Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/December 2020

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 03:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I'm quite biased towards this list, as it was the article I made my first non-deleted edit to, but I believe that it is a great list that accurately describes all major VoIP software programs, has sufficient citations, and good prose. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 03:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• There seems to be an awful lot of unsourced content here. There is only one source in the whole of the lead, and many rows in the tables have no sources, for example in the very first row (AudioCodes MobilityPLUS) there is no source to confirm that it was released in 2014, what its other abilities are, what the codecs are, etc. The same is true for many other rows. Overall I think the referencing needs improving to get to FL standard (also, the formatting of the existing refs is a bit all over the place, with multiple different date formats (in some cases within the same reference), many refs having no publisher listed, etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, I note that you aren't really a significant contributor to the article (only 11 edits) and don't seem to have consulted with those who are, as required per the rubric at the top of the FLC page......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The lede is underdeveloped, but in a total of five paragraphs...
• The "needs expansion" tag makes me think the list is incomplete.
• As Chris pointed out, there are some big concerns with the references.

This would need a lot of work... ~ HAL333 18:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Request withdrawn I'll be honest, I made this nomination without properly understanding the featured list criteria; I really only nominated this because there is no such thing as a "good list", so I'd like this nomination to be procedurally closed in order to move it to peer review. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 18:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing; even if there was such a thing as a "Good List", having tags on a list and big parts without references would be an issue, just like it would be for GA. Doing a PR is a great next step; feel free to renominate once it's cleaned up. --PresN 02:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 00:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Saiff Naqiuddin (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once Again, I am nominating this for a featured list along with Javila200084898 because I believed that this page already meets FL Criteria and guidelines, Javila200084898 and I are the most contributed to this page. First, as you can see in the previous version which is the table, date, sources, font, and else is a reallu mess so I've made my contributed to clean all the mess until it meets the criteria. In terms of reference, the reference of the previous version is very incomplete and I've resolved this problem. The Lead, Prose, Comprehensiveness is created by Javila200084898 and I believed that the sentence doesn't need the copyediting also in that section I only solved the problem of the date to make all of the dates are consistent. Saiff Naqiuddin (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• The lead is too long and needs trimming. This could be accomplished by removing stuff which isn't really about her songs e.g. "Unlike all of Spears' previous albums, Blackout was not heavily promoted through magazine interviews, talk-show appearances or televised performances besides a performance at the 2007 MTV Video Music Awards and was not accompanied by a tour either" - none of that is really relevant to a list of her songs. I'm not convinced that most of the final paragraph is relevant either. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would agree that the lead is too long – to the point where it distracts from the actual list. Aza24 (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do shortly Aza24 (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ref 2 link isn't working for me (it's going to the home page I think)
• ref 3 link is broken for me
• ref 4 doesn't need NPR twice. If the publisher and website are similar enough then only one is needed
• ref 10 missing author
• ref 18 missing date and retrieval date
• ref 22 missing author
• The liner note refs look good
• Since you're linking publishers, ref 53 AllMusic can be linked
• refs 57 and 44 is formatted differently than the other liner notes
• why does ref 60 link to discogs? Discogs is user generated content and is not a reliable source
• why is the Japanese edition formatted differently for refs 43 and 44?
• That's all I got – reliability is fine besides the discogs. I was hesitant about sourcing Spears' official website, but since it's published by Sony I think it's fine. Aza24 (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There's been absolutely no move to shorten the lead since I pointed out three weeks or so ago that it was far too long, so it's an oppose from me unless there's some movement in that regard...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Saiff Naqiuddin: are you planning on returning to this? Aza24 (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Saiff Naqiuddin: ? Aza24 (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: I am really really sorry for the late reply, lately, I'm so busy with SPM's trial so that's why I didn't really active on Wikipedia. Okay so back to your comment. I'll repair the sources as soon as possible and yup I'm returning to this. Saiff Naqiuddin (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have solved all the problems as stated by @Aza24: and @ChrisTheDude:. Saiff Naqiuddin (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the new lead

New lead is much better, but I picked up the following:

• "reached the top position of every major countries charts" - firstly, it should be "every country's charts". Secondly, this is a huge claim to make (every single major country in the world? Really?) without a single source.
• "Unlike all of Spears' previous albums, Blackout was not heavily promoted through magazine interviews, talk-show appearances or televised performances besides a performance at the 2007 MTV Video Music Awards and was not accompanied by a tour either" - not sure any of this is relevant to a list of her songs
• "just behind Mariah Carey." => "after Mariah Carey"
• "Glory the ninth studio-album from Spears was" => "Glory, the ninth studio album from Spears, was"
• "failed to reach the success of other comparative Spears albums." - the word "comparative" is not needed here
• That's it on the lead, I will look at the list later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "28.6 million digital singles in the United States only" => "28.6 million digital singles in the United States alone"
• "with 34,5 million certified albums" => "with 34.5 million certified albums" (commma is not used to indicate a decimal point in the US)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

• The lead is far too single-centric. This isn't supposed to be a singles discography page. I therefore would also try not to delve too much into charts and sales here. Including some text on lyrics, genres, and non-singles would be nice.
• "every major countries charts" is missing an apostrophe, and you can't just presume all readers will know which nations this description includes
• "which is notable for being a musical departure from her previous material"..... the use of "notable for" is a blatant personal opinion, and doesn't even describe what the change involves.
• Calling a track a "hit" isn't professional tone
• Not sure awards are worth mentioning. Either way, "gained her credibility among critics" is irrelevant here.
• Per my comments on this not being a singles discography, get rid of the key codes for singles, promo singles, and B-sides

At least until the above is resolved, I must oppose this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have created the article and, while admittedly short, it is comprehensive in the history of Coastal Carolina head football coaches and has a lead that is well-sourced. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Please note, I don't know anything about college football being British and a fan of proper association football ;-)

  You may have an argument with "proper", I've never heard a foul called for "giving him the business" in soccer.

• In the first sentence you only refer to "The Coastal Carolina college football team" and then introduce the "Chanticleers" name in the second sentence without any context. To avoid this, and potential sea of blue concerns, I would reword the first two sentences as "The Coastal Carolina Chanticleers represent Coastal Carolina University in college football. The team competes in the East Division of the Sun Belt Conference, part of the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision."

  Fixed: I worded it slightly differently than your suggestion, with the only difference being "The Coastal Carolina Chanticleers football team represents..."

• Numbers lower than 10 (in this case 3) should be written out as words

  Fixed

• "since it began play during the 2003 season" - surely the team began play at the start of the 2003 season, not during it (which implies midway through)?

  Fixed: changed to "since it began play in 2003"; if you think something like "since it began play for the 2003 season" would sound better I can change it to that, but I think my change conveys the meaning and cuts down on some unnecessary wordiness.

• "the team has played 204 games over 16 seasons" - 2003 to 2019 inclusive is 17 seasons, surely?

  Fixed: it is indeed. My math failed me here somehow.

• "Coastal Carolina has not yet made [singular] ....... but they [plural] made....."

  Fixed: changed "they" to "it".

• "he hadn't held" => "had not held"

  Fixed

• Note 1 - how is this relevant?

  Comment: notes 1–4 are part of Template:List of college football program head coaches key, so they appear the same on all of the "List of SCHOOL head football coaches" articles regardless of when each program was founded. If you think switching the template for an identical wikitable without the notes would be appropriate for this article I can make that change.

• Most of note 2 also doesn't seem relevant.

  Comment: see comment above.

• Note 5 - "Statistics correct as of the end of the 2019–20 college football season." this is not a complete sentence, so should not have a full stop.

  Fixed: changed to complete sentence and retained the full stop.

• Two of the refs show the full website address i.e. with the www and .edu/.com, but no others are written like this. To be consistent with the others, I would show the actual name of the publisher.

  Fixed: coastal.edu → Coastal Carolina University and si.com → Sports Illustrated.

• Date formats in the refs are not consistent - some are month first, some are day first. As this is a US subject, month first should be used throughout.

  Fixed: moved all dates to mdy format.

• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  ChrisTheDude, thank you for taking the time to review the article! I appreciate the feedback and my responses can be seen above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I suppose the notes in the template aren't really a big deal. BTW we have had plenty of crazy referee calls in the round-ball game too :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Criterion 3c. Sorry, but this three-item list could easily be placed into the main Coastal Carolina Chanticleers football article, and I don't consider it to be long enough to justify splitting it into its own article. Therefore, I think the article fails to meet that part of the FL standards, so I feel forced to oppose. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I would agree... oppose Aza24 (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with Giants2008. I regretfully oppose this nomination. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As it has been well over a month since the last vote, and I think we can all agree that this will not pass as the current time, I am withdrawing the FL nomination. My thanks to ChrisTheDude for taking the time to help me improve the article. I'll be back with a better, and more qualified, article, in some time. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has a reference for each award, its lead is huge, and it's ready for FL. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment please note that the nominator is not a significant contributor to this list, and per WP:FAC, did not consult the top editors of this list before nominating. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Favre1fan93: Well, now thinking about it, can I remove my nomination? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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