Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/June 2017

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

The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Price Zero|^talk 02:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it's give a clear idea about centuries in the ground. It's follows FL criteria and I think its good enough to be a featured list. The lead section is also reasonable and nicely sourced. Article is sourced with ESPNcricinfo. I have made reasonable contribution to the article as well. Price Zero|^talk 02:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Hi Price Zero, I feel that list isn't quite up to featured status at this point. The lead needs a bit a work with the opening paragraph using the same sentence format three times. Also a reference to the match report is required for each listing. Please see List of international cricket centuries at the Adelaide Oval, the latest list of this kind to be featured, for what I mean.

Additionally:

• the images need alt text
• the referencing formatting is inconsistent
• remove the Cricket in Sri Lanka navbox to meet WP:BIDIRECTIONAL
• remove Pallekele International Cricket Stadium and List of international cricket grounds in Sri Lanka from the see also section

– Ianblair23 (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-This is fixed now - Price Zero|^talk 04:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too many issues for me right now:

• Not sure why the name needs an inline reference right after its first mention.
• Worth noting where Kandy is.
• "its first Test in 2010 Sri Lanka against West Indies" grammar fix needed here.
• Image caption - Match doesn't need to be capitalised, sentence is a fragment so no need for a full stop.
• "The first One Day International was played in 2011 ICC Cricket World " - "the 2011..."
• "was played in 2011 Sri Lanka " ditto.
• "score of the ground" nope, maybe "score made at the ground"?
• "scored by .. when he scored..." repetitive.
• " 9 Test centuries " - nine, per MOSNUM.
• "centuries until 2016" try "As of June 2017^[update], 12 ODI centuries have been scored at the venue..."
• " The first of these was made by the New Zealander Ross Taylor in 2011 against Pakistan at the inaugural ODI at the venue which was a pool match of 2011 ICC Cricket World Cup" too many run-ons here.
• "scored the highest ODI score" repetitive.
• " He bagged five" not encyclopedic.
• " with 939 runs at an average of 78.25." are you averaging Test and ODI cricket together here?
• " at the ground scored again by Tillakaratne Dilshan" grammar again, replace "ground scored again" with "was made" or similar.
• " during inaugural T20I at the venue back in August 2011" grammar and tone, "the" inaugural, and we don't need "back in..." just "in".
• " venue highlighted as unbeaten 145 runs by Australian Glenn Maxwell against Sri Lanka, when he arranged the match for highest T20I team total of the history." not really even sure where to begin with this sentence, needs overhaul.
• "With three T20I centuries at the venue, Pallekele Stadium holds the record for the most T20I centuries to score at a single venue." likewise.
• Suggest you get this copyedited by someone with native English.
• Tables need to comply with MOS:TABLE i.e. row and col scopes, and captions where possible.
• Date ranges in the ref titles need en-dash, not hyphens, per WP:DASH.

That's it for a quick runthrough. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Price Zero these comments have been here a week now, are you going to address them or shall I archive this nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Achieve it. I'm not gonna take this to further level. (Price Zero|^talk 07:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

small>Nominator(s): Price Zero

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

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

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

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. I've never promoted an 'awards-list' to FL status so far, but I've put a lot of work into this. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Thank you for your patience with this review as I know it was rather long and drawn-out. I think the list, specifically the lead, has been improved a great deal and I could support this as a FL. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick oppose at the moment. Harrias ^talk 10:28, 29 April 2017 (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) 20:06, 11 June 2017 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Daylen (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this list has been viewed almost half a million times, it is being constantly updated with new information as it comes available, contains a lead section which nicely summarises the articles in the list, the entry includes an image, and the facts are well sourced. Daylen (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this nomination was not actually transcluded onto WP:FL until May 25. --PresN 14:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and considering speedy close- this list is a long way from featured quality. The lead is just a set of short statements with strange formatting instead of a discussion about what's interesting or important about high-view Youtube videos, videos are excluded from the list because they "manipulated" to get high up, which means that the editor in question didn't like the way they got a high view count; most of the interesting comments about the videos are hidden in the notes section instead of a comments column, half of each note and many of the notes entirely don't have references, 63-80 don't even have notes, linking the the videos in question by making it a reference for the video name is odd, sorting by name sorts "The"s wrong, there seems to be a lot of sourcing to non-official "top 100 videos" videos (and I saw one that's to a random google spreadsheet?), the Historical most viewed videos section has 11 videos instead of "all" or "10" for not explained reason... There's a lot to sort out here. --PresN 15:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with above. The list starts with wording we longer use "This list....." Lead needs a major rewrite. I would expect more detail on the videos themselves and categories of videos that have been the most viewed. References to non reliable refs such as a Google Spreadsheet, Hot in Social Media, Quora, Grapevine Online. Table is not accessible. Cowlibob (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daylen: Pinging in case you didn't watchlist this page. With two opposes off the bat, I'm planning on archiving this nomination in a couple days unless someone starts working on the major issues. --PresN 19:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. --PresN 01:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): ShugSty (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have added sources for all appearance info, added photos and some narrative text to give some more context. ShugSty (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes the Vale of Leven website a reliable source? It looks self-published to me? - it seems to be run by a group of local historians in that area, the articles there seem to be of a fair quality. Not sure I can definitively confirm it as a reliable source, but is there anything to suggest the content there is unreliable? (ShugSty 25/4/17)
  • It has a button to "Contribute content" and no evidence of what WP:SOURCE asks for: "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It is probably fine, but for a Featured article, I'd rather see a more robust source for this information, if possible. Harrias ^talk 10:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done (ShugSty 1/5/17)

• Comments from Dweller

Forgive me if some of this goes over old ground.

• The inclusion criteria are >100 games or "regarded as having played a significant role for the club". Can you defend the arbitrariness of the former and the apparent POV of the latter? The "100 apps" is a standard for lists for other clubs. I agree that the latter may be considered POV, hence the notes column with explanation & reference. (ShugSty 19/5/17)
• Did you know that Jimmy McGrory is the record goalscorer in British football with 550 goals? I didn't. But there's no need to tell me on no fewer than three occasions. Arguably, in an article about Celtic records, not British ones, you could not mention it at all. Once will suffice. Uh? Ok, its highlighted in the lead paragraph and in the caption for the mugshot for him. And the third is in the notes column which highlights a player's notability (and includes the required reference). (ShugSty 19/5/17)
• "Henrik Larsson has more appearances for Celtic than any other overseas player." Packie Bonner has more. Which seas are you including? In UK, overseas refers to outwith British Isles (GB + Ireland); I've wiki-linked overseas to British Isles if that helps (ShugSty 19/5/17) I've now rephrased to ".. player from outwith British Isles..." for further clarity (ShugSty 19/5/17)
• "He effectively founded the Kelly dynasty of directors at Celtic, who by and large controlled the club until 1994" I can't see what the cited source says, but the "effectively" is an alarm bell for me. Either he did or didn't. And I'm not sure what "by and large" implies - could mean there were periods that the family weren't controlling the club, or could mean that the family didn't really control the club. Well, he didn't intentionally form a dynasty, simply several of his descendants went on to feature in the board over the next 90 odd years, hence "effectively". Also, the family didn't by themselves ever have full control of the club, but were very dominant. (ShugSty 19/5/17)
• The mention of Scottish caps right at the end of the lead begs questions about most Scottish caps and most others. Uh?? Oh,a ctually, I get what you mean now. Pat Bonner won the most caps whilst at Celtic, whilst I think Paul McStay won the most Scottish caps. These facts are mentioned (and reffed) in another article, so yes, I'll add a sentence or two shortly (ShugSty 19/5/17) Done (ShugSty 19/5/17)
• The captions are generally too long and too repetitive of the text. I'd add that I find the need for referencing in captions odd. The text that should be cited should be in body copy. Yep, I'll try and sort out (ShugSty 19/5/17) Trimmed the captions a bit, and moved the references elsewhere. (ShugSty 19/5/17)
• Footnote 1 - what makes FitbaStats reliable and what's the link? Refer earlier response to Harrias (ShugSty 19/5/17) Apologies! It was another article's review I responded to for a similar question. Anyway, FitbaStats has been going since 2010 and I find it to be a superb reference for Scottish football stats. One of the co-founders (Bobby Sinnet) also is the author of two published books about Hibernian F.C. (ShugSty 19/5/17)

Cheers --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:42, 19 May 2017 (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) 21:08, 4 June 2017 (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 MPJ-DK via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  13:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe both the prose and the actual article meets the mark for Featured List. I have had two unsuccessful nominations where I incorporated all the great feedback I got, sadly it was archived both times to do lack of participation and not any issues with content. I have also recently gone through the article and made improvements to the data used for some of the sources per a recommendation of a FAC of mine. As always I am open to suggestions and willing to work with any reasonable request and do any leg work needed to get this to FL status.  MPJ-DK  13:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• am going to withdraw this, I have some sourcing work that I did not realize needs to be addressed. Since there have been no reviewes I assume I can simply close this myself?
• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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