Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 2023

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Iaof2017 (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets criteria and is well written as well as reliable. I'm looking forward to the comments. Iaof2017 (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• Why does a table which claims to show "List of other charted songs, with selected chart positions" include songs which did not chart....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake, fixed.  Done Iaof2017 (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this article even being considered for a featured list in its current state?! ChrisTheDude, please review the quality of the previous version of this article and the version that laof2017 is pushing after basically ruining parts of the article. I'll list some of the issues. The lead section is now filled with unnecessary information and strange wording. The user arbitrarily removed the Dutch chart and certification from the albums section, and randomly added a Japan chart. In the extended plays section, the exact chart (the Dance/Electronic Albums chart) on which an EP charted was removed and BB 200 was added instead. In the singles section, the user split the singles into decades, as if her career was spanning 30 years. In the newly formed 2010s singles section, an 11th chart was added, the CIS one and the user even added positions such as 245 and 710. Since the discography was unnecessarily split into two parts, the user removed three charts from the "2020s" section. The user then reduced the featured singles charts as well, reducing them to seven, despite one of the singles listed charting on all ten of the previous charts. The user also inexplicably removed the "Latin" part from a US certification. The user then also removed charts from the "promotional singles" and "other charted songs" (which is now renamed as just "other songs"), and added new charts and new songs. The section "other appearances" was completely removed. The user added FALSE chart positions for "After the Afterparty", completely ignoring the fact that the version of the song that Ora featured on was just a remix that didn't chart anywhere.--Helptottt (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ChrisTheDude: In regards to this, you may wish to peruse the article history (it is currently fully protected) and the ANI (permalink) which resulted in two editors being blocked as socks. Black Kite (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • To add to my initial reply, only the lead section of this article required a more detailed editing, but certainly not in the way it was done. Re: the charts, only the Scottish chart was supposed to be removed since it doesn't exist anymore. All the other removals and additions in the charts sections look ridiculous. The user laof2017 has pretty much debased this article. Helptottt (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Helptottt join the ongoing discussion. It's getting annoying, enough! Iaof2017 (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• "In February 2012, Ora began her career" - according to our article on her, her career began as early as 2008
• All charts should be linked in each table, not just the first one
• I would lose the Scottish charts, as Scotland is part of the UK and you already have the UK charts. It would be like showing the charts for the US and also for Texas.
• Songs in the "promotional singles" and "other songs" tables which did not chart need sources to confirm they exist
• There are singles listed in the template at the bottom which don't seem to be included anywhere on this discography.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments.  Done Iaof2017 (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The column scopes are close but not quite right; every column header cell needs the !scope=col, including the album chart ones, so e.g. ! style="width:3em; font-size:85%;" | [[UK Albums Chart|{{abbr|UK|United Kingdom}}]]... becomes !scope=col style="width:3em; font-size:85%;" | [[UK Albums Chart|{{abbr|UK|United Kingdom}}]].... For the cell that spans multiple columns with a colspan, use !scope=colgroup instead. Repeat for all tables.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 00:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey @PresN:, thanks I will pay attention to this more often now.  Done Iaof2017 (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She is not solely writer of "Invisible Girl", I don't know about "Shy". Eurohunter (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iaof2017: I forgot to ping you. Eurohunter (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you @PerfectSoundWhatever:! Iaof2017 (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Had another look, and did some prose edits for things I may have misunderstood the first time. Hope you don't mind. Can now Support on prose :) — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "English singer and songwriter" I would stick with only "English singer" as Ora doesn't seem to be known for writing songs.
• Looking at this version, why were the US Dance peak for "Bang Bang" and the other appearances section removed?
• You don't need to have a ref for every single/song that has an article. The refs for the other charted songs seem to be redundant as well. Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since nomination, the article has undergone this all-out battle. I do not know whether a comprehensive edit war during nomination, albeit a month in the past, would lessen the article's chances of promotion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as Helptottt continues to occasionally edit this page, and considering their past of having heated disagreements with Iaof2017 (Jakubik.v included), I don't support this becoming a featured article until we have some assurance from both sides that this edit war/"I have more right to edit this page in accordance with the FLC" or whatever it is will not continue. Ss112 11:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As Helptottt has just pointed this silent revert out again, I want to make it clear I definitely don't support this becoming a featured list when this continues to happen without explanation. Iaof2017, I hope you realise this is not acceptable and an editor does not own an article just because they're trying to make it a featured one. Unless you are reverting vandalism (which you were not) or the context of your edits is very clear, you should always explain yourself in reverts, manual or otherwise. Even if an article does become featured, other editors are allowed to contribute and improve it. You are supposed to be working in collaboration with editors, not repeatedly reverting them without explanation, especially during the FLC process. You will not succeed in this becoming featured if you continue to edit war. Ss112 02:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Four of Ora's singles have reached number one on the UK Singles Chart, while 13 of her singles have reached the top 10" - while is ambiguous. Did they reach the top at the same time when the four singles topped the Singles Chart? If not, I suggest just opting for and.
• "The album reached number one" - the link to "number one" is a little too WP:EASTEREGG-y. I thought it would link to number one. Suggest extending the link to "reached".
• "Of the four singles from the album, "How We Do (Party)" (2012) and "R.I.P." (2012) reached number one on the UK Singles Chart, while "Shine Ya Light" (2012) and "Radioactive" (2013) reached the top 10 and top 20 on the chart, respectively." See my point above about "while".
• "Five singles preceded the album, "Your Song" (2017), "Anywhere" (2017), "For You" (2018), "Let You Love Me" (2018) and "Only Want You" (2018), with four of them reaching the top 10 on the UK Singles Chart." Maybe specify which four they were. Perhaps just leaving out the non-top-10 single; something like "Five singles preceded the album, including the UK top 10..."
• What makes Zobbel a high-quality reliable source? AuspOp?

Ping me once these are addressed. 21:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

If Auspop, an Australian music news website, is found to not be considered "high quality" or "reliable", then the peaks can very easily be attributed to the specific issue of the ARIA Report itself. Ss112 07:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The editing disagreement/discussion seems to have died down, but FrB.TG's comments have gone unaddressed for over a month. @Iaof2017: are you still pursuing this nomination? --PresN 01:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving. --PresN 00:22, 16 March 2023 (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) 12:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Midnite Wolf (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it has become one of the best translation-related lists on Wikipedia. It is as comprehensive as it can reasonably be, having been sourced from multiple high-quality bibliographies, and has a compelling lead section describing the history of the subject. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Published [...] becomes !scope=col | Published , with each header cell on its own wikitext line. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1782 becomes !scope=row | 1782, again with the header cells on their own line. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 16:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @PresN Done! Feel free to review the source to make sure everything was done correctly The Midnite Wolf (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Midnite Wolf: This is my first set of comments on an FLC; I don't really have any experience with FLCs but I have some thoughts which might be useful.

• What are your inclusion criteria? I see you include self-published and unpublished translations such as Urquhart (1895) -- are there other unpublished translations you've come across but decided not to include for a particular reason or is this truly meant to be exhaustive? Or is something included only if it was mentioned by Cunningham or one of the yearly bibliographies by the Dante Society of America's bibliography or the Società Dantesca Italiana.
• I don't think I need to be told how to access the SDI's English page; to me it's more important that I can replicate your search to verify results. Presumably you just went to Dante Alighieri > Works > Commedia (Comedy) > Languages > American English and English, and what, just selected every book? I'm seeing this database also brings up a lot of scholarly articles about particular translations -- some more of these might be useful for annotations.
• I think in general I'd like better in-line sourcing for each entry (not just individual annotations). If a reader goes to any line, I think, ideally, they would be able to tell what page of Cunningham you got it from, or which year's bibliography for the DSA, or if you used the SDI's database, or some other source.
• Also regarding in-line citations, you have a few footnotes to entire books to support single statements; presumably a specific page is providing you that information, not the entire book.
• This is about translations, I suppose, not individual volumes. But as a reader, I'd like to see more about the individual books. What's the ISBN for modern translations? Is it a bilingual edition (I know FSG's edition of Pinsky's translation is)? Is it a critical edition? Is there commentary? A bibliography? You sometimes mention reprints and republications, but not always. You mention the introduction in the reprint to Anderson translation -- why are no other introductions mentioned? So is your article about translations, or editions and publications of these translations, if that distinction makes sense.
• In general what does a range of years mean for the published column mean? You're presumably just providing information about the first edition, no? (And since the column is "Published", you really should clarify in the cell for Urquhart.)
• No titles for the translations? I realize there will be a lot of similar ones and it might duplicate "Parts translated" but it might be worth having the actual title (e.g., FSG's edition of Pinsky is The Inferno of Dante: A New Verse Translation)
• In general take a second look at reference formatting:
  • You're inconsistent with how you deal with dates, both in formatting and level of specificity (e.g., Holekamp's dissertation is May 1985 but Zanobini's is 2016-10-26.)
  • There are some inaccuracies; Dante did not edit Barbarese's 2009 article for The Sewanee Review.
  • |url= in a citation template implies free access (without |url-access=subscription); and it's redundant with |jstor= or {{para|doi} or |hdl=
  • It seems you've automatically let the citation manager do it for you; sometimes the automatically generated title includes information better put in |website=, |department= or |date=.
  • ISBNs aren't consistently hyphenated.
  • What's your rationale for when you include ISSN and OCLC or not?
  • Use an en dash, not a hyphen for page ranges (and year ranges too for that matter.) (MOS:RANGE)
• Why do you sometimes cite Cunningham's manuscript? Is this an ease-of-access thing or is there some information that did not make it to the final printed version? I sort of feel you shouldn't be citing a draft version unless there's very good reason for it...
• See MOS:FLAGCRUFT, these translators are not representing their countries.

This isn't a source review and these aren't the most specific comments or thorough review I realize, and again I don't know anything about FLCs, but these were just some initial thoughts I had as to how to make this a quality list. Umimmak (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Umimmak I didn't make the list, but the inclusion criteria seems to follow Cunningham's. The criteria isn't that it was widely published but that it hasn't been lost. There's at least one available version of Urquhart. Looking back now, the citation in Cunningham's bibliography has "Privately printed" in place of a publisher, so the publisher column here should say that instead.
• Close. Dante Alighieri > Works > Commedia (Comedy) > Editions > Complete work, as it's quicker to see whether or not a work is in English from the citation than whether or not it's complete (and the pdf it produces is 5 pages shorter). That said, I'll go through some of the scholarly articles from Languages > English. I can also add the shortcut to the citation.
• Adding references for the entries taken from Cunningham is probably a good idea. It would take a bit of time but I'll get around to it soon. Which year's bibliography for entries from the DSA should be self evident from the year published, and unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a good way to cite SDI's list.
• I assume most of these are for Cunningham 1964. The lack of specific page numbers is because I'm relying on my university library's copy, so some of it was added from memory when I didn't have access. I'll check it out again and add page numbers when I have time (hopefully this week).
• Agreed. I'll go through later (tomorrow ?) and add a ref. column with this information.
• It's for writers who translated the Comedy in full but did the cantiche in separate years. For example, Ciardi's Inferno was published in 1954, but his Paradiso wasn't published until 1970. Wrt to Urquhart, "privately printed" fixes this.
• I was experimenting last night with a potential fix for this and the above issue. It removes "nationality" to save space, but it adds location to the publisher column, which is arguably more informative anyway. Feedback welcome.
• The rational for including ISSN's is whether or not the source seems to have one. To be completely honest I don't fully understand what they are, so feel free to add any that I may have missed. Other than that, all of these issues have now been fixed (I think)
• Ease of access. My university library only has the second volume and I couldn't find first at my local bookstore. I also made a lot of edits over the summer when I didn't have access to either volume. From what I read, the final edition and the manuscript aren't too different, with the only exception being that the final edition has information from 1954–1966 and an a proper afterword
• Done

Thanks so much for the thorough review!! Don't worry too much about not knowing the specific FLC criteria, most of it is common sense and seems intentionally somewhat vague. I saw that you posted an article in FLC as well, I'll try and review that sometime this week. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Many more translations of individual lines or cantos[ii] exist,[15] but these are too numerous for the scope of this list." You do include translations of parts of sections, so your criteria for inclusion in the list are unclear. They should be clearly spelled out.
• I think it would be better to show full translations as "Full" rather than Comedy, which appears to put full and partial translations on the same level.
• Sorting by nationality etc does not work.
• In a sortable list, links should be repeated, not only the first use.
• You should not have flags for just a few nationalities. I think flags are not needed, but if you have some you should have all.
• You are inconsistent whether page numbers are shown in the refs. All should have page numbers if they are paginated works.
• There is an error message on ref 23. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Midnite Wolf: The above comments have gone unaddressed for over a month; are you still pursuing this nomination? --PresN 15:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN Not at the moment. I meant to reply to the above comments earlier but it slipped my mind (sincere apologies to Dudley). Regardless, I think the list needs more work than I can give it right now. Feel free to withdraw it from consideration if that's possible. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. --PresN 01:27, 1 March 2023 (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.