Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/August 2014

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by SchroCat 13:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): —indopug (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another India-related chief ministers list, this time for West Bengal. The article is modelled on List of Chief Ministers of Karnataka, which passed FLC recently. Any comments will be addressed swiftly.—indopug (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from Golbez (talk)
  • I'm going to take some things from my U.S. governor lists for this, but not all may be appropriate for this topic, so just a heads up on that. :)
  • I'm unfamiliar with the template, so it's fine if this isn't possible, but "0 years 160 days" is an odd construction. Is it possible to finesse that to simply read "160 days"?

Done.—indopug (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think the "term" should be split out into "took office" and "left office"; that way we don't awkwardly get dates on two lines.

Done.—indopug (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • I would have argued against including duration, but the terms here appear to not be on a set schedule, so I suppose that makes sense. In an office with a set "every X years" election schedule, that would be far less useful.
  • At present, the color key at the top seems extraneous, since it's not actually a key for anything, since every color block is next to its appropriate party. I would say remove it altogether.

I don't really disagree with you, but I've been including it ever since an FLC delegate said it should be there in a previous FLC (open the "Resolved comments" banner). I think it isn't clear what the colours represent if they aren't defined before hand.—indopug (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm not entirely convinced that the premiers of Bengal should be included on this list... to call back to another governor thing, it appears (and I could be wrong so please correct me) that the situation is similar to Dakota Territory, where it was split into two states. I wouldn't repeat the list of territorial governors of Dakota Territory on both state lists, I would have a separate article for that. Should the Premiers of Bengal be in their own article, detailing the premiership of that distinct political unit?
  • The caption for Ghosh reads "first chief minister" but according to the list he was first premier and fourth chief minister, not first chief minister; the caption should be updated accordingly.

Doing...—indopug (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "As per the Constitution of India" 'As per' is a bit colloquial. I would prefer 'In accordance with".
• "Given that he has the confidence". Should be 'he or she' - especially as the incumbent is a woman!
• " All three erstwhile Bengal premiers" - I would delete 'erstwhile' as redundant.
• "The first was Prafulla Chandra Ghosh of the Indian National Congress, who was succeeded by his party-mates Bidhan Chandra Roy and Prafulla Chandra Sen." I do not think 'party-mate' is a word, and it would be helpful to give the year stability ended. Not sure of the best wording, but perhaps something like "Until [year] the state was governed by three Indian National Congress Chief Ministers, firstly Prafulla Chandra Ghosh, and then Bidhan Chandra Roy and Prafulla Chandra Sen."
• I do not think you need two photos of the current Chief Minister. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (I am absolutely unfamiliar with the subject matter, so this is for table content/refs mainly):

• The three paragraph lead contains only a single sources/reference. Beginning in the second paragraph I think there needs to be more.
• Premiers of Bengal
  • Alt text missing from three images
  • Ref#4 should also be applied to the “Left office” column
  • Election dates and party should have refs (I don’t think linking to other Wikipedia articles is enough). If a single source covers these it could go at the top of the column.
• Chief Ministers of West Bengal
  • Note C – you might mean to say a number in parentheses, not brackets.
  • The list is not sortable so I’m not sure you need to have more than the first appearance of a name or a term linked to the article. The table is complex and does a good job of representing the subject.--Godot13 (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by SchroCat 13:06, 14 August 2014 [2].

Nominator(s): MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on it sevaral times so it could meet he creteria, and it has improved a lot since the first nomination. Bruno Mars has received several nominations and awards in a short carrer so far due to his efforts as a singer, producer and song-writer.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Mario, as I can see, this list is overall well done, and I'm quite impressed with your work on it. However, there are several source issues remained. Some sources are not reliable at all for an FL (Hypeable, About.com, Antimusic...). For this issue, I recommend you to use {{Cite AV media}}. The second issue is that I can see source parameters ({{Cite web}}) are not suitable. (Example, ref 1: "work" here is not "theguardian.com", but The Guardian). To be honest, I think you should check the sources carefully before getting this to FLC. Regards, Simon (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • I will replace the non-reliable links. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sorry this hasn't worked out for you again; I hope to see the list back again. It may be worth leaving a neutrally worded notice on the talk page of any relevant projects, and helping to review some of the other FL candidates: people are more likely to join in your review if you've already worked on theirs. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2014 (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 SchroCat 13:06, 14 August 2014 [3].

Nominator(s): Wikipedical (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive, up to date, and meets all other Featured List criteria. Corresponds with other Featured Lists List of awards and nominations received by Arrested Development, List of 30 Rock awards and nominations, List of awards and nominations received by The Simpsons, etc. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Agree with the reasoning for you declining some of the suggestions. Just make sure to update the TCAs later on this month. I'm not as well versed about TV show articles but it seems to be comprehensive enough. Overall, a great list. Cowlibob (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by SchroCat 13:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): KirtZJ (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd try my first attempt at a FL. Let's see how it goes. —KirtZ^Message 01:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DragonZero

Well, looks like I'm too busy to complete this too. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better if this was merged with the second season as one complete list, rather than a specific season, before considering nomination. Since the first season's short form, and the second season are only 15 minute episodes, it's not really neccessary to use two seperate articles. Wonchop (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be an issue for FLC since there's enough content for it to exist, I think. If the second season's list was small enough, it might be merged, eventually losing it's FL status, similar to the Bleach chapter list. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2014 (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 withdrawn by SchroCat 11:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Skr15081997 (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this list provides comprehensive information about Akshay Kumar's films. He has starred in more than 120 films so far in his two decade long career. I expect constructive comments from the reviewers. This is my 1st FLC so please don't be too harsh to me. Skr15081997 (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took the liberty to fix the tables so that it meets FLC. Probably still needs a bit of work. The lead however needs a significant copyedit/rewrite by someone well-versed in Bollywood as the prose is lacking. @Krimuk90:, you're an expert on these kind of articles. Are you up for fixing up the lead for this list? Cowlibob (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The lead needs a major rewrite. I'll see what I can do. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't Hari Om Entertainment Akshay Kumar's production company? Doesn't that mean that he has co-produced more films than listed in his filmography? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar's company had produced the films but he was not credited as the film's producer. Shah Rukh Khan filmography also lists the films produced by Red Chillies with the explanatory note that SRK wan't credited as the film's producer. I hope I have resolved your comment.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• The sources provided don't mention that the first film that he had signed was Deedar. So why is it mentioned before his first role?

Citations added.

• You don't "have" success, you "achieve" success.

Corrected.

• "..promoted Kumar as one of the most successful actors of the year". How about "established Kumar as one..."

Thanks, you always give the best suggestion.

• The fact that he played action roles in the 90s appears in between his credits for 1994. Why?

Moved to the appropriate place (I think so!)

• In the second paragraph, why mention some of his 1994 credits that have already been mentioned in the first paragraph? Also, there is no need to mention all his releases.

Removed all of them.

• "declared a hit". By whom?

Resolved (I think so!)

• "However, his later films...". 'Later' is very vague. During which period did his films not do well?

Changed.

• "He had given 14 flop films in a row before acting in Jaanwar". Very jarring due to the sudden change in tense.

Changed.

• "..after the long spell of flop films". Not quite encyclopaedic.

Removed.

• "After 2000 he changed from action genre to drama, romantic, negative and comedy" How can someone change to a "negative genre"?

Removed.

• "With Garam Masala, Akshay surpassed Shahrukh Khan and Salman Khan on the box office for the first time." Surpass in regards to what?

Added " in terms of box office collection".

• " His success had soared in 2007.." Poor grammar, and replace "soared" with a better word.

Changed.

• "hit films" sounds like a newspaper report. Use something like a box office hit, or a commercial success etc.

Done.

• "By playing these roles he avoided being typecast as an action actor." Source?

Removed.

• " Apart from feature films it had also produced a global warming based documentary.." Ehhm... "he" and not "it" please.

Necessary changes made.

• Rowdy Rathore and Housefull 2 were critically successful? Source?

Added.

• Why is "Breakway" suddenly not in italics?

Fixed.

• "On 16 February 2013, many media outlets reported that the box office collection of Kumar's films had crossed 2000 crore (US$330 million) and till date is the only Bollywood actor to do so." Again, jarring tense changes.

Rephrased the latter part.

• The final four-five sentences aren't quite up to the standards of a featured list, so I won't comment on those.

Working.

Okay, these comments are just the tip of the iceberg. The prose has many more issues. Since this is your first nomination, I understand that it is very difficult to get it right in one go. I, therefore, strongly suggest that you open a peer review before nominating this again. Cheers! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90:Thanks for thoroughly inspecting the lead. Awaiting further comments!--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. This follows a request from the nominator. - SchroCat (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2014 (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 withdrawn by SchroCat 07:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): CyrockingSmiler (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... it is detailed and includes extensive information. It is certainly an important and well-developed piece of content for WikiProject Miley Cyrus and also amongst one of the excellent lists on Wikipedia. CyrockingSmiler (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as I see 3 instances of Youtube, 1 at REF#31, 2 at REF#36, 3 at REF#37. YouTube isn't acceptable. I see unreliable sources like PopDust. I don't even think you have done enough work on this article to nominate it. This article is far away from FL.--219.90.98.14 (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PopDust is unreliable, proof: WP:RSN#Is PopDust a reliable source?. YouTube is not acceptable. A statement that can't be sourced otherwise, will have to be removed.--219.90.98.14 (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! @Lady Lotus: Pls come here, we need a more educated editor, or this nomination is doomed..--219.90.99.59 (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this nomination is unfit for FL status, please provide the areas where it needs improvement. CyrockingSmiler (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The above comments from the IP are sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked user Shane Cyrus and should not be taken into accounting. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm sorry but the refs still need a lot of work. I don't consider Idolator a reliable source, same for Youtube, you can use it but not for a FL. Popdust isn't reliable either. Please look at Justin Timberlake videography for examples. Add some pictures, add more references on her film and television career, improve references and you might have something. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I concur with Lady Lotus and suggest withdrawal, though Idolator is a valid source. Timberlake's videography is indeed a good basis for structure of lead AND tables. In addition to malformated references (such as italicizing non-print sources like MTV when they shouldn't be italicized), the lead focuses only on her music videos while giving no detail on her film and television roles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your input. Withdrawing the nomination for now. CyrockingSmiler (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. @CyrockingSmiler: next time please ask one of the delegates to withdraw the FLC: there are several other steps that need to be taken as part of the process. – SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2014 (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 SchroCat 10:19, 6 August 2014 [11].

Nominator(s): Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 23:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Naval Academy's football team has been led (or left leaderless) thirty-nine times since its start in 1879. One of the oldest and most successful teams in college football, four of Navy's coaches have made the hall of fame for their coaching talent, and another four are hall of fame players who happened to coach. This list failed previously after a long nomination. I have since addressed all of the concerns, and again believe this is ready for the bronze star. Here we go again, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 23:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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