Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/December 2013

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 20:22, 27 December 2013 [1].

List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan

Nominator(s):—FRANKY! 13:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the FL criteria. —FRANKY! 13:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rejectwater

Image alts (see WP:ALT, especially the Queen Elizabeth and Bush/Blair examples)

In the infobox image, what she is wearing is irrelevant, however the trophy is very relevant. If it can be discerned from the image, the type of trophy should be specified.
Same deal with the other image. That they are actors is redundant and certainly cannot be inferred from looking at the picture, however the awards they are holding should be specified.

Done and the second image removed because one image is enough.

Is there a policy at play in your decision? WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE states "Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals." Rejectwater (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only one image can also describe the list, adding or removing second (or more) image(s) add(s) or remove(s) nothing special. As I have seen the FLs, almost all of them consist of one image. —FRANKY! 21:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE states "Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals." That quote is from the Manual of Style. Featured List criteria number five is "complies with the Manual of Style". Also, it's a nice picture. You should put it back. Rejectwater (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC) Y[reply]

Reference 13 Screen India is a dead link
Lead is missing references and has various other issues.

"Vidya earned wide critical acclaim" - "wide" should be deleted unless supported by at least one reference, claim needs a source regardless.

A single good review is not "wide". Rejectwater (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —FRANKY! 21:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"She won every "Best Actress" award in India " needs a reference

How do we know "She won every "Best Actress" award in India"? How do the references support this? Rejectwater (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —FRANKY! 21:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"establishing herself as a leading contemporary actress in Hindi cinema" needs a reference
"She also earned a nomination in the same category (at Filmfare and other award ceremonies) for the political crime thriller No One Killed Jessica." This sentence does make sense. Same category as what?

Sorry, that should say "does not make sense." Rejectwater (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now it says "She also earned a nomination in the same category (Best actress) at Filmfare and other award ceremonies". Just say she received the Best Actress nomination (ie, lose the ellipses). Also, what are "other award ceremonies"? They should be specified or not mentioned at all. Rejectwater (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —FRANKY! 21:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the comma after "is an Indian film actress"
Put a comma after "Bengali" in "in Hindi, Bengali and Malayalam cinema"

Done.

So what should I understand from it, are you still opposing or are you in favor of the FLC? —FRANKY! 10:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not expressed an opinion either way. Many of my comments remain unresolved. Rejectwater (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like what? —FRANKY! 09:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are several right here on this page where I have updated my remarks. Am I having conversations with myself? Rejectwater (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm so sorry I didn't see many of your comments I'll be working on the list as what you said, Thanks :) —FRANKY! 21:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comments from Rejectwater

Is it Best Actress, Best actresss, or "Best Actress"? Y
her Anandalok Puraskar Award for Best Actress. Shouldn't that be "the Andalok..." or "an Andalok..." and also the award should be wikilinked. Y
at 8th IIFA Awards for the... should have a "the" before "8th". Y
at 9th IIFA Awards... same as above. Y
in the biographical film Guru and Bhool Bhulaiyaa. Guru and Bhool Bhulaiyaa is the name of a single biographical film? Or Guru is the biographical film and Bhool Bhulaiyaa is some other film? Y
her Filmfare Award for Best Actress... missing "the" before "Filmfare" (noticing a disturbing trend here) Y
won Critics Award for Best Actress... another missing "the" Y
Filmfare—and won Best Actress awards... That dash does not belong there. Y
Vidya earned critical acclaim for her portrayal in the 2011 biographical drama The Dirty Picture and won "Best Actress" awards at National and Filmfare Awards. She won the awards for that film? Or for something else? Y
Following year, she won her third... should be "The following" Y
are presented awarded by ... that's just brutal Y
in the Bollywood. ' poor grammar Y
The Lions Gold Award is an annual accolade presented to the Indian film industry. Balan has received one award. Yet there are clearly two awards listed in the table. Rejectwater (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) Y[reply]
Why are Anandalok Puraskar Awards listed in the "Other" table? The article for these awards states they are "one of the most prominent film events given for Bengali Cinemas in India." Am I missing something? Rejectwater (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC) Y —FRANKY! 12:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is inappropriate to cap someone else's comments as resolved. I have not yet reviewed the various comments to determine whether or not I consider them resolved. Rejectwater (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sorry I didn't know that. —FRANKY! 12:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't like the way you have bundled citations and still believe it is a violation of WP:CITE and WP:INTEGRITY. Tables should have one or more reference per row, not one huge reference for the whole table. The way it is now is confusing and obscures which reference supports what information. Rejectwater (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —FRANKY! 16:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have unbundled them, which is good, but it is still unclear which citation supports what information in the table. Each row should have at least one reference. See, for example, Hattie Jacques on stage, radio, screen and record.Rejectwater (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Y[reply]

Please see List of awards and nominations received by Beck the article follows the sample of Beck's article except MOS:DTT. Hence this proves that this sample is quite correct. Also see List of awards and nominations received by David Bowie. —FRANKY! 07:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Certainly an interesting format. Rejectwater (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

I would prefer input from other reviewers on this point. Rejectwater (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have capped most of my comments as resolved, however I am leaving this one open as I am hopeful others will chime in on this topic. Rejectwater (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for giving your precious time to this topic, regards. Franky_{(Buzz me)} 09:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question - Why do you refer to her as Vidya rather than Balan (compare List of awards and nominations received by Aishwarya Rai where she is referred to as Rai, List of awards and nominations received by Preity Zinta where she is referred to as Zinta etc...)? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Balan" is the name of her father and not a family name and I see a majority of sources calling her "Vidya" rather than "Balan" (Here are some examples [2] [3] [4]). Please also ~~see~~ read the first line of lead section of the actor's biography. —FRANKY! 00:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are inconsistencies in the repeated sentence "She has won XXX awards from XXX nominations." When I count the nominations and awards, they do not seem to match the tables. Is there an explanation for how the sentences are counting awards and nominations, or are the sentences wrong?

The awards table were according to 2013 but the sentences and infobox were according to 2012.

The award counts are also different in the Infobox. Now I'm thoroughly confused.

Done.

I think the Infobox award list should be in the same order as the article's list of awards, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There can be placed only 14 awards list in the award template but if we give the specific name of the award which're saved in the template (like Academy, Filmfare, IIFA etc) there can be more than 14. As you know the section of awards are more than 14, it won't be possible.

Comment: I have completed a copy edit of this article under the auspices of the Guild of Copy Editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. —FrankBoy _(Buzz) 12:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick oppose

Link Pradeep Sarkar in the lead
- Done.
Avoid starting paras with pronouns
- Done.
The following sentence is too lengthy and unclear.
- Done.
Guru is only a semi-biographical film.
- Done.
Majority of the lead talks only about the Filmfare Awards, as if she won only that award.
- Done.
" As of July 2013, Vidya has won 53 awards out of 78 nominations.[2]" fails WP:V.
- Done.
A majority of the award descriptions are one-just liners.
- Done.
Refs. are either cluttered or poorly formatted.
- Done.
Despite most of the tables having the same no. of columns their width is not uniform
- Done.
You could add a separate column for references in the table and add them instead of placing them in the prose.
- Done.
The urls of refs. #7, #26 and #45 are relocated to somewhere.
- Done.
Multiple references are using the same name (awards)

I have very limited knowledge about the topic and the listed ones are just a sample and many more are to come from reviewers who are well versed with the topic. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done and thanks for giving your time.—FrankBoy _(Buzz) 13:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments

"Reference" should at least be "Reference(s)".

Done.

Table column widths differ from section to section making the whole list look really messy.

Done.

Last sentence of first paragraph.... count the words.... too long.

~~I failed to do that, The Rambling Man, but I'd very much appreciate it if you could help me with your expertise in this area.~~

Done.

In the "National Film Awards" part of the info box, how can an award have been won without a nomination?

Because "National Film Awards" does not have any nominations, they do have consideration but are not declared publicly.

Why are five refs needed for one award?

Done.

Why is India suddenly wiki-linked midway through?

Well, I asked the article to be copyedited so in response to that the user, Jonesey95 wiki-linked that.

"Best Actress - Drama" etc, check for WP:DASH.

Done.

Is it "Best Thriller/Action Actress" or "Best Actress - Action/Thriller"? Be consistent. Check the others.

Done.

Check reference titles for WP:DASH.

Done.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please check to avoid over linking, e.g. television in India appears to be linked at least three times... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 01:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that infobox image is more closely cropped. (logged-out) User:Indopug 122.172.11.178 (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, regards.—FrankBoy _(Buzz) 15:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been not reached a consensus for promotion, but there may be a delay in processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 6 January 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 10:08, 16 December 2013 [5].

List of Fairy Tail manga volumes

Nominator(s): Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because we need more FLCs on chapter lists and I have been working on this for months now, but had to leave for a two-month long Wikibreak back in August. I believe this chapter list meets the FLC criteria. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DragonZero

Ref names should not be in all caps
Refs should list the site's publisher? You have random house refs under Del Ray as the publisher.
You should reword the international release part. Is there a reliable source that says Fairy Tail is only published in those regions? Otherwise, it should be something like "released in regions such as..."
You can link the publishing companies in the lead, at least for star comics.
"40 tankōbonvolumes" needs space. Add nbsp; between the number and the unit
I find the third paragraph confusing overall.
The sources in the paragraph don't seem to back anything up there.
Later noted, some references contradict the release dates.

I'll take a closer look at the sources one by one later. Also, is it that easy to get FL for chapter lists? I'd be submitting them in hoards if it is. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the really late reply, but I am trying to help update the article as well by adding news about digital releases. I'll see what I can do about the rest. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just one fix I think needs to be done. "The chapters are being collected in tankōbon format since December 15, 2006." - "Are being" is that really proper grammar? It just strikes me as really off. Rewording the whole sentence might be the only way around it though. Otherwise it looks good from a few spot checks, but I am totally new to this process. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The references do not support the release dates. Until such a time that they do this shouldn't be a featured list. --Lightlowemon (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see now. Some of the dates don't match the sourcing. Should be addressed. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't those the sources you were referring too? --Lightlowemon (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I forgot I mentioned that already. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sorry, SJones, but I'm not really comfortable with this list. It's a summary of three other lists (List of Fairy Tail manga volumes (1–15), et al.), and adds no new information beyond what they have. Maybe if it was actually those three lists put together, with the chapter summaries, replacing the three, but if it's just going to be shortened forms of the same tables I don't see the purpose of the list. --Pres N 00:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose it's nothing but a summary, and adds nothing to the other lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2013 (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 20:04, 1 December 2013 [6].

The Office (U.S. season 9)

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all the requirements that have been laid out by Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. I've had people mention that these articles should be FANs, so I'd like to point out that seasons 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 of the series were promoted to Featured Lists, and many television series' season pages have been promoted to FLs before; I just want to maintain consistency. The prose is of Good Article quality (which is passed a few months ago), it features alt text, images, pristine references, and MOS-complying tables. While any critiques would inevitably make this better, I feel it is ready for the next step.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Great job on prose and organization.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"The ninth season of the show is produced by Reveille Productions and Deedle-Dee Productions", past tense, so was.
"which was created by Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant for the BBC"
"In a conference call with reporters on August 21, 2012, ~~Greg~~ Daniels", Greg has been introduced in the previous paragraph, so it's fine to refer to him by his second name thereafter.
"On May 2, the petition amassed..." for consistency state the year.
I have implemented your suggestions.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unhyphenate 'most watched'
"For the first sixteen episodes, the series was able to maintain roughly 4 million viewers ~~per episode~~", tad repetitive? To get rid of the last bit, change to something like 'For each of the first 16 episodes...'
"This means that, on average, the season...", change to past tense
"Based on seven reviews, review aggregation website", repetition?
"Michael Tedder of Vulture wrote that he was", replace word with commented. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All have been changed, per your suggestions.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lemonade51 (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the format. I am only wandering if some entry should be included in the table about the retrospective episode. Nergaal (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, it's mentioned in the "Production" section, but because its not an officially sanctioned episode, I did not include it in the episode list infobox.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Prose is excellent and I see no other issues. Great job!Caringtype1 (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning oppose): This looks like it should be a featured article candidate, not list. The list is nowhere close to even 50% of the article. There are 22k characters of prose taking up 4 or 5 screens on my laptop, while the list only takes up 2.5 screens and is nowhere near 22k (I'd be surprised if it hit 8k characters) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I point out above, season 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 of the show are featured lists. I nominated this as a FLN to maintain consistency. There are also plenty of other shows that have their season pages as FLs. It was also pointed out to me that an article like this with such a prominent list probably wouldn't fare well in FAN.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of those you point to are 22k of text. Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1) and Homicide: Life on the Street (season 2) are both featured articles, as are Parks and Recreation (season 1) and Smallville (season 1). Season articles can pass FAC, and this one should be sent that way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to maintain consistency here. I'll do whatever is needed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat alerted me to this one, in my capacity as a FAC coordinator. I have to admit that I'm surprised the earlier season pages were classified as lists rather than articles. In my experience, the list component of a list page is the main thing. Here, and indeed in the other Office FLs, the prose section comprises at least half the page. In fact, albeit on a more superficial level, if this is truly counted as a list, why isn't it "List of The Office (U.S. season 9) episodes"? As Crisco suggests, FAC seems a more appropriate venue for this and similar pages. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I withdraw this.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]