Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/January 2007

It's useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, uncontroversial, stable, well-constructed and meets manual of style requirements. (Not a self-nomination for once) Tompw (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator. Tompw (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - same reasons as for Bangladesh. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose; again, see my rationale for the Bangladeshi list. A box score is not a Featured List. -- Kicking222 17:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kicking222.--Wizardman 01:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Manecke 20:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list has developed over the years (by a community effort) into an excellent list. It's useful for anyone who wants to study seeds as food, it's comprehensive (I'm amazed at what seeds people eat), it has references, it's uncontroversial and stable. And the lead section is quite thorough, also.

*Support and nominate hike395 06:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not comprehensive, inconsistent structure and lacking enough references.

• The list's entry criteria need to be defined. I can't see how a list of all edible seeds can be constructed as it would be huge. By "edible", the list includes seeds from which we only eat an extract (e.g oil or gum) rather than eat whole. You may want to reconsider that. Man has had a go at eating most plant seeds at one time, and even the toxic ones probably have some medicinal value and might be consumed somewhere.
• This list could aim for a summary style approach that leads off to other lists (of nuts, oils, beans, etc). However, it would then have to set some kind of criteria/threshold for the shorter set of entries that are listed. Perhaps some commodities source could indicate the top beans by sale volume, for example?
• The groups are a mix between type (bean, nut, cereal) and usage (beverage, oil, snack). Thus we have soy mentioned as a bean, an oil and a beverage. For a single list such as this, possibly plant type is the only grouping that avoids overlap. It is hard to define a natural "snack" food since almost anything could be consumed as such.
• The "Fruits eaten with their seeds" would be huge as by definition all berries are included. Most of the seeds are probably undigested so perhaps that could be considered a reason to exclude them.
• Have a look at List of vegetable oils. Almost all the entries have inline citations and include a short piece of information. This is the standard we are looking for.
• Quite a few of the links could be improved. Two bad examples are for nut and acorn.

Colin°^Talk 23:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks, Colin, for your incisive feedback. Let's discuss them one issue at a time:

Comprehensiveness/Entry criterion. Unfortunately, if we use a commodity volume cutoff, I would find the list much less informative and charming: I like the list precisely because it lists obscure seeds. Would you accept the following criteria: if the WP article mentions that a plant's seed is edible, then it should be placed into this list. I'm open to other criteria.

Inconsistent structure: yes, good point. Snacks and fruits eaten with their seeds could be rationally excluded. In fact, one could argue that the list of vegetable oils is such a wonderful list, that WP would lose nothing by only including seeds that are directly a foodstuff, rather than yielding a derived product. In this case, the list would be organized by bean, nut, cereal.

List of vegetable oils as standard: As much as I admire that article as a paragon of WP list-making, I would respectfully point out that the criteria listed at WP:FL? are not nearly as strict as your proposed standard. WP:FL? guides us to feature lists containing a reference section, and inline references "where appropriate". Nowhere is a short piece of information per item suggested. Is short piece of information + inline citation per item really a community standard?

Bad links: Could you clarify? I'm happy to fix, but not sure what you mean here.

Thanks again for your feedback! hike395 03:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly later: cut out beverages, oils, snacks, to address Colin's concerns. Further comments? hike395 03:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I see only two options: go for completely comprehensive, or summary-style. If the latter is less "charming" then perhaps this charm could be moved to "List of edible beans", etc. Re: "informative", I would say that without a sentence per seed, the list isn't very informative without clicking through to the article.
• The FL criteria are a minimal set of fairly objective tests. Editors are allowed to express their subjective views on the quality that makes up the "very best work" and "professional standards". You can disagree and if others disagree too then perhaps the consensus is different to what I've expressed. I really think that a sentence would be a big improvement. Think about colour, taste, size, hardness, cooking method, notable recipies, world-distribution, cultural importance, etc. There can't be many Featured Lists that have just a bare list of wikilinks.
• In the Nuts section, the wikilink for nuts is a disambiguation page. Also the entry for acorn has a link to oak, which isn't so useful. There were others were the link/redirect took me to a long article page on the plant/tree. It might have been better to wikilink to the section on the edible nut/seed in that article.
• Re: "if the WP article mentions that a plant's seed is edible". Don't use Wikipedia as a reference. Try to find some reference or culinary books on nuts, beans, spices, cereals, etc.

Colin°^Talk 00:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess I'll go for summary style, moving the more obscure seeds to their own lists. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization has its own list of commodity foodstuffs, so we can base it on that. And, we'll add more information per item, too. User:Waitak has volunteered to help out on expanding the information, but he is affected by an earthquake, so it may take several days. hike395 04:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. It would be nice if someone else offered an opinion and suggestions. I guess some folk are on holiday. Don't be afraid of failing (due to lack of time/supporters) this time – you can resubmit when ready. Colin°^Talk 09:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are right --- we may wish to withdraw and work on it at leisure, then resubmit. We'll figure this out. hike395 10:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talked it over with Waitak --- I'll withdraw the nomination and we'll resubmit later. Thanks! hike395 08:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be currently in the same condition as List of Virtual Boy games. FullMetal Falcon 02:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. Appears to be comprehensive, but please expand the lead. Also, "Bound High, considered to be one of the most promising Virtual Boy games", by who? This seems like a non-NPOV sentence. You might instead want to add an image of the console. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the article: "Hiroshi Yamauchi, the president of Nintendo at the time, mentioned Bound High as the most promising Virtual Boy title in his keynote speech." I seemed to not have gotten around to citing it though. In any case, there are a number of sources that state that Bound High and Dragon Hopper were the two best bets for the Virtual Boy. I can assure you that it's not OR. --SeizureDog 19:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The two personal web sites listed as references are each authored by a few student fans. The list contains non-notable games that each failed in a non-notable way. We don't have lists of failed pop-stars or unpublished novels (do we?). It is an expansion of the list at the end of List of Virtual Boy games (that section has the same faults). Colin°^Talk 13:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you suggest to go about sourcing it? There's not an "official" list to look to; most of the titles are only known because of brief mentions in magazines or showing at E3. I suppose they might be able to be souced individually, but that would mostly just consist of linking to subpages of that same website since Planet Virtual Boy does a good job of providing articles and screenshots for each game to prove that it did exist. And while we may or may not have lists for the things you mentioned, this list is at least able to be complete as there's not that many games to have (or mostly in any case, no telling how many games were cancelled that were never annouced). --SeizureDog 19:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The restrictions that Wikipedia places on itself mean that it cannot contain all world knowledge. Unless these games have been written about by a reliable source, then this list cannot succeed. If that is the case, it would even fail AfD (except there'd be too many fans "voting" keep). Colin°^Talk 20:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this alongside music of Italy, a recent (though unsuccessful) FAC, and I think it's a very useful list of terms used to describe aspects of Italian music. Note that this is not the same as Italian musical terms used in English (e.g. tempo, adagio). The only thing its lacking in is pictures, of which I'll add some momentarily. Thanks, Tuf-Kat 06:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - first thing that comes to mind looking at it is WP:NOT a dictionary.... Renata 17:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think of this as a dictionary at all. Encyclopedias define jargon and explain the meanings of specialized terms. Tuf-Kat 02:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Looks like a list of foreign-language-dictionary definitions to me, albeit specialised for music. A glossary. It fails on 1a (blue links to related articles) and 2b (sections). I suggest you add sections for dances, instruments, songs, etc. Very well referenced, which makes a pleasant change :-). Colin°^Talk 00:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about adding sections as you suggest and moving it to list of Italian folk dances, instruments and song forms (or something)? And I never understood 1a to mean that every item had to be a link, but just that it had to not be mostly red links. Tuf-Kat 03:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the current name is fine. The other name is too long and specific. Re 1a, I was more interested in the 1st sentence about bringing together related articles. The Italian musical terms used in English gives the appearance of doing just that. However many wikilinks just redirect to Musical terminology, which is another list like this – seems pointless to link from one list of definitions to another. I guess the authors were hoping someone might change the redirect to an article at some point. The stumbling block is "Wikipedia is not a dictionary (point 2: Lists of definitions)". Colin°^Talk 09:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sections made. Tuf-Kat 21:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I really like the other one (Italian musical terms used in English). I think it would have a good shot at being featured (if it is comprehensive enough?) Rmhermen 06:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italian musical terms used in English is nice, but it has some problems (e.g. tuba is an English word of Italian derivation, not an Italian musical term used in English). But anyway, it's totally unreferenced and has a terrible lead. Tuf-Kat 20:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I like this article. It's well referenced, and specialized dictionaries can be useful. However, a lot of entries look like "balùn: A folk dance". That doesn't really tell me much, and doesn't distinguish it from "rezianka zagatina: A folk dance". The article author can't really be expected to write stubs about every one of these terms for linking, but it would be nice to have a little more detail. Gimmetrow 00:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After an ugly history of copyvios, I believe that the kinks of this article have been ironed out. The list, as it is an episode list of a still-airing show, won't ever be completly finished, but the list is comprehensive and organized. There hasn't ever been an edit war on this article, as well. PullToOpen^Talk 00:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator - PullToOpen^Talk 00:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The level of detail in the plot summaries is inconsistant. Some are single sentences and others are full paragraphs. It would be better to fill the single sentences than to cut the paragraphs. Jay32183 17:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - per excessive use of fair use images. Renata 17:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • erm... this again. -- Ned Scott 20:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Without getting into a screen shot debate (again), they would at least need fair use rationales written up for them. For example, Image:The Serpent's Lair.jpg, Image:Lost title card.jpg, etc. -- Ned Scott 20:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I have just put fair use rationales on every screenshot used on that page. PullToOpen^Talk 20:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Excellent. -- Ned Scott 23:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - good list - good use of fair use images within a list - a good example to other lists - I would however like to see the 4:3 squares removed and replaced with a true 16:9 tv screen capture. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Issues with references and episode summary:

• The WP:NOR policy clearly says that secondary sources are preferable to primary (i.e. making the reader watch the program to verify the info). With this series, there exist numerous secondary sources from which to draw on. This includes the official Fox web site, that contains a page per episode that could be an inline citation for each one. This would also provide a reference for the "Original airdate" that is currely unsourced. It would provide a much preferred reference on which to check the episode summary.
• Speaking of which... the formulaic nature of House means that practially every episode follows the same path of exotic differential diagnoses before concluding with the correct illness. If the editors are serious about writing an encyclopedia rather than a TV Guide, then the conclusion must be included in this list, either as a table-cell or in the summary. Wikilinking the exotic illness(es) would greatly enhance this list's usefulness. Imagine a list of football matches that didn't include the final score.
• The few references that there are, include IMDB. The reason why this is not a reliable source can be found in the text at the bottom of the IMDB episode-list page "You may add a new episode for this TV series by clicking the button on the left."
• The lead is short and of US focus (I know it is a US drama, but is is broadcast worldwide).
• Clicking on just the first three pictures shows that they don't have fair use rationales (there needs to be one for every "use" that you claim to be "fair"). Renata is entitled to express her interpretation of the fair-use rules, which so far haven't been decisively established one way or another by anyone of legal and unbiased opinion. The usual excuse of "identifying the episode" is particularly lame for some of the pictures as they consist merely of puzzled doctors that could be taken from any episode.

Colin°^Talk 23:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- decorative use of unfree images. Jkelly 00:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Just for clarity, is this the "there are too many" or the "they weren't carefully selected and don't have the informative purpose" argument? Jay32183 01:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been said on almost every single FLC for episode lists, including those promoted to FL status. It's more of an argument for a larger fair-use discussion than it is for this FLC. The fact of the matter is that we don't all agree on what is excessive / decorative use of screen shots on a list of episodes. I don't see this as an objection that can reasonably stop a list's promotion. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I agree with Colin: it needs the diagnosis. -- User:Docu

  A list of the diseases that each episode features is being created at List of diseases featured on House. Would the two lists be merged? PTO 18:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Not necessarily. If there is a separate list with that info, this is sufficient for me. -- User:Docu

• Weak oppose: Far better than I remember it from a few weeks ago, but the airdates need sourcing. Plus, the diagnoses are needed, which are in progress. --Wizardman 03:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Some of the synopses could use work, eg: "After returning to work after being shot, House takes on two cases at the same time" isn't overly informative, and repetition of "after" should be eliminated. The bolded ref marks in the titles near the end look odd, but that's a quick with the design of {{Episode list}}. On the other hand, the episode number field is narrow - could the season episode number use the "EpisodeNumber2" field? Gimmetrow 00:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination - Groups the most notable past and present natives of the U.S. state of Kentucky in one place, organized by area of notability and connection to the state. This is my first time nominating anything for Good or Featured status, so any feedback is appreciated. Acdixon 17:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - lead is too short. Renata 17:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead pretty much sets forth the criteria for inclusion in the list. What other information should be conveyed? Acdixon 21:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the criteria for famous in the list? I'm always a bit reluctant to support lists like famous, notable, important, etc since they're so easily subjective. -- Ned Scott 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the same notability guidelines for Wikipedia articles apply to this list. In other words, if they are notable enough that a Wikipedia article about them would survive a speedy delete challenge, they could be included here. Acdixon 21:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I'm not sure how useful that is. The problem with a list like this is that it may or may not be significant that they have a connection to Kentucky. If this list is supposed to include a link to every article about someone born in or significantly connected to Kentucky, then a category might be a wiser choice. I know a lot of work was done on this article, and that's great, but.. I think someone might have missed the point. -- Ned Scott 00:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The lead doesn't summarize the topic well, and should include at least one example of a very famous Kentuckian or explain what do you mean by famous. Otherwise, a very nice list. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I support the suggested (talk page) name change to List of people from Kentucky. This would be consistent with all other similar lists and satisfy Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions which explicitly discourage the use of "famous" and IMO "Kentuckian" is an awkward word. All people in such lists must be notable (i.e. have or may be expected to have an article) so the adjective is redundant. In addition, fame is a more fleeting and subjective adjective than just being notable for something.

• The life dates should use ndash and mdash as appropriate.
• Don't wikilink every "notable for" such as "actor". Generally you only link the first occurrence.
• There's too much reliance on IMDB (and the URL often isn't to the Bio page that contains the info). IMDB is largely user-contributed with minimal editorial review, as such it doesn't count as a reliable source. I'd forgive this for the "Notable for" but not the main criteria – their connection to Kentucky. So please try to find an alternative. Google for the name + town or state. Try Google Books and other book sites to dig up any biographies. Are there any local newspapers online that you can search?
• I don't think you should hyperlink the "publisher" field of cite web. The URL for the article is quite enough linking.
• The lead is too short, as other have said. The lead is your chance to to sell the article to us. Why should we be interested in people from Kentucky? What are they particularly famous/renowned for? If you lack inspiration, ask for help on your WikiProject. Colin°^Talk 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support. The list has a nice structure: "Connection to Kentucky" makes it clear why people are included. For people where the article provides the references, a specific one shouldn't be needed in this list. Just two things that should be fixed: the list should be renamed to remove "famous" from the title. Living people's year of birth should be listed as "Ned Beatty (b. 1937)" or "Ned Beatty (born 1937)" rather than "Ned Beatty (1937-)". -- User:Docu

Thanks for your support. Will moving the article to List of people from Kentucky right now affect people's ability to comment on the list's nomination in any way? If not, I will move it ASAP. Acdixon 14:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. The list itself looks very good, but it feels too subjective. I'm alwasy extremely reluctant to approve "list of famous ____" becuase the criteria sually varies between people. Plus not everything needs a wikilink if there's other ones on the page. Also, I can't approve anything where the lead is one sentence. --Wizardman 17:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The list is almost there, there are a bunch of minor formatting/style things which need work, however:
  • I support the page move to list of people from Kentucky; since this nomination will probably fail within a day or two, move the page, work on fixing up the list a bit, and then come back.
    • I've requested the move from an administrator. For some reason, I'm unable to do it myself. Acdixon 14:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has been said, the lead is too short. Sure, it describes the page all right, but can you put in a little more detail? I might suggest listing criteria for inclusion; for example, Diane Sawyer wasn't born or raised in KY, but she lived in Lexington for some period of time and anchored a news show there. How long did she have to have lived there to be on the list, or does she actually not belong on the list?
    • Since WikiProject Kentucky is finally getting active again, maybe I can find enough people to build a consensus on criteria now. Incidentally, Diane Sawyer was born and raised in Glasgow, Kentucky. Acdixon 14:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the section "Infamous / dubious" so there's no slash. I think just "Infamous" is fine. As for all sections: I'd change the names so that they talk about people, not about what they did (i.e. Scientists instead of "Science," etc.).
    • Good suggestion. As a technical writer, I'm surprised I didn't notice this. Acdixon 14:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't link to the same thing so close to each other; link once to actor and then not again. Same goes for things in references, like National Aeronautics and Space Administration (and it's okay to call it NASA).
  • Somebody correct me on this one if I'm wrong, but shouldn't a date like 1825-1903 be separated by an –, or –?
  • References: it's not "IMDB.com", it's the "Internet Movie Database". And as for IMDb – if you can find any stronger references, that would be great, because IMDb is user-submitted, like Wikipedia, but users don't have to cite their sources, unlike Wikipedia. See if there's any sort of news publication that lists these things. Typically birth places aren't so far off on IMDb, but its trivia sections are less credible and weaken the reliability of the source.
  • Also for References: make sure to take the exact title at the top of the page; something like IMDb doesn't say "Ned Beatty Bio," it says "Ned Beatty."
• Good work overall though. Come back once the page has been improved a little bit, though, and I'd probably support it. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Self-nomination). Complete and up to date, with no red links. --mdmanser 06:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support My only concern is that it won't get kept up to date... however, international Twenty20 matches are fairly rare, so it shuldn't be a major difficulty. Tompw (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - same reasons as for Bangladesh. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose, also using my same rationale as the FLC discussion for the Bangladeshi list. -- Kicking222 17:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Self-nomination). Complete and up to date. --mdmanser 06:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nine out of eleven bluelinks is good enough for me. My only concern is that it won't get kept up to date... however, international Twenty20 matches are fairly rare, so it shouldn't be a major difficulty. Also, have you considered havign a key for the abbreivated column headings? Tompw (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. We've been here before with cricket lists. Bangladesh have only ever played one Twenty20 match, so the list is basically just the statistics of a single match. As such, the intro is just too short (because there's really nothing to say) and it would be hard to argue that this represents Wikipedia's best work. Wait till they've played a dozen or so matches, when there'll be something meaningful to say about the stats (who has been their best player, for example) and then renominate. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose This is just a box score with a four-sentence summary. It's certainly a good list, but does it represent the best of WP? Not at all. -- Kicking222 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Best work: This complete information is unavailable on other websites
2. Easy to navigate: With images to help readers to read the list
3. Well-Constructed: Information sorted in a systematic way.
4. Comprehensive: Covers all towns in the Golden Horseshoe
5. Stable: Not in any edit wars.
6. Images: Precise images with colour keys.
7. Factually accurate: Information taken from atlases, and references given.
8. Layout: Easy to read, information divided into categories.

The list should be nominated as a featured list because this list provides complete information of ALL towns and townships in the Golden Horseshoe. The list is filled with complete information, and an image to help explain the list. As stated in the criteria, the list is accurate, stable (not in any edit wars), and well-constructed. The list also provides references.

--Smcafirst or Nick • Sign Here • Chit-Chat • Contribs at 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Self-Nomination)

• Oppose.

This list is not [1(b)] comprehensive. It lists nothing but the cities' names. Population, Density, ruling party, economy, founding dates? We need some more info for this list to exemplify our best work.

As for 1.(c), the sentence about population in the lead is not cited. And single reference to which the article referes not once by way of inline citations gives one pause.

As for 1.(f), I belive the article needs work. This list is visually bland and does not encourage the reader to navigate it. In this respect, List of municipalities of Portugal exemplifies our best work. Finally, per 2(a), the lead needs work. Keep plugging away and use the the portugal list as an example. If Golden Horseshoe gets to that level, I'll be glad to vote for it. :) --Zantastik talk 00:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: In addition to Zantastik's comments, I think that this list would be improved with each county somehow having its location given in a map. Also, the one reference given worries me a little. How is this list doing more than regurgitating the atlas? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Miss Madeline. --Zantastik talk 01:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed; has a concise lead sections and, apropriate headings. It has no TOC due to having only three sections; and has no images as there aren't any that are suitable. (I know that a map of the ridings would be very nice, but all such maps I've come across are Crown Copyright and thus not suitable).

In the list's previous nomination, there were two main objections, which I don't feel I addressed properly at the time:

1. The layout used is not scalable. If you look at User:Tompw/sandbox3, you will find two versions of the table expanded to include future elections. The first shows that the current format can easily include the next two elections (including proposed new boundries) with minimal linebreaks, and would thus last until about the 5th election (~2016). At the bottom of the page you'll find a version with seven elections, but more linebreaks. I should point out that if a MLA is elected more than once, their box will span multiple columns, and thus their name won't have a line break.
2. There's only two elections. Firstly this number will go up. (Don't take my word for it - the Canadian Constituion says so). Secondly, the implication is that he list isn't "useful". However, this list definately brings "together a group of related articles that are likely to be of interest to a user researching that topic" (the topic being Nunavutian elections)

(self-nomination) Tompw (talk)

• Oppose. Primarily, it is too short. How many votes did each person get, or what percentage? Were there any other candidates? I'm not sure how useful it is, given the brevity. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that providing the results of every single riding is too much information for an article which is a list of *elections*. It already provides the results of the election, which for consensus government means who gets elected. (For Yukon, where there are official poltical parties, the results given are the number of seats won.... again, it doesn't provide details of every riding). Tompw (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still think there should be more information on the elections themselves. Other major candidates, voter turnout, maybe even background information like the age to vote, any addition to the article would be nice, IMO. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's not start recording failed candidates in general elections: too much information. Colin°^Talk 21:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Same as before: list of two. What's the rush to be featured? It's neat and tidy but just too small. Sorry. Colin°^Talk 21:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose This is not even a list of general elections; it's a list of general election winners. Not at all comprehensive (like Hink said, we don't see vote counts, party affiliations, other candidates, etc.), and as a result, not useful, thereby failing to requirements of WP:WIAFL. -- Kicking222 16:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no party affiliations because it isn't a party system. The only way to list the results is to give a list of winners.
• Weak support - I think it meets WP:FL? regardless of its length. However, to make it look more like a list of elections than a list of winners, let’s put links and key information in the table above the names. The link to the articles on assemblies could be moved up, and then we can add columns for premier, voter turnout, and the exact date of the election. --Arctic Gnome 21:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. It's just not too much of a list when there are only two columns of information. I agree with Colin. However, as for images, the map Image:Nunavut-map.png would work well. It's certainy a good list, just not feature-y yet until there are more elections. For example, List of Harry Potter films cast members wouldn't have really worked if there had been only two movies to show trends in casting. It works much better with five. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. After seeing your other lists this one falls short. Doesn't really tell you anything.--Wizardman 15:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't understand the arguments against it. Just because there are few items on the list doesn't inherently make the list useless, and I'm not aware that length is a featured list criteria. Tuf-Kat 16:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list can't be longer as Nunavut is a new creation. Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. • (a) Useful: I think it's useful for people doing research since it gives and overview not fond elsewhere on the web, and everything is referenced to reliable sources. I also found it interesting.
   • (b) Comprehensive: info only for countries I found references for in multi country lists or historical info lists, the African countries may not gather the info. There may also be and English language source bias. Additional sources to make it more comprehensive (if only historically) welcome.
   • (c) Factually accurate: the different approaches finding the totals is not always equivalent, and I haven't found the mid 1970s info's source's source.
   • (d) Uncontroversial: While there may be controversy, there hasn't yet - probably because everything's sourced.
   • (e) Stable: not in any edit wars, quite stable since the big changes.
   • (f) Well-constructed: easy to navigate: by decade, then ordered by rate with option to order by country name alphabetically or any other column.
2. Standards
   • (a) Lead section: the lead was a bit short, but better after its peer review. Missing methodology info.
   • (b) Headings: decades.
   • (c) Table of contents: small horizontal TOC.
3. Images: has a map with the same colors as used in the tables.-- Jeandré, 2007-01-08t22:34:02z, -- Jeandré, 2007-01-09t10:47z, -- Jeandré, 2007-01-21t06:30z

• Support, self-nomination. Possible issues italicized.-- Jeandré, 2007-01-09t10:47z
• Support replaced space with comma; good work Hmains 04:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nice list. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. I would like to see a little more discussion of the differing methodologies used to gather the data. This is rather important, I think. And is there simply no data for that many African counties? I know you've looked, but I can't help but ask all the same! I'll change to "support" if differing methodologies are discussed a bit more, either in the lead or notes (as distinct from the references). Once these issues have been addressed, I'd love to support such an excellent list, impressive as it is on so many levels. --Zantastik talk 20:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I've put it on the to do list. -- Jeandré, 2007-01-21t06:30z

• I'm unconvinced about the "comprehensiveness" of this list, given that I was able to find the number of murders in 1998 and 1999 for Trinidad and Tobago in a couple seconds.[1] I'm also not sure about the meaning of the final column, "Last" in the 2000s section. Guettarda 04:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I've clarified that "info only for countries I found references for in multi country lists or historical info lists", e.g. UN or continent reports, and UK and USA historical info. I haven't searched for individual countries but will start that for the missing ones on the map, begining with African countries.

  The last column is the last known reported figure, used for the map.

  I have a lot of required reading for classes this week, and may only get around to the to do list next weekend. -- Jeandré, 2007-01-21t06:30z

• Note I didn't promote/fail this along with the other lists I did yesterday. Although there is a lack of consensus and insufficient support votes (hence no promotion), I felt it best to wait until Jeandré had sufficient time to deal with the issues raised. If I found that come this Monday (29th) things hadn't progressed, then I'd fail it. Tompw (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't get around to going thru the to do list. If someone else doesn't clean it up, I'll nominate again later when it's done. -- Jeandré, 2007-01-28t20:45z

• Object. Until the to do list is cleared. CG 08:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]