Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/January 2018

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

The list was archived by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): PGhosh ^(Hello!) 15:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list fulfills all the FL criteria. Along with this, many other fifer lists are promoted to featured status. So I nominate this article. Thanks in advance PGhosh ^(Hello!) 15:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

References:

• Use a unified date format, references #9 and #10 use YYYY-MM-DD, while the rest use DD Month YYYY.
• A number of the sources have access dates that are before this article was created.
• Ref #4 doesn't have an access date.
• Ref #6 has ESPNcricinfo, most have ESPNcricinfo, while some have Cricinfo. Be consistent.
• Ref #1 has "Firstname surname", while ref #3 has "Surname, Firstname" (well initials). Be consistent.

Prose: Some significant issues here.

• "..has been held annually since its first season in 2012.[4] Though Following the match fixing scandal, the league was not played in the year 2014." Clunky language which more or less contradicts itself. Should be completely rewritten to blend together better and more properly present the facts. Also, get rid of the rogue capital letter.
• "It started again at year 2015, the third season of this tournament." Again, clunky language.
• "..and a bowling average of 1.20 in that match." Bowling average isn't really a statistic that is used within a match, this is pretty meaningless.
• "No Bowler has ever.." Another rogue capital letter, and repetition of a fact presented in the opening paragraph.
• Remove the word "respectively" from the following sentence.
• "Though, if the statistics of all 15 teams are taken into count, then players of the franchises from Rajshahi has taken the highest number of five-wicket haul. One player from Duronto Rajshahi and two player from Rajshahi Kings has achieved this feat." This needs to be made clearer; a layperson is not going to understand that the franchises have transcended teams without more explanation. Also, it should be "taken into account".
• "..in a Bangladesh Premier League Match." No need for a capital m.
• "The 2017 season also known as BPL5 has seen.." Add commas: "The 2017 season, also known as BPL5, has seen.." You probably need a reference for it being known as that too.
• "Four five-wicket hauls had been taken in that season." Use "were taken" rather than "had been taken".
• The first three sentences of the final paragraph all refer to each other, but don't really work as separate sentences. Work to blend them together.

Oppose overall, the prose currently falls a long way short of the standards required for Featured content on Wikipedia. Harrias ^talk 12:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pratyya Ghosh these comments have been here four days, and your editing patterns have been very sporadic. Will you address these or should I archive the nomination? I'll give you a few days to respond before archiving without prejudice. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s):עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has all the attributes listed on Featured list criteria. עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Jimknut

• There is not much of an introduction here.
• For Al Gore: District of Columbia is misspelled.
• The names of the vice-presidents sort incorrectly by first name rather than last name.
• Just a matter of opinion here: Since we have this list already, why do we need yours? Jimknut (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• corrected spelling , fixed sorting, this list is sorted by birth order corresponding to the this list for presidents. עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• There is no lead.
• The single sentence should not have the title in bold, per MOS:BOLDAVOID.
• The list sorts badly.
• The list is a unnecessary content fork of List of Vice Presidents of the United States.
• The "Of note in this table" section could be interesting if written well in the lead, but is essentially a trivia section.
• The list is entirely unreferenced, and the only references provided are for two of the items of trivia. One is a raw URL.
• To be blunt, this list should be at AfD, not FLC. Harrias ^talk 22:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – per Harrias' comments. I'm sorry to be blunt as well, but this is nowhere near FL quality. Probably should have been brought to peer review first. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure why this list even exists; it's redundant to List of Vice Presidents of the United States by age and List of Vice Presidents of the United States by place of primary affiliation and should be merged with them. Any suggestions for which info should be kept with what? Reywas92^Talk 23:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just have a single list for vice presidents and include the most pertinent information...? Mattximus (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - no lead and no sources makes it a no-brainer oppose for me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow closing this. --PresN 15:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Madshurtie (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article's FLC in 2008, it has seen major changes to content, formatting, accessibility, link rot, etc. It seems to have failed FLC last time because it was titled "major honours won" but was completely unclear about what a major honour is. This has also been corrected, with new inclusion criteria stated more clearly in the lead. Madshurtie (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I expect there may be some differences of opinion around the concept of what constitutes an "elite honour" (for example I am old enough to remember the Football League Centenary Trophy being played and find it very hard to think that anyone would regard it as an "elite" honour) but for now I am going to steer clear of that and concentrate only on style, etc.....

• "League football began the next decade " => "League football began in the next decade"
• "The Football League was renamed the First Division" - not really accurate, the Football League was not re-named, rather it expanded to two divisions
• "In 1985, the Full Members Cup and Football League Super Cup were created as substitutes for UEFA competitions" - at this point UEFA competitions haven't been discussed, so this would probably sit better further down
• "The UEFA Cup Winners' Cup, featuring the winners of national knockout competitions was created in 1960" - you need another comma after "competitions" to close the clause
• "See adjacent references for confirmation of the data in the tables." - don't think this is needed
• "Numbers in bold are record totals for that competition." - presumably in the case of European competitions, the bold figures are records for English clubs in the relevant competition - best to clarify this
• "Clubs are organized by the leftmost column" => "Clubs are organised by the leftmost column"
• Note B doesn't specify the level at which Cardiff play, but note C does specify the level at which Swansea play. They also aren't consistent in the date/season format for the honour they won

That's it for now, may spot more later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Briefly on the "what's an elite honour" issue: there isn't that much consistency among sources, and WP:LEADFORALIST and WP:SALLEAD recommend to outline inclusion criteria in the lead when the title/topic is unclear, so this is the approach now taken in this article. The criteria last discussed on the talk page include the FLCT, but feel free to suggest better criteria if you think of any. As for the bullets:

1. Done
2. Reworded
3. UEFA is mentioned in the first paragraph, and the FMC and FLSC are in this paragraph because they were Football League organized. I could flip the order of the second and third paragraphs to account for your comment, but just wanted to double check you still think this needs changing.
4. Done
5. Done. It was an attempt to connect the Key references with the data in the tables, but I've deleted it for now.
6. Reworded
7. Done. Both -ise and -ize are en-GB, and there may be a case for -ize under MOS:COMMONALITY, but I've switched it for article consistency.
8. Reworded. I think the dates were based on the articles themselves, but I've fixed it for this article.

Let us know if you think of anything else :-) Madshurtie (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to wait and see what other people think about the issue of defining "elite honours" before I conclude my review, if that is OK......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have concerns over the "elite honour" moniker as well. It's really not up to Wikipedia to determine what an "elite" honour is, it would be better to stick to perhaps two lists, one which lists domestic honours and one which lists European/World honours. I googled "Ipswich" + "Elite honour" and got nothing, even though we won the FA Cup and the UEFA Cup. I'm not saying that's the definitive guide on things, just it's not a phrase I'm used to seeing associated with my club honours. So perhaps it's not quite right. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, it's not so much the use of the wording "elite honours" specifically, but more how the list of honours included in the article is defined. Several of the trophies included (the FL Centenary Trophy and Super Cup in particular) are/were regarded as somewhere between not-very-prestigious and total jokes, and I'm unsure whether they should be included here, although having said that I can't think of any way to define the trophies included in such a list which is any more robust than the one here...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seem to have got two opposite comments there. I think The Rambling Man is saying it's better to have no arbitrary exclusions and to list all trophies; whereas ChrisTheDude is saying some of these trophies aren't notable enough, especially given the title, so we should exclude more trophies. If I've misunderstood anyone let me know!

• @The Rambling Man: "Elite" was meant to be a one-word way of summarizing the lead paragraph's highest-level criteria, but if you think it's misleading or POV, that's a fair comment. I just want to confirm the specific changes you're recommending, since they might be pretty major:

Listing all honours may be the most NPOV way of handling things, but (assuming we only listed trophies run by major bodies and exclude women's and youth cups) it would mean including a lot of lower-division trophies,^[a] some of which have almost entirely exclusive lists of winners from the winners currently in this article. The title would have to change to something like "List of English men's football clubs by FA, UEFA, or FIFA honours won".

Splitting it into two pages (FA and UEFA/FIFA) as well could work, though it would only make it slightly more manageable because the UEFA/FIFA list is much smaller than a complete FA list. A UEFA page would also overlap a lot with the List of UEFA club competition winners page. It might be a good idea anyway though.

So just checking the specifics there. :-) I might have to de-FLC this article before such major changes.

• @ChrisTheDude: If you think those two cups are unacceptable, I guess this page will need better inclusion criteria. I haven't thought of any so far, and I think it's best not to get rid of them ad hoc (WP:LEADFORALIST specifically says "don't leave readers confused about the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing as to what may be added to the list"). Let me know whether you oppose the page as is.

Madshurtie (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the point I raised, one suggestion might be to include only those competitions which football annuals consider notable enough to include. I just checked one of my many editions of the Nationwide Football Annual and it only lists EFL/Premier League, FA Cup, League Cup, Intercontinental/World Club Cup, European Cup/Champions League, Fairs Cup/UEFA Cup/Europa League, Cup Winners' Cup, Super Cup, Anglo-Italian Cup, Full Members Cup and Charity/Community Shield. As far as I can see the Centenary Tournament and FL Super Cup literally aren't mentioned anywhere in the entire book), but then I don't really know how this could be expressed in the lead without resorting to simply saying "this list is restricted to competitions widely considered notable"..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I suspect basing notability on a reliable source is going to be opposed by other editors, since that was the approach of the article when it last failed FLC. The article used a broadsheet newspaper source, which had narrower notability standards than the Nationwide Football Annual. An unfortunate but inevitable trait of reliable source honours lists is they never entirely agree over what's notable. That said, if everyone agrees this is the way through FLC this time, I will implement it. Madshurtie (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure it failed last time (more than nine years ago?!) because it was based on an RS, I thought it just petered out, mainly because a suitable title couldn't be determined. I think a reliance on RS, maybe a superset of two or three RS, along with an explicit definition in the lead, should be fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seemed to be an issue about whether a trophy not included in the RS should go in the article. The FLC nominator then said they thought the article needed more work/thinking about. Digging through a few RSs, they just seem to list honours, rather than actually defining a major honour, so I'm not sure what definition we'd put in the lead. I guess we could say "this list reflects the major honours specified by Phil McNulty of the BBC" or something, but is that going to breech WP:BALANCE given that only one or two other sources have the same list? For example, some include shields or the League Super Cup (even second division and regional league wins appear in one!). Madshurtie (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having considered ChrisTheDude and The Rambling Man's useful comments, I increasingly think that The Rambling Man's first suggestion to list all FA/EFL/PL and UEFA/FIFA honours is the best NPOV move, similar to the featured article List of UEFA club competition winners.

This article could be renamed to List of English men's clubs by FIFA, UEFA, and FA honours won, and composed of four sections: FIFA and UEFA honours; FA honours (highest-qualification); FA honours (lower-qualification); Combined totals. The first FA group would be similar to the honours currently in the article, and the second FA group would be all the competitions a club wouldn't be in if it qualified for a first group competition.^[a] At least this way there would be no argument over whether the list is major/elite enough.

Since this would require time and some major edits, I'll delist the article from FLC first. If anyone has any comments on this proposal or thinks it's a terrible idea, let me know before I delist and ruin everything! Madshurtie (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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