Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2017

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) 23:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): A Texas Historian (Questions?) 04:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first in a possible series of these lists. The Cincinnati Bearcats are a college football team in the American Athletic Conference (my particular focus). They've had 38 head coaches, plus a couple of interim head coaches, no coach, and no team, all of which are annoying to deal with when making a list like this. I've based this loosely on my previous FL of this type, Navy. Mrthespork did a decent amount of base work for this list. I came along and changed some formatting, added sources, and rewrote the lead. Thanks for any reviews, - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 04:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Grondemar

This is a well-done list in line with the previous college football head coach featured lists. In fact, it inspired me to quickly put together List of Connecticut Huskies head football coaches before you beat me to it! I made some copyedits throughout the text; please review. I also have a few other comments:

• Would it help to include some information on the history of conference affiliation? The list shows conference records from 1909–37, 1945–72, and 1994 onwards. I know that the later period is the MAC followed by the Big East / AAC, but without looking at another article I have no way to interpret the starts and stops in conference play.
• Since Cincinnati has never won a national championship, could the NC column be removed?
• I note the table header still calls out "Selected awards", but aside from the dagger indicating election to the Hall of Fame there are no awards listed. I'd recommend either adding a column with the various awards or removing the words "Selected awards" from the table header.
• Consider making the column "No." sortable, so someone can restore the original sort order without reloading the page.
• Consider archiving your references through one of the archiving service; I usually use WebCite although it can be frustrating at times due to downtime. From personal experience, it can be really annoying to have to re-source a featured article or list years down the road because of dead links.
• I changed the alt text on the Tuberville picture from "A headshot of a man in a suit, with an orange tie, looking slightly to the left of the camera" to simply "Tommy Tuberville". If you read the current version of WP:ALT, they are now discouraging the "thousand words" narrative descriptions of images in favor of a more-functional approach.

Otherwise, everything looks good to me. I look forward to supporting when the above minor issues are addressed. –Grondemar 20:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Texas Historian you've had these comments here for ten days now, do you intend to address them and continue with this nomination or should we archive it? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll try to get to them sometime today. If I don't, feel free to hit me with a fish. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 13:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Texas Historian Fish? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, I'm getting to it. I'm almost finished on one of his points, and I'll get to the other ones soon. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 05:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is pushing 2 months, with one set of comments pushing 1 month old without being addressed; I'm going to close this nomination as stalled. Feel free to renominate once you take care of the issues. --PresN 00:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC) [2].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list. The list has recently passed an A-class review from Military history project. Each and every alumni have been referenced with reliable sources. Also the prose content in the lead and individual sections were referenced. The list also holds considerable importance in the scope of WikiProject India as National Defence Academy is of top importance. The list is comprehensive enough to be promoted to FL. Please suggest any improvements required. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC) (part 1)[reply]

Comments from Dharmadhyaksha: Use Template:As of Out of 74 entries tabulated, only 12 images are present in tables. There are some tables where there is no image column. In such cases of irregularities it is best to not keep any columns of images and simply add few selective images outside. (Example FL) I would prefer calling the column "Notes" over "Notability". You may take second opinion on this. I would also not prefer bulleting points inside that last column. Small complete sentences would be better. For example Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore's last column would shrink considerably and better still give lucidity in reading. You may take second opinion on this. Param Vir Chakra list uses "Conflict" column. But Maha Vir Chakra's uses "Year". Try bringing consistency More to come... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Dharmadhyaksha: Thanks for the review. Made corrections as per your comments and the Example FL. Again thanks for the issue of bulleting points, actually when I have gone through some MILHIS FLs I found none were organized in the way. In the most of the lists I found the style that I presently used, and is inspired from the list more similar to this; List of United States Air Force Academy alumni. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk mail) 14:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] I changed all current/present to "incumbent". I think that's a better word. What is the normal procedure of listifying names of military people? Means do we always write Major ABC, Admiral PQR, General XYZ or should we only mention the name skipping their posts? The List of United States Air Force Academy alumni seems to mention only names. S. K. Kaul is mentioned as Wing Commander in one list and Air Chief Marshal in another. Such discrepancies would be avoided if titles are scrapped per my above point. @Dharmadhyaksha: Done. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The sub-sections of this list are quite complicated and not easy to surf. Currently they are divided as Chief of Staffs (A, N, A), Wartime Award Recipients (PVC, MVC, VC), Peacetime award recipients (AC, KC, SC). Can this be revamped to simple three sections as Army, Navy and Air Force? I know it's a lot of work but we would bring down 10 lists to just 3. Opinions of others are welcome on this point. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: More section doesn't mean that the list loses its eligibility. Even if divide per the services, how do we differentiate between the chiefs, awardees (peacetime and wartime, each category has one to two awards with the awardee names), sub-section will also be needed then. If we go down with a single list for each service, then it would complicated to find out a specific subject. Anyway, let the community decide. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winning an award or being appointed on a certain position is not a qualifying factor. After finishing their studies in NDA, what field they joined in or not joined at all should be the more relevant factor of sorting out these people. All the posts they held or awards they received can always go in notes section against each entry. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: But the list is based the notable alumni only. That's what I am saying, it would complicate to find a subject. I think the present structure will be clearer than the one proposed. I ping PresN and Giants2008 to look over this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All "lists of alumni" are always the "list of notable alumni". We do not include names of all students that have ever enrolled in. Check alumni lists like that of Washington & Jefferson College and University of Central Florida which are generic institutes where the alumni's are sub-listed per the field they went into. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: But this is for one single profession. Let us wait for some other to fall in. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't count Army, Navy And Air Force as same professions. Waiting and more opinions are good. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged for my opinion- personally, I don't find the list confusing to navigate. I think that you could change it into three sections (army, navy, air force), but I'm not sure that you could combine everything in a section into one table, without abusing the "notes" column pretty severely to get the chiefs of staff to sort together and the peacetime award recipients to sort together, etc. It would be a lot of work. Also, checking other example FLs, they're not using that single-table format: List of United States Air Force Academy alumni, for example, is basically the "air force" section of this list, but then subdivides all the types of notable alumni into sections. Following that, you'd have to split this list into the three sections, and then have multiple subsections for each- at least 3 (chiefs of staff, wartime awards, peacetime awards). I don't think it would be much benefit, if any, for the work. --PresN 17:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another advantage of 3 list proposal would be that no two entries will be listed twice (unless someone in rarest case joins both Army and Navy or such). In this format, S. K. Kaul is listed twice. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: But that is the only case. If needed it can be fixed up with the higher order i.e. at Chief of Air Staff. And as PresN said we couldn't combine everything in a section into one table, without abusing the "notes" column. And also it wouldn't benefit much. You need to have separate sections for chiefs, war and peace time awardees. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see why we need to have award-winners and non-award winners separated out. People took admission here, either went into one of three fields or simply contributed to "other fields". That should be the end of categorization as is concerned with this institute's alumni list. How successful they were by grabbing awards or securing positions is immaterial to the alumni list. That's just peacock-y for the institute maybe to highlight the achievements on their website but is of no encyclopedic value much. Take for example following lists with their subsections like filmographies (feature films, documentaries, plays, tv shows, advertisements, webseries, etc.); literary works (novels, short stories, poems, screenplays, etc.); awards (Academy, Emmy, Nobel, Padma, etc.).... Filmographies are not subsectioned as award winning and flops; literary works are not subsectioned as adapted-into-films and non-adapted-into-films; awards are not subsectioned as for acting, for writing, or such.... They all seem to follow a proper categorization which is missing here.
This should be my last comment on this point and if that isn't sufficient enough to hit the point then I give up for this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: I see that Nick-D and PresN have made clear that the present format is acceptable. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC) (part 2)[reply]

Comments from Dharmadhyaksha: There are way too many acronyms used like PVSM, UYSM, AVSM, VSM, ADC which haven't been noted in full in beginning text or footnotes or such. Yes they are wikilinked on first instance but we should not want readers to surf out every time. My point above of not mentioning titles has been taken care of only in the list but titles still remain in prose sections. The subsection "Other notable alumni" should simply be "Others" as the whole list is of notable alumni. Checklinks is giving errors for few references which needs to be sorted out. I don't think www.haryana-online.com, which anyways is deadlink, meets WP:RS. Bikram Singh and Sushil Kumar are disambig links. Main image of Sudan Block is missing WP:ALT. @Dharmadhyaksha: Fixed all these comments. Let us take more opinions the formatting. I once again ping the FLC director and delegate Giants2008 and The Rambling Man, also LavaBaron, who reviewed this while at A-Class review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nick-D

• The article seems miss-titled: this is a list of notable graduates, not all graduates of this institution.

• All the alumni pages are about notable graduates. I think there is no need to mention that specifically. For examples, see the MILHIS Fls on alumni of institutions.

• How many graduates have there been in total? (a point in time figure would be OK for giving readers a feel for this if nothing very recent is available)

• Added.

• How large and exclusive is this institution? Is it like the Australian Defence Force Academy, which is attended by the great majority of people who go on to become officers in the Australian Defence Force, or is it highly selective? - this is needed to help readers understand why the subject of this list is important.
• Yes it the same way.
• The article lists graduates who are notable for being successful. Surely some graduates have also achieved notability for failures? (eg, graduates convicted of prominent crimes, commanders of highly unsuccessful operations, individuals who unsuccessfully ran for election, etc).

• No such cases of crime have been reported till date, that are notable enough to have an article on wiki.

Nick-D (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yet the article includes individuals who received awards which were not sufficient for them to be considered individually non-notable. I don't accept that none of this academy's graduates have become prominent for negative reasons: such a claim certainly wouldn't be correct for Australia's much smaller and newer equivalent. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Thanks for the review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: What is your stand on Dharmadhyaksha's opinion of reorganizing the list? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it seems that a very high proportion of Indian officers go through this Academy, the fact that a small sub-set go onto high ranks or are awarded high-level awards isn't surprising: this is exactly the background you'd expect for such people. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Any other comments? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments "it is the world's first tri-service academy.[1][2]" worth adding the year of foundation to this statement, e.g. "Established in 1954 and located in Khadakwasla, near Pune, it is the world's first tri-service academy" Khadakwasla redirects to a Dam, not a location. What is "Gaya"? "such as Medical Corps, Dental Corps, Postal Corps, Judge Advocate General's Department. " grammar, needs an "and" before the final department. " in which the Indian Armed Forces have been called into action" "in ... into" repeat. " three Param Vir Chakras, 31 Maha Vir Chakras and 160" per MOSNUM, comparable figures, that three should be a 3. Spell out the table notes in the footer of the table rather than send them to a notes section. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: All done except the last one because the abbreviations exist in each table. Inserting notes at footer of each table with make the list clumsy. Also as I have seen in the many articles/lists, notes are mentioned in the end. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: What is your stand on Dharmadhyaksha's opinion of reorganizing the list? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support List is exhaustively sourced to RS; a W3C check shows all links are current (there were several false positives but those were resolved by a manual check). List is lavishly illustrated and all images have alt tags and proper licensing. Earwig indicates probability of copyvio is Unlikely (15.3%). I had to double-check the claim of it being the world's first tri-service academy as I thought that was the Dwight D. Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy, however, it appears that was only an Army-Navy program so looks good. I am inclined to second the suggestions of others that the list should be observe this is a "List of Notable ..." since it's not a total list, however, Dharmadhyaksha has made the point that all lists of alumni are always lists of notable alumni. Organization is clear and logical and I was unable to find incidences of grammar or MOS errors, though neither of these are my strong suit so I largely relied on the prior reviews of others. The article is very stable with no unresolved discussion on the Talk page and little editing occurring recently other than the nominator and bots. The lede meets the criteria of WP:LEDE and prose and comprehensiveness seem good. All in all I support this as a FL. Very nice job, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga. LavaBaron (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NitinMlk (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC) (Part 1)[reply]

Comments by NitinMlk: ref 85 is a user-generated source, which is written by a person named Priya Aurora. Here's her credentials in her own words: "Write, eat and sleep. Repeat.". Also check the social media links provided by her. She is just a common person with no credentials. So, this source should be replaced. ref 54: its About and Disclosure section says that it's a personal blog, which is written by some ramdon blogger named Oldsailor. It also says that "The views and opinions expressed on this blog are purely the bloggers’ own. Any product claim, statistic, quote or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider or party in question." So, it's not a RS. You removed it, which made the awards & course no. details unsourced. But they can be easily sourced. e.g. for "PVSM, AVSM, ADC" bit, you can cite this or this; for course no., you can cite this. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] ref 119: only thing we know about this user-generated source is that "the Government of India does not officially endorse this site". There isn't even a hint of editorial control. So, it isn't a RS. After removal of this source, we are left with another unreliable source – ref 114 – which isn't providing any NDA-related info. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] ref 120 & 128: allaboutsikhs.com is again a user-generated source with no editorial control. After removal of ref 120, we are left with another unreliable source – ref 115 – which isn't providing any NDA-related info. After removal of ref 128, we are left with ref 121 & ref 122. The ref 121 is unreliable & doesn't give any NDA-related info. The ref 122 is a book & I can't access the cited page, i.e. page no. 238. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] ref 11 & ref 46: these two might have been considered reliable, provided "the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff", as per WP:UGC. But that isn't the case here. You replaced ref 11 with the current ref 10, which doesn't support the content. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] ref 7 is yet another user-generated source, as it has no editorial control at all. You removed it but didn't provide its replacement. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] ref 99: the book is of Kalpaz Publications. Books of this publication are normally mirrors of Wikipedia. For details, please see here. So, they are normally discarded here, although I will leave it to others to decide its reliability. - NitinMlk (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] After its removal, we are left with ref 95, which is unreliable & isn't providing any NDA-related details. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] @NitinMlk: Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] I guess you replaced one source & removed the remaining ones. As yesterday I just glanced over the references, I will check it tomorrow whether the existing sources are supporting the content. Unfortunately, I can only spend a little time at wiki today. Meanwhile, you can look below for some more comments. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] I have looked at the changes done by you & provided some feedback above. Unfortunately, this list requires extensive work to source it reliably. In fact, I have no ideal how it became A-class, esp. with this sort of sourcing. It clearly doesn't meet A1 criteria – WP:MILMOS#SOURCES. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] ref 48 & ref 49: The bharat-rakshak.com is managed by two history enthusiasts, who have co-aothoured a book. As long as the content is credited to one/both of them, it's fine. So, ref 67 is fine, as it's copyrighted to one of them. But ref 48 & ref 49 aren't fine, as their content is uncredited, thereby fails WP:UGC. So, these two needs to be replaced. ref 153: It is written by the editorial team of Indian Defence Lovers Consists Of Professional Writers And Aspirants. But their real credentials aren't known. So, I guess it should be replaced. Now coming to the profusely cited source of unknown reliability – twdi.in: I have already opened a thread regarding it at WP:RSN – Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#twdi.in. It's cited 27 times in the above list. But all of the links are dead. So, please replace them with their archive versions. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] @NitinMlk: I have addressed expect the last one. I am working on that. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] @NitinMlk: Please strike the addressed comments, I am confused and also twdi.in is an RS. It is an organization that maintains the records of wartime gallantry award winners. I see that the discussion also is in support of the source. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, if you are referring to the discussion started by me at the WP:RSN, then please read it again at here. There wasn't any support for it. User-generated sources like twdi.in are removed on sight. I just revisited the article. You have cited the couple of reliable sources suggested by me. So, I've crossed my second point. But all the other issues are still unresolved, although you did add the archive versions of the twdi.in. BTW, you are doing very good work. But please stay away from these day-to-day websites & blogs. And please carefully read WP:UGC. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] @NitinMlk: twdi.in is not a user-generated source. It was a website that was maintained by "The War Decorated India & Trust" that holds the records of the wartime gallantry award winners. I agree that the pages do not have any information regarding NDA. Actually they are the award citation pages. But they are awardee details pages like this. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] And who ran that trust? I guess you neither carefully read the WP:RSN link provided by me nor the WP:UGC. As I mentioned at the WP:RSN thread, this "website was run by "a group of Sainiks", i.e. by a group of soldiers.... We neither know regarding its editorial control nor about the credentials of the editors." In fact, we don't know anything about those people. You could create a website right now & claim to be a group of anonymous soldiers. But that won't make your site reliable. You have to understand that these type of websites/blogs can only be used here if "the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff." In fact, I've already explained this straightforward point to you. But I guess you just don't want to accept it. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] @NitinMlk: I wish to have a broader discussion than just both of us discussing over. Because the discussion doesn't clearly say that the source is unreliable. I would like to discuss this on a higher platform. May on MILHIS coordinator page. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Actually, we didn't discuss the source between us. I discussed it at WP:RSN, which is the proper forum for establishing reliability of any source. I did all those extra efforts to just clear your misconception. In fact, I thought by now you would've have made some efforts to reliably source the above list. But you didn't try to replace even a single problematic source. It's actually quite disappointing. As I mentioned earlier, the above list requires extensive efforts to make it reliably sourced. Till then it should be degraded to CL-Class. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] @NitinMlk: I'll have it sourced reliably within a week or two. Will let you know once I'm done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] @NitinMlk: Please strike the comments that were addressed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: You seem to have a hard copy of Chakravorty's book, as its online preview isn't showing any page beyond the page no. 163. So, please add the relevant lines/phrases in the citations – under the Quote field – so that others can verify the claims. BTW, from the present preview of the book, it's clear that it doesn't contain any NDA-related information. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] @NitinMlk: I have added the NDA link. Would do one from the preview as an example? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Yes, this will take care of the NDA-related content. And I guess the cited book will take care of the rest, although I can't see some of the cited pages in the online preview. So, it seems you've successfully replaced twdi.in. I will strike the relevant comments tomorrow after looking at the list. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Unfortunately, today I can't spend much time at wiki. I just glanced at the lead & it seems ref 10 & ref 11 aren't supporting the relevant content. So, please try to fix that. But the list seems completely free from unreliable sources. And I guess you are very close to resolving my comments. I will look at the list tomorrow. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Please consider all of my previous comments as resolved & collapse them. Now I will start checking the list from the top & keep on commenting about subsequent sections once you resolve my pending comments. Following are the comments pertaining to the lead & the Chiefs of staff section: Ref 10 doesn't support the relevant content. Ref 11 doesn't support the relevant content. The last line of the lead states: "The NDA has produced 28 service chiefs of staff, including the incumbent chiefs of staff of the Army, Navy and Air Force." As Dalbir Singh is no longer the COAS, "Army" should be removed from the above sentence. Chiefs of staff section's opening sentence – "As of October 2016, the academy.....are NDA alumni." – should be updated, as Gen. Dalbir Singh is no longer incumbent service chief. Following comments are pertaining to the Chiefs of the Army Staff subsection: Ref 15 & ref 16 don't have info regarding Rodrigues' NDA course no. Ref 17 & ref 18 don't have Joshi's NDA course no. info Ref 20 seems useless. Why is it cited? Ref 19 & ref 20 don't have Chowdhury's NDA-related details. Ref 22 & ref 23 don't have Malik's NDA course no. detail Ref 24 & ref 25 don't have Padmanabhan's NDA course no. detail Ref 26, ref 27, & ref 28 don't have Vij's NDA course no. detail. Notes field of Nirmal Chander Vij mentions that he is director of Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF), but that's unsourced. I guess the VIF's official site's this page can be cited for that detail. Ref 29 & ref 30 don't have Singh's NDA course no. detail. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] @NitinMlk: Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NitinMlk (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC) (Part 2)[reply]

Comments by NitinMlk: Ref 10 doesn't mention anything about OTA, Gaya. So, it can be replaced with this source, which has the relevant details. Following comments are pertaining to the Chiefs of the Army Staff subsection: Remove ref 20, which isn't serving any purpose in the list, as it is related to the stock market. Notes field of Sunith Francis Rodrigues states that he was 15th COAS, which is both unsourced & factually wrong. In fact, he was 16th COAS, for which you can cite this source. Notes field of Bipin Chandra Joshi states that he was 16th COAS, which is both unsourced & factually wrong. In fact, he was 17th COAS, for which you can cite this source. Notes field of Shankar Roy Chowdhury states that he was 17th COAS, which is both unsourced & factually wrong. In fact, he was 18th COAS, for which you can cite this source. Notes field of Ved Prakash Malik states that he was 18th COAS, which is both unsourced & factually wrong. In fact, he was 19th COAS, for which you can cite this, this, or this source. Notes field of Sundararajan Padmanabhan states that he was 19th COAS, which is both unsourced & factually wrong. In fact, he was 20th COAS, for which you can cite either this or this source. Notes field of Nirmal Chander Vij sates that he was 20th COAS, which is both unsourced & factually wrong. In fact, he was 21st COAS, for which you can site this, this or this source. Ref 32 states that J. J. Singh was 22nd COAS. But the Notes field states that he was 21st. So, it should be corrected. ref 34 states that D. Kapoor was 23rd COAS. But the Notes field states that he was 22nd. So, it should be corrected. Notes field of S. F. Rodrigues states that he was 32nd governer of Punjab. But the 32nd bit is unsourced, for which you can cite either this or this source. According to 40 ref & 41 ref, Bikram Singh was the 25th COAS, but the Notes field mentions him as the 24th one. So, it should be corrected. Notes field of Vijay Kumar Singh mentions that: he was 23rd COAS, which is both unsourced & factually wrong, as he was 24th COAS, for which you can cite either this or this source. he is a "Member of Indian Parliament for Ghaziabad", which is unsourced. You can cite this source for it. he is a "Minister of State for Statistics and Programme Implementation", which is again unsourced, for which you can cite either this or this source. Both of these sources – and the ref 38 – also mention that he is the minister of Overseas Indian Affairs, which should be added to his notes. archived link of ref 38 needs some fixing. Notes field of this subsection repeats Chief of the Army Staff twelve times. I guess we should just write Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) at the first mention & then write COAS at the next eleven places, per WP:MOS#Abbreviations. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] @NitinMlk: Also done except Rodrigues, Joshi and Chowdhury issue. Thanks providing the book, but it doesn't have page numbers. Any suggestion? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Actually, I provided two different books for these three people. The one for S. R. Chowdhury – i.e. this one – has page nos. But the one for Rodrigues & Joshi doesn't have page nos. as it is only available in kindle format. In such cases, one has to use the |at= parameter in the citation, where you can mention the title of the relevant section, column, paragraph, etc. – for more details, see WP:PAGENUM, WP:CS1#Pages, and WP:CITEPAGE#Other_in-source_locations. You can also give the relevant quotation from the book in the citation's |Quote= parameter. BTW, all of these dozen or so sources took some digging & I couldn't find any better one for Rodrigues/Joshi. Anyway, tomorrow I will check the list & will provide further comments. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] I must say that you need to work on your sourcing skills. I made my first set of comments here on 13th December & they were focusing on the Maha Vir Chakra subsection, where subsequently replacement of unreliable sources took place. That means the other sections – which we are discussing now – were full of unsourced/wrong information from the very start of this review. It seems that you just copy-pasted content from the existing wiki articles to this list without noticing that those articles were also unsourced, e.g. Chief of the Army Staff (1955–present) section has the same mistakes which the above subsection had. So, please don't forget to provide a reliable source for whatever content you add on this wiki. Anyway, I am providing some comments about the next subsection. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following comments are pertaining to List of National Defence Academy alumni#Chiefs_of_the_Naval_Staff subsection:

• Notes field of Laxminarayan Ramdas states that he:

• was 13th CNS, but the 13th bit is unsourced. So, please add a relevant source.
• won Ramon Magsaysay Award, which is again unsourced, for which you can provide this source.

• Ref 53 is a user-generated source, which is written by a user named "Webmaster 1". In fact, it isn't serving any purpose in the list. So, please remove it.
• Notes field of Vishnu Bhagwat states that he was 15th CNS, but the 15th is unsourced.
• Ref 15 states that Sushil Kumar won UYSM, but his Awards field doesn't mention that.
• Notes field of Sushil Kumar mentions that he was 16th CNS, but 16th bit is unsourced.
• Notes field of Madhvendra Singh mentions that he was 17th CNS, but 17th bit is unsourced.
• Notes field of Arun Prakash mentions that he was 18th CNS, but 18th bit is unsourced, for which you can cite this source.
• Notes field of Sureesh Mehta mentions that he was 19th CNS, but 19th bit is unsourced, for which you can cite this source.
• Ref 64 & ref 65 are redundant as other refs are covering the content. So, remove them.
• Ref 66 isn't showing the relevant details. So, please add its archived version, i.e. this one or this one.
• Ref 68 is redundant, as other refs are covering the content. So, remove it. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga these comments have been here for over a week, are you continuing with this nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Sorry for the delay, I got a bit busy, will address them within a couple of days. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NitinMlk: All done, please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, with your latest edits, you replaced 13/14/15/16/17/18/19th CNS with 'Former CNS'. I have already provided sources for 18th/19th CNS in my previous comments. So, at least use them. Anyway, tomorrow I will properly look into your latest changes & the subsequent sections. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, I just glanced at the next subsection, i.e. Chiefs of the Air Staff. The '15th'/'16th'/'17th' bit in the Notes field are unsourced. So, please add relevant sources. Ref 81 mentions that Pradeep Vasant Naik was 19th CAS while the Notes field mentions that he was 22nd. So, please correct it. And don't worry about my previous comments. I will cap them in a day or two. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NitinMlk: Actually there is an issue regarding the Chiefs of the Air Staff, some consider from independence of India (1947) and some from the year the post of re-designated (1955). To avoid confusion I have replaced with former. Any other concerns? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, the designations in question – Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), Chief of the Naval Staff (CNS), & Chief of the Air Staff (CAS) – were introduced by The Commanders-In-Chief (Change in Designation) Act, 1955. Obviously the government of India and all other reliable sources count them from 1955. So, there's no confusion regarding that. Still you can mention that fact in a footnote if you like. BTW, in the present case, the title of the subsection is Chiefs of the Air Staff, which makes it clear that all of the entries were CAS in the past. Therefore, mentioning them as Former CAS in the Notes column is reduntant. Same is true regarding the previous subsection. So, I would encourage you to find relevant sources, rather than using the redundant Former bit.

PS: I will be shifting to a new location tomorrow. And I guess it will take few days before I log in again. So, please try to resolve other users' comments in that time. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NitinMlk: What would you clearly suggest me now? What are the changes that I need to make? This is going way too long, list them all. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note: this nomination is getting close to being closed for being stalled; see if there's any way you can get some more supports or comments soon. --PresN 00:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Close this nom for now, I am hands full. May be some other time. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC) [3].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): –Grondemar 01:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding one more nomination to the growing collection of UConn featured lists, List of Connecticut Huskies head football coaches covers the 30 head coaches in the history of the UConn football program. It is largely in the format of the other college football head coach featured list with a few tweaks adapted from the other UConn featured lists. I believe the list fully meets the featured list criteria; please review and concur if appropriate. Thanks! –Grondemar 01:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments sorry you've had to wait nearly three weeks for any comments, here are mine:

• Could use a lead image to pique interest, you could easily add File:Maryland Football Coach Randy Edsall.jpg with a caption relating to him being the "as of 2017..." head coach.
  • Done, although I really want to replace that image with him in a Connecticut uniform. This is like a list of Chelsea managers with a lead image of José Mourinho in Real Madrid or Manchester United colors. –Grondemar 14:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "The current coach is" needs "as of" really.
  • Done. –Grondemar 14:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I know this follows the kind of standard for college football head coaches, but I recently took a look at List of Celtic F.C. managers and boy the difference in the lead and introductory sections is stark. Would you consider expanding this article in a similar fashion?
  • I'll look into it. I'll note I considered, but decided against, commenting at the Celtic managers FLC that the Managerial history paragraphs seemed to duplicate the two History of Celtic F.C. articles. I'm not sure how you write a managerial history that is significantly different from a team history. –Grondemar 14:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The conference stats could use a four-col wide header above them saying "Conference", similarly a three-col wide one for "Postseason".
  • Done, take a look and let me know if this is what you expected. –Grondemar 05:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of those notes need a ref, especially like 15, which makes assertions about individuals being fired.
  • Added, along with links to the general references that verifies the conference / non-conference split along with the years in conferences / lack of conference championship games / no games being played during some years during the World Wars. –Grondemar 05:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not much, I know, but something to be going on with. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: Thanks for your review. I've addressed some of your comments above and will try to get to the others in the next day or two. –Grondemar 14:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FLC coordinators, please 'withdraw and archive this request for now. I have realized that I will need to hunt down quite a few new sources to add the history expansion requested by TRM. Changes in real-life workload will make it difficult to complete this in a timely fashion. I will re-nominate when I have the time and have fully addressed the comments above. –Grondemar 15:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC) [4].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 18:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list looks like it is very close to meeting the requirements of an FL, and based on my experiences with my first FL, I think I can finish up any remaining issues that are here in the time it will take to promote this. Blink-182 is an icon of pop punk, probably the first one ever that was full-on that way. (Green Day's Dookie set a standard for pop punk, though the band was never really thought of as an important part of the genre as they were for 90's punk in general.) The average person who wasn't as genre-savvy as we are would generally call them "alternative". Blink had two hits that made some really high positions on the charts, and many others which were successful on rock and alternative charts. This will be all we need before we can get a GT on Blink's studio albums, all of which are GAs. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 18:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments sorry it's taken so long for someone to provide some input here, hopefully the following will be of use:

• " twenty singles" infobox says "22".

 Done

• " five promotional singles" infobox says "7".

 Done

• "twenty music videos" infobox says "22".

 Done

• " thirteen million albums in the United States,[2] and over 35 million " 13 million per MOSNUM.

 Done

• "number-one", " at number-six on" no hyphen necessary. (The hyphen in "the number-one spot" is fine though...)

 Done

• Where are release dates referenced, and which territory (territories) are they pertinent to?

 Working

• "7"" or "7" vinyl"? Consistency.

 Done

• Not all singles are referenced.

Don't think this is required, Evanescence discography didn't have it. I just thought it'd be nice to add AllMusic links if they were available, and the ones which are missing them I think don't have them. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it, please. I would like to see some kind of Wikipedia policy (besides the obvious WP:V) which says so. If that's all it is, I don't see what's so wrong about this. Maybe there was something else that satisfied the reviewers at my last FLC. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 12:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't need to "prove it", I need you to disprove it. How do I, for instance, verify even the very existence of ""Dumpweed" (Live)"? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I can verify that one for you. It's just I'm certain that not all of these need it. Numerous FLs go without them but I can see how this one is an outlier. I will fix that soon. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 15:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Similar, items like "Wishing Well" which didn't chart anywhere and don't even have an article, how can we verify their existence?

 Done

• Demos and Guest appearances unreferenced.

 Working

• WP:DASH violattions in some ref titles, e.g. ref 1 needs an en-dash not a hyphen.

 Working That should get you started. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this nomination has stalled; open for months without support and no comments in a couple weeks with outstanding issues. --PresN 02:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC) [5].[reply]

---

Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  17:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second time nominating this for FL, the first time it failed more because of lack of input than any unresolved issues in the list. I came back to this one after taking several other similar lists to FL status such as Mexican National Lightweight Championship, Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship and List of current CMLL Championships. This list has incorporated all comments and feedback I have received from other FLC, FAC or GAN processes I have been through for Mexican based professional wrestling championships. As always I am looking forward to getting any and all feedback to improve this list.  MPJ-DK  17:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • "The promotion had control of the championship from 1946 until, 1996 " - no need for that comma after "until"
  • "up until 2007 where it returned" - should probably be "when" rather than "where"
  • "its holders were determined" - presumably they still are..........?
  • "the title was given the NWA-prefix" - don't think the dash is needed in "NWA prefix"
  • "The championship vacated due after outside interference" => "The championship was vacated due after outside interference"
  • "The championship was vacated by YOSSINO in order to for him to concentrate" - seems a bit mangled at the end...........
  • "The official weight of some of the champions have not been documented" => "The official weights of some of the champions have not been documented"
• That's it for now..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• ChrisTheDude that you for your input, greatly appreciated. I believe I have addressed all your concerns?  MPJ-DK  21:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Some more stuff I've spotted:
  • "its holders are by promoters or promotions, not by athletic competition" - missing word there I think
    • Yes it was missing the word "Determined" before "by"
  • "EMLL vacated the championship for verified reasons." - I'm guessing this should be unverified reasons......?
    • Totally right, good catch.
  • Something seems to have gone a bit odd with the row immediately below Chamaco valaguez' reign
    • Fixed.
  • Also, you have a lot of very short sentences in the lead, and I'd check whether they can be combined into longer sentences which could flow better. For example, you have "In 1996 and 1997 the championship was defended as part of the J-Crown until the J-Crown was broken up into the original individual championships by the end of 1997. The championship was once again inactive after the J-Crown concept was abandoned. The Championship was inactive until over a year later when Dragon Kid became the first Toryumon-promoted champion", which could be written in a much more "punchy" style as "In 1996 and 1997 the championship was defended as part of the J-Crown until the J-Crown was broken up into the original individual championships, after which it was once again inactive until early 1999 when Dragon Kid became the first Toryumon-promoted champion"
• Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made the last update that you suggested ChrisTheDude, I apologize for not responding sooner, at some point this was taken off my watch list and I only say it when TRM so kindly ping'ed me to get my attention. Hope this has addressed all your concerns?  MPJ-DK  16:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more question - the colours in the table indicate that the last few title changes, as recent as last year, were promoted by NWA Mexico, yet our article on the NWA states that "NWA Mexico was disbanded on November 13, 2013"......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmmm I will get that cleared up.  MPJ-DK  20:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MPJ-DK are you still hoping to complete this nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Rambling Man thank you for the mention, I no longer had this on my watchlist for some unnown reason. I have not addressed ChrisTheDude's last comment but I will address that right away. And to answer the question, yes I am still hoping to bring this one to FL status.  MPJ-DK  16:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been open for more than 3 months without enough discussion, so closing as stalled. --PresN 00:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC) [6].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Chase (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has improved greatly from when it was demoted. I have read through the concerns of the demoters and tried to address each concern thoroughly. I believe enough work has been carried out to deserve the FL status again. I have also expanded upon some things that weren't mentioned to best fit the format of the other featured lists of the same category; for example, Lady Gaga videography and Katy Perry videography. Thank you. Chase (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update — Notified at the following talk pages: WikiProject Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson, and WikiProject Lists.

• Support Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Shouldn't the "Notes" for Captain EO specify that it is a short film or even an amusement park attraction?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Deoliveirafan: Done by Chase|^talk 01:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments " at age 5 " five, per MOSNUM Done --Chase

Comment - before I review it, I should add that the lead is very short. Only five out of God knows how many videos are mentioned. Videos released in 70s, 2000s and 2010s are not at all mentioned. Many of his videos from 80s and 90s are also missing. I don't think that you have modeled the lead based on Gaga or Perry's videographies, 'cause they both have at least three paragraphs and they have been in the game for less than a decade as opposed to Jackson, who was active for over four decades. If you cover them properly, you might end up writing four paras. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to FrB.TG: I did not alter the lead in any way from what it was during its previous status as a featured list. I also didn't model the page after those one's; I just used them as a reference for what I expanded. --Chase | ^talk 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add, I mostly addressed the concerns from the article demotion here. --Chase | ^talk 21:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you should have. The lead should also be comprehensive and cover the subject in detailed manner. Completeness does not apply only to the list. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with FrB.TG in that it does seem odd that only five of the music videos are mentioned in the lead. Looking at the FL for Madonna videography for instance, the lead is much larger and more comprehensive of her music video output and I would imagine with someone that received as much attention and had such a large output as Michael Jackson would have a similar scope in its lead. I really enjoy the second paragraph as it comprehensively goes over his appearances in film and television but to have that paragraph be the same length as the first paragraph on his music videos seems a little off balance as I believe Jackson would be more well known for his music than his acting. I apologize for the intrusion, but I just wanted to add my opinion to this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to FrB.TG and Aoba47: Does the lead make it to where you won't support the nomination of the list to featured list? I believe each paragraph expresses the completeness of the material that the article possess and states his most notable works, as examples. Also, to Aoba47's point; the article is about the videos, not the music. I do not believe he is more notable for his works in music videos than he is in his short films. As a matter of fact, Jackson himself would say all of his film media was a short film and not a music video. --Chase | ^talk 18:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I still have concerns over the completeness of the lead. I have to disagree with your statement comparing his notability in music videos and in film as I am much more familiar than any of his film work so I do not believe that generalization is applicable here. The final statement about music videos being a film media can applied to practically any artist now considering the importance and amount of work put into music videos. The main Michael Jackson page has such a long and detailed subsection relating to his music videos, and this lead for this list seems rather shallow in comparison. I fully admit that I am be wrong about this (I have never work closely with videography lists), but I just find it a little odd. @FrB.TG: may have something more to say about this. I have also noticed that you have pinged the following users on the talk page last year (@PresN, Cowlibob, SNUGGUMS, and Azealia911:) and they may also bring something productive to this discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's been over a month since the previous comment about the lead length, CCamp2013, are you going to address this? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you made an edit today CCamp2013, perhaps you're too busy to respond, but please be aware that I will be archiving this nomination in a couple of days unless I hear from you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to The Rambling Man: I thought I addressed it as much as I needed to. The lead, in my opinion, is comprehensive enough and gives a summary of his music video works that were most notable. What FrB.TG is proposing would make the lead too excessive and give undue weight to music videos that are not as important to his career. As I said, this was the lead with the previous status as a featured list, and nothing has changed in the artist's work since it was promoted/demoted. Many users did not have a problem with the comprehensiveness of the lead and it was not the reason for the article being demoted. Also, let's remeber that this is not a list for his music, but for his videos. Chase | ^talk 22:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CCamp2013 well please talk to the two reviewers who both thought the lead was too short, right now the nomination is stalled. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree that the lead is rather short at the moment and could use another paragraph on his music videos. While it certainly isn't necessary to list all of them, having nothing from the Bad album is a big concern, particularly "Leave Me Alone" given its awards. Noting accolades like MTV Video Awards, Grammys, and Guinness World Records for videos should also help. I'm also not sure if Jackson 5 videos are worth adding unless he received some sort of individual credit given how this page is on his solo career. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: I'm going to close this nomination as stalled. It's a big shame, since it's a pretty good list, but it's been four months (which is way over time), several editors have stated that they want to see a lead that contains more information than this one with the nominator refusing, and I both agree and am unmoved by the contention that since it was the lead when it was first promoted 8 years ago it is above reproach. Additionally, although there are 2 supports, I do not feel that they were comprehensive reviews- just skimming the list, I see several minor tense shifts between rows, some grammar issues, and some reference problems (don't put an access-date parameter in a ref unless there is a url as well). --PresN 00:38, 12 February 2017 (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) 23:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC) [7].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): TIAYN (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is not a sexy topic, but come on, give little Laos a chance... TIAYN (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• Lao People's Revolutionary Party should be linked.
  • I linked the first use of LPRP instead done
• "The LPRP has convened 10 congresses since its founding" I would say foundation rather than founding and give the date.
  • Done
• "The 4th Congress, which is the last congress that has been postponed" I am not sure what this means.
  • Done
• The lead is thin, especially as the topic is so obscure. It would be helpful to give more information about the ideology of the party and the system of government.
  • I'll work on it.
• The referencing is unsatisfactory. You need to supply specific references for each statement, not just a general list of sources. This would mean merging the general references into the reflist and following it with the bibliography.
  • Disagree, see Central Committee elected by the 16th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) (which is an FL-graded list). I nominated it, and people accepted it. The table looks more tidy, and structured that way. Discuss? @Dudley Miles:... I'd assume we should exisiting FL as the base...--TIAYN (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Some editors may support articles which are not fully referenced. I never would as there is no way of telling whether some statements are unsupported by citations. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dudley Miles: What are you talking about? It is fully referenced. See "General", the subsection in "References". --TIAYN (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That is just a general bibliography. You need to provide specific citations with page numbers for each statement, as in the Wikipedia instruction when you click 'edit': "Cite your sources: <ref></ref>" As these are not supplied, I have to oppose. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dudley Miles: Page numbers? What are you talking about? They are URL links... I'm talking about "General" and NOT "Bibliography". "General". --TIAYN (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I see you are right that the sources do not have page numbers but you still need to provide specific <ref></ref> citations for all statements. You got an article passed without full specific citations, but I have never seen an article passed without them and they are required under Wikipedia rules. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dudley Miles: Entirely wrong, I got an article passed which wasn't referenced to you're liking. And now you're forcing me to reference the way you like it. Rules changed. If the rules aren't pragmatically applied, then they're bad rules--TIAYN (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Thayer citations are showing harv errors
  • • Not on my computer?! :P

• You need to install the tool at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to see harv errors. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Done --TIAYN (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for bringing something different forward, but it is some way off FLC standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! :) The next one will be either National Congress of the Communist Party of China or National meetings of the Workers' Party of Korea --TIAYN (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• I'm afraid that I'm inclined to agree with Dudley Miles – four citations really isn't enough for a featured list. Additionally, having the entire list of references coming from, by my count, just three publishers can open up questions about neutrality. A Google Books search for Congress of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party returns 9,820 results – could any of these be used?
• Also agree about the prose being rather light.
• "Sturt-Fox" -> "Stuart-Fox"
• "this suggest" -> "this suggests"
• "it's leadership" -> "its leadership"
• Avoid contractions, i.e. it's -> it is
• The full stops in the key can be removed, as those aren't complete sentences.
• 5.(a) of the featured list criteria says that "a minimal proportion of items" should be redlinked, yet 60% of the items in this list are. I would suggest creating stubs for these articles if nothing else.
• Similarly, redlinks needs to be avoided in navboxes.
• Per MOS:NUMERAL, I would suggest replacing "1 day"/"4 days"/"3 days/etc. with "one day"/"four days"/"three days"/etc.
• "69" -> "69 FM"?

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trust Is All You Need are you going to continue with this? If I receive no response I'll archive the nomination in a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC) {@The Rambling Man: Yes, but real life. As chairman of two organisations, as an ordinary student who works part-time, and an athlete, time is an issue. I will, but real life. I'll try to look at it on Saturday. --TIAYN (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are all busy but we can't have nominations lingering for weeks with comments unaddressed. Look forward to seeing you work on them. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Close it, I've got math exams coming up. I won't be able to fix it until after the 27 feb. --TIAYN (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2017 (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) 22:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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