Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 2007

Well sourced, stable, very detailed. Hopefully there can be a featured topic with a bunch of Katrina related articles. PhoenixTwo 16:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Why does it end on October 5? There are more events after that (random) date. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. If it doesn't answer the obvious questions (e.g. "When were the levees rebuilt?"), it is incomplete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Yeah, it's not complete enough. I don't think it needs to have extensive info on why the levees were built and the like. But it needs to go beyond October 5th. And many of the entries (such as "The US Senate passes a relief package") are much too short. I know we're asking for a Herculian task here but I think it's necessary. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. Hm, first time here, so I'm sure people will have suggestions. References, most of which are paper, no fair use images. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Support. Pretty good, but I believe it should have went through the peer review process prior the nomination. My suggestions:
  • Rename to the article to List of Canadian Newsmakers of the Year (Time) for a more proper list format.
  • Lucien Bouchard (left) - Not all users use the same font sizes and screen resolutions. I myself see the text a lot lower than the picture.
  • Please use citation templates on references per WP:MOS.
  • It is not to be confused with the Canadian Newsmaker of the Year according to the Canadian Press - This is a very confusing sentence, does the Canadian Press verify this fact? I suggest rewording it to It is not to be confused with the Canadian Newsmaker of the Year of the Canadian Press.
  • Sole years shouldn't be linked, neither to the year itself or the year of the subject. However, lists are an exception to this and as such only the instance in the lead need to be removed.
  • Alternate names should be provided in the first sentence of the article in addition to the primary one.
  • How was the 1996 Canadian Newsmaker of the Year named? Also "Headliners: Canada"?
  • Watch the punctuation; ...," > ...",.
  • The selections have received some external media attention - Any examples?
  • Please use class="wikitable sortable" on the table for easier navigation among years and names.
• Once those are dealt with, I will fully support. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually sole years aren't linked. For example, 1995 in Canada is used instead of 1995. I'm not sure what you mean with respect to the pictures- I wasn't trying to match them up with the text, I went reverse chronological order. Change it? As far as I can see not all lists start with "List of..." The Canadian Press and Time have two separate newsmakers- I'll try to make that more explicit. The external media attention, I thought, could be illustrated by the discussions throughout the list. Also, I'm not quite sure what wikitable sortable is and what it would do. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, I tried that new table... seems to rearrange by year, not sure what it's doing whenever you click the box for the awardees though. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AFAIK, the citation templates have never been required per MOS. The mechanism isn't important, just the fullness of the citation. Also, I disagree about wikitable sortable. It doesn't sort any of the columns correctly except the year, which was sorted quite sensibly to begin with. There are tricks you can do to help sort dates and names but IMO it isn't worth it for such a small table. Colin°^Talk 20:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for the external media attention, there's now a couple examples in the lead, since I found one talking about the topic in general. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I've converted to citation templates, if there are any more comments. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I still endorse a rename; it should be made clear the article refer to the list of newsmakers, rather than the column itself. Michaelas10 (Talk) 23:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is about the column itself, in that it reflects the literature about the column, most of which is about the individuals who've won it; I think there's merit in keeping articles at the shortest and simplest possible titles. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In case you choose to focus on the column, you may expand the prose and submit it on FAC instead. I believe a better solution to this would be splitting it to both an article and a list. Michaelas10 (Talk) 23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure if it's notable enough for two articles- do we demand Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc be split into a pure list and an article with new 40K prose on.... what exactly? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is a bit different example. Take a look at this article which has been split. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

previous FLC

Looks like issues from my nomination a number of months ago have been cleared up. PhoenixTwo 23:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom. PhoenixTwo 23:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Before I even read the details of the article, the fact that a {{unsourced}} template exists in the Longest rivers that have probably existed in the past section immediately disqualifies this article. Please go back and reference this section before considering this list a featured one. In addition, the word "probably" in the section name probably isn't such a good idea. Can you reword it so it (pithily) suggests that some sources believe these river existed? In addition, a lack of inline citations poses a major problem to this list. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried rewording the section and adding a few references. PhoenixTwo 05:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It still lists averages from several sources, without telling us which sources or what they give as the lengths. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Sorry, not even close enough to say "no cigar"
  • Title is misleading. It's obviously a List of rivers longer than 1000 km. The fact they are ordered by length is just a natural extension of the scope.
  • Maybe that "River systems that may have existed in the past" section would be better off as "Hypothesized former rivers"?
  • Agree that it's under-cited: every entry should have separate citations for the numbers.
  • Too many multiple links. Atlantic Ocean and Amazon River are each linked over 10 times, for exemple.
  • Choice (twice the Nile?) and position (could be better spread) of images are dubious.
  • The drainage area and discharge columns are mostly empty, a tribute to not looking for enough sources. I'm sure a large number of these can be filled up by looking around for sources. I recall an Atlas of Canada with drainage area for most important rivers that could fill several of the empty ones.
  • Why is there a dagger at the beginning of "Definition of length"??
• Circeus 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Only the first instance of a country's name should be wikilinked; use either "USA" or "United States" throughout - not a mixture. Tompw (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment the colors for Asia and Europe are too close to readily differentiate; can a different color/shade be chosen for one of them? Hmains 19:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this list meets all of the requirements for a featured list. It's also a comprehensive list, stable, well-written and well-constructed. All the images in the article are properly tagged.

• Support as nom. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 03:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Support' Although I think that the article could still use some minor tweaking and rechecking to keep it clean of vandalism, the amount of work that needs to be done doesn't negate the fact that it is a detailed, comprehensive list. --Hailinel 19:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hailinel, it would have been good if you'd pointed out that you've made a significant contribution to this list. Tompw (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry about that. It honestly slipped my mind to do that. I meant no harm or offense.--Hailinel 01:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Insufficient lead (criterion 2a), Table of Contents far too long (see criterion 2c) and no explanation of what "Class", "Class change" or "Type" Weapons (i.e., not annotated with additional information per criterion 1f). Tompw (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No explanation of what "Class", "Class change" or "Type" Weapons...Uh?? I don't undertand that...Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 15:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For each charcter, the headings "Class", "Class change" or "Type" appear (although "type" has been changed to "race" since I made my comment)... what do "Class" and "Class change" mean? (Not sure why the word 'weapon' apeared in my original comment). Tompw (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Tom's statement above. RobJ1981 01:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Having made several edits in an effort to fit the guidelines, I withdraw my support. Although I've done what I can for the time being, the article has a lot more work needed on it than I expected. Anyway, that shows me to jump in with my support without checking over the guielines and giving a closer look to the article first. Once again, sorry about that. For now, I'll change my vote to Oppose.--Hailinel 02:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Also fails criterion 1c -- lack of inline citations. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose In addition to what's been stated already, the images do not have fair use rationales. The copyright tag isn't enough. Jay32183 19:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe this mighty fine list fails none of the criteria laid out. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, hello anyone? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: I think you should expand the introduction and add a key for the colors. Spy1986 12:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There. Better? What more can be done? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good work. Spy1986 15:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yay! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... ehh... this will fail since noone votes, right? :( Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Are there any free-use images of members available? Including one or two in the space on the right hand side might be beneficial. Is there any reasoning behind the order in which constituencies are listed? Oldelpaso 20:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list is ordered per seat numbers. I would presume that the seats are numbered row-wise, and while MPs are seated constituency-wise, that results in them being spread out when listing them in one column. I'm not sure I conveyed my point so good you understood what I was trying to explain, but this image might help to see my point: Image:Riksdag assembly hall 2006.jpg.
    Other than that, there are Public Domain-images available of every single MP available on [1] (and also uploaded on commons). All existing articles on current MPs contain images. Do you think I should add a picture of each MP somewhere in the table? That would make the rows very high or the pictures very small. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I understand what you mean about the order. I don't mean an image of every one, rather two or three prominent MPs, in a similar manner to List of Sweden international footballers. Oldelpaso 22:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great. How about adding the party leaders (marked with italics in the list) to the right? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Images look good. The party list could perhaps be ordered by number of seats held though. Oldelpaso 20:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, perhaps. Help me decide here - should they be ordered by number of seats held (the party leader images to the right are), or along the traditional left-right scale of politics? By number of seats is perhaps better? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (de-indent) Political ideology is a subjective measure, an objective measure such as number of seats or alphabetical order would be better. Oldelpaso 21:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's ordered per number of seats now. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now, due to lack of images (criterium #3 and insufficient additional information (1f). The image issue has been mentioned above, and I agree that adding prominent members (e.g. party leaders, holders of major offices) would be sufficient. For "additional information", I really feel there should be something about the voting system used... the constituencies seem to be multi-member - do they use first past the post or STV or some other form of proportioanl reprenentation or what? Is the Riksdag unicameral? Also, how about including seats held by each party in the colour key? (Minor point: format the two web references using {{cite web}}). This list is fundamentally sound - it just needs a bit of polishing and tweaking to bring it up to FL standard. Tompw (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, I'll get right to it. I'll drop a note here when I'm done. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There. How about that? Should I include more prominent members? I would like to include some kind of "seat map", but I can't find any, or enough information to draw one myself. If I drop by the Riksdag in Stockholm some time, I might figure that out. But for now, that's not available. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Damnit, now I'm feeling all forgotten again. If User:Tompw drops by, evaluates my changes, and change his stance to support, this list will pass, right? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support now - good work. :-) Tompw (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wooohoo! Now, I'll have to wait until the 23rd for this to be closed, right? I'm used to AfDs, they take half the time. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's because the commentry at FLC is twice as good. Tompw (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support / Fred-Chess 21:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - sorry - mainly because there are just too many redlinks for me - I would estimate as many as half to two thirds of the members. The lead is also a bit short. Should we have some sort of break down by region? (e.g. Stockholm Municipality elected x members of the A party and y members of the B party; ... and in Norrbotten County ...). It would also be nice to have a description of the government (e.g. formed by a coalition of the A party, B paty and C party). In addition, it would be nice to make the table sortable, so you could group by parties as well as by seat number. And I am not sure I like the title with a comma (what format is used by other lists of legislators? how about List of members of the Riksdag (2002-2006)?); and do we need to state explicity "NorwegianSwedish Riksdag" or "Riksdag of NorwaySweden" (to avoid confusion with the Parliament of Finland)? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Darn. Oh well, I'll just go ahead and adress these points. First off: how do you make a table sortable? O_o
    The article title originally contained a "Swedish" (the Norwegian parliament is called the Storting), but it was removed as the similar article containing the current MPs did not have it. On the Swedish wikipedia, Riksdag is a disambiguation page as the the Parliament of Finland is called "Riksdag" in Swedish, and Swedish is a minority language in Finland. This is not the case in English and the English Wikipedia. In finnish, it's called "Eduskunta". I think the article title should be kept without "Swedish" in it.
    Regarding the comma, I don't see any reason as to why it shouldn't be there. I could move the articles if you want, but Swedish general election, 2006 and the other general elections of Sweden follow the same pattern. When I created it I named it "Members of the Riksdag 2002-2006", but Slarre moved it.
    As for the lead, I could expand it slightly tomorrow, but then again, let's not make it redundant to Swedish general election, 2006, which contains information on the election campaign, the forming of the new government etcetera.
    The redlinks are a hard one. Luckily, most of them are the subject of an on-going Wikiproject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden/Members of the Riksdag (that one covers the current MPs, but a lot were re-elected), and as thus they'll be removed. I could create mini-stubs of most if not all articles very quickly, but I like to finish what I start when creating new articles.
    Uh. I'll adress the immediate points tomorrow or so, but the redlinks are a more time-consuming project. I hope you'll change your mind. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There, the list is now sortable. I had no idea there was such a featre! However, the sorting script wasn't too happy with "colspan=2" on the header "Name", which overlapped both the color column and the name column. It caused the script to malfunction pretty badly. The only immediate solution was to let the colors have their own header, which came at the expense of having it severely widened - any suggestions on how to solve this? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, re Norway/Sweden - it is all Scandinavian to me. I accept what you say about the names in English being different. Re the comma, perhaps you are right - I always like the UK versions like this - 2005 UK general election - but I see that is a redirect. Shrug. I have struck those comments. I think the sortablity helps, but I still think a regional analysis would be useful, and redlinks is my main issue. I don't really want you to create loads of substubs; on the other hand, a substub contains more information than a redlink. There is a lot of support above - I wonder if any other editors reading this have opinions on the matter. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The large proportion of redlinks doesn't matter. I don't think members of the Swedeish parliament are (in general) sufficiently notable to have their own articles. As such, I think this list is of the form "set of items whoose aren't notable enough to have individual articles", fitting in with example 3 of criterion 1a (usefulness). Tompw (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm going to keep creating articles from those redlinks, though. Of course I prioritize more notable MPs. Question: how is opposing on the grounds of redlinks in line with the criteria? I don't see anything about it there... some interpretation of something that I've missed? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • See the FL criteria talk page - the criteria used to refer expressly to bluelinks, but this was revised fairly recently, although the concept is still there: either the list needs to bring together existing articles (i.e. bluelinks) or include a set of items that are not notable (so no article will be created for them). In this case, we are in the first category, I think; just that the articles have not yet been created. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ah, I see now. Well, I disagree - the "redlink criterion" goes under "usefulness", and while I think the MPs are notable enough for articles, the list is useful even without articles on those as it does indeed contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study.
                But whatever the case, fear not, for I will make the majority of them bluelinks. There are two ways I can do this, though: either I can do it like User:Plyriz once did and create loads of substub/stub articles like Alf Eriksson, or I can keep up my good work and create articles like Kent Härstedt. If the Plyriz way is what it takes to get this article featured, though, I'll do it - it'll only take a day or so. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • <--- unindent] I think it's best to create the stubs, because 1) you are planning on expanding them into decent articles and 2) someone else might come along and expand a stub. I agree the idea of creating load of stubsto get an article thorugh FL is not perfect, but all you are doing is creating articles you were planning to create anyway. Tompw (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll get back when it's done then. Is it possible to place this nomination under some form of hiatus or soemthing? Concerns are being actively addressed now...Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It can hang on for a few days more - it is nearly there. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just created 30 new stubs, more incoming. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What do you say now? I've created, I don't know, perhaps 80 new articles? A damn lot anyways. Could create some more, though, if it's needed. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, well done! But I can't support this yet - I would estimate that somewhat over half of the people are still redlinks. Can you get it down to a third or a quarter? It would be even better if you could create fuller articles for the people, rather than stubs. There is no rush to get this featured - I have been intending to find the information to complete List of Test cricket grounds and get it featured since June 2005! -- ALoan (Talk) 16:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now it was listed as a failure. :O Ah well, I'll drop by again when that list contains 0 redlinks. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let that put you off - it is a good list and will succeed next time, I am sure. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this list since June of last year, bringing it from this to this to what it is now, with the help of others, of course. After failing a previous nomination in July, I have since tried to bring it to the FL standards and hope to gain some support or advice. – Zone46 23:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Self-nom and support. – Zone46 23:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Object I'm going to have to make my standard "insufficient episode summaries" objection. For instance, "Kitty throws Eric an unwanted birthday party." I know what episode that is, but the plot isn't actually summarized. You should write short, but solid paragraphs and not worrying about spoilers. See List of The Sopranos episodes or List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes for examples. I feel the older FL's are insufficient as well and that may be what you were going on. Also, the fair use rationales are insufficient. They need to explain why the particular image is being used. It would also be beneficial to add writers and directors to the list. If you have the DVD's this should be no problem. Jay32183 00:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't find adding writers and/or directors necessary, at least not for this show. Every episode is directed by David Trainer (maybe this can be incorporated into the heading). I will try to add/expand image and episode summaries. – Zone46 00:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So add the note about the director in the lead. There is definitely enough variety in the writing staff to warrent inclusion, I just checked seven episodes and found six different writers/writing teams. Jay32183 01:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a short paragraph about the variety of writers the show had and sentence regarding David Trainer in the heading. I don't feel they need to be added for every episode, as other FLs similar to this list don't use this layout (list of South Park episodes, list of Stargate SG-1 episodes)– Zone46 02:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, even though I agree with Jay on the episode summaries; beyond that, this looks good. Cliff smith 04:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Episode summaryies too short (i.e. insfifcient additional information). Tompw (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose per excessive use of fair use images. Renata 00:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm going to agree with Jay - expanded episode summaries really do improve the list, and as it stands they are far too short and don't really provide anything close to a decent summary. Qjuad 00:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if this isn't formatted correctly, as it is my first nomination for featured content. This is a list of Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom who have 'crossed the floor' (changed political parties) since the 1945 general election.

I think it meets all the Featured List criteria:

• Its purpose is to bring together all the biographies of Members concerned so that readers can compare their stories. Not all of the articles have yet been written but the vast majority have. The entry criteria are fairly strict because the political parties keep a close eye on their MPs and immediately know when one has left them.
• It is constructed as a timeline. In a few cases I could not find a source which gave a precise date, but this is present for the vast majority.
• Every Member who changed parties, or was temporarily excluded from their existing party, is included.
• I have cited the source which was used for the building of the list. Individual entries, especially the dates of change and reasons given for changing, were sourced from contemporary newspapers, particularly The Times digital archive.
• I don't think anyone has disputed the listings.
• The article has been stable.
• I have included a brief reason why the Members changed party and some other circumstances.

Of course I welcome constructive criticism, and if it can be further improved I will do my best to help. Sam Blacketer 23:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a reason why it starts at 1945? If other crossed the floor before then perhaps they should be added (otherwise it should be called the unwieldly 'List of British Members of Parliament who crossed the floor since 1945')Ben Finn 00:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were certainly others that crossed the floor before that, although there does come a time in the 19th century when political parties were not the solid things they are now and it is impossible to be accurate. However, the reason this list starts at 1945 is really twofold: Firstly, there exist biographical articles on most post-1945 MPs, but only a minority of pre-1945 ones. Secondly, the list would become too large (in my opinion) if it was expanded significantly. I took my lead from the List of United Kingdom by-elections which only includes byelections from 1979, with earlier lists having date suffixes. Perhaps move to List of British Members of Parliament who crossed the floor (1945-)? Sam Blacketer 00:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe - I'm no expert on article names, so it was just an off-the-cuff suggestion. Ben Finn 01:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Potentially and excellent and useful list, let down by a short lead and inadequate referencing.

• Have a read of WP:LEAD. Your readers won't all be familiar with British politics but should be able to grasp the main points without having to read linked articles. Explain crossing the floor but also I note many of the MPs just resigned (or were kicked out) and didn't join another party. Explain what the whip is. You could give counts of Labour/Conservative defections and also mention the birth of the SDP as a significant mass exodus.
• You give just one reference, which needs a fuller citation (including ISBN, publication date and edition). See {{cite book}} for a template to make this easier. I've searched for this book and can't find a 2005 edition. The only one I can find covers 1900–2000, which clearly wouldn't cover the last dozen or so entries. You say you supplimented the info (date and reason) with newspaper articles. These need to be cited inline. See {{cite news}} for a template to help with that. You mention The Times as your source. Is this freely available online? If so, you can supply URLs in the citation. I know The Guardian is a good source of free online news articles and they don't muck about with their URLs.

Do you think you could extend the list back to 1900 with the help of your book? Colin°^Talk 21:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the lead needs to be expanded, and should explain why there is a cut-off in 1945. I think the title ought to be changed too - this is not a comprehensive list of floor-crossings, just those since 1945. For example, one (two!) of the most famous, Winston Churchill in 1904 and back again in 1924, are not mentioned. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a particularly interesting & unusual list, to the extent that it has already been cited by the New York Times and Daily Telegraph. It also appears to be by far the most comprehensive list of premature obituaries in existence (others being limited to a handful of entries). I am the main contributor to it.

One slight issue with the list currently is that there are about a dozen entries lacking a reference, which I've marked as citation needed. I've done a bit of a Google search for each to try and find an online reference, without success. I don't know whether it's best to leave them unreferenced or whether they should be moved to the talk page (which might be over-zealous, assuming that they are probably mostly true). Alternatively I could try contacting the people who added each of the unreferenced entries, but I don't know a convenient way to identify them short of a laborious trawl of the edit history (as the relevant entries are not recent). Ben Finn 23:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now contacted all editors who I could identify as having added unreferenced entries (most but not all of them). Hopefully they will be able to provide references in due course. Ben Finn 01:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Image:Bhope.jpg and Image:Bakert.jpg need fair use rationales. Also any other fair use images do, I only quickly scanned the page and those were the ones I noticed. VegaDark 10:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll do this in the next day or so. (Incidentally all the images I used were ones already on Wikipedia - I didn't upload any except for the CNN incident screenshot - but I will check them all.)Ben Finn 14:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another user (PD_THOR) has made some image cuts & changes based on fair use policy - I assume this probably makes the article legit now regarding image usage, but I'll have to look into this policy further I think so as to understand what can & can't be included, and hopefully to put some replacements in for images that were cut. I am new to image usage. Ben Finn 23:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, there are 11 redlinks still which is a tad high for a featured list IMO, but it is still good enough. VegaDark 03:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've just delinked a few non-notable red links and created stubs for a few others.Ben Finn 12:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Great and unique list, but the images captions are far from appropriate. They somehow made me smile but their tone is not suitable for an encyclopedy article (An actor called Tom Baker died - but it wasn't this one. Common! ;-)). For example, do not use "killed" or "died" as a metaphore (Bob Hope, twice killed off by news web sites or Paul McCartney is one of several who have died at the hands of radio DJs). I feel that all the captions should be modified. In addition I didn't have the time to read the whole list, but if the same tone exists in the body consider revising it. CG 16:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll do this in the next day or so. I believe this tone is pretty much only found in the captions, but will revise the body text too where necessary. Ben Finn 14:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now amended the captions as requested. One or two (e.g. the Fidel Castro one) are still quite humorous (or rather, 'wry') but due to their subject matter rather than their tone. I think this is OK. I've also amended the tone of the body text in a couple of places. Ben Finn 13:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - How can you be sure the list is comprehensive (per criterium 1b)? Tompw (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be, but this list is a 'dynamic list' under criterion 1b, i.e. it will never be comprehensive (because new premature obituaries will continue to occur). The requirement for dynamic lists is that they don't have any major omissions. I personally believe this list doesn't omit any major premature obituaries, simply because I have looked at quite a few sources which would probably have contained them (and also have done some very general keyword searches on Google). If anyone knows of any significant gaps please let me know.Ben Finn 14:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in which case, it should have {{Dynamic list}} displayed. Tompw (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added this. Ben Finn 00:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks pretty good, but I'd also like to see a reference for those statistics of the causes. The definition of what can get on the list needs a little clarification too. Some nutters reported Gordon Ramsey dead, but it wasn't taken over as true by the regular media. Somehow, the fact it needs to be reported by reputable news sources needs to be included. I'd move the unsourced ones to the talk page now you have the dynamic list thing in place. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a source for the stats - it's a comment (mine) on the explicit causes given in the list. As the proportions are self-evident (just from counting the list), I don't think it needs a source (or counts as original research). I've just reworded it which I hope makes it clearer that it is merely a count of the causes that are stated in the list.

Re reputable news sources, the article says:

This article lists the recipients of incorrect published, broadcast or official death reports (whether or not a formal obituary was involved), and published accounts of incorrect death reports - but not mere rumours of deaths.

By 'published, broadcast or official death reports... but not mere rumours' I meant to imply by a somewhat reputable source; though they aren't necessarily news sources as such - some death reports are in books, for example, and a few on IMDB (more of an information source). If you think this wording should be altered/clarified, let me know. Ben Finn 13:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. You don't specify what sources are reputable. IMDB wouldn't be for example. Also, since you did the count yourself, that would be original research. I'm not sure if that's all that much of a problem as it can be easily checked, but at least it should be stated where it came from and up to what point it is accurate. New additions to the list will make those stats outdated.- Mgm|^(talk) 11:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have revised the wording to be more specific about which types of source are included. (I don't think it is important incidentally that the sources of the premature obituaries are 100% reputable, as long as the criteria rule out mere rumours of the verbal/email kind, which are not worth documenting.) Do you agree then with this revised wording?

This article lists the recipients of incorrect death reports from publications, media organisations, official bodies, and widely-used information sources such as Internet Movie Database (whether or not a formal obituary was involved); but not mere rumours of deaths.

Re the proportions of premature obituaries with each cause, I gave round number %s to imply that they were approximate (to cover future additions to the list), but have now made it generally more explicit. Do you agree with the revised wording on the page? Ben Finn 13:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see Circeus has removed the percentages (as original research) but left the other text (as intro material). Though I think the percentages were interesting (and barely research, being merely a restatement of information from the list), I'm happy with this solution. Ben Finn 11:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Tons of highly-warranted {{cite needed}} tags, and switches between footnotes and external jumps. -- Kicking222 20:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are now about 10 cite needed tags - as mentioned above I have just contacted most of the people who added the relevant entries to obtain source information, so will either add references if provided or move remaining uncited entries to the talk page shortly. Also, I've just turned the handful of external jumps into footnote references as requested. Ben Finn 01:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now moved the remaining unsourced entries to the talk page - with one exception (the second Abe Vigoda one) because assuming it is probably true it is particularly notable that it would be Vigoda's second premature obituary. I have left the citation tag on it in the hope that someone will be able to provide a source. I've added more information about the incident from the editor who added the entry. Ben Finn 00:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Too many unnecessary year links.Circeus 01:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the year links because I was under the impression that dates should be linked to so as to be automatically formatted correctly for your region (e.g. January 1, 2004 vs 1 January 2004). However maybe this doesn't apply to partial dates - I'll check the policy and amend as necessary. Ben Finn 11:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The date policy [2] says that there is no consensus as to whether years in partial dates should be linked. However months in partial dates should not be linked. I will remove both types of link. Ben Finn 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. Ben Finn 11:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better. Just fix that {{fact}} tag and I'll happily support.Circeus 17:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are the objectors satisfied with this yet? I see there is still one "citation needed" template. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. Unless it's forbidden to have any citation tags, I'd rather keep this particular one, because if that second Vigoda entry is true it is particularly notable (being a rare case of two premature obituaries), and moreover having it in the main article may encourage someone who sees it to fill in a reference. (I also expect incidentally that this entry is true, given that user DanTD who added it has recently given me various specific details about it, and has suggested some places that might be able to verify it, albeit not readily accessible to me. It is also consistent with Vigoda's claim that he wasn't just believed dead on a single occasion, but was widely assumed to be dead throughout the 1980s.)

The only other thing I had in mind to do with the article in the light of feedback above was to try to find a few more pics given that PD_THOR removed some (no doubt correctly) on fair use grounds. But assuming the pictures that are there are good enough for now I may leave this as something to do in the medium term. Ben Finn 00:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unless it's forbidden to have any citation tags, I'd rather keep this particular one"

Are you joking???? Where were you when we battled for verifiability in Wikipedia article?? Circeus 16:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not familiar with the strict rules, but the page you linked to says:

Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by a clear and precise citation... If you encounter a harmless statement that lacks attribution, you can tag it with the ^{[citation needed]} template, or move it to the article's talk page with a comment requesting attribution.

Which is the policy I have followed - namely moved almost all the referenceless entries to the talk page with a comment requesting attribution, and tagged the one remaining one with the ^{[citation needed]} template. The featured list criteria[3] does say claims should cite sources though does not quite say that absolutely all claims must - it refers to [4] which says 'All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source'. (You may think I'm splitting hairs here, but I don't think the second Vigoda claim is particularly controversial or likely to be challenged.)Ben Finn 17:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should look at WP:BLP. Both Valoppi and WWOR might not like finding that reference in a featured list.

Besides, since featured content is supposed to be "factually accurate", that is "claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge." Sorry, but until that goes, my vote won't change. Circeus 18:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's not such a big deal, I will cut it to the talk page. (Though WP:BLP at least seems to be about contentious/defamatory material, which this is not.) I will try to obtain a citable source for it in the longer term. Ben Finn 22:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. Ben Finn 22:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• support Quirky and informative.Circeus 00:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nom Ben Finn 23:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list provides a list of every award winner in the annual "Oscars of text adventures". It provides a useful and unique function: synthesising the available information into a new form not available outside wikipedia: a grouping by category instead of by year. It is referenced from the most authentic first-party source available, the XYZZYNews articles themselves, the editor of which is the organizer of the awards, with further supporting references from 3rd parties. Further added-value additional information is supplied about the concept behind each category (most background info is already supplied in the XYZZY Awards article). As the subject concerns text adventures, there are no "images" that would be useful, and there would be no such free images in any case. I realize this will be an unusual case to assess, but I remind reviewers that they should "provide a specific rationale that can be addressed" in the feedback.

• Support per nom. Nespresso 19:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: above should say "as nom", not "per nom". -- Colin°^Talk 14:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you so sure. I've used "per nom" all my time here, and see lots of people do it. Canadianshoper 20:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might well be wrong, but I've always read the "per" as "according to" as in "per your instructions". So, yes it is used all the time, but not by the nominator him/herself. The confusion here is that the nominator is an assumed support, so if making it explicit, it is best not to make it look like an additional support. Colin°^Talk 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per massive red links and super-tiny lead. Renata 23:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lead is now extended. the number of redlinks is reduced to a bare minimum. can you change your opposition now? cheers. Nespresso 17:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is better, but still too short (see WP:LEAD). Also references can't be left in the externale link format. Handy tool is {{cite web}}. Renata 12:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the references are now formatted per cite web. i have tweaked the lead a little: could you explain how it fails to meet WP:LEAD? it is one full paragraph that stands alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, and summarizing the article content. there are no word-count guidelines at WP:LEAD, and one paragraph is generally enough for a list. Additional information about the Xyzzies does not belong in this list, but in the main XYZZY Awards article. Cheers. Nespresso 13:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Poor presentation, limited information and issues with references.
  • It is just one very long bullet-point list. The titles and author names just all blur after a while. This may be a good case for a sortable table. It would have columns for: Year, Category, Title, Author, Aspect (i.e. character, puzzle, etc). You could do away with the "by category" in the title. The reader could sort by any of those columns to see e.g. this year's winners, or grouped by category or see what awards a particular title or author has won. You could use box shading/colour to distinguish the winners from the other finalists. Alternatively, you might consider dispensing with the finalists.
  • There may be other possible columns such as publisher, platform, coding language, size which may be worth viewing in list format for comparison. Of course, these would need to be reliably sourced.
  • The first ref is a personal homepage (Dylan O'Donnell). This doesn't meet the reliable sources threshold and needs to go.
  • The next three refs are archived emails or newsgroup postings. The Interactive Fiction Archive may well be a useful resource for I.F. fans but still doesn't meet the threshold for sources for an encyclopaedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using online and self-published sources for why those refs are also unsuitable. Can you find another source? I appreciate that removing info that cannot meet 1c, you end up failing 1b. This is a problem for subjects in popular culture.
  • The section leads explain the criteria for each award but aren't sourced.
  • The section leads contain repetitive text ("This award has been given since" is obvious) and the winner/finalist info could be mentioned at the top.
  • The list has just had all the red links removed to meet Renata's objection. However, this seriously diminishes the list's usefulness to Wiki. If these awards are important, and celebrate the best I.F. then surely the winners deserve articles. I can appreciate the other finalists may not be notable enough but then one wonders if they are then worth mentioning in an encyclopaedia (just noise). Looking at the linked articles, many are just stubs that reflect the award information. There are a few decent short articles but I'd be much happier if this list grouped together more articles that were actually worth reading.
  • A recent change to the FL criteria allows lists of items not notable enough to have articles. This is new and so far I'm not aware of any lists being featured due to it. In order not to end up with featured bus timetables, the subject really has to be quite significant. Such a list would need to excel in its writing and presentation and do more than just re-present a single source in wiki format.
  • Sometimes, too much data hides the useful information (wood for the trees). I wonder if the reader would be better served by a table of winners-only folded into the XYZZY Award article, which itself is just a stub. Concentrate then on ensuring all the winners have decent short articles.

Colin°^Talk 14:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]