Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/January 2014

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 not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Well-rested^Talk 06:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is a very fine addition to the many lists of academic journals currently available on Wikipedia. :) --Well-rested^Talk 06:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment, but shouldn't the journal titles all be listed in italics per the MOS and standard practices for italicizing publication names? Imzadi 1979 → 06:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, you're right. Can't believe I managed to miss that. Will fix it in a bit. -Well-rested^Talk 07:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. All journal titles are in italics now. :) -Well-rested^Talk 07:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So, when I saw this, I decided to ask my wife who's a PhD student in Accounting what she thought, and these were her thoughts:

• "The problem with "accounting journals" is that because accounting has so many sub-fields, accounting pubs often pop up in other publications like Admin Science Quarterly" - though I understand that you need to cut the list off somewhere, so I'm okay with you not including journals that are not specifically Accounting focused, even if they publish accounting papers.
• "Also, the submitter must be an auditor because they are missing a bunch of tax journals like Tax Notes, JATA, etc." - you're also missing management accounting journals (Financial Accountability & Management, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Advances in Management Accounting, Journal of Cost Management, etc.) - I'm looking at a list of journals from Penn State here, though it's not comprehensive. She's going to get me a list of journals as considered by the UW tenure process, so I'll post those here when I get them. Also, I disagree, you're more likely in financial accounting.

• Beyond that, I have my own concerns-

• The lead spends the majority of the time discussing academic journals in general, but not accounting journals in specific.
• You really shouldn't have one/two-sentence paragraphs.
• "Recent studies" is a poor term, since it changes meaning over time- instead, maybe mention that studies from 2010/2011 say blah blah.
• So, Journal Citation Reports is the only source for impact factor? Even if that's true, I would expect to see something in the lead saying that you're pulling the impact factor from the latest edition of there (2012), and that they don't cover every journal, rather than just insinuating it in a footnote.
• Ref 46 needs a publisher, and I don't much care for the fact that you don't link things in refs if you've linked them in the main article, though to each their own.

• --PresN 20:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! Just leaving some quick thoughts for now since I have to head off somewhere in a bit. I agree that one issue with the list as it is is its coverage. I tried to rely on secondary sources in compiling the list of journals; the problem, of course, is that as far as I know there is no publicly-available source with an exhaustive list of accounting journals. I therefore relied on two sources: the 2006 study of journals, and the JCR list (cited in the table's headers). I'm definitely open to suggestions regarding how to makr the list "more comprehensive" while still relying on secondary sources.

And yes, accounting researchers definitely publish in other journals. Perhaps I should have worded this article to more precisely refer to journals focused on accounting. I'll try to make these and other changes you suggest in a bit.

--Well-rested^Talk 00:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another quick reply. Regarding "not linking if linked to main article" (I believe you're referring to the journal titles?), I actually added the refs in the column headers, a practice I've seen done in other lists. Or are you referring to something else? --Well-rested^Talk 00:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Quickfail Oppose - just realized that you already have a nomination open; FLC is a one-at-a-time kind of thing. Top of the page- "Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." --PresN 00:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Didn't know about this rule. Do I de-nom this by just removing the FLC template from the talk page?_Well-rested^Talk 00:03, 25 January 2014 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Matty.007 08:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is a complete list of North American currencies; I am attempting to create a similar page for every continent, I have done List of currencies in Europe previously. Matty.007 08:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is it a list of currencies or a list of countries? It seems like you put countries first, and then currencies second. Would it not be better the other way since this is the focus of the page, and it would remove duplications. The way you have it, it appears like there are a lot more currencies than there actually are, "East Caribbean dollar" is repeated 6 times. Mattximus (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I based it on the original List of circulating currencies, and have done two (this and Europe), and am working on another, South America, in this format, which I think is both useful this way around, as it can be sorted by either country or currency, and it is the same as the original (List of circulating currencies), which I was using as precedent. Matty.007 13:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't that seem backwards to you? Shouldn't it be a list of currencies, and under each you could list which countries they circulate? The title of the article is list of currencies after all. Mattximus (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I think that it is easier to navigate, people can sort it by currency or country as they please. Matty.007 18:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why is there a map of the Euro in this page? No North American countries use the Euro... Mattximus (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used the most relevant picture I could find, which shows (in quite some detail) the usage of the US Dollar. Matty.007 13:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There must be a better map. At the very least one that shows North America, and not the whole world. Mattximus (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will look for one. Matty.007 18:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Another I found is this. Which do you think is better? Matty.007 19:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps you should try making your own map with something like File:North America second level political division 2 and Greenland.svg that better fits your list, since none seem to exist. What you just linked to is a world map.--haha169 (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Due to a lack of a proper map. I also still believe that as a list of currencies, the list should be of currencies, not countries (with column for currencies) as this creates duplication making the reader think that there are more currencies in North America then there actually are. There are 17 currencies but this list is 23 rows. Mattximus (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the current image is not very illustrative of the N.A. topic. I'd like to raise the issue I mentioned on the Europe list again: Why do we need a list for every continent? I think this is quite redundant, and if you think the name of the central bank is important, it can be added to the main list. Reywas92^Talk 05:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have lists of many things per continent, but currency, a major part of life, only has one list. I will have a look for a picture. The country bank didn't seem to be an issue in the Europe review, hence it reaminsThanks, Matty.007 09:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mattximus: I'm not good with images, so have requested here a few days ago. Moreover, I wasn't sure what kind of map was needed. If you can tell me I'll have a go. Thanks, Matty.007 16:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• My thoughts:
  • The map, as has been said, is not suitable for this. It needs to focus on North America.
  • The bank website is entirely unnecessary; that can be linked from the currency page.
  • This lacks territories, which sometimes use different currencies than their possessing nations. Not always the case, but sometimes; for example, Bermuda uses the Bermudian dollar, and is not mentioned at all in this article. The intro notes sovereign states, but there's no reason nor expectation to confine it solely to those. The Bermudian dollar (e.g.) is a currency in use in North America and should not be excluded.
  • "Current" in the header "Current North American currencies" is unnecessary, both because one assumes a list is current unless otherwise stated, and because the list also includes previous currencies.
  • Special mention needs to be made in the prose about the multi-currency nations (Panama being the only true one here, though Cuba is also an unusual situation).
  • I would propose that instead of the bank column, perhaps move the information on pegging to there.
  • The intro is half devoted to the East Caribbean dollar, and half devoted to the U.S. dollar. Yet there are over a dozen other currencies used by roughly two hundred million people; either these two dollars are over-represented or the rest of the currencies are under-represented.
  • Why is there a reference in the Country column for St. Vincent?
  • Not entirely sure we need the 'previous currency' column but I'll wait to pass judgment on that one.
  • Things seem a little over-referenced; in every row, the currency sign and fractional unit have the same source. If it's the same as the source that states the name of the currency, I don't think it's necessary; the reader can assume that the row is sourced to the source of the main info point (the currency) in the row.
  • While I see the argument for listing currency first, I'm open to either way. It's a list of currencies in use, and currencies are only used by countries, and (generally) each country has its own currency. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing a draft of a version based on the currency rather than the country.
• Based on these major issues I am forced to oppose at this point. --Golbez (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think that given the amount of issues raised, I will need some time to work on them so would like to withdraw this while I work on the issues. Thanks, Matty.007 17:07, 20 January 2014 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Allied45 (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list status because not only do I believe it meets the criteria, but would also provide a platform to expand the ability for a greater featured content presence for Australian rules football articles (currently out of over 11,000 pages we have only four FAs and one FL). Any feedback will be greatly appreciated as I have never gone through this process before. Thanks, Allied45 (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Why are AFL debuts important, and why does there have to be a list about them?
• Explain to readers that are not familiar with Australian rules football what a "debut round" is.

--K.Annoyomous (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): A1candidate (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list in conjunction with Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day to educate and inform Wikipedia's readers. A1candidate (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – I would advise the nominator to read the Featured list criteria, and make some attempt to meet those conditions in this article. For a few brief points; the tables do not meet accessibility requirements, as set out in WP:DTT. It has not been acceptable to start a featured list with a bold this is a list of... for a long, long time. The list itself has no set inclusion criteria: who says that these are notable people, and more to the point that those not included are not? For example, there are multiple sources that support the fact that Osama bin Laden was under surveillance by the US for months before his death. He is most certainly notable. Harrias ^talk 18:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great topic for a list page. Highly encyclopedic. Educational. Meticulously sourced throughout. Good tabulation and structure. Excellent efforts. — Cirt (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this? What were you thinking, Cirt? Strong oppose / quick fail for the reasons given by Harrias and SchroCat and a few other reasons - poor proze, violations of MOS (title / use of bold), incomplete, sorting by first name rather than surname, inadequate categories... I could go on. It looks exactly like I would expect a list knocked up in a couple of hours to make a political point to look. Peer view is premature - too many basic things to sort out. Bencherlite^Talk 20:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your hesitation, Bencherlite, but A1candidate posted to my user talk page stating his willingness to work on all these issues. Perhaps we should give him a chance. :) — Cirt (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cirt, sorry, but this cannot be sorted out "in a few seconds". The failure to meet criteria 3a is a fundamental one that needs a lot of work to be done to overcome. - SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • But I just don't understand your lack of hesitation before endorsing this as meeting the FL standards, without reservation or any attempt to find anything to improve. Poor show, Cirt. Wikipedia:The Day We Fight Back is no reason to suspend your cognitive abilities and is no reason to rush things. Bencherlite^Talk 21:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Understood guys, thanks. But I don't understand why there is a need to rush things in this FLC, itself. :) — Cirt (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment. I'm tempted to quick fail this, as it's a long way from where we would expect articles at FLC should be. It certainly fails criteria 3(a) of the FL criteria, not to mention falling short of WP:ACCESS requirements. In terms of the rest, the text formatting is poor, table sortability is wrong, some columns which shouldn't be sortable are, and some that should be sortable aren't. There's a disambig link in the text, and one of the images fails NFCC criteria. The referencing has inconsistent dates, shouting text, inconsistent formatting of publications etc. I could go on with more, but there doesn't seem to be much point. I really do advise you withdraw and spend some time putting it right before you go through the nomination process. - SchroCat (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it might be prudent at this point for A1candidate to agree with this idea proposed by SchroCat and move instead to a List Peer Review? — Cirt (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias - Thanks for your comments. It's a pity that the FL criteria at WP:FLCR does not explicitly state that a featured list must not start with such a line, because as an editor who is nominating my first list, such a requirement does not appear to be obvious to me. Could you tell me what's the rationale behind this? The inclusion criteria of my list is defined in the lead section, and Osama does not meet them.

@SchroCat - Thanks for your comments. I believe most of the points you brought up could be sorted out:

1. Inconsistent dates - They're now changed to a date/month/year format
2. Shouting text - Removed unnecessary capitalization
3. Table sortability - You have to be more specific about what needs to be changed
4. Disambig link - Fixed
5. One of the images fails NFCC criteria - Replaced with free image

It's hard for me to make guesses when you simply say "text formatting is poor", could you be more specific about what needs to be changed? I understand that I should have asked for a Peer Review first, but it did not occur to me that such formatting errors are so serious. I believe that these errors have been fixed now, but if that is not the case, I hope you would be more specific about what exactly needs to be changed. I don't see anything wrong with the prose, lead, or structure, but I would be happy to fix it if you tell me directly.

@Cirt - I've responded on your talk page.

-A1candidate (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• With the exception of the image, the errors are still present. You may have cleared up some instances, others still exist. You really need to sort this out in PR, not at FLC: it's just not close enough to the standard to be entered. As a first time nominee you need to spend more time on this—FLs are not created in a day, despite the desire to have them ready for a specific day. - SchroCat (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: A1candidate has placed the List up for Peer Review, at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of notable people under FVEY surveillance/archive1. I'm pretty sure FLC and Peer Review discussions shouldn't go on simultaneously, so at this point it'd be best to close this FLC discussion, and allow A1candidate to focus on the Peer Review. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the article has been substantially cited with reliable sources and is an interesting and informative article. A lot of work from major contributors has been done on this list. This article has been peer reviewed twice and all listed concerns, comments and suggestions has been addressed accordingly. This list is a former candidate of FL, however not promoted, but i have reshaped this article according to the criteria of FL and i think that this time it should be promoted to the status of FL.Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mattximus (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't find evidence of the Mubarak Center actually being under construction. Google sources say it's "pending", and there are pictures of a hole in the ground. I believe in the wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and would be reluctant to include anything that is speculative of a future event, such as pending/on hold/approved/planned buildings. Under construction is even border line but at least it's something physical to report on. Mattximus (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, i have removed Mubarak Centre, as its not on-hold. However the other one Pentominium is on-hold since its construction has been stopped at level 24 and sources can easily been found regarding its status, and its pertinent to mention about Pentominium here as its supertall skyscraper and planned to be 516 meters tall.Nabil rais2008 (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• Slap a "The" in front of Council in the first sentence of both the first and second paragraphs.

• Done

• "residential skyscrapers in the world.,[3][4]" - drop the period

• Done

• "Tallest Block in the world" - you capitalize Block but not world both times you use this- either do full title capitalization or capitalize none of it.

• Done

• Also put a "the" in from of tallest in the first image caption

• Done

• There are several facts in History that you don't have references for

• Done

• "In 2012, Princess Tower becomes the tallest residential building in the world and rises" - tense, both verbs

• Done

• You define what the CTBUH is in the Ranking section, but not in the lead- that first sentence there should really be the first sentence of the lead, rather than just jumping in headfirst

• Done

• In the second paragraph of Ranking, you throw in an opening single quote for a quotation, but never close it. If it's not a quote, remove it, if it is, use "quote marks".

• Done removed quote mark, as it is not a quote.

• Several buildings are sorting by "The"; they should not. See the {{sort}} template to fix it.

• I didn't got your this point ? When i sort building they are sorted in "Alphabetical order". How they are sorting by "The" ?

• Done I have used the template, that you have given to fix it !

• The notes column should not be sortable

• Is there any way to remove the sort option from existing table ? Because i have to change whole three tables of article, that requires an exhaustive working and time.

• Done I have make section of "Notes" unsortable.

• Since you can sort the list, every instance of e.g. a city should be linked in the table, not just the "first" one, since that changes, just like how you do the country.

• Done

• The same problems apply to other three tables

• Done

• Dream Dubai Marina is missing a space before the slash in the year started / end column

• Done

• In History, you say that The Belcher's Tower 1 and The Belcher's Tower 2 were completed in 2000, but your timeline table says they weren't the tallest until 2001

• Done completion date of Belcher's Tower 1 and 2 was 2000, after conforming it from CTBUH.

• You never actually state that they didn't start ranking until 2001; I would expect to see that in the lead

• Done for the reason above mentioned.

• "List of cities with most skyscrapers" in the see also section is redirecting, to its grammatically correct version

• Done

• Link Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat in your references.

• Done

--PresN 23:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All short comings highlighted by PresN have been rectified accordingly. Please suggest a way forward. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are still numerous grammatical errors:

• "The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, defines" - no comma needed, and place "(CTBUH)" after the name since you use the acronym going forward
• "formed in 1969, decides which" - "1969 that decides"
• "It maintains a list of the 100 tallest completed residential buildings in the world" - again, it hasn't always done this, it has only done this since 2000 - "It has maintained a list[...]since 2000".
• "which rises at 392 metres (1,286 ft) in Dubai it was also completed in 2012" - rises shouldn't be used that way for a static building, and you need either a period or semicolon after Dubai.
• "The third tallest residential skyscraper is Elite Residence, which rises" - again, buildings don't rise, they stand, since they don't move.
• "The Marina Torch which rises" - again
• You list the completion year of the first two, but not the positions 3-5.
• "Skyscraper database of The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat reveals that, more" - "The skyscraper database", you can use the acronym since you already used it once, and you don't need that comma.
• "more than 100 residential buildings are under construction" - rather more than that, I think you mean residential skyscrapers
• "World One in Mumbai, India set to rise" - comma after India
• " Saudi Arabia with planned height" - "with a planned height"
• "New York City, United States set to rise" - comma after States
• "release issued by Emporis Corporation" - just Emporis
• "because of a number of high-rise" - "the" number
• "is on hold since May 2011" - "has been on hold since"
• "The first residential skyscrapers were The Belcher's Tower 1 and The Belcher's Tower 2" - were they the first, or just the first since CTBUH started keeping track? Also, the whole sentence is a run-on.
• "In 2012, Princess Tower becomes the tallest" - "became"
• The second paragraph of History makes no sense- the stats you quote in the first part of the sentence have nothing to do with the second part of the sentence.
• You also shouldn't have a single-sentence paragraph. If you combine the two paragraphs, you're left with a single=paragraph section; consider moving some information out of the lead and into this section, or moving this section into somewhere else.
• The first sentence in Ranking criteria and alternatives is out of place in the section- it has nothing to do with what follows.

I really should just oppose this- even after "fixing" my earlier issues, the article is riddled with grammatical problems and there's no coherent flow throughout the text part of the list at all. It's got good tables, and nice pictures, but you need to get a copy-editor; it's really noticeable that English is not your first language, since you mess up articles and commas pretty consistently. --PresN 02:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done All grammatical mistakes have been rectified. And i have tried my best to improve article's grammatical mistakes.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): CrowzRSA 04:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have put a good amount of work into it and I believe it meets the FL criteria. I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while because of college so if there are any problems I will fix them as soon as possible...So just bare with me! THANK YOU!!!!! CrowzRSA 04:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soooo no one wants to comment on this easy discography???? Why is this not in the urgently needing review section... CrowzRSA 20:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose quick review, as you asked so nicely.

• Lead is too long.

• How is the lead too long? It summarizes the article and doesn't go overboard with anything. The guys released 8 studio albums, and everyone of them charted on the Billboard 200. For example, the Slipknot discography page is smaller in size yet it has a longer lead, which is necessary to summarize the article. CrowzRSA 16:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Check out WP:LEAD and tell me how this bypasses the guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ......I see your point. Working on new lead here. Should have it done pretty soon though. Btw, Merry Christmas :) CrowzRSA 16:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay i think it should be short enough now. CrowzRSA 18:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't mix number formats in a single sentence for items which are comparable.

• Fixed. CrowzRSA 16:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " West Coast rapper Mack 10" three wikilinks butted up together is potentially confusing.

• Fixed. CrowzRSA 16:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "was awarded Gold" you mean "certified".

• Fixed. CrowzRSA 16:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Which territory is each release date pertinent to?

• Fixed. CrowzRSA 16:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are releases which didn't chart anywhere such as "Do tha Damn Thing" referenced?

• Doing... CrowzRSA 16:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Done, also added refs to music videos without known directors. CrowzRSA 19:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• All refs need to comply with WP:DASH.

• I think it's fixed. CrowzRSA 19:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better, couple of raw URLs in the refs need to be fixed. Happy New Year! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed CrowzRSA 17:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. All issues were addressed and i seriously think it meets each criteria. So if there are any more issues—major or minor—please comment. CrowzRSA 17:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegate comment: This candidate has been archived. There may be a delay between the closing of this nomination and the bot running through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Darylgolden^(talk) 00:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC), 71.126.8.99[reply]

I am nominating this on behalf of 71.126.8.99 for featured list because he recently added citations and added pictures, and now thinks that it is worthy of being a featured list. Darylgolden^(talk) 00:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rejectwater

Major problems (the below comments will refer to the Featured List criteria):

• The lead is far too short and what is there is not very good. Please see WP:LEAD. Currently fails criteria #1 and #2.
• I believe it is safe to presume comprehensiveness at this time, however as it includes listings of "none" for teams with no retired numbers, I would call this a failure of criteria #3 due to the table contents going outside the scope of the page.
• Has no section headings, no table of contents, and table sorting functions do not work as they should. Fails criteria #4.
• At the very least it does not comply with WP:LEAD nor WP:ACCESS and therefore fails criteria #5.
• Fails criteria 5(a), visual appeal, due mainly to failing most of the other criteria.
• Fails criteria 5(b) due to images having poor captions and no alt texts.
• Passes criteria #6.

Potential solutions and other more specific problems:

• The lead has to be completely re-written with a length equal to the scope of the topic. I would think the lead of a page like this one would be about 3 paragraphs.
• Get rid of the "none" listings. This isn't List of National Football teams that have no retired numbers.

Done.

• Team names need to be displayed in full per WP:NOPIPE. The way it is done now also breaks sorting functionality.

Done.

• Tables must comply with WP:ACCESS. See MOS:DTT for help with this.

Fixed headings.

• There should be at least one section heading separating the lead from the list.

Done.

• Player name should sort by last name. Use the {{sortname}} template for this.

Done.

• Get rid of conference column. Irrelevant. The row header should be uber important, either the player's name or number.

Done.

• Also, the row header should be sorted alphabetically by the player's last name on initial page view (ie, the code should be arranged this way). Right now the default sort is "no particular order, but grouped by club." Rejectwater (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on team then number. I think that it's fine.

Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Organization: "Although lists may be organized in different ways, they must always be organized. The most basic form of organization is alphabetical or numerical (such as List of Star Wars starfighters), though if items have specific dates a chronological format is sometimes preferable (List of Belarusian Prime Ministers)." I don't believe that the current structure of the list meets this standard. Rejectwater (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Posthumous: I don't know what to say about this. Also seems irrelevant. Not in the About.com source.

Removed.

• Is About.com considered a reliable source?
  • About.com is not a reliable source. Also, the citation claims the page is published by the NFL, which is absurd. Rejectwater (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Image captions are boring. See WP:CAPTIONS.

Spruced things up a bit.

• Not a single image has an alt text. See WP:ALT, especially the Bush/Blair and Queen Elizabeth examples.

Done.

• There is no image in the lead.
• Do not use contractions such as "don't".

Done.

• References should follow the punctuation mark, not come before.

Done.

• "are considered" - see WP:AWT. Considered by whom?

Done.

• Citations are so poorly formatted I don't even know where to begin. See WP:CITE and Template:Cite web for starters. Several dead links in there as well. Rejectwater (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reference column should not be sortable. Rejectwater (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Oppose

• Lead is too short.
• Citations need correct and consistent format.
• WP:DASH needs to be adhered to.
• Why is San Diego Chargers retired numbers specified as a see also?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 02:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list featuring all of the head coaches of the Carolina Panthers. It is a bit on the short side, primarily because the team has only had four coaches since joining the NFL in 1995, but is comparable to other featured lists on the topic. I didn't have to do much on the article aside from cleanup and lede expansion, and with those out of the way I think this meets the FL criteria. Toa Nidhiki05 02:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great list, well formatted, all my concerns addressed. I believe it meets the criteria. Rejectwater (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couldn't this list be included into the main article Carolina Panthers? I don't see a reason why there needs to be a stand-alone list, considering that the list only has 4 entries (WP:WIAFL 3b). --K.Annoyomous (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is a list of internal consistency, because every team has a list. Moving the tables to the main article, a featured article, would make it very out of place, as would transferring all the info because on the main article, there is only a short paragraph on coaching along with ownership and executive officers... adding all the info here would make that section excessively focus on coaches. Toa Nidhiki05 15:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every NFL team has a list of coaches per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Rejectwater (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose can easily be merged into the parent article. Summary style is irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per TRM furthermore the list has only four entries so doesn't fulfill 3(b) criteria. Zia Khan 17:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw this entry due to trending consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 15:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been failed, 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) 23:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Blurred Lines 14:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because by the peer review that was made a few months ago, and the only problems that were found was the dead references and the British - American language, which was easily fixed by me. Also, by it's information, it does meet the FL criteria, and should be promoted. Blurred Lines 14:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest WP:Featured list instead. That's what Family Guy (season 5) and Family Guy (season 8) are classified as, and it seems more appropriate for season articles. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)  Done Blurred Lines 18:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maralia A few notes after a quick look:

• The article talk page is templated with a note about several broken section links that date back to 2010; can you check whether those still need fixing?

 Done I have just checked those links, they seem to be fine, so I have removed the template from the talk page. Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Particularly in the reference section (but also elsewhere), I see quite a few wikilinks inside quotations, which MOS says to avoid. Most of them are elementary-school-level vocabulary words (God, sex, sacred, profane, condom, racism) so there's really no need to link them anyway.  Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There are a couple of italicized redlinks in the reference section that seem malformed: they don't point to likely article titles.  Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Sales of the DVD set reached 2.2 million copies,[6] becoming the best-selling television DVD of 2003" - grammatically, this says sales became the best-selling television DVD. This could be fixed with "The DVD set sold 2.2 million copies, making it the best-selling..."  Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Fox president Gail Berman said that it was one of her most difficult decisions to cancel the show, and was therefore happy it would return" - garbled; perhaps "Berman said canceling the show was one of her most difficult decisions, and she was therefore..."  Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Fewer critics responded negatively to the season; Seattle Post-Intelligencer critic Melanie McFarland reacted very negative" - negative is an adjective; you need an adverb here, and preferably a different one to avoid redundancy with the first half of the sentence.  Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see other grammar issues in the episode summaries, but don't have the time for a full review at the moment; will try to make it back to the article. Agree that FL is probably the proper venue.  Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Maralia (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dtngo (talk) Great article! I believe that this page is written excellently. It also has the standard format of a television and is easy to navigate. However, some of the citations in the reference list can be updated with online references:

• For the 4th citation, the Gordon article can be found online here: [10]
• For the 26th citation, the Golden Reel nominations and recipients can be found in an archived page here: [11]
• For the 27th citation, the McGuire article can be found online here: [12]

I hope this helps. Dtngo (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC) [13].[reply]

'Nominator(s): DivaKnockouts (talk) and Magiciandude (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after several months of working on this list in the Sandbox, with Erick, we feel that is meets the criteria. The list follows the format of the featured articles List of awards and nominations received by Ivy Queen and List of awards and nominations received by Romeo Santos. DivaKnockouts 23:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref comments

• Link latimes
• Link ASCAP to American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
• There is an uneeded space before ref [11] in the article. ("...award from one nomination. [11]")

• CrowzRSA 20:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Erick (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "both which he won" should be "both of which he won"
  • In the last line of the lead, Tropical Song of the Year has a stray " at the start
  • "Royce has received fifty-eight awards from 105 nominations" - either both should be in words or both should be in digits, not a mix of both
  • I don't really like "Royce has not won an award from one nomination" under MTV Video Music Awards. Maybe "Royce has received one nomination but not won an award"........?
• Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done all, I fixed the last issue by changing to "has received one nomination" to be consisted with the American Music Awards. Erick (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third point isn't fixed. Also, why is "Tropical Song of the Year" in quote marks? None of the other award categories mentioned in the lead are shown like that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I wasn't paying attention. Now they're fixed. Erick (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all seems OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Erick (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the subject matter is of historical significance to the film industry in general, and to the Western (genre) in particular. This is one of three articles I would like to take to Featured Topic. The main article of Audie Murphy is being worked on to submit for FA, and the other article Audie Murphy honors and awards is currently also listed here at FLC. But whether or not the FT eventually works out, I would still like this filmography to be FL. — Maile (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - We need to establish whether this is "listy" enough for FLC. I count 14812 characters of prose in this article, taking up five screens on my laptop, whereas the list itself is about 4 screens on my laptop. If this is to be a filmography (a list) I'd definitely expect consistency with Christian Bale filmography, Laurel and Hardy filmography, Gene Kelly filmography, etc. ... i.e. a short-ish lede and then a list of works. Other opinions? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If it turns out that your point of view is the majority here, how difficult is it to move this over to FAC? Now that I'm dipping my toes into the FA waters, I'd like to see it through with one type or the other. I'm not picky about which. You folks sort it out. — Maile (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not all that difficult. Close this as failed, update the article history, and nominate for FAC. I think the FA delegates (Ian Rose and Graham Colm) wouldn't mind you doing it right away (but, of course, better to confirm with them). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to be on the computer too much longer this evening. So, I'll pick this up tomorrow morning and see who has weighed in. However, it was suggested over at WT GA that the article name should be changed to Film career of Audie Murphy. And then someone suggested that's not standard naming at Wikipedia. It would be good to get that aspect cleared up, also. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I found the answer as to whether or not this should be named "Film career of Audie Murphy". The only article similarly named is Film career of Grace Kelly, so I think the Audie Murphy filmography is going to stay named as such.— Maile (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a simple suggetion: move the large chunk of prose to the main Audie Murphy article, then use just the lead for this. Then, the Murphy aticle is further expanded and of greater quality, the FLC meets consistency standards, and there's no list vs. article debate. Win-win. Wizardman 01:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not keen on that idea. The main article has already been through edit war hell this last year, and I've been through hell with it. I'm staying off the main article until better editors hone it up to FA standard. I really don't want this filmography prose mixed in there. It started there, and it was a lot of rubbish. We went through a lot weeding it out the first time. Don't make me do that. It's too horrible to think about. I don't want to go back and forth, back and forth all the time with that article. That would set off another round of disruptive editing of all types. I'm not going into the details, but my lord, what I went through to get this filmography on its own to make it decent. No. No. It's terrible. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am withdrawing this FLC as pre-mature. — Maile (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2014 (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. Sorry for the delay: I've only just seen the withdrawal. - SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Nominator(s): Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is an extensive and very informative article about a part of world history few know. The article is prolifically sourced and is truly remarkably done. Nothing is left unsourced. It didn't pass GA only because it was recommended to FL. Looking forward for the review. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: I think that the red links that are used for most of the names on the table should be removed, per point 5a in the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. --1ST7 (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that this page wasn't watchlisted. I will get to removing the red links ASAP. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FIXED: Okay red links are now removed. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maybe the Armenian script under the names on the list should be removed as well; it might help the list to look cleaner and enhance visual appeal. Also, I found an image of ten of the Armenian intellectuals who were killed during the deportations; I thought that it would make a better picture for the lead and moved the one that was previously in the lead down a little to another section in the article. I hope that's alright with you. --1ST7 (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@1ST7: Thanks for the wonderful addition to the article. I just sent the photograph to the graphics lab since I figured it needs a lot of improvement. As for the Armenian scripture, it's hard for me to say whether we should remove it since these intellectuals were strictly Armenian reading, writing, and speaking people. I also personally believe that it is good for research purposes. Their names are prevalent throughout many Armenian written sources and novels. But then again, this is just my opinion. Nevertheless, I am fine with removing it if there's consensus against it. I say we wait for additional opinions on that matter. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion: Genocide Remembrance Day is mentioned in the lead but not in the rest of the article. I think a section needs to be added on that subject, per WP:LEAD. You can include information on when the day was first established, who it is commemorated by (I believe April 15 is also designated to commemorate the Assyrian Genocide), and how it is commemorated. You could also use one of these images. --1ST7 (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@1ST7: That's a valid consideration. When I have time this weekend, I'll add a little bit about Armenian Genocide remembrance day. Much of that information is already found on other articles...I can incorporate them from there. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@1ST7: I added the section but it needs a nice CE. If you can help me out with a CE that'll be great. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to help, but I can't do it at the moment. If you can wait until tomorrow, I should be able to then. --1ST7 (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, done. --1ST7 (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a review here? Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I'm finding the prose in the body to be really choppy and oddly worded, and the flow of the text as a whole is disjointed- you don't adhere very strongly to a narrative timeline, and it reads like a scattering of facts whose primary purpose is to shame the perpetrators rather than inform the reader. A few examples of problems I found listed below.
• "May 1915, they were later relocated, within the Empire" - second comma unnecessary -  DoneProudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Most who commemorate the Armenian Genocide believe that 24 April 1915 is the date" - "consider 24 April 1915 to be the date" sounds better to my ears -  Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "holiday in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" - "the" before Nagorno  Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In the Detention section, it should probably be combined into fewer, longer paragraphs- they're a bit short.  DoneProudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "At Constantinople, the action was operated" - "In Constantinople, the action was led"  DoneProudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The third paragraph of Detention is really choppy, and should be re-flowed  Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "The train was under way with 220 Armenians" - tense change, sounds like a copyvio.  Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "band of brigands" - sensational language; they were a state-sponsored paramilitary group  DoneProudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Marzbed was dispatched to Kayseri" - who's Marzbed?  Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The whole Court martial section seems out of place- you're talking about all the prisoners arriving at the prisons, then suddenly you're calling out the assassination of a couple of them and the court martial of another, with their longer-term consequences, before jumping back to the release of several others.
• Three different top-level sections in a row with 1-2 short paragraphs each is really wonky. It would be a lot better to split the whole thing into deportation/detention and aftermath.  Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The table could use some sorting ability. Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The actual work should be in italics in ref 3, and it needs more information overall, and given that you translate all the other Armenian in the refs you should translate this. Done (Removed Ref) Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs 40 and 50 need more detail, and 50 needs to drop the all-caps  Done (They are now refs 39 and 49 respectively) Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The notes need capitals at the beginning of each one and a period at the end.  Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--PresN 01:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, I'm fine with the work done above. Remaining issues:
• You have the names in the table alphabetical by last name, but they sort by first name when you sort the column. See the {{sortname}} template, or just the {{sort}} template.  Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• A few rows in the table have no source for any of their columns: Vartabed Garabed Mkrtichian, Hagop Tekeyan, Dz. Vartabed Yervant Perdahjian, and Bedros Kahanay Garabedian.  Done (I removed them since they're unsourced) Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--PresN 18:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I see prior issues were addressed with due diligence, above. I find the page to be most meticulously sourced with appropriate references, and with the extra notes quite educational and informative for the reader. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since I'm an Armenian user, I would like to avoid supporting the nomination. Instead, I want to make several minor edits that will improve the article a bit. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I partly improved the referencing format. It's still a little confusing and I'll try to work on it later, too. I also added an infobox.

I wanna do is add a simple map that will show the key locations (Constantinople, Ayaş, Çankırı, Diyarbakır, etc) of the deportations on the 1914 Ottoman Empire map. --Երևանցի ^talk 23:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Proudbolsahye, do you think a map is necessary? --Երևանցի ^talk 23:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good with me Yerevantsi. Also, have you been able to assess the issues PresN presented above? Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now, the sorting thing will take some time to complete, but I can definitely do it. I don't know about the unsourced individuals.--Երևանցի ^talk 20:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done with the sorting. --Երևանցի ^talk 02:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map added. --Երևանցի ^talk 04:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, I fixed all the aforementioned issues. Thanks Yerevantsi for your diligent effort for bringing about the wonderful sort-ability. The map looks nice too. Now people will know where those cities are without actually clicking on the Wikilinks to find out. I just removed the "Date of Deportation" column since it was unnecessary. 99% of the deportees were deported on the same day (24 April 1915). I clarified the exceptions in the Notes column. @PresN: Let me know if any other changes are needed. Thanks for all the wonderful support. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - alright, that's all my concerns addressed, so support. --PresN 05:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm Since this is a sensitive subject, I strongly encourage to change all the instances of Constantinople to Istanbul - the common usage in the current English. Nergaal (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Nergaal: I believe there is already a consensus instated among Wikipedians that when referring to Istanbul prior to the formal adoption of the name on March 28, 1930, we must use Constantinople. Let me know whether my response helped the concern you've raised. Nevertheless, I am willing to change it. I just want the consensus to be considered when it comes to the name since it certainly has been a contentious issue in the Wikipedia community. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't realized that the change was so late. Perhaps mention "currently Istanbul" after the first usage? Nergaal (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think that the current title does a disservice to the article. "Notables" is not a common usage in current English, and I think you were referring to "Notable people".

The intro does very little to discuss the content of the table. How many people were deported? Were all the people in the table deported on April 24?

Who is not included in the table?

Perhaps change the title to "List of notable Armenians deported on 24 April 1915"?

Nergaal (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: Thanks for raising these questions. In response to the concerns you have raised:

• The article states 2,345 Armenians were detained. All of whom were deported. I have just provided extra clarification for this and an extra ref for additional verification.
• My recent edit here removed the category of the deportation date. It was taking up too much space but more importantly, it was very repetitive. Almost all, with the exception of 5 deportees, were deported on the same day. The article uses 24 April 1915 as the base date for the deportations. I have provided additional clarifications for the 5 exceptions in the Notes column of the corresponding deportees (i.e. See: Krikor Zohrab). Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The table is limited to the deportees as made available by the Ottoman Archives and Armenian sources. The article already states this, "Below is a list of prominent Armenian intellectuals, community leaders and other public figures that were deported from Constantinople on 24 April 1915, as made available by the Ottoman Archives and Armenian sources"
• I am willing to change the name of the article. The article itself has gone through a lot of name changes. The talk page of the article highlights some of these changes and the reasons behind them. "List of notable Armenians deported in April 1915" doesn't sound like a bad idea, however, I believe the specific date of 24 April 1915 should be added since the date itself is very important to the commemoration of the event itself. I also might want to suggest to carry this topic of discussion to the talk page, so as to not go back and forth in the nomination page. If we agree on a name change, we can come back with a definitive solution here. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I would like a little more background. What were the notables accused of? Campaigning for Armenian independence? Working to overthrow the Sultanate?
• I assume that this was the first phase of the genocide which eventually murdered over 1 million. If so, this should be stated.
• How is a notable defined? The article says 2435 were deported, which seems a high number.
• "The 24th of April has become Genocide Remembrance Day". The date is not generally observed by non-Armenians. I think it would be clearer if you shifted the last clause in the paragraph to make "The 24th of April is observed by the Armenian diaspora around the world as Genocide Remembrance Day".
• "first commemorated in 1919 as in observance of its four-year anniversary in Constantinople". This seems ungrammatical and unclear. Commemorated in Istanbul or by Armenians elsewhere of events in Istanbul? (I see this is explained below. Perhaps leave out "as in observance of its four-year anniversary").
• Why mention those with Russian citizenship? If they were treated differently from the others this should be explained.
• "Most of the arrested were sent after identification of the particulars from Central Prison". "after identification of the particulars" is superfluous. I would leave it out.
• "right away tried in vain". "right away" is a bit colloquial. I would prefer "immediately".
• "Roughly 150 political prisoners were detained in Ayaş, and another 150 intellectual prisoners were detained in Çankırı." Were the prisoners separated into politicals and intellectuals?
• "Mazhar Bey defied the secret instructions of Talat Pasha, the Interior Minister." What secret instructions?

Dudley Miles (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegate comments

Oppose owing to titling and selection concerns.

• • Why is the title "notables"? What criteria is used in determining that?
  • Armenia - why is this linked so late?
  • This list does not include 2,455 people (so it is not a full list), nor does it contain only blue links (thus it is not a list of all of them who have Wikipedia articles). What exactly is the selection criteria for this list? If many of the names are not known or recorded (in which case "notables" would be a vast overstatement), this should be noted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although Proudbolsahye is the nominator and it would be better if he addresses these issues, I'd like to respond to Crisco's comments. 1) You are right about the use of "notables". I very much doubt all these people were notable, even within the Armenian community of Constantinople. I know up to 20 people from the list, with 5 of them being very famous and recognizable by most Armenians. I think "intellectuals" would be a good replacement. 2) The modern Republic of Armenia (which is only a small part of the pre-genocide Armenia) had no direct relation to this event. Constantinople had more Armenians than any other city in the world at that time, but it is still outside Armenia. It's somewhat comparable to Kristallnacht and Israel. 3) The list is of all known people "as made available by the Ottoman Archives and Armenian sources". --Երևանցի ^talk 04:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "as made available by the Ottoman Archives and Armenian sources" does not automatically indicate that there are no more sources. This needs to be explicit. Otherwise the list could be understood as the writer being uninitiated and not wanting to do archive diving (for instance). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"does not automatically indicate that there are no more sources" well who claims it does? This list was created based on major works dealing with the deportation. Those sources are Teotig, Grigoris Balakian and others. I think it might be a good idea to clearly indicate the sources somewhere in the article? --Երևանցի ^talk 01:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The question is not indicating the sources, it is indicating why 2,000+ individuals are represented by 20 (over half of whom are not Wikipedia notable). That's not a comprehensive list. Period. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list is of Armenians deported on April 24 1915. I amended the sentence that presents the list to further emphasize this point and to clarify any sort of misunderstanding. Indeed, the April 24 deportations are considered the first wave of deportations while the 2,345 figure is the total amount of all deportees which eventually took place from April 24 and thereon. I had to remove the category of "Date deported" column here because it was overly redundant and it took up too much space. There are however a few notable exceptions which have been specified in the Notes column of the corresponding deportees (i.e. Krikor Zohrab). Proudbolsahye (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If 24 people were deported on the first day, why is that information not in the lede? I mean, this is basic writing. And the issue with "notables" has still not been addressed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just requested a move to "Deportation of Armenian intellectuals on 24 April 1915". See more here. --Երևանցի ^talk 16:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have also amended the lead to better suit the list as suggested by other users here at the nomination page. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question In the lead it says "most were killed" (without a citation) but in the list, 78 are listed as being killed out of 235 to 270. Unless you mean most of the total number? If so that is not clear, and a citation should be provided. Mattximus (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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