com" is the only website that fully covers Dollfuss's assassination. Colonestarrice (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but I find it very hard to believe that such major events in the country's history are literally only covered on the whole of the internet by what looks like some random person's personal website. This page from the official site of the Encyclopedia Britannica looks like it could be used to source the sentence currently sourced to scrapbookpages, for example (the union of Austria with Germany was expressly forbidden)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you realised but we're talking about Austria, you will find more about Liechtenstein or Monaco than about Austria. I chose "scrapbookpages.com" because it had a lot information on the Allies declining the union – but yes I agree with you it indeed looks like some random person's personal website. Anyways, its how you want so:

 Done Colonestarrice (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can still see "eclecticatbest" being used as a source, which is some random person's blog. There must be a reliable source which can support the sentence about the assassination of Dolfuss...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• Tables need scope rows and scope cols per MOS:ACCESS (see also MOS:DTAB)
• Numbers between 0 and 9 need to be spelled out (see MOS:NUMS)
• Keep date formats consistent. Some are YYYY-MM-DD while others are Day Month Year.
• The entire statistics section is unsourced
• Entire 4th paragraph is currently unsourced
• All images need alt text
• There are some blue links
• Cabinet composition for Schober and Faymann are disambiguation links
• Feel like it'd be better to just have the Coat of Arms be the lead image
• Why are some election boxes blank? Have an en dash (–) there if there's going to be nothing
• Like Chris said, everything needs to be sourced.

Sadly still not magnificent yet. Getting there, but not yet. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colonestarrice these comments have been here three weeks, are you going to address them or should I archive the nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Yes, please do so. I sadly don't have the time and motivation anymore to fulfill them, and someone found it extra funny to start an edit war on the article, so it's over anyways. Colonestarrice (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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 archived by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 16:15:14 1 April 2019 (UTC) [10].

Nominator(s): ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 03:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-nominating this for featured list because I feel it exemplifies a featured list on Wikipedia. I have researched this topic thoroughly, and I feel this list reflects that.

Note: I previously nominated this list on 3 March 2018 and then was eventually closed due to my inactivity. I'm not in class this semester and will be much more responsive to feedback. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 03:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• • Remove gap between the two refs at the end of the first para
    • Done.
  • Those are the only two refs against that para - do they support the entire content?
    • Yes, but I clarified the references.
  • Again, lots of unref'd sentence in para 2 - are they all supported by the ref at the end?
    • Yes again, but I clarified the references and added some.
  • And again in para 3.....
    • Fixed.
  • And para 4 has no refs at all
    • Fixed.
  • "Some incongruity in the numbering and naming of the first three unmanned Apollo-Saturn (AS), or Apollo flights." - this is not a complete sentence
    • Fixed
  • Consider using {{abbr}} for the "LV" in the first table heading
    • Fixed.
  • Intro text to second table has no refs
    • Fixed.
  • Intro text to fourth table has no refs
    • Fixed.
• That's it from me - lack of refs is the big issue that I can see..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed all of the above. For the most part, the information was referenced just in different places. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 20:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - apologies for taking so long to check back in, I completely forgot I had committed on this one........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportLooks good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• NB: The entry for Apollo 20 makes it look more certain than it was. See the linked article. Roosa or Mitchell / Lousma / Lind looks more likely to me. Under the normal rotation scheme it would have been commanded by Roosa, but note how Haise was a LMP expert. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  See this edit on Pogue's article. The source in that article says none of them were officially assigned, and the crews that you have listed in this article are just assumed based on normal crew notation. You need to note that in the article, and add a source. Kees08 (Talk) 04:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08

Drive-by comments, unlikely to result in a support or oppose.

• Date formats in citations should be the same.
• The choice of using National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the citations instead of NASA is peculiar; linking some but not all of them is also peculiar. My first point probably does not need addressed, the second probably does.
• Two bare URLs. One of them is an angelfire link. Is that really the best source available? I see at least one other angelfire link.
• Citations such as "Lunar Module LTA-8". should be fully expanded
• Where does this author come from? It is not listed on the web page. Ryba, Jeanne (8 July 2009). "Apollo 7". National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Retrieved 15 February 2017
• Should be pp, not p, and should use an endash in the page range. Shayler, David (26 August 2002). Apollo: The Lost and Forgotten Missions. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 117, 124-125. ISBN 9781852335755.
• At least Apollo 5 has a mission patch; perhaps add a column in the unmanned test missions table Kees08 (Talk) 06:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a couple of minutes reviewing the citations. You should go through the entire list with a fine-toothed comb looking for similar issues. Let me know when you have, and I will give the citations another review. If I find a similar rate of errors and omissions that I am now, I will probably oppose the nomination. Thanks for the hard work so far, the issues should be pretty easy to spot and fix! Kees08 (Talk) 05:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthewrbowker: Any updates? Kees08 (Talk) 06:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: Oops, thought I had posted here. I have been doing a complete source update offline, as my internet has issues staying connected. I will be posting an update addressing all issues within the next couple days. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 21:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The cancelled and post-Apollo sections have separate columns for each of the three astronaut positions but the main manned list has a single crew column. The lead of the main list should at least note that the crew is listed in a certain order, if not split up the same way.
• These three tables have different columns in different orders (mission-patch-"launch date"-crew-vehicle, crew positions-date, and "launch"-mission+patch-vehicle-crew positions) and should be synchronized.
• Crew in Thermal-vacuum tests are bulleted, but not in the manned table.
• That table has "Notes" that includes the duration while the other tables have "Duration" and "Remarks" columns.
• I have literally no idea what thermal-vacuum tests are!! These are not mentioned in the lead and that section does not introduce them at all. Are these even "missions"?
• Tables variously have headers "Launch", "Date", "Launch date", and a "Launch date and vehicle if used" (rather than separate columns for those like the others, yet with "Launch time" in a separate column unlike the rest!). You really need to work on consistency.
• Also "LV Serial No", "Vehicle", and "Launch vehicle" Sheesh
• Kees08 notes using the same date formats in citations but you also need the same formats in the tables! I'd say to use American MDY.
• "A total of" is practically never necessary.
• Service module, lunar module, command module pilot, and more are common nouns.
• Quotation marks are not needed for spacewalk or moonwalk, which are spelled as single words and lowercase at Extravehicular activity.
• Biggest problem of all: Most of the lead is simply copied and pasted from Apollo program, wtf?
  • Strong oppose, I suggest withdrawing and starting over. Chris and Hawkeye are usually great reviewers but I'm confused how they came to support this. Reywas92^Talk 08:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think of myself as being much good as a reviewer, but the fact that the only issue I raised has not been addressed is disturbing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthewrbowker: Do you intend to continue with this nomination/address Reywas92's concerns? --PresN 16:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew hasn't edited for nearly a month, so closing this now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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.