Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2022

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, 25 February 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consulted significant contributor: Felida⁹⁷ (talk)

Encanto. If someone here hasn't at least heard of it, colour me surprised. This film is the biggest thing on TikTok right now and something therapists definitely ARE talking about (Bruno included, even though there's a song that explicitly tells us not to (sorry! Overused joke...)). Point is, this film is great. I'll be reeeeeeaaaaaaaaally angry if it doesn't win at least one Oscar. If you haven't watched it already, please do; you'll (probably) love it, especially if you are the eldest sibling or have experienced transgenerational trauma.

OK, well, it's been almost a year since I nominated something for FL status, and that was promoted half a year ago. I've been looking for something else to do, but I was drawn back by a lack of motivation. Well, once I saw this list, I knew I wanted to get it to FL status. And even though XTools lists me as one of the top contributors, I ain't one at the moment. Those contributions are mostly ref and sorting cleanup. I've consulted the top contributor (Felida97) listed other than myself and the person who split this from the main Encanto article. We (kind of) discussed stability and both agreed it wasn't that big of a problem, given most major awards have announced their nominations. Felida thought it wouldn't hurt to wait until the Academy announced their wins, but I'm terribly impatient, so since Felida doesn't want to nominate this himself, I'm doing it. OK, I think that's everything I want to say. Sorry for the super long nom statement; I just love this film so much. Pamzeis (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Does ref 1 source literally everything up to that point?
  • Uh... no. Fixed. Guess I should have spot checked it before nominating!
• Ref heading should probably be Ref(s) as for some rows there's more than one
  • The unabbreviated bit says Reference(s). Does that work or should I change the header as well?
    • Personally I would change the header too.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Pamzeis (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Think that's actually all I've got - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Responded to your comments :) Pamzeis (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun

• "Alma, the matriarch" → Link matriarch perhaps.
  • Done without the pipe because WP:NOTBROKEN
• "release to Disney+" → "release on Disney+"
  • Done
• That's all, and since these are very minor issues, will immediately support this nom. AryKun (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Lemme know if there's any else.​ Pamzeis (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "to the COVID-19 pandemic." could be more specific about the pandemic article, i.e. link to the "in the United States" COVID article?
• "Despite underperforming at the box office" in what context? What was the expectation, what would have been "overperforming" or just "adequately performing"?
• "and its soundtrack have" overlinked.
• "Best Original Score, and Best Original Song" these appear to link to the same article.
• I think you should be consistent with putting "Awards" inside or outside the link each time in the table. Especially as you pipelink the whole name each time in the summary table in the lead infobox.
• Also be consistent with names, e.g. you have "Critics' Choice Movie Awards" in the table but "Critics' Choice Awards" in the summary table... Check 'em all.
• "nine nominations at the 49th Annie Awards" I thought I only counted 8? Ah, two nominated for the same a, perhaps worth a footnote as these nine nominations couldn't become nine awards...

That's about it on a first pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose: Stability is a criterion for FL, but I'm surprised to see this here so soon, when I would have expected that Encanto could win many more awards yet. I see that the nominator addresses this by saying that "most major awards have announced their nominations", but most isn't all (low-profile awards can be more time-consuming to add to Wikipedia than high-profile ones), and there's a significant amount of pending nominations. It's not just a change of {{Pending}} to {{Nom}} or {{Won}} when the award is announced, but an update of references, too, and such a high proportion of awards are currently pending that the references should really be re-reviewed after that. I don't know that the time is right for the nomination in these circumstances, regretfully, though I would be interested in reviewing it at a later date. (I think the film is excellent.) — Bilorv (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: In light of Bilorv's comment(s?) in stability and sources (something I did not take into account until he commented), I'd like to withdraw this nomination. I'll probably re-nom at the end of March (after the Oscars, which are the last ceremony date listed); hopefully, I'll see y'all then. Thanks to everybody who participated. Sorry for any inconvenience. Pamzeis (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, see you again in a month or so. --PresN 14:18, 24 February 2022 (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) 00:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Nadiallah (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navadurga is considered as nine manifestations of Goddess Durga in Hinduism; I think this list is interesting and informative. This list was created a few years ago but was not in the proper form and has been edited by me as per ideal list guidelines. This list can be a FL, so here it is. Nadiallah (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The sources used here are nowhere close to the kind you would expect for a FL. There's a blog, a kitchen appliance brand website, and several others that are definitely not high-quality reliable sources. AryKun (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing issue seems to have been removed, so I'm striking my oppose. Also pinging ChrisTheDude and Kavyansh.Singh. AryKun (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I really should have actually checked the sources here. Per Kavyansh, I'm unstriking my oppose. AryKun (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the above, there will be unquestionably be better sources available. Also, the text could do with proofreading by a native English speaker, as there are many fundamental issues with grammar, etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Per all of the above reasons. Some sources appear to be written for children, and I doubt if it is reliable enough. But this is a potential topic. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the following sources reliable and of good quality for featured lists (which represents Wikipedia's best work): [3], [4], [5]? The first one mentioned here appears to be for children. Moreover, there is also issue of, as I call it, "invisible uncited text". For instance, "Skandamata" row is cited to Ostor. But, upon verifying, I don't see anything of that kind on Ostor 2004, p. 34. Is that a page number issue. Till that is resolved, I stand by my oppose. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: should this be archived? (t · c) buidhe 00:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, nomination appears to be not going anywhere. Feel free to renominate once the issues presented have been fixed. --PresN 19:27, 9 February 2022 (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.