Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 2012

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:33, 31 March 2012 [1].

Nominator(s): Mgrē@sŏn 16:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida and my goal was to expand/update this list to match the featured List of counties in Florida. Mgrē@sŏn 16:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Listed on FLC by The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• Why do the populations, Government type, Label and Incorp. year columns have full-stops (or periods) at the end of them when none of the other columns do? It seems rather arbitrary?

--During article development, I added the period to verify that I had reviewed the entry when I went through the data a second time. It does not serve a purpose now. I removed the easy ones (government type and label). The numbers require a fair amount of time.

• In the lead Council–manager government uses and endash, but in the table it uses a hyphen. I know that they are subtly different things, but it looks inconsistent. Not really sure on this one though.

--I made a change to the "Council–manager government" table entries, but I don't think it's right.

• Also, in the pie-chart a third symbol is used: a slash. The pie-chart should also be consistent with the text. It also seems odd that in the lead you cite ~70% of governments are Council–manager government, but in the chart these are split into Council/manager and Commission/manager, thus giving an inconsistent view of the statistics.

--I will change the slash back to a hyphen for consistency. By definition, council-manager is not the same as commission-manager, but in Florida, they are virtually the same. What is your suggestion?

• I'm not at all keen on the pinching of the text in the lead where the map and the pie-chart squeeze the text between them. Perhaps try moving the map all the way to the top and maybe dropped the pie-chart a little too? This still won't solve it on very wide-screens, but at least on those the screen will be wide enough that the text isn't stuck in a really small column!

--I moved the pie chart lower so that it doesn't appear side-by-side with the state map.

• Per WP:COLOR shading alone shouldn't be used to highlight information (such as you use for the county seat) this should be accompanied by a accessible symbol (as seen in the similar list for California.)

--I added a dagger to heading explanation and to each county seat.

• I'm also not keen on the "Tallahassee ۩ Capital" – something along the lines of "Tallahassee (State capital)" would seem to work much better to me.

--I added an accessible symbol to the intro along with the one for county seat.

• Abbreviations such as "Pop. rank" and "Incorp. year" need expanding somewhere for explanation.

--I added a line in the "notes" section explaining "Incorp. year" and Pop. rank".

• Also, is the "Pop. rank" column even needed, given that the table can be sorted by population anyway?

--If a user sorts by county or area, they would have no way to know where a city ranked by population in relation to other Florida cities. Other city lists included it, so I did, too.

• The alphabetical "Contents" table seems pretty pointless when the columns is initially sorted by population, as if (for example) you click on "M" it takes you to "Macclenny", which is then followed by "Fort Myers Beach", while "Mascotte" is a fair way further down.

--I added a note below the table explaining that it is only applicable when the list is sorted by place name.

• Per WP:DTAB row and column scopes need to be defined. Again, the California list shows this in practice.

--Not sure I understand what you are requesting. If you are looking at the California passage,

"The first municipality to incorporate was Sacramento on February 27, 1850, while the most recent was Jurupa Valley on October 1, 2011.[5] The largest municipality by population and land area is Los Angeles with 3,792,621 residents and 468.67 square miles (1,213.8 km2). The smallest by population is Vernon with 112 people, while the smallest by land area is Amador City at 0.31 square miles (0.80 km2)", that information is already provided in the intro prior to the wikitable. Please advise.

• Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial, that should explain about the row and column scopes, otherwise, I know that The Rambling Man will be able to explain them. I'm away with work for the week, and will have extremely limited web access, so probably won't revisit this until next weekend. Harrias ^talk 07:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias ^talk 12:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Over three weeks later, and the table still lacks row scopes. Harrias ^talk 20:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Sorry, but I don't think this is up to FL standards at the moment. The key issue for me is excessive detail in the lead, which causes the intro to be too large. There are also a number of style issues throughout.

Image review

• File:FlaCitiesMap.PNG, File:FloridaCitiesbyPopulation.PNG, and File:FlaGovtTypes.PNG could use a better description. While this is not strictly required by WP:IUP, FLs should lead by example.
• File:Map of USA FL.svg claims that permission for its use is granted under the following licenses: GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version; Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0; and Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic. Only one of these licenses would be necessary, but since all of them are claimed to be applicable here, all conditions for each of them have to be met. Looking at the first:
  • The GFDL v1.2[2] requires that "at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five) [be listed]" and that it contains a History section listing previous versions.

This review is incomplete. I may return with more comments. Goodraise 01:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it again: All images appear to be free and are properly tagged, with the one exception named above. It's not that the image is not available under GFDL v1.2, just that attribution is inadequate. The GFDL is (intentionally) a bit of a beast in that regard. Seeing as the file is also available under two other free licenses, this isn't a problem, but it would still be nice if the File: page was improved to fix this. Goodraise 12:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the original author's name to the file page in question on the Wikimedia file page. There is only one version, but there is a history section. Does that resolve the issue you raised? Mgrē@sŏn 23:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:27, 31 March 2012 [3].

Nominator(s): DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list since I think it can meet the requirements. Criticism is also helpful here. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Does the color by the Home Media releases have any meaning? If not, it can probably be removed. --Golbez (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using it as extra to distinguish the blu ray and DVD tables. If there is strong objections I will remove it. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems extraneous, the text should be able to do that and they don't need to be immediately visibly different, but don't change it based solely on me. :) --Golbez (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The article has sentences written in the wrong tense:

• The twelfth episode aired on March 27, 2012

I did this one on purpose since it was close enough.

• while the first DVD volume was released on April 11, 2012.

Fixed to slated. This was something I forgot.

• Episode list table airdate for episode 12 is inconsistent with the Lede (March 28 vs March 27). Which one is correct?

Fixed

• Prose needs looking at. Aside from the two, the episodes are also broadcasted on six other stations. is clumsy. How about "The series is also broadcast on six other stations"?

Took your suggestion

• Is "station" the normal term for a channel or network in Japan?

To my knowledge it is station.

• The list currently fails WP:FL? #3a It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items. There is no plot summary for episode 12, because it hasn't aired yet, and episode 13, the one that is exclusive to the DVD/BR release isn't even mentioned. It isn't unpractical to wait until that happens.

Yeah I know this was going to be mentioned. I'll add the summary for the 12th and 13th when it airs but I was hoping other issues would be pointed out before then. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs)

• There is no clear mention that the series consists of 13 episodes.

I'll figure out a way on how to make it clearer.

• The opening sentence of the article tells us that Listen to me girls, I am your Father is a light novel. It isn't until the second sentence that the reader is told it has been adapted into an anime series. This is backwards, the light novel is not the primary topic here.

Fixed.

Oppose for now until the list can be completed with all the episodes. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed some issues. I'd like to seek more criticism aside from 3a also. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Sorry to do this, but if one of the episodes isn't going to be avaliable for viewing until July, the list is going to fail the comprehensiveness criterion in WP:WIAFL. I suggest withdrawing this FLC and renominating the list later, after the 13th episode is fully covered. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but my intention was to resolve other matters and bring this back on July. Well if there are no other issues besides for episode 13 I'll withdrawal this. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:04, 26 March 2012 [4].

Nominator(s): ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow was before the Revolution a very religious city; around the 10s, more than 1000 churches and other religious buildings had room in the capital. Since the revolution, the majority of churches was destroyed or reconstructed, at the begining of the 90s there were "only" 250 churches. However, since the fall of communism there was a revival, now there are after all about 300 churches. This is a great list of not all but the most important churches, and I believe it meets the criteria.♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Where are the references for the years of completion? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main reference for the date of the completion of the Orthodox Churches is [5]. According to the site, it has all Orthodox churches and monasteries in Moscow. The rest from other sources in the External links or the Further reading section. I did not include it as it would take too much space (but if you want I can do it). Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 10:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, please do so. Also, reorganise the footnotes section -- "Further reading" shouldn't come first, "Notes" should, followed by "References", then "Further reading", before ending with "External links". --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done the latter. I will do the referencing later. I don't have much time in real life so it might take a few days.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 18:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• However, I believe it is ok to use the links in the external links section as general sources. I just don't think it makes sense to reference the dates. I would like to know if others agree with Phil's proposal. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 18:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue I have with this list is it isn't just the dates in the table that aren't cited, but the entire table. For this nomination to have a chance, I urge you to source the contents of the table in some way. If the external links cover all of the content, then it's fine to have them as general references. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, they cover the whole information, except the translated title.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments before stance Conditional support until an image review is carried out. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "which don't occupy"
  • Done
• "(including pure baptisterys, memorial chapels and similar)" My interpretation regarding the uage of including is that not everything is listed, so I'd tweak it to "(including pure baptisteries and memorial chapels)". What do you think?
  • Good idea. Done
• I think the first and second paragraphs should be referenced more, especially after every statistic or figure.
  • I added one in-line citation in the second paragraph. The first is supported by the first reference.
• No retrieval dates are needed for print media (last source of "Further reading").
  • Removed
• MOS advocates the inclusion of alt text.
  • I am afraid it will not only take hours to do so, but most churches are hard to define, as, firstly, they do not differ very much from each other, and secondly, I might include difficult terms which might be problematic for the majority to understand them.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 13:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I think it's unreasonable to ask you to write alt text for all the photos, so I'll waive my request.

• An image review is needed. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• There are several churches where wikilinks show for the first time, but not the next entries - ex: "Ascension of Christ", "Cosmas and Damian", "John the Baptist", etc. These should all be wikilinked, just the way you always wikilink "Russian Orthodox" in the fourth column for all entries.
  • It was intentionally to reduce the size
• There are several churches where the name of the church is redlinked - ex: "Church of the Martyr Saint Nikita on the Louse Mountain". If the church doesn't have an article, I would remove the wikilink - otherwise it just stands out.
  • I delinked the redlinked church names.
• There are several place names that could be wikilinked - ex: Khamovniki could link to Khamovniki District
  • I think that would be overlinking, and the district is already linked
• In general, I would review all the entries in the "Name" column. There are some where a saint is linked, there are some where the church itself is linked, there are a ton of redlinks, there are a bunch with place names that could be linked, and there are some with place names and some without. The mix of all of those is disconcerting.
  • Now, according to the lead, the name in boldface is either the patron saint or the feast day. The redlinks should stay to create the articles in future. I did not link most of the place names because they have no articles. Some are without because they are either autonomous or located in a place which is hard to describe.
• How are these ordered in each table? One would expect by either the church name or by the year of completion, but neither seems to be the case.
  • They are sorted by either the patron saint or the feast day
• Could you put the church name in the alt tag of the images?
  • No, because it is hard work and it is meaningless for blind people
• What does "priesterless" mean?
  • It should be priestless. Done
• Central Okrug, Church of the Venerable Confessor Basil - is Basil one of those listed at Saint Basil (disambiguation)?
  • It is Basil the Blessed (Fool for Christ). Done
• Per Giants2008 above, it concerns me that there are almost no references in the tables, and precious few in the intro paragraphs.

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • It is unnecessary and would take too much time. The only thing not in the references is the English translation of the church. That's because there are no strict translation, except for the mainstream churches (such as the Basil Cathedral). Thanks for the review.--GoP_T^C_N 20:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this FLC, for two major reasons and one minor.

A) In essence, the list goes against WP:WHIM. The criteria for inclusion seems to be simply a collection of churches in a specific location, which is not notable. Furthermore, a FL should contain a WP:RS that backs up the claim that the entry meets the inclusion criteria, and none of the entries have references.

As I said, I can put the references in each table, but that is not intelligent to do so as you can simply add the general reference to the bottom. I don't think this is against WHIM. Moscow once had more churches than Rome, and it was possibly the most religious city that have ever existed. Moscow had a long religious tradition and many of its churches are classic examples of Russian and overall Orthodox architecture. I am not sure what you mean by "a FL should contain a WP:RS that backs up the claim that the entry meets the inclusion criteria". The references are undisputable reliable, especially sobory.ru.

B) FLC#4 indicates that the list should be easy to navigate and be sortable where needed. If the initial sort order is by "patron saint or feast day", there is no way to return to that sort order once it has been sorted any other way. Indeed, "patron saint or feast day" don't appear in the information presented, except to be "intuited" by the name of the church.

Well, you need to read the lead to know how it is sortable. How would like it to be sorted? Nearly every church begins with "Church of" or similar, and you can sort to your choice by pushing the Shift button and selecting the column.

c) Without alt text of any sort, a blind reader would only know there was an image in each entry, not what that image represents. Claiming that it's too much work is simply not acceptable, IMO. Featured lists take work :)

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not easy to describe it without introducing jargon. And alt text is not absolutely necessary.GoP_T^C_N 22:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The referencing in this article is less than exemplary. Non-English references make verification harder. In light of that, more in-line citations are not asked too much. Goodraise 00:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but why should I put in-line citations if I just can use general references in the bottom? This is not my fault that there are no English sources, and that is not an issue to use instead non-English sources, especially as they are reliable. I won't make in-line citations because this is silly; the list easily passed in de.wiki, and I don't see why someone should it oppose only for such small issues. Can you explain why people should care about this? They just want to know the location of the church or the name, maybe the date. And you can trust me that every entry is correct (I am Russian native speaker and I checked them all).--GoP_T^C_N 08:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Moscow) passed, even though most of the sources are in other languages. No one complaint about the sources that they were in a foreign language. --GoP_T^C_N 08:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I know I can not vote, but I want to say that I put a lot of work on this list. As I explained, you can easily use general references instead of in-line citations! That is not a valid reason to oppose. --GoP_T^C_N 08:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A featured list exemplifies our very best work." Of course you can use general references in the bottom, but then you can't expect reviewers to be impressed. I care about this, because I don't trust Wikipedia editors. I want to check things for myself. I tried in-text searches of several church names on the general references with no results. If verification was that easy here, I wouldn't object to general references, but it isn't that easy. Non-English sources aren't a problem, they just make me want to see in-line citations even more. I'm sure you put a lot of work into this. I have translated articles from German to English myself. However, expectations of "informative lists" on de.wikipedia are lower than our expectations of featured lists, and even the German version of this article has over 80 in-line citations ("Einzelnachweise"). Goodraise 13:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Image comment: Images on Commons need to be free for commercial use in both the US and their country of origin, Russia in this case. Russian copyright law does not grant full freedom of panorama, meaning some of the pictures on this list may not be free enough to be on Commons. Images marked as "own work" – they are in fact derivate works of the buildings – by the uploader can only be considered free if the uploader is also the architect of the photographed building, the architect has given permission, or the architect has died more than 70 years ago. In the last case, evidence of the architect's death needs to be provided if the church is not so old that its architect can be assumed to have died more than 70 years ago. Taking the lead image as an example and trusting that our relevant articles are accurate, the last architect to contribute was Zurab Tsereteli, who is still alive. That means commercial use of the image without permission at this time (at least in Russia) would be copyright infringement, unless, which is far from impossible, I'm mistaken in some way. Goodraise 02:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoever made this law is stupid. Everyday people photograph buildings, and nobody complaints about "copyright". If the building would have been "copyrighted", the creator would not place it in public, but rather somewhere where no one, except he himself, would view the building. If this is true what you are saying, I am withdrawing my nomination, and I will possibly never participate here. This is getting more and more ridiculous. Regards.GoP_T^C_N 14:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd regret being the reason for someone to stop participating at FLC. However, unlike my oppose rational above, complying with copyright law is non-negotiable. Anyway, as I understand it, Russian copyright law allows for non-commercial use of such pictures, which is not enough for Commons. The English Wikipedia is less restrictive than Commons, only requiring works to be free in the US or even only available under "fair use". So it may be possible to keep all the pictures in the article; work is required, however, to do this in a way that's legally permissible. Goodraise 17:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 22:18, 19 March 2012 [6].

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not... It seem to be a good list (I believe so at least...) --TIAYN (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose
Intro

• The chronology and context are a bit unclear and the introduction assumes too much prior knowledge:
  • Links to Ba'athism and Arab socialism would be useful.
    • Can't see how that helps - this is not about the Ba'ath Party's ideology...
      • As I say, it's about context. The introduction states that the party was structured on a Marxist-Lenist model. Given its later domination by Hussein, I suspect many people may not realise that the Ba'ath party was socialist.--DavidCane (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the Iraqi regional command exist before al-Bakr's period in charge and, if it did, who was in charge before 1966?
    • I don't know, sources are unsure, either al-Sadi or Hazim Jawad.
      • Is that all sources or just the ones used? It seems a fairly fundamental thing not to know.--DavidCane (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's the problem, this is not the Soviet Communist Party, hence the disinterest.
  • I think it would be useful to discuss al-Bakr's political position outside of the party. For example, following the Ramadan Revolution in February 1963, he was the Prime Minister of Iraq. Therefore what was the regional command's role at this time?
    • Why? Al-Bakr controlled the Regional Command from 1964/66 until 1979 (sources are not specific), its explained how the Regional Command ruled Iraq from 1968 until 1979, isn't that enough?
      • It's about context again. I don't think it is explained that the regional command ruled from 1968 to 1979. Where does it say this?--DavidCane (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now you're saying that he may have controlled the regional command from 1964 not 1966. That's a fairly fundamental issue. --DavidCane (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I say that he dominated the Military Bureau, and through that the party, by 1964, but became secretary in 1966. --TIAYN (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording in the sentence about the 1963 is not clear that the coup was from inside the party, who Ali Salih al-Sadi was or what role he played in the coup or why this is relevant to a list which starts in 1966. It also does not mention that the national president, Abdul Salam Arif, was involved in removing the Ba'athists from power.
  • It should be made clear that the 17th July revolution was in 1968. The previous sentences are about 1963.
  • "In January 1977 Hussein successfully expanded the Regional Command's membership." Presume this means 1974.
  • "Seven months later, these new appointees were given seats in the Revolutionary Command Council" so this was in August 1974.
  • 16 July of which year? I assumed 1977, given the context (although that appears to be an error), but reading Al-Bakr's biography and the table below, I see that it was 1979.
  • "Of the 21 members in the Regional Command 14 of them were pro-Hussein, while 10 supported al-Bakr" 14 + 10 = 24. There are also 23 in the list, so I assume the 21 means the members other than al-Bakr or Hussein.
  • I think it is important to say which of the members supported al-Bakr and which supported Hussein.
• Why is it assumed that al-Bakr was persuaded or forced to resign? His biography says "health reasons", so that at least should be mentioned. It does not mention what al-Bakr's other posts were, i.e. that he was the President of Iraq.

List

• Do we not have full dates for the joining and leaving of the regional command?
  • Nope.
• Why are there two lists? Did they really leave office in 1974 and take up to posts again, or was the regional command simply expanded?
  • Elected at Regional Congress.
    • That does not answer the question--DavidCane (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No it does, a group is elected, than the Regional Command is dissolved, and they are re-elected by the Regional Congress
• Were those that left the regional command before 1974, replaced? If not the committee seems to have dwindled to just five people by then.
  • Doesn't seem like it... Members were elected through the Regional Congress (at least at the beginning)
• Which sources are used for the table?
  • Its in the reference section. --TIAYN (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I missed that, but you should have a reference link on the table.--DavidCane (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I nominated the List of members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1960s (which is an FL), they said the opposite. --TIAYN (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--DavidCane (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rewrite the lead, seeings to vague and all :) --TIAYN (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing now as no edits have been made to the article since 29 February and many of the issues raised above remain unaddressed.--DavidCane (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – The first comment is the reason for my opposition.

• Criterion 5a, calling for "a minimal proportion" of red links, is violated at the moment. More than half of the members are red-linked, and the lead has numerous red links as well. I'm not the biggest fan of this criterion, but if it's in on WP:WIAFL I feel that I must call attention to a failure of it.
• The "The following is a list of" style of opening is quite outdated and could use a renovation.
• The first sentence of the second paragraph is bordering on a run-on, and is "Ba'athist" intended to be plural?
• Typo in "were he was assassinated in 1971".
• "has, according to Con Coughlin, 'has always been regarded as something of a mystery.'" Remove the "has" from the quote to improve the grammar.
• Remove space before ref 9.
• On the left side's Left office column, the 1968 and 1969 entries aren't sorting in the right order. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 21:14, 18 March 2012 [7].

Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because i think it meets the FL standard, and follows a similar format to current FLs such as List of Afghanistan T20I cricketers. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – a clear 3b violation unfortunately, East Africa cricket team has a mere 602 B of prose. Harrias ^talk 13:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per the above unfortunately, otherwise I'd have put it up for FL when I cleaned up the article a few months back. Not a fan of the long [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] in the prose either. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn. Thanks for throwing light on that thing. I will try to fix it if possible. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 17:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:05, 12 March 2012 [8].

Nominator(s): Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because as part of a fun mission getting the expedition of Muhammad related articles to a better standard. This list contains 1FA (Battle of Badr), 2 good articles (Battle of Uhud, Battle of Trench), and Mostly B grade articles, it also contains at least 4 Did you know articles (Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar, Expedition of Surad ibn Abdullah, Demolition of Dhul Khalasa, Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa). I also think it meets the criteria. Hope you enjoy the read! Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry but this is nowhere near featured standard, I would expect to see at least three paragraphs of prose in the lead, yet we have a sentence that states the obvious. The table does not meet MOS:DTT, failing WP:ACCESS. This should have been taken to peer review before coming here as there are too many problems to solve within the timescale of this nomination. I suggest withdrawing this nomination and taking it to peer review. NapHit (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 08:47, 12 March 2012 [9].

Nominator(s): ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 17:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this because it was a former featured list, has improved and worthy for the title again. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 17:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, it does not appear that you have ever even edited this article, so why exactly are you nominating it? Second, this article has practically no lead section, you may want one of those. Although the article seems to have been in this state for a year or so, I think the table's format it a bit silly, having a column whether or not there's a sovereignty dipute. I also don't like the header rows with the arrows pointing out the top and bottom of the UN and non-UN sections, which are unnecessary if that info is a column. Based on the name of the further information column, it should only include notes about the sovereignty status itself, but instead there is much trivia included that has little or no bearing on national sovereignty, for example the fact that countries are commonwealth realms or have X number of federated states. Why is Sri Lanka's former name relevant? Reywas92^Talk 20:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unfortunately this list is nowhere near featured standard at the moment, here are a few of the main problems I came across:

• "This is a list of sovereign states..." These type of opening sentences are no longer encouraged in lists as its stating the obvious
• The lead is very short, there is now information on what a sovereign state is, I would expect to see at least three paragraphs what constitutes a sovereign state any issues this entails and other info
• The table itself has many MOS failings. Firstly it fails WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT for how to fix this. Bold wikilinks are discouraged per MOS:BOLD. When using colours to represent something a symbol is also needed so readers who are colour-blind and understand the info as well. Also there is no key so the reader has no idea what these colours mean

I recommend you withdraw this nomination and take the list to peer review as there are too many issues to be fixed within the timescale of a candidacy here. In all honesty you should have gone to peer review before this nomination, as at the moment it only satisfies one aspect of the criteria and that is no edit-warring. Also looking at your editing history and the history of this list you don't seem to have contributed to it all, so I question the reasoning behind bringing the list here, when you've done any major work on the list and appear not to have the read the criteria. NapHit (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 23:18, 5 March 2012 [10].

Nominator(s): Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has gone through a copy-edit, a peer review, and had received feedback from three other users. If there are any more issues, I'll address them. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Jona, concerning Selena's discography, the first refernence absolutely needs to be fixed, and also the infobox colors for the remix albums and box sets should be different from one another, and each other for that matter. Other than that, not too bad! Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I fixed the 1st ref, however, the colors I used won't change :/ Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the colors.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Status

• Just a few comments for now, I will add some more later.
• Remix albums ARE compilation albums. Compilation albums insist of greatest hits, remix albums, etc.

  • Fixed. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 19:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just going to echo something that was mentioned in my FL for JLO's discography: there is isn't really a need for the taglines on the table, unless they give additional information that is not supplied. If you so wish to keep them (which I believe would be your preference) at least expand on them more. "List of albums, with selected chart positions" I also see sales and certifications.

  • I'm not getting what you mean lolz? Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 19:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • So instead of "List of albums, with selected chart positions" it is more accurate to say "List of albums, with selected chart positions, sales and certifications". — Status {^talk_contribs 22:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Done. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Throughout the entire article. ;) — Status {^talk_contribs 22:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • Done. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For the certification, how about using "RIAA Latin" instead, or at least make the "Latin" smaller than the rest.

  • Done. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 19:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to say "standard" in the certifications. Differences is denoted by "latin".

  • Done. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 19:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is just a suggestion, but I think if you set the article up like Madonna albums discography it would be much better. Selena seems to have a lot of compilations, most of which were released after her death. "Limited releases" isn't the right title, but maybe "Other releases" or "Minor releases" would do, as they aren't really part of her main discography.

  • Done. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 19:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My two cents on this: is "Minor releases" really the correct title? In my opinion, an album that's charted at number one on multiple charts isn't a "minor release". In reality, I don't see why the sections are needed. I understand it's needed for Madonna's article because she has several, several limited releases. However, for Selena, is it really necessary to separate four albums from nearly 30?
      —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The infobox says 5 boxsets, I only see 3.

  • Done. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 19:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Status {^talk_contribs 11:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is there no image featured in the infobox?

  • There's no free image of her. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • You can't use the one on her main article? — Status {^talk_contribs 22:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • No non-free files are not allowed. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 23:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Title should be "Selena albums discography" in the infobox.

  • There's no way of changing it lolz. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just add "albums" to the end of Selena. That's how we do it. — Status {^talk_contribs 22:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Done. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 23:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - suggest a decent copyedit before nominating. Still too many prose issues for me. Suggest you withdraw and ask WP:GOCE to have a look, or WP:PR (e.g. " which had beat audience records raging from Tejano vocalist to country stars in " this clearly has not be copyedited to a reasonable standard.) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I think the discography should include Baila Esta Cumbia (1992) and Quiero... (1993), two compilation albums released in Mexico that were the first releases by Selena in the country, and Mexico was her second biggest market.

  • Those albums promote her as "Y Los Dinos", this discography is only her solo career (first para states this). Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 19:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Tracklisting for Baila Esta Cumbia: Baila Esta Cumbia, Cariño, Cariño Mío, Como La Flor, Terco Corazón, Quiero Ser, Contigo Quiero Estar, Ya Ves, La Carcacha, Ven Conmigo, Yo Te Amo, Siempre.
• Tracklisting for Quiero...: Siempre Estoy Pensando En Ti, No Debes Jugar, Yo Me Voy, Las Cadenas, Que Creías, Yo Te Sigo Queriendo, La Llamada, Si La Quieres, Tu Robaste Mi Corazón, Quiero.

Jaespinoza (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review: No images used, therefore nothing to be checked. Goodraise 15:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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