Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2022

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

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s):  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the List of Colorado Scenic and Historic Byways for featured list because it presents information about the scenic and historic byways of Colorado in a straightforward manner with ample documentation and notes.

Comments from Reywas92

• The lead is too short, could you summarize the list a bit more, maybe the total length of the byways, highlight some important ones.
• Describe a little bit of the process for how these are selected. The All-American Roads, National Scenic Byways, National Forest Scenic Byways, and Back Country Byways are all federal programs, so this needs to specify the difference between a state and federal designation. I know the National Scenic Byways require state nomination, but talk about how these overlap with the state-level designation. Seems like 5 are state only, and the rest are both?
• Mention the difference between the scenic byways and the historic byways. Some are only scenic, some are both. What sort of themes do some of these share?
• What does designation actually mean? It says there's signage, but is there some sort of funding or other programming involved for these roads and sites on them? Or just listings in tourism guides?
• "the most national byways of any state." Source?? Looking at the maps on the three program articles, it looks like California has more.
• The section header should probably be "Scenic and Historic Byways"
• The table header doesn't need to specify it's a table.
• With most having both state and federal designation (and a few with multiple federal), what does the year represent? I don't see 1989 in either source for San Juan or 1993 in either for Top of the Rockies.
• The Description column doesn't need period for incomplete sentences.
• It also doesn't need to repeatedly link the designations since they're in the lead
• The first three see also links don't need to be there if they're already elsewhere.
• The Highways of Colorado by Matthew Salek external link seems unreliable and doesn't add anything beyond the comprehensive codot.gov site
• Interesting list – National Parkway is somewhere on my to-do list!

Reywas92^Talk 01:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Thank you very much for your helpful comments. I will see what I can do for this list. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 03:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments:

• Don't link Colorado Scenic and Historic Byways Commission when that redirects to a section of this article
• Why does the Colorado Scenic and Historic Byways Commission section have zero citations?
• The lead could also use a few more citations, like for "established in March 1989"
• Not quite sure what "The Trail Ridge Road/Beaver Meadow National Scenic Byway is entirely within Rocky Mountain National Park, and thus does not have a National Parkway designation." implies. Skyline Drive is entirely within Shenendoah NP but is still listed at National Parkway, but then again I'm not entirely sure how that list was created since [2] says only six parkways have been congressionally designated and Skyline isn't one of them.
• "intended to provide recreational, educational, and economic benefits to residents and visitors by designating, interpreting, protecting, and promoting a system of outstanding touring routes in Colorado." is plagiarized from [3]. You're welcome to use blockquote or otherwise quote the source, especially for the five selection criteria, but use quotation marks and proper citations. You should know this.

Reywas92^Talk 22:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose—this just isn't ready yet.
  • As noted above, there's some confusion in the content between this state-level program and national-level programs. For example, the table row for Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric Highway National Scenic Byway implies that a Colorado Scenic and Historic Byway designation extends into Utah. Is the 512-mile length just the portion in Colorado with the state-level designation? Does that length include the part in Utah? It's very unclear. The entire table needs a rewrite so that the content focuses on only what has a state-level designation. Sure, note if a byway also has a national-level designation, but per the title of this list, it must focus on just what Colorado designated.
  • There's a lot of missing content. How are these byways nominated? What kind of approval process is there? What are the criteria for approval? What about a general history of the program? There should be some more content beyond the lead and the table. Take a look at Pure Michigan Byway for some inspiration.
  • Several of the items listed in the See also section should be removed per MOS:NOTSEEALSO; if it's already linked in the body of the article, it should not be linked there.
    Unfortunately, I cannot support promotion until more content is added what is there is fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 04:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Imzadi1979: As stated in the header, all 26 of the byways are designated by the Colorado Scenic and Historic Byways Commission and 21 of these currently have a federal designation as well. The four byways that extend into adjoining states show the total mileage. I will add notes for mileage and dates. I know that Michigan is impeccable, so I will attempt to bring this list up to snuff. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 05:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buaidh: I see that there was some edits after this comment a while back; are you still pursuing this nomination? Is it ready for another look by Imzadi1979? --PresN 21:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92, Imzadi1979, and PresN: The List of Colorado Scenic and Historic Byways has been extensively updated using Pure Michigan Byway as a model. Please give me your comments and suggestions. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 17:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This list still conflates state and federal designations inappropriately, and thus my oppose from over two months ago still stands. Entries in the list should be using their state-level byway designation names and the Colorado-only mileage. Dates of federal designation are irrelevant here and should be removed. I cannot support promotion until this basic structural flaw of the content is rectified, as I stated on 24 March.

(The see also list feels like a link farm, and the notes list also seems overly detailed. Others my disagree, though. This is secondary to the issues previously stated.) Imzadi 1979 → 03:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the federal designations, mileage, and dates. I will also eliminate most of the see also entries.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 05:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Imzadi1979: Done. What else can I do to improve this page?  Buaidh  talk e-mail 21:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92, Imzadi1979, and PresN: Can you either approve this list or give me specific suggestions for improvement. Thank you very much. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 19:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did so in this edit three weeks ago.... Reywas92^Talk 20:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: I'm sorry I overlooked these points. I've addressed all of them now. Is there anything else you can think of? Thanks,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 02:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support once the List_of_Colorado_Scenic_and_Historic_Byways#Colorado_Scenic_and_Historic_Byways_Commission is properly cited and quoted in its entirety. The criteria are still a direct quote yet neither quoted nor cited...... Reywas92^Talk 20:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 07:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second political list nomination. I am nominating this for featured list because I've worked on revamping this list over the last few weeks and feel that it's up to a pretty good standard. Contains everything needed to become a FL such as a good lead, sources and a clear table. Criticism, suggesting improvements most welcome. Thank you.. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 07:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have few initial concerns about the notability of the list itself. This is just a huge compilation of list of all the chief ministers of a particular political party. Is there any reason why this meets WP:NLIST? Are there relevant reliable source discussion (not verifying) that "List of chief ministers from the Indian National Congress" is a topic of scholar interest? Because a collection of data can be classified in any possible manner, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. So, while I am not opposing now, I wanted to know your (and others) opinion regarding this. What further concerns me is that List of chief ministers from the Bharatiya Janata Party is already a FL, but my concerns yet stand. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for respoding. Honestly, I had no intention developing this list initially, but then I saw List of chief ministers from the Bharatiya Janata Party which is FL. I thought such lists might be meeting WP:NLIST, otherwise we would not had FL like this. In my opinion, such list should be relevant, also we cannot add it in main article. Moreover, we have several list including List of chief ministers from the Aam Aadmi Party, List of chief ministers from the Communist Party of India (Marxist). So, the idea of having a list that could possibly explain a political party's leadership in different states of India seems fine to me.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 09:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do have other lists, but I am concerned about the notability of all those lists, not just this one. Another thing to note is that we do have lists for CMs of individual states (like List of chief ministers of [state's name]). I presume all those lists have a column on the CMs political affiliation. So what information does this list/these lists add to the reader? All information available here is already available in individual lists (including name, constituency, term, assemble, etc.). I see this as a violation of WP:FL?#3c Additionally, if I am not wrong, most of the list is cited to http://www.worldstatesmen.org/India_states.html. Why is that particular source a WP:RS? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think such lists are useful if someone wants to know list of CMs for all states from a particular party, at one place; be it incumbant or previous. I have removed [[5]] ref. I do not know who added and what could be the reason. Also, I do not see its significance here.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that the reason for adding that source would be that it verifies the tenure and term of office of each CM. The individual references the list have do not verify that. For example, Ref#7 (after "Chief Minister of Andhra State") has no mention of either of the 2 chief ministers, or their tenure, etc. Currently, most of the list fails WP:V, and that was the only reference supporting everything. Assuming that other agree with the notability of the list, we'll still need inline citations verifying everything present in the table, which currently is not the case. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Honestly, I cannot explain about others than this since I am not a contributor to those lists. I can solved list of concerns raised with regards to this list. Besides, I am in process of adding sources to individual table. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 12:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• All of these comments apply to all tables.
• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.

 Done

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! rowspan="2" |Name becomes !scope=col rowspan="2" |Name. If the cell spans multiple columns, then use !scope=colgroup instead. Note that in the case that you have two levels of column headers, both cells need colscopes.

 Done

Not done- where you have !scope=col colspan=3 (e.g. 'Term of office') it needs to be !scope=colgroup colspan=3, and for the sub-header cells ('From', 'To', and 'Days in office'), you need colscopes, so ! From becomes !scope=col| From. --PresN 00:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Apologies. Please have a look now.

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1 becomes !scope=row | 1. If the cell spans multiple rows, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.

 Done

• The table-spanning cells (e.g. Chief Ministers of Hyderabad State (1948–1956)) can't be used. Not only do they result in weird results for screen readers (e.g. the screen reader reads out the first column header and the cell, then the second column header and the same cell again, etc. even though no column headers actually apply to the text in the cell at all), but they don't even work for fully-sighted viewers- just sort the table and they all stop being in any useful place. If you want to logically divide a table with three subsections into three parts, make it three tables or else move that information to a new column.

 Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 23:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Noted. Please allow me sufficient time to make the changes, since the list is quite lengthy. I will let you know after I address all concerns raised. Thanks. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 15:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @TheWikiholic: can you please help me resolving table issues raised here. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @PresN:, all issues raised have been addressed. Please have a look and let me know if anything is missing. Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 14:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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