Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/June 2020

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The list was withdrawn by Trialpears via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some substantial work here and would really like to see this very important list with two million readers annually promoted to a featured list. I've never been through GA/FA/FL before so this is all new to me, but I will happily put in the necessary work to improve the article. It has improved a ton since 2009 when it was removed as an FL and the concerns at the very short FLRC have been addressed. Thanks! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: FLs do not begin with "This is a list of..." – zmbro _(talk) 04:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by Chidgk1 (Thanks!) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The lede needs quite a bit of work work. Also, please see MOS:ACCESS --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 22:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the comments! I am not that good a prose writer and would appreciate some more specific suggestions for the lede, Chidgk1 made some improvements, but I'm sure it could be improved further. Regarding accessibility I have gone through the entirety of MOS:ACCESS and found some potential issues. First of all there is WP:RESOL which I believe it passes as it doesn't require any horizontal scrolling at 1024×768 and well smaller than that as well. There were some issues with MOS:COLOR such as low contrast colored text for the low/medium/high HDI labels which I have made black to avoid the issue. The maps could also have a more accessible color palette and I plan on changing the color palette to be better for color blind people using Color Brewer 2.0 this weekend. The tables follow WP:DTAB with the header scopes well defined and both tables being used for appropriate purposes. Images have alt text and captions as appropriate and the information in the maps are also available in the main table. I am currently also installing a screen reader to see how it works. If there was anything I missed please tell me and I will do my best to address it. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chidgk1:

• It seems the UNDP is saying that List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI is more important? If so why not spend the time getting that featured instead of this, especially as it includes much of the HDI data too?

• If you put the actual rank and actual HDI columns next to each other, and the change columns next to each other I guess that would reduce the sort symbols by 2 but would it be better?

• Once you have it in good shape you could document how to best update it with next year's figures - either on the talk page or as hidden text in the article.

• It would be interesting to have a note to say whether the regions and groups are fixed over time - for example if countries move in and out of the "least developed countries" group presumably the HDI for the group is not comparable over time.

• Re accessibility when I changed the list below I could not see any way to automate making it accessible but just pasted in the necessary stuff.

I have edited the lede slightly but it probably needs more added - for example about countries going up and down the list, such as when a civil war ends does it typically go up quickly or slowly. Also if you have time could you point out my mistakes in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey/archive1 Chidgk1 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The inequality-adjusted HDI is probably the better index and in an ideal world would be used more then normal HDI, but I chose this list due to it's order of magnitude greater page views believing any improvements would benefit more people. I don't think changing the column order would be an improvement since it at least in my opinion would be slightly less intuitive. I don't have any particularly strong opinions on the matter though and would happily switch it if you think it's better. Regarding the Groups and regions there should definitely be some explanatory text there. I will deal with it tomorrow though. When all improvements are all done I will also make a pinned section on the talk page with instructions how to update the list, including some regular expressions I've made when improving the list. I'll return to you about the expansion of the lead, but mentioning some of the trends would be an improvement. Thanks for the comments and thanks for improving the lead! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI already provides both this original HDI and the admittedly better IHDI. While I agree with your focus on the more-seen article, these are duplicative and I think merging them would be appropriate for an even better FL. The table is not that big and more information in a two more columns would be appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 23:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Reywas92 That's an interesting idea and if only two columns would be added that would probably be my preference, but in reality there should probably be more. I think IHDI rank change in IHDI rank, IHDI value, change in IHDI value and IHDI/HDI ratio should all be included in a FL class IHDI list with the only redundant columns being countries and HDI. That many added columns would result in an overwhelming amount of information being display and probably cause some confusion. Having two articles with one table each would make the information density a lot more manageable. I will probably improve List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI as well after this review is over. If you want we could start a merger discussion however. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually at least for the current article, the "Rank Change from previous year" column should be deleted. Moving up or down one or two spots tells you nothing of use and can be easily inferred from the change in HDI. That column is pretty useless too though, only a few countries had a change of any substance. Now if this were change compared to maybe five or ten years ago it would be more meaningful, but the 2018-2019 difference isn't a valuable use of space for an FL. Perhaps only merge the IHDI and (longer) change in IHDI, but remove both rank change columns? While we're talking about merges though, List of African countries by Human Development Index, List of sovereign states in Europe by Human Development Index, List of Latin American countries by Human Development Index, List of countries in Asia and Oceania by Human Development Index (all in the see also) could easily just be redirected, I fail to see why the content is duplicated just to show subsets...more work to update... Reywas92^Talk 19:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Reywas92 That's also fair. I think some sort of trend column is important but a one year change is perhaps too short of a time period. The human development report contains average annual HDI growth between 2010 and 2018 which could replace that column. A merged table would then have rank, country, average annual HDI growth, IHDI, IHDI rank, average annual HDI growth. Thinking more about the IHDI/HDI ratio probably shouldn't be included either as thats just how well a country supported on one of the dimensions assessed. If it was included the education, economy and health dimensions should be included as well. Having two rank columns (HDI and IHDI) would be a bit weird, but probably the best solution. The by region pages should probably be redirected as well, ping to creator JackintheBox. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create any of the above pages, but did do extensive updates and developments for some of the by region pages about a year ago, and created choropleth maps for them. I personally think the by region pages could be retained as they allow for convenient comparison of HDI countries in different continents/regions, and judging by the view counts there are quite many people who read these articles to see countries' values and standings within their regions. I prefer these articles to be retained and included under 'See also' in List of countries by Human Development Index. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 03:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Just an update regarding my lack of activity. I have had a lot things happening the last month starting with the most academically intense period of my life with preparations for both my high school finals and several International Science Olympiads. I decided to greatly reduce my Wikipedia use to focus on these things for a while and then COVID-19 hit. It really changed my situation a lot with my exams and Olympiads being cancelled which I've been preparing for every day for several years. Seeing my work not mattering really made me lose my motivation to do things including on Wikipedia which has led to this delay. I'm still just as passionate about getting this to a featured list and have recommenced my efforts by working on replacing the yearly change with average annual HDI growth as recommended above. I hope to address all things brought up here in the coming days and will hopefully be as available as before from now on. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Me and Alice Hunter have had a discussion about what datamaps to use on the talk page. Feel free to join! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: Out of all the countries, only the two Congo's are listed by a name other than their article title. This is inconsistent and I can't see a reason for it. The lead should mention how the list of countries examined is/was determined. Three maps in the lead seems a bit too much, and not WP:ACCESS friendly. Perhaps a section can be included below for Visualisations? Since this is the definitive article on the list, maybe it would be worth including as supplementary to the information on this existing table, the initial ranking/value from the 1990 list? Best, CMD (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The first paragraph is unreferenced and partly duplicates the second. I suggest merging them.
• I am dubious about the columnn for change in rank as the figures do not seem to add up. For example, three countries between 32 and 36 go up but none down.
• The regions are very unsatisfactory. Europe and central Asia are merged and no North America and Australasia. Of course that is a fault in the source and you can do nothing about it.
• Looks OK otherwise. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Very sorry to withdraw this but I'm simply not active enough anymore to continue this. I will hopefully return to this project in a few months after taking all your wonderful feedback into account. Thank you!

• 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 Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): CYAce01 (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the award nominations and wins that Deadliest Catch has accrued over the years showcases its place in television popular culture. The show continues to draw an audience and bring entertainment to millions. The list also meets criteria. CYAce01 (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as well. Lead cannot be only four sentences long, the mini-tables format is outdated now (see List of awards and nominations received by Kylie Minogue), ref cols don't need to be sortable, and everything else Chris said. – zmbro _(talk) 23:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: Done, done, done, and done. CYAce01 (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll retract my oppose since a lot of work has been put into this but I still don't think it's ready yet. I think looking at the recently promoted List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones would be helpful:

• Saying Deadlist Catch under every single nominee is complete overkill. We know what the page is about so we don't need to be reminded of that with everything we read. I suggest ditching those
• Do keep episode titles since those are important though
• Ditch the production companies, etc... Basically, anything bulleted in the table that's not an episode title. Complete overkill

@Zmbro: Most of the redundancy is just to list credit where credit is due (and as shown in the sources). E.g.: Say the production company employees made a visit to the Deadliest Catch pages and didn't see their company on the nomination/win lists. The companies/people might see that as an insult. Therefore, I was just writing the credits shown in the sources. The exception was for the Emmy Awards where excessive numbers of individual personnel credits were shown, hence the disclaimer (it seemed that everyone and their pets were listed—clearly not within the scope). CYAce01 (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• All the Deadlist Catch episode: entries can just be shortened to the episode names
• No refs are archived, which they should be. I'm also positive some of these are missing authors

That's it for now. – zmbro _(talk) 04:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look when I get a moment. Thanks for the notes. CYAce01 (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the tale

• People's names should sort based on their surname, not their forename (eg Bruce Hanifan should sort under H, not B)

• Done

• Rather than saying (eg) "Editors: Kelly Coskran & Ed Greene" say "Kelly Coskran & Ed Greene (editors)" so that it sorts based on name, not job title (in this case it should of course sort under C)

• Done

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Good catches. Thank you! CYAce01 (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - looks OK to me now, nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Some thoughts
  • The references need a ton of work to be up to par.
  • New York Festivals World's Best TV & Films isn't a notable award
  • We are Movie Geeks isn't a RS
  • Productionhub isn't a RS
• --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CYAce01 are you going to address the above comments which have been here two months or would you prefer to withdraw the nomination? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I'll remove the nomination for now and come back for revisions at a later time. I've started other projects (not all in wikipedia). Thnx for the concern. CYAce01 (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:20, 27 July 2020 (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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Jaberts123 (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the information that is uploaded onto the discography page is correct and accurate and shows clean and clear fluidity with the information that it is given. It shows up-to-date references, chart numbers, certifications, etc. Jaberts123 (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I wish to withdraw this nomination --Jaberts123 (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:25, 28 June 2020 (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) 00:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an exhaustive list of all 67 presidents of the NRA and six of the past executive vice presidents of the NRA. All presidents are included, but only executive vice presidents that have a page are also included. The primary list is sortable by year elected to office, last name, and type of occupation a person had, and the specific name of that occupation. Additionally, it is color-coded to represent backgrounds of Activism, Business, Law enforcement, Legal, Military, Nature, Politics, shooting sports, or other general fields. The primary list has 5 high quality images which accompany it, and the article has two images side-by-side depicting the current president and executive vice president. There are a total of three red links on the page and 3,732 words in the article (of which roughly 302 of those words represent readable prose). It's the highest quality list article I have ever created, so therefore I am nominating it for featured list status. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: The table looks like a rainbow and does not include any type of symbol, which are needed for color blind people. Also, all caps in the refs need to be removed; MOS:Caps. More comments later. Lirim | Talk 13:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The all caps issue has now been fixed. I'm not sure how to best address your first comment, though. I would be willing to just axe the colors altogether since the table is already sortable in that regard. I'm open to suggestions there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The colors are superficial and don't tell me anything that the Background column doesn't tell me already. Should be removed.
• The Ref. Column should be titled {{abbr|Ref.|References}}
• president of the National Rifle Association/Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association do not to be fat text
• Executive Vice Presidents of the NRA should also be in a table like the Presidents of the National Rifle Association
• The pictures are way too large (200px is large enough)
• The lead is too short

—Lirim | Talk 20:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lirim.Z: I removed the colors, titled the heading {{abbr|Ref.|References}} (no period), reformed the exec VP list as a table, resized the pictures, and expanded the lead. I have no clue what you meant by "[NRA president/Exec VP of NRA] do not to be fat text" so I left that alone. I think you are referring to the bolded black text? If that is the case, I will state having it bolded is simply my preference, but I will remove it if needed. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC) Edited: 14:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments:

• There needs to be consistency in your "background" column. First what do you mean by background? Second, why do you sometimes have U.S. Senator, and other times specify the state (U.S. Senator from Wyoming). What does "activist" mean? It doesn't seem to match the others in this column which appear to be occupations? Some generalships are included in background, sometimes they are not.
• You can use the term Businessperson and link to the article
• First Executive Director of the NRA-ILA is mentioned in a note, but nowhere is ILA defined.

Mattximus (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: Last two notes are fixed, but to your first point... Well, I wanted to list everyone's day jobs because this is an unpaid position, but not everyone had day jobs. Some people also had like fifty day jobs, and I didn't know what to say for them either. Church, for example, was both a journalist and a soldier (like at the same time). What I did was just approximated to whatever reliable sources said and hoped for the best. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query

• What's going on with some of the refs? Ref 78 contains refs 76 and 77? Never seen that before............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: I'm really... lame because I wanted to keep citations in the table two or under. I therefore bundled the citations. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • When you do that I don't think you are supposed to put ref tags around the citation templates within the refn. See the example edit I just did to Gutermuth's row (fabulous name by the way :-)) - I think it's meant to be done like that.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • @MJL: apologies, I forgot to check back with this one. Do you plan to amend the "refs within refs" as per the above comment? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      @ChrisTheDude: I just removed all the bundled refs instead. I might switch out the citation style to a more sleek harvnb thing later, but for now it's not worth the effort just for a prettier table. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I made a few small tweaks to the lead and am now OK to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Satisfied with the above comments. GRAPPLE ^X 21:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If, as the title suggests, the list only includes presidents, why does the lead discuss LaPierre, the vice-president?
• Specifying image sizes in px is discouraged per MOS:IMGSIZE, use the upright parameter instead
• There are a few seas of blue links throughout (e.g. Union general Ambrose Burnside)
• position of president of "of" twice in close succession is jarring to read.
• the lack of shooting skills of recruits same here
• the newly organized rifle association selected 1) cut "newly organised", it's clear from preceding text 2) Any information on how this selection process worked?
• famed Union general WP:PEACOCK
• to act as its first president cut "to act"
• Throughout its history, Presidents you lowercase the term in this context everywhere else
• Outrage porn refers to media, not people
• to intentionally provoking outrage and condemnation. One source for this which, while reputable, only covers a single contemporary president.
• In recent times MOS:DATED
• No need to link Obama
• currently chosen by the board of directors see above
• have gone on to become paid by the NRA this phrasing is awkward
• during Oliver North's time in office he sought to make the position a paid one Missing some context here. Why did he fail? Why was this opposed?
• In total, there have been 65 different presidents of the NRA between 67 separate terms in office -> "There have been 65 presidents, serving 67 distinct terms." or similar.
• Those who have held the position include former president Ulysses S. Grant, Harlon Carter, American Football League commissioner Joe Foss, and David Keene. why highlight these particular people?
• As of 2019, the current president of the National Rifle Association is Carolyn D. Meadows. -> "As of 2019, Carolyn D. Meadows is president" or similar
• For accessiblity, the table needs:
  • Caption (title)
  • Row and column scopes
  • (See the accessible tables tutorial.)
• Why are the numbers right-aligned?
• No need to link "businessperson", it's a common term. And there's no ambiguity over gender, so just write "businessman"
• Source says Kayne Robinson was only a deputy police chief
• Mustin's tenure needs a dash
• The table is inconsistent on whether the subject's locations should be presented
• All the footnotes should go. The information is either covered (or should be covered) in the lead or best presented in the subjects' articles.
• Anything wrong with the lead image in Oliver North, rather than the noticeably wider one in the list currently?
• May add more comments concerning citations later

Overall, I'm a little uneasy about this list. The prose problems are fixable, but there's a lack of detail concerning seemingly key elements of the position (single sentence on the purposes of the role, single sentence on the selection process, nothing on the duties of the role beyond noting that it's "largely symbolic"). – Teratix ₵ 13:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In reverse order (bottom of the list to top):

• Sounds good
• I like variety
  • It's a bit too jarring to just have one wide image based on an editor's personal preference. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image now cropped.
• Do I really have to remove the footnotes?
  • Maybe you could keep [i], but everything else, yes, for the reasons I've outlined. Of course, you can disagree, but best back up your disagreement with reasons. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I got rid of most of them, but I kept footnote C as well. That seems to have been a pretty turbulent time period for the NRA, but I think it would be UNDUE it cover it in the lead. If you still object, I'll get rid of it, but it should probably be examined separately from the others.
      • Presidents' resignations seem like just the sort of thing to discuss in the lead. – Teratix ₵ 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Originally, I wanted to include a section dedicated to their home states, but I could not get reliable information for each of the presidents in that regard and worried about WP:UNDUE. However, it should now be consistent for every politician and chief law enforcement officer on the list.
• Fixed
• He was also the Chief of Detectives, so I went with that instead.
  • Upper or lowercase "chief" and "detectives"? – Teratix ₵ 12:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lowercase- fixed. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed
  • Couple still outstanding. – Teratix ₵ 12:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Got it now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still unresolved. – Teratix ₵ 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The right-aligned numbers make me happy.
  • Not very important, I guess. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Updated
  • Might need to double-check this, I don't see any changes on my end. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what do there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have a read of the accessible tables tutorial. The list needs a caption and row scopes. – Teratix ₵ 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Done
  • Could still be more concise. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Those people are interesting, I guess.
  • Not sure this is a suitable criterion. What you and I find interesting may differ. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still unresolved. – Teratix ₵ 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Fixed
• Added content
• Replaced with Some former presidents have later been employed by the NRA
• de-linked
• used Since the 1990s
• Added a source about Porter
  • Hmm, not sure that says anything about the selection intentionally being for this purpose. It's an exceptional claim, especially when made in Wikipedia's voice. It does certainly seem that way, but I think the sourcing needs to be more explicit. Otherwise, this section may need a rewrite. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the article, "The election of James Porter... is one of many defiant signals to come out of the NRA's annual meeting in Houston over the weekend." "Porter... has been building that outrage his whole life." I could look for another source if you like, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither of those quotes are an adequate source for the statement that presidents intentionally provoke outrage. – Teratix ₵ 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• De-linked
• lowercased
• Cut
• Removed "famed "
• Now the rifle association voted to have Union general
• of --> among
• Removed "position of"
  • Hmm, it's a bit ambiguous now (could be referring to the role or the person holding the role). Sorry, it was better before I got to it – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• See above
  • Some are still outstanding. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Corrected where possible
• He's basically the shadow president of the NRA.
  • The list is on the position of president, not the actual leadership, wherever it may lie; that's probably more appropriate in the group's article. – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Goodbye, Wayne La Pierre. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Teratix: I hope that covers 90% of your concerns. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably will not support nor oppose this list, as I'm not best placed to evaluate the neutrality and comprehensiveness of certain sections in a page on such a politically-charged group. (will wait and see how changes go – Teratix ₵ 03:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)) (For future reference, it's easier to follow a featured content discussion if you reply to comments directly underneath where they are posted, as I have done). – Teratix ₵ 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MJL: just checking you've seen my replies. – Teratix ₵ 03:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Teratix: Hi, yes sorry. I've currently bitten off a bit more than I can chew, so to speak. I will responding to your concerns hopefully in a few days. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's quite all right, take as much time as you need. – Teratix ₵ 09:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Teratix: Updated. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Apologies, at this point I'm going to oppose promotion of this list. My reasons, ordered by severity:

1. The lead makes an extraordinary claim in Wikipedia's voice without adequate verification (presidents have served [the purpose of] ... intentionally provoking outrage and condemnation.). Additionally, the succeeding sentences discussing presidents' controversial statements give an impression of improper implied synthesis (i.e. discussing presidents' controversial statements to imply that is the purpose of the role, despite no source directly stating this).
2. The lead does not adequately explain what the position of president entails (criterion 2). It's largely symbolic (implying "not entirely") and has served purposes ranging from providing the NRA greater legitimacy to intentionally provoking outrage and condemnation... but nothing beyond that (and as per my previous point, even this sentence is problematic). No explanations of their duties (or lack thereof). I hate to say it, but some of VF9's hatted comments hit the nail on the head.
3. The list does not follow the Manual of Style (criterion 5) in several places, notably the accessibility guidelines.

• Given that this nomination has been open for almost five months and still has serious unresolved problems despite a relatively active nominator, I think it needs a break, a clean slate and possibly a rewrite.

This is my first time opposing an FLC; I may be overreacting? Previous reviewers (@Guerillero, Grapple X, ChrisTheDude, Mattximus, and Lirim.Z:) do you have any thoughts? – Teratix ₵ 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wayne LaPierr's portrait shouldn't really be at the top because the list isn't about the EVP. Besides that, everything looks good --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Are you still working on this list? The oppose has sat untouched for a month, and if not addressed I'm going to have to close the nomination. --PresN 17:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Oh, yes sorry!
Basically, I wasn't too sure how to respond to In actu besides saying I disagree? I am not aware of any unaddressed accessibility problems, feel that I have described the position of NRA president in the best way that RS citations allow me to do, and do not share In actu's perspective on the possibility of synthesis. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(I made the oppose, not In actu/Guerillero). I added a caption to the table, which resolves the accessibility issue. However, there are still an array of unresolved issues, which I have outlined in my previous comments, including the two major problems which have led to my opposition. I welcome efforts from the nominator to resolve them, but just saying "I disagree" without explanation is not sufficient. – Teratix ₵ 14:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Teratix: I have removed the "intentionally" from the claim. However, both examples come from the Atlantic article, so that can't really be synthesis. That was your most severe point, so I decided to respond to that first.
I am no longer as active as I once was, to be honest.
Idk, if you still want to oppose, but I will respect that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Until above-mentioned comments are disposed. Table needs scope row tags as well. Dog Hole Cave (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC) one purpose account vote removed. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Considering closing this nomination- Opposer still opposes with no further comment made, and no response has been made to TRM's review in 3 weeks. Will close soon if no action is taken. --PresN 02:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Sorry for the delay. I recently got a job IRL as a grocery store worker and had real life obligations this weekend. I'll work on it right now. If I don't get it all done, then I'll ask this be closed for expediency-sake. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:42, 26 May 2020 (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) 18:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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