Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/January 2019

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) 00:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Governor Sheng (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I consider that the list could be interesting to many readers of Wikipedia as it shows historical results of the Croatia national football team, a vice-champion of the FIFA World Coup. It contains many details about football matches played by the Croatia national team between 1940 and 1999, including: scorers, referees, yellow/red cards, stadiums etc. Moreover, unlike other similar pages, this one has a special style, which, in my opinion, is the most simple, navigable and best looking of all others. To be understood no unfiorm code was broken by introducing this style of listing the results, since similar pages use different styles. Governor Sheng (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state, of being a hodgepodge list of various vastly different states masquerading under the adjective "national", there's no way this should be a featured list. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I split the article since. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - right now, this falls far short of the standards required of a featured list. There needs to be a significant expansion of the lead to adequately cover the timespan the list covers, detailing tournaments, notable incidents etc to start. Kosack (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Agreeing with Kosack on the lack of significant prose. Not to mention the lack of inline references and the use of Hrnogomet, which looks to be debatable as a reliable source. SounderBruce 08:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - well short of FL standard -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2019 (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• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close.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) 22:04, 20 January 2019 (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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Flooded with them hundreds 12:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the FL criteria. Flooded with them hundreds 12:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "Despite gaining a momentum in Marshmello's career at that point," - I don't really understand what this means? Does it mean the album was critically acclaimed? That it sold well (presumably not if it didn't enter the album chart)?
  • "failed to imitate the success of its predecessor as it had not charted on any chart" => "failed to imitate the success of its predecessor as it did not appear on any chart"
  • "One of his most successful career-singles" => "One of his most successful singles" ("career-single" is not a thing)
  • "became his highest-charting song on the Billboard Hot 100 until October 2018" => "became his highest-charting song on the Billboard Hot 100 at this point"
  • ""Wolves", topped the charts in Latvia, Poland and Hungary" - need a source for it reaching number 1 in those countries given that they aren't listed in the table
• That's it for now.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Fixed. Flooded with them hundreds 09:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MaranoFan

• I don't think the alt text for the image needs a date
• Why is he introduced as an "electronic dance music producer" on here but an "electronic music producer" on his bio? I suggest removing the word "dance" here too and linking the genre
• "Despite failing to debut on the Billboard 200, the album peaked on three Billboard charts" -- Why do we need to mention that it "failed to debut" on anything? Its not a given that an album will chart somewhere so this should be removed. The word "peaked" may be better replaced by "charted"
• Mention that "Keep It Mello" featured Omar Linx in the lead
• "His follow-up single "Colour" failed to imitate the success of its predecessor as it did not appear on any chart" -- Again, this is a little too much detail and I doubt there's any source that explicitly states that it didn't make any charts, similarly, I also doubt there's any source that calls KIM successful. This whole sentence should be replaced by something as simple as ""Colour" was released as his second single"
• "The song was also certified platinum in both Canada (Music Canada) and the United States (RIAA)" -- No song he released before these was certified in both countries so the word "also" should be removed
• "Marshmello's following seven singles, which are collaborations with artists such as Far East Movement, Ookay and Slushii, failed to appear on the Billboard Hot 100." -- Again, just remove the fact that they didn't chart anywhere and just mention the people he collaborated with
• "R&B singer Khalid" -- Replace R&B with his nationality
• "while four of his subsequent singles failed to appear on the chart" -- Again, we should focus on what charted instead of what didn't
• "The album became his first to debut on the Billboard 200" -- Replace this sentence with something like "The album debuted at number 165 on the Billboard 200". You've already mentioned it before that his previous album didn't chart
• "His next single is a song with the British band Bastille, titled "Happier"" -- Change this to something like "Happier", featuring British band Bastille, was released as his next single"
• No need for a hyphen in "highest-charting"

I'm gonna oppose this. Its not even slightly close to the prose quality required for an FL. The lead section is too bloated for an artist as new as Marshmello, and it puts more emphasis on how most of his songs failed to chart rather than his hits. It needs to be trimmed down considerably and some more emphasis needs to be put on "Friends" and "Happier". Regards.--NØ 19:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for letting the people here know of my absence @MaranoFan: but I do not wish to proceed with this nomination as there is plenty to be done. I'd like to withdraw.-- Flooded with them hundreds 18:18, 26 January 2019 (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) 23:26, 27 January 2019 (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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Governor Sheng (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I consider that the list could be interesting to many readers of Wikipedia as it shows historical results of the Croatia national football team, a vice-champion of the FIFA World Coup. It contains many details about football matches played by the Croatia national team between 2010 and 2019, including: scorers, referees, yellow/red cards, stadiums etc. Moreover, unlike other similar pages, this one has a special style, which, in my opinion, is the most simple, navigable and best looking of all others. To be understood no unfiorm code was broken by introducing this style of listing the results, since similar pages use different styles. Governor Sheng (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Does not meet FL criteria points 1 and 2 regarding prose and lead. Governor Sheng, please refer to other features lists including ones for the Faroe Islands and Montserrat for what we are looking for.

Note for FLC directors Giants2008, PresN and The Rambling Man, this nomination along with Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Croatia national football team results (2000–09)/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Croatia national football team results (1991–99)/archive1 were created back in November 2018 and was not added to WP:FLC until I added it today. Also, this breaches the FLC instructions which states that Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - right now, this falls far short of the standards required of a featured list. There needs to be a significant expansion of the lead to adequately cover the timespan the list covers, detailing tournaments, notable incidents etc to start. Kosack (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - no sources. 'Nuff said -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2019 (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) 22:15, 20 January 2019 (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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Governor Sheng (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I consider that the list could be interesting to many readers of Wikipedia as it shows historical results of the Croatia national football team, a vice-champion of the FIFA World Coup. It contains many details about football matches played by the Croatia national team between 2000 and 2009, including: scorers, referees, yellow/red cards, stadiums etc. Moreover, unlike other similar pages, this one has a special style, which, in my opinion, is the most simple, navigable and best looking of all others. To be understood no unfiorm code was broken by introducing this style of listing the results, since similar pages use different styles. Governor Sheng (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - right now, this falls far short of the standards required of a featured list. There needs to be a significant expansion of the lead to adequately cover the timespan the list covers, detailing tournaments, notable incidents etc to start. Kosack (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - well short of FL standard -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2019 (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) 22:10, 20 January 2019 (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 withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Talking Heads FLC has three supports so I think I'm good for my next song list: the English rock band Radiohead. Many of Radiohead's pages are featured or good articles and because their music has been so influential since the 1990s, I felt this list deserved better than this. As always, I'm open to any comments or concerns anyone might have. Happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately I have to oppose this right now as I think the lead is overlong - lots of waffle and too much detail. In fact I meant to add an "overlong lead" tag to the page earlier today but didn't get round to it. I may attempt to trim it soon myself. edit: I should add that your recent work on the article has been excellent and has greatly improved it. Popcornduff (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Popcornduff Thanks very much! I do think it seems a little long as well but I wanted to make sure I got everything since many of their albums were completely different from the ones that came before them. Any suggestions on how to trim it? I have some ideas but I'd like your opinion as well. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest less detail about the style and reception of each album. That stuff is relevant but not to the extent that it's currently covered. I don't think the lead for this article should be significantly longer than the Radiohead lead, as a rule. Popcornduff (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Popcornduff I trimmed it down more and it's now shorter than their main article's lead. I mainly trimmed down info about EPs and less info about OK Computer, In Rainbows, and The King of Limbs, as well as removed the info about The King of Limbs live album and The Help Album. Does it look better enough to no longer oppose? :-) BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great job trimming this down. I've done another copyedit, which was much easier because the lead was so much slimmer. I'm not sure it's kosher for a someone to support or oppose FAC noms when they've contributed a fair amount to the article themselves, so for now let's just say I'll withdraw my opposition.

I have a couple more suggestions and questions.

• You differentiate some songs using colours *and* keys. Is it necessary to use both?

• That's how other featured lists do it. I've also have nominated six songs lists for FL and have used this format for every one. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. I have to say it seems pointless (and even distracting) to me but I won't challenge it. Popcornduff (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Do single releases include promo releases? If so should this be clarified? (I'm unsure on this myself.) But, for example, Lotus Flower is listed as a single presumably because it was a promo single - but Lift isn't, despite receiving a music video - is this correct? Again, I'm unsure exactly about what counts as a single or promo single, so maybe the article is already correct... just making sure.

• Yes. Some articles differentiate promo singles from regular singles but because Radiohead has not released that many promo singles I just combined them. "Lotus Flower" had a music video and was released as a promo single but no official commercial singles were released for The King of Limbs. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand. I think combining promo singles and commercial singles is definitely a good call. But to clarify: Lift isn't considered a promo single, right? Even though it had a music video. Popcornduff (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As a result of my last copyedit one source has ended up looking a bit weird - "featured a sound[4]" - I'm guessing we can just get rid of this citation as it's not clear what exactly it's citing any more...

• Fixed it. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There are still a couple of bits in the lead that are a bit vague for my liking. For example, there's a fairly concrete description of Kid A - influences from these genres, etc. But for The Bends we get abstractions like "displayed the band's musical growth". Same for OKC. If possible I think it'd be good to dig through the wiki pages for those bands and get some more concrete descriptions of what distinguishes those albums.Popcornduff (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's hard for Kid A and In Rainbows because their wiki pages don't really describe what the songs are like, mainly their genres. I've listened to Kid A but not In Rainbows so I'm not sure myself. I'll keep looking. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll see if I can improve this myself. Popcornduff (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Popcornduff Comments above. Thanks very much for your help! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more thought. I question some of the production credits here. For example, Godrich isn't credited as a producer on Harry Patch - is there a production credit somewhere for that? The source provided doesn't clarify. And isn't OKC credited to Radiohead and Godrich? Popcornduff (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually according to liner notes for both, "Harry Patch" was produced by the group solely and OK Computer was solely produced by Godrich (at least that's how it's credited). BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008, PresN, The Rambling Man Can one of you close this for now? I'll renominate it at a later date but am currently working on another list that I want to nominate soon. Thanks. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Lirim | Talk 10:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My third list up for FLC. Added Refs, pictures and made the lead bigger. I think this meets the criteria. Lirim | Talk 10:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - just my opinion, but I think the singles number ones and albums number ones should be separate lists (articles). I've never seen both combined in this way on WP for any other territory/year..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Small problem, this format has been used for more than sixty lists, probably in accordance with the German articles.[7] I can't decide on my own to split all these articles in two seperate lists.--Lirim | Talk 12:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lists for Austria and Switzerland use the same format.--Lirim | Talk 12:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Lirim | Talk 00:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is my fourth list up as an FLC; I think it meets all the criteria. It's stable, the lead is long enough and gives enough information, five pictures are enough and the table should be alright. (All in my opinion obviously). Best regards, Lirim | Talk 00:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. It's a good start to the list, but this page needs a lot of work to bring it up to featured list standard. The second paragraph has no citations, there are odd typos "Th first album to top the chart". There are no links to other years. Sentences do not make sense: "The hip hop charts only include albums and were introduced on 1 April 2015". What about albums introduced on April 2? Why 2015 since this is a list for 2017? What exactly makes it "on the charts", is it record sales? If so, how many? Images on the right should have a caption per image. Images don't have alt text. That's just a 2 minute glance. Mattximus (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "The official German hip hop album charts are record charts"=>"The official German hip hop album chart is a record chart"
    • You have partially fixed this, but you still have "charts" not "chart"
  • "The year opened with Palmen aus Plastik by German rapper Bonez MC and Austrian rapper RAF Camora[3] and was replaced in the following week" => "The first number one of the year was Palmen aus Plastik by German rapper Bonez MC and Austrian rapper RAF Camora,[3] which was replaced the following week"
    • You have partially fixed this but you still have "and was replaced" when it should be "which was replaced"
  • "The sampler album topped the chart for four consecutive weeks in summer." => "The sampler album topped the chart for four consecutive weeks during the summer."
  • "Royal Bunker, Jung Brutal Gutaussehend 3 and Revival" - Revival needs to be in italics too. Also you need to state who these albums are by, not just list the title.
  • "Generally it was dominated by German artists" => "The chart was dominated by German artists"
  • "with only four english albums reaching the top" => "with only four English-language albums reaching the top" (none of the acts in question are English)
  • "four english albums reaching the top, including" - you can't say "including" and then list them all, so replace "including" with "namely"
    • Not fixed
  • "Revival also was the last album to reach the top in December." => "Revival was the final album to reach the top in 2017."
  • In the image caption "non German" should be "non-German"
  • In the table, the scopes should be the album titles, not the dates
  • The table should be sortable (other than the ref column)
  • In the refs there are repeated uses of "Official german charts" - there should be a capital G on German
  • Are there any more independent sources that could be used? Literally every source bar one is from the official website.
• Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: It's hard to find other refs. MTV publishes the charts also, but without an archive. Using the official links is the easist way.--Lirim | Talk 13:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Photo caption: ".....were the only non-German albums on the chart in 2017." - really? They were the only non-German albums to appear on the chart at all? Did you mean to say that? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be honest, this list is not ready for FL. I would like this list and List of number-one hits of 2017 (Germany) to be removed from the nomination page. Just taking up space.--Lirim | Talk 21:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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