Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/December 2018

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) 00:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The next in the 17th century conclaves series I am working, this conclave only followed a month after the previous one (list of electors), and was pretty easy to make work of since there were only a few changes in the electorate in that month (two deaths, a few arrivals, and sickness). The conclave this list goes with is one of the more entertaining ones and features some of the best drama from saints and other leading figures of the late 16th and early 17th century Catholic church. I tried to capture these in the captions to the images, as I think they fit better there than in the prose, and I welcome any critiques on improving this list. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Camillo Borghese, who had been considered too young for the papacy a in the March 1605 conclave, was elected Pope Paul V on 16 May 1605. has a stray "a". Fixed. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] Domenico Toschi was one of the leading candidates in the May 1605 conclave, but ultimately failed to win election after Caesar Baronius object to his use of vulgar language. is missing a definite article before "election" and "object" should be in the past tense. Tense fixed. The ommission of the definite article is intentional in that sentence: it is the normal way to express election outcomes for individuals in English (see examples.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] The papal conclave of May 1605 is kind of an WP:EASTEREGG; the link should extend all the way to "1605", or the reader will expect the link to go to Papal conclave. Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] The first paragraph should contain a link to the previous conclave. Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] Nicholas II had reserved the right should give his title (or otherwise clarify which Nicholas II it refers to) and contain a link, since there have been multiple individuals known as Nicholas II. Meh, I think context is key, and disagree with you here, but it’s not a big enough deal to argue over. Title added. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] The cardinal bishops were the highest rank, being the bishops of the ancient suburbicarian dioceses, the priests ranked next, who served as the titular head of historically important churches in Rome, and last ranked the cardinal deacons, who were nominally assigned one of the ancient diaconia where traditionally deacons had administered the temporal property of the Church of Rome. is a very long sentence with a high number of commas, which impedes readability. Split up into a few sentences. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] the temporal property – I'd use a different word than "temporal" Another meh for me, I think temporal works better and is the term I've always seen used here, but I went ahead and switched to material possessions TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] but could also be ordained to a higher order as well is a bit redundant, no? I think that bit is useful to readers who aren’t familiar with the concept of orders within the College of Cardinals, especially given that today unlike the 17th century, all cardinals must also be bishops. Explaining the minimum requirements does not mean that an individual did not have higher sacramental orders is a necessary clarification, IMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] Oh, I meant the phrasing of also [...] as well. Sorry for not making that clear. TompaDompa (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] Oh. Agreed. Fixed. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] Pope Sixtus V mandated that the maximum number of cardinals would be seventy – I'd either remove "would" (i.e. he demanded that it be seventy) or replace "mandated" with another word (i.e. he declared that it would be seventy). I might also say that he had done so, but I'm not sure about that. Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] I'd try to avoid starting two sentences in the same paragraph with Of these, [...]. Agreed. Removed the second one. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] Not Pope Innocent IX, who died in 1591 – I'd mention that Innocent IX was born Giovanni Antonio Facchinetti to explain why one might confuse the two. Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] For WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons, there needs to be something in the table besides the colour conveying that Camillo Borghese was the one who was elected Pope. Designated via footnote. Meant to do this to begin with. Thanks for pointing it out. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] Template:Papal elections and conclaves from 1061 should probably be placed at the bottom. I wouldn’t find that useful since we don’t include the lists of electors on it (and I don’t think we should. The template is crowded as-is.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] Surely there are some categories this should be included in? Done. Thanks for pointing this out. It’d been in my userspace a while and I forgot to add categories when publishing yesterday. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] WP:FLCR 5(a) stipulates that a minimal proportion of items be WP:redlinked. I'm of the opinion that this list (which by my count has 18 redlinks out of 61 entries) has a low enough proportion, considering I would have expected it to consist mostly of redlinks. I recognize that this could be controversial. TompaDompa (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] @TompaDompa: either acted on or replied to all the points above. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support TompaDompa (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: It seemed right to review your 17th-century list of cardinal electors after you reviewed my 21st-century one. Anyway: Is there a particular reason to {{Use Canadian English}}? I use a scripts to standardize my spellings. I combine a few different national varieties in my spellings, and using a script to make sure it is consistent is easiest. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] As far as I can see, the template is almost purely used on articles related to Canada; I would suggest removing the template, as this doesn't need to have an explicit linguistic connection to a variety of English. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 03:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] It's there because of WP:ENGVAR and MOS:ARTCON. I write in Canadian English, and try to standardize the articles I write to it when going through review. The MOS wants a consistent style of English, and for this article it happens to be Canadian. It's mainly there as a reminder should anyone in the future want to expand the article to keep the spellings consistent. I went ahead and removed it since it really isn't a big deal, but it will likely be in future FLCs I bring in this series because of the script I use to check myself. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] Pope Nicholas II should ideally be linked in the lead. Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] of the Church of Rome: "Church" should probably not be capitalised. Church of Rome would be the proper name of a specific particular church (equivalent to Archdiocese of Westminster, etc.) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] reducing the total number of cardinals in the college by two: "college" should probably be capitalised. Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] I would also prefer it if there were some text immediately before the table in the List section; this could give a brief overview of the layout and the contents, such as the sort order. I'm not a fan of that concept. I think it takes a lot away from the content by writing prose like that: it breaks from Wikipedia's voice and draws too much attention to the author, in my view. I try to handle the same material through the footnotes. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] I understand. I was perhaps looking for no more than a couple of lines in this regard, with no need to be verbose; this wouldn't make or break my support in any case. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 03:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] For proper sorting, data-sort-values for names of cardinals shouldn't include any diacritics (this affects only François de Joyeuse and François de Sourdis). Done. It doesn't/didn't have any impact on this list, but handy to know for the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] The background highlight for Camillo Borghese should extend to the first column (his name), as in your previous list. (Also, I'm not particularly fond of the first column being designated as header cells but it could work either way, I suppose.) Done. Kept the headers for the others. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] Centre-align the sources in the last column. Feel free to do this one if you feel strongly about it, but I looked over the table help guide and couldn't figure it out, and looked over your code for the 2013 conclave table, and have no earthly idea what is going on. I personally think it looks fine as is, but have no objection to someone centering it if they want to. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] That should be about it for now. Good work on this list. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 00:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] Ravenpuff, see changes and replies. Thanks for reviewing TonyBallioni (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] Some replies above; I'll also make a couple more comments below: Section title: you could dispense with List of; it's obvious that it's a list. Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] Some cardinals (e.g. Bellarmine) could benefit from post-nominals indicating membership of religious institutes, etc. I'd be fine with that, but is it in line with the MOS? MOS:POSTNOM would suggest they should only be used for the lead of biographies. I don't have a strong opinion either way. I know generally in prose we leave them off, but I could be convinced otherwise on a list. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] I mean, I've used them in basically all of my previous FLCs (including the one you reviewed the other day) and there haven't been any problems about them. Post-nominals are generally useful here, given the context (I suppose that the MOS refers more to orders and decorations, etc.). RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 05:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] Yeah. I have mixed thoughts on it. Definitely useful, but to use Bellarmine as an example, I would never refer to him in an article with the SJ. Lists are a bit different, of course, but I generally like using article titles without piping. I’m busy most of the next few days, so I’ll muse on it in that time. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] Ravenpuff, so I thought on both this and the prose in front of the list over the past few days. I moved some of the content down from the lead to have some brief text in front of the list itself. Re: the postnominals, in this case, I keep going back to the Bellarmine example: in current texts, you would very rarely fine the postnomials in his name. Same with some of the other famous cardinals from this batch (Caesar Baronius was a member of the Oratory.) I think in the context of historical figures, its best to go without the postnomials. For living or recently deceased individuals, I see the argument being much stronger for including them. Hope this makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] I suppose that's reasonable. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 03:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be completely up to my standards, but it's certainly good enough for me to support. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm truly sorry but I don't see why this isn't simply an expansion of the brief Papal conclave, May 1605 article, and a bid for FA. Once again, TompaDompa's 3b acceptance here seems very peculiar to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rambling Man, long-term, that is the plan for this series (taking the 17th century ones to GA/FL/FA). I’ve been removing the lists from the articles for a few reasons because 1) they’re generally sourced to self-published sources and require a lot of effort to source the lists like this and 2) I think the format that exists for the 20th and 21st century conclaves of having a list of electors that is distinct from the article is better. I’ve seen several of the older conclave GAs with lists and I personally find them overwhelming and distracting from the prose of the article when incorporated. I agree that the May 1605 article is short now, but when/if it is eventually expanded, I think having the list as a part of it rather than as a separate page would be less useful for readers. At least I tend to ignore incorporated tables in articles, and I see value in having them distinct so people who are more interested in the various electors themselves can have a treatment of them that is focused. It’s fine if you disagree, but thought I’d explain my logic here for the choice in this format. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tony, I appreciate your explanation. I think your best bet is to just go all-in on one of these, merge the table and the GA header article, and head to FAC. I'm never going to turn down a great FL but I really can't, hand on heart, go for this one as an FL based on the really brief main article. I should also note that my opinion here is simply as a reviewer, and that others may (and probably will) disagree, and I'm not playing any kind of trump card on it. I hope you understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood completely, though I disagree that it would improve the main article to have it there, to the point where I’d be fine with neither of them going to FL/FA if people think they’re too similar. My honest view is that a merge would be a net negative for the article, and keeping it readable and useful for the readers is what I care about more than the icons on the top. People can disagree in good faith on the best way to achieve that, which we seem to do here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Honestly, I think it would form a part of the main article which would eventually be auto-collapsed. Until the main article can be so large as to sustain a spin-off, I'm not sure I could legimitately support it standalone. I think TompaDompa is using a different approach to 3b, but let's see what the other FL delegate and director say since this is clearly going to be somewhat contentious, and possibly precedent-ial. Thanks for your approach, by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • No problem. I don’t mind discussion about these things ever. I’ve been pretty busy the last 6 or so months IRL, which is why I’ve mainly been focused on the easier admin type things than the conclave project (content being harder to do than mashing buttons...) I’ll have some time later in the week/this weekend to go over the main article again, and I think I might have some ideas there that could help with your objections. Part of my reticence here is that I’m trying to get this series of articles and lists to the point where it can be used as a sort of example of half-decent Catholic historical content, and that incorporating lists has traditionally been a way that articles in this area get away with not having reliably sourced prose. Tangential to the FL discussion, but I think it helps explain the choices I’ve made: I view it more of a long term project getting done piece by piece. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, cool, just let me know if you'd like more from me. For complete clarity, I'm just a single reviewer here, nothing more. If consensus weighs against my position, no problem either. I think you have a really strong Featured Topic in the making, once you merge these lists with their GAs. It could be more awesome than my Boat Race GA series (160+ and counting)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • My view is that it is fine having them as one article or two, but as two cardinal lists have already been promoted to FL it is better to carry on with two rather than have a confusing mixture of styles. I think it would be very helpful to have hatnotes on the articles on each conclave cross-referencing as e.g. {{about|the list of electors for the March 1605 conclave|the conclave itself|Papal conclave, March 1605}}. I would like to see a decision on the principle before I review. Views of Giants2008 and PresN? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the previous one in this century I had a participants section with a hatnote in the section. That could also work here (and is something I intended to do when talking above, but RL and other stuff on WP happened.) Currently it’s a see also in the main article, but it can be changed pretty easily and I can incorporate in content. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I was pinged to this FLC before and missed it. Sorry about that. I don't recall seeing it on my notification list, but my apologies nonetheless. I looked at this list and the main article and hate to further muddy the waters, but if I was editing the pages in question I would merge them under the papal conclave page (since I see TRM's point about whether separate articles are needed) and nominate it here, not at FAC. In cases like this where it's borderline whether a page counts as an article or list for FAC/FLC purposes, I like to look at the size of the prose in relation to the table size. On my computer, the list is almost twice the size of the body prose, which tells me that a merged page should probably be treated as a list. Some of our FLs with history sections and the like actually have prose sizes similar to this article. If the main papal conclave article had the table added and was nominated at FAC, I think there's a substantial chance that they would refer it back here. I hate to point such interesting articles away from FAC, but I have to call them like I see them. Of course, if consensus develops for a cross-referencing system, I could live with that. Let's see if anyone else has any thoughts, as it seems like we're pretty divided here. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'd be happy to see the conent of the GA merged into this list and then taken once again through FLC. The GA is pretty sparse so it wouldn't be a big task. I certainly still have concerns over the way in which TompaDompa is interpreting the 3b rule, as this one, in particular, is a clear-cut case, just whether to merge into FL or FA. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that I think that papal conclave articles should be in a consistent format. If this article should be merged then so should the two articles which have already passed FLC. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly something to consider after the conclusion of this. We can't, from this FLC, mandate any merge of material. That would be up to the principal editors and probably need other discussions. Right now, this is about this FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone will let me flesh out the article a bit more tomorrow, I’d appreciate it. It was one of my first major articles, and looking back on it, I agree I could add a lot more, especially when compared to other articles I’ve worked on in this series. →I’ve spent the better part of the last year cleaning up the self-published lists from microstubs and actually having them tell the story of the conclaves. I think merging back in would distract from the narrative, which is in my view more important than the list of participants. I’ve been putting off expanding the GA, but since there seems to be pressure to move along, I’ll make it my top priority tomorrow. I do appreciate everyone’s feedback here, even if we don’t all agree. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No pressure from here, Tony. I made my position clear about a month ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this article should be considered in isolation from other papal conclave articles which have already passed FLC, but we will have to agree to disagree on that. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think past performance is no guide to the future. Let's deal with here and now, and if that impacts past endeavours, so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to agree with TRM and Giants here. It seems quite unnecessary to have both a relatively brief article on the conclave itself and a relatively brief list on the participants. I would have the same thoughts on the previous nominations; 21st century conclaves may have enough content to warrant a split, but the earlier ones can definitely cover all information in a single article. These are not independent topics - the narrative of the events around the election, even if the most important part, is closely related to the participants and they should be covered in the same article without a content fork unless length really warrants it. Reywas92^Talk 22:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Go ahead and consider this withdrawn then. I strongly oppose a merge still for the reasons stated, but I’m big enough to realize that consensus on FLC is against me here, so I won’t drag this out. The Rambling Man would you mind doing the paperwork here when you have a chance. I also might poke you on other conclaves in this series if you don’t mind it in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2018 (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. --PresN 06:01, 28 December 2018 (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, 17 December 2018 (UTC) [2].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): XOLE2129 (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it has met the potential to provide valuable information towards individuals and groups with particular interests in business and finance. As a requested article, I have consolidated information provided by S&P 400, List of S&P 400 companies, and other reputable online sources in order to create this list which shows information of 1000 companies that are tracked by Standard & Poor's index. The article contains non-copyright images, and table-sort facilities that help users navigate the page from all devices. Also, it provides background information in regards to the index, as well as technical information. XOLE2129 (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this article needs a lot more information in the lead and bout the S&P 1000 itself, especially because there is no corresponding S&P 1000 Index to expand on this. Looking at S&P 500 Index, very little of this sort of information is in this list detailing its background.
• I don't know why the Russell 1000 is mentioned in the second sentence. Tell me everything about the S&P 1000 first, then comparative indices.
• No comma between exchanges and NYSE.
• I don't see where in the source for there being 1001 companies actually says 1001, nor why it's not 1000.
• The last sentence of the lead is meaningless: What technical data? What is Capital IQ? There's no wiki article for it, and the source links to a useless log in page.
• Why are the constituents split into two lists? This nullifies the ability to sort by name or anything else.
• How are changes to the list made?
• The 500 article discusses the weighting formula, why doesn't this?
• Not that you have to copy the other article, but List of S&P 500 companies is fairly different from this list.
• So I oppose for now. I think this has a way to go. Reywas92^Talk 06:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Reywas92, the article definitely needed to cover some of the points that you have mentioned.

• For your first point, the S&P 1000 is just the combination of S&P 400 and S&P 600, which are just the top nth number of companies in the market index. Hence, there isn't much information that could be written about S&P 1000 Index. Though I only provided background information on S&P 1000 and S&P, the reader can refer to S&P 500 (the main index) and S&P for more information, since it is only a list which combines two indexes.
• Thanks for noticing that! I added similarities and differences between the indexes. I added it in the second sentence as there is usually confusion between the two. One just excludes BDC and the other doesn't.
• Changed minor error with comma between exchanges and NYSE.
• Added a source. Although you do need to log in to Capital IQ as it is a commercial/educational platform, it is the most reputable because it is offered as a subsidiary of S&P.
• Added more information about Capital IQ.
• Explained weighting formula. Mentioned briefly how the list is changed. Linked to more information for a more technical response.

I do have a question for other Wikipedians. A 1003 row list is fairly large, and it gets laggy on mobile devices and sometimes laptops/desktops. I understand that it's harder to sort by name etc., but how do I go fixing that? Do we just accept that the page can be laggy for some users?

Thanks! XOLE2129 (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had a think about it for a few days and I realised that it would be more effective overall if the table is combined for functionality, as what you have mentioned. I also removed the 'collapse initially' option to make it quicker for users to navigate the article, with an option to collapse if they're just after the information in the beginning.

Thanks again, I hope you reconsider this article to be a suitable nomination for featured list with the improvements that I have made based on your comments.

XOLE2129 (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• I agree with Reywas92, this list does seem extremely big (almost 200k bytes); maybe you could separate the list into A–L and M–Z or something?
• 'Holdings by region' table isn't consistent with the other tables (col headings should be dark)
• I find it weird that the table is collapsible when it's the main table; honestly shouldn't be
• Change date refs to month day, year not YYYY-MM-DD
• Images need alt text
• There's also only 11 refs. Feel like there should be more
• I would bold 'S&P 1000' in the beginning
• Since this list is American, make sure to use American English (capitalisation → capitalization; annualised → annualized; etc.)
• Why are the dates in the image captions DD MMM, YY? Change to American dating
• Lead "index.The S&P" – space
• Many of the companies in the table are redirects and aren't properly stylized (for example: Aaon Inc should be AAON Inc.)
• Acxiom is now known as LiveRamp
• I would put a content box above the table so you can click a letter and it would go to the first company with that letter for better navigation

Still needs work. I'm sorry but for now I'm going to have to oppose. I do want to see what other editors have to say about it being too large because in my opinion it is. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from XOLE2129

• Hi, I originally had the list separated from A-K, L-Z. However, Reywas92 mentioned that it'll ruin the functionality of the table sort (alphabetical order), so I changed it based on that feedback. However, I am entirely open for editors to discuss which option would be better suited.
• Fixed all graphics and formalities (date, alternative text), thank you!
• It is a table combined from two individual ones, so it is hard to add more information (and therefore references), since it is a list. Though, there should be a main S&P 1000 article but unfortunately there isn't.
• The content box would be an interesting addition in the article but would I need to do one for every letter? Disregard that, I assumed that the contents box would be vertical so it would have made the list excessively not proportionate and long.

Again, it's open for discussion on the function of the actual list (whether it should be sorted, or separated since the list is big). I only made the table collapseable because the article is big. Regards, XOLE2129 (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from UnitedStatesian

• Strongest possible oppose for this ever being a featured list.
• With that out of the way, kudos to XOLE2129 for the work put in.
• With that out of the way, here are the reasons:
• Significant overlap (40%) with an existing list, List of S&P 400 companies, that is already maintained by numerous active editors.
• Almost guaranteed to be out of date all the time: for instance, the list currently contains Jack Henry & Associates Inc and Lamb Weston Holdings Inc; both are no longer in the 1000.
• Too large, as has been pointed out above.
• Too many nonlinks, thus violating the guideline for list inclusion.

UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2018 (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) 22:17, 16 December 2018 (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, 17 December 2018 (UTC) [3].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): SabyaC (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this article has in-detail list of all the Kolkata Derby matches and results.SabyaC (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)User: SabyaC[reply]

• Oppose and quick fail - there is literally no prose (not even a lead!) and most of the content is not sourced. Absolutely nowhere near Featured standard -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to the lack of citations and a lead. I agree that this should be a quick fail as it is completely unprepared for an FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with the two comments above, this is far from meeting the requirements for promotion and needs a considerable amount of work. Kosack (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Definitely doesn't meet the criteria. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2018 (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) 22:22, 16 December 2018 (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 December 2018 (UTC) [4].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Chase | ^talk 17:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC), Akhiljaxxn (Talk) 07:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I added a lot of work into the article way back when and have nominated it before, but after a while I added some things that were listed as reasons for not being promoted. Chase | ^talk 17:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the nomination. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the nomination – Allied45 (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The WP:LEAD is way too long; the recommendation is no more than four paragraphs, whereas this is twice that. From what I can gather, this is an over-correction from the previous FLC review. The longest lead of the WP:Featured lists for artist videographies (the one for Beyoncé) has a word count of 715; this has a word count of 1,027.

Hey how it looks now?. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still too long, in my opinion. The WP:LEAD needs to find the right balance between the number of entries described in it and the level of detail each entry is described in. To my eye, the problem is more with the latter, and I think it can be fixed. If it turns out that I'm wrong and it is not feasible to get the WP:LEAD down to a reasonable length without leaving out either too many entries or too much information about each entry, one may have to consider tightening up the scope and/or using WP:Summary style. TompaDompa (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word count of this article is almost same like beyonce now and I feel like the lead should be longer than Beyonce's. Beacuse MJ had a long career spanning more than four decade. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The WP:LEAD needs copyediting to pass WP:FLCR 1. For example, the last paragraph has a typo ("an" should be "and") and a sentence beginning with a minuscule.

 Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a quick look, I see a bunch of stray periods scattered throughout. I say focus on the length, though. The copyediting can wait until the bigger problem has been fixed. TompaDompa (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved: The descriptions for "Billie Jean" and "The Way You Make Me Feel" contain MOS:CONTRACTIONS.  Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved: The following links are dead: reference 25, reference 52, reference 58, reference 73, reference 86, reference 87, reference 105, reference 125, reference 126, reference 144, reference 155, and reference 162.  Done no more dead link now. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] I still get error messages for the following: [5][6][7][8][9][10], and this redirects somewhere completely different. TompaDompa (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]  Done-Akhiljaxxn (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Both links to mvdbase.com and one of the two to variety.com seem to be dead. TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] These links are stil working for me 63, 70, 80 .Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] They work for me too now. Weird that they didn't before. TompaDompa (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved: Reference 120 is a duplicate of reference 29 (both link here).  Done.-Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply] Michael Jackson: For the Record appears twice in the source list.  Done Removed one.-Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, the list does not meet the criteria for WP:Featured list status. If and when the above issues are resolved, I'll do a more thorough review. TompaDompa (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced few links with new. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CCamp2013 has not edited Wikipedia for three weeks, if they do not respond here and/or this nomination is not adopted, I will archive it in a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akhiljaxxn are you willing to adopt this nomination? If not, I'll close it very shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man yes I am. And I think I've adressed all the suggestions above. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa your concerns have been responded to. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last four issues remain unresolved. I haven't checked whether the ones relating to the WP:LEAD have been resolved. TompaDompa (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solved all your issues and tell me how it looks now? Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my replies above. TompaDompa (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to The Rambling Man and to TompaDompa: I am also here to provide any edits as the original nominator. I want to thank Akhiljaxxn for keeping this alive as I have put a lot of work into this list over the years. Also, I feel like the lead should be longer than Beyonce's, although I think the lead that I first nominated the list with was fine as well. Chase | ^talk

Thank you very much for your review; I believe I have addressed everything. Please let me know if that is not the case or if you have any further questions or comments. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments:

• Jackson has been called the King of Music Videos. – by whom? Is this so common as to warrant being mentioned in the second sentence of the page?

Jackson has been called the King of Music Videos by many including Guinnes book of world records.^[1] Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be attributed inline or removed outright. TompaDompa (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referred to as the "King of Music Videos" in subsequent years. is a sentence fragment. TompaDompa (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my previous assessment that it should be attributed inline or removed outright. TompaDompa (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved: Jackson transformed the music video into an art form and a promotional tool through complex story lines, dance routines, special effects and famous cameo appearances, simultaneously breaking down racial barriers. – this shouldn't use WP:WikiVoice. It sounds very promotional. See how it looks now .Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Per WP:SAID, it should be "said that" (or something similar) rather than "observed how". More to the point, what needs inline attribution is "transformed the music video" and "breaking down racial barriers". The use of dance routines, special effects and so on is a matter of fact, whereas the impact thereof is a matter of opinion. I'd rephrase it to say that those things were used in WP:WikiVoice and then attribute the impact to the person making that claim. See WP:YESPOV – Avoid stating opinions as facts. and Avoid stating facts as opinions. TompaDompa (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] The choreography in Thriller has become a part of global pop culture, replicated everywhere from Indian films to prisons in the Philippines. – "everywhere" doesn't seem like WP:NPOV phrasing to me – it reads like trying to play up the impact.  Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Set in ancient Egypt, it featured groundbreaking visual effects and appearances by Eddie Murphy, Iman, and Magic Johnson, along with a distinct complex dance routine. – "groundbreaking" with no elaboration comes off as puffery.  Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] The video for "In the Closet" was Jackson's most sexually provocative piece. – this is pretty subjective. In general, the WP:LEAD doesn't really give an encyclopedic impression. It reads more like an article in a magazine at times.  Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] The photo of David Fincher is of poor quality. The ones of John Landis and Martin Scorsese aren't great either.  Done Replaced two photos of David Fincher and martin Scrosese, And no more photo of Jhon Landis available on commons. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Per MOS:SURNAME, the artist should not be referred to as "Michael".  Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The descriptions for the music videos are not consistent in style. For instance, some are in the past tense and some in the present tense.

 Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a mix of past and present tense, as well as other inconsistencies in style. TompaDompa (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More comments about the WP:LEAD:

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved: Before Thriller, Jackson struggled to receive coverage on MTV, allegedly because he was African American. – A few things: "Before Thriller" is perhaps not the best temporal description. It would be more helpful to the reader to say "Jackson's first [number] music videos", seeing as it's the music videos that are relevant (and the reader would then not need to know the album's chronological place in Jackson's career).  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] In the early 1980s, Jackson became a dominant figure in popular culture and the first African Americanentertainer to have a strong crossover fanbase on MTV is missing a period. TompaDompa (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] "struggled" can either mean that there were difficulties ("struggled" as in "had trouble") or a conflict ("struggled" as in "fought"). It should be rephrased in a way that makes it clear which.  Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] "allegedly" should really be avoided. Alleged by whom? This is the kind of thing that cannot be mentioned merely in passing like this.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Removing the word "allegedly" didn't really fix the problem. The racial discrimination needs to be elaborated upon. TompaDompa (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]  Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Pressure from CBS Records persuaded MTV to start showing "Billie Jean" and later "Beat It", leading to a lengthy partnership with Jackson, also helping other black music artists gain recognition. – this sentence is a bit confusing. It should be clarified who the partnership was with, CBS Records or MTV. It is also not clear how this helped the others gain recognition.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] MTV's focus shifted in favor of pop and R&B. – from what?  Fixed. Rock 'N' Roll .Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The use of quotation marks vs. italics is not entirely consistent. The videos for "Thriller" and "Ghosts" are in italics.

 Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson's "Thriller short film" should be Michael Jackson's "Thriller" short film, no? The other one has an unpaired quotation mark at the first mention and italics at the second. TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issues with "Ghosts" remain. TompaDompa (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved The two sentences in the WP:LEAD about the music video for "Thriller" are in a counterintuitive order to me (shouldn't the video itself be mentioned before the choreography?), and could probably be merged into one and trimmed somewhat.  Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] In the 19-minute music video for "Bad"—directed by Martin Scorsese—Jackson began using sexual imagery and choreography not previously seen in his work. He occasionally grabbed or touched his chest, torso and crotch. The video also featured Wesley Snipes. – this should be one sentence, not three. The last sentence could be dropped entirely.  Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved: He received the MTV Video Vanguard Award in 1988 and the MTV Video Vanguard Artist of the Decade Award in 1990.In 1991 the first award was renamed as Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award in his honor. – there's a missing space after the period, but the two sentences should be joined with a semicolon anyway. Moreover, "first award" should be replaced with "former".  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Semicolons are followed by minuscules, not capitals. TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]  Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved It was nominated for several awards at the 51st Academy Awards. – I'd use the actual number in lieu of "several".  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved: Jackson later starred in films such as Disney's Captain EO in 1986, the anthology film Moonwalker in 1988 and the posthumous documentary This Is It in 2009. – this does not seem to be mentioned in the cited source.  Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] The first source doesn't mention Jackson, the second is dead, and the third redirects elsewhere. TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]  Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to come. TompaDompa (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about the list:

• As noted above, the descriptions are very inconsistent in style. It looks like they have been copied from elsewhere. They should be harmonized.
• Several of the descriptions mention the date the video was shot or released. Is this really relevant?

 Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved: A music video produced to promote the single of the same name and features the five Jackson brothers wearing white suits and dancing on a stage. – this is not grammatical, as the first half is a sentence fragment.  Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The description for "Blame It on the Boogie" is a run-on sentence which starts with a sentence fragment.

 Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The video, features the group's members dancing on a black background, relied heavily on electronic trail effects, created at Image West, Ltd. using then-cutting edge equipment: the Scanimate analog computer system and a Quantel DFS 3000 digital framestore. should be rewritten as multiple, shorter sentences. TompaDompa (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved: Tito's sons, Taj and Taryll – Tito who? There's a good chance the reader will not be familiar with the names of the other members of The Jacksons. This should use the full name and include a link.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• shower scenes referencing Psycho – is it really the novel the music video references, and not the movie?

There are lots of movies based on this novel.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know there are only two: Psycho (1960 film) (which had several sequels) and Psycho (1998 film). That sort of narrows it down to just the 1960 film for a 1984 music video. My point was that it's more likely that a music video references the movie than the book, both because they're both made in a visual medium and because the movie is more well-known. Also, this reference doesn't seem to be verified by either of the sources cited. TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's still unsourced, no? TompaDompa (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The video has many references to the 1961 film West Side Story, especially the "Cool" sequence. – this is fairly opaque unless the reader is familiar with both the music video and the film.

How it loks now?. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Examples would be nice, as long as they're possible to understand for someone who hasn't seen the film or the music video. TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The video begins with a group of males trying to pick up women, but they do not get any luck. – I'd describe their attempts as being unsuccessful rather than saying that they do not get any luck (not a particularly encyclopedic phrasing). It is also unclear to me why this part of the video is described and the other parts are not.

See how it looks now. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should say what else happens in the video, not just how it starts. I also noticed a typo: thiry-four. TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved: Instead, it featured a montage of footage from various major news events. – I'd elaborate a bit on this, or at least exemplify.  Done.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] "Graduation" should not be capitalized. TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]  Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved: The video featured Jackson performing the song live during his Bad World Tour. – I'd really try to rephrase this to avoid the possible interpretation that the World Tour was not good.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] with additional footage from June 27–28 show at Parc des Princes – this seems to be missing a definite article (or possibly a possessive pronoun).  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Jackson filmed the video as a promotional video for the song, which originally was a segment of his 1988 film Moonwalker. – which was a segment of Moonwalker, the video or just the song?  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] The link to "Come Together" should link to the proper section (i.e. Come Together#Michael Jackson versions).  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The music video featured the Jackson family members, except for La Toya and Marlon, and also includes children of The Jacksons. – this does not make it immediately clear who or how many of the family members were featured. I would suggest phrasing it such that the reader is informed how many members from each generation the video features (which ones is optional, but there is definitely enough room for it). It should also include a link to the Jackson family.

How it looks now? Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Most" should not be capitalized. I also think that the number of family members should be given. TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It was set in ancient Egypt and featured groundbreaking visual effects – don't call the visual effects "groundbreaking", describe what they are instead.

 Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the visual effects are should be specified. TompaDompa (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved: The video also featured Jackson's first on screen kiss. – there should be a hyphen in "on-screen".  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The music video was inspired by the album's cover art from which the single was featured in and also uses computer graphics. – this is an anacoluthon.

 Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's no longer an anacoluthon, but it is kind of a non sequitur. TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved: The footage in the music video featured scenes of Jackson and White together, as well as brief coverage from White's funeral. – who is White?  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] The video was filmed in four geographic regions (Americas, Europe and Africa). – it's a bit odd to count North and South America as two regions but mention them collectively as the Americas.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] A promotional music video for the single of the same name and was shot in black and white. – this is ungrammatical, as the first half is a sentence fragment.  Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Two music videos were made for the single. – should there not be two entries in the list then, since this is a videography?

 Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both versions' descriptions should ideally start with "One of two music videos made for the single." TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved: members of a real life gospel group – there should be a hyphen in "real-life".  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09 14, 2 December 2018 (UTC) The entry for "This Is It" should really mention that it was released posthumously, as this is very important context.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] The video was intercut with clips showing people in Haiti following the earthquake. – this should include a link to the earthquake and perhaps a short description.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think this would need a lot of copyediting to pass WP:FLCR 1; the writing is far from professional standards right now. TompaDompa (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa Can you please close the suggestions that I solved already? It will help me to identify the unsolved one very easily. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Lirim | Talk 21:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – There's a lot of issues here, some of which should have been spotted before now. I haven't done spot-checks yet, but formatting and reliability checks show a laundry list of concerns: Refs 8, 64, and 150 have all caps in their titles that need removal.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Ref 11 looks poorly formatted with the cite patent template. There's no publisher or access date with this template. I'd suggest just using cite web for this, as it will lead to a result more consistent with the rest of the article. Also, the inline link to this cite needs removal, as that is a Manual of Style violation.  Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Inline link still needs removal. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]  Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Extra period after ref 12 needs removal.  Done Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Refs 19, 68, and 96 are book cites with no page numbers. For verifiability, I suggest including page numbers for these or searching for replacements.  Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] This wasn't done at all. None of those cite have had page numbers added to them, and they are all still there. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]  Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] I hate to leave this unstruck, but one of the book cites still doesn't have a page number. Its number is currently 21 (Guinness World Records 2004). Giants2008 (Talk) 22:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]  Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] In the replacement, you have "Lewis Jones" as the author. This is obviously a mixing of two books; which is it supposed to be? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] This is also replced and see how the current one looks.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Unfortunately, the publisher of that source is Lulu.com, a self-publishing company. Most of the books from that publisher are not considered reliable sources, and I doubt this one would be an exception. The other reference, once the author is correctly identified, would be a superior source to this one. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] This needs Guinness World Records added in the work parameter of the citation template and it will be good to go. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]  Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Ref 27 doesn't need to have The Grio in both the work and publisher parameters, as it leads to duplication in the cite.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Refs 29 and 30 are YouTube links. Is this some kind of official site? If not, it's probably a copyvio and we shouldn't be linking to it. Even if it is okay, the cites need publishers added to them.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Ref 31 lists the page as "Unknown", which isn't really acceptable. If this was from an unpaginated Google Books link, my suggestion is to add the chapter number or name.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Time is listed twice in ref 41. Also, the date appears a second time in unique formatting.  Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Iamnotastalker.com (ref 42) doesn't sound reliable to me. A replacement should certainly be found for whatever material this is supporting.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Refs 48, 51, 74, 124, and 150 are print publications and should have their publishers italicized.  Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Ref 53 has more duplicate formatting, and Billboard shouldn't be the article title. Also, the month shouldn't be shortened here.  Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Ref 57 is another unreliable source (IMDB). That needs replacement as well.  Done.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Ref 60 is missing a publisher (Rolling Stone).  Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Ref 62 is another poorly formatted parent link.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] There's a br visible in the table after ref 63.  Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Ref 67 is another one where the publisher (Jet) is being incorrectly listed as the article title. Jet is the title; not the publisher.Johnson Publishing Company is the publisher.pls do a double check.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] No, Jet is the name of the magazine. You want to have the title of the specific article itself in that field. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Ref 83 (The Guardian) needs more formatting, as it's missing most details, such as publisher and access date.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Ref 101: Surely the last word of Dance and Fitness Magazin needs to be fixed. In addition, that publisher should be italicized.  Done Citation replaced.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Ref 108: Last word of High Beem is another typo.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Ref 112 looks like somebody's personal website. Why is this a reliable source?  DoneNew RS added. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Ref 113 is missing an access date.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] TMZ (ref 118) isn't particularly reliable, as it's mainly a celebrity gossip site. Is there really nothing better for the facts it's supporting?  Done New RS added. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Near that reference are pages from Michaeljackson.com and michaeljackson.com. One style of formatting should be used consistency throughout.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Still see different usages here. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] There are a ton of unformatted citations from refs 129 to 138. I'm stunned that nobody saw them earlier, but this should be addressed urgently. While I'm on the subject, MJstar.com (ref 137) sounds like an unreliable fan site.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Most of these are still missing access dates, so I'd say they still need more formatting. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Still see no access dates in any ref from number 124 to number 128 – five in all. We need an access date in addition to the date the source was published, as the other web references have. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Same goes for MJ Vibe (ref 144).  Done New RS added. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Ref 148 needs further formatting.  Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] This page shows some link issues that are worth looking at. In particular, it's apparently having some problems accessing ref 106. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Thank you very much for your review; I believe I have addressed everythin. Please let me know if that is not the case or if you have any further questions or comments. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] I have a couple more things from the checks I did in response to the above comments, in addition to the responses above. First, the title of ref 107 is "archived copy", which isn't going to be right. One of the bots does this sometimes; just take a look at the source and put its real title in that field instead to fix this. Second, the publisher of ref 149 should be italicized since that is a print publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]  Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] I left another note above, and count two outstanding items as I write this. Spot-checks of refs 45, 135, and 136 turned up no issues, so we're a couple of fixes away from the source review being a pass. However, please look below for other pressing matters. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Sorry to have to do this, but while checking the responses to the source review above, I found a ton of glitches that other reviewers should have spotted by now. Without looking that hard, I saw these issues: "They were granted US patent for the device" needs "a" before US.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] There's an excess period after reference 15.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] "for Outstanding Music Video at the award shows 2002 ceremony." "shows" should be "show's", with an apostrophe.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] There's another excess period after ref 24.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] One more excess period follows an excess space after ref 26.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] Television: Space needed after ref 144.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] In the last sentence of the section, "Archival" shouldn't be capitalized.  Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] That's a lot of errors, and I didn't even look at any of the prose inside the tables. In good conscience, I can't suggest that any of the closers promote this article until it's been cleaned up. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to update, I left a couple more notes above. In addition, I saw one more glaring prose issue in the last sentence of the Television section: as an encyclopedia, the use of Michael here is much too informal. I could understand it if we were using it to distinguish him from other members of his family, but that isn't the case there. Let's get that and the other issues fixed so that I can fully cap this review. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point above about references 124 through 128 lacking access dates remains an issue, and I left another comment above that one as well about the newest source. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One final response is above. Fix that issue and we can consider this source review a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the source review now looks like a pass. Please do focus on the copy-editing concerns raised above, since they mirror the issues I found in a brief glance. I'm not sure how much longer we can keep this FLC open given the continued prose problems this far in. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: if I may be so bold, I think it should probably be archived. The problems with the prose and non-encyclopaedic phrasings are very widespread and although progress in fixing these has been and continues to be made, it does not seem likely that it can be brought up to snuff for WP:Featured list status within a reasonable timeframe. In addition to this, the descriptions for the list entries lack basic consistency in their approach to describing the music videos (presumably an artefact of not originally having been written for this purpose). It seems to me that the list would need a significant overhaul in order to harmonize the descriptions and while this is definitely something that can be done, I think it would be better to nominate the list all over again once it has been taken care of than to keep this nomination open until the issues have been dealt with satisfactorily, considering the substantial amount of time I would expect it to require. TompaDompa (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2018 (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) 22:13, 9 December 2018 (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, 3 December 2018 (UTC) [11].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Zingarese (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discography of a Grammy Award-winning young pianist, Daniil Trifonov. I believe that it meets the featured list criteria and is very thorough and informative. Compared to Lang Lang discography, a FL, this article has a more engaging lead and is more detailed. Thank you for your consideration, Zingarese (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question - are the performances listed under "contributions" the exact same performances as appear on the earlier album? We don't normally include tracks which have been "re-used" on compilation albums in a discography (at least not in the pop/rock field)........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Yes, indeed. The reason why I included them is that Lang Lang discography also did... I'm happy to remove the "contributions" from Trifonov's article if it is well-established policy not to include them. Zingarese (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Lang Lang discography, the "contributions" there are what I would expect them to be - instances where he performed new music but it was on an album that was not credited to him. In the case of Trifonov the listed contributions seem to be instances where his record label put one of his already-released performances onto a compilation album (the equivalent of a pop singer having one of their singles put on a Now That's What I Call Music album or similar). I would not include these. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Schumann and Brahms that is not the case, but the others, yes. That's my bad. I think I will remove the contributions from Trifonov's article. Zingarese (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost ready to support, but one last question - why are the refs in a smaller font size (or is it just my ageing eyes?).........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was a missing {{refend}} tag, which I've now added. That's my bad! Zingarese (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taking all the above into account I am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions:

• The article should start with {{As of}} – doesn't seem likely the "seven studio albums, three live albums, one video release, and one compilation" would be the end of the pianist's recording career, and without the {{As of}} the list could be soon outdated.
• The list's layout, in particular the layout of its tables, seems quite problematic, at least on my screen. I'd suggest two tables (and only those two):
  • One table focussing on Recordings (separate columns for recording date, title of the work, number of movements–i.e. tracks–, composer (the composition's number in the composer's works catalogue can be included in this column), studio/live/video, recording venue, orchestra/conductor accompanying the pianist, ... ending in a last column that indicates in which album(s) the recording is included)
  • Another table focussing on Releases (Title of the album, type–CD/DVD/...–, when released, by whom, unique identification of the release –e.g. publisher's code or EAN–, accolades like chartings and other prizes)
• I'd like somewhat more prose on reception.
• Avoid editorialising (and other WP:WTW issues), e.g. "considerable" in "...received considerable critical acclaim..." – the nature of the acclaim is an interpretation: either such interpretation can be referenced to reliable sources, or, if such wording can't be sourced reliably, press reviews should be referenced individually, leaving it to the reader of the Wikipedia article whether or not that amounts to "considerable" (without using that word in Wikipedia's prose).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis Schonken: Thank you for your suggestions. As for the {{As of}}; most discography articles do not include it, even for artists who still have active recording careers (see WP:FL; Artist discographies). I will be sure to update the article when new releases arrive! :-) Also, after I nominated this article, User:EditorE added peak chart positions in the table; while a tremendously positive addition, it made the tables severely unreadible on smaller screens. I simply moved those to a separate table, and now, after some other tweaks, the tables are now very legible! I also removed the first sentence from the last paragraph outright (it's somewhat subjective in any case) and did some tweaking on the remainder. Please let me know what you think! Zingarese talk · contribs 20:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniil Trifonov discography#Compilations is a sortable table with a single entry. Doesn't make sense. Daniil Trifonov discography#Video releases is a sortable table with a single entry. Doesn't make sense. Daniil Trifonov discography#Live albums is a sortable table with three entries: to me this doesn't make much sense either. In Daniil Trifonov discography#Studio albums the table has seven entries, but since the bulk of the content is in unsortable columns one has to wonder whether the sortable table format makes any sense here too. For those four sections I'd drop the table format altogether (if the two-table suggestion I made above finds no approval).

Re. "I also removed the first sentence from the last paragraph outright" – OK, but this clashes with my "I'd like somewhat more prose on reception" suggestion. I suggested more prose on that topic, not less. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The colon in the first sentence should be a semicolon. The first CD, with music performed live in recitals in Italy, was released by Decca in April, followed by a double CD with performances from the 16th Chopin International Piano Competition in Warsaw (where he won the third prize), and finally, in July, a studio recording which included, like the previous release, Chopin's Piano Concerto No. 1. – this is a very long sentence with a high number of commas. Readability would be improved by rephrasing. In February 2013, Trifonov signed an exclusive recording contract with Deutsche Grammophon (DG): the first release under that contract was a live recording from a recital he had given in Carnegie Hall that month. would be better as two sentences. Other recitals and chamber music concerts were recorded at festivals such as those of Verbier and of Lockenhaus, resulting in webcasts, and a few works, including Mieczysław Weinberg's Sonatina in a performance with Gidon Kremer, being issued on other labels, courtesy of DG. – again, this is a very long sentence with a high number of commas. This CD was issued mid-2015, a few months before a double DVD with two films directed by Christopher Nupen was released: a documentary, in which Trifonov performed parts of his own Piano Concerto in E-flat minor, and one of his recitals interspersed with interviews. – this would probably be better as a few shorter sentences. Trifonov's 2016 album for DG, a double CD of the complete piano études by Franz Liszt, was a major success: it reached the number one position in the Specialist Classical Albums Chart in the United Kingdom in October 2016, was designated one of "The Best Classical Music Recordings of 2016" by The New York Times, and won the 2018 Grammy Award for Best Classical Instrumental Solo. – again, a very long sentence that would benefit from being split up into shorter sentences. I feel terrible for saying this as the restructuring must have taken a lot of work, but I think the first table ("Daniil Trifonov recordings") should be removed. A list of every performance recorded is a poor fit for a discography. Basically, it's the difference between Led Zeppelin discography and List of songs recorded by Led Zeppelin (which I'll note are both WP:Featured lists). As for the table structure for the actual releases, I would suggest basing it either on this old revision of the list or on the structure of the WP:Featured list Vladimir Horowitz discography. My main issue with the article at this time is that I think it fails WP:FLCR 4 by being structured in a way which I feel impedes navigability and readability severely. To put it bluntly, I disagree entirely with Francis Schonken's opinions on the layout (except for the part about sortability being unnecessary) and think it was way better the way it was before those changes were made. Another big issue is that the WP:LEAD contains a lot of very long sentences filled with punctuation marks (some of which are used incorrectly). Understanding the intended meaning consequently gets unnecessarily difficult, making the reading experience rather frustrating. TompaDompa (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: thank you for your comments; @Francis Schonken: would you mind commenting? --Zingarese talk · contribs 19:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are currently blocked, so I don't think they can. TompaDompa (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; didn't notice that. Would I be able to earn your support if I reverted the table structure for the releases to what it was before, removed the "recordings" table (& possibly merge it to a separate new article), and fixed the intro? Zingarese talk · contribs 20:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. TompaDompa (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zingarese do you intend to return to this nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I don’t believe I have ever “left” it? —Zingarese talk · contribs 19:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well you've made about four edits in the last two weeks, so I was just checking. Plus you didn't respond to TompaDompa. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really haven't made many edits here lately at all... real life has gotten in the way! I believe I have addressed all of TompaDompa's concerns; when I get the chance, I may add two (or three?) compilations featuring Trifonov back to the article (which I had removed to restore the table to original format).This article is fine with or without them, but I feel it's not too bad of an idea to include them. --Zingarese talk · contribs 20:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you have. Support TompaDompa (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the more detailed layout; and commented out the collapse above which suggested this was somehow solved. It isn't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis Schonken: What is not solved? Pinging TompaDompa as well if they dont mind commenting Zingarese talk · contribs 02:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They've been blocked again. I still support this. TompaDompa (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – Haven't reviewed this one in detail, but the Compilations table probably doesn't need to be sortable yet, as it currently has only one entry. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed it to unsortable. Zingarese talk · contribs 20:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "set off with a focus on" is a bit verbose for me, "initially focussed" perhaps.
  •  Done Zingarese talk · contribs 20:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 2 appears not to verify all the claims about the competition and him coming third.
  • The back cover of the album in the ref state (in Polish) that the music was recorded live at the Competition. Zingarese talk · contribs 20:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Decca is piped to a redirect.
  •  Fixed
• "homage of" I would normally say "homage to".
  • Agreed  Done Zingarese talk · contribs 20:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm mildly confused that TompaDompa would support this when the main article is so very small indeed. What makes this not a clear-cut 3b violation while lists such as List of international goals scored by Radamel Falcao are of concern to TompaDompa?
  • Sorry, but I do not see how this violates 3b at all. This is a very substantial article, with almost half of the albums winning notable awards including Grammys, and would be much too long for the main article. One of the reasons why the main article can be perceived as small is because it certainly needs updating and expanding. I invite TompaDompa to comment. Zingarese talk · contribs 20:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the point is that some users have been recently attempting to strongly reinforce 3b, and this is a case in point, the main article is not much more than a stub so merging this information in would be no problem at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The explanation is that when I did my initial review, the discography was so long that it would not have been reasonable to include it in the main article (even though the main article is indeed short). When the discography was restructured and thus got a lot shorter, it did not occur to me to reassess it from a WP:FLCR 3(b) perspective. I have now taken a second look at the length of the main article and the length and depth of the discography (which roughly corresponds to the tables and the WP:LEAD, respectively). In doing so, I tried copying the tables from the discography to the main article to preview how it would look if the pages were merged. I came to the conclusion that the current length might not necessarily make it unreasonable to merge the pages, but I think the depth is such that it would be inappropriate to include it on the main article (see my related comments on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Capital Bra discography/archive1). I have to admit that I'm not certain that I would have reached the same conclusion if this were the first time I assessed this list (as opposed to a reassessment). TompaDompa (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, that's not particularly convincing, it seems to imply that you're applying different standards of 3b to different lists/articles, which is a pity. As the main article is so slight, in my opinion this is far more a 3b violation than some of those you have opposed, yet you actually support this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Rambling Man, sorry but I have to vehemently disagree with your view. Minus the tables, this article is pretty lengthy with over 3,000 characters of prose (more so than the featured lists Lang Lang discography and Kronos Quartet discography). In addition, please take a look at those FL's vs. their main articles, as well as Oregon Symphony discography vs. Oregon Symphony. I share TompaDompa's view that the depth of this discography is such that it would not be suitable to include it on the main article.. Zingarese talk · contribs 15:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are welcome to "vehemently disagree" with me. My main issue is that we have a reviewer applying different interpretations of 3b to different lists here, and that is of concern. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • (edit conflict × 2) I'm not sure what it is you think implies that I'm applying different standards – would you care to elaborate? I'm certainly not doing so intentionally. TompaDompa (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • Your position seems to be that if a main article is very small indeed, and a forked article is quite large, that the forked article is just fine. If the main article is quite large then the forked article suddenly becomes not a reasonable fork. For instance, if we reduced the main Radamel Falcao article to a couple of paragraphs, then the list of international goals would be fine in your eyes for a standalone list. However, because the main Falcao article is very substantial, you think the list should be incorporated within it. Very odd to me, and not what 3b was ever designed for. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think you're reading more into my words than I ever said or intended. I didn't say I thought List of international goals scored by Radamel Falcao should be merged with Radamel Falcao – I said I had concerns about WP:FLCR 3(b) (if my choice of words made it come off as unreserved agreement with the editor who said it didn't pass, I apologize for not making myself clear). I consciously avoided either supporting or opposing the nomination because I was on the fence about whether it passed. I also specifically avoided commenting on Talk:Radamel Falcao#Merge tag for the same reason – I didn't think the pages should be merged, I was undecided about whether they reasonably could.
                    Perhaps my reading of WP:FLCR 3(b) is more literal than the one that was intended when the criteria were formulated – I take it to mean that there are three categories of lists: (1) lists that should be merged with a main article, (2) lists for which both merging and keeping separate would be valid options, and (3) lists that should be kept separate from the main article. In my reading, only category (3) would qualify for WP:Featured list status, but perhaps the original intention was either that category (2) should also qualify or that there is no category (2). I just now took a look at the talk page archives for the WP:Featured list criteria, and I see that the phrasing, interpretation, and implementation of 3(b) has been controversial for nigh on a decade now (and I see that my reading of it has been criticized as well as advocated long before I started reviewing WP:FLCs). I thank you for raising the issue of what the purpose of WP:FLCR 3(b) is, and I will keep this in mind with future nominations. TompaDompa (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                    • • I didn't say I thought List of international goals scored by Radamel Falcao should be merged with Radamel Falcao – I said I had concerns about WP:FLCR 3(b) well, for me it's either both or neither. If you have concerns over a list for FLCR on 3b concerns then chances are it should be considered for merging back into the main article. If not, then it's a perfectly acceptable standalone list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Tables need row and col scopes per MOS:ACCESS.
  •  Fixed
• Are the release dates global or do they relate to release in one or more specific territories?
  • Global
• "Trio élégiaque No. 1 /" why the slash?
  •  Fixed
• " Warsaw Philharmonic Orchestra" is that the " Warsaw National Philharmonic Orchestra"?
  • Yes; both names are used to refer to the orchestra although the former is more common
• "Peak chart positions" all the hyphens should be en-dashes (per your own key).
  • Already  Fixed
• As noted, compilation table need not be sortable.
  •  Fixed
• Peak chart position table doesn't sort correctly.
  •  Fixed
• "US Classical" is piped to a redirect.
  • Don't see the problem; the redirect goes directly to the part of the page about US Classical
• Avoid spaced hyphens in the ref titles, use spaced en-dashes instead.
  •  Fixed
• Ref 7 is missing access date.
  •  Fixed

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thank you very much for your review; I believe I have addressed everything. Please let me know if that is not the case or if you have any further questions or comments. Zingarese talk · contribs 16:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• Mixed date formats in the references.
  •  Fixed
• Some SHOUTING in there too.
  • I'm not sure I understand...
    • TEXT IN CAPITAL LETTERS. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Fixed
• Also some spaced hyphens there which should be en-dashes.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• •  Fixed

• Plus I'm still not sure about how this meets the 3b concerns that TompaDompa seems quite content with. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Rambling Man: Thank you for your comments. I do not concur with any notion that this list violates 3b. It would make little sense to merge this large article with the artist's article; it "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". Take a look at the FLs Lang Lang discography, Oregon Symphony discography, Kronos Quartet discography, etc.. vs. their main articles, for example. If I had more time, I would expand Trifonov's article myself;it badly needs updating. @TompaDompa: Please comment Zingarese talk · contribs 04:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I've said all I have to say in my comments from late September, above. TompaDompa (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, other stuff exists. I'm afraid I find the previous commentator's approach terribly inconsistent, actually voting against a list which was justifiably split from a main article, while voting for this, simply because the main article is very weak indeed. It's counter to what Wikipedia is about. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Director comment – @Zingarese: TRM's latest batch of comments has been up for a couple of weeks now without a response. This FLC has been going on for five months now and we can't leave it open indefinitely. Please respond to TRM as soon as possible, or I'm afraid we will eventually be forced to archive the FLC. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:42, 15 November 2018 (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) 22:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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