Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 2024

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 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): User4edits (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for GA in the past, returned for FL, improved on the article (generally and as per GA review), and nominating for FL now. Thanks,User4edits (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Sudhir K Jain Potrait.png: needs to be reviewed to ensure that it complies with copyright laws concerning publications from India. See its description page on meta for more information.
• File:Sivaswami Aiyar.jpg: needs a United States public domain tag. See its page description for more details
• File:Mahamana Madan Mohan Malaviya Portrait.jpg needs a United States public domain tag. Also, what makes the website a reliable source to know that this image is this person?
• File:Photograph of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan presented to First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy in 1962.jpg: the link to the source does not lead to the image. Can this be rectified?

• File:Amarnath Jha VC-BHU.jpg: the link and the data on its description page do not indicate which page number the image is from in the source. This should be included.
• File:Narendra Deva 1971 stamp of India.jpg: Needs to be reviewed to ensure that the India pd tag is valid.
• File:CPRamaswami Aiyar 1939.jpg: url to verify the source is broken.
• File:Veni Shankar Jha VC-BHU.jpg: source url should include a page number
• File:N.H. BHagwati VC-BHU.jpg: source url should include a page number
• File:Triguna Sen 2010 stamp of India.jpg: Needs to be reviewed to ensure that the India pd tag is valid.
• File:Professor Amar Chand Joshi.jpg: Needs a pd US tag and to be reviewed to ensure the India pd tag is valid.
• File:Kl shrimali.jpg: Needs a pd US tag and to be reviewed to ensure the India pd tag is valid.
• File:Moti Lal Dhar.jpg: Needs a pd US tag and to be reviewed to ensure the India pd tag is valid.
• File:Professor Hari Narain.jpg: Needs to be reviewed.
• File:Iqbal Narain.png: What is the source for this image? Where was it published?
• File:Raghunath Prasad RP Rastogi.jpg: Needs a pd US tag and to be reviewed to ensure the India pd tag is valid.
• File:Hari Gautam VC-BHU.jpg: Needs to be reviewed.
• File:Prof. Y.C. Simhadri VC-BHU.png: Needs to be reviewed.
• File:Patcha Ramachandra Rao.jpg: Summary needs more information
• File:Dr. Panjab Singh.jpg: Needs to be reviewed
• File:Prof. D.P. Singh Director NAAC Vice Chancellor Banaras Hindu University.jpg: Needs to be reviewed.
• File:Girish Chandra Tripathi.jpg: Needs to be reviewed.
• File:Rakesh Bhatnagar 27th Vice-Chancellor of Banaras Hindu University.png: The listed source is another Wikipedia page, which is not a valid source. This needs to be fixed.
• File:Sudhir K Jain Potrait.png: Needs to be reviewed.

Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Sudhir K Jain Potrait.png: needs to be reviewed to ensure that it complies with copyright laws concerning publications from India. See its description page on meta for more information.

Available at provided url: https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/Gallery/PhotoGallery/2021/Nov/H20211108103573.JPG, Press Information Bureau & President's Secretariat Government of India are covered under given license there.

• File:Sivaswami Aiyar.jpg: needs a United States public domain tag. See its page description for more details

PD-US added.

• File:Mahamana Madan Mohan Malaviya Portrait.jpg needs a United States public domain tag. Also, what makes the website a reliable source to know that this image is this person?

PD-US addded. The wesbite is the mother institution (which is also founded), please see [2] and Mahamana.

• File:Photograph of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan presented to First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy in 1962.jpg: the link to the source does not lead to the image. Can this be rectified?

Done. New link added to File.

• File:Amarnath Jha VC-BHU.jpg: the link and the data on its description page do not indicate which page number the image is from in the source. This should be included.

direct link Pg 768 added to source.

• File:Narendra Deva 1971 stamp of India.jpg: Needs to be reviewed to ensure that the India pd tag is valid.

direct link to *.gov.in domain added. GODL-India applies, not PD-IN.

• File:CPRamaswami Aiyar 1939.jpg: url to verify the source is broken.

Fixed with [Archived link]

• File:Veni Shankar Jha VC-BHU.jpg: source url should include a page number

direct link pg 840 added.

• File:N.H. BHagwati VC-BHU.jpg: source url should include a page number

direct link, pg 848/pg 979 added.

• File:Triguna Sen 2010 stamp of India.jpg: Needs to be reviewed to ensure that the India pd tag is valid.

direct link *.gov.in added, GODL-India applies.

• File:Professor Amar Chand Joshi.jpg: Needs a pd US tag and to be reviewed to ensure the India pd tag is valid.

direct link added, person born in 1908, died in 1971, photo must be of early 30s-40s. The publisher institution is of Dept. Science & Technology, Govt. of India, so GODL-India applies too.

• File:Kl shrimali.jpg: Needs a pd US tag and to be reviewed to ensure the India pd tag is valid.

Source is deprecated. Person's photo is on Parliament website's profile where he entered 1952 and left 1962, Therefore, PD applies. PD-US added.

• File:Moti Lal Dhar.jpg: Needs a pd US tag and to be reviewed to ensure the India pd tag is valid.

Sourced from [www.insaindia.res.in] where person was elected in 1960, born 1914, photo looks like someone in 40-50s. PD-India applies. Also, since The publisher institution is of Dept. Science & Technology, Govt. of India, so GODL-India applies too. PD-US added.

• File:Professor Hari Narain.jpg: Needs to be reviewed.

File present at source link. he publisher institution is of Dept. Science & Technology, Govt. of India, so GODL-India applies.

• File:Iqbal Narain.png: What is the source for this image? Where was it published?

Direct link added. Person born in 1930, Photo appears of his 30s. PD-India applies.

• File:Raghunath Prasad RP Rastogi.jpg: Needs a pd US tag and to be reviewed to ensure the India pd tag is valid.

The publisher institution is of Dept. Science & Technology, Govt. of India, so GODL-India applies too. PD-US added.

• File:Hari Gautam VC-BHU.jpg: Needs to be reviewed.

Direct link added. GODL-India applies.

• File:Prof. Y.C. Simhadri VC-BHU.png: Needs to be reviewed.

Direct link added. GODL-India applies.

• File:Patcha Ramachandra Rao.jpg: Summary needs more information

Added as per available details on File.

• File:Dr. Panjab Singh.jpg: Needs to be reviewed

Present at *.gov.in, GODL-India applies.

• File:Prof. D.P. Singh Director NAAC Vice Chancellor Banaras Hindu University.jpg: Needs to be reviewed.

Present at *.gov.in, GODL-India applies.

• File:Girish Chandra Tripathi.jpg: Needs to be reviewed.

Present at *.gov.in, GODL-India applies.

• File:Rakesh Bhatnagar 27th Vice-Chancellor of Banaras Hindu University.png: The listed source is another Wikipedia page, which is not a valid source. This needs to be fixed.

Fixed.

• File:Sudhir K Jain Potrait.png: Needs to be reviewed.

Same photo as 1st in this list.

@Z1720 for your kind attention, please. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following photos have a GODL-India banner, but have not been marked as reviewed to ensure that they are compliant with this. This link has information on how to mark these images as reviewed. If you did not originally add the GODL-India banner, I think it is appropriate for you to mark them as reviewed.

• File:Narendra Deva 1971 stamp of India.jpg
• File:Triguna Sen 2010 stamp of India.jpg
• File:Professor Amar Chand Joshi.jpg
• File:Kl shrimali.jpg
• File:Moti Lal Dhar.jpg
• File:Professor Hari Narain.jpg
• File:Raghunath Prasad RP Rastogi.jpg
• File:Hari Gautam VC-BHU.jpg
• File:Prof. Y.C. Simhadri VC-BHU.png
• File:Dr. Panjab Singh.jpg
• File:Prof. D.P. Singh Director NAAC Vice Chancellor Banaras Hindu University.jpg
• File:Girish Chandra Tripathi.jpg
• File:Sudhir K Jain Potrait.png

Also, in the chart, some of the images are sized with px. MOS:IMGSIZE recommends using upright instead, so I think these images should be changed to that designation. Z1720 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most (except a few) of the images have been uploaded by me only, so it would not be possible for me to review them. If you or anyone else wishes to review them, I would be glad to help in any query or concern.

I have used px to maintain uniformity in size as some images are tiny and some super big, so if we use upright, we will have to either calculate for each of them and reach the uniform size, or they would appear in a much less orderly manner. I think it would be COMMONSENSE to use px here.

Thanks for the prompt reply @Z1720. User4edits (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am less familiar with FLC criteria concerning px vs upright. Testing out the code, I was roughly able to get the images to similar sizes with upright, though would have to experiment a little more to get it looking more uniform. Maybe one of the directors @Giants2008 and PresN: can determine if px is OK in this circumstance. Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine when they're in a table like here; you don't want to do it for standalone images because people have their own default sizes set that it would override, but in a table you're able to set a set width/desired height for a column and then make the images fit. --PresN 18:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the above, I'm willing to declare support based on image review alone. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General

• There are a significant number of citations which need to be marked with the |url-status=dead parameter.
• What is the purpose of the citations in the "Remarks" column where there are no remarks? All the ones I have looked at seem to be completely unnecessary.

I believe it was not so earlier, and was added to provide a reference for each office holder in previous comments. Nonetheless, they are standalone references rather than a general list. User4edits (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Per MOS:NUMERAL, numbers less than ten should be spelt out in letters.

Infobox

• In general, too many parameters are unnecessarily used.
• Why is the BYU flag specified to "fly atop vice-chancellor's car and office"? Can this be cited? I suspect not, so why is the caption not simply "Banaras Hindu University flag"?

I do not think we can find references specifically citing that. However, it is common knowledge backed by images. User4edits (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The citations for the "style" parameter do not support the current entry. A proper citation would state "XYZ is the style of address used by the vice-chancellor", not "[assorted collection of the use of a common abbreviation]".
• The "Type" parameter is completely unnecessary. No, readers are not that unintelligent.

Vice-chancellor is not a universal position, it has been added to help readers from a different background. User4edits (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The "status" parameter means "does it still exist?", not "what is it?".

I do not find this on template page, so a reference citing this would be helpful. User4edits (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the two citations for the acronym VC-BHU instead call it BHU V-C. Why has the former been chosen ahead of the latter?

The former is used officially on X by the organisation, and in other sources as well. User4edits (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As the VC is only ex-officio a member (strictly speaking the chairperson) of the Executive Council, Academic Council, and Finance Committee, they should not be present in the "Member of" parameter.

Ex-officio means by the virtue of the position they are holding, not individually. I do not understand "only" here. (For example, president is ex-officio supreme commander of armed forces). Chairperson are anyway a member first (of any body which has members). Anyway, as per Chapter II BHU Act Article 14, 17, and 21, the VC is a member, and chairperson vide Chapter I of the same Act Article 7C (2) User4edits (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Reports to" paramter is not cited in the infobox or body.

This is derived from Visitor-Vice Chancellor relationship set in Article 5 BHU Act and User4edits (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The anchor for the Central Office in the Seat parameter is non-functioning.

 Fixed User4edits (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The "(Visitor of the university)" is not necessary in the "Appointer" parameter"

That is to clarify that the President of India appoints in capacity of Visitor of Univ, and not Head of State. User4edits (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For the term length parameter: a) see the MOS:NUMERAL point above b) "Second term of fresh appointment possible." is not intelligible English.

 Fixed User4edits (talk)

• The "Precursor" parameter does not mean what you think it means (this is also apparent in the second paragraph of prose).

 Fixed User4edits (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Deputy" parameter should only be used when the deputy position is notable enough to have an article of its own.

 FixedUser4edits (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With that many issues with the infobox alone immediately apparent, I am going to oppose—I haven't even checked the prose or the list itself. Ping me if you are sure these issues and others have been fixed; I do not have the time to enter into a cumbersome and tiring WP:FIXLOOP. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 you may want to see my replies above, Thanks, User4edits (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Quick ping to see if you intend on returning to this nomination or not. --PresN 14:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN Any update? Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 03:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been open for four months; in that time it's gotten one support and one oppose. While the opposer isn't returning, I took a glance at the list itself, and can immediately see that the lede has a bunch of 1-sentence paragraphs; odd phrasing like "preceding the vice-chancellor"; sorting the table by name sorts by first name, not last; the "remarks" seem arbitrary, and also don't give context (why do some have the length of tenure but don't say why the person got more than 2 terms? What does "NIRF ranking of the university dropped from third to sixth after five years" even mean?). This is just way too many issues to be seeing in a quick glance-over after 4 months, especially after AirshipJungleman29 said that you should check the prose as well as the infobox and no edits were made there. I'm going to go ahead and close this nomination; feel free to renominate once the issues are fixed. I recommend a copyedit as well. --PresN 21:18, 15 March 2024 (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) 00:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [3].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): – PeeJay 17:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has been 14 years since it was last nominated. The nomination only failed at the time because of the arbitrary ruling that seven items was not enough to constitute a valid content fork. However, the combination of the Vikings now having had 10 head coaches and that also no longer being a rule means it should pass easily this time. All of the Featured List criteria are satisfied. I look forward to seeing this pass as an FL soon. – PeeJay 17:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "There have been ten head coaches in the history of the franchise" vs "Les Steckel has the worst winning percentage of the franchise's nine head coaches".......?
  • Good spot, thanks.
• "On January 15, 2014, the Vikings appointed [....] and served...." - the Vikings did not serve
  • Reworded.
• "Two days after he won the Super Bowl as the Los Angeles Rams" - wikilink both Super Bowl and Rams
  • Reworded and linked.
• "making Grant the first head coach to lead teams to four Super Bowls, despite never winning one." - slightly vague wording here - was he the first HC to lead teams to four Super Bowls, or the first to lead teams to four Super Bowls but not win any of them?
  • It's the former. I'll work on rewording this.
• "the team had their worst season to date, only managing to win three of their 16 games" - earlier you mentioned a season when they only won two games, surely that is worse?
  • The season when they won two games had fewer games in total, so the winning percentage was higher. I've clarified that the three-win season is their worst by win percentage.
    • Unless my long-ago A-level maths is massively failing me, 2 wins out of 14 games is a 14.3% winning percentage, and 3 wins out of 16 games is 18.8%, so the former is definitely worse......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope, you're right. For some reason, I thought it was 2 wins in a 12 game season, and that still isn't better. I think the fact we were actually going for was that the three-win season was the worst in a 16-game campaign. Now that the season is 17 games long (why?!), I might just dispense with that stat. – PeeJay 21:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "making Green the first African-American head coach" - in the lead African American did not have a hyphen.......?
  • Removed hyphen.
• "Since Childress' first season in charge, the Vikings regular season record" => "After Childress' first season in charge, the Vikings' regular season record"
  • Reworded.
• "twice in two consecutive years" - the word "two" is redundant here
  • Reworded.
• Philadelphia Eagles is linked twice in the lead
  • Fixed.
• "Last" column doesn't sort correctly
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers Chris. I'm working on fixes for the last two things. – PeeJay 11:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @ChrisTheDude: I think I've addressed all your concerns now. – PeeJay 19:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Haven't done a deep dive just yet, but I have some comments:

• List needs work to meet accessibility needs. See PresN's standard comment here for some advice.
  • Done.
• Images need alt text
  • Done.
• What verifies the number of division titles?
  • The Pro-Football-Reference link for each coach includes a season-by-season table with a column titled "Rank", which shows the team's position in their division under the coach each year.
• Should the yrs column be changed to season instead? I think it makes more sense because of cases like Mike Zimmer, who was fired on January 10, 2022, and coached a game the day before, but is listed as having coached until 2021.
  • Done.
• I think there should be a win % column for the playoffs as well, given that there's one for the regular season. (Personal note: It looks like other head coach lists are inconsistent, with 7 of the 22 promoted head coach lists including the playoff win % column, I think I may have to fix that some day.)
  • Done. I've also added a set of columns giving each coach's overall record (regular season plus playoffs).
• For the "Elected into the Pro Football Hall of Fame as a coach and spent entire NFL head coaching career with the Vikings" coaches, you should a single symbol instead of two. I recommend removing the asterisk and just using the dagger
  • Since this is a combination of two other criteria, I think it's important to retain both symbols, especially since both symbols are already used for their own purposes.
• This is very minor, but I think one of the two "Elected into the Pro Football Hall of Fame", background colours should be changed to make them a bit more different (not two shades of yellowish)
  • I'm not sure what this should be changed to. What do other articles use?

It's on the right track and I'm glad to see you nominated this PeeJay! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I've responded as best I can to your comments. Let me know how you'd like to proceed. – PeeJay 19:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @PeeJay, I'm sorry for my delayed response, I wasn't aware you had responded to me, please ping me next time for a faster response. I think that the alt text for the images needs work. One example is the alt text for Jerry Burns, which reads "A white man in a suit and tie, holding a piece of paper", but the alt text would be better if it were Jerry Burns in a suit and tie, holding a piece of paper. You use similarly phrased alt text on all of the images in the table and I think the alt text should just use the person's name instead. The alt text is fine otherwise. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I've fixed the alt text. I also raised some questions above regarding the colours and symbols used in the list key. Thanks for helping to clean up the references, by the way. – PeeJay 18:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay: One of the yellows is fairly commonly used, but I think you may just need to pick a different colour, as I'm not sure there's a lot of situations where coaches were elected into the hall as a player. It's a minor knit pick, so I'm not stuck on it. I'll support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gonzo_fan2007

• Why are Ties not sortable?
  • They are now. Not sure why the table I originally plagiarised didn't make them sortable.
• Increase size of photos to 100px, they are barely readable.
  • Increased to 80px as a compromise.
• Most of the info in the Legend is self-explanatory. Utilize {{Abbr}} for "GC", "W", "L" and "T" in the table. Use {{Abbrlink}} for Win%. "Seasons", "First" and "Last" are so self-explanatory that Legend clarification isn't necessary.
  • I'm not sure I agree with this. Using {{abbr}} and {{abbrlink}} reduce accessibility for people who are browsing on mobile devices or using screen readers.
    • "Seasons", "First" and "Last" are basic English words that are self-explanatory. These should be removed from the Legend or you should add every column header to the legend ("Name", "Image", ""Accomplishments" etc). If you really feel like something needs explained, then add a note like you do after "Term" (note that if any word needs a definition in the key, its "Term", which isn't a word I commonly associate with NFL head coaches). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Done. – PeeJay 14:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Use {{Win-loss record}} for any records in the text or notes.
  • Done.
• Ref 42 isn't archived.
  • Someone replaced it when they made an edit in the last couple of weeks, so I've restored the old ref.
• Remove "elected to HoF as player" as not relevant to this list.
  • I think it's important to note that Norm Van Brocklin is in the Hall of Fame but not for his time as a coach.
    • Then just add a note. The color choice is too close to the other to really differentiate it anyways. Again, its not pertinent to this list. It would be liking adding Bart Starr's MVP award to List of Green Bay Packers head coaches. Interesting? Maybe. Germane to the topic of the article? Not really. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, it's gone. – PeeJay 14:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I also don't understand why "Spent entire NFL head coaching career with the Vikings" is important enough to have a color coding. I may be in the minority on that point.
  • I think it's interesting to note how many Vikings head coaches have only ever coached one team. I don't know how it compares to other teams, but this is an interesting point IMO.
• I feel like the history section is a bit excessive. It's physical length is almost as long as the table today.
  • That's bound to happen as history progresses.
    • Then this level of detail should be moved to another article, maybe on the History of the Minnesota Vikings. The focus of any list article should be the list. This falls under FLCR 3(c) and to an extent 4. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll see what I can do, but I don't think there's anything in there that warrants removal. Give me some time. – PeeJay 14:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's an example: With six minutes left in the fourth quarter and the Vikings in the lead at 27–20, they drove down the field to set up a 38-yard field goal for kicker Gary Anderson, who had not missed a single kick all season. A successful kick would have given the Vikings a two-score lead with just over two minutes left to play, but Anderson hooked his kick wide left, allowing the Falcons to take the ball back downfield for a game-tying touchdown. They followed this with a field goal in overtime, denying the Vikings a fifth Super Bowl appearance. - None of this has to do with "Vikings head coaches".
        • Another example: The Vikings again improved to 11–5 in 2015, beating the Packers in week 17 to win the NFC North for the first time since 2009 and snapping a streak of five consecutive titles by Green Bay; however, they went on to lose to the Seattle Seahawks in the wildcard round of the playoffs. After going 5–0 to start the 2016 season (which was their first season in their newly completed U.S. Bank Stadium) despite a slew of injuries, the team won just three games after their bye week and finished 8–8. - again, nothing to do with head coaches and more appropriate for History of the Minnesota Vikings or Minnesota Vikings seasons.
        • I will also note that the numerous times the history section goes into unnecessary detail about individual seasons and reads more as a history of the vikings than as a history of their head coaches. An example of the skewed mnature of some of this text is the sentence Nine more divisional titles followed in the next 11 seasons, including NFC Championships in 1973, 1974 and 1976, making Grant the first head coach to lead a team to four Super Bowls, although he won none of them., one sentence for 11 seasons (and the most successful at that), whereas we have a paragraph on Van Brocklin's first 3 and 3 whole paragraphs to cover the most recent 23 seasons. It's all too much and needs to be more focused on the topic at hand. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Are the stats updated as of Week 15? If so, update them.
  • The person who updated the stats didn't update the "as of" line. Fixed.
• The section title for the table should be "Head coaches"
  • Done.

That's it for now. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input User:Gonzo fan2007. Let me know if you need anything else addressed. – PeeJay 14:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specific responses above. Also, the "3" column should be sortable. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the "3" column? – PeeJay 14:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, slip of the keyboard. The "#" column. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. Yeah, I guess I can do that. – PeeJay 14:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007, @PeeJay, I added sorting to the column to move things along. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry I've been snowed under with extracurricular stuff recently and haven't been able to focus on this nomination. I'll try to give the "History" section a trim before the end of the week. – PeeJay 14:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay: Reminding you of this. --PresN 20:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant oppose with no movement on actionable comments in a month I must reluctantly oppose for now. Happy to reconsider if the history section is significantly trimmed. I'll state again, none of the other "head coaches" FLCs go into anything close to this level of detail. I noted specific examples above, but overall the history section comes across as a history of the franchise, with undo weight on specific parts. If a history section is included (which I don't necessarily agree with), it should focus more specifically on a general overview of the team's head coaches. Summary sentences that cover a head coach's tenure instead of play-by-play coverage of important games. Please ping me if edits are made and you would like me to reconsider PeeJay. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay: Second ping. --PresN 14:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and close this; this nomination has been open for 3 months and no movement has been done on the oppose after weeks and two pings. Feel free to renominate once all issues are fixed. --PresN 21:18, 15 March 2024 (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) 00:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [4].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 06:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-nominating this for a featured list because the last nomination yielded no results. Although all issues have been addressed in a timely manner, please feel free to provide your constructive inputs, and I will do my best to resolve them. Much Thanks 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 06:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – I hate to oppose a FLC so quickly, but the list has fundamental issues with sourcing and formatting. Many tables do not have their own sources and would seem to all be sourced from worldstatesmen.org, which was deprecated in a 2020 RfC. The lead also has large unsourced sections. The tables have wildly differing formats – for instance, table headings are included in some, omitted from others, and incorrectly formatted as rows in some cases. Each table should be structured the same way per WP:FLCR #1 ("professional standards of writing" include consistency to me, as different formats look sloppy) and #5a ("suitable use of text layout, formatting, [and] tables"). Other immediate issues include links in section headings (violates MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS), incorrect sorting (names in sortable tables should sort by last name), and missing alt text for images. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Original !vote struck. See my comment below. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:Hello @RunningTiger123, thanks for you comments. I've included references in the lead section. Regarding the tables, as you can see, there are a large number of them in this list. Could you please specify which table requires correction? 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] For starters, by my count, the tables for Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Odisha, Punjab, Puducherry, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh lack references. (That would be over half of the states/union territories listed.) Other tables with sources seem questionable – for instance, the Andhra State Act 1953 does not provide information about the leaders who came after its passage. Formatting also needs to be fixed in essentially every table because they all vary so much and need to conform to a single standard. Things to consider: Should the tables have a visible header or not? (They need some form of header in every case; it can just be set for screen readers only.) Should consecutive terms following different elections be combined into one cell or split into separate rows? Should references go in the table header or in a column heading? In my opinion, it seems fine to have a reference attached to the table header. Still, I would like to know your view, if using 'blank' instead of 'No Image Available' is going to cause any trouble Should cells use "no image available" or just be left blank? What do you recommend?--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 10:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] For all of the items listed here, my point is solely that there needs to be consistency. It doesn't matter which approach you choose as long as you do it for every table. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] Hello @RunningTiger123, I have restructured the entire list with a new format and have utilized mostly different sources for each table. Please take a moment to review it and let me know if it's good to proceed. Thanks. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] The list still needs work but I think there's at least a clear sense of what a "standard" table looks like, so I'll offer a re-assessment within a few days. One quick note: The table caption should use proper formatting, not just a row spanning all columns at the top. See H:TC. (I was unclear about this by referring to captions as headers; my mistake.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] Thank you so much for the H:TC part. Corrections have been made. I will await your further notes. Thanks again. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 14:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] And so on. There's even more I could point out, but I think I've made my point for now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] All your suggestions noted. Also, allow me couple days to make corrections recommended by you. Much thanks. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 03:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] Re-review of the article after changes: "3 December, 2023" – no comma when using day-month-year format  Fixed Link Himachal Pradesh like the other states  Fixed Do not link States and union territories of India twice in the lead  Fixed No reason to add the abbreviation "UTs" if it's not used elsewhere – avoids awkward use of parentheses back-to-back  Fixed "twenty-eight states and three union territories" → "twenty-eight states and of three union territories" – this clarifies that "each" earlier in the line doesn't apply to the union territories as there are more than three of them  Fixed "state level" should not be hyphenated  Fixed Citation needed for last sentence of second lead paragraph  Fixed "Okram Ibobi Singh ... has been the longest-serving chief minister from the INC." – but the tables show Gegong Apang served longer?  Fixed "longest serving Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh" – any reason why this state is more relevant than the others?  DoneOther states included like Delhi, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh as well. All tables: Names should sort by surname/family name  Fixed All tables: Portrait columns should not be sortable  Fixed All tables: Since the term in office header spans three columns, sorting is only applied to the first column (start of term), and it is not possible to sort by the other two. It might be worth splitting into "Start of term", "End of term", and "Span" columns (or similar) if you want to be able to use all three in sorting. This is an optional change. Allow the list stick to its existing state please, if it's okay. All tables: Ordinals should have specified sort values so they sort in numeric order instead of alphabetical order (e.g., sort value for "First" should be "1"). Even ordinals in numeric form (e.g., "12th") need this since I suspect the MediaWiki software will not recognize that as a number.  Fixed All tables: Add row scopes (see PresN's accessibility reviews throughout WP:FLC for more)  Fixed Andhra Pradesh: Time span for Marri Chenna Reddy is incorrect (probably a bad parameter)  Fixed Arunachal Pradesh: Add table caption; add sorting; why is Apang's term split into four "subterms" (not supported by source)? I think they should use a single start and end date while keeping separate rows for the assembly column. If they are to be listed this way, each subterm should have its own time span (same for Tuki)  Done Assam: Add table caption; address Bordoloi in same way as Apang above  Done Bihar: Use rowspan=2 instead of repeating name, portrait, constituency columns (like you do in other tables); fix format for Rai's start date; use years and days for Mishra's second term  Fixed Chhattisgarh: Add table caption  Done Delhi: Add table captions; "Office Abolished, 1956–93" is not an appropriate table caption; address Dikshit in same way as Apang  Fixed Table caption added That's plenty to start with. I would highly suggest you look for similar issues in other tables – in particular, confirm that all tables have captions, row scopes, and correct sorting, and that all tables address the "subterm" issue (in essence, each start and end date should have a span in years/days that is associated with only those dates, whether those dates covers all subterms or just one – let me know if more clarification is needed). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] Hello @RunningTiger123, I have endeavored to address all the issues that were raised. Could you please review it and advise on any further requirements. Thank you. Sorry for the delay, didn't get a ping (I think you have to sign your edit for it to ping a user). From the edits above, the remaining issues are: Row scopes still missing as best as I can tell Could you please highlight those tables specifically? It will help me resolve the issue quickly. Incorrect name sorting for third table for Andhra Pradesh  Fixed Tuki's time span should be split in two, like Apang  Fixed Incorrect name sorting for Assam and for Bihar  Fixed I made several other edits to fix small typos and the like. I can look further once these tables are done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply] @RunningTiger123 I have made the required changes. Please have a look.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Okay, I wasn't super clear but some of the sorting errors are still there; K. Rosaiah is incorrect in the Andhra Pradesh table and Abdul Gafoor is incorrect in the Bihar table. For row scopes, those need to be added to all tables. (I also missed it earlier, but column scopes are also needed.) See MOS:DTT#Overview of basics – tables should have captions, row and column headers, and scopes for the row and column headers. Note that if a column header spans multiple columns, it needs scope="colgroup" instead of scope="col". (It's similar for rowgroup when row headers span multiple rows.) I'll provide an example of what this can look like for the Andhra Pradesh tables, just to prevent further confusion. Given the length that this review has lasted, I suggest that this review be closed as not promoted – to tweak a different saying, FLC is not cleanup, and lists that have a long way to go should be worked on through a separate process such as the article talk page or peer review. I would gladly re-review the list in a new FLC after it's been polished. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Hello @RunningTiger123 I would request not to close this review, rather allow me some time. I will make the necessary changes and also look into other FL for reference. I shall get back to you once I am done. Thank you for your patience. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 05:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Hello @RunningTiger123 I have made the required changes. Please take a look. If there are still many issues remaining, please close this review, and I will nominate at the appropriate time. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the article now, it looks like formatting and citations have been broadly addressed. I'll add new comments in a bit. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New review:

• Lead generally looks fine, though I didn't carefully reread it since I already commented on it
• I noticed you hid the table captions for sections with only one table. I understand the reasoning – I generally do the same thing – but in this case, I would suggest showing the heading in all cases so you can link to the state/union territory, since those are otherwise unlinked. (Just makes it easier for readers who aren't familiar with Indian states like me.)  Done
• Andhra Pradesh:  Done
  • Link for Hyderabad State should go to Hyderabad State (1948–1956)
  • Move the second listing for Kotla Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy up to be with the first for consistency
  • Still skeptical that ref. 18 – a 1953 law – can support information through the present
• Assam: Add link for 8th assembly  Done
• Bihar:  Done
  • Remove space before reference (WP:CITEFOOT) – same for Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir
  • Make the first table sortable for consistency
• Delhi:  Done
  • Ref. 24 is deprecated
  • Ref. 17 seems to discuss the wrong state?
  • Add links to Delhi in caption
• Goa: Done
  • Numbering for assemblies seems off
  • Link Goa, Daman and Diu
• Gujarat: Done
  • Move the second listing for Solanki to be with the first
  • Term lengths for Desai, Patel, and Solanki use the wrong format
• Himachal Pradesh: Done
  • Suggest moving the key (this applies for all sections with one) to its own section before all other tables
  • First table should use "Chief Ministers" (plural) – as best as I can tell, you've opted to use singular when there is one person in a table and plural otherwise
  • First table is unsourced
  • Link should be to Bilaspur State (1950–1954)
  • Second table should not be sortable
  • Do not use forced line breaks in the assembly cell for Parmar. Suggest splitting the cell into two rows, one for "1" and one for "2"
  • Rohru should not have row scope
• Karnataka: Done
  • First table should only say "1" in assembly cell – no need for other details
    • Same in second table
  • "Third" should not be spelled out; also, split "3" and "4" into separate rows
    •  Not done @RunningTiger123: I tried best to split but it's not happening. Could you please help me segregating it --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 12:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        Thanks a lot mate 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add asterisk to mark Siddaramaiah as incumbent
• Kerala: Second table is unsourced Done
• Madhya Pradesh: Done
  • Link to states in captions
  • Use "Chief Ministers" (plural) in captions
  • Disable plain row headers in third table
  • Arjun Singh does not sort correctly
  • "Eighth" should not be spelled out

Pausing here; will continue shortly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

• Maharashtra: Done
  • WP:CITEFOOT
  • "NA" → "N/A" (same for Rajasthan, Telangana)
  • Second table should not be sortable
  • Ashok Chavan's terms are non-consecutive and need separate time spans
• Meghalaya: "Days" should be lowercase for Rymbai Done
• Mizoram: I'm assuming the 1984 elections should be written as "1"? Done
• Nagaland: Split "5" and "6" into separate rows for Sema Done
• Odisha: Done
  • Remove "pre-independent" from assembly cells
  • Several months are abbreviated and should be spelled out
  • Choudhury should be listed before Mahatab in second table
  • Biswal was not just in the 11th assembly
• Punjab: Done
  • Footnotes f and g are unsourced (could just be removed) – same for footnotes h and i under Tripura
  • Add link to PEPSU
  • Use "Chief Ministers" (plural) in third table
  • Name sorting is incorrect in third table
  • Amarinder Singh's terms are in the wrong order; he should also be moved up based on his first term
  • Beant Singh sorts incorrectly
• Rajasthan: Done
  • Sukhadia's time spans should be split
  • Mather's first time span is wrong
• Tamil Nadu: Done
  • Link states in captions
  • Remove link from "Assembly" in header
  • Rajagopalachari's time span is incorrect
• Uttar Pradesh: "Portrait" is misspelled Done
• West Bengal: Done
  • Do not force line break in constituency cell
  • Footnote l implies Roy served in 3rd assembly, but table does not show this
• I would highly suggest using citation templates to ensure the references use the same format throughout the article – WP:CITE doesn't require any specific format but does say to use a single consistent format, and templates are the easiest way to do that.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Some other points not to do with table formatting:

• "As of 3 Dec, 2023," - the date should be written properly i.e. month not abbreviated
• "is in power in 3 states" - numbers lower than ten should be written as words
• Also, in that sentence it should be "the three states of....."
• "In Tamil Nadu, Bihar & Jharkhand" - "and" should be written as a word
• "Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Janata Dal (United) & Jharkhand Mukti Morcha respectively" - and here too
• "most of the States" - no reason for capital S on states
• "who served as the chief minister of Delhi held the office" - last three words are not needed
• "who was chief minister of Manipur for 15 years and 11 days" / "served as chief minister of Assam for 15 years, 6 days" - why the different format? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ChrisTheDude all  Done. Please have a look. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 11:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ChrisTheDude Could you please review the list and suggest any additional corrections if needed? Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has the stuff RunningTiger123 raised been addressed? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: The issues I've raised seemed to have been broadly addressed with smaller cleanup still needed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello @ChrisTheDude: Seeking your advise on any further requirements. Thank you--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 04:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824's comments

• The only ref for the PEPSU tables doesn't talk about the entries present.

 Added

• I'm sure you can find a better source than elections.in used for Andhra Pradesh.

 Added

• Given that Gegong Apang is the longest serving INC chief minister, you should add his total time as CM in the lead. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Added

Hello @MPGuy2824: Have a look now.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 12:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• PEPSU: The tribune link doesn't talk about Raghbir Singh being "Premier of PEPSU" before 1952. Also, the only ref for CMs of PEPSU still doesn't talk about either of the list entries.

 Fixed please have a look and let me know if it's good to go.

• AP: You've replaced the ref with a oneindia.com one. A few editors don't consider it reliable.

 Fixed I apologies, had no idea about oneindia.com not being reliable.

• Lead:"Deputy Chief Minister is a member of" to "The deputy Chief Minister".

 Fixed

• Lead: "While not a constitutional office, it seldom carries any specific powers." to "It is not a constitutional office, and seldom carries any specific powers." -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed

@MPGuy2824: Let me know if there are more points to be addressed. Thank you.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123 and ChrisTheDude: Do either of you intent to return to your reviews of this nomination? --PresN 19:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm done reviewing this FL. At best I'd change my !vote to neutral leaning oppose; there are still some unaddressed items and I'm tired of sinking time into this repeating points and rechecking entire sections. I think this edit hits the points pretty well – the incorrect link change for Bilaspur State (1950–1954) is small but mildly irritating; more importantly, it goes in the wrong direction by adding a source that I've said is deprecated multiple times. I also didn't dig too far into most sources, but a proper source review would probably turn up more stuff. @25 Cents FC: I appreciate the work you've put into this list, but I said earlier "FLC is not cleanup" and I'm drawing the line on my cleanup help here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @RunningTiger123, @ChrisTheDude @MPGuy2824 @PresN This list is quite lengthy, and because of that, it's becoming tough to clean. I have tried my best to bring it up to FL level. If the list still requires significant improvement, please mention those points and conclude the review. If it needs only minor work, please let me know those points. Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been open for 3 months; in that time, it has received no supports, and one review that I would still count as an oppose. Just flipping through the list, I see inconsistencies in how each table is captioned (are the years the state existed included or not?), and no explanations of how the state boundaries have changed and been renamed over time despite being the source of table breaks. You can't sort by length of office (only beginning date); people who served in multiple successive legislatures in some cases (Arunachal Pradesh) are listed multiple times with each session individually, but for others (Assam) they aren't; if you sort by date where there isn't a gap then (again for Assam) someone in 3 sessions gets 3 rows with the same dates; there's definitely some wonky sources in there (unacadamy?!) as well as formatting problems... long story short, after 3 months and multiple reviews I should be checking if this is overdue for promotion, but instead I'm seeing lots of problems. I'm going to archive this nomination. Please make sure to fix all problems, even if the list is long, before renominating. --PresN 20:39, 5 March 2024 (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) 00:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [5].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 09:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list has been improved significantly. All your constructive inputs are welcome. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 09:03, 11 January 2024 (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.

 Fixed

• 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. !class="sortable" |State becomes !scope=col |State (you don't need the "sortable", as you marked the whole table sortable). If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.

 Fixed

• 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. | [[Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee|Andhra Pradesh]] becomes !scope=row | [[Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee|Andhra Pradesh]]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.

 Fixed

• 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 03:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PresN: Thank you so much for such a clear explanation. I have made the required changes. Please do let me know if more improvements are required. Thanks again.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 05:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN Could you please have a look at this FL. Awaiting your response. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were missing several columns, and didn't actually put in a caption for the tables. I've fixed it for you. --PresN 16:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN Thanks a lot mate. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 12:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has received no comments after nearly 2 months, and also should not have been nominated as the nominator's other list had not received substantial support at the time (or now). As such, I'm closing this out to keep the nomination queue moving. Once this is eligible to be renominated, feel free to do so, though I recommend reaching out to wikiprojects and interested editors to get more reviews. --PresN 21:27, 1 March 2024 (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) 00:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [6].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Dan the Animator 04:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on this article for a while, adding in the missing refs and fixing every issue I could find. I also brought the article through a peer review back in late October-early November, where the few issues raised were addressed. While this article may be unique in that it falls under the strict Wikipedia:Days of the year consensus (link to guidelines here) which differs from the standard FL-guidelines in some regards (particularly for the formatting/structure of the lede), I don't think this should preclude a FL-nomination for this or any other DOY article. Besides, once the first DOY article successfully passes FLN, it would pave the way for how the other 364 DOY articles can eventually also get FL status. I recognize this is a significant challenge but I'm willing to do whatever is necessary to get this article, February 8, its article-quality recognition. Best, Dan the Animator 04:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by commment

• Can you expand the lead? A lead of literally just one sentence isn't really appropriate for a FL...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ChrisTheDude: I completely agree though unfortunately because of the wikiproject's strict guidelines (which are based on this article template), I can't change the lead without changing the consensus (I tried to diverge from the template before on an issue much more minor than this and got reverted within a few hours for it). That said, I started yet another discussion on the wikiproject page but until there's a consensus there, which might not even happen, there's not much I'll be able to do. Highly encourage taking part in that discussion though to help move things forward (and maybe convince the editors involved in the wikiproject to consider changing the template). Cheers, Dan the Animator 20:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not going to put a flat-out "oppose" here but I don't feel that I can support an article with a lead of literally just one sentence for FL status. Sorry about that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: that's alright and honestly agree with your concerns. Do you have any suggestions though how I might successfully get around the issue of the lede? The discussion I opened has been open for over a week now and there seems to be a strong consensus against changing the size/formatting of DOY ledes. I'm thinking the only way forward given this might be to create a narrow exception to WP:FLCR for DOY articles where there current lede could be retained and the article could successfully complete the FLN process. The only policies I can think of though to back up this sort of workaround is Wikipedia:IGNORE and maybe WP:COMMON, which is as weak as it gets imo. I'm not an expert of all the WP policies so maybe if there's one I'm missing that could help in a case like this, please let me know. In any case, thanks for replying and no worries if you can't/don't want to help. Cheers, Dan the Animator 04:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Btw Hey man im josh, feel free to help with the above too if you can/are willing. The issue of the lede is a tough one to say the least but the only way to get past it is to get as many editors voices/help on it as possible. Dan the Animator 04:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dantheanimator, I think there's a general feeling that a list with a lead this short shouldn't pass at FLC. Unfortunately, based on the consensus against changing the leads of DOY articles, it seems impossible to get DOY articles promoted. I will say I commend you for the effort and detail that went into this. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Josh! :) While I agree this review seems to be in a bit of a bind right now, I still think there's a way for it to pass. Much like the uphill effort it took to get articles like 2001 to GA status, I think a wider discussion is needed on how DOY articles should be assessed. I'm planning on starting a WP:RfC about this later today but open to other ideas too as always. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments by Hey man im josh

• Inconsistent date formats
  • I looked through the article but I couldn't see any differing date formatting. In the lede & events section, the MDY formatting is used consistently (to match the title yk). The rest of the article follows the DOY project guidelines consistently (for how the birth/death year are displayed, which are never shown as complete dates per the DOY template). Maybe I misread your suggestion?
• A number of unreliable sources used
  • I went through and took out/replaced as many as I could find but not sure if I got all of them. Let me know if there's any unreliable refs left and I'll fix them best I can.
• The lead desperately needs to be expanded
  • see my reply above

Hey man im josh (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: many thanks for the suggestions and apologies for not replying sooner! Feel free to ping me back when you get a chance to take another look at the article. Cheers, Dan the Animator 04:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Days of the year

• Oppose – I personally don't believe any content from the Days of the year WikiProject and similar projects should be eligible for any form of recognised status purely because of the dynamic nature of the content. There are almost two million biography articles on Wikipedia and this list is saying that James Dean was the only notable person born on 8 February 1931; what about Shadia, who was born the same day and not included? What is the determining factor there, what makes Dean more notable than Shadia, so much so that she is excluded from the list? They both have WikiPedia articles, shouldn't they both be included? These lists are far too dynamic and cannot be complete. On another point, this list does not have an engaging lead, failing FL criteria two. Unless that is changed, it is impossible to promote this list. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Idiosincrático: Completely agree with your points on notability but as far as I understand it, anyone with a wiki article and sources verifying their birth & death dates are eligible to be included on DOY articles. Thanks for pointing out Shadia (I'll add her in a little bit) and feel free to let me know if there's anyone else missing that has English Wikiarticles so I can add them too. About the dynamic nature of the articles though: I agree that these articles are somewhat dynamic but that doesn't make them ineligible. Consider country articles like Bulgaria and Canada. Both are dynamic (the history/demographics/other major parts of countries change all the time and I'm sure the article for Canada could use updating too (from a quick skim, I couldn't find any mention of the quiet notable 2023 Canadian wildfires and no mention is given of Canadian aid to Ukraine)). That said, just like those articles are eligible for GA and FA status, I think these articles are just the same. For me, the point of giving DOY articles any status is to single to the readers that they are relatively accurate/reliable and to give some sort of concrete goal for what direction the articles should go in yk. Anyways, I'm going to start an RfC about this soonish as mentioned above so feel free to share your thoughts about this there when I get it opened and thanks for the comments here too. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on lead issue opened

• Per the comments above, here's the link to the open RfC on handling the lead issue for these articles. Feel free to add your thoughts/comments/etc. to that page. Thanks! Dan the Animator 02:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude, Hey man im josh, and Idiosincrático: Pinging involved users in this discussion (sorry for the bother!) Dan the Animator 02:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, after 2 months there have been no supports, no alignment on the lede issue, and the RfC has turned into a reforendum on how DoY lists should be structured in the first place with no clear resolution. As such, I'm going to close this nomination for now; if the lede issue ever gets resolved, it can be re-nominated with a fresh slate. --PresN 21:27, 1 March 2024 (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.