Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2015

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The list was withdrawn by SchroCat 11:16, 31 July 2015 [1].

Anurag Kashyap filmography

[edit]
Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after failing at its first FLC, this list has gone through a PR and now I feel meets the criteria's. -- Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT 21:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FrB.TG
  • WP:OVERLINKING discourages to link common occupations. So de-link director, producer, and screenwriter.
  • The WP:ALT text of the image needs a full stop at the end.
  • "The same year he made the critical and commercial failure No Smoking" - "made" => "directed".
  • Ref. 14 and 15 have got nothing to do with the critical acclaim of the film Udaan as they are just reviews of two critics and they do not explicitly state that the film "was critically acclaimed" or something. Replace ref. 14 and 15 with this source.
  • Why have you used {{Abbr}} only in the "Feature film" section. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 21:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is not more than one reference in any section apart from "Feature film". -- Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved your comments. -- Yashthepunisher (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Use this way: {{Abbr|Ref.|Reference}} where there is only one reference in each row. Before coming up at FLC, I am sure you have read the introduction of this page. And you might have also noted that "nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors". -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 13:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, my mistake. -- Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant this. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 12:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for that. -- Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Admins please note that Deniroish is a confirmed sock of the nominator. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and since this was from the nominator himself, this support should not be considered valid. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 09:52, 6 July 2015 (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 PresN 20:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC) [2].[reply]

List of census-designated places in West Virginia

[edit]
Nominator(s): Seattle (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A list of census designated places (CDPs) in West Virginia; some CDPs show past prosperity, but current economic emaciation. Seattle (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lead needs a good copy edit as there are lots of passive sentences in a row. For example the first sentence could be written more actively as follows: "The United States Census Bureau separates places by incorporation for statistical purposes during its decennial census". It's also a bit strange that the lead starts with something that this list is not about. Specifically talking about incorporation instead of the definition of a census designated place. Mattximus (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattximus: I've mixed a few active sentences into the lead. CDPs themselves don't have much of a definition, after a non-incorporated place. I've defined incorporation and the requirements specific to West Virginia to give a more complete definition of CDPs by way of contrast so that, if municipalities can do the defined articles listed under the Municipal Code of West Virginia, the implication is CDPs cannot. I followed the same for rules for incorporation. Seattle (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lead really needs a copyedit, but I like this list, so maybe I can take a look. Revert any edits you do not like. One thing that stands out is that almost all the lead is dedicated to talking about what makes an incorporated place, but the list is about unincorporated places. It's great information if this list was about incorporated places, but I don't understand why it's in this article.
Also the caption beside the lead photo is great and useful, but also not related to the page in question. The list of CPDs should not have a detailed history of a particular building. That summary belongs on the page specific to that building, and this page can link to that one. Mattximus (talk)
  • Comments by Imzadi1979:
    • The photos in the same section as the list table are creating a formatting issue. Right under the header, the photos appear on the right opposite a large blank space. Because the table is wider than the space left over by the photos, it appears under them. (The same behavior happens if I print the page to a PDF file.) I suggest converting the photos into a gallery under the table or removing them.
    • As for the photos, there is some work needed related to the captions. I suggest piping the state name out of links in the captions. It should be obvious that any mentioned places are in West Virginia based on the title of the page, but if they were retained, someone needs to audit them to make sure a comma always appears after the state name. Since all of the mentioned places are linked in the table, they need not be linked again in the captions. Someone should also audit if linked phrases are common enough to go unlinked.
  • I've removed the state names from the captions. I don't have a problem with convenience links in the captions so that readers won't have to scroll back to the table for more information on the town pictured. If you have a specific phrase that needs to be unlinked, let me know. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the table itself, the population column should be right-aligned for legibility. If this was done, ones place, the tens place, the hundred place and the thousands place (with the comma) would line up. Then it would be more apparent at a quick glance which values are larger than others.
  • They look fairly well aligned now; if the community's population is larger, an extra digit will appear from the previous entry, or they will be the same. For sortability purposes, the list appears aligned. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would recommend that you use separate columns for area using |disp=table in {{convert}} since that would right-align the numbers for the same legibility concerns. It would have the added benefit that the unit value (sq mi or km2) would not need to be repeated in every row. You don't repeat "County" after every county name, so why do you need to repeat "sq mi" after every area? The implicit "people" unit for population isn't displayed in each row.
    • In the references, you've used "United States Census Bureau" as the name of a published work, putting it in italics. Since it's the name of the agency that published those sources, it should not be in italics. Now if you wish to include the relationship of the United States Census Bureau to the United States Department of Commerce, you could use the former as the author and the latter as the publisher, you could list both as the publisher. You could drop the department and just use the bureau as the publisher, but as it stands, it should not be the name of a published work.
  • Ultimately the United States Department of Commerce publishes the data collected by the United States Census Bureau, the work. The United States Census Bureau operates within the United States Department of Commerce. I've formatted references to the National Register of Historic Places, published by the National Park Service, in a similar fashion. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The West Virginia Code is the name of a published work, in this case a collection of the state's statutes. It should appear in italics to be consistent with the rest of the footnotes. Legal citations, in Bluebook format may italicize the title of an article in a journal or newspaper and then run the title of the word in roman ("plain") text, but you're not using Bluebook here, so you should conform those citations to the formatting style that is in use. The same goes for "Miss. Code Ann." (Mississippi Code Annotated) and "Fla. Stat." (Florida Statutes). At the very least, just as we advise with journal titles, we should not be abbreviating these. Since we are designed for a general audience, we should not presume that our readers know what "Miss. Code Ann." means.
  • I don't yet have experience with Bluebook citations, but I tried to follow the abbreviations listed here. I expanded the legal citations' details, and included dates for publication. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The publisher for the newspaper in n20 is superfluous and can be removed. With newspapers, the name of the paper alone (supplemented by the location of publication if not included in the paper's name) along with the date of publication is sufficient to identify the source of the article being cited. Since this is online, you should supply the access date, just as you did with other online sources.
    • If possible, it would be good to get publication dates for all of the sources that lack them. For the legal code sections, an enactment or effective date for the law (or its last amendment date) is sufficient.
  • I won't state an opinion as to support or opposition at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 04:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The numbers in the table are not aligned, which is not the same as sortability. When you have different orders of magnitude, as you do here, right-aligned numbers would be better. Looking at some values from the table, 9 is an order of magnitude smaller than 95, which is still an order of magnitude smaller than 961, and there's another order of magnitude higher with 9,995. Spreadsheets, and the paper ledgers before them, use right-aligned numerical values, or decimal-aligned numbers so that these orders of magnitude line up: the ones place is on the right edge in every row, the tens place is immediately to the left of it in every row, etc. However, when you left align these numbers, the 9s all appear first, even though they represent values within their larger numbers of 9, 90, 900 and 9000. Last comment on this point: when you add an additional digit while counting up in numbers to indicate the next order of magnitude, such as when your car's odometer rolls over form 99,999 miles to 100,000, you add it to the left, not the right. When you left-align a set of numbers of mixed magnitudes, you're effectively adding that extra digit to the right.
    • Area column suffers from these same concerns of alignment, which again isn't the same as sortability. Additionally, by putting the metric values underneath, the visual scanning breaks down. I scan down the table, and read areas of 3.27, 8.5, 10.26, 26.6... At a quick glance, I don't parse that as 3.27 mi2, 8.5 km2, 10.26 mi2, 26.6 km2, but the numbers run together as the same base unit because no base unit is specified. Also, the decimal places aren't consistent so it's a bit jarring to scan the column and see the precision flip back and forth. Also, the parentheses are problematic because that is one of the ways used in accounting to note negative values, along with the minus sign or red ink/print. In any case, it forces the reader to pause to discern what is being displayed instead of parsing it more naturally.

      Now, this format might be necessary where space is limited, but it is not so limited here. Readers can figure out what the numbers mean, but not as easily as if they were in separate columns. You could use a header that placed the words "Total surface area" on one line that spanned both columns with "Square miles" and "Square kilometers" on a second line, or if that were too wide, you could use "mi2" and "km2" for the column labels on the second line. Then the values should be right aligned.

  • I've re-added the miles and km markers, because in no other column are two values present, and right-aligned values. And I credit our readers with enough good sense to realize that there can't be a negative value for a straight conversion of area. Seattle (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The National Register of Historic Places is a published listing, and therefore a work; someplace is a printed copy of the register itself maintained by the National Park Service, and it alone isn't the name of an agency or office within the NPS. The "United States Census Bureau" itself is the name of a government agency, not the name of a book or a periodical like a magazine or journal. There may be a published work that begins with the name of the agency, a United States Census Bureau Journal, for instance, but that doesn't make the bare "United States Census Bureau" itself a published work that should appear in italics. It is either an author, a publisher, or both.
    • I'm glad you expanded the legal code names. For a generalist audience, those abbreviations can be quite cryptic, but lawyers who deal with them on a daily basis would not have such concerns. The page you referenced is for those in the legal profession, not a generalist audience.
    • To comment on something in Harrias' review below, "census-defined place" is actually the more correct punctuation. Together "census" and "defined" jointly modify "place". There is no such thing, that I know of, as a "defined place" that would make sense modified by "census". No, instead it is a place that is "census defined", and when that compound adjective appears in front to modify the word "place", it should be hyphenated under basic English grammar rules. If the Census Bureau doesn't punctuate it that way though, well, that's a debate for another day. Imzadi 1979 → 05:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the website title at http://www.census.gov is "census.gov", if it has a title at all. (Not all websites do.) In turn, that website is published by the United States Census Bureau, a division of the United States Department of Commerce. The bureau is not the name of a published work no matter now you try to parse it.
  • This version clearly shows how to compactly format the table with separate columns.
    • As I noted above, you've dropped the word "County" from the name of each county in that column, because the column heading implies that. You've omitted the unit of "people" from the population column, because the column heading implies that. Properly done, there's no need to repeat the unit in each row of the table because the heading will imply the proper units. However, dropping the units and leaving the conversions in the same column is an open invitation for readers to mis-parse the data while scanning the table; seeing raw numbers in parentheses in a table can be mis-interpretted as negative numbers or notation of measure uncertainty.
    • You seem to believe that splitting the columns is bad for some reason, yet that's what |disp=table is for in {{convert}}.
  • I don't know why it's there; you'd have to ask whoever added the parameter to {{convert}} his or her reasoning behind adding it to the template. As I noted above, I re-added the parameters because "in no other column are two values present". Seattle (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done this way, the two columns actually take up less horizontal space.
  • The second column under "Total area" is superfluous to the first; "parse" it any way you want, but there's no reason that couldn't be one column.
    • The table takes up less vertical space because the only rows that need to occupy two lines are those for places in two counties. So except for those rows, everything lines up across vertically as a reader scans each row horizontally as well. For those two-county rows, you could separate the two values by a simple comma instead of a line break, which wouldn't widen the column much, if at all. On narrower displays, the cells will still line-wrap at the comma if necessary to reduce the width of the overall column.
  • Finally, the panoramic photo should be reinserted into the gallery, moved elsewhere (like the bottom of the lead), or removed. It is jarring to have this nicely formatted gallery with a photograph of a totally different formatting scheme directly underneath. The inconsistency gives an unpolished look.

Imzadi 1979 → 09:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—fails several criteria. Until this point, I had not reviewed the prose, but now that I have, I feel the lead section fails criterion 1 in addition to the WP:V policy. There is a direct quotation that lacks a citation for the source of the quotation, contrary to policy. From WP:V, "All quotations ... must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Professional writing standards, and typical Wikipedian practice, is to immediately follow quoted text with a source. I might assume that the footnote at the end of the subsequent sentence is the source of the quotation, but that assumption would be no substitute for appropriate practices, even if that means consecutive sentence bear the same footnote.

The entire second paragraph is off-topic, but would be appropriate in a list of incorporated places in West Virginia. If this paragraph were recast a bit, it could be on-topic for CDPs/unincorporated places, but much of the information as presented does not apply to the topic at hand.

  • Disagree. This paragraph actually describes CDPs by describing what they are not– they haven't met the requirements for incorporation, which I specify in paragraph two, or they have chosen not to incorporate. Seattle (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on to criterion 4, the second paragraph of the lead should be its own section once reworked as it would form a natural area of the topic of CDPs in the state, a description of what a CDP in the state is. The last paragraph of the lead, as it appears, is a good summary of some the details in the table, so it should remain in the lead to satisfy criterion 2.

In addition the length of some of the captions in the gallery cannot be classified as "succinct", failing criterion 5b. If the author wants to expound on various places, he or she can add a "Description" column to the table.

Criterion 5a is failed related to the layout of the table regarding the area columns. The placement of a panoramic photograph immediately after a gallery, resulting in the juxtaposition of two styles of photographic elements also fails criterion 5a. Splitting the unit systems for the area would enhance the legibility or the ability of readers to parse the numerical data and improve the visual appeal of the table. Harmonizing the juxtaposition of photo layout styles, even just by moving the one photo up into the prose sections preceding the table would also improve the visual appeal.

For these reasons, I now oppose at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 11:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • List of cities and towns in Arizona (promoted in 2009), List of cities and towns in California (2012), and List of cities and towns in the San Francisco Bay Area (2012) use separate columns for each measurement system when displaying converted measurements, although they have the same issue I originally experienced with this list regarding blank space and photographs. The also include the population density, which is completely missing from this list. That tells me we're not satisfying criterion 3a related the "annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items". Similar lists for Canada and other countries lack converted values, specifying areas and population densities only in terms of square kilometers, so one could argue they're failing MOS:CONVERSIONS. However, they're at least putting the unit in the heading and not repeating it in every row of the table, something that currently has to be done here to keep the customary and metric straight. Imzadi 1979 → 12:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Arizona list has the population density, but it is the oldest list of the three and some of the table features show its age. I don't know that much about what is expected of similar lists, but it's not something I would personally mandate. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Harrias
  • Why is it a "List of census-designated places in West Virginia" with a hyphen, when it defines a "census designated place" with no hyphen? Unless there is a reason I am missing, this should be made consistent, and probably follow our article, and have no hyphen.
  • I'm a little confused about the second paragraph. As far as I can tell from the first paragraph, a CDP lacks "elected municipal officers and boundaries with legal status", while the second paragraphs discusses "municipal corporations": are "municipal corporations" a subset of CDPs?
  • The last paragraph seem a bit repetitive, given that Bowden is the smallest and least populated, those facts could do with being merged into one sentence.
  • Everything in the table looks hunky dory, and the images display fine next to it for me, but I do have a wide screen. Harrias talk 13:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We cannot assume all readers have wide screens. I have one as well, but I keep my window width constrained to approximate a sheet of paper held in the portrait (upright) orientation, not a sheet of paper in landscape (wide screen) orientation. Before the page was changes, I had the same issue viewing the desktop version of the article on my iPad in the portrait orientation, and when I rotated the device to landscape mode. Viewing the mobile version of the page, pre-change, gave me the same formatting issues in portrait mode, but not in landscape. And just to be complete, I viewed the page on my phone. My phone gave me the same results as my tablet for the desktop view. In mobile view, the table appeared under the photos no matter which way I held my phone.

      In short, we have a lot of variables to account for in laying out the elements of a page, and assuming that a reader has a wide screen and won't have issues with a format is a bad idea. The change to a gallery under the table is a great improvement. Imzadi 1979 → 23:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this nomination has been here for 2 months without any support votes, so I'm going to have to close it as not passing. --PresN 20:28, 27 July 2015 (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 Crisco 1492 09:37, 22 July 2015 [3].

Shinhwa discography

[edit]
Nominator(s): Shinyang-i (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is an inclusive and useful list that meets the content and style requirements of discographies and standalone lists. I also want it to serve as a model for Korean music-related discographies, as there are currently no FLs in this area from the time period covered by this list. South Korea's music charts have changed a few times over the years, and I feel this list accurately portrays and represents the charts being used at various points in time. Thanks for your time, and I look forward to your comments. Shinyang-i (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Random86 (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments:
    • The sources I looked at indicate Shinhwa's first album is titled Resolver (해결사): [4], [5]. You moved the article to Shinhwa (album), but the text there says it was re-named Shinhwa when it was released in Japan. What official sources were you referring to?
    • "featuring various other" → "featuring various" or "featuring other"
    • Should Daesang really be capitalized? Also, maybe the awards shows names should be there. Something like "The success of Brand New brought the group two prestigious daesang (Korean: 대상; lit. "grand prize") awards at the Seoul Music Awards and SBS Gayo Daejeon, a first for the group.
    • "In 2006, they also" should probably lose the "also"
    • Should CJ E&M be CJ E&M Music?
    • The word "currently" shouldn't be used
    • The lead is pretty comprehensive, but maybe it should have something the album's chart positions? I noticed quite a few charted at number 1, for example.
    • Were any other albums released on cassette?
    • The small Korean/Japanese text is kind of hard to read.
    • Unused columns should be removed (chart positions / sales on the box set table; JPN on EPs).
    • Note F says "These songs, originally titled in Korean", but one song is in Japanese
    • I'm thinking the chart names in the peak chart positions column don't need brackets around them. --Random86 (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responses to Random86
Thanks for your comments!
    • I got curious about this when I realized that no where on the CD itself is it called 해결사, only 신화, and it's called Shinhwa on the Korean wikipedia. I did some research and couldn't find Korean-langauge RS calling it 해결사. At the time, I'd swear Hanteo didn't. Shinhwa does not have any SM-era material on their official website, and their old SM Ent site is not loading at the moment. Let me do some more research; I was 100% sure when I made the move but now you've got me doubting it because just now I did pull up Korean sources calling it 해결사. Let me research it some more. And back to 해결사 it goes. Vendors call it 해결사 and in the absence of an official source, I guess there are more 해결사 than 신화, so people will probably be happier this way.
    • Done.
    • The names of awards are usually capitalized, aren't they? "Best Male Artist" and so forth? I can add which bodies awarded them if you think it adds to the article. I've found they are usually not mentioned when referring to events from years past.
    • Done.
    • Done.
    • I don't know, I guess it's personal preference? I find discographies already focus too much on chart rankings, so I chose to focus on their release history as opposed to sales. The media has not really focused charting for Shinhwa, either. They've been around a long time and #1s have never been their claim to fame.
    • Yes, but there are no official sources saying so. I've actually seen cassettes. I went entirely by what Hanteo said, as I had nothing else on which to rely. I tried to inquire about this situation in the past, but could never get a response from anyone. AFAIK, Hanteo is about as good a source for this as we can get, but it's definitely got errors and omissions.
    • Okay, I can change that.
    • Done.
    • Changed to "Korean (or Japanese)".
    • You mean parentheses? I can remove those.
Thank you very much for your helpful comments. I hope you'll continue to check back on the article's progress! Shinyang-i (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I looked in reliable English sources, and daesang is both capitalized and uncapitalized, so it's probably fine either way. The award bodies don't necessarily have to be mentioned either. If the media didn't focus on charting it makes sense not to emphasize it. I guess cassettes can't mentioned without a source. Parentheses are a type of bracket, so yes. :)
One more thing I noticed: In the references, some things maybe should be in the publisher field instead of work/website (e.g. Recording Industry Association Korea). I don't completely understand the distinction, so you might have to ask another editor about this. Random86 (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On that last point I'm really hoping for input from others, too. Like you, I don't always understand the difference between the two. Again, thanks for your input; let's hope some other editors make suggestions, too. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT
Comments from FrB.TG
  • "The discography of South Korean boyband Shinhwa consists of" – I would reword it as "The South Korean boy band Shinhwa has released".
  • "One greatest hits compilation, My Choice, was released under SM Entertainment" – greatest hits need to be wiki-linked.
  • "Under SM Entertainment" used three times in the lead. Consider rephrasing.
  • Since this is the English Wikipedia, you don't need to write the original titles in brackets.
  • The publisher of the references have to be either linked in each occurrence or only in first instance.
  • Why are the dates in the United States format ([month] [day], [year]). The band does not even relate to the USA.
  • The image caption is a bit confusing. "L to R" – do you think readers will understand what is it? They must be in full forms.
  • The Korea Times linked in ref. 1 and 2 but not 84.
  • Ref 84. has a publisher The Korea Times. Needs to be removed.
  • Be consistent with the owners of the references' publishers; either in all or none.
  • Some of the references are archived as their links are broken. Understandable, but why is it so with ref. 10 and 13.
  • I am not sure about the reliability of Mwave?
  • Avoid WP:SHOUTING in references i.e. ref. 11.
  • The titles of the references shouldn't be in italics even if they are the title of albums.
  • "Unrecognized redirect": ref. 29.
  • Ref. 43 has no accessdate.
  • Why is the publisher for ref. 88 in italics? -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 13:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to FrB.TG Thank you so much, @FrB.TG: for taking the time to review and for the useful feedback! I'll try to address your concerns.

  • Reworded.
  • Wikilinked.
  • Rephrased.
  • I won't remove the actual names and leave only unofficial, approximate translations. The real titles must stay.
  • Aside from ref. 84, I didn't see any other omissions. Did you see any others?
  • You're so inconsistent with linking the publishers of references. They are linked randomly e.g. Billboard linked in ref. 18, 70, 73, but not 85, 86. Should be linked either in first occurrence (in this case only in ref. 18) or in all, not randomly. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 10:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the absence of strong ties to any one English-speaking nation, the date format should be that used when the article was initially written. It doesn't matter if "the band does not even relate to the USA."
  • Expanded.
  • Wikilinked.
  • Removed.
  • What are "owners of the references' publishers"? I don't know that means (sorry).
  • Because finding new sources to replace deleted ones is hard, often impossible, and almost entirely preventable. Proactively archiving refs is smart and good for Wikipedia.
  • Mwave is the website of M.net, a major music-focused network in Korea, and it is considered reliable by Wikiproject Korea. In fact, it is pretty much the only reliable, prolific, English-language website for Korean music news. (There are other English RS but they are not very prolific on music subjects.)
  • Japanese frequently title things using all caps, so this was the actual name of the article, not shouting. However, I've changed it now.
  • I can't find the page that talks about how to format reference titles. Can you point me toward it, please? It is done the same way on FL Girls' Generation discography.
  • Ref. 29 works fine for me. Perhaps a momentary hiccup at archive.org? Let me know if this problem continues for you.
  • Whoops, thanks. Added.
  • Because it got stuck in the wrong field of the citation template. It's now fixed.

This is my first experience with featured content, I'm probably not in a position to assess another FL candidate. Also, it's Taylor Swift; you'll have no problem finding reviewers! Unlike poor Shinhwa, who no one cares about, ha ha. I appreciate your feedback and suggestions, and hope you can take another look to see if the article has improved (as well as answer my questions). Shinyang-i (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG:, I've looked over the references and the article history, and now I see that another editor made changes to the formatting of almost all the references after I nominated this for FL. Can you please help me out by pointing me toward the page that has all these reference formatting rules you're quoting? I'm not challenging you on them, I just want to see them myself because so much has been changed that now I need to examine each reference again for accuracy and correct formatting. Shinyang-i (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about a page that has all these references, but this page might help you format them properly. I had also mentioned some points (in your reply) above. Have a look at them. They might also help you. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 18:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I wouldn't have submitted this for FL consideration without reading FL requirements. I meant the reference formatting that you have mentioned: no italics in the ref title, publisher vs website, wikilinking either first or always, all of that stuff - where do I find all of those rules? As I said, nearly every reference has been reformatted recently by someone else, so I need to go through every single one with a fine-toothed comb to make sure it's formatted correctly and still accurate, but honestly I can never find these highly-detailed requirements you're mentioning so I'm just stuck (and burnt out). Shinyang-i (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure "where do you find" them, but during the contribution to 11 featured lists, I have been asked by reviewers to do what I have told you. In addition to that I am telling you to base this list on other similar FLs. Since this is for featured content, this should be no different. As for publisher vs website: when you write it as "|website=" its result comes in italics – which is only for newspapers, magazines, encyclopædias etc. – and that's the reason behind asking you to replace "|website=" with "|publisher=". -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 20:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, I'm not challenging you, but it's hard to know how to format things if I can't even see the list of formatting rules. And I'm not acting like some petulant child for wanting to see them. And of course I've spent time looking at other FLs; for instance, above I mentioned that the only Korean music FL, Girls' Generation discography, has italics in the titles of the references. As for publisher vs website - how would anyone know that? This is what's constantly so frustrating with this process. I want to be a responsible editor here, but instead of being able to figure things out for myself using available resources, I'm just told "change this", "change that" or "go look at an FL", which isn't particularly helpful in the learning process. I also don't really see how these kinds of things particularly improve the article. But give me a while, I'll go through every single reference again and reformat them, hoping to get them right this time. Shinyang-i (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well the titles in italics are okay (no problem at all). The only problem with ref. at the moment is the inconsistency with linking the publishers/websites (or so). Please either link all of the publishers or just on first occurrence of it. The Korea Times refs are linked with every occurrence, which is quite okay, but why haven't you done the same with other refs. e.g. Billboard linked in ref. 18, 70, 73 but not in 85 and 86. Do the same like you have done in The Korea Times (link every time it occurs). -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 22:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not unintelligent; you don't have to put it in italics for me to see. And I don't know if you realize this, but I'm actually a human being and the omission of a link or other inconsistency is not something that should really be questioned with "why did you?"; you can probably just assume that it was a mistake and discuss it as such. The repeated questioning, as if errors were done by nefarious intent, puts the other person on the defensive. The reason it hasn't been changed yet is because, as I said repeatedly, nearly every single reference was altered by another editor and I am having to go through every single one of them again. Meanwhile, ProveIt isn't working for me, so I'm having to do it the super-slow way and hope I don't make another human error. Meanwhile, to clarify, earlier you said italics were not allowed in reference titles, even if they are for the names of albums; now you say they are no problem. I am going to follow your second instruction and leave the reference titles as they are, then. Shinyang-i (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I got ProveIt working (had to un-enable something else) and I think I've caught any remaining inconsistencies. If there are some left, they are there by mistake because I'm human, and simply pointing them out would be immensely helpful. Thank you. Shinyang-i (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(s) from dan_arndt

  • In accordance with the style guide for discographies it is recommended that column headers for chart positions should be an English-language abbreviation of the chart's country of origin, not the name of the individual chart. The exception to this rule, however, is in cases where two columns are from the same country, such as component or competing charts. In these cases, the column header should start with an abbreviation of the country, followed by an abbreviation of the chart name. For example the wikitable for Studio albums, where the Korean charts should be in a single column, under a single heading of KOR, separated into two sub-columns for each of the two Korean charts. Dan arndt (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the band have any music sales certifications (i.e. Gold, Platinum Records) from the Korea Music Content Industry Association. Most of the relevant websites are all in Korean. Dan arndt (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph the wiki-link for My Choice is broken. Dan arndt (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to dan_arndt Thank you so much for taking the time to review, @Dan arndt:. I'll try to address your concerns.

  • I don't think it will improve the article in any way to completely redo the tables in order to make this minute change. The required information is there, clearly presented, and totally understandable. The style guideline for discographies has never been agreed upon by anyone, so I think it's fine the way it is. Also, because there are three different Korean charts involved in the article, I kept the name of the chart in the table header even in tables showing placements for only one Korean chart. It's much more clear that way.
  • Korea has no certifications.
  • D'oh, thanks for catching that. I broke it a couple days ago when making another editor's requested changes; it's now fixed.

Thanks again for your time. Let me know if you have any more concerns. Shinyang-i (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Azealia911

  • I'd remove the note about the videography article and place it in a "See also" section.
Many discographies include music videos, but in this case they're listed on the videography article instead, so the hatnote is in its present location by way of explanation. This type of hatnote seems appropriate in this case, much like a hatnote to a group member's group works on their solo discography (see FL George Michael discography and Wham! discography, for instance).
I'm not suggesting you remove it, just move it to a section above references titled ===See also=== and list it there. The examples you cite are notes about other musical discographies, videographies are generally non-important in relation to discographies.
But videographies are kind of parallel to discographies. They're for an artist's video releases, and discographies are for audio releases. So I just thought it made sense to have it in a hatnote to clear up the music video issue.
Videograhpies, like this one, can actually include other things like television commercials and film/tv appearances, which as you know are completely unrelated, still would like to see this moved but it's your FLC so your call.
  • Link to the closest appropriate article for chart column headers, because at this point, I have no idea what "KOR RIAK" is.
The RIAK has no article and likely never will. You just have to read the note, unless you have other ideas?
I suggest you link to the article on Korea, some may not understand the abbreviation.
Okay, although the Korea article doesn't mention the RIAK. The acronym is explained in the article, if a person actually reads the whole thing.
  • Can nothing be done about the large width of the Year column in Singles and Other appearances?
The width of the year column is, on some tables, dictated by the length of the word "positions", which is required. If I make the font smaller for some tables to shrink the width of the column, then another editor will likely have a problem with inconsistency in that regard. Hmm...
  • Not one single is referenced to prove it's a single as opposed to a non-single charting song.
This has entered my mind, also, but I've never seen references to "prove" something was a single. There are none on the only Korean discography featured list, Girls' Generation discography. Korean singles were not generally released for sale until pretty recently (2010, generally), so there are no chart positions. Pre-Gaon, singles were simply those songs that had music videos, were performed on music TV shows, used to promote sales of the album. This may differ from how, say, the USA does it, but it was the norm in Korea. What kind of references would be appropriate? (edited to add, I see a fellow editor has added some refs consisting of mentions of the songs in news articles. Is this the kind of thing that's needed? If so, most will be in Korean but it's probably do-able. Just never seen anyone else do it before.)
This is the first Korean discog FLC I've given comments to, so I may well be mistaken, is their no iTunes singles? Random86's refs seem to check out too also.
I don't know what you mean, "is there no iTunes singles". Until pretty recently, most songs were not released individually for sale; of course there are no singles newly-created for iTunes that weren't released as singles in the past. I don't think iTunes is relevant; it doesn't even exist in Korea. What I'm asking is what kind of things are appropriate to use as references in a case like this? Please go look at the FLC I mentioned, as it has absolutely no references to prove something was a single. Some of these songs are from the late 1990s - it will be very hard to find articles (all of which will be in Korean) specifically saying "this song was a single". We know they were singles because they have music videos and were promoted on music shows. So if I can't find a source I have to leave it off, which means the discography is then inaccurate. I'm happy to try, but I need to know what kind of stuff I'm looking for; things like Random86 put, yes or no? It will, at the very least, take quite a long time to find something for every single, and I don't think it's fair after the Girls' Generation discography got promoted to FL with no references at all for that kind of thing (and a ton of other missing/incorrect references).
Yes I'd try, otherwise I can argue that all of the singles currently without reference should move to the Other Charted Songs box, if someone does that, what would you say? That the songs have music videos so are singles? A song having a music video doesn't prove it was a single. As for the other Korean FL, I also would have raised this issue had I given comments there, but I didn't, so I can't. I'll have a read over it and leave a comment on the talk page about this issue.
What would I say? I'd say they should be blocked for vandalism. Since you raised this issue, I've been looking at other discography FLs and what you're recommending simply is not standard practice on any of them. Most have no references at all to "prove" something was a single. Others have a reference here or there (all to iTunes, a retail site and thus not very appropriate), with no apparent rhyme or reason to why. Do we also have to give sources to prove something was not a single? I'm sorry, but there is no reason to make this FLC conform to standards that no other FL has ever been expected to meet.

Ok, my example was probably too over dramatic, let me re-word. A harmless IP stumbles on to this article one night, he sees a song he does not think is a single, and innocently moves it to "Other charted songs", his edit summary reads "This wasn't actually a single :)" you are the first to see it, and revert their edit because, as far as you know, it was indeed, with the edit summary "Yes it was". They become more hostile, this time reverting and shouting "NO IT WASN'T I AM A FAN I KNOW". What exactly would you do? Take it to the talk page and say what exactly? That it had a music video? Was performed on TV? Neither of these criteria are definitive proof that these songs are singles. You keep making the excuse that this is a Korean discography and things operate differently, then if this is the case, why not bundle both "Singles" and "Other charted songs" together under the heading "Charted songs" with a note on how it's hard to discriminate between singles and charted songs due to Korean music release regulations. I'd stand behind that. As for your point about FL's without singles refs, which ones exactly? I recently passed Angel Haze discography as an FL, and not only were the singles scrutinized for not having refs, when I placed iTunes refs in I was further scrutinized for using retail markets instead of independent reports, so I'd like to know who's cutting on the slack.

All of them except Angel Haze, I'd say. :/ I looked at like the first 10 on the FL discog list as well as a smattering of others. (BTW, the disocgs MOS isn't an MOS, it's a Regarding your example, couldn't you use the EXACT same example for any song on any FL discography? I can see your point, but MY point is other FL discogs have not been asked to do this. You think Shinhwa needs to be different because you don't know them, and that's simply discriminatory.
But anyway, let's try to figure out how to make this work. I'll explain the whole situation to you and maybe together we can come up with a FAIR and non-discriminatory solution. From 1999 to Sept 2008, the RIAK published a monthly chart of sales of physical albums/EPs/maxi-singles/20-CD-box-sets. All of them were together on one chart, all considered as the same things basically. The majority of these items were full albums. All this while, songs were released from these albums for radio airplay, public performance, and with music videos, just like they are anywhere else. But they weren't for sale as separate entities from the album/EP/whatever they were contained on. In 2010, Gaon began publishing weekly charts of physical music sales; again, full albums, EPs, maxi-singles, whatever - they're all treated equally on this chart, and they still have certain songs released to promote the CD, but those songs are still not sold in physical format separately. Gaon also publishes a weekly digital sales chart for digital song sales. All items on this chart are individual songs, as that's how music is sold digitally in Korea, and just like anywhere else, items on this chart may be songs which were released to promote the album (the singles) or may be other album tracks. So, never in Korea's history have singles been released for sale in the way that, say, Beyonce might release several singles (all for sale in some kind of packaging as a single) off an album (which is also for sale). If you notice on the discography, none of the singles released pre-Gaon have any chart positions, because it was impossible for them to chart; they weren't sold in that way. Nevertheless, just because it's a little different than how the USA does it I don't think we can accurately say that there were no singles in Korea ever until the Gaon digital chart was founded. Of course Korean artists had singles and to say otherwise would be very misleading about the musical history of Shinhwa or any other Korean artist who predates 2010.
Combining all the non-singles and singles together as 'charted songs' would be misleading, because all of the singles before 2010 never charted. They were still singles. Their existence as singles is much more significant than, say, that fact that some random recent album track charted at number 89 for one week. Discographies are about an artist's musical history, not merely a brag book of their charting success.
I'm willing to find a source for every single if and ONLY if every other discography FL is required to do the same. Maybe every single one of them needs to be nominated for de-listing? I don't necessarily disagree with your "but what if" scenarios (although I'm not nearly as stupid as you portray me to be in your hypothetical scenes, ha ha), but I do refuse to be discriminated against, by your own admission, simply because you aren't familiar with this artist. (Also, just so you know, I'm the last person to try to pull the "but it's Korean so it's ~different~ and ~special~ and therefore I can do whateeeeever I want!" line; I've spent my whole time at Wikipedia fighting those people. I merely said some aspects of the Korean music market are different than, say, the USA's, and that has to be taken into account when asking me to do things like get iTunes links to prove something was a single in 1998. Seriously, I sourced the way other FLs are sourced, and you can't justifiably accuse me of asking for special treatment or being ridiculously sloppy, and you can't genuinely shocked at this response.) As it is, you and some of the other people have put me off seriously editing Wikipedia, like, ever again. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Azealia911: You said, What exactly would you do? Take it to the talk page and say what exactly? That it had a music video? Was performed on TV? Neither of these criteria are definitive proof that these songs are singles. Except in Korea, those things are criteria that songs are singles. Songs that are used to promote the album (mostly on music shows) are called singles, even though they were not released for sale separately. One example is the EP Ice Cream Cake. It has double title songs, "Ice Cream Cake" and "Automatic". They are called singles by Billboard [6], even though they were never released separately from the album. This is the norm for K-pop. Another example is the song "Ah Yeah"; it was never released separately from its EP, yet reliable sources call it a single: [7], [8]. I think if Shinhwa's singles were removed for lack of references (they mostly didn't chart, so they can't go in "other charted songs"), it would misrepresent Shinhwa's discography. There is very little English-language news about Korean music pre-2012, so it will be extremely difficult finding references explicitly proving the songs were singles. Since Shinyang-i speaks/reads some Korean, he/she might be able to find Korean references. Most FL discographies do not have those kinds of references, so I'm not convinced this is absolutely necessary. Random86 (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Live albums and Compilation albums, a JPN column is listed, but no albums charted on it, I see the not about records not being made available, so is the column there to explain that the albums may have possibly charted in JPN? I'd remove the column completely. I'm also confused why in Compliation albums, two listings have the note, while a 2001 album has —, but the note says pre-2005 archives are unavailable? Don't all three receive the note?
Yes, the column is there because, as Japanese releases, they may have charted in Japan, but there's no way to know. If I remove the column, won't another editor question why there is no column for Japan even though Japanese releases are listed? Also, My Choice was not released in Japan, hence the dash.
I'd strongly recommend just removing it. I've never seen a chart column be kept on the possibility that some releases may have charted on it.
Okay, no problem. I do think another editor will take issue with a lack of column, though. Without it there, we're essentially saying "no, it didn't chart", a statement for which we have no evidence.
  • Studio albums need (KOR) or whatever is applicable after the release date. As for the possibility of confusion concerning Japanese releases, I don't see how it's confusing, people will see the lack of Japan chart and figure that none of the releases charted there.
The studio albums table is divided into a section for Korean albums and a section for Japanese albums, as was recommended to me at some point. Does that suffice?
Not really, the release dates mentioned are supposed to be the first release dates of the album. There's possibility that the albums first got release in another country, Germany perhaps, so it needs clarification. The header tells me what language the album is recorded in, is it meant to tell me anything else?
No, the header isn't the language, it's the country for which it was released. Korean albums, especially ones this old, aren't released in a ton of countries, certainly not one like Germany. They are sometimes secondarily released in Taiwan or China or Thailand, but those don't go in the discography, only the main country for which the release was intended. This isn't like Western music where albums release & chart in dozens of countries. Inspiration #1 is actually mostly in Korean, but it is a Japanese album - released in Japan for the Japanese market. Similarly, Big Bang's Big Bang was recorded almost entirely in English and yet it's a Japanese album, too - released in Japan for a Japanese market. I've never heard of it being required to say a work's language in a discography.
I'd remove the Korean and Japanese headers and simply switch to a (KOR) or (JPN) next to each release date, having the separators for only one Japanese release messes up the chronology (Something WP:DISCOGSTYLE suggests you adhere to) and really confuses me.
I divided them up at the suggestion of a senior editor some time ago, because the market for which an album was released is actually a "thing" in Korean music. And once again, it's the way the only available model I had to work with, Girls' Generation discography, is done. I can change it but, again, we're going against the status quo for Korean discogs. (The Discog MOS has never reached consensus, btw.)

I know, but a proposed MOS probably trumps a hypothetical status quo for a select number of discographies, I'd say switch back to how it was.

  • I'd move the refs in Other appearances from the albums to the songs.
This still needs doing/hasn't been given comment concerning it.
I did make a comment on it. I don't know where it went, but it must have been lost when things were reformatted. Basically the sources are about the albums, so I put them with the albums. I can move them but it doesn't seem to make any difference one way or another in terms of conforming to an MOS or increasing understandability.
I did think perhaps I may have mistakenly removed your comment, my apologies, I'd still move them, it's just standard practice on most FLs for clarity.
Can do, but I don't think it improves or decreased clarity either way.
  • Note C needs referencing.
How is the absence of something referenced? The records just aren't there anymore; that's really all I can say. I doubt there are any news stories that say Oricon removed the data. Though many, many pre-2005 Japanese releases on Wikipedia have ref links, they are now all broken.
That's ok then, leave as is.

Oppose at the moment, largely due to the lack of singles references, and confusing Japanese chart in places. Azealia911 talk 21:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking the time to review, @Azealia911:. I'll try to address your concerns. Thanks for bringing your perspective to the article and I hope you can give some feedback to my responses so that I can improve the article further. I had little upon which to base some of these unique situations, so it's been a little tough and I hope this discog can eventually be a model upon which other Korean discogs can be modeled. Thanks again! Shinyang-i (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2015 (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 Crisco 1492 13:11, 21 July 2015 [9].

Arshad Warsi, roles and awards

[edit]
Nominator(s): Skr15081997 (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arshad Warsi has been in the Hindi film industry since 1987 but it was only in 2003 that he won fame for his role in Munna Bhai M.B.B.S.. Since then he has won several awards for his acting skills. This list presents all his film credits, awards and nominations.Skr15081997 (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG
  • I don't see a need to add three images of him, all taken during the same time.
Removed 2 from the filmography section.
  • Why is it that you've not included a "Director" column in the table?
If an actor-director collaboration is really noteworthy, then it is mentioned in the lead. Adding separate column for director would increase total width. I have followed User:Cowlibob on this. An actor's direct contribution to a film is his/her respective role. Almost all the filmography websites list film's name, year and role. On WP, we provide 2 more columns–notes and ref(s). Had he been a director/producer then a different format would have been followed as in Satyajit Ray filmography.
Yeah, I know. Not a requirement, just a suggestion.
  • "and reprised his role as Circuit in Munna Bhai M.B.B.S. in its sequel Lage Raho Munna Bhai" - grammatical error.
Corrected
  • "Warsi also hosted the first season of the reality television show Big Boss, for which"
Added
  • Don't restrict the awards to only Filmfare in the prose as it's not just a filmography, but also awards list.
All awards and nominations have been mentioned in the lead.
  • "he played a lawyer in the National Film Award-winning comedy" - "National Film Award-winning" is WP:UNDUE.
Removed

Please have a look at this. --FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. I now support. --FrankBoy CHITCHAT 12:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: Thanks for reviewing. Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*I think the prose of this list could do with a thorough peer review. In its current state, it merely chronologically lists all of Warsi's films in a rather dry fashion, which doesn't make for a particularly engaging read (e.g. "The following year, he [did something]. Two years later he [did something else]. In the same year, Warsi [did another thing]. In 2013, he [did something else]"). With the exception of the ones for which he won awards, it's difficult to see which of his roles are the notable and why. Is there any significance in his hosting of Razzmatazz, for example, or is it just something else that he's done?
Copy-edited
  • Certain years are repeated quite frequently in the lead. "2003", for example, is repeated three times in the sixth sentence.
Fixed
  • There are three citations in the first half of the first paragraph, but then none from there on. This is an issue for me.
I have added 6 citation to the 2nd para.
  • What's the deal with Jeetenge Hum? The Year column suggests that it was released in 2001, but the reference in the table is from 2005 and implies that, at that point, the film had yet to be released. Is there any other information available about the film?
It released in 2011. A source for the same has been added.
  • Unless the title of the programme actually was "Bigg Boss (season 1)", this should probably just be "Bigg Boss".
Done
  • I believe that, for page ranges, we use en dashes rather than hypens (e.g. "47–51" rather than "47-51").
Done
  • The awards and nominations table requires rowscopes in order to meet MOS:DTT.
Done
  • The Year columns might be better centre-aligned.
Done
  • {{IMDb name|0451174}} -> {{IMDb name|0451174|name=Arshad Warsi}}
Done
  • "Arshad Warsi's Official Website" -> "Arshad Warsi's official website"
Done

In its current state, I don't feel that this article yet meets the FLC, so I wish all the participating editors the best of luck in improving it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • The very first item listed in the WP:Featured list criteria is WP:Naming conventions, which says, in part, to "not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another". A title such as "Arshad Warsi, roles and awards" suggests to me that this article is a subsidiary to the main Arshad Warsi article, and many other editors have expressed similar concerns about this particular title format (see, for example, User:sroc's comprehensive reasoning here). Therefore, I believe that this title violates WP:Naming conventions and that thus the article does not currently meet the FLC.
A Thousand Doors, the new title is List of roles and awards of Arshad Warsi.--Skr15081997 (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that, while I have no objections to titles of the format "List of roles and awards of [name]", there are editors who do. If this article were promoted to FL under its current title, I'm not convinced that it would stay there for very long. I feel that the community need to reach a consensus on what are appropriate titles for list of this type before we promote anymore to featured status. I'm afraid to say that my oppose stands. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of community consensus isn't a good reason to oppose.--Skr15081997 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in sroc's reasoning that is applicable here (or anywhere else, for that matter) and your agreement with one user's opinion means nothing in this context. Indeed, quite the reverse, as the consensus was against him there and in similar discussions. The title format "Name, roles and awards" is entirely acceptable, here and elsewhere, and an oppose based on such an opinion holds no water. (To clarify, although I am an FL delegate, I will not take part in closing this candidacy to avoid the question of COI on this point.) It is a great shame that the title has been changed because of ther bullying stance, and a greater pity with it is such a poor choice: the double "of" is utterly jarring. Whay was a perfectly good title changed for a poorer substitute? - SchroCat (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have compared this article to the FLC; I do not believe that it meets them. That is why I am opposing. Sroc was certainly not "one" user. I count over a dozen editors who have, at some point or another, raised objections to this particular title format:
  1. "The title seems very ungrammatical to me"
  2. "The title bothers me as well" (NB. This user went on to support John Gielgud, roles and awards becoming an FL)
  3. "Comma here may imply that we are speaking about John Gielgud, some roles and some awards"
  4. "This is a terrible title, and I'm incredulous that this made FL with such a title"
  5. "the present title sounds like a discussion about John Gielgud, roles and awards"
  6. "the current title at best scans poorly and at worst is confusing, if not sub-optimal use of English"
  7. "'John Gielgud, roles and awards' doesn't work"
  8. "the current title is at best awkward and at worst a comma splice"
  9. "the comma version is atrocious"
  10. "The current title is awful"
  11. "The current title is pretty mediocre"
  12. "maybe to something like Roles and awards of John Gielgud or List of roles and awards of John Gieldgud. To me, that just reads and looks nicer"
  13. "Personally, I can't parse the current version with the comma"
  14. "The title is a little non-standard"
  15. "'Name, roles and awards' has unsatisfactory syntax because it has the appearance of a list" (NB. This user was the closing admin in the Category talk:Filmographies discussion)
This all suggest to me that titles in the format "[Name], roles and awards" are not, in fact, "entirely acceptable". I'm certainly not seeing anything at WP:AT that forbids use of the double "of". We have many featured lists with such titles (for example, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Accusations of bullying are unwarranted. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that "forbids" double of? There's nothing that specifically bars many things, but it's piss poor English, which is why it jars. WP:OSEmi a nutshell. As to the previous name format, the ignorance of a small number of the holier-than-thou, self-appointed Guardians of the MoS regarding the British use of the comma does not in any way diminish the fact that this is an entirely acceptable format. The reason articles still exist in the format is because there was no consensus to change it, and because it is grammatically correct. I stand by everything I said in my first comment. – SchroCat (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now – Fails 3(b) criterion. With the prose size of the parent article being less than 5k chars (~800 words), I don't find any reason to fork out a separate list just for roles and awards. —Vensatry (ping) 10:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: I have added a few lines to the main article, hope that suffices 3(b) requirement.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you even call than an improvement? —Vensatry (ping) 17:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: I appreciate the time you are giving to this nomination, but can you be a bit specific? It will help both of us.--Skr15081997 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the minimum prose size. Since you want me to be a bit specific, my rule of thumb would be 15k chars, say the size of Bipasha Basu's. —Vensatry (ping) 06:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
15k sounds too much at present. However I will try to make the article 8-10k characters in prose size. Meanwhile can you review the list?--Skr15081997 (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know but make sure it reaches at least 10k. —Vensatry (ping) 10:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, give me some time.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: now the parent article has 10,167 characters of prose. Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Krimuk90
  • The very first sentence has two instances of the word "film".
reduced to 1
Done
  • Warsi didn't "star" in either Maine Pyaar Kyun Kiya or Salaam Namaste. Salman & Sushmita did in the first, and Saif & Preity did in the other. Please tweak.
Tweaked
  • "His performance in the latter won him the Filmfare and Zee Cine Awards in the category Best Actor in a Comic Role" ==> "in the Best Actor in a Comic Role category"
Done
  • "honoured him" is not something we use to talk about film awards. Please use the more conventional received, won, garnered etc.
Done
  • In can see many, many instances of "in the same year". Please construct your sentences differently. In general, the prose definitely needs an additional bit of work.
Copy-edited
  • There is no mention of which of his films earned the most money. It's an important bit of info in an actor's filmography. It's also important to say that his first film was a box office flop. Without those bits of pertinent information, the lead reads like a monotonous collection of "he played xxx in yyy".
Added info on box office performances
  • The source you provided for Jeetenge Hum makes no mention of when it released, but only states that it has been in production for a long time. What made you put 2001 as it's release date?
The film was shelved for about 10 years. IMDb lists its release date as 2001 while the BH source used now says 2011.
  • I don't think the name of the tv show is Bigg Boss 1. The 1 refers to it's first season. The show is simply called Bigg Boss. You need to mention which season he hosted in the notes column.
Done
  • Warsi's official website as an external link is unnecessary in his filmography page.
Removed

--Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: I hope my recent edits have resolved all of your concerns. Thanks for your thorough review. Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

Done
  • "Warsi also co-produced and starred in the supernatural comedy-drama Hum Tum Aur Ghost. It performed poorly at the box office." The two sentences can be combined.
Combined
  • "Golmaal 3, the year's second-highest grossing Hindi film also featured him in an important role". Not sure what "important role" refers to. You can say he played one of the primary roles in it.
Done
  • "...and turned out to be a commercial disaster". Sounds like a tabloid report. Please tweak to something more formal.
Tweaked
  • What is a "solo commercial success"? Do you mean it was his first commercial success in which he played the lead role? It's not very clear from the prose that before Jolly LLB most of his successes were in ensemble films.
I have removed this claim.
  • You have a number of "shelved" or "unreleased" films in the table, and have yet provided a release year for them. Why?
Those are the years they were scheduled to release in.
The very purpose of the year column is to state which year the film released in, or for films that haven't released yet, the scheduled year. For shelved or unreleased films, this is a violation. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintain consistency in the notes column. In the television section, one note says "He hosted the show's first season." and another note simply states "second season". Follow the latter format.
Done
  • Also, the season must link with the respective article, where available.
Linked
  • I see you have used "arshadwarsi.net" as a source for several claims. Personal websites are not considered reliable sources, and cannot be used to cite claims.
Replaced with better sources.
  • Why do we have the location information only for a few refs? Either include it for all them or don't include them at all.
Location is an important information for references.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite what I meant. You need to maintain consistency here. If you provide location information, then you must provide for each of the refs. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: I have responded to all of your comments. Cheers, --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually he was nominated for Best Comedian.
Yes, but you put the wrong category in the table.
IMDb says he was nominated for Best "Actress" category.
Added and thanks for the source.
This will be everyone's worry. See here. The worst thing is that http://filmfareawards.indiatimes.com couldn't be archived.
Hopefully it's only temporary.
Well, I too hope so. Lots of FLs (and even FAs) have references from filmfareawards.indiatimes.com. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 23:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added
  • What makes indiantelevision.com a reliable source?
Replaced
Working on Stardust.--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No awards or nominations found on IMDb, BH or other site.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per a BH source, he has received a Stardust nomination for Ishqiya. @Skr15081997: You can use this source. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added 2 more awards. Now there are 25 awards & noms; 2 Star Guild Awards, 3 BIG Star, 5 Filmfare, 2 GIFA, 5 IIFA, 1 ITA, 4 Screen, 1 Stardust and 2 Zee Cine Awards.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The prose really needed a lot of work. I've given the lead a copy-edit. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Calvin999
  • In the references, you should only link a magazine, publication, TV show etc etc the first time it is used, then subsequent references should not be linked. But I can see that The Times of India and Bollywood Hungama, just to name two out of many examples, are repeatedly linked throughout the references. The Awards and nominations table should also have the shading for the Year column, so match the table and to comply with WP:ACCESS. These issues are quite easy to sort out. I think the lead reads fine, and the other tables are fine, too. As a result, I will Support this nomination given that you correct these couple of points. If you wouldn't mine looking at nomination, I'd appreciated it.  — Calvin999 17:00, 9 June 2015 (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 PresN 20:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC) [10].[reply]

American Expeditionary Forces on the Western Front order of battle

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 15:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...it overall is a quite a decent list. Created it back in March. Since it was part of MILHIST it passed a B-class and a A-class review both in March. The A-class was closed and my article was promoted earlier this month. Anyways, I really hope this passes, even though this is going to be my first featured content. Thanks for now, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 15:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't the title include the war? There are many Western Fronts, and not everyone knows the AEF were WWI. Mattximus (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattximus: done.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • Looks good - just a few queries probably due to my limited knowledge of the subject.
  • "President Woodrow Wilson created the AEF in May 1917, originally appointing Major General Frederick Funston as commander." As Funston died in February 1917 I do not see the point in mentioning him. Done
  • "41st Infantry Division" What does "was separated" mean? clarified

Unfortunately, with only one support after 2 months, and no comments in the past month, I'm going to have to close this nomination as not passed. --PresN 20:08, 17 July 2015 (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 PresN 20:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Timeline of the 2014 Atlantic hurricane season

[edit]
Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 2014 Atlantic hurricane season ended similar to that of its predecessor, with below-average activity overall. With the addition of all post-season analysis data via the National Hurricane Center, I believe this page satisfies the requirements of a featured list. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AHeneen:

Those are all I the issues I see. I haven't reviewed any featured content before (but I have reviewed several GAs), so this may not cover every issue with this article. AHeneen (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still cluttered with times that aren't necessary...the overwhelming majority of non-UTC times aren't necessary. The "several hundred miles" statements still need to comply with WP:METRIC; they should be reworded to be more exact and converted. "No tropical cyclones developed in the month of June" isn't necessary. The rest of the issues I raised have been addressed. AHeneen (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The non-UTC times are provided by the NHC and pass the inclusion test of WP:NOHARM, so I see no reason to remove them. As far as the distances are concerned, I can add (several hundred kilometres), but I cannot be more specific since that is how the storm's distance in relation to a location is listed. Coordinates are provided within the reports that the hurricane center releases, but the inexact distances are only provided after the storm's center has dissipated (i.e. no coordinates are available). Your third point seems like a non-issue to me. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOHARM is about arguments against the deletion of an article, not about article content. The featured list criteria stipulate that is has professional quality prose (1) and the formatting is visually appealing. The non-UTC times add a lot of clutter when they are not relevant (ie. the tropical storm is not over or close to land). For example:
00:00 UTC (8:00 p.m. AST, October 14) – Hurricane Gonzalo intensifies into a Category 4 hurricane roughly 360 km (225 mi) north of San Juan, Puerto Rico.
00:00 UTC – Hurricane Gonzalo intensifies into a Category 4 hurricane roughly 360 km (225 mi) north of San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Additionally, some non-UTC time zones are not relevant to the location being impacted. For example, Central America uses Central Standard Time year-round, but events there on October 27-30 use EDT & CDT. There are also events while a storm is in the middle of the ocean that should only have the UTC time. For example, on September 15, Hurricane Edouard is 1,230 km SE of Bermuda...no relation to AST...even if you consider Bermuda, Bermuda is on ADT (UTC-3) until 1st Sunday in November. I'll offer to remove the non-UTC times that aren't relevant. For the distances, you can at least put "several hundred kilometers (miles)". I don't think "No tropical cyclones developed in the month of June" is necessary, but if it stays, it needs a citation (shouldn't just be inferred from text). AHeneen (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We use the same time zones that the NHC uses in their advisories. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that, but that doesn't mean they're necessary in the article or appropriate. AHeneen (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, it's something we've always done in timelines for whatever reason. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This table might be useful as a source for the June thing. I am not finding any more precise sources for the "Miles" things; I am inclined at discarding the distance information unless we really want to go with "a few hundred to more than a thousand kilometres", which is odd. Agree with the times being cluttery. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article to make some of the changes suggested above. I removed most non-UTC times except when a storm was over land, close to land (<150 mi), or the event is soon before landfall and having a sense of the local time is useful (eg. Gonzalo on Oct 17-18 UTC, where it is useful to know that the weakened & made landfall on Bermuda on Oct 17 Bermuda time). An exception is TD9 on 22-23 Oct, since it impacts both Mexico (CDT) & Guatemala/Belize (CST) and having UTC, CDT, & CST would be excessive plus a TD is not very significant. I have changed the two occurrences of "several hundred miles [direction] from Ireland" to "over the north-central Atlantic Ocean". The June issue is not something that I think needs to be removed to pass. (Note: I don't believe the edit to the article makes me an involved editor for purposes of supporting this FLC, it was just far easier to make the adjustment myself than try to explain it and wait for days to get the article right.) AHeneen (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

YE Pacific Hurricane 18:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Thanks for those that took over for me while I was absent. I can handle any additional comments. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the discussion that started up a bit in the past couple days, this nomination has been here for two months without a support, so I'm going to have to close it as not passed to try to keep the FLC page flowing. Feel free to renominate it back up at the top if you want, so that hopefully it will get some more attention. --PresN 20:11, 17 July 2015 (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 Crisco 1492 15:11, 14 July 2015 [12].

List of national parks of Madagascar

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced and meets the FL standard. Having a high quality list of the national parks of Mada, a very low income country with strong ecotourism potential, might also help promote tourism to this beautiful country among the globetrotting Anglophones of the world. Thanks for taking the time to look this over and share your constructive comments. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Very cool list but it does need some work. I think the first step would be to write a short paragraph describing what each type of reserve means. For example, there is a category "Strict Nature Reserves" but no definition as to what a "Strict Nature Reserve" is. Also acres is an american unit, and Madagascar officially uses km^2, so that should be first. Also a map is a vital component of this page, but for some reason has a category for "marine reserve" but there are no marine reserves. There are also categories that are not national parks, making it a bit confusing. I hope these comments point the way for some improvements! Mattximus (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments, Mattximus. I'd like to do what's needed to improve this and get it through the FL process. Regarding the measurements, I'm American and the article is written in American English, wouldn't that mean the units should be in acres first? (If there is official guidance on this, please point me to it because I'm writing all the Madagascar culture and history articles and measurement units are common in many of them, so this would be important). So far I've had quite a few pass FA and GA with the US measurements first. Regarding the map, I don't know where it came from/who created it, but there are marine reserves in Madagascar, although on this list the naming of them is not consistent because it depends on the classification of the reserve. So some are national marine parks, some are protected marine and coastal areas, etc. I organized these according to the way they're classified on various websites (official and unofficial), and the most authoritiative website is the Ministry of Environment, but even that one is not fully up to date because some of the most current info in the article was reported in a government circulaire (official announcement of new law) from this past April. I can shift things around a little so the naming looks more consistent for these things but they're currently named and classified here based on the source material so I'm a little reluctant to change what seems to be the official naming in favor of arbitrary consistency. I have not yet found a description of what each type of reserve means. I agree that would be very useful. Let me look a little harder through the documents on the Ministry website - maybe there is something I missed. I agree, too, that it's confusing to call this a list of National Parks when there are other types of parks here, but it's a precedent that exists. The FA-level List of National Parks of Canada also has multiple classifications of parks on that list, and I'm following that precedent because it's the highest quality example I've found of a list of national parks. Would it be better if I shift the National Park list to the top of the page and move the strict nature reserves down below that so the other types of parks are all together after the national ones? Thanks again for your feedback. - Lemurbaby (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like this article so I'll try to list my comments one by one to make changes easier. (PS yes keep the official classification naming system, no need to change those unless they are in French, then a translation is in order)
  • Yes, as SI is used in Madagascar, as per WP:UNITS, we should use metric units primarily. Only non-scientific articles about uniquely American things should use the Imperial system.
  • I agree that we need a definition for each subheading. I'm not sure this can pass if we list "Strict Nature Reserves" but don't define what a Strict Nature Reserves is.
  • I think each item of the "All other Protected Areas" needs to be given a class, for example, are they marine reserves? After reading through this list, it's not really a list of national parks, but a list of all protected areas of Madagascar.
  • So perhaps a title change is in order precedent or not?
  • What do you think of having one large list, but having a new column called "classification"? This might fix the stand out "all other protected areas" table.
  • The map does need some work, as it only tangentially relates to the topic (contains much more information than found in the article), and is written half in French and half in English. I wonder if someone here in the wiki community can help create a map for you given this information, keeping only categories that are found in the item list itself. Mattximus (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  • "This list of national parks of Madagascar includes all officially recognized" should really be reworded. The "This is a list of..." style formatting was deprecated long ago in high-quality works. Try: "The national parks of Madagascar include all officially recognized..." for a more naturally worded opening sentence.
  • I'll restate that the acre measurements should appear second, not first.
  • At the same time, you should double check each conversion to ensure you're not implying false precision. I'm dubious of the precision involved because such an exacting value of "4,200,791 acres" is given in the text as an approximation, a value which just so happens to convert to "17,000.00 km2". That's too perfect of a conversion to have a such a round number. to two decimal places This is a big red flag for me. More likely, to me, it should be "approximately 17,000 square kilometres (4,200,000 acres)", or better yet given the sizes involved, "approximately 17,000 square kilometres (6,600 sq mi)". (The acre as a unit lends itself better to smaller values that would be expressed in hectares, not such large values in square kilometers that match up better to square miles.)
  • The headings should be updated. I don't see "Protected Areas" used as part of a proper noun anywhere in the body text of the article, so "System of Protected Areas" should be "System of protected areas", "Protected Areas" should be "Protected areas", and "All other Protected Areas" should be "All other protected areas" per MOS:HEAD.
  • "initiated a twelve year process" → "initiated a twelve-year process" or "initiated a 12-year process", depending on which rule for spelled-numbers (under 10, or under 20) you're going to follow. Either way, "twelve-year" is a compound adjective modifying the word "process", so it needs to be hyphenated.
  • Personally, I'd remove the photos from each of the tables and place them in a gallery under each table. As it is, no photos have captions. As a reader, I'm curious what the cute animal is in the photo for Andasibe-Mantadia National Park. Shift the photos to a gallery and give each a caption. You'll also free up space in each table that can be used to widen the columns.
I agree with most of your comments, but I have to disagree with this one. I'm not a fan of galleries collected at bottoms of lists, it really makes it hard to link the picture to the specific row of the table and looks rather messy. I much prefer the images placed in the row themselves just like this, but of course they need alt-captions at the very least. Mattximus (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've noted on other nominations, leaving the two measurement values in the same cell is very much less than ideal, as you've done with the areas here. Using |disp=table in {{convert}} along with the appropriate change to the header row will do two things. First, it will split the column into two, one for each measurement system. Second, it will right-align the numbers so that they line up appropriately. You can see the results in the Strict Nature Reserves (Réserves Naturelles Intégrales) table of this version of the page.
  • The "Recreation Visitors" heading should also be put in sentence case like the headings that need to be fixed, so "Recreation visitors".
  • The dates, locations and areas all have citations through the footnotes in the heading, which is fine. The descriptions do not have any citations, and for that much text in total, some citations need to be provided.
  • There are citations with dead links. If they've recently gone dead, they may not be in archives yet because there can be a delay between the time a page is archived and the time it's available.
  • There's an inconsistency in spelling out or abbreviating publisher names. In note 3, UNESCO is abbreviated, but in the next note, it's spelled out with the abbreviation given in parentheses. I'm used to such names always being spelled out in citations without an abbreviation, although if you were going to spell it out once with the abbreviation, it really should be in the first footnote that references UNESCO, and not the second. It should also not be linked on the third usage, just the first.
  • It would be nice if the French-language sources could have |trans-title= entries provided with the English-language translations of the titles. Nice, but not required, but it would help readers. Notes 14 and 16 don't note that the sources are in French, yet the titles obviously are.
  • Note 10: "Sobika.com", note 13: "Sobika", yet the domain name for the site is Sobika.mg. If "Sobika" is the name of a publication, then it should be in |work= (or one of its aliases) in the citation template so that the name is in italics.
  • Note 17: "La Tribune de Diego" looks like the name of a publication, so it should be in |work= to appear in italics, even if it's in a foreign language. We'd still italicize the newspaper name, La Monde.

Most of these issues are easy fixes, but four of them concern me enough to actually oppose promotion. The appearance of false precision and the lack of citations for the descriptions in the table are big issues. The other two are more minor, but they're still structural issues that are bigger deals compared to some corrections. The absence of captions for photos that would be better outside the table is important because otherwise those photos are just large decorative blocks of color taking up space in the tables.The layout of the area columns in the table when the templates already give us a very simple solution to make the tables' values very easily parseable by our readers is concerning as well. Imzadi 1979 → 10:36, 17 June 2015 (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 Crisco 1492 00:38, 4 July 2015 [13].

List of Fringe episodes

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 20:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list includes all episodes of the science fiction series Fringe, which aired from 2008 to 2013 in the US. I've drawn from other television episodes lists for ideas on constructing it, so I hope it is near to meeting the FL criteria. Thanks in advance to any reviewers! Ruby 2010/2013 20:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Littlecarmen

  • Move all references to the end of the sentences.
  • Per WP:CITEFOOT, "The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity". If a citation does not support the entire statement, I purposely did not add them to the end. It is meant to make verification easier. Ruby 2010/2013 19:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fringe's pilot episode was picked up by Fox in May 2008,[10][11] and it premiered on September 9.[12][13]" Remove the "it".
  • "Critics hailed the series as a successor to Lost, with an even more expensive pilot;[14] the two series shared many similarities including Abrams' involvement, their characters exploring a series of unexplained events, their use of many of the same actors and writers, and the difficulty in categorizing each show within just one genre.[15]" There's a lot of info in this sentence and not all of it relates to one another, split it up. Is the cost of the pilot significant? If so, add the cost.
  • "Entertainment Weekly conjectures that despite its ratings decline, Fringe survived for five seasons in part because of Fox executive Kevin Reilly's love of the series, and also due to the network's desire to make amends for the science fiction shows it had previously canceled.[26]" Mention who Kevin Reilly is and what his involvement with the series is.
  • I already mention that he was an executive of Fox. Other than that, he had no specific involvement with the series other than overseeing the network's various entertainment offerings (and deciding what remains and what is canceled). Out of curiosity, what else would you wish me to add here? Ruby 2010/2013 19:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why didn't you keep the date format from the article consistent in the references?
  • I am sympathetic to your concern. However, I feel consensus would be needed to change the format in over 100 articles. And such a change would take a massive quantity of time and effort, which I do not have. Unless this is something a script could do? (I've never used one myself). Ruby 2010/2013 15:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you don't need to change them all now. That can be done over time once/if those articles are nominated for FL, FA or GA. I don't know of a script that could do that, I've also never used one, but maybe there is one. Littlecarmen (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only link magazines, publishers etc. the first time you use them.
  • I don't believe this is required and prefer to link every instance, as the citations list is rather long. Also, the bulk of those citations come from the transcluded season pages, so I cannot simply unlink most of them (since then the citations would not be linked at all in the season pages). Ruby 2010/2013 19:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean? How does unlinking something here affect other articles? See WP:Overlinking: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Littlecarmen (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, the list looks great to me! Littlecarmen (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for commenting, Littlecarmen! I had almost forgotten that I nominated this :) Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Ruby 2010/2013 19:40, 13 June 2015 (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 PresN 16:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Timeline of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

[edit]
Nominator(s): AHeneen (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been expanded/improved to meet the FL criteria. A copyedit request was made at the Guild of Copy Editors and has been finished. I've created several GAs, but this would be my first Featured content.

Although the search is ongoing, there has not been a lot of events associated with the search in recent months. Since November 2014, there has only been about 1-2 events per month (and a few of the events listed aren't very significant). Most of the events occurred between March-May 2014 and the start of the current phase in October 2014. I believe the list meets the stability criteria because it "does not change significantly from day to day".

The choice for the sections is basically a breakdown of the timeline by activity and roughly based on the phase of the search.

  • March 2014: Search in Southeast Asia and events related to the initial investigation and reaction. The shift to the southern Indian Ocean occurs on 17 March and the rest of the month is aerial searches in a very remote region (refer to map).
  • April-May 2014: Although the aerial search continues, the focus during this time is the acoustic search and the sonar survey by Bluefin 21 which are both carried out from ships
  • June-September 2014: The period between the end of active searching (Bluefin 21 search ended 28 May) and the start of the next phase in October
  • October 2014-present: Current phase of the search (underwater phase)

AHeneen (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Littlecarmen (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment Why did you choose to only include the timeline of the aftermath in this list? The title implies a complete timeline. Littlecarmen (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an issue that crossed my mind during the preparation for the FL nomination. The timeline began as a split of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Timeline of events, which listed events in the aftermath of Flight 370's disappearance. At the time, I was preparing the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article for a GA nomination; it seemed reasonable to split the unwieldy aftermath timeline but retain the timeline of events during the disappearance because the latter was integral to understanding the sequence of events during the disappearance. That explains the origin of the article's scope.
A tremendous amount of conflicting and erroneous information concerning the details of Flight 370's disappearance was released/published in the aftermath of its disappearance (an interim report in March 2015 finally set the record straight on a number of details). I believe that the disappearance timeline—Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Timeline of disappearance—is a necessary part of that article's "Disappearance" section (the heart of that article) and should not be removed. I don't think this carries any weight here, but for what it's worth, the parent article has received 591841 page views in the last 90 days versus a paltry 7718 for the timeline article. The disappearance timeline could be added to the timeline article, but then the content would be duplicated in both articles (an unacceptable content fork). So, if necessary, I would prefer that the article be moved to Timeline of the aftermath of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. AHeneen (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that you add more info to this article, I just think the title may be a bit misleading and should be changed. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that duplicating the disappearance timeline in both articles would be considered a content fork. As explained above, I think the timeline of the disappearance is necessary in the parent article, which I'd like to bring to FA status someday. I would rather the timeline article (the FL candidate) be renamed to focus on the aftermath than to include the disappearance timeline in both and see it removed from the parent article in the future (if the issue is raised). AHeneen (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd recommend you read the first paragraph of the page you linked to. First, content forks are defined as duplicated articles (not sections). Second, there's this pair of sentences: "... as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." WP:SPINOFF likewise allows a more detailed discussion of the timeline of the flight itself in this article (with a summary in the main article). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was the last sentence I am concerned about...that the presence of the content in this article would lead to the disappearance timeline in the parent article being reduced to summary style. That said, I will add the disappearance timeline to this article. I should be done in a couple hours. AHeneen (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the section "Disappearance (8 March 2014)" to the article, which should (hopefully) address the above comments. I have asked the editor who recently performed a copyedit of the article to please copyedit the newly-added section. Aside from that, there is one reference that should be changed: Ref #13 (CNN) is one webpage that contains several documents from the preliminary report...I don't have time right now, but I will change these refs to link to the individual documents (which I recall are available on a Malaysian government website). AHeneen (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Littlecarmen:, @Crisco 1492: I think I've addressed the concerns you two raised and would appreciate further comment. AHeneen (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Further comments from Littlecarmen

  • Link magazines, newspapers, websites, publishers etc. the first time you use them in references.
  • De-italicize publications that aren't magazines or newspapers and italicize those in some of the cases you haven't. Littlecarmen (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will link the references as suggested. (Done) Italics, however, have been formatted by the templates used for the citations—mainly Template:Cite news and Template:Cite web—so the only way to de-italicize publications would be to change the citation template (if appropriate) or override the template formatting (if that is possible). I don't see anything in the MOS concerning citation formatting. The WP:CITE guideline doesn't provide instructions on reference formatting and links to WP:CITE/ES, but the latter is not a guideline or policy. The Cite News template italicizes the name of the "work" (eg. BBC News, CNN). The Cite Web template italicizes the website name (eg. Malaysia Airlines, Joint Agency Coordination Centre). I would assume that the formatting implemented by the citation templates is compliant with the MOS, or at least it should be acceptable. AHeneen (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the first concern about wikilinking the first occurrence of a source in the references. I have also formatted the references consistently (same name, eg. "Joint Agency Coordination Centre" and no use of "JACC"), fixed some bad links (per External Links tool, only issue is the Journal of Navigation paper that does not require a subscription but the tool says it does), and removed one duplicate ref. Diffs AHeneen (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I usually de-italicize publications by using the publisher parameter instead of the work or website parameter. Littlecarmen (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But is that necessary? AHeneen (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's just a fact that only magazines and newspapers are italicized, you can also see that in the naming of Wikipedia articles. Littlecarmen (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had fixed all the references in the article to use the appropriate Citation Style 1 template: Template:Cite news, Template:Cite web, and a couple others. Per WP:CITEVAR, what matters is that an article uses a consistent formatting style. Per WP:CITECONSENSUS: "If citation templates are used in an article, the parameters should be accurate. It is inappropriate to set parameters to false values in order that the template will be rendered to the reader as if it were written in some style other than the style normally produced by the template (e.g., MLA style)." It is not appropriate to place, for example, the name of a website in the publisher parameter. The article is internally consistent in that it applies the Citation Style 1 formatting to the refs. AHeneen (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for some advice about this topic here and if the website and company name are the same, the publisher parameter can be used. Radio and TV stations are also seen as publishers so the publisher parameter can also be used here. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have adjusted all of the references to match the suggested formatting if accurate (refer to above quote from WP:CITECONSENSUS), but there are exceptions where the website is kept (and thus italicized) because the publisher has a different name:
There is also the case of an interview, where the title is italicized (Inmarsat breaks silence on probe into missing jet) by Template:Cite interview but it is not a major work that should be italicized. Again, I will refer to the previous comment about the accuracy of citation parameters and the fact that the text formatting that doesn't match is MOS is produced by the templates for the most common citation style on Wikipedia. I have made adjustments when accuracy is not affected, but it is not appropriate to omit a parameter because of the formatting style. AHeneen (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see this is now the oldest FL candidate. It would be great if another editor or two commented. Since the preceding saga about the italicization of websites, I came across this at MOS:TITLE#Major works (emphasis added):
"Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis."

I believe the above covers the remaining websites in the previous comment. Thus all of the issues raised by @Littlecarmen: have been resolved, except for the italicization of the title of the interview used in one reference. I will again affirm that a properly used CS1 template is acceptable as WP:CITEVAR & WP:CITECONSENSUS (part of the same page) are Wikipedia guidelines on equal footing with the MoS and common sense should be applied. Hopefully another editor will comment and agree with this reasoning. I've worked to resolve the outstanding issues and don't want to see this archived. AHeneen (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delegate note: as this list is approaching 2 months of age, it's likely to be closed soon as not promoted. Since it's your first FL nomination, and that's rather a shame, some tips- if your nomination isn't getting noticed, try reviewing other FLCs to build up goodwill, or asking around at wikiprojects for someone to review your list. You could also ask Littlecarmen again if they're comfortable supporting; if this nomination fails and you renominate it's easy to carry forward old supports. --PresN 04:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.