Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2013

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 10:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I originally nominated this list for FLC back in 2011 but it failed because some editors thought that we should not have lists of number ones for individual years. Seeing as a similar list for the Hot 100 has been nominated and already has support, I thought I'd give this one another punt ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• I do not see support for the claim "based on each song's weekly airplay" in reference one. Please point this out if I'm mistaken.
  • Found a new ref -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The photos could use alternate text. No DAB links, no dead links.
  • Alt text added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The source for File:Tim McGraw.jpg is dead. Please fix, and the file page wouldn't hurt from an information template either.
  • Changed to a different image -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Jo Dee Messina in Naples Italy.jpg needs the categories checked.
  • Dunno how to do that, changed to a different image -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I dislike the use of the rowspan here, it makes the table less accessible for screen readers and it makes the table unsortable. Do you have a specific reason for using them here? Albacore (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems the standard format for these lists of US number ones. The only alternative I can think of would be to repeat the song/artist for each week - would that be preferable.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that MOS:DTT#Column_headers_in_sortable_tables:_good_example has a table similar to this in regards to rowspans, but that table is sortable and uses scope row and scope col tags. It would make sense to break up the table per week since you have a reference for every week. I would like to see more input on the matter before a final decision is made. I also see that a "record label" column could be added to the table. However, I could see the tables from the 2000s combined into one article as in the MOS example. Hmm... Albacore (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I'll wait and see what other people think and am happy to go with the majority verdict -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this is a fork according to 3.b. Nergaal (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you define which article this has been forked from please? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • List of number-one country singles of 2000s (U.S.) as per plenty of previous FLs. Nergaal (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it possible to fork from an article that doesn't exist.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • YES. There have been plenty of FL chart lists that encompass a decade, not just a year. Please see: List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Songs from the 1980s, List of number-one Billboard Christian Songs of the 2000s, List of 1950s UK Singles Chart number ones, List of 1960s UK Singles Chart number ones, List of 1970s UK Singles Chart number ones, List of 1980s UK Singles Chart number ones, List of 1990s UK Singles Chart number ones, List of 2000s UK Singles Chart number ones, List of best-selling singles of the 1960s (UK), List of best-selling singles of the 2000s (UK), List of NME number-one singles from the 1960s, List of 2000s UK Albums Chart number ones, List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums from the 1990s for precedents. Nergaal (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • And there are plenty of lists for single years that have been promoted to featured list (23 by year and 13 by decade lists of number ones are FLs from my count). This one has no fork, so how is that an argument? That would mean all the 36 featured lists referred to all have potential forks. There is no consensus about which format is preferred. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you look through those by-year you will see that most of them were promoted before the decade-style ones became the norm. Nergaal (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Quick question, where and when did "decade-style" become the "norm"? Can you point me to the general discussion? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Correct me if I am wrong, but I've counted 2 successful FLC in 2012 and 2013 for decade-styled song/album top charts, while for year-based ones there was only one successful one (which is not clear to me if the 3.b criteria was discussed enough) and two failed ones. Nergaal (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the topic of this list is not a fork, maybe you can assess this one on its own merits. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:26, 25 June 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 Hahc21 10:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Blackhole78 (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all FL criteria. With the explosion of Twenty20 cricket, keeping a list of some of its more memorable statistics and achievements is warranted. Blackhole78 (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• "..having a limit in the number of overs. The limit of overs is 20 overs per innings." – This would be much better merged into one sentence; at the moment it seems a very awkward construction.
  • FixedBlackhole78 (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "T20I cricket is Twenty20 cricket, so statistics and records set in T20I matches also count toward Twenty20 records." – Again, this sounds very awkward.
  • FixedBlackhole78 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "The earliest match now recognised as a T20I was played between New Zealand and Australia in 17 February 2005;" – Was the match not recognised as a T20I at the time?
  • FixedBlackhole78 (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• England, Ireland, Zimbabwe, Brendom McCullum, Ajantha Mendis, Yuvraj Singh and Richard Levi all needed linking on their first usage.
  • FixedBlackhole78 (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't like the list of "Notable T20I records" in the second paragraph; written like that it is no more interesting than the actual lists below. The paragraph needs to flow a lot more.
  • FixedBlackhole78 (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• New Zealand doesn't need linking in the third paragraph, because it was already linked in the first. In contrast, Ross Taylor does.
  • FixedBlackhole78 (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Listing Criteria should take a lower-case 'c'. I also don't understand what the criteria means: does "last five" mean "top five"? Even so, I don't think it needs its own section.
  • FixedBlackhole78 (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The Cricket article style guide shows that you should use a slash, not a dash for scores, so it should be 300/3, not 300–3, and similarly for the bowling notation.
  • FixedBlackhole78 (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Link not out in the Listing notation section.
  • FixedBlackhole78 (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In each sub-heading of the Listing notation section, "notation" should take a lower-case "n".
  • FixedBlackhole78 (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Bold should not be used for emphasis, and therefore should not be used to show players still active in T20I. (By the way, it says ODI in the notation, but I assume you mean T20I?)
  • Fixed, using double daggers instead.Blackhole78 (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The tables are missing row and column scopes, as per MOS:DTT
  • Fixed.--Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 23:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I would prefer for the flags to be removed myself, I think they are massively overused, but I know I tend to be in the minority on this.
  • I want to build consensus on this first before I do anything.Blackhole78 (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs 2, 6, 7 and 9 aren't coded properly.
  • FixedBlackhole78 (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In Greatest win margin (by balls remaining), Newlands is linked incorrectly.
  • Fixed.Blackhole78 (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In Most consecutive wins and Most consecutive defeats there is a note that "No Results are treated the same as losses and ties in the above table.", but I don't think any explanation has been given as to what a "No Result" is.
  • Fixed.Blackhole78 (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as Greatest win margin (by balls remaining), the venue column lists the ground and the city, but from Highest innings totals the venue is piped in the name of the city.
  • Fixed.Blackhole78 (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• For the individual records, put the players national team in a different column with the flag; otherwise it takes a lot of effort to tell the difference between an Australian and a Kiwi.
  • Fixed.--Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 03:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Consistently use endashes in time spans, rather than hyphens.
  • Fixed. Blackhole78(talk | contrib) 00:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The "Last updated" row is centred in Highest career strike rate, where it is left-aligned in all the rest.
  • --Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 00:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it would be worth including who the Highest 50s and Highest 100s were scored against.
  • Fixed.--Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 00:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What does a "‡" indicate? It suddenly appears half-way down the table, but there is no key for it. For screen-readers, you should use {{double-dagger}} to generate such a symbol, as they won't necessarily pick it up otherwise.
  • They indicate which players have not retired from T20I cricket.--Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 00:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Best figures in a match has columns Player, Batting Team, Venue; while the table below, for the same information really, has Player, Match, Venue. Be consistent.
  • Fixed. --Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 00:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In Highest partnerships, the top partnership is: "170 (2st wicket)": is that the 1st, or the 2nd wicket?
  • Fixed. --Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 00:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The two tables for partnerships, which are in essence giving very similar information, are laid out in completely different formats. Be consistent.
  • Actually, the different structures of the tables are necessary because they highlight slightly different information. The first table highlights the highest partnership in terms of runs irrespective of what wicket the partnership was for. That is why runs is the left-most column. The second table specifically looks at the best partnership for a specific partnership. That is why the partnership is the left-most column. --Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 00:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see that, and have no problem with it. The problem is the right-hand end. One table has Batting Team, Opposition, Venue, Season, and the other has Batting Team, Opponent, Venue, Date. In the Opposition and Opponent columns, one has "v (FLAG) Country", while the other just has "Country". Harrias ^talk 06:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I see. Fixed. --Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 01:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in summary, this article fails the FL criteria on a number of points at this time. Harrias ^talk 08:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• Be consistent through the tables about whether to use "Opposition" or "Opponent" as a column title.
  • Used opposition.--Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 05:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In Greatest win margin (by runs), the fourth venue has been coded wrongly. Also, why does that Venue also list the country, where the others do not?
  • Fixed.--Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 05:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In Greatest win margin (by balls remaining), the fourth venue has been coded wrongly.
  • Fixed.--Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 05:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• For team records such as Highest innings totals, Most runs in the second innings to win etc, I think it would be more appropriate to list the teams in different columns; "Team", "Opposition/Opponent"
  • Fixed.--Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 05:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Throughout, "Dubai(DSC)" should have a space, "Dubai (DSC)".
  • Fixed.--Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 06:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In Lowest innings totals, it is referred to merely as "Dubai".
  • Fixed.--Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 06:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Similarly, "Colombo(RPS)" should have a space, "Colombo (RPS)".
  • Fixed.--Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 06:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are the venues not linked in the Most consecutive wins etc tables, given they are linked elsewhere?
  • Fixed.--Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 22:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of the headings are emboldened (Most runs in the second innings to win for example), while most are not.
  • All headings are now unbonldened.--Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 23:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In some places, Ireland has a flag, but in others it does not.

Fixed.--Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 23:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Highest individual score is formatted differently to Fastest 50 (in terms of the Opposition column.)
  • Fixed.--Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 23:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Highest average and Highest career strike rate both centralise the Team column, which is inconsistent with the other tables.
  • Fixed.--Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 01:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Make sure all the Venue links go to the right venue. At least one goes to the wrong venue, and another goes to the city instead. Also make sure they are all linked; a couple are plain text. Harrias ^talk 15:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.--Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 01:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• In each table with the heading "Batting Team" (there are several), the second word shouldn't be capitalized.
  • Fixed.--Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 04:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Same goes for the second word of "Strike Rate" in the Highest career strike rate table.
  • Fixed.--Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 04:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a second References section that's empty. That clearly doesn't belong here.
  • Fixed.--Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 04:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• See also should come before the references. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Fixed.--Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 04:18, 14 June 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 Hahc21 10:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 17:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This list was based on my earlier FL List of songs recorded by Faith No More, with near-identical formatting; however the content covers a musician's output over several groups and projects as opposed to that of a single group. The article isn't as well illustrated as the prior example, as the additional field needed for the central table meant there wasn't enough room for a column of images, nor was there enough white space that it seemed necessary to fill it. I've offset this a little with a pseudo infobox-like table (using a similar formatting to that in List of accolades received by David Lynch) in order to give some aesthetic visual. I do anticipate a few further entries to this list, which is why I put off bringing it here for a while, but as the man's newest group has recently announced a large joint tour (Gigantour) I feel any upcoming release is probably going to be a while away yet, though it will be swiftly incorporated into this. Although it's been a few months since I've nominated anything, I should still be around to respond to any questions or requests made. Thanks in advance for anyone having a look at this.

• Support - Good going! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from RadioKAOS

• The Gov't Mule entries in the list appear to be all the songs on The Deep End, Volume 2, rather than those track(s) which Newsted actually played on. The Deep End project involved dozens of bassists, most of whom appeared on only one track. Also, Gov't Mule has had many live releases, but I don't recall whether or not Newsted performed on any live shows which were then released. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 04:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  A check of mulebase.com shows that Newsted played five consecutive shows with Gov't Mule in April 2002, but I'm not aware of any of those shows being featured on a live release (the band offers downloads of most concerts, but that's different). He did play with them on May 3, 2003 in New Orleans, which served as the wrap-up of the Deep End project and was released as The Deepest End, Live in Concert. I didn't have time for extensive searching when I made the previous comments, but it appears that he only played "Trying Not to Fall" on both releases. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 21:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a great catch on the live album, I'll start sourcing that now (wasn't on Newsted's website discography so I didn't think to look for it). I knew it was unlikely he played on every track but without knowing of any reliable source that gave me a definitive answer as to how many and which I figured that listing them all was safest, but with a track to look out for I might be able to turn up something I can use. Thanks! GRAPPLE X 00:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, with a bit of searching, I found some transcriptions of the liner notes for The Deepest End, Live in Concert, which not only specifies what Newsted played on the live one, but also that he only had one track on the studio one. I've trimmed the fat accordingly. All in all a fruitful search, so thanks again. GRAPPLE X 01:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think "...And Justice for All" and "−Human" need to sort under A and H when the page first loads. Similarly, "His Scales Are His Pride" needs to be above "Holier Than Thou".

  Done the first and last, but I'm not sure what to do about "−Human". The minus sign is pronounced ("Minus Human") but not spelt out, it would seem odd to me to sort it under H but read it as beginning with M, but similarly it seems odd to sort it under M without an actual written M. Maybe leave it as the sole grawlix listing? GRAPPLE X 00:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, so the minus sign is pronounced? Sorry, didn't realise that... In that case, I reckon it'd be worth moving the song down to the bottom of the list, as that's where it's automatically sorted it anyway. Also, "...And Justice for All" isn't sorting under A. Something like "{{Sort|And Justice for All|...And Justice for All}}" would work.

  Moved. I had assumed that all the punctuation would sort together, I should have checked it manually first. Sorted now. GRAPPLE X 23:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The album was sorting correcting, but the song wasn't. I've made that change here, plus a couple of others. Plus revert if you don't like them. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As a website, I don't think Allmusic needs to be italicised.

  It's an artefact with the template used (the |work= field is italicised while the |publisher= one isn't). I could move both into the publisher field to have it display as "AllMusic, AllRovi" if that would seem better. GRAPPLE X 23:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that might work... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Might be worth linking "Out of My Mind" and "Holy Water" to Out of My Mind / Holy Water.
• Just so I'm sure: Metallica and Flotsam and Jetsam both recorded songs called "Fade to Black"?

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, I totally dropped the ball on this one. I'll start working through these now, but this might have to be put on hiatus for stability issues (There's an album on the way that will need to be added in due time). Sorry again for keeping everyone waiting here. GRAPPLE X 23:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice, but "Newsted was never fully accepted by the group, who frequently refused his musical input" sounds quite strong. I would also have a mini-table with # of songs with each artist/group. Nergaal (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grapple X, do you wish to withdraw this nomination for the moment? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grapple X (wee nudge)... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 26 July 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 Hahc21 10:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): —Prashant 03:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Priyanka Chopra is one of the most popular and versatile actresses in Hindi cinema. The article has been thoroughly researched and is a comprehensive and well-written account of her filmography. The lead covers the most important content from the table, which is sortable and people can see how much the film budget was and its theater gross.—Prashant 03:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Technically in terms of sourcing and the actual list I'd say this is approaching featured list quality. However, "The film was a critical and commercial success, and her performance received highly positive reviews from film critics" really grates with me when it is said so often throughout the lead, so repetitive and nutritionally empty if you know what I mean. I don't know if anybody else feels this way, but I think the way that the prose is written lets this otherwise fine article down. For a filmography I really don't want to see that sort of fluff and would prefer a shorter more concise summary which highlights her most notable performances and films which won her awards. I'm rather concerned with the peer review that you opened and closed within 24 hours on the talk page. It's pretty pointless to do that and to not request more input over a more prolonged period. I expressed concern of the repetition and the neutrality of the lead there which you didn't address. If you disagreed with me, I think it would have been more constructive for you to request wider input from the Indian project from editors like Dwai and Vensatry. But you came here within 48 hours and nominated it for FA anyway.Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 10:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with TB. For such a short list, this has a huge (and poorly written) lead. I have picked these out at first glance:

• " has appeared in many motion pictures and television programmes." -- One television programme is not "many". Either that, or this list is incomplete.
• "The same year" -- What year? Why let the reader do the maths?
• "The same year, Chopra played a supporting role alongside Akshay Kumar and Lara Dutta in the romantic musical drama Andaaz. The film was a major box office success described as the "first universal hit of the year. Her role of a vivacious young girl received praise". -- Who? Kumar, Dutta or Chopra?
• There is another "the same year". What year?
• Inconsistant formatting of box-office and box office
• "This changed in October 2008..." -- It's not good starting off a paragraph which is related to the final sentence of the last.

These comments are just from the first two paragraphs alone! I won't go on, but I'm sure that there will be many more. I would suggest a withdrawal and a peer review. -- Cassianto^Talk 12:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked and corrected everything. Re-worked on the prose.—Prashant 19:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Fails FLC criteria #1 as above. It needs a good copy edit and shakedown before it is up to scratch. Also fails criteria #4 on the sort, which doesn't work: apart from the obvious errors of sorting on "The" in the title, when it shouldn't, the figures don't sort properly: INR80 million is less than INR700 million, and should sort as such, not just sort on the "8" being larger than the "7". The roles and directors both sort on the first name, rather than the surname, which they should. Finally, what are "USD$"? This should either be USD or US$. As a help to your readers, a translation of the titles could also be provided? - SchroCat (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: I have withdrawn the nomination and will nominate again after a long Peer Review.—Prashant 02:55, 22 July 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 Hahc21 00:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks good to me —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "he is one of the four players who have archived the feat of scoring centuries in both of their first and last Test match." "archived" → "achieved". Also, the last "of" isn't adding anything and is only clogging up the sentence.  Done
• A bunch of paragraphs start with Chappell. It would be nice to see at least one of them begin in a different manner, for variety.  Done
• Note 1: Another "archived" needs fixing here.  Done Giants2008 (Talk) 15:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alastair Cook has made another century today so you need to check you note beta for accuracy. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Comment the nominator hasn't edited since late May, if this continues to be the case then I'll archive this nomination (unless anyone wants to co-nom)? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am online now... will fix out the comments in 1-2 days. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:41, 12 June 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 Hahc21 00:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Till 07:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it appears to meet the criteria. Till 07:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Support
• Add the Sugababes template to the bottom of the article
  • Added Till 09:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The most recent FL's about music awards and nominations (see the Fiona Apple and Scissor Sisters lists) have included a brief description of each award.
  • I don't see the point of this. Till 09:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 6 looks to be incomplete.
  • That is because the site is blocked on Wikipedia lol Till 09:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The archived page for ref 25 is broken.
  • Corrected Till 09:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The archived page for ref 28 links to the website's homepage, not to the article being sourced. The original link is broken.
  • Replaced Till 09:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting :) Till 00:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, well-referenced and meticulously cited throughout. I like the formatting style used. — Cirt (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you :) Till 02:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just one comment "Freak Like Me" -> "Freak like Me" (according to our article on the song). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done thanks. Till 23:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

• If ref 6 is blocked on Wikipedia, why should we consider it a reliable source?
• All caps in ref 17 should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed both. Till 06:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• tentative oppose In the current form the sections do not describe the awards themselves (who gives them, where, when, and why are the awards notable). Nergaal (talk) 04:48, 1 July 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 Hahc21 00:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Luis Nuñez (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to be complete and well referenced, also for support the organization for the information about Latin articles. I look forward to any comments that can help make this a Featured List. Thank you very much! – Luis Nuñez (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm afraid the list does not satisfy the criteria for Featured List at this time:

• The article has unreferenced content. For example, the list states Fanny Lu has sold over three million copies worldwide but it does not have a source or an "as of" date.
• "This album is characterized for the fusion of vallenato and tropical rhythms, becoming a tropipop album." This also needs a source.
• The Colombian Album Charts is unsourced.
• FN 5 sources a fan site which are not acceptable as reliable sources. See WP:IRS.
• Per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS, the Bubbling Under 100 should not be listed as an extension as the Hot 100. Rather, the field should be left blank with an explanation that it ranked on the Bubbling Under charts.
• The lead also suffers from grammar issues, for example: "In December 2008 was released the second studio album Dos. The album debuted at #70 on Latin Albums chart in the US and was certified Gold in Mexico, were singles:" This is not proper English. I understand if English is not your first language, so your best bet is to request a copy-edit at WP:GOCE.
• Some of the citations need to be fixed. For example, you list billboard.com as the work when it should be Billboard with the publisher being Prometheus Global Media.
• My recommendation is to look at the Ricardo Arjona discography as an example of how a discography list should be done.

Erick (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Erick is right about the condition of the list. No citations in the lead, poorly formatted references, and other issues that he pointed out earlier mean that the list does not meet FL criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was not complete, so I have added it to the FLC page. Erick (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – I agree with Erick and Giants2008, the discography isn't FL material. My biggest concern is its lack of citations and the reliability of the ones that are in the article. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:31, 7 July 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 The Rambling Man 10:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Narom (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because, i've put a lot of hard work into it and I hope it's reached the threshold to be considered for it. However I know its not perfect and happy to do more work to get it there if needs be. Narom (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• First off, the entire lead is unreferenced, that certainly needs addressing done
• "Southport Football Club is an English association football club......and currently play in the Conference National" - club referred to as singular and plural in the same sentencedone
• "after suffering a concession of heavy defeats" - I think you mean a "succession", not "concession"done
• "In 1921, all first teams (league was a mixture of first and reserve teams)...." - I don't like the bracketed section there, could you try and work it into more flowing prose?Better i think?
• I would bin the "statistics" section, I really don't think it adds anything. No other "List of X F.C. seasons" article has anything like that I must have copied it from another list, not something i would have done off my own back, i can remove it
• Why are the FA Cup stats for the first few seasons (assuming that's what they are) in the "other competitions" column?Just a formatting error.
• How can you be sure that the players shown as having said a new goalscoring record did so when there are loads of seasons for which the info is not known? For example, how do you know that Billy Glover's 28 goals in 1921-22 was a record? Someone could have scored 29 the season before..........Good point.
• Are the top goalscorer details for the last 29 Football League seasons really not known? You list Braham's book as the source for every FL season, does the book really only detail the top goalscorer up to 1949?They are known, i've just got to invididually count the goals for each player as there isn't a list.
• Unlike the League, the FA Cup did take place in 1945-46 and Southport were in it, that is missing from the table
• For the 1977-78 season, you use the pink for relegated, but they weren't relegated, they were voted out I'll think of something.
• You don't specify which division of the NPL the club was in between 1979 and 1993It was only one division when southport were in it.
  • That's not correct, it had two divisions from 1987..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wasn't aware of that, thanks. Narom (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note G - "outbreak" is one word, not two Done
• Note I - in present tense, all other notes are in past tenseDone
• Note K - "quarter-finals" should have a hyphen and no capital lettersDone
• Note L - surely the Fourth Division was below the Third, not alongside it?Done, just bad wording.
• Note N - "changed named"? Possibly have another note?
• Note Q - "The 2000–01 edition of the Football League Trophy saw 8 Football Conference sides" - shouldn't that be 2001-02?Done
• Note R - stray "s" on the end of Football ConferenceDone
• Note U - "kicked out" is a very slangy expression to use in an encyclopediaDone
• Also, for that season, the stats are completely wrong compared to FCHDDone, just too much crtl-v
• General refs - not accessed since 2010 - really? Good point.
• Per WP:ACCESS, colour should not be used to signify something without the use of a symbol as well for those who can't see the coloursDone

Hope this helps. The biggest issues, I think, are the total lack of sourcing in the lead (the claim to have been the first team to have a sponsored name definitely needs a citation) and the missing top goalscorers for over half the Football League seasons (if the book lists them from 1921 to 1949 I find it implausible that it doesn't list the rest......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, certainly helps having a fresh eye over it. I'll dig the book out tomorrow and make a crack on it. You're certainly right about the 45 fa cup, I must have just missed it. Narom (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How's it looking now? Obviously still some things to work on. Narom (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Sorry, but I see numerous issues with the list that cause it not to meet the FL criteria.

• None of the bolding in the lead for the team names is necessary, and it goes against MOS:BOLD.
• In a few places in the lead, spaces should be removed between references and punctuation.
• The two hyphens around Southport Vulcan should be en dashes per the Manual of Style, or unspaced em dashes if you prefer.
• "In 1919, the club dropped Vulcan from their name and were now known strictly as Southport and have been ever since." This isn't the best bit of writing I've seen at FLC, and it could stand to be re-written.
• The photo in the lead could use alt text.
• Statistics: Why are there equal signs for half of these items?
• And why is there a period after "Group A" in the last item here? Truth be told, I don't think this section adds much to the list. People can look at the division column of the table if they want to know how many seasons Southport spent in a league.
• Bolding in tables has long been discouraged at FLC. I can understand that the scopes force bolding in one of the columns, but the bolding in the division and top scorer columns needs to go. You can use bolding for emphasis, if you like.
• All tables items with colors require matching symbols per WP:ACCESS, not just the promotions, relegations, and top scorers. The colored winners and runners-up will need symbols as well.
• Second word of the Average Attendance column should be decapitalized.
• The lack of references for the early seasons is glaring. Is this material all covered by the general references?
• In the general references, a link to the Statto main page doesn't do anything to help the reader verify the material in this article. A link to a team-specific page would be more helpful here.
• No page numbers for ref 10 is an obvious weakness in the referencing. Without a page number, this isn't as verifiable as it should be. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn by nominator, 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 17:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This list is on the seven NFL running backs who have rushed for 2,000 yards in a single season. This is considered a significant achievement for running backs, and the article has meets all criteria by defining the subject, having a strong list table, and giving a fair description of each subject.

For full disclosure, I have another nomination up at the moment - Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of NFL tied games/archive1. It has been up for months now, has achieved a good amount of support, and will probably be closed soon. I think this new nomination fits the rules of WP:FLC. Toa Nidhiki05 17:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Sorry, but I think that this list has 3b issues, as most seven-item lists do. I have a hard time believing that this information couldn't be incorporated into another list of larger scope, such as highlighting relevant entries at List of National Football League season rushing yards leaders. In fact, a bullet-point list is already in that article, and I see no reason why this table couldn't be inserted there. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree - I don't think the list of season rushing yards leaders is a good place to put this information at all. That article is a list of individuals rushing leader by season, while this article is a list of 2,000 yard rushers. That is two different things - that is focused on rushing in the aspect of a league-best achievement, while this article is focused entirely on the highest individual achievements in rushing yardage. Additionally, how is a list being small necessarily a bad thing? This list isn't massive because the achievement is rare - there are 84 1,5000 yard rushers and well over 250 1,000 yard rushers, which is a major part of the reason why this achievement is so notable. In a purely historical context, you don't hear anybody talking about how great Earl Campbell's 1980 season (1,934 yards) was, or how Ahman Green and Barry Sanders both had seasons with 1,883 yards. I think the lead's length alone is proof enough that this can stand as a stand-alone list. Toa Nidhiki05 02:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The "No." abbreviation is explained in the key AND it uses the {{Abbr}} template. I don't understand this. Why does it need a tooltip if it's in the key? What good is the tooltip anyway, isn't it just an easter egg? Also, the definition in the key, is the use of "nth" there appropriate? Doesn't that mean "last" or "utmost"? Why not just say "number"?
• References 6, 7, and 8 are cited on every line. Since they are global references can they be cited just once in the table, maybe in the caption text? Please disregard. Rejectwater (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Pictures: in my opinion there are one too many images on this page and the captions are not succinct. I don't see how when the picture was taken is relevant. Cheers, Rejectwater (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off I want to apologize for the delay in responding; I did not realize anything had happened here. As to the first issue, I (think) I have corrected it. To the third, I am not aware of any free use in-game pictures of the players from their 2,000 yard season. I need more clear advice on how to correct this issue. Toa Nidhiki05 03:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues I have with the images: the number of images and their captions. I will explain these two issues separately below.

• The number of images: I believe the page has too many images. It's a small article; four images is too much clutter. My two cents is to use no more than three images. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images addresses Wikipedia policies regarding image use- there is no set maximum that I am aware of, but I think "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can" applies here.
• Captions should be succint. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions. An example of a succinct caption in this article would be something like "O.J. Simpson was the first player to rush for 2.000 yards in a single season." The way the captions are now, they introduce material better left to the article and/or give irrelevant information about the image.

Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I believe I have fixed those issues now. Toa Nidhiki05 14:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record here, I have completed a massive upgrade to the article in question (List of National Football League rushing champions). Hopefully it should be very clear why this list is warranted and needed, as the focus in this article is entirely different from the latter. Toa Nidhiki05 17:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose while this list might not be a 3.b violation, I really do think that this article would be much better suited as an article (perhaps with a section on each entry) than a list. the 1000-yard club though might be an appropriate list. Nergaal (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been unsuccessful, 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.