Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 2018

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe everything looks good, although I haven't promoted such a list in the past. The website will be updated with a new number one song every week (until 2020), but I don't think that's a problem. Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great job! Erick (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Yep looks all good to me. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to Oppose, for the time being, based on the criteria. For 1) I don't think the prose is of 'professional' standard (yet). 2) That the lead covers all of the scope of the list. 4) That it is easy navigated. 5a) Does not have visual appeal. I do agree that it is 3) Comprehensive (but needs more sourcing) 5b) Has suitable media 6) Stable.  — Calvin999 10:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calvin999: Thank you for your first comments! While I will still try to amend the issue concerning the sources, I solved your other comments and expanded the lead. I know it is by far not perfect, but I this that's an acceptable beginning to work with. I would like to get it to a better level with your help. Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've expanded the lead but you haven't sourced the additions, in addition to what needed backing up from third party sources before expanding, so it's amplified my concern about sourcing which is a big issue and unless it's addressed I can't remove my oppose. I'm sorry. It concerns me that this has garnered three supports when such glaring issues remain in relation of sourcing and verification and clearly does not meet the criteria.  — Calvin999 18:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calvin999: I will work on the issue later this week, as I've found some helpful links. Please don't close the FLC or such... Thanks; Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't close it, I'm not an FAC delegate. A delegate looks at the candidacy and decides whether to reject or promote based on what reviewers have said.  — Calvin999 15:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calvin999: Hi there again! After some research, I found out that a Romanian website (Un site de muzică) which seems to be reliable reported about selected editions of the Airplay 100 beginning with October 2016, as well as provided information on the chart's compilation that can be used to back up that from KissFM.ro. The pre-2016 number-ones can't be cited with magazine articles (etc...) because they don't exist on the internet. However, after even more research, I discovered an iTunes page where each podcast of the Airplay 100 was (and still is) published to listen to for free. Is this ok to back up the weekly chart podcasts published on KissFM.ro? This is all I can do with finding new sources; the Airplay 100 is not a that mediatized subject like Billboard charts & co. Also, I don't think that the facts in the lead must be referenced there, as they are in the article's body by the KissFM.ro page, iTunes page and the Un site de muzică pages. What do you think? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin999, Any news on this? What do you think of the article now? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin999 any thoughts? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced it's of the professional standard that we are looking for in the Featured process.  — Calvin999 10:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin999, this comment cannot really be addressed. Can you list your specific concerns please. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the prose is well-written still in terms of sentence structure and grammar. The references are still essentially just chart sources, there isn't any third party. Some entries in the table has citations, some don't. The tables still aren't formatted or structured to the standard I think they should be, and are missing essential elements such as a Skip to Year box.  — Calvin999 10:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calvin999: Hi! Can you give me some examples for sentences you think are still not well-written? Someone has copy-edited the article and I have also implemented the comments of User:A Thousand Doors. Regarding the references, this is everything I can do (we do have some third-party sources right now). What do you mean by Skip to Year box? Also, what are other "essential elements"? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm afraid that I'm inclined to agree with Calvin that this article isn't at FL standard just yet.

• My main issue is the lead. Only two sentences out of 10 are cited, which suggests that there might be WP:OR issues. Are there anymore reliable, third-party sources that discuss this chart during the 2010s? What sort of things do they say?

The sources presented in this article are – sadly – the only ones to find about the chart online. While on one hand I understand your concerns about original research, on the other hand the lead only contains only information cited in the article's body, although not directly cited by a source but rather by me listening to the podcasts and figuring out things (e.g. who was the artist with the most no.1s in the history...). Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of third-party sources is a serious issue, not just with regards the FL criteria, but the verifiability and notability guidelines too. With the exception of Un site de muzică, all the sources in this article come from either Kiss FM (who broadcast the chart) or Media Forest (who compile it). Having references from so few third-party sources can open up questions about bias and neutrality. I've had a look myself for more sources and have also come up empty-handed, so I don't think this is a problem with your researching skills. Clearly a lot of work has gone into this article, but I'm afraid that I still don't believe that it meets the FL criteria in its current state. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got you. This is really a problem surrounding this article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Finding more references might also beef up the lead, which, by my estimation, is rather brief. It's covering six years of chart history, but it's only 314 word long, and more than half of it is dedicated to listing the songs that spent extended periods of time at number one. Is there anything else that you can say? For example, how does Media Forest compile the chart? Is every radio station in Romania sampled, or just some of them? Is music streaming also included? Are there any quotes from artists who have topped the chart? How is the chart viewed within the industry? Are there any record labels that perform better than others?

This is the only information I can include in the lead, really. We can maybe do some things here and there, but there is not enough coverage of the chart online to write about the things you've mentioned. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This echoes my point above about lack of coverage. With so few independent sources writing about the chart, the lead almost feels to me like it's being padded by just listing which songs spent extended periods of time at number one, and that just doesn't make for an engaging read. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got you... Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Artists need to sort under their surname. I can talk you through how to do this, if you'd like.

Is there a special setting or such? Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a setting per se, but Template:Sortname is usually pretty useful for sorting by surname. So you'd have, for example. {{Sortname|Michel|Teló}}, {{Sortname|Elena|Gheorghe}} and {{Sortname|Pharrell|Williams}}. Not so sure that this template supports interlanguage links, now that I think about it... In those instances, you might have to use Template:Sort and do something like {{Sort|Velea, Alex|{{Interlanguage link|Alex Velea|ro}}}} instead. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I didn't apply this in cases like "Carla's Dreams", "What's Up" and "Grasu XXL", where the second part is not really a surname. Btw, the template supported interlanguage links. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Similarly, "The Greatest" needs to sort under G.

Same as above. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use "{{Sortname|The|Greatest|The Greatest (Sia song)}}" for this.

• "the news No.1" -> "the new No.1"

I can't find this. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the first bullet point in citation 19. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for noticing! Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A Thousand Doors: Hi there again! I understand your points above and I also implemented what was to be implemented. I have also answered to your additional comments. Best regards and thank you for your opinion... Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A Thousand Doors: I have done your other comments. Is there anything else that needs to be revised? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A Thousand Doors: Have your concerns been addressed or does your oppose still stand? --PresN 15:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator has clearly a put a lot of work into this article, but unfortunately I still have concerns that it doesn't quite represent Wikipedia's best just yet. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calvin999: A couple other reviewers have come through since you; have your concerns been addressed or does your oppose still stand? --PresN 15:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I still don't think it is. I still have (the same) issues regarding sourcing and overall standard of the article.  — Calvin999 09:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright; I understand how frustrating it can be to feel like you've addressed concerns as much as you can and still meet opposes, but at this point there's been 2 outstanding opposes for a while, and no comment at all for 2 weeks. I'm going to have to close this out; if you're ever able to resolve the opposers' concerns, feel free to re-nominate. --PresN 21:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): adamstom97 (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deadpool is the highest grossing R-rated film of all time, breaking numerous box office records upon its release. This is a comprehensive, easily followed list of these records, which I believe meets all the FL criteria. No concerns with the article were expressed during a peer review, but any suggestions for improvement are most welcome here. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we need a community discussion about this kind of article. I'm seeing stuff like "Biggest opening day for an M18-rated film in Singapore ($205 thousand)[19]" and thinking, TRIVIA! So right now, it's oppose but I'd like to see who else comments on this and how. Right now, most of the significant box office records would be covered in a paragraph in the main article. I currently see no reason for this spinoff to exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The one TRM cited isn't the one that caught my eye, it was this one; "Biggest opening day for a 15-rated Fox film in the United Kingdom ($3.4 million)" So the triple intersection of country, rating, and studio to make a "record". I don't see this as an FL, or even an article that needs to exist at all. Trim down significantly and merge back into the main article on the film. Courcelles (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I have to agree with The Rambling Man. This page is full of very obscure trivia that could be summarized in a paragraph in another article. We already have List of accolades received by Deadpool (film), would this fit in nicely there? I don't see a reason to have a separate list page just for this trivia. Mattximus (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you guys defining as trivia? This is a pretty compact list, and it is all deemed noteworthy by pretty reliable sources. It also does not seem any less notable or trivial than the sorts of things that WP:SALAT recommend as appropriate lists, just maybe something that you do not find so interesting. For instance, under "Lists of subtaxa" it notes that in an article on organisms it would be appropriate to note a couple of examples, but if there are a few to list then a full and complete separate list should be written. Similarly, I don't think it is appropriate to be dealing with lots of box office records at the film article, so I started putting together this list, and I therefore did what I could to make it full and complete. Personally, being able to see a short list of all the box office records that a box office-noteworthy film set is far more interesting than a list of subtaxa, and helps contribute to a thorough topic on this film. If there was consensus to not have separate lists for box office records then I would understand, but there is not, so I think it is a bit unfair to say it is not FL quality because of a community consensus that does not yet exist. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing trivial intersections which create pseudo-records which aren't really notable at all. I have also said that I'd like more community input. What other FLs are there for box office records? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are none, as there are not many lists like this. However, I don't believe that effects the quality of this one. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest that, I just wondered if there were any box office record lists and if any of them had been made into FLs. Regardless, my !vote stands, there's simply too much trivia in here for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My vote stands as well. "Biggest opening weekend for a Fox film in Hong Kong" is is an example of non-notable trivia. Also, I don't even know what "Biggest opening weekend for the X-Men film series in Germany " has to do with this film. Is it really an X-men series film? Regardless, the key points can be summarized in a paragraph in either the main page or as an abridged list in the accolade list. There is no reason to have this additional page. Mattximus (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PresN, Giants2008, this needs a look at from one of you to advise on the way ahead. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Giants is still out, but this is an oppose from me too, and consideration for AfD. No offense to the nominator, and I recognize the amount of effort put in to finding and sourcing these records, but there's a ton of non-notable trivia here. "Biggest IMAX opening weekend for February in North America", "Highest advance ticket sales for February on Fandango in North America", "Biggest opening day for a Fox film in Hong Kong", etc., etc. Nearly every one of them is a triple intersection just to make a small enough niche that it could be a "record" - biggest (weekday) release of a (format) film in (month) in one particular (region)... that's trivia. Additionally, even if that was successfully argued away, the list gives no context. For example, how many "Biggest Premium Large Format R-rated opening(s) in North America" have there been? How many "IMAX opening weekend(s) for a February in Taiwan"? Like, are these records out of hundred or thousands of films? Out of twelve releases? If $55 thousand per screen is the biggest IMAX opening weekend in February in France ever, what's second place, or average? Is it a big record, or just barely higher than second place? I suspect the answer is that neither you nor anyone else knows, because these aren't things that are really tracked, these are puff "records" called out by the film's back company in order to get cheap PR blurbs. --PresN 03:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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