Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/August 2016

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I sincerely apologize for taking your time in reviewing the list. There is lot of work to be done on the article. I'll renominate once its done and also after an A-class review. I request Giants2008 or PresN to close the review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 12:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is one of the most important lists in the scope of WikiProject India. Currently a B-class list. Has good lead and prose for each section and is referenced as per the referencing guidelines. The list covers the entire required ships that are to be mentioned and each and every ship is referenced. The list is clearly sorted according to their status (active, out of service, expected) and then as per ship classes and then are the pennant number. Has a good visual appeal and is stable. I welcome opinions that help the list to be featured on the main page. Regards, KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 12:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dharmadhyaksha

• Instead of using "<ref>" for references to books listed at the end, would suggest using Template:Sfn. See usage examples on Kalanemi (Ramayana) maybe.
• Wikilink Royal Indian Navy on first occurrence. Its wikilinked on second.
• Few blue-links are actually redirects. Please provide direct link as that's preferred.
• In Fate of HMIS Dhanush you mention "Transferred to Pakistan and served as PNS Dhanush." Should it be "PNS Zulfiqar"? Same with HMIS Shamsher.
• Cite news and cite web has been inconsistently used. maintain uniformity.
• Ref 42 has been called twice in same place.
• Wikilink to Displacement (ship).
• There are two full rows in the table for decommissioned ships that call out refs 12, 52 and 45. Why full rows for ref?
• There are few rows whose ref cells are empty.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: I have fixed all issues you've mentioned. Per no.4, I have corrected the wrong link with Dhanush but there is no issue with HMIS Shamsher, it is commissioned by the Pakistan as Shamsher i.e PNS Shamsher itself. Per no.5, cite news has been used to cite the articles on web which are published as a news update. For example: News on a ship is commissioned or decommissioned or scrapped taken from news websites like The Hindu, Times of India, Indian Express etc. Whereas cite web has been used to cite the web articles containing information of the ship For example: Articles from websites as uboat, gloabalsecurity, naval-history etc. Regards, KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 12:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Dhanush & Shamsher points solved.
• I actually don't care whether you use cite web or cite news. What I see is ref #33 has www.thehindu.com and #35 has The Hindu. that's one example of inconsistency. Same with Rediff I see. Sometimes you use www.blahblah.com format in refs and sometimes you have used Blah Blah. See #54 & #55 for example. At times it is www.uboat.net and at times it is uboat.net.
• References section should be arranged alphabetically by author'a last name. Like Bhatia, Colledge, Conway, and so on...
• Few entries of the "Decommissioned" cell are blank and few say "unknown". So what does blank mean?
• All three tables are of different widths. Please restrict them for better looks.
• Tables also have no titles or headers or whatever they are called. Example how all tables in here have "List of Padma Bhushan award recipients for YYYY" on top.
• None of the tables are sortable. Its difficult to sort the Decommissioned ships table in current state. But then it is difficult to see the timeline of these without sorting. See if something can be done. Maybe shift the classes in individual rows itself.
• In "Future ships" section wikilink Project 17A-class frigate and delink frigate. GRSE's full form should be mentioned and its location along with Mazagaon Dock's should be mentioned. I think the details on "Admiral Grigorovich-class frigate" in this section are bit too much for this list. Maybe trim that and shift all this info on its page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Varun

I still feel the scope of improvement in the list before it becomes featured. The whole formatting can be overhauled and make the list look better. i'll make some edits in the coming days. Thanks P.S. the lead doesn't look nice VarunFEB2003 (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@VarunFEB2003: Please suggest the corrections/ improvements to be made? Regards, KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 14:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ya i'll surely do them. A bit busy, probably tomorrow. Thanks VarunFEB2003 (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Adamgerber80

• Disclaimer: I think this a great idea, a good start and should be built upon. I have quite a bit of constructive criticism on formatting & content which should not be misunderstood as discouragement or opposition to this article.
• We should make the template standard across all the ships. For example, for decommissioned ships there is a commissioning and decommissioning date which is absent in the current active ships section. Currently it feels, that these tables were copied off from List of active Indian Navy ships, Future of the Indian Navy, List of ships of the Indian Navy which defeats the whole purpose of creating a separate list. Quite a bit of work needs to be done here which will be correctly copying over information from their respective class pages since all these dates exist there.
• The introduction is weak and needs improvement. I feel the crux of the article should be how frigates have evolved in the Indian Navy, the role they currently play and the future envisioned for them. The introduction does lead there but then wavers in the end.
• There is discussion on each class but it seems disconnected. There should be narrative connecting each of the classes. For example, what features has each class added over the other and how they differ. How has the role of each class evolved with the Blue water ambitions of the Indian Navy.

Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per nominator request, closing this nomination as archived. --PresN 18:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Williams is an actress who, despite several acclaimed roles, likes to keep a low profile. This listing of her stage and screen appearances has been well-cited, and I appreciate all constructive comments on its improvement. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at the article talk page. This editor has a long history of violating policy just to put a FA/FL under his belt. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Delegates please note that if I was violating policy, I wouldn't have FA/FLs under my belt. Musdan77 is trying to insinuate that the FLC delegates who have passed my previous 21 FLs don't know what they're doing. This is just another bad-faith tactic by Musdan77, who has a history of attacking editors who write featured content. Look at the persistent disruptions that Musdan77 made at Emma Stone's awards list that eventually became an FL. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the whole discussion and can concurr that Musdan77 needs to WP:DROPIT. Being tag happy for the sake of it when you don't even understand the basic structure of lists is borderline disruptive. Further disruptions if reported by other editors should be taken to WP:ANI. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of their edits were good suggestions. For example, there are redundancies: section titled Film has a second title called "Film roles of Williams" which can go. Same with other two sections. Why do you need 2 titles for each list? However I do disagree with the lead, it is of an appropriate length. Mattximus (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one is a section title and the other is the table title. But yeah, that isn't really important and I have removed the latter. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this nomination hasn't received enough comment after 2 months, and I'm going to have to remove it to keep the FLC queue moving. --PresN 16:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-US  23:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list is the second to last list needed to create a Feature Topic on current CMLL Championships (the last one has not yet been created) and it follows the formats and standards of the twelve other Featured Lists I have gotten promoted over the years, and as always this list has benefitted from input received during previous FLC nominations and thus to me represents the qualities needed in a Featured List. I welcome all feedback and will be happy to take all constructive suggestions on. Thanks in advance for anyone's input.  MPJ-US  23:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from the POV of a wrestling editor: based on my review below, all concerns were addressed. starship.paint ~ KO 13:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MPJ-DK: Here are my comments: starship.paint ~ KO 06:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ... created and sanctioned by the Comisión de Box y Lucha Libre Mexico D.F. - needs a source.

• Fixed

• In the table, when you state live event, can you also state the promotion holding it? Because you said AAA and CMLL used the title but I don't know when they did.

• I will go over the sources and clarify the time line
• I have indicated which shows were specifically CMLL and AAA to clarify the timeframe a little better.

• Please explain what is the point of the 1, 2 and the A, B, C in the table. Why not 1, 2, 3, 4, 5?

• I see how that may look odd, so here goes. I have source confirmation on who the first and second champions were. Champions listed as A, B, C etc. have been sourced as ho!ding the title at a certain time but no confirmation on what number they are. There could have been 5 champs between 2 and "A", or none but records don't confirm that. It would be Original Research to list Rose Williams as " 3" and so on. The lineage is unclear so I tried to not make the list misleading. MPJ-US  11:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @MPJ-DK: Ohh okay. I get it now! This explanation needs to be in the table Key. Could you leave a note there? Also, instead of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I would suggest A1, B1, B2, C1, C2, C3, D1. starship

• I have changed it to your suggestion, grouping them where the order of reigns is known.

.paint ~ KO 12:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Starship.paint: thank you for your input,I will address the last comment after some research.  MPJ-US  11:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Starship.paint: I believe I have addressed all concerns?  MPJ-US  13:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @MPJ-DK: good. I have made this edit as I believe it is a better explanation. Do you agree? starship.paint ~ KO 13:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Works for me, I was struggling with the wording. Thank you @Starship.paint:  MPJ-US  22:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this nomination hasn't received enough comment after 2 months, and I'm going to have to remove it to keep the FLC queue moving. --PresN 16:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came upon this list when it look liked this. Lots of issues including incorrect names of the stations, no references, and just a poorly organized list. Since the system is from my home town, I thought I would take a crack at it! Now this is my first FLC nomination in many, many years, so I apologize if I have missed anything. But I believe that it is a helpful list, meets all of the criteria, and has many helpful images. Please feel free to provide any feedback, I will address any comments promptly. Thanks for taking the time to review the article! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The lead section is a bit overlinked; you could probably do without the links to brand, train stop, municipality, intersection (road), weather, waste container, drinking fountain, parking space, nonprofit organization, sales tax, and board of directors. Images check out; all are freely licensed on Commons. Actually, I'm not sure whether File:VMR Station Public Art.jpg should be in there–it may not be covered by freedom of panorama which does not cover artworks, even permanent ones, in the US. On ref 15, the archive/accessdates aren't in a format inconsistent with the other accessdates. This page is looking in good shape! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 07:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks @Bobamnertiopsis! I appreciate the review. Here are my responses:
    • I have delinked based on your recommendations.
    • The piece of art on the station is public art (in that it was commissioned and paid for by Valley Metro and the City of Mesa). I believe that all copyright is released in this case. I am basing this off of the publication of photos of each art piece by Valley Metro found here. I updated the file's description accordingly to clarify. Let me know if this satisfies your concern.
    • On Reference 15, the first date is that date of publication, the second date is when the article was archived by WayBack Machine and the third date is when I accessed the article. It looks different because it is the only source that I used an archived version (Phoenix Business Journal's links rot sometimes).
  • Please let me know if you have any follow-up comments. Thanks again! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for delinking things in the lead! It feels a little cleaner now.

• In re the public art: as I understand it, even publicly displayed, publicly funded art in the US is subject to copyright and not subject to the freedom of panorama. Wikimedia Commons's page on freedom of panorama says "17 USC 120 [which governs freedom of panorama in the US] applies only to architectural works, not to other works of visual art, such as statues or sculptures." See Portlandia (statue) or Cloud Gate for some very prominent works of public art that art still not covered by freedom of panorama and whose accompanying pictures are therefore hosted with a non-free use rationale.

• I have removed the entire gallery per User:Dream out loud comment below. I also nominated the file for deletion on Commons. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In re the ref date thing, I was just wondering why you'd gone with "Sunnucks, Mike (August 27, 2015), "Prop. 104 supporters lay out what's next for Phoenix following measure's passage", Phoenix Business Journal (Phoenix, Az), archived from the original on 2016-06-03, retrieved 2016-06-04" instead of "Sunnucks, Mike (August 27, 2015), "Prop. 104 supporters lay out what's next for Phoenix following measure's passage", Phoenix Business Journal (Phoenix, Az), archived from the original on June 3, 2016, retrieved June 4, 2016", the latter of which would leave all dates in the article in a standard format.

• Oh, may bad! I didn't understand what you were referencing at first. It has been fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Good work on this article! If I have the time, I may make a similar one for the light rail stations on my local metropolitan area's train lines, using yours as a template. All the best, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 05:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks @Bobamnertiopsis!. I think I have addressed all of your comments. Appreciate the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Good list but needs some work before promotion

• Like another editor said, still too much overlinking. Common nouns in the lead should be linked with caution and there's no need to link all the cities and platform types for each station.

• Delinked. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Station article names must comply with WP:USSTATION and none of these are compliant (i.e. 19th Ave/Dunlap (VMR station) should be 19th Avenue/Dunlap station)

• Although I agree with you, I think this is outside the scope of WP:FLC. None of the criteria require proper naming convention for articles that are just linked to the featured list candidate. If I have time I may be able to address this separate from this nomination. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No need for a separate column just for references, just add them at the end of the station name in the first column

• Since the station name column has various symbols after many of the stations, adding references here would probably create a readability issue. I don't believe there is any guideline or FL criteria that states it cannot be done this way. If you have another recommendation on where to put the references, I would be open to any suggestions. Any thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The gallery section is a bit odd and doesn't seem to comply with WP:GALLERY. For example, readers don't need a picture of what a station trash can looks like.

• Removed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The images column in the list doesnt work well, mainly because all the thumbnails look very similar and do not illustrate the article well. I would suggest removing the column and adding select images to the right side of the page with a descriptive caption.

• Reformatted per your suggestions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox seems unnecessary; I've never seen a list article with one and I think that it should be restricted to the article about the line/system itself.

• Removed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The system map should be included (but not as part of the infobox). However, the SVG map does not render properly as a thumbnail and is very difficult to read, so I would consult WP:SVG help for futher assistance.

• The SVG renders fine on my computer and is legible when I open the image itself. Considering it is representing a 26 mile long line, with lots of stations near each other, I think it would be difficult to read in thumbnail version either way. However, I think its encyclopedic value outweighs any possible readability issues when presented as a thumbnail (since the reader can click on the image to see it better). Any thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to bold the "35 stations" text.

• Unbolded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix formatting of ".5 miles" to "0.5 miles" and change "electric people mover" to simply "people mover".

• Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Final lead sentence does not satisfy MOS:DATED and needs a citation.

• Utilized the {{as of}}. This statement is almost cited because there are no sources that explain the future configuration. I haven't been able to find anything that specifically states this and I am pretty sure that Valley Metro Rail hasn't publicly discussed how the system will be configured after everything gets built. Would you recommend that I just remove the sentence? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

–Dream out loud (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Dream out loud! I really appreciate your review and in-depth comments. I believe I have addressed or responded to all of your comments. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to address your comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I liked the images embedded within the list but that's probably a preference thing. Thanks for your responses to these comments; the list looks in good shape! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 21:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: This page needs some more work, mainly in the prose department. Some sentences are really awkward and . Some of the things pointed out by earlier reviews haven't been fully fixed, like overlinking (the specific examples were fixed, but the issue persists). I'll give my full two cents later, but here's a few suggestions. SounderBruce 05:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The newly added coordinates look out of place and seem more like filler than useful information.
    • It is actually pretty common item to include in lists about places that have specific coordinates. The {{GeoGroup}} template allows editors to see all of the points on different types of maps (Google) or even download the points for their use. I would consider providing the exact geographic location of each station to be extraordinarily helpful. MOS:COORDS doesn't clarify when to use coordinates, but the mere fact we have a MOS on the topic tells me that it is perfectly acceptable, or even encouraged, to provide this information to our readers. Also coordinates are included in each station article as part of the infobox. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The red links look out of place and need stubs or redirects for the time being. Approved stations are plenty notable.
    • Stubs created for those station articles, removed one other red link. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about Ability360 belongs in the station article, not on a list where summarizing is the goal.
    • Removed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which will begin operations at the end of 2018" sounds awkward. Normally, "begin service" would be used here.
    • Changed as recommended. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations needed for the extension names, especially the "starter line".
    • The two extensions names (Central Mesa and Northwest Phase I) are cited in sources 7 and 8, and their formal Valley Metro names are cited in sources 24 and 26. Added a source after the first instance of "starter line". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there ridership statistics for each of the stations? They should be added as a column.
    • Unfortunately, Valley Metro doesn't post ridership by station (see here for what they post). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @SounderBruce for the review. Regarding the other reviews, I believe I have either addressed or responded to every comment, and am waiting on some follow-up items from Dream out loud. Let me know if you have any other items to add, especially any overlinking examples. Appreciate it! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce, just wanted to send you a quick ping to see if there are any other items that I can address to improve this list. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: I would like to confirm that I have addressed all of your comments. If there is anything else, please feel free to let me know. If not, would you be able to provide a final opinion on the list (i.e. Support/Oppose/Neutral)? Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to go with neutral at this time. I only meant to provide a few comments and critiques for now, but I could come back and do a full-on review when I'm less busy. SounderBruce 17:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @SounderBruce,, this nomination is getting pretty old and may be closed soon, so I wanted to establish that I have addressed all of the comments so far. Let me know if there are any other items that you notice. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the correct formatting of the article names in the list is important to WP:FLC, and they should all be fixed as per WP:USSTATION. If it was articles linked in the text, that would be different, but the purpose of list pages are to include articles related to that topic, so they should be formatted properly. Additional comments:

• I will work on it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Station list should be in alphabetical order by station (current order looks very unorganized)
  • Stations are in order from the western terminus to the eastern terminus (since it is a single line system, this order made the most sense). The sortable table will allow readers to sort alphabetically. I added a note to the column heading to clarify this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Coordinates section seems unnecessary and adds too much clutter to the page. I suppose it's an interesting feature, but I don't know of any other station lists that have it.
  • I do not agree. If I am reading about these stations and I want to see what one looks like, or where it is located, there is a direct link provided for me. It is a great and useful feature, especially being able to open up a map with all of them on it. Just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it shouldn't. Coordinates are an encouraged feature on Wikipedia and found on almost all location-based articles. I cannot go along with argument that this is not helpful for our readers; it would be a detriment not to include it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Map and some photos are missing alt text.
  • Added to all images. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• According to Checklinks, 5 of the citation links require registration, and should be noted with {{subscription required}} or similar.
  • Added |subscription=yes to citation template (Az Central does allow 10 free articles before a subscription is required, just so everyone knows). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Valley Metro Rail is overlinked in the citations
  • Linked first instance in citations, delinked the rest. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Publication place parameters (i.e. "Phoenix, Az"; "Tempe, Az" [sic]) are not necessary for these citations (should only be used when multiple places produce publications with the same name).
  • Removed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• As I stated earlier, the SVG map does not render well as a thumbnail and the station names are almost impossible to read. It does read fine when clicked on, but it should be somewhat legible when it is included on the page.
  • Left a message on the user's talk page who made the image. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a chance to read through the whole lead section yet, but I'll try to get a chance to do so once the above is addressed. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if there is anything else you find. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream out loud: the creator of the map increased the font size. Let me know if this helps make it clearer. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream out loud: Sorry for not adding "station" to the article names, dumb mistake on my part. Thanks for helping out! I am not sure if you know or not, but Valley Metro doesn't spell out the full names of the "roads" within the station name (i.e. University Drive/Rural station is actually University Dr/Rural station). See here for how Valley Metro names their stations. I really don't mind either way, I just didn't want to fix all of the redirects in the article unless the station names are final. Let me know what you think and if you are planning on moving them again. If not, I will fix the redirects. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not planning on moving them again. Most transit authorities don't spell out street abbreviations for station names, but as an encyclopedia it's better to spell out the full name of streets. Most station articles on Wikipedia follow this practice. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream out loud: sounds good. I fixed all the redirects. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that cover two adjacent one-way stations (i.e. Van Buren/1st Avenue and Van Buren/Central Avenue stations) should listed as two separate stations, with some sort of note indicating their one-way service. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream out loud: Are you suggesting the creation of two separate articles for each split-station? Those stations are considered one station with two platforms, not two separate stations. I don't necessarily agree with the current naming structure you added when you moved these articles that makes the word "station" plural (i.e. Van Buren/1st Avenue and Van Buren/Central Avenue stations vs Van Buren/1st Avenue and Van Buren/Central Avenue station). I think adding a note stating these stations have two separate platforms for each direction would suffice. I can work on that later today. I also think the station articles should be moved to the singular title station. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the note to clarify the split platform stations. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are two separate stations a block apart, so it should be pluralized. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream out loud: Valley Metro's official tally is that the system has 35 stations Source. If those split-platform stations were counted as separate stations than the system would have 40 stations. It is the difference between a split platform station and two stations. Per all of the sources, Valley Metro counts those split platform stations as one station, not two. We have to go with what the sources provide us. Either way, is there anything else you would like addressed? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Metro may consider the sets of "split stations" as one, but for purposes of Wikipedia, they should be separated. It doesn't make sense to list "Van Buren/1st Avenue and Van Buren/Central Avenue" as a single station then their infrastructure is completely separate and they are listed a block apart. Similarly, the New York MTA considers there to be 422 New York City Subway stations because they consider large transfer complex stations to be a single station, while Wikipedia considers there to be 469 stations total. (This is also explained in the lead of the article page.) –Dream out loud (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am not understanding what specific change you are requesting. Is the note that I added sufficient to explain this? I would be uncomfortable performing my own research to classify these split platforms as two separate stations when all of the sources in the article classify them as one. Just because something may not make sense, doesn't mean we can go against what the sources are reporting. The New York MTA issue seems to be more about how transfer stations are counted where multiple separate services interline with each other. Van Buren/1st Avenue and Van Buren/Central Avenue stations is a good example of how this is one station with two platforms, since the light rail platforms are on each side of a bus transfer facility. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you noted earlier that Valley Metro doesn't post station ridership info on the website, but I found this on the very link that you posted. [5] Ridership should be included in the list since it is available. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess I didn't look hard enough! Before I make this change, what do you recommend I add? I see two issues, first that Valley metro doesn't provide a total weekday average (they provide ins and outs). Should I average these numbers to get one figure (possibly WP:OR), or list both (which I believe will look very cluttered). Also, how do you recommend I treat the 7 stations that don't have ridership info from that source (both of the new extensions)? Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the stations that don't have data, a simple {{N/A}} would be fine, preferrably with an explanation with why the data is unavailable. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream out loud: Which value do you recommend I provide for ridership? An average of ins and outs, just one, or both? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream out loud: I would like to wrap-up your comments as best I can. WOuld you be able to tell me which ridership value you would prefer so I can make the change? Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use the "in" values for ridership data. Also, there are few redirects that still need to be fixed, and the one-way stations should be split into separate rows (despite linked to the same article). –Dream out loud (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I will work on it the next few days. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dream out loud, I haven't forgotten about your comments, just haven't had much time lately. I will try to get to them tonight. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dream out loud, I think I addressed everything. I didn't notice any redirects, so if I missed some let me know which ones and I will fix them. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 05:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• "U.S." should not be used and be replaced with United States. Maybe end the sentence with something like "in Arizona, United States."

• I am on the fence with this one. Per WP:OVERLINK, United States shouldn't be linked. If I spell it out, it would say "the United States state of Arizona" which is really clunky. If I use your suggestion "in Arizona, United States", that sounds funky as well, especially since it is Phoenix metropolitan area and not Phoenix, Arizona, United States. Let me know what you think. I am open to other suggestions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I sympathise with the difficulties finding an elegant sentence structure but I don't think "U.S". is appropriate as most non-americans reading this would not know what you mean. U.S.A is better, and "United States" is the best for international readers, especially with a wikilink. Of course if only Americans read wikipedia the way you have it would be perfect. "Valley Metro Rail is a light rail transit system that serves the Phoenix metropolitan area in Arizona, United States." would be my preferred structure but of course I'm open to other versions.

• Fixed per your recommendation. I still did not link United States, since MOS:OVERLINK is pretty clear on not linking common names (it even gives United States as an example). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I think I used List of Santa Clara VTA Light Rail stations to help me frame the lede. It uses the "U.S. state of" format. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• " To sort the table alphabetically, click on the arrows to the right of the column title." This can be deleted, I believe these sentences and things like "this is a list of..." have been deprecated in featured lists.

• This was added in per a comment from a reviewer above. They requested clarification since the default sort was not alphabetical (based on station location, running west to east). I would be hesitant to make your change since it was requested before for further clarification. Let me know if that works for you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh I agree with the reviewer up top, it's important to have the note "The stations are in order from the western terminus to the eastern terminus. ". I would have made that suggestion too. The problem is the next sentence is redundant and instructions like that are no longer used in featured lists.

• Remove per your suggestion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In the captions, for "city hall" do you mean "Mesa City Hall"?

• Fix. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Access is primarily provided at the end of the stations"... there is only 1 exit or do you mean "ends"

• Clarified. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You say that 11 have park and ride, but the list only has 10.

• Fixed (I don't know how I made that mistake...). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice list, I think that is all my comments. Mattximus (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review @Mattximus! I appreciate it. Let me know if you have any other comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, just 2 more points and the rest is good for me. Mattximus (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again @Mattximus! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All questions have been answered, good work! support Mattximus (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still a number of issues before I can give support:

• Tables do not meet guidelines at WP:DTT
• Station titles in Geotag links are not consistent (all should be same as respective article title)
• Pairs of one way stations should be split into separate rows (I've already mentioned this several times)

• Just going to jump in here and disagree on this one point. I'm afraid we have to stick to the official "station" definition [6] and not split up one way stations into two stations. Mattximus (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead is too long and should be broken into sections

–Dream out loud (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dream out loud, to be frank, I have gotten to the point that I am somewhat burned out by this nomination, specifically you continually bringing up new items after I resolve your previous issues. I don't say this to be rude, just to tell you that I am no longer invested enough to see this nomination through to the end. Please feel free to make any edits to the article to bring it up to your standards, although I will be requesting the FLC Directors to close this nomination asap. Thanks again, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that you were burned out by this nomination, but honestly, this list did not seem that it was up to FL standards from the beginning of the nomination, and I wanted to try my best to help you get it there. I've gone through two similar FL nominations myself and I can say that it is a long and grueling process, the most recent of which took almost 3 months. "My standards" are only up to par with my previously-created lists, based on feedback I got from other editors during FL nominations. I wasn't trying to constantly find new issues, but I was coming across more things as I was inspecting the page. If I have time I will try and do more work on this list myself, but I'm not sure how much I'll be able to get done in the meantime since you've requested it be closed. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2016 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 16 August 2016 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Boca Jóvenes (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it will be interesting for people reading about Scottish football to have a summary of the major competition experience of one of Scotland's leading clubs. The list summarises all of St Johnstone's seasons in senior football not only with their with league and cup records, but also information about grounds, managers, European competitions and (where known) the leading goalscorers per season. The footnotes add much extra information to provide necessary background. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, concerns about comphrensiveness and sourcing.

• For a club that has been active for over a century, I would think a history section to supplement the list is a minimum requirement. It's true that certain lists have been promoted without summaries (Birmingham City, Barcelona), but the criteria was different back then. In any case, their leads are fairly detailed.
• There's nothing about how the club faired in its first seasons, how it was set up, how it came to join the SFL, etc. Goes back to my first point.
• Image could do with a more striking caption than just 'McDiarmid Park'
• "The club's has had three home grounds, the current one since 1989 is McDiarmid Park," grammar
• "they have in six seasons qualified to take part in the UEFA Cup/Europa League, including four seasons consecutively from 2013 to 2016," can't make heads or tails of this sentence, especially BIB.
• Is first team hyphenated?
• Why is 'where known' italicised in the final paragraph?
• "Believed to be correct to the end of the 2015-16 season," eh? For me this raises validity issues. What book or website are you using to source the table, it's not clear. References in general are sparse.
• "Seasons in which the team were promoted have the league position in green. Seasons in which the team were relegated have the league position in red," do you think this would better serve the reader in the 'key' section? Moreover, would you consider adding a 'Key to colours and symbols' chart like this one?
• What's the logic behind including managers in the table? I'm not dismissing it, I'm just intrigued because it's unconventional.
• 1999–00 → 1999–2000. Are you sure they played in the 'Europa League' that season...best leave a footnote to explain the competition's name change.
• Lots of missing top goalscorers
• Ref 2 should be The Observer

Considering where this was a few days ago, you've done a decent job in smartening the table up but this list is nowhere near featured standard according to the criteria. The goalscorer column is incomplete for starters and I don't trust the validity of the table. Looking at the 'further reading' column it seems there are books available which may fill in the missing gaps. Moreover you could consult the club or a St Johnstone/Scottish football historian, they probably would be thrilled to help you out. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, thanks for the feedback which is what I wanted to see, the object of the exercise is to bring the article up to standard. Finding the missing goalscorers will be a problem, though. I can certainly add a history section and generally tidy up. Will wait for further comments first. To answer your question about managers, I think this has greater relevance than who scored the most goals. If one player must be named per season, I would rather see the captain or the player of the year or the one with the most appearances than the top goalscorer (I think goalscoring takes statistics too far). Thanks again. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Club lists tend to have a mainpage dedicated to managers, hence why I thought it was unusual to see it merged in this nom. I'm not a big fan of statistics but I don't see the harm including the club's top goalscorer for each season. It's usually the barometer of how a season went. And having a peek at the other FL season lists, it's a fundamental inclusion. Unlike assists, the definition is clear (player who scores the most goals), and since the rules of football were established, it has always been recorded. That should be the case with St Johnstone (difficult as it may be, the information must be out there), otherwise as it stands, the table remains incomplete, and doesn't meet point 3 of the criteria. So unfortunately I can't change my stance. If you think it shouldn't be included, it's worth making your case here... Lemonade51 (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I also agree that the managers column should not be included, but if it is included then it must be sourced. At the moment there are no sources confirming any of the data in the column..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, the top goalscorer column is unsourced. Apologies, but at the moment the sourcing is way below what would be required in a FL -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn. I think the nomination was premature given that the standard is higher than I expected (I suspect that some of the existing FLs I've researched may themselves be below standard now). I'm grateful for the feedback, though, because it will help me to improve the article in due course. Many thanks to Lemonade51 and ChrisTheDude for your help. Btw, if I need to do anything anywhere to effect the withdrawla, please let me know. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: Nominator wants to withdraw this nomination. Cowlibob (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2016 (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. - SchroCat (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2016 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is complete and referenced, and it is modeled after the FL Academy Award for Best Director. The Ariel Award is the most important film award in Mexico, known as the Mexican equivalent to the Oscars. Thanks for your comments and input. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support after my comments were resolved. – jona ✉ 22:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this nom has been open for over 2 months now without a lot of discussion, so I'm going to have to close it to keep the FLC queue moving. --PresN 19:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Zach Vega (talk to me) 02:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the article's prose has been improved, references have been updated, and all data has been updated and checked. The list failed nomination two years ago due to these factors. Zach Vega (talk to me) 02:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The first sentence seems tautological, it needs to be clarified.
• I strongly believe this could be done as a single table, with columns for country and each of the sources. The format seems odd with four parallel tables and the country names duplicated, and that makes it more difficult to compare the sources.
• I think it would make sense to merge this page with List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita as the data is fundamentally the same. Add a column for population in the table, and you could have Country-Population-IMF-IMFpercap-WB-WBpercap-UN-UNpercap in a single concise table. It's sortable, so no worries about the different rankings. Reywas92^Talk 21:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Reywas92: The first sentence has been fixed.
• Four parallel tables are included because the sources differ in their time frame and coverage. The IMF and World Factbook data are from 2015, while the UNSD and World Bank data are from 2014. Additionally, many of the regions measured in one table are not measured in the other. Another issue with combining the tables is determining the rank. Which dataset is the countries ranked by? The IMF one? The UN one? One could average them like suggested in the first nomination, but this would be a violation of WP:SYNTH.
• The per capita data is not fundamentally the same. The list up for nomination measures the aggregate size of economies, often used to determine international economic influence and power, whilst the per capita rankings typically determine development and standards of living. These two concepts, while based on the same notion, are greatly different in what they cover. Additionally, this would constitute doubling the size of a table that is already pushing the limits of acceptable scope. Zach Vega (talk to me) 04:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to be ranked, they can be in alphabetical order and the table is sortable, or just pick one to be default and have a note. That is a good point about per capita, we can see what others think. The reason the page is so big is because every country and flag is there four times when it could just be once, and every cell has a center alignment tag that could be applied collectively; size is not a concern. Reywas92^Talk 18:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to agree with the above, the lists are hard to view on even medium resolution screens. The fix would be to have every country listed only once (instead of 4 times!), but with a column for each measurement. Having four entire tables side by side is quite hard to capture on normal sized screens. Mattximus (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dudley

• I am not sure where this nomination is going. The article looks fine on my screen, but I take the point that it does not on others, and it would be better to have each country listed once in alphabetical order. Some of the CIA figures are based on data going back to 2003. These are not comparative with 2015 ones and I would exclude the older ones. The CIA also adds a note that the figure for China is misleading because the exchange rate is set by fiat, which is worth mentioning in the article. It gives a figure for China of $10.98 trillion, whereas the table shows $11.38 trillion as the CIA's figure for China. Another concern is that Zach Vega has not edited the article (or this page) since 5 June, and many edits have been made since then, often by anonymous IPs. Has anyone been monitoring them? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this nomination has been open for over 2 months without a lot of support, and the nominator seems to have left it, so I'm going to close it as no promoted. --PresN 01:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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