Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/August 2020

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

The list was unsuccessful by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Emyil (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because meets the criteria like other similar featured lists. Emyil (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lede could use expanding, if possible. ~ HAL333 22:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As the article has since been improved, I Support ~ HAL333 01:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I made some fixes to your recent additions and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know if this article meets the criteria for a featured list, but it is essentially a modified repetition of the "By manager" section of "List of FIFA World Cup winners", and can very easily be merged into it. Either that, or that section should be removed from the other article and its title should be changed from "winners" to "winning players". --Theurgist (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• I see Theurgist's comment above, I'm relatively content that this meets 3b as List of FIFA World Cup winners is a terrible lengthy article. It would be well served to add to that article a {{main}} template pointing at this list.
• Shouldn't the title of this list contain a hyphen, i.e. "Cup-winning"?
• I think, tipping a further nod to Theurgist's concerns, as there are few entries, you could expand the discussion over each manager, perhaps going through each one chronologically to enhance the value of this article.
• "is the most prestigious" maybe "is considered" because Wikipedia shouldn't be making such claims.
• Plenty of duplicated links in the lead, only link each tournament once, and on the first instance.
• " prior professional football career. " as a player, manager or either?
• I think the winning manager should be the second column, not the winning manager's nationality.
• You have Sepp Herberger as being West German, but he was born in the German Empire...
• Likewise Helmut Schön.
• And Beckenbauer was born in Allied-occupied Germany!
• Interesting to note (West German thoughts above aside), each winning manager was from the same country he led to victory, i.e. no "foreign" manager has ever won the World Cup.
• Spaced hyphens in the refs should be en-dashes per MOS.
• Ref 34, year range should use en-dash.
• Refs 13, 14, those are "works" not publishers, and the "The" should be inside the links.
• Compare ref 6 and 9, RSSSF in italics or not? I'd say no.

That's it for a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would be content with removing the managers (and the Teams section) from List of FIFA World Cup winners so as to make it a list of winning players only. I'm pinging that list's original contributor User:Løken, with whom I had something of a content dispute a couple of years ago.

And regarding the nationalities, don't we use the individuals' contemporary countries as of the time of the events? Joachim Löw is not West German now, nor are teams still being managed by Soviet and Yugoslav coaches. --Theurgist (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

• "He managed the Uruguay national team in the 1950 to victory." This would read much better as "He managed the Uruguay national team to victory in 1950."
• Minor point, but I've always found the section name List to be plain and generic, as we already knew the page in question was a list from the title. How about using Managers instead? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I get something for ref 1, issn, link, doi? (page number?)
• Ref 2 needs ISBN 13 rather than 10 (use the converter)
• Ref 3 missing publishing year/date (go to "cite" on the page and it should be there)
• Link for ref 5 is broken
• Ref 9 could maybe use the "last updated" date at the bottom of the page? Not sure about this one.
• Everything else looks good, fix these and easy pass Aza24 (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emyil are you intending to return to this? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that the nominator had not edited for some time, I thought I would see if I could help push this over the line. But looking through some of The Rambling Man's points above, and trying to rationalise them with the article, I came to realise that a lot of the content is completely unreferenced. There is no general reference, so one would expect the references provided in each row to source that entire row. They do not: the Suppici reference does not discuss his nationality; Juan López Fontana is barely even mentioned in his one. I can't see what is supporting "Juan López Fontana was the first manager to manage a national team to World Cup victory without having had a prior professional football career. He managed the Uruguay national team in the 1950 to victory; Vicente Feola and Carlos Alberto Parreira, who both managed Brazil also achieved this feat." at all. The table is missing a table caption. I concur with reviewers above that there could be more discussion of the manager to help justify this as a standalone list. There is no doubt that with some work, this could make Featured status, but without an active nominator, this is best failing the FL process right now, and coming back when overhauled. Harrias ^talk 08:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been unsuccessful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:33, 31 August 2020 (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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): --evrik ^(talk) 20:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a unique list that meets the criteria. --evrik ^(talk) 20:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi evrik. I don't know if this is your first nomination here: I'm going to assume it is. Please try and follow the instructions; you placed the nomination in the wrong place in the queue, and the reasons for nominating requests "PLEASE try and say something more interesting than "... because I think it meets the criteria."

Anyway, onto the list. I will say straight up that I don't think this is of the required quality for Featured list, and I don't think it is going to be worth reviewers time in providing a detailed review in this place. I will give some summary points to explain why.

• The lead does not adequately summarise the list.
• There is no explanation of the "Council number": I assume the gaps are because some no longer exist?
• The table does not meet the requirements of MOS:ACCESS, as set out in MOS:DTT: it needs row and column headers.
• The references omit a lot of details, falling short of the level we expect in a Featured list.
• At a quick glance, all the sources used are WP:PRIMARY sources; WP:V, one of Wikipedia's core policies, requires content to be sourced to independent, third-party sources.

Sorry to be harsh, but I would recommend withdrawing this nomination. Harrias ^talk 20:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • No worries. This actually gives me an idea on what to work on. I withdraw the request. --evrik ^(talk) 21:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @FLC director and delegates: user withdraws nomination. Harrias ^talk 06:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): TryKid (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another in a series of Chief Minister lists, after List of chief ministers of Jharkhand and List of chief ministers of Chhattisgarh. I thought about expanding the second lead paragraph but I don't really see any benefit in repeating the information already available in table just for the sake of it; but feel free to expand it if any inadequacy is felt. Regards, TryKid (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Make the table sortable.
• Add to the functionality of the table by splitting the tenure length into a different cell, so we can sort by date and length.
• Add a table caption, and move the key away from the top row, where it will confuse screen readers into thinking that it is a header for the article.
• The lead really needs more information. Why for example did Harish Rawat only serve for one day at one stage? What happened before 9 November 2000, was there just no chief minister, or no state?

For me, this falls pretty well short of the FL criteria at the moment: both for the prose and the table. Harrias ^talk 09:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

• The sources look good to me. Everything is formatted consistently, they all look reliable, and the links are good
• I agree with Harrias that the leade is far too short
• The alt texts need to be better

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My only major concern is the brevity of the lead, as mentioned above. I think the fact that one of the office holders was in post for a single day is definitely unusual enough that it needs further explanation in the lead, for starters...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In the footnote it says that President's rule "often happens because no party or coalition has a majority in the assembly." So if that was the case for all the occasions it might be worth mentioning in the lede.
• Also in the lede - has it always been the leader of the largest party who has become chief minister?
• Perhaps the default order should be most recent at the top - not sure what other reviewers think.
  • Absolutely not, per WP:CHRONO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• In the hope there might be a woman in future in the footnote change "The state government he headed" to "The state government they headed"

If you have time could you take a quick glance at List of active coal-fired power stations in Turkey. I would especially like to know at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey/archive1 if anything is confusing for new readers.

Chidgk1 (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple users (including myself) pointed out two months ago that the lead was far too short, and in that time there has been no significant expansion. @TryKid:, do you intend to do any further expansion.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely forgot about this! 😫 I'm extremely sorry for this and apologize to the reviewers for wasting their time. I'm in some real life commitment now and want to withdraw this. I think this is the second time I've done this. Sorry. 😣 I apologize again. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TryKid: It's been about three weeks since you indicated that you were too busy to continue with this nomination. Has this changed since or would you like to withdraw this nomination? Cowlibob (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:22, 9 August 2020 (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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 11:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another cricket award, adapting the format used in PCA Young Player of the Year, which currently has three supports here. This one is voted on by cricket journalists based on performance in the County Championship. As always, all comments and criticism invited. Harrias ^talk 11:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Nothing really much you can do about this, but this list is two items short of the traditional standard of 10 items (noted here, among other discussions). Coupled with how the prose is barely over the 1,500 character mark of not being a stub (1,673), the jury's still out as to whether this definitively satisfies criteria 3c. I'll wait and see what other reviewers have to say before reaching a conclusion on this issue.

• You're probably right; looking at the various pages, this should probably be upmerged into Cricket Writers' Club. I'll have a look through what other content might be added there just to make sure, but I think this will end up being pretty straightforward. Harrias ^talk 15:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "The award has been presented since the 2012 season and the winner is chosen" – perhaps make it more concise to "Presented since the 2012 season, the winner is chosen …"
• "recognised for their batting exploits: the only bowlers to have won the award were" – might want to split into two separate sentences (at the colon)
• Read the prose in detail – rest of it looks good.
• Images utilized are licensed and tagged, with appropriate alt text.

—Bloom6132 (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am participating in the WikiCup, and intend to claim points from the above review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloom6132: Cheers for the review. On the back of the other awards lists that I had done, it just seemed natural to create this one too, but ultimately but I will probably withdraw this and carry out the upmerge. Harrias ^talk 15:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually leaning towards waiving the unwritten requirement (since it was never codified in the criteria, and was ultimately superseded by 3c). I do think having to wait for a mere two more recipients to be awarded to get this featured seems a bit arbitrary. However, if you feel it would be more ideal to merge it into the article, I'm fine with that too. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: Could I withdraw this per my comments above, please. Harrias ^talk 12:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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