Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/August 2012

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 not promoted by Giants2008 15:26, 28 August 2012 [1].

---

Nominator(s): - Vivvt • (Talk) 15:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC); User:Animeshkulkarni[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... the article has a great potential to be one. - Vivvt • (Talk) 15:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The logo can be cropped to meet the non-free media policy. done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Remove the gallery section as per WP:IG. You may create a category in Wikimedia commons for that, and then link the category in the external links section. done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] @Vaibhav, Most of the award ceremony articles have images of winners on the side. See sample 82nd Academy Awards. But the images in this article were added below because of the lack of space. Is that still not acceptable? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] It is, but a whole gallery section with too many pictures makes it too distracting. And also, you will have to add alternative texts for each image, which can be a tedious task. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 17:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Remove the unnecessary external links. All the sources mentioned in the external links are official sources except other resources. This is done per another FL 82nd Academy Awards. Are you explicitly looking for something to be removed? - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Entries of dubbed/revised/copied ... by the Central Board of Film Certification." There is no source for this whole part. done. This was pointed out in Peer review and was explained then and there. But still I have added source to avoid further confusion. - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Ref 4 doesn't support a huge part of the first para of the Awards section. done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Introduced in 1969, the birth centenary...its growth and promotion." No source for this. done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Try to avoid words like eminent, which make the article non-neutral. done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] There is a cn tag in the article. Please fix it. done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] No source for the whole Golden Lotus Award section. done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Remove Category:Indian film awards, since Category:National Film Awards is already a part of it. done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] I can't review the whole list since I don't have much time right now. After a quick look, I can say that the list needs some tweaking, but it is a good candidate for FL status. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good work overall. The prose seems fine to me, but like always, a copy-editor may find some problems. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Indeed, it appears that the prose needs tweaking (even though I'm no copyedit expert :P). For example, sentences like "With six categories awarded with 'Swarna Kamal' (Golden Lotus Award), rest were awarded with 'Rajat Kamal' (Silver Lotus Award)" are monotonous and do not exactly flow with the rest of the prose. Secret of success (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Have not read the whole thing. However, prose issues are apparent from the beginning.

Very short, one-sentence choppy opening paragraph in the lead.

"With total 392 entries submitted for the three award sections; Feature Films, Non-Feature Films and Best Writing on Cinema; eight different committees consisting of 41 jury members were instituted in order to judge the various entries.". The use of semi-colon is probably not very usual. Two unspaced emdahses can be used instead. "In order to"-- discouraged by good copyeditors, just "to" is fine. Indeed the whole sentence structure can be changed here: Eight different committees consisting of 41 jury members were instituted to judge 392 entries in 3 award sections—Feature Films, Non-Feature Films and Best Writing on Cinema.

done - §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"... was awarded as Best Book on Cinema; whereas an Assamese film... " Whereas not needed.

done - §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...to a Bengali actor Soumitra Chatterjee...". To "the". Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done - §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Query: Regarding copy editing i had two doubts:

1. About capitalization: Should award category titles use sentence case or title case? For categories like "Best Promotional Film" i feel title case is apt. But for main categories of "Feature Film", "Non-Feature Film" and "Best Writing On Cinema", what should be used?
2. Hindi titles of the awards are included in single quotation marks e.g. 'Rajat Kamal' (Silver Lotus Award). Is that okay? Or should "double quotation" or italics be used here? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For "Best Writing On Cinema", "on" shouldn't be capitalized. As of Hindi titles, they should be italicized. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done - §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article with a prose size of 15k bytes doesn't look like a list for me. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 82nd Academy Awards has 13361 characters, but it is still a FL. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the peer review i had said; "As to being an article or a list i couldn't find any previous discussions related to awards. There have been similar discussions somewhere for List-of-episodes with no definite conclusion. But still majority of such pages are under lists. I could not find any year-wise award related page under "article". Even if the content has more prose, the basic page is a list of awards. But if consensus is different i am okay with categorizing it that way." §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Ref 31-33, 44, 47, 51 has no publisher. The date format on the references is inconsistent example "September 26, 2011" and "Apr 1, 2012". Afro (Talk) 07:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done -§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead needs to be referenced. You have 2 unsourced paragraphs in the Awards section. "The court imposed 2000 on the petitioner for moving the court without ascertaining the facts of the case." Ref should at least be repeated. Afro (Talk) 10:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All info the lead is already referenced in the article below per the usual practice. It also does not contain any quotes, which are usually referenced even if present in lead. Are you looking for any particular line in lead that is missing reference? Have added references to those 2 paras. Just repeated them. Same with court thing; just moved the reference. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On review I think the sentence regarding how it was broadcast could likely be challenged. Afro (Talk) 12:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rearranged the references for the broadcast. - Vivvt • (Talk) 03:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Although I think it is rather an article. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 19:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on prose in the lead only.

• No need to have 59th in bold.

Should we not bold the complete title 59th National Film Awards per MOS:BOLDTITLE than just 59th? I'm not sure if we need to reformat the lead. - Vivvt • (Talk) 02:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, see WP:CONTEXTLINK, we don't actually need to partially or entirely bold lead links. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• C of Indian Cinema doesn't need to be in caps.

done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "for the year 2011" no need for "the year".

done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "For Feature Films section" -> "For the Feature Films..."

done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "For Feature Films section, the award for the Best Feature Film was shared by two films, ..." repetitive use of "film" three times in about 14 words.

done - Vivvt • (Talk) 02:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Similar comment applies to the next sentence which has film about five times.

done - Vivvt • (Talk) 02:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "which is regarded as the most prestigious award of Indian cinema" where is this claim referenced?

Added relevant sources (16,17,18,19). done - Vivvt • (Talk) 02:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "award was announced on March 23, 2012 and was awarded " -> award ... awarded is repetitive prose.

done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "for his paramount contribution" keep it neutral unless someone has actually said it was "paramount".

done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The ceremony also had its live telecast on" why not "ceremony was broadcast live on television..."?

done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support made a minor correction in Template:Reflist to provide flexible number of columns depending on the browser width. The List article gives all the required information in a lucid way. Good job --DBigXray 20:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partial oppose

• Print media like "Hindustan Times", "The Hindu" and "Times of India" should be italicized (in refs #1, #13, #30, #31 and #50)

Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is "Supriyo Sen" in ref #49 italicized

Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "IBN Live" shouldn't be italicized

Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #63 has neither work nor publisher parameters

Done. Replaced with another source. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is Press Trust of India italicized in many refs

Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes "ejumpcut" a RS

Done. Replaced with another source. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #22 needs correction

Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Italicize "TOI" in the section "Southern Region II: (Kannada, Telugu)"

Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is TOI not w-linked in refs #10 and #11, either link all or only the first occurrence; same for Indian Express in ref #9

Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• pp. 156 -> p. 156 in ref #8, same in #34, #35 and #39

Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• refs like this [59][64][65][66][67], [44][45][47][53] and [15][16][17][18][19], should be cite killed

Those multiple references were added in multiple places because we have received such comments from other reviewers. For eg, User:The Rambling Man wanted references for establishing that DPA is "the most prestigious award of Indian cinema". All awards are referenced to one catalogue. But when subsections were left unreferenced, reviewers have commented like wise. Hence i feel its better to leave those refs the way they are unless we want to keep playing seesaw here. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said to remove those refs. Go for trimming those refs. The present form makes the citations look haphazard. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Certificate Only ->Certificate only

Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Best Writing On Cinema -> Best Writing on Cinema

Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ministry of Information and Broadcasting" and "Amitabh Bhattacharya" are linked twice in "Award ceremony" section

Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• USD conversion of ₹ 2000 is needed

Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Link "Siri Fort Auditorium II" appropriately

Done. No direct link found. Linked to Siri Fort.- Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Many paragraphs are inadequately sourced; For instance, sentences like "Submissions were requested to be submitted on or before January 17, 2012" needs to be cited separately

Done. Please let us know if any unsourced/inadequately sourced content found. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a delay in announcing the Dadasaheb Palke Award this year. A mention of that could be made
  

Phalke Award is always declared later. That should not be considered as delay. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think so. They are announced well in advance before the other awards. I still remember K. Balachander's name that was announced on 29 April 2011 where as announcement of other awards were made only on 19 May. Unlike the previous years this time many contenders were publicly announced (though not officially) [2] [3], [4] and [5]. I'm not forcing you upon this. You may like to add it —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all speculations i suppose. MidDay reports Pran and E Nageshwar Rao to be contenders. It quotes Supran Sen of Film Federation of India as "The decision is taken by the committee that includes past recipients like Dilip Kumar, Lata Mangeshkar and Yash Chopra to name some." We now know that none of those 3 were jury members. So even if Pran and Rao were "quoted" by Sen (which it isn't per report) it could very well be his guess work. The in.com report says "If sources are to be believed, then the coveted honour is either going to Vyjayanthimala or Pran..."!!!
And as to the delay, 57th awards were announced in September and 56th in January. I don't think they themselves have any time limit on announcing awards of any category. It would be our research to put it that way. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright! As I said earlier, I'm not forcing upon this. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments beyond the lead - still oppose

• "The selection process started by announcing .." not really, "The selection process started with the announcement of..."
• " For Feature and Non-Feature Films, all the films certified by Central Board of Film Certification..." film, film, film....
• "Feature Films were required to be certified as a feature film or...." really?! Sorry but I don't see what this really is getting at....
• "received for Feature Films" -> "received in the Feature Film category"
• "making it the highest in the history" what is "it" here?
• " Non-Feature Films category" -> "The Non-Feature..."
• "submitted for best writing on cinema section" -> "for the best writing on cinema section". Question, why is "best writing on cinema" not capitalised when you capitalised Non-Feature Film etc?
• Especially when you have "and Best Writing on Cinema..." in the next section.
• "With each section having individual aims, Feature Film and Non-Feature Film sections aimed at...." (1) individual aims seems pretty obvious to me. (2) "sections _were_ aimed at"

Just starting the Awards section, but this is clearly in need of a copyedit from someone who knows what they're doing.... Suggest withdrawing and getting a third party to have a look.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though I found a negligible difference in the new version, I have done the above changes. The third point above now reads "Films were required to be certified as a feature film or featurette, or as a Documentary/Newsreel/Non-Fiction by the Central Board of Film Certification." Secret of success (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: We had already raised a request to Guild of Copy Editors on 8th August. See here. Unfortunately, we got no response till date. - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, we have withdrawn our request from GOCE, and if you have any problems with the article's prose, please list them here. Secret of success (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the best approach. This process (WP:FLC) is not designed to peer review articles. They should be of a minimum standard before being submitted here. If you can't get success at WP:GOCE then I suggest you head to WP:PR and get a few reviewers who are native English speakers to go over it a couple of times. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like you to double-check the use of those citations, they are so long they are probably copyright violations. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Rambling man, simply making apathetic statements and the usage of phrases like "they are probably" do not add anything to your comments and are a waste of time. If you feel there are problems, please list them here before you jump to conclusions and we will try to address them. Thanks. Secret of success (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I'm just trying to warn you. I'm no expert, please find one (I have previously recommended User:Moonriddengirl). The comment is not "apathetic", nor is it "a waste of time". I have jumped to no conclusions, merely offered an opinion on lengthy quotes which, in the past, have been made a lot shorter to avoid copyright violations. See the recently promoted Polar Music Prize and its associated FLC as an example of this. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the article for copyvios. There are no WP:QUOTEFARM problems, and no significant amounts of reproduced text that would be considered a copyright violation from any document. Secret of success (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't consider "For its witty, satirical and penetrative account of the politics involved in the commercialization of religion in India. Through a wonderfully authentic depiction of village life, mentality and gesture, Deool has a social, religious and commercial sweep, even as it individualizes each of its characters and endows them with a language and space of their own. The film ironically shows the wholehearted acceptance of commodified and clamorous religiosity in a land plagued by all the serious problems the country faces today, and it does so with laughter that is only slightly tinged with cynicism." to be a direct copy-and-paste and the same in nature to problems faced by the Polar Music Prize article? The tables with citations are a 100% copy-and-paste of the PDF article you link, i.e. 100% of the text in the PDF has been reproduced in this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the FLC of Polar Music Prize. The same argument that it is a "citation" and hence cannot be avoided in an article about the award applies here. WP:QUOTEFARM is not violated in this instance, and since the quotes given by the NFA committee are always too poetic, the method of keeping only the subjective words inside the quotes is not really useful here. Secret of success (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I firmly believe that you are violating copyright for no benefit to this encyclopedia. Because of that, and the fact the whole article needs copyediting, I strongly oppose this candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the citations be removed? The point of the citations is to provide critical commentary, and there have been no explanations as to why it is of "no benefit to this encyclopedia" other than the one that they are long, and hence all their usefulness is digested by this argument. I wish to get Vivvt's and AK's opinion on this, but as of now, my stance is perfectly neutral in order to reduce the heat. Btw, you still haven't elaborated on the copy-editing part, given that all your past concerns regarding that have been addressed. Secret of success (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These kind of floral tribute citations are entirely unnecessary. And what is the copyright status of the document you 100% copied and pasted? I suggest (as I did above) you get a view from someone who is much more experienced in this area than us. As for elaborating the copyedit issue, well, as I said above, I reviewed the lead, it had multiple issues. I reviewed the next section, it had multiple issues. FLC is not a peer review mechanism. I'm not going to produce hundreds more comments about the basics of English grammar which should have been resolved before this nomination was initiated. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes are actually ok as they describe the actual reason for inclusion. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am okay if we remove the starting "For" from all quotes. That way it won't be exact copy and thats the only cutting-short possible. But i am against cutting it randomly or rephrasing it on suggestions of people from that GOCE group or anyone just because they are native English speakers or whatever. We can't have these editor's researches under names of that Award's qualified jury. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest that. I suggest GOCE copyedited the main prose in the article, not the floral tributes. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such rule that FLC's shouldn't have too many comments and that peer reviews should be opened once someone feels that there are problems with the prose. Contrarily, it is mandated that an oppose has to come with reason, be it any number of comments. All your issues have been addressed till now, except the copyright part, and since it is felt that more issues cannot be listed, your oppose does not count for that part. Period. You have to give more detail and comments for doing that and await for the issues to be fixed, instead of just saying that the article has problems. Secret of success (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a level of expectation that the prose is written in grammatically correct English. I do not have to give any more comments, but I took the liberty of just picking the odd sentence from the various sections to give you an overview of how many issues exist in the article. Please don't just fix these very specific points and wait for more, this is just a demonstration of how much work is left to do before the prose is anywhere close to meeting the requirements of FLC. Here you go:

• "and also had live webcast" - "and was also webcast live"
• "Submissions were requested to be submitted " -> "submissions" quickly followed by "submitted"? Not professional standard of prose.
• "awrd .... was also awarded ..." same again.
• "to a film personality for the outstanding contribution to the ..." -> why is it "the" outstanding contribution? Should be "his" or "her".
• "growth and development of Indian Cinema" why is cinema capitalised this time round?
• "A recipient of Dadasaheb Phalke Award at 53rd National Film Awards, Beneg" -> "at _the_ 53rd...." there are dozens of these.
• "The award for the year 2011 was " -> "year" is redundant here.
• "also awarded with a Medallion for" why capital M here? And do you really need to link it to Medal?
• "awarded at All India as" what is "All India"? Do you just mean "national"?
• "At regional level, each panel was formed with one regional head and four members, with regional head and one jury member selected from outside the region and rest from the region" -> the word "region" appears in this sentence five times. Not engaging.

"regional head" is like a post, like "regional manager". Hence it is used that way. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well using the same word five times in a sentence is not "professional, engaging prose" which we seek to achieve at FL. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Following were the awards given" -> "The following awards were presented".
• "In Non-Feature Film section, 21 films have been awarded " -> "In the Non-Feature Film section, 21 films were awarded..."
• "three films winning maximum number of awards " -> "the maximum" or do you really mean "winning the most awards"?
• "As ceremony marked the beginning of the centenary year ..." -> "As _the_ ceremony..."
• "of Indian Cinema, the ceremony started"-> "of Indian cinema, it started..."
• "which surfaced the fact that " Not even sure what this means.

• Report of the congressional committees investigating the Iran-Contra Affair:- "... [they have] surfaced the fact that there is a new stock number for MOIC."
• Applied Research in Child and Adolescent Development: A Practical Guide:- "Participant comments surfaced the fact that investigators' conceptualizations of race and ethnicity are incomplete..."
• Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-1968, Volume V: Vietnam, 1967:- "...I felt they needed an agreed end position - terms of settlement - before they surfaced the fact of negotiation to the NLF and the Chinese."
• America and Europe After Nine-eleven and Iraq:- "She (Ana Palacio) told me, "The Iraqi issue has surfaced the fact that this relationship..."".

Is this helpful? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It was the "surfaced the fact" that I was referring to. That's not really English. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the reason why examples of usuage of this phrase in English are given. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. I don't know what "usuage" means, and I don't understand what "surfaced the fact" means. It's not English. It may be poor grammatically incorrect English, in which case it should be fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@TRM: You can not simply discard it saying "It's not English" when there are enough sources provided. If required, we may also provide online sources from US based site. Please let us know on that. - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, keep it as it is. Please copyedit or arrange for someone independent to copyedit the rest of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not grammar, but a side issue... Overall, the referencing is very hit-and-miss, e.g. what references all the facts about each member of the Central Jury? Two of them have citations, but the other nine don't.

No one had challenged it so far. Do you have any reasonable challenges to any things in there? Go through the official catalogue first. Most of it is in there. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to me to research your article. I'm asking why two out of the nine judges in that section have references. All challengeable facts should be referenced. Please directly reference all of those judges, not just two out of the nine of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(And by the way, if a FL director feels this nomination is far from ready, they can, of course, remove it at any time... our resources here at FLC are light already, without having to copyedit entire articles, that's why we have PR and GOCE...) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your valuable time. I am sure you have better things to do that read this article. But fyi, PR was done and their comments were incorporated. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well as part of my role as FL director I try to review every list and will do my best to prevent substandard lists from passing. This is one such list. And yes, there was a PR but it was a very poor showing, it barely had half a dozen comments. Compare that the number of comments here. This list is simply not ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We welcome comments. That's not a problem. But how does the name of this page, whether called as FLC or PR, matter? You were notified of PR and were requested to come and comment then. You did not find time then. So did other editors. Hence the PR was closed and FLC started. Now that you suggest to go for PR again, there is no guarantee that it won't remain dull and dry like previous one and we will be here in same positions a month later. So i suggest you keep commenting here itself. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It matters because there are two distinct processes. PR is for articles that need help in improving to reach a certain standard (i.e. this list), while FLC is for articles that are of a good standard that need a little polishing to fix. There's no deadline here, so waiting for a decent PR is perfectly fine. I'm afraid I can't respond to all requests to review articles, I do my fair share, but when an article of this poor quality is nominated, I have to strenuously object to it until it's better prepared. So I suggest you withdraw this very premature nomination and ask a native English speaker to copyedit it and peer review it. And be patient if it takes time to happen. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@TRM: I appreciate your comments and time but then you keep using the terms like "certain standard", "decent PR", "poor quality" etc. How do we know any of "these" till somebody points out the mistakes? I had requested multiple reviewers who were involved in earlier FLCs, including you, but there was no reply even on the talk page to inform about their unavailability. And that's perfectly fine as it may not interest everyone to review. We are OK with copy-editing and other approaches as long as it results in something. - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I think that's a bit naive. Look at criterion 1.... "It features professional standards of writing." Surely by now you can all see that this article is nowhere near a professional level of writing. I've left three large sets of comments already, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. The PR was weak, and you must see that by now given how many comments have been made here at the FLC compared to at the PR... It is not the role of FLC to ensure that article prose is written in grammatically correct English, that's for WP:PR or WP:GOCE. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Per WP:CONTEXTLINK, bold links are to be avoided, either remove the bold or the link, this was mentioned before by TRM
• "to felicitate..." I have just had look up what felicitate means as I've never seen that word before, means congratulate according to the dictionary i consulted. This means it makes no sense, I take it you mean to celebrate Indian cinema? If so change it to that

The word felicitate is an example of peculiarity of Indian English. It is not used in US English, and I am not sure about British English. The word "felicitate" is widely used in Indian English to describe the act of honouring someone/ something in a function or ceremony.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but it would be best to use a more common word, such as the ones I suggested above. You are catering to a worldwide audience so it should be easy for everyone to read, readers shouldn't have to look up the meaning of a word,while reading an article. NapHit (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's an essential criteria for FL/FA/GA or even Stub. Check Template:Indian English. Take it in a positive way. You are +1 in your vocab today. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. If it's not a widely understood phrase in English then it should be replaced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "judged 392 entries submitted
• "shared the award for the Best Feature Film." the is redundant

Which "the"? You mean second? Should "Best" be not preceded by "the"? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the one before Best, it doesn't read well, with it in. NapHit (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• likewise in the next sentence
• "better known as Dadasaheb Phalke Award" -> the Dadasaheb Award
• That whole sentence reads awkwardly, not sure about the best way to structure it, perhaps "The Dadasaheb Award, regarded as the most prestigious in Indian cinema, was also awarded at the event"
• "was felicitated" this word again! recognised would be a better word, not everyone has such a wide vocabulary, so best to cater for all readers

That is just the lead, haven't even touched on the rest of the prose and the citations which are erring towards being a copyvio. I'm going to have to oppose at the moment, I agree with the rambling man, it needs a good copyedit and those citations need checking out. Remember FLC is not a substitute for a peer review, lists should meet the criteria before they are nominated, not eventually meet them someway through the process. NapHit (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Rambling Man, NapHit, Vensatry and others for the feedback. Yes, the prose is not at the best level. We have made several changes based on the comments of The Rambling man and NapHit. I am not sure if this nomination is still active (it also appears on the failed log). In case it is still active, I would request reviewers to give their valuable suggestions to improve the prose.

For the possible copy-vio, I suggested the main contributor to use quotation marks for the citations of the awards. Will that solve the copy-vio issue? (If we use quote marks, that means we are accepting that these sentences are verbatim from the source). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this nomination was archived yesterday by User:Giants2008. I suggest the oustanding comments are addressed, maybe on the article talkpage, and as I've said a few times, a thorough copyedit of the article is made, and some discussion is held with someone who is knowledgeable in copyvios over those citations. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ok, thank you. Will address the outstanding comments, and get opinion from copyvio experts. The list has already been submitted to GOCE. Hope the list will be back in FLC soon :) Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2012 (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 not promoted by Giants2008 18:07, 18 August 2012 [6].

---

Nominator(s): Kürbis (✔) 10:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria.Kürbis (✔) 10:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

• "Now established as the country's premier literary prize," - Do you need "established" here?

• Removed

• "is currently British journalist George Walden." - currently should be some variant of "as of", perhaps using {{as of}}

• I don't know the exact date

• The date of the source would be useful. i.e. "as of 2011 British journalist George Walden is currently..."

• "It is the first Russian non-governmental literary prize since the Russian Revolution in 1917." - That's a heck of a claim for a self-published source. Anything independent?

• The Soviet Union was state-owned

• Indeed nearly everything was, but it's still not good practice to cite a non-independent source for this claim.

• Why not just wikiink short list (and maybe long list, but it's a redirect) and avoid the scare quotes?

• Done

• US$20,000 - As of?

• Since its establishment

• No, I mean as of regarding the conversion rate. Rubles to dollars can change drastically in a matter of months, let alone years.

• "each of the shortlisted finalists earns US$2,000." - They receive US$ or rubles?

• The source states that they receive 2000 in US dollars.

• "signed a five-year contract to sponsor BP. " - Did BP sponsor, or did the Booker people sponsor BP?

• The first

• Perhaps "with sponsor BP" then.

• The first Russian Booker Prize was awarded to Mark Kharitonov for his novel Lines of Fate. - This is kinda jolting since you talk about sponsors for the rest of the paragraph. Move?

• Done

• "The first won the award posthumously." - Perhaps say the name of the author?

• Done

• Rubén Gallego becoming the first non-Russian and first disabled recipient should be cited

• None of the winners were disabled, excpet him

• This was a hangup at the last FLC. It appears general consenus is that it should be cited. One of the references you've already included seems useful.

• A paragraph about notable firsts may be useful.

That's it from me — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I will expand the lead further. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done all. Please check. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comments In that infobox, it says its the official website twice. Perhaps rename one the url of the web page Not needed Fair enough. Any image for the lead, or that infobox in the side? There are no Okay. That's fine. Official Website should be Official website as per MOS:CAPS No, it should not be as proper noun Okay then. Please unlink Russia per WP:OVERLINK This is the country where the award is given Then it makes sense to link it. Unlink rubles per WP:OVERLINK I don't see the reason why it should be delinked Okay. Unlink U.S. dollar (give me, give me, give me. Lol.) also per WP:OVERLINK I don't see the reason why it should be delinked Okay. Why is the second paragraph much bigger than the other two? I don't see what you are trying to ask. Perhaps be more specific. Why is many things in the second paragraph bolded. Consider WP:MOSBOLD here. According to MOS:BOLDTITLE, alternative names or former names should be bolded. This was done eg in Grammy Award for Best Female Rock Vocal Performance Makes sense. What is the reasoning for your coloring in "Winners". Per MOS:ACCESS, should the color even be there? You can colour the column, and ACCESS does not prohibit it. I did that in numerous lists, eg Polar Music Prize Oh. Those references in "Winners" should be aligned to the center. Nope I guess that is just preference by me. That image in "Winners" need alt text per WP:ALT and many other guidelines. Done Ref is missing a period. Change "Ref" to "Ref." Done As noted in the previous FLC, the photo caption could use a citation. Nevermind; I removed the caption and just stated his name Ref. 3 is missing the author No, Russia Today is a collaborative network, and they usually never state the author Fair enough The Moscow Times is missing publisher (Independent Media Sanoma Magazines), which should be linked Give me a ref that they publish the material. Owner ≠ publisher Lentra.ru is missing its publisher (Rambler Media Group) No Kommersant's publisher is Alisher Usmanov No, he is the owner In some sources, Russian Booker Prize Official Website is used. It should be just Russian Booker Prize, without "Official Website", which is not needed, and violates MOS:CAPS. It does not prohibit to use it for proper nouns Split all the references into two columns. Not required and even worse for people who use a tablet PC, handy or similar. This is the reason why all the split templates were removed in the German Wikipedia There should be a note that the official website is Russian, using the {{ru icon}} template. I know this template. Done. Categories should be in alphabetical order. Done Russia Today has to be linked in all references it is included in. WP:OVERLINK doesn't apply to references. It does not say that everything should be linked For references it does, it states that links may be repeated in footnotes. See WP:REPEATLINK. Ref. 3: Per MOS:PUNCT, "Consistent use of the straight (or typewriter) apostrophe ( ' ) is recommended, as opposed to the curly (or typographic) apostrophe ( ’ )." That being said, I see that Russia’s use that when they should use '. The title should not be modified. Per MOS:PUNCT; it should be changed. TV-Novosti must be linked in all references. WP:OVERLINK doesn't apply to references. In "Ref. 8", all double quotes (") should be single quotes (') per MOS: guidelines. No, as this is the title I know that, but, per MOS:, it should be changed to avoid doubling. In "Ref. 9" also, all double quotes (") should be single quotes (') per MOS: guidelines. The title should not be modified Per MOS:, it should be changed to avoid doubling. TBrandley 02:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] I removed my rude comments and hope my answers are now in good faith. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] That's fine. Great work on expanding the article, couple good new paragraphs there. I try to look again before supporting. Here are the remaining issues below for now. TBrandley 14:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done all, I think. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 14:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Ref. 18 is missing an access date, also. TBrandley 14:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Added. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 14:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• "modeled after the Booker Prize and inaugurated in 1992 by English Chief Executive Sir Michael Caine." -> "modelled after the Booker Prize. It was inaugurated by English Chief Executive Sir Michael Cine in 1992." Note modelled has two l's not the one currently used

still see the original sentence in use

• "Now the country's premier literary prize..." this implies it did not used to be what was before? A claim like that needs referencing as well.

• I removed the "Now". There were awards which may have been more notable, but as they were state-controlled and biased (the writer's stance on Communism was more important than his talent) it is disputable whether they really were.

I would add this source to the comma after "The country's premier literary prize" as this is something that could be challenged. NapHit (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No point in having official Website in info box and then having the link as official website, just use the url without the pipe, also it should not be Official Website, but Official website, it is not a proper noun as you stated above
• "Each year, the jury of the contest chooses from among all the participants..." clumsy wording, but afterwards about a long list then a short list is confusing as well, does that mean it goes to a long list then onto a short list? or is the long list the short list? Sentence needs work
• "around 500 rubbles" do you not have the exact amount? would prefer, monetary figures afterwards do you use around, so guess they are exact, why isn't this one?
• "but the prize money increased in the course of the years till the 2011, when the winner received a cash prize of 600,000 rubbles" another poorly worded sentence change to "this has since increased to a sum of 600,000 rubbles in 2011."
• "is the literary effort"
• "while the length was not a criterion; there were even works with just 40-60 pages." this is not featured standard writing, should be a new sentence and change to "Length is not a criterion, as books with between 40 and 60 pages have been nominated"
• I don't think P.A. Smirnov is the sponsor, I think you mean Smirnoff, the drinks company is the sponsor
• "The committee signed a five-year contract with sponsor BP." when did they sign the contract? you then go onto say the prize ran into funding problems and introduce a need sponsor what happened to BP?
• "The Russian Booker Prize changed its format in 2011." An elaboration on this would be nice

• This is stated in the winner section. They now chose the book of the decade, not the book of the year. Thanks for your comments. I believe I fixed all points except noted. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still think this could be elaborated better, the way its currently worded makes it sound like a different prize

Further comments

• We have the first two paragraphs, which are quite sizeable, with just two references at the end of each para. This is not enough, and not what I would expect in a featured list

• It is cited

• Especially when we have "Initially proposed for novels only, the Russian Booker Prize included, especially in the first years, other formats such as the novella.." something which definitely needs citing

• It is cited

• The first paragraph reads awfully, really hard to follow, the sentences don't flow, you just seem to be listing random facts about novels (which are not referenced), and then moving on to the next novel. Needs a thorough copyedit

• It is cited

• The whole of that section needs copyediting, I would suggest you withdraw the nomination, as I don't think that can be done in the timescale of this nom.

• Removed

• Ref column should be unsortable

• Unsorted

• The image captions could be a bit more descriptive, for instance "Ruben Gallego, whose novel Black on White, won the award in 2002."

• Removed

• ref 6 and 11 do not provide ISBNs

• Rev 6: not found; Ref 11: removed

Still have two books which do not provide ISBNs! NapHit (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added

• ref 13 does not give the author

• Do you mean lenta.ru? It does not state the author

You've probably removed the ref I was referring to when you got rid of the winners section. anyway what makes Lenta. ru a reliable site. NapHit (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lenta.ru is a Moscow-based news website in Russian language, owned by Rambler Media Group which belongs to Prof-Media. It is considered one of the most popular Russian language online resources with over 600 thousand visitors daily.

There are too many issues with the prose in the winners section to list here, really needs a copyedit. I would withdraw the nom and take it to peer review or WP:GOCE to get the prose cleaned up, because there is too much for it to be fixed here. NapHit (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would seriously considering withdrawing this list, you've now changed the format twice in the space of this nom, which could make it fail criteria 6. This should not happen at FLC, I think the nom was premature I would definitely take the list to a peer review. NapHit (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was done because Crisco proposed "A paragraph about notable firsts", which "may be useful". Then I added a section, but I realized that it is too detailed, so I decided to remove it completely. The criteria states that a major reconstruction is not welcomed "except in response to the featured list process." I also don't understand why it should be peer-reviewed. Peer review is usually for large articles which are aiming towards becoming featured. If I put this there, it will either be ignored or I will be laughed down. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:20, 16 August 2012 (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 not promoted by Dabomb87 14:57, 18 August 2012 [7].

---

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly (specifically after its peer review) and now meets FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my concern is the brevity of the list. Essentially it's a list of seven items - the additional info about the fourth 20 could be incorporated into the top table without too much difficulty. What's the current view on lists with fewer than 10 items.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand that this list is rather short. But under this discussion, a FL should meet all 6 criteria (in this case criterion 3b). Nothing more. And as one user aptly put it, "If there was a minimum, that minimum would be spelled out in the criteria." Remember, it's quality over quantity. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the list is notable per WP:LISTN, the number should be irrelevant as the list is comprehensive.—Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Yes, it does fail 3b. There can be FLs with less than 10 items if those items have substantial information about themselves. All I see next to the items - statistical numbers. Besides, the title of the page is 20-20-20 club, but it has a section for 20-20-20-20 club as well. It looks confusing.
  My suggestion is to create a page titled "Baseball statistical clubs" or something more specific and have all these 20-20, 30-30, 40-40 clubs as sections in that page. It would be more convinient for readers to scroll thru these "clubs" than to click on each link and then go back and forth.--Cheetah (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already mentioned (and bolded) the 20–20–20–20 club in the lead and went into full detail into what it entails (as per the recent peer review feedback of this list). And merging this list into a "MLB Multiple Stats Club" page doesn't appear to be a viable option, as out of the 3 multiple stat clubs, only 30–30 and 40–40 could potentially be merged, as they are totally related to each other (home runs and stolen bases). 20–20–20 is the odd one out, so it would have to remain a standalone list. Is there anything else from the 6 FL criteria I can do to make this list better? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This list meets WP:LISTN for a standalone list. I don't see how merging is warranted or "more convenient" to combine multiple stand-alone topics.—Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is based on the following criterion: ...could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. I believe this list can be reasonably included as part of a related article; hence, I oppose.--Cheetah (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I previously stated, this list can't possibly be part of another related article. It's a completely unique, standalone list, as it entails doubles, triples and home runs. No other baseball stat club encompasses all three factors. As a result, merging it with other multiple stat club lists under one article would be completely nonsensical. Hence, your opposition to this list is baseless. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doubles, triples and home runs - they're all statistical factors. It is very possible to add this as a separate section in a statistical list. This list is very specific and can possibly be a part of a broader list.--Cheetah (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This list is very specific" – that is precisely why it is a standalone list and thus, cannot be merged. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3,000 hit club, 3,000 strikeout club, 300 save club, and 500 home run club are baseball FLs based on "statistical factors", so there is precedent that statistic clubs frequently mentioned in sources can be FLs. While the suggestion to merge is well-intentioned, IMO there is not much more to discuss about possibilities for mergers until anyone can identify and justify an existing list this should be merged to.—Bagumba (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page is a better forum for proposing mergers (which I still do not support).—Bagumba (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not proposing any mergers. I am opposing featuring this list because it fails criterion 3b.--Cheetah (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FLC, objections are expected to "provide a specific rationale that can be addressed". If you are not interested in gaining consensus on merging the content of this list, your opposition seems to be "I dont like it".—Bagumba (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:FL? say that reviewers have to be interested in addressing these rationales? I don't think so. I did provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. I don't have to be interested in addressing it, do I?--Cheetah (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As someone who has never watched American football, I first thought that 20-20-20 is a perfect game, but after seeing the see also section I must agree that this is possibly not a very great achievement, so unfortunately I have to agree to merge this with the other tables. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 09:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More players have pitched a perfect game than have joined the 20–20–20 club. So I wouldn't be so swift as to label this "not a very great achievement." —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN only requires that the topic is mentioned in multiple sources. It does not restrict the percentile the achievement must rank relative to others.—Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bagumba

Resolved comments from —Bagumba (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"most recent" can become dated ... use "last" instead. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Of these, five were left-handed batters, one was right-handed and one was a switch hitter": ref needed Do you know any reliable source that lists out the handedness of every batter there has been. Because I don't want to have seven citations after this sentence by doing BR links to each player's page. If no such source exists, then can I just leave it be? Again, I understand Muboshgu stated that "the other FLs aren't sacrosanct," but both the 3,000 hit club and 500 home run club FLs were able to be promoted unanimously without any citation regarding the handedness of batters. Any thoughts? —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] You could bundle the citations. Thinking more about it, the handedness seems trivial and should be removed, and I dont think other baseball FLs do a similar breakdown.—Bagumba (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Other baseball FLs (i.e. 3000 hit club, 500 home run club, 3000 strikeout club) do have handedness. But rather than bundle the citations, I can model the format after the 3000 Ks article and simply state, "The only right-handed batter in this group is Willie Mays, while Jimmy Rollins is the only switch hitter." That way, only 2 players have to be cited. Is the wording good? —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Not exactly. The other players that weren't cited would not be verifiable that they were not right-handed also. Major League Baseball Triple Crown didnt mention handedness, so I wouldn't say it's a must either way. I'm personally of the thinking that if handedness was so important for a group, the stats would be published in a single-sentence already, and would not require original research to figure it out, not that I doubt you can't count.—Bagumba (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Bundled citations and kept the wording. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Someone else might have another suggestion on how to bundle, but it works for me.—Bagumba (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Two of these players (and one of the two active members of the 20–20–20 club) have played for only one major league team" ref needed Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] This also seems trivial and removable–longevity with a team seems unrelated to a single year feat. But if it does stay, you might as well mention the two players—Bagumba (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, you're right. It is trivial. I only placed it there in order to model it after the existing baseball FLs. But now that you remind me, 3000 hits with one team in a career is much more impressive than a 20–20–20 season with one team in a single season. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Frank Schulte, Jim Bottomley and Jimmy Rollins won the MVP Award in the same year as their 20–20–20 season." A better way to verify is to provide baseball-reference.com links to each player page, where year stats and MVP year can be verified. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Footnote a, better to integrated into the body itself. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Both Mays and Rollins also reached the 30–30 club[a] in the same season" ref for Mays needed Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Brett and Rollins collected more than 200 hits alongside achieving 20–20–20." again, refs to b-r.com pages for each player is better Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Despite the difficulty of attaining the milestone, only three out of the five eligible club members have been elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame and only two were elected on the first ballot": WP:EDITORIALIZING that they are deserving of HOF. Remove the "Despite ..." beginning. Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Eligibility requires that a player has "been retired five seasons" or deceased for at least six months,[17] disqualifying two active players (Granderson and Rollins)." Undue implication that they would be deserving if they were eligible. Done. Removed both players' names, but still mentioned them indirectly saying "disqualifying two active players who are members of the club." Would that be enough, or should the entire phrase be deleted instead? —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] The whole sentence seems undue and can be removed.—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Since tables are sorted by year, make it the first column. I believe the focus should be more on the players who are part of the club, rather than the year they joined. I know Muboshgu stated that "the other FLs aren't sacrosanct," but almost every baseball list on WP (FL or not) has the player's name in the first column, before the year, date or number of hits/Ks/Ws/HRs they amassed (even if the latter is used to sort the tables). —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Then sort on the player's names? I just think whatever is in the first column should be sorted. I dont have a strong preference what is in the first column. However, Major League Baseball Triple Crown has year 1st and is also sorted by year. Do you have other examples in mind?—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] List of Major League Baseball hitters with four home runs in one game has the player's name first, but is sorted out by date. But now that you brought up the Triple Crown list as an example, I think that would be a better format (since this is just years we're placing in front, not a full date). Done, and thank you for enlightening me with regards to this format. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Multiple entries of "Reyes turning the triple into an art form" in citations Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Missing publisher in MLB.com, ESPN refs Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] accessdate missing in some citation Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] inconsistent date formats in citations (e.g. 2010-12-08) Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] —Bagumba (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done addressing all 14 comments. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All my reported issues addressed. This is a notable standalone list per WP:LISTN based on reliable sources that discuss the grouping. It is complete to meet WP:FLCR. Baseball as a sport is largely based on statistics, and this grouping is a reflection of that interest. This list is a complete listing of players meeting the specific combination of statistics; their statistics are also listed as expected. Though small in number, merging with unrelated groups merely to enlarge the article of an already acceptable SAL makes no sense to me.—Bagumba (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on the discussion above I also support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I re-reviewed this list and couldn't find any mistakes. Well done!--GoP_T^C_N 16:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean oppose – Far be it for me to disagree with the majority, but I see Crzycheetah's point and am not inclined to dismiss it that easily. There is a distinction between meeting list notability standards and meeting FL standards, just as there is for regular articles and FA criteria. Criterion 3b legislates against lists that "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article", and I see no reason why you couldn't combine these clubs with 30–30 club and 40–40 club to form List of Major League Baseball multiple stat clubs or something like that. In fact, the other clubs are far more notable than either of these; I see just as many sources about the 30–30 club here than about the clubs being discussed. I'll also add that I feel the content is rather thin in comparison to what a fully merged list would have, although maybe my standards are too high in that regard (that's the FAC reviewer in me coming out, I guess), and that the title implies that the list contains one club when it has two. That kind of works against an argument opposing a merger, doesn't it? Giants2008 (Talk) 20:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe you are asking for a new article, List of Major League Baseball multiple stat clubs, that is a list of lists. This can be mutually exclusive with 20–20–20 club existing. WP:SAL#Lists of lists allows a list of list articles, i.e. a list of links to other lists. WP:SALAT allows for related lists to be broken out when the list entries "have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link."—Bagumba (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can respect an opposing view such as Crzycheetah's, but it seems unfair that you seem to characterize the view as having been "dismiss[ed] ... easily". There was an extensive discussion in that thread based on guidelines and precedents to sufficiently reach a point of agreeing to disagree. Of course you or anyone are free to try to bring in new insights on that topic.—Bagumba (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Giants2008 stated, "the title implies that the list contains one club when it has two." The 20–20–20 club is the main club. The other one (20–20–20–20) is a "club within a club." They are not two separate clubs. One must be a member of the 20–20–20 club in order to be part of the latter group that encompasses just one more stat. Therefore, they are not mutually exclusive. I also agree with Bagumba with regards to your view that we "dismiss[ed Crzycheetah's point] easily." That's an unjustified stance that completely ignores all the successful rebuttals we made to his argument. I really don't see why anyone should be reigniting a debate that has been proven to be baseless. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I wasn't saying you had dismissed anybody, and that wasn't my intention; I was merely saying that I saw the original reviewer's point. I think something in the comments above is accurate: we should agree to disagree and let the closer sort things out. I have my opinion, and others have theirs. Whether argument rebuttals were successful or not can be determined by the closer. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per criterion 3b. The point is that this list could reasonably be included as part of a related article even if such article may or may not exist. As Giants2008 said, there is a distinction between meeting notability standards and meeting the FL standards. As it stands, this list fails criterion 3b.—Chris!_c/t 23:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In theory, I can see having a list of list articles, with a link to this article. I cannot see the benefit of combining the content of this FLC with unrelated lists merely because they seem related due to their use of statistics. Offhand, I'm not aware of reliable sources that refer to the collective stats groups as a whole to justify WP:LISTN for proposed list of lists. I think there is a disagreement in translating "reasonably" based on theory to "reasonably" based on actual sources.—Bagumba (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Totally agree with Bagumba. Reviewers need to think about merging a unique list to something unrelated. This should stay as is. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 08:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also agree with Bagumba. This is the third time I've said it: No other baseball stat club encompasses doubles, triples and home runs. Only the 30–30 and 40–40 lists could potentially be merged, as they are totally related and relevant to each other (home runs and stolen bases). 20–20–20 is the odd one out, so it would have to remain a standalone list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Having read the discussion above and consulted WP:LISTN, i'm supporting the list despite the small number of items. The aforementioned guideline stresses the need for multiple independent sources to back up the notability of the list, and in this case I believe there more than enough to warrant the list being on its own. Great work. NapHit (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - While I can understand the sentiment behind wanting to merge this short list with another, I haven't seen a credible suggestion for an appropriate (existing or hypthetical) list to merge this to, nor can I think of one myself. Hence, I believe this passes 3b, which seems to be the only remaining issue. Rlendog (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, albeit weakly, due to 3b issues. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide specific action items for this article? Others have cited 3b earlier, but there wasn't any progress for lack of actionable objections.—Bagumba (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is when a list fails 3b, there isn't much that can be done, either it passes or it doesn't. Unless another couple players join the club soon, it won't make it there; it's the same reason List of Tampa Bay Rays managers will not be here anytime soon. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of a minimum length requirement in WP:FLCR. If a reasonable article cannot be identified where this can be merged to, it's perplexing to me that this list meets stand alone notability standards, but nothing needs to be improved in its prose or structure—except wait for an arbitrary, non-deterministic number of players to meet the milestone to deem this list subjectively large enough for featured status.—Bagumba (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Look, I'm very much on the fence about this one. I'm not sure if it meets 3b or not. Then again, I'm damn sure List of New York Yankees captains meets 3b (List of Boston Red Sox captains is an FL), but I didn't get a full review on that because people said it failed 3b. Maybe I need more of an understanding of what meets 3b and what doesn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are questioning this article based on "other stuff exists", rather than a strong belief that this actually fails 3b? This is not surprising, as concerns with 3b has been debated in the past with no consensus, including Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria/Archive_2#3b:_A_review and Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria/Archive_3#RfC_-_3.b_review. What I would like to see in this discussion (and FLCs in general) is

1. Specific recommendations on how the list can be improved to meet 3b, beyond mere mention that it simply does not pass 3b. Concerns that the list "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" needs to have viable actionable alternatives. This is per WP:FLC: "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." (Text bolded as in WP:FLC, was not added by me).
2. Continued discussion of recommendations to address 3b. I assume this is a discussion and not a vote? Reasonable objections to recommendations to merge the list should be responded to; otherwise, the opposing argument should be discounted. This ensures that opposition is not simply based on an arbitrary size quota. It needs to be demonstrated, not just merely stated, that the list can be reasonably merged. Assume good faith that it really is not clear how the proposed merge should look.

—Bagumba (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I'm still smarting a little over the Yankees captains list. That said, while hitting 50 home runs in a season is a clear marker, and 30-30 seasons also are, I'm still not sure about 20-20-20. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:FLCR does not discriminate whether one list is "more notable" than another list, only that its criteria are met. Otherwise, maybe your nomination of "List of New York Yankees captains" was failed by Red Sox fans for the same reason :-)—Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damn those Red Sox fans... – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Brevity issues don't concern me since this list will never be a large one. I am unable to think of an article this list could reasonably be merged in to. That being said, I am unsure that this article is correctly formatted as a list. I feel that expansion could occur to make this an article on the 20-20-20 club. When was the 20-20-20 club first referenced? Is this an official club or does it exist only in rhetoric/in the media?  Ryan Vesey 19:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The amount of prose is on par with other baseball FLs based on "clubs": 3,000 hit club, 3,000 strikeout club, 300 save club, and 500 home run club. This is probably no different than the other clubs in that there is no "official" membership, but the other FLs dont specify this either. The Dickson Baseball Dictionary refers to "500 home run club" as a "mythical group". I don't see other sources that go into the etymology of the term. Is anyone aware of any? The article currently mentions in prose a 1979 article that used the term. I dont believe much more can be written on 20-20-20 than already exists, and the list of members seems quite relevant.—Bagumba (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I remained on the fence about this one for a while, and I don't consider myself strongly in support, but based on reading the references, they all talk about players with 20-20-20-20, and seem to treat 20-20-20 as an afterthought. Only the Wertz source, the last one cited, seems to refer specifically to 20-20-20, and the url isn't working so I can't read it. I wanted to get behind this one, but I'm interpreting my reticence as opposition. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd imagine that has something to deal with recentism. The last two players since 1979 that have achieved 20-20-20, both in 2007, also achieved 20-20-20-20. WP articles tend to rely on online sources due to their availability, so its likely the online articles are mostly post-Internet and mostly deadline with 20-20-20-20. It would be strange if the 20-20-20-20 group was actually more notable than 20-20-20. Would you prefer a rename of the article if that was the case? At least getting more 20-20-20 sources is an actionable item. Time to dig out the microfiche.—Bagumba (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that the URL isn't working for the Wertz source. It appears that, starting about a month ago, all Baseball Digest magazines that were once viewable on Google Books now result in 404 errors. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a NYT source that mentions solely the 20–20–20 club. Will this by any chance change your position regarding the candidacy of this list? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is also mentioned in a book. Other news sources include USA Today and UPI. These can be added to the article if there is demand, but I'd recommend to avoid WP:OVERCITE. I remain convinced 20-20-20 is notable. Are there any reasonable concerns that there are not more offline sources that exist on the topic?—Bagumba (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did google it and there seems to be more legitimacy for the 20-20 club than there is for the notability of the 20-20-20 club. Afro (Talk) 06:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

20–20 club is completely unrelated. If you go to this article, it states that it encompasses 20 home runs and 20 stolen bases in one season (i.e. does not include doubles or triples as components to the club). The club that is being mentioned in that search is just a cheapened version of the 30–30 club and 40–40 club. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the point that they are completely unrelated but I don't think at present time the statistical club is notable enough on its own merits. Afro (Talk) 02:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the number of sources with significant prose in the article, everyone has agreed that this is notable enought to meet WP:LISTN. Do you have a specific actionable item on a point failed in WP:FLCR?—Bagumba (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it fails 3b, I don't think the article is large enough to be classified as comprehensive. I also think it's just Routine coverage the same as you'd see for a few records which are listed on ATP World Tour records. Afro (Talk) 09:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any written WP rules stating how long an FL must be. The unwritten rule of thumb is 10 and this list has 11 (i.e. already satisfying this unwritten "rule"). I find it completely ludicrous that people have been claiming this list fails criterion 3b when it more than satisfies the stand alone and notability rules of WP. And the earlier proposal that this list be merged into a "Baseball statistical clubs" list has already been shot out of the water. All stat clubs have their own article, since they are completely mutually exclusive to each other. Try mixing in a doubles, triples, home run club (this club) with a home run and stolen bases club. It won't work, as you're combining completely unrelated stat clubs. The same person who came up with that idea even had the guile to say the proposed "Baseball statistical clubs" list should include the entire 30–30 club list (which has even more members than the FL 3,000 hit club). I didn't even bother responding—that's how silly the idea is. And if anyone else thinks about bringing up 3b as a reason to oppose, think again. It was already debunked a long ago. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC) [Removed off the cuff remark. Kinda lost my cool there. Sorry] —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simmer down a bit please, I'm sure the user who suggested it was merely acting in good faith, while I wouldn't suggest a baseball statistics article or something similar, I think reasonably it could be mixed in with the 40–40 club the article even says in the see also it's a similar multiple state club they're both roughly 15k (not that it matters) and the 50–50 club is already merged with the 40–40 club. Once again I also don't think this articles coverage extends past routine coverage. Afro (Talk) 10:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

40–40 club is a statistical sub-category of the 20–20 club. As you earlier accepted the point that 20-20 was unrelated to 20-20-20, it would follow by the same logic that 40-40 is unrelated for merging purpose with 20-20-20. 40-40 was likely added into "See also" because 30-30 is mentioned in the body of 20-20-20. I have no opinion one way or another if it should stay in "See also", but I do not see a reason for merging of the unrelated articles.—Bagumba (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well since the discussion is about whether the article could reasonably be merged into another "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." I think they have similar stats the only difference is the 20-20-20 club encompasses more stats, half of the stats included can be related back to the 40-40 club, and I don't see how the coverage of this statistical club ranges from anything more than routine coverage. Afro (Talk) 03:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific as to why you believe this is routine coverage. The feat has occurred fewer times than a no-hitter, amassing 500 HRs, etc. The article specifically mentions the importance of speed in obtaining a double and triple whereas the 30-30/40-40 clubs do not even record total of the two. My biggest question for this article is why does the title only refer to half of the content displayed in the article? Zepppep (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because I think like most long tennis matches like the recent semifinal at the Olympics it only receives coverage around the event and is thus included in an article with related content, to me it seems to fall along the lines of a sports score like that tennis match. Again I do understand the difference between the clubs, but the question is whether it could be reasonably merged with another article I think there is a case to be made that it could reasonably fit in, especially since they are both statistical batting clubs at the very least. Afro (Talk) 05:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Divisional playoffs, World Series, Super Bowls, etc. are all games that go way beyond a box score and thus, have articles about them. Games which have interesting feats or record-breaking moments rarely have an article to devoted to them (can't actually think of any for any sport). Games which are pre-planned would fall in line with routine but I'm still struggling to see how this feat, and thus article, would fall under that category. How often is the 300 win club thrown around? Seems to me 'bout every time a player nears it, or an injury seems to put a promising young pitcher's future in doubt of attaining that level of respect, or if a player on the fence re: HOF induction is trying to eke out a few more wins in hopes of reaching that no. And has been previously stated, since only 2 players have accomplished the feat since the advent of the internet, the number of mentions in the press (or at least accessible using online sources) is understandably severely limited. Merging, however, is an issue not specific to any one user and a different issue entirely. Zepppep (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE is described as "Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." Reaching 20-20-20 is not pre-ordained, and the sources that cover it are independent sources.—Bagumba (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede the point that the low occurrence since the advent of the internet the mentions is low, the Semifinal at the Olympic Tennis wont get any coverage this week and may not for a long time unless its the odd mention because it was part of a sports match routine coverage and I feel its the same sort of coverage this statistical club gets, I'm not saying the club isn't notable enough for inclusion just its questionable whether it should stand on its own or whether it could be included as part of a wider base of statistics, this may be due to the lack of coverage since the accessibility of the internet occurred but there are plenty of tennis statistics which are seem as notable which do not have their own article. Afro (Talk) 04:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to make this WP:WABBITSEASON, but with the length of this FLC, my earlier comment from 00:13, 11 July 2012 may have been overlooked and seems applicable: "I cannot see the benefit of combining the content of this FLC with unrelated lists merely because they seem related due to their use of statistics. Offhand, I'm not aware of reliable sources that refer to the collective stats groups as a whole to justify WP:LISTN for proposed list of lists. I think there is a disagreement in translating 'reasonably' based on theory to 'reasonably' based on actual sources."—Bagumba (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Zepppep re:article title, 20-20-20 is the main subject of the article. 20-20-20-20 is a special case of 20-20-20, namely the additional stolen bases constraint. 20–20–20–20 club is a redirect to this article, and it is described and bolded in the lead per WP:R#PLA.—Bagumba (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing the list be merged but if the question is as part of the criteria whether it could be reasonably merged as part of another article, I think a reasonable case can be made to suggest it could be. I'm going to Oppose the nomination because I think it fails 3b because it can reasonably be included with related articles. Afro (Talk) 04:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided an actionable item. All you've done is subjectively interpreted criterion 3b in your opposition. So, please tell me which related article(s) can this list be included in? —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be listed as part of 40–40 club albeit with a few extra requirements or a batting statistic clubs. Afro (Talk) 09:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you're asking me to create a "Baseball statistical clubs" list, right? I've already refuted the creation of that list above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment See our featured lists of counties in Rhode Island and Hawaii, both of which comprise just five entries. Since they were considered long enough for FL, why should this list be considered too short? I'm not familiar enough with the FL process to make further comments. Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Opposition above seems to fall into two camps:
  1. The list is too short, which is not a criteria of WP:FLCR.
  2. The lists fails FLCR 3b with claims that it should be merged into another article; however, no viable existing list is proposed and any proposals for a new larger list are not demonstrated to be notable by sources that support WP:LISTN.

Nothing new is being discussed and this has been open for over a month. This list should either be promoted with the opposition dismissed as they are non-actionable and not based on guidelines, or it should be ruled no consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2012 (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 not promoted by Dabomb87 14:57, 18 August 2012 [8].

---

Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that this list meets the FL criteria. Thanks, :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support assumption of comprehensiveness. Comments were resolved last FLC. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bencherlite

• I have difficulty in accepting that this opening sentence is an example of WP's finest prose: "Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami Rambhadracharya (better known as Jagadguru Rambhadracharya or Swami Rambhadracharya) is a Hindu religious leader, educationist, Sanskrit scholar, polyglot, poet, author, commentator, philosopher, composer, singer, playwright and Katha artist based in Chitrakoot, India." It's far too long, and attempts to cram in far too much detail. Furthermore, do we really need wikilinks to "playwright" and "India", for example? Done
• Similarly the second sentence: "His works consist of poems, plays, dissertations, commentaries, discourses, and musical compositions of himself." (What are "musical compositions of himself"???) Done
• Do we really need "To sort this table by year, title, or any other column, click on the icon next to the column title" once, let alone every time? Removed
• In the sub-headings, some of the translations use capital letters (e.g. "Mahākāvyas (Epic poems)") and others don't (e.g. "Khaṇḍakāvyas (minor poems)") - is there a reason for the differences? This is because "minor" and "lyrical" are adjectives, and therefore have not used capital letters. Other words like "Play" and "Epic" are nouns, and have used capital letters.
• Do we need so many single-item tables? Can't they be combined into something more useful, such as an "other works" section? If they are to be retained, why are one-item tables sortable? Partially done I have made one column tables unsortable.
• Do we really need the publisher? There are two bibliography FLs which uses tables, S. E. Hinton bibliography and Edgar Allan Poe bibliography, and both have a publisher column, so having it here would be better.
• Sentence fragments such as "Lyrical poem." should not have a full stop / period at the end; only full sentences end with a "." . Fixed
• I'm wondering if we need a box, symbol and colour to tell us that something is undated when you could just put "undated" in the year column. I think having it would do no harm, however Id you wish, I can remove it.
• Similarly with "unpublished" - wouldn't adding the word "unpublished" to the notes do? Same as above
• I think it's overkill to have {{Jagadguru Rambhadracharya}} and {{Rambhadracharya sidebar}} in the same article. Done by Redtigerxyz
• In general, this list gives the impression of being written by someone who's very knowledgeable about the subject matter but who perhaps has not given enough consideration to the fact that many readers of this list (perhaps particularly at FLC!) will not have the first clue about the writer or the topics about which he writes. Some more explanation of concepts, people, genres, etc would not go amiss in my humble opinion. Done I have added Template:See also where articles about genres are present.

That's all for now. Bencherlite^Talk 19:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 17:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GoPTCN 08:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments The portal box is in the wrong position; should be below the navbox. Not done WP:ALSO says that they should be kept under the "See also" section. It is a guideline and not a policy. Furthermore it does not say it must be like that, and it does look awful in that section. Consider making it like here. Done. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Shouldn't the article be named "Works by Rambhadracharya"? Not done WikiProject Bibliographies#Naming recommends "of" My English skills are not brilliant but it does not make sense to me. I always thought it is always a product by somebody, not of. I find the space between the title and the lead a bit distracting. Could you fix it somehow?--GoPTCN 17:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Not done Again sorry but I can't find any solution to this. :([reply] Yes, that was already done by Bencherlite.--GoPTCN 07:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Ooops! Sorry, I didn't noticed that. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your comments. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great list! :)--GoP_T^C_N 08:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review: No copyright related problems found. All covers depicted in File:Ramabhadracharya Works - Collage.jpg appear to be free and none of the writings on the backs of the books depicted in File:JagadguruRamabhadracharyaWorks.jpg appear to be eligible for copyright. By the way, you may want to ask Bencherlite to revisit. Goodraise 19:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. No concerns. Great work! TBrandley 19:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to support or oppose this, but I doubt that any list that contains the word "etc" in the second sentence of the lead (as in "His works consist of poems, commentaries, musical compositions of his works, etc.") can justifiably claim to be an example of Wikipedia's finest work. I'm not going to support because I think that the suggestions I made about lack of information about concepts/people/genres, too many small sections and so on, would have been worth acting upon by doing more than adding the odd wikilink. He has also been given many other literary honors and titles, such as Mahakavi and Kavikularatna", for example, is meaningless to me, because I have no idea what the awards (or titles? or honours? or something else?) mean or who awards them, nor why I should be impressed. I'm not going to oppose because I would appear to be in the minority and I don't want to throw spanners in the works unnecessarily. But please improve the prose in the lead, regardless. One other point in passing: is "He composed Śrīrāghavakṛpābhāṣyam on Narada Bhakti Sutra in 1991" in the section "Sanskrit commentaries on the Prasthānatrayī" a reference to Rambhadracharya, or the last person to be mentioned before the word "he", i.e. the former prime minister? Bencherlite^Talk 22:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. :) I have fixed your concern, however your comment about "lack of information" is something I really don't know how to work upon. The main point is that I don't want to list to go off-topic, and the second is that such problems occur in many Indian mythology articles (the same problem was faced by a copy-editor when he copy-edited the main article Rambhadracharya). As of merging the small sections, I have amended your suggestion. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Bencherlite. The article is focused on merely listing works rather than being an encyclopedic article about a set of works. More context is required to make this article accessible to readers unfamiliar with the subject matter. Thus, I'm opposing. Goodraise 20:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is focused as such because its a list. Whenever it is possible separate articles have been created. Indian literature is very different from English or Romanic languages literature, and I really can't help with that. In case this is really an issue, consider this FLC as withdrawn. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:56, 14 August 2012 (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 not promoted by Giants2008 19:29, 4 August 2012 [9].

---

Nominator(s): ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 06:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I took this list and split it out of space station, and now I feel that it's expanded enough to be come a featured list. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 06:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments that immediately spring to mind:
  • The list uses flags, and flags alone, to say what country the station belongs to. This is insufficient.
    • Done - I've added columns to all the tables containing country data. I also linked country names the first time they appear. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You similarly cannot rely on color alone to denote the ones that were unmanned, you have to indicate it also either with text or with a symbol.
    • Done - I've added a notation under the "Occupied", "Total Crew and Visitors", and "Manned" columns saying that this station was never manned. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "DOS"? Why isn't it linked? Is it the Salyut program? Almaz also needs to be linked. Being linked in earlier text doesn't mean it can be skipped for a table.
    • Done - I added a notation above describing the difference between the two programs. The DOS program has no article yet, that's why I can't link it. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do only some of the launches have times? Are the :00 seconds real or just false precision? For example, your source for the time for Salyut 1 says only that it launched at 1:40 UTC, not 1:40:00. I'm not sure we need the times anyway, that's perhaps a little specific for this list.
    • Done - I've removed the times. They were too much detail, and I didn't have sources for all of them. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent use of commas for days in orbit between tables.
    • Done - Fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tiangong 1 is in a table labelled "orbiting and manned", yet has never actually been manned.
    • Done - I've changed the description above the table to be more clear. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under cancelled projects, you give the same reason for cancellation in three different ways. This could be moved into the text and that column removed.
    • Done - Fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the flag is replaced with a country, that should get its own column.
    • Done - Fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't need the See Also section - Salyut and Skylab should be linked in the article itself, and 'space station' is literally the first link.
    • Done - I removed the unnecessary links, and converted the portal links to plain text links. I only have the portal links there now. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• All of the above needs to be cleaned up. --Golbez (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments! Please let me know if there's any further changes you think I need. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments some quick things. Avoid bold links in the lead, per WP:CONTEXTLINK. Done - removed ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] Why is Skylab not in italics while Mir is? They're both names of space stations, right? Done - I've italicized every station, as I'm assuming they're treated as ships in WP:ITALICS. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] Don't need four paras in the lead for an article of this length per WP:LEAD. Perhaps move the last para to above the table. Maybe done - I tried to change things around, I hope it's satisfactory. If that doesn't work, I can trim the leade some. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] "for greater number and length of scientific studies " this reads very awkwardly to me, perhaps ask for a copyedit. Done - Split into two sentences. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] Don't overlink Almaz in the lead. Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Skylab viewed from the command module of Skylab 2." no need for the full stop in this caption as it's not a complete sentence. Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] Per WP:ACCESS, " Stations with a red background were never manned." needs a symbol (e.g. an asterisk, or †) as well as the colour to denote a particular property. Done - added a ‡ as a symbol. Also, I added a key instead of text, this should make things clearer. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] "The Soviet Union had two programs running simultaneously" -> "The Soviet Union ran two programs simultaneously" Done - Fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] Please check with User:RexxS that the table works well with screen readers (per WP:ACCESS). It certainly doesn't comply with MOS:DTT for row and col scopes as far as I can tell. Maybe done - I fixed the MOS:DTT issues, hopefully. Could you please look it over and make sure. Honestly, this is the first time I've encountered this MOS page. I've also pinged RexxS, hopefully he'll be back to me soon. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] " They have Life support systems in place and can be manned." Life -> life. And I would think "can be manned" is obvious from the lead that these are designed to be manned. Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] Why have Country as (Private)? Just remove the column and say in the intro that both are privately owned/operated or whatever. Done - removed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] Moreover, if you insist on (Private) then be consistent, the following table has (private). Done - removed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] "An image of the interior of Skylab B, on display at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum." no full stop required. Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] "(In orbit 40 days)" but it said it was cancelled, so it was cancelled after it was launched? Make this clearer and cite the 40 days of orbit. Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] What does "--" mean for Planned Crew size (and why is Crew capitalised here?) Done - explained more clearly, hopefully. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thanks very much for the comments! Please let me know if you find anything else that can be done. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Rather than having a single sentence below the table of contents I would add it to the end of the last para Done Those two sentences will be the death of me :) ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] Just a query, but is there not one single ref you can use for each space station ,in stead of using multiple refs to source each column, no worries if not, but it would make the table look neater if there were. Not done - I'm sorry, that's not possible. Most of this information is very scattered, especially the Soviet stuff. So each piece of information must have it's own citations. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] Main issue I have is with the referencing, there a few errors: ref 1 needs the publication date adding Done - fixed ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] ref 4 has no publisher, and what makes it a reliable source? Done - It's a science teacher's association. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] ref 7, the hyphen needs to be an end ash, there other instances of this, so I would check all the refs to make sure they use en dashes Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] ref 9 has astronautix.com used twice, any reason for this? Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] ref 13 is not formatted correctly, there needs to be an isbn number, a publisher and is there an author? Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] ref 9 has astronautix.com yet ref 16 uses encyclopaedia astronautic, which one is it? be consistent Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] ref 18 needs the parameter |format=PDF adding to it, likewise for any other refs that are PDFs Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] what makes space facts.de, planet 4589 a reliable source? All of the information in spacefacts is sourced, just not on the actual pages. Planet4589 is Jonathan's report. Jonathan publishes the logs of missions, I've seen him mentioned in other sources. If you'd like me to find other sources, I can. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] ref 50 has no publisher. likewise ref 51, and not sure what makes either of those sites reliable Done - I added new sources. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] ref 69 needs the author adding Done - Fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] ref 94, the guardian needs to use the parameter |work as it is a publication Done - Fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] NapHit (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] I believe I've fixed everything. Please feel free to let me know if there's anything else you think should be done. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support NapHit (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• This is one of the most interesting pages I've read on WP--great job!

Why, thank you. :) ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 00:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Notes section should appear before References.

Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 00:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Commons cat should go in "External links". And since it is the only link, you should use the inline variant.

Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 00:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: these 2 are completely optional and should not impact this list being promoted:

• Lots of white space next to the ISS patch image. Don't know if anything can be done...

Not done - I'm sorry, I can't figure out any way to fix that. You're welcome to have a go. 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• What about adding citations to the "(private)" occurences and adding the company names to the "Notes" section?

Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– Lionel ^(talk) 01:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it took so long for me to get back, Internet has been iffy. I'll try to fix the optional ones later, depending on the Internet. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 00:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've handled the optional comments. Thank you for the review. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WFC

Resolved comments from WFC

*First thing's first, thanks for working on this list. I looked through FLC to find something relatively unique to review, and this was one of the ones that caught my eye. —WFC— 04:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for the review! I'm glad you enjoyed it. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I have tweaked the notes in an attempt to provide clarity: the days in orbit statistic updates automatically (so will always be correct as of today's date), whereas the other stats update manually (so will be correct as of the last update). —WFC— 04:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I saw that, thank you. You taught me some stuff about references I didn't know existed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] The first two paragraphs of the lead are good, but the prose could use some work in places: I think there should be a brief mention in the lead that Russia, China and private companies are planning future space stations, and a paragraph in the planned stations section which goes into a bit more detail. —WFC— 04:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done - added. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] "The last military-use space station was Salyut 5, which was used by the Almaz program of the Soviet Union in 1976 and 1977." Firstly, I think other landmarks should be mentioned, such as the first space station, first civilian/military space station (depending on whether the first was military/civilian) and so on, although obviously care needs to be taken to try and keep the prose flowing nicely. But also, I'm not sure if this quote is accurate: I remember reading a few months back that China's space program, whilst being conducted for the purposes of civilian research, is overseen by the People's Liberation Army (that was a Western source though, so may have been inaccurate). Either way, I think "firsts" are more relevant than "lasts" as far as military and civilian usage are concerned. —WFC— 04:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done - fixed. I've expanded that paragraph with some additional information. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] That'll do for now. I'll take another look at the prose when these things are resolved. Thank you, I await your further comments. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to return to this: apart from a brief AWB run yesterday, my activity has been patchy this month for religious reasons.

I have a lot of time for this list. The lead is absolutely perfect for a layman, and the tables go into what looks like an appropriate amount level of detail. But I think this is the sort of list where some transitional text is needed (or in plain English, longer, more detailed text in some of the sections). I don't have enough expertise to give you an exhaustive guide, but will give a couple of examples:

1. I read through the text to see how much of it covered what a space station is actually for (either in general, or a specific space station). In total, we have:

"Space stations are used to study the effects of long-term space flight on the human body. They also serve as a platform for extended scientific studies. ... Space stations have been used for both military and civilian purposes" in the lead, and in the body: "The Long Duration Orbital Station (DOS) program was intended for scientific research into spaceflight. The Almaz program was a secret military program that tested space reconnaissance tactics."

2. I read through the text to see how much of it covered what could be described as unique, defining or current characteristics of specific space stations, in the broadest possible sense. In total, there is:

"As of 2012, the International Space Station and Tiangong 1 are the only manned space stations currently in orbit. ... The duration record for a single spaceflight is 437.7 days, set by Valeriy Polyakov aboard Mir from 1994 to 1995. As of 2012, three astronauts have completed single missions of over a year, all aboard Mir", plus the first line of each section.

The lead is perfect: both of the topics I mention are sufficiently touched upon. But for a subject of this depth, technicality and variety I believe that the sub-sections should go into more specific detail about the stations. I'm afraid I don't have enough technical expertise to give you a clearer steer, but it just feels to me that an "expert" (or perhaps more appropriately, someone wanting to use this list as a gateway to learning about space stations), would be found wanting. Regrettably, for that reason I have to oppose at the moment. —WFC— 06:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... OK. Thank you for your kind words. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 12:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from W. D. Graham

• There have been quite a lot of proposed space stations over the years which never made it to orbit, however only three are listed
  • I'm going based off the {{space stations}}, that's where I got the data. However, I've added the ISS incorporated stations into that table. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completeness is one of the featured list criteria. I feel further research is needed if this list is to become featured. --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you feel further research is necesary, of course I can spend some time researching. However, many countries are very secretive about their space failures, so I'm not sure how much I can find. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The list seems to claim that "rising costs" was the cause of every cancelled programme being cancelled; this is incorrect, and not even cited for the examples given
  • Done - fixed. I've added an extra column and included references. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A general remarks column might be better --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I've converted the title to remarks, and updated the data accordingly. Does that work? ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• ESA and Bigelow Aerospace are not countries
  • Done - Fixed. I've converted the column to "Agency" and included the flags and then the agency name. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure commercial organisations such as Bigelow could be classed as agencies either. The USSR certainly isn't an agency. --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that "agency" doesn't quite get it. How 'bout "entity", "owner", or maybe "country or entity". Other ideas are welcome, of course. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I converted "agency" to "entity". ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of the stations listed as "de-orbited" [sic] were not deorbited; DOS-2 was never in orbit, and Skylab, Saylut 2, Kosmos 557 and Salyut 7 decayed naturally
  • I changed the section heading. If you think of a better heading, please feel free to change it. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It should be made clear that the three failed stations were intended to be manned
  • Done - added as a note. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Soyuz 10 seems to be counted in manned visits to Salyut 1, but not in terms of crew. This should be corrected, or it should be made clear that you are counting the docking failure as a "visit"
  • Done - fixed. Oops. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• For that matter, how does the list define a "visit"? How are docking failures listed? How about launch failures? And is Soyuz T-5 listed as having visited Mir once or twice?
  • Docking failures are still visits. I defined that in the Salyut 1 row. Yes, docking failures are listed unless I missed one. Launch failures aren't. Soyuz T-5 is listed as having visited Mir twice. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that made clear in the article? --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Unmanned" should not be hyphenated
  • Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't like the way the table is split between past and current space stations, it makes the second table very short, and messes up the column widths. Could they be merged into a single table, perhaps with the active stations differentiated using a different background colour, or separated by a row in the table.
  • I'd rather not combine the two tables, as there are columns that apply to one and not the other. If things continue to go the way they're going, we'll have more rows in that table very soon. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand why the programme field is only in one of the tables, and that just leaves decay date. If you switch to a short date format (YYYY-MM-DD), that should save enough space to add it to both. --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of the crew sizes seem to include visiting crew (eg. Mir & Salyut 7) whilst others don't (eg. ISS & Salyut 6)
  • Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine. --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Durable Orbital Station" is a mistranslation, it should be "Long Duration Orbital Station"
  • Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine. --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• MOL was never launched; the 1966 launch was a mockup built using parts taken from Titan missiles. --W. D. Graham 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarified in the text. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is a very good list, however it does still need some work to meet featured list criteria --W. D. Graham 22:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed some of the concerns, but I have to log off now (real life calls). I'll be back later to address the other concerns. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I've addressed all of the concerns now. Please let me know if you think of anything else. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Craigboy

• Shouldn't NSPO be replaced with CNSA?--Craigboy (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 12:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Mir's mass is currently listed as 19,800 kg but it should be 129,700 kg.--Craigboy (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed - I found a new source. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wingtipvortex

• "As of 2012, the International Space Station and Tiangong 1 are the only manned space stations currently in orbit." I don't like the sentence 100%. The Tiangong is not currently manned. It has been, and it likely will be again. Or maybe it is not currently crewed... Thoughts on that?
  • Fixed - How about "operational stations currently in orbit"?
• "As of 2012, three astronauts have completed single missions of over a year, all aboard Mir." I think it would be very useful if 'three astronauts' linked to who the 3 astronauts were. Also, if they were all aboard Mir, wouldn't they be cosmonauts? Maybe not, I'm not well-informed about the Shuttle-Mir program.
  • Fixed - I've linked the names. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe also include a number of astronauts that have been to several stations and which ones. Dunno, just throwing that out there.
  • I don't think that I could include that on this list. However, I might make that into its own list. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Now, a little extra commentary wouldn't hurt, but maybe I'm just thinking too much 'article' and not enough 'list'
  • Fixed - I trimmed the leade some. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Space stations that have re-entered the atmosphere" may be a bit too long for a section title. How about decommissioned stations or past stations? You explain prior to the list that they have re-entered.
  • Done - I've changed the section title. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overall, I Support the list becoming featured once the above are addressed. It has a great intro, good images, the lists are well split up and contain good and useful information (who would have thought to find useful information in an encyclopedia :D ) and is very clean (no clutter). --19:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Wingtipvorte^X (talk) Ø
  • Thanks, I'm glad you found the list useful. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment: The timeline of space stations found in the Space Station article may have a place in the list of space stations. Just a thought. --Wingtipvorte^X (talk) Ø 19:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the timeline to the article, it's a great idea. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 16:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – The hyphen pairs in the first table should be changed into some form of dashes. Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Sorting in the last two columns is odd at the moment, and not in numerical order. Sort templates exist and can likely fix the issue. Done - fixed. Sort templates applied. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Refs 77 and 99 should be moved outside the parenthesis marks. Done - fixed ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Current ref 98 still has this issue. It looks like the other one is fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Oops, appearently it didn't save. I've fixed it for real this time. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] In fixing this, you accidentally removed the parenthesis. It should be there, just with the citation outside of it. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] *sigh* I hope i've fixed it for real this time... ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 21:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Planned stations: En dash needed for the Tiangong 3 date range. Done - fixed ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Publisher of ref 1 shouldn't be in italics since it isn't a printed publication. Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Capitalization of Wired Magazine should be made consistent, likely with the capitalization. Done - fixed. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Page number would be nice for ref 13. Note that this is now ref 12. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done - I've replace it with another ref, as I can't get access to that book again. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 21:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Publisher needed for ref 7. And what makes someone's personal page a reliable source? Removed, I must have been asleep when I put it in. I've replaced it with a couple book sources. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] What makes Gunter's Space Page (ref 52) reliable? This also looks like somebody's personal site. Removed, it isn't a reliable source. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] I still see it as ref 52. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Replaced with a book source. I made sure of it ;) ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 21:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 10, 24, 54, 60, 96, and 99 should have their publishers italicized as printed publications.
  • Done - I think I got all of them. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 21:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Numbers 96 and 99 still need the italics. You did get the others, though. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done - got 'em. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 07:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes Encyclopedia Astronautica (many refs) reliable? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The jury appears to still be out on Encyclopedia Astronautica. This discussuion and this one appears to establish it as a reliable source, but other discussions have questioned that view. I believe it's reliable for facts because it provides a biography and I'm only citing facts. If you'd like, I can remove it and replace it with other sources. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 21:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll leave it out for other reviewers to consider. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, my internet has been iffy. I'll continue addressing concerns and update the article accordingly. Thanks for your patience. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I've hit all your concerns, feel free to make any further comments. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 21:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review: No copyright related problems found. Goodraise 01:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesomeness, thank you! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 02:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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