Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/May 2019

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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:14:07 26 May 2019 (UTC) [1].

Nominator(s): Okeeffemarc (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for Featured List as i believe it is an interesting and important topic. It is comprehensive, upto date and complete. It is also an excellent gateway for the reader to learn about British boxing and it's champions over the last 110 years. I am receptive to constructive criticism and suggestions as i want this to be a credit to the Wikipedia community.

It was also suggested here when i put this article forward as a FAC a few months back.

I have now changed the images to ensure they are free.

Kind regards, Okeeffemarc (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Note: A good article can't be a featured list, as far as I know. Doesn't make sense.--Lirim | Talk 22:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lirim.Z, i don't see anything in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria saying this, and there is no such thing as a Good List, as far as im aware? Okeeffemarc (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008:, @PresN:, @The Rambling Man: Guys, can you clear this up?--Lirim | Talk 08:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason as far as I'm concerned that we can't review this on the basis of a becoming a featured list. GA status certainly doesn't preclude it, and as there is no such thing as a Good List, this may be the only route to featured status for an article which at first glance appears to be more list than article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TRM and suggested at the FAC linked above that this article should be considered a list. If this does end up as a promotion, it should be simple enough to open a good article reassessment to have the GA status removed if that is deemed necessary. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded, this is a list to my eyes and I wouldn't have promoted as a GA for that reason; that it was does not preclude it from FLC. I don't think a GAR would be needed if it passed FLC, just untagging, but I also tend to ignore procedural motions like that. --PresN 03:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General

• The picture needs an alt text - All the pictures have Alt text, i have expanded on them though
• assumed responsibility for awarding the belt, which continues to be awarded to British champions as of 2018. assumed responsibility for awarding the belt, which continues to be awarded to British champions since then. (No need to mention as of 2018) - Done
• In 1939 the last 9-carat gold belt was launched by the BBBofC.[16] This was won by the lightweight Eric Boon that year.[17]In 1939 the last 9-carat gold belt was launched by the BBBofC, won by the lightweight Eric Boon that year. - Done

References

• Don't use |work= for refs that are not newspapers, use publisher instead e.x for boxrec or bbc There were 2, thank goodness for CMD+F! Done.
• Dont use all caps MOS:Caps, like in ref 3 - Done
• Ref 4: Antiques Trade Gazette, 1 October 2011, page 22 Is this a book? By whom?
  • It's a weekly magazine - [2] -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Some refs need authors if available, like Ref 153 - This is BoxRec, therefore not an individual author.

--Lirim | Talk 12:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments

• Sorry for the late answer

1. The lead should be bigger. It needs to tell something about the history and the winners. It's not enough to mention who introduced it and who was the first champion. - done, but didn't want to add too much that i repeat myself. Feel it's important the article sticks to telling the belts's story. Don't want to waffle.
2. The champion column should be the first in all tables - done
3. All tables should start with {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" and all champions given with scopes (! scope="row"|) - done

—Lirim | Talk 16:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and pointers so far. I have answered the points in Bold. Kind regards, Okeeffemarc (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okeeffemarc are you still active, it appears you haven't edited for two months? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man I am still active, will be updating current champion tables today. Have been quite busy at work recently and am waiting on the conclusion of this process too.

kind regards --Okeeffemarc (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'll do a review of the list in due course, just wanted to make sure I wasn't going to waste my time! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

In a last-gasp bid to spring this one to life....

• At only five sentences, the lead is too short and needs expanding - done, but as said above, didn't want to add so much that i repeat myself
• No need for the "main article" links to NSC and BBFC as they are linked in the prose immediately afterwads - done
• "A 9-carat or 22-carat gold belt composed of two heavy chains with a central enamel medallion depicting a boxing match;" - this is a not a complete clause - sorted
• "In 1939 the last 9-carat gold belt was launched by the BBBofC.[16] In 1939 the last 9-carat gold belt was launched by the BBBofC, won by the lightweight Eric Boon that year." - spot the issue ;-) - sorted
• "who continue to make the belts as of 2018," - sentence randomly ends with a comma - sorted
• Don't use grey text in the current holders table - sorted
• The big block quote references someone called Smith, but there is no indication who he/she is - sorted
• "One first of the belts" - makes no sense - sorted
• "they all were all sold together." - don't need two "alls" - sorted
• Theft section should be converted into prose - done
• The info on three-time, two-time and one-time winners should be merged into one table. Multi-time winners would appear more than once, with a symbol/colour to indicate second/third wins - done, looks much better!
• No need for "See also" link to Championship belt as it is already linked in the text - done
• HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude andLirim.Z apologies have been very busy at work lately. Could you please bear with me till the end of next weekend? i will work on the changes then. Many thanks for your helpful tips. kind regards - Okeeffemarc (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Okeeffemarc:, good to see you back. Ping me when you have made the changes as I probably won't remember to check back otherwise..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: and @Lirim.Z:, ive finally had time to go through all the points/suggestions you made. I believe i have addressed them all now. The article certainly looks much better for it. It's amazing what a different pair of eyes can notice! Thanks for your patience. Kind regards -- Okeeffemarc (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WRT the outright winners table, I was more thinking that you'd have multi-time winners listed multiple times, with colour/symbol to highlight the second/third wins, so Henry Cooper would appear three times. As it is, the table gives no indication of when he won his first or second belts, and using this methodology if a boxer currently with one belt to his name won a second, the first would disappear? Also, I still think the lead is too short and could do with beefing up a bit, also a seven sentence lead really shouldn't be broken up into four paragraphs, two of them only being one sentence long..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: You're right, in my head the reference link would explain, but just adding the individual outright wins makes more sense, so done. I have beefed up the lead, now only 2 paragraphs, covering every part of the article. Hope this is better?

Kind regards, --Okeeffemarc (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — I fixed the table and some CS1 errors and now I'm happy to support. Great article.--Lirim | Talk 06:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Lirim.Z:. @FLC director and delegates: Does anyone else have an opinion either way? The nature of my work means that il have very restricted internet access in a few weeks time till September.

kind regards, --Okeeffemarc (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I made a few little tweaks but I'm going to say support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment I see an issue with the "current holder" table, unfortunately only the start of their reign is cited, nothing appears to cite that, as of now, they remain belt holders. And nothing is verifying the vacant belts either. And some images in the "outright winners" section wouldn't go amiss, the table is very narrow as it stands and therefore presents a huge amount of whitespace... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Rambling Man I have put a source at the bottom of the table, which verifies who the current holders are and which belts are vacant. I've added some images to the 'outright winners" section which i hope adds some interesting facts. Please let me know if there is anything else. I will be working on the comments below. --Okeeffemarc (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I've had a look over this article, and I'm afraid that I don't feel that it is at FL level just yet, and could probably do with a thorough peer review first.

• The first thing that jumps out to me is the sourcing – a lot of the publishers in the References section don't have Wikipedia articles, which makes me wonder whether they're reliable enough to be cited in this list. ChampsUK, for example, is a personal website maintained by a maintained a married couple, and therefore doesn't really have the level of editorial oversight that we require for FLs. Overtime Online is currently down, but apparently it is "run by Sport Journalism and Travel Journalism students from the University of Bright", so is probably not really reliable enough either. The second link in the External Links section is a blog written by someone who is, by his own admission, not a journalist. Tapology could be okay, but I'm a little wary of how their About Us page lists their editorial team by their forum handles rather than their actual names. I'm also very suspicious of the reliability of any source that spells the word News with a z.

I have replaced these sources with more reliable ones and have had a look at the rest. Definitely a lesson in paying better attention.

• That wasn't an exhaustive list from me, it was just a few sources that I found during a few spotchecks. I haven't checked, for examples, whether merseyboxers.org.uk is reliable, or Boxing News Online, or Britishboxer.co.uk, or MTK Global, or 32RED.COM. This is the sort of thing that would ideally be done first at a peer review before the article is listed at WP:FLC. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I also think that this article could do with a completely restructured layout – speaking as a boxing ignorant pleb, I couldn't entirely follow it at times. I'd suggest merging the National Sporting Club, British Boxing Board of Control and Changes sections as subsections of one level 2 header (called, say, "History") that charts the chronological history of the belt.

I have done as you've advised, i think it flows much better.

• I was thinking something more like this. The content of the "Changes" section could then be merged into the relevant subsection of "History". Please revert if you don't agree with this idea. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That Eurosport quote is way too long (it makes up more than half the prose in the Changes section), and could definitely be put in Wikipedia's voice instead. Who is "Rose"?

Done. Roses' identity is clarified.

• Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that you needed to embed the audio file of the quote being spoken out loud into the article – I meant that any relevant info from the quote could be kept in the text, just rewritten into Wikipedia's own words. Happy to help if needed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "1980's and 90's". Per MOS:DECADE, this should be "1980s and 1990s". - sorted

• I'm still seeing "1980's and 90's" in the lead. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Every single publisher in the References section is italicised, even ones that probably shouldn't be. BoxRec, for example, would not normally have its name in italics. Neither would BBC News nor Sky Sports. There may be more.

I have been using the 'Cite' tab in visual editor. It italicises books, newspapers and websites, so i assumed this was correct. Are you absolutely sure this is wrong? If so do you know a way of manually changing every single reference? Im not even sure how to change the font of the reference as it doesn't specify in the source.

• I've just reread MOS:ITALICWEBCITE, and apparently what you've done is fine, so just ignore me. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "liverpool echo" should be in capitals. - done

• Sorry, I meant citation 134. It needs to say "Liverpool Echo". You can remove the all caps "LIVERPOOL ECHO" from the article. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okeeffemarc quite a few comments here to deal with, are you intending to address them? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Rambling Man Good evening, i have just come back from being away at work. i will look at addressing these points in the next day or two. Kind regards, --Okeeffemarc (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning A Thousand Doors, thanks for your comments, they've certainly helped to improve the article significantly. I've answered your points in bold, please let me know what you think? --Okeeffemarc (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening A Thousand Doors, thanks again for your helpful comments and feedback.

1. WRT sources, i have had another look at the sources used in the article. I have changed a couple more to better known sources, but it has to be said that the information is exactly the same. I am 100% confident in the integrity snd accuracy of this article and therefore see no need for a peer review. It's already had a GA review.

2. I see what you mean now by the layout. It flows nicely like this, thank you.

3. I quite like the quote in full, as it gives context to what the Lonsdale badge means.

4. Sorry i don't know if im being blind...i can't see anymore 2-digit years?

5. Thank goodness i don't need to de-italicise 203 references! i have sorted out Liverpool Echo.

@FLC director and delegates: for information, im away with work from this Sunday for a few months. I work at sea so the internet connection i get is comparable to the internet circa 1996 and is heavily restricted. Kind regards --Okeeffemarc (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2019 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 15:12:24 17 May 2019 (UTC) [3].

Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC) and zmbro _(talk) 15:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another installment in Jimi Hendrix lists (Jimi Hendrix discography, Jimi Hendrix videography) that I also hope to become a FL. It's gone through a couple versions and I feel this is by far the best. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from zmbro

After looking over the page, in its current state, I don't think this is FL quality yet. While the table looks good (for the most part), the lead is just a mess.

• For one, the second sentence starts with "This list", which we just don't do for FLs.

• The lead itself shouldn't be self-referencing, i.e. "of the titles listed" and "the songs are first listed" (which should belong in a note in the table)

• The third paragraph has zero references and is a mess in general
• The lead itself makes no mention of the actual music, meaning what Hendrix's sound was, how he played the guitar, and overall what he did to and for the guitar. In a song list, that's honestly essential, especially for a person like Hendrix.

• Going along with the above comment, it only focuses on the songs in general, different titles, and the groups he was in, but again, makes no mention of the music.

• Why is "single" lowercase in every instance in the table?
• Some of the footnotes aren't referenced
• All the alternate titles should have references, as all the album references definitely don't have both or every title (i.e. "Third Stone from the Sun" on Are You Experienced vs. "3rd Stone from the Sun")
• The list could benefit from having more than just the one photo of the Experience

Ojorojo These are all my problems with this. I think this nomination should be put on hold for the time being or withdrawn until these issues are resolved; I'm sure other editors would agree with me. If you need help I'll try as best I can but you're obviously way more knowledgeable of Hendrix than I am. – zmbro _(talk) 05:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Ojorojo

This is BS – first Zmbro wanted to added as a nominator and now they want to tank it. If the lead is "just a mess", why have they done absolutely nothing to improve it during their numerous edits? There seems to be an WP:OWNERSHIP issue here. But rather than play some stupid game, I am withdrawing this nomination. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ojorojo My apologies I didn't mean to come off that rude. It's obviously not a "mess," but I do think it could use some improving. I had actually planned on expanding the lead back in December but after I finishing filling in all the references in the table I took a break and got distracted by other projects. I'm sorry if I upset you, I didn't mean to insult you in any way. I was just trying to give suggestions on how to make it better. It's come a long way from this, and as I said here, this list does have the potential to become an FL, but in its current state, I don't think it warrants the star. As you said above, it'd be awesome to have all of Hendrix's list become featured, and I'd love to work with you on achieving that. Again, I'm sorry if I came off as rude and upset you, as that was certainly not my intention. – zmbro _(talk) 04:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zmbro's recent edits to the list aren't supported by the the cited sources and were reverted.[4] If they really wanted to see the list succeed, they would have taken a very different approach. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For that, I was going with the titles those songs' respective pages say, as well as what the albums' (AYE and Axis) respective pages say. Maybe the best way to go about this is list each song's best known title, even if it's the original or not; mainly since, in the case of "Third Stone" and "If 6 Was 9", those titles seem to be the most known, especially since their respective pages are titled that way and not the other. – zmbro _(talk) 18:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one minor criterion at FLC is an element of article stability. It seems clear to me that this current nomination is demonstrating a complete lack of stability. I would suggest withdrawing and working out the clear grievances before re-nominating at FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Director comment – It looks like there haven't been any edits for a few days now. Ojororo, if you still want the FLC withdrawn, I'll archive it over the weekend when I make my next FLC run-through. Please note that The Rambling Man is correct in saying that stability is part of the FL criteria. We want to allow for article improvements to take place during FLC, as dramatic changes are sometimes needed to resolve reviewers' concerns and we don't want to punish editors for putting work into nominated articles. However, when it comes to actual edit warring, that can cause a list to fail the stability criterion. You and Zmbro should probably discuss the issues raised before a renomination, so that the stability criterion is not a factor next time. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which is why I decided to withdraw the nomination. Zmbro did not make any comments during the last two months that I was editing the list and submitted it for peer review, with the stated intent of making it a FLC. Then, after I nominated it, they wanted to be a co-nominatior, which which I readily agreed to. But soon after I added them,[5] they essentially sabotaged it. —Ojorojo (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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 unsuccessful by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 10:49:23 11 May 2019 (UTC) [6].

Nominator(s): Hpesoj00 (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the article to be of great interest to many readers, and I have no doubt it is referenced by many poker players. I revamped the article approximately two years ago hoping to get it to FLC, but it did not pass because of the low number of reviews (partially because I didn't have the time to make reviews for reciprocation). I certainly believe the article is of high quality, and if it isn't ready to be a FL, I would certainly like to know what needs to be improved (it has already been through peer review in pretty much its current state). Hpesoj00 (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The first thing that jumped out me was a "citation needed" tag against a statement - that definitely needs addressing......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Hpesoj00 (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Apologies, I forgot to check back. My only other comments are about a couple of references:
  • What makes codethrowdown.com a reliable source? I would check the content but I am at work and browser security settings have blocked it, which isn't a good sign.....
  • The ref entitled "How many poker hands are there?" lists no work or publisher, however a quick check indicates that it seems to just be some random person';s blog and therefore not a reliable source
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hpesoj00: are you still active? I notice you haven't edited for more than two weeks..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am still active. Thanks for the feedback. I will attempt to address in short order. Have been rather busy recently. Hpesoj00 (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hpesoj00 Are you returning to this? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I did not get an opportunity to revisit this. It turned out to be bad timing. Perhaps I will try again in the future when I am more sure that I will have the time to follow through. Thanks for your time and patience nonetheless. Hpesoj00 (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been unsuccessful, 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 withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 10:50:32 11 May 2019 (UTC) [7].

Nominator(s): Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 17:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This list has been my pet project for right around two years now, and I have been working on it sporadically. It is an ambitious project to have a comprehensive, helpful, organized, and complete list of a genus 500 species large, of which no other attempt has been made to my knowledge. The genus Hypericum, also known as the St. John's Worts, are perennial herbs, shrubs, and small trees that grow all over the world. They are cultivated for their medicinal and antidepressant properties, as well as their large and colorful flowers. It is divided into 36 sections of varying size, each of which has its own section in the list article. Every species has its binomial authority, distribution, and common names and synonyms listed, and many have range maps and/or illustrative images. I believe this list has greatly progressed from where it started and meets the requirements necessary to make FL. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time, Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 17:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lirim.Z

There are so many description sections empty.--Lirim | Talk 20:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikilink section (biology) at the top, I was surprised I'd never heard of this term.
• I'd put the description paragraph before the distribution
• Link other technical terms like glabrous, decussate, and nothospecies (which should be defined since it's in section headers)
• When the distribution is an image, it needs alt text.
• All of the "Description" subheadings are unnecessary. It's obvious what you're talking about and it doesn't need to be separated from the sentence giving the # of species
• Inconsistency whether the Synonyms column is empty or says "None"
• The type species are bolded and centered – for accessibility an asterisk or similar is better, leave the formatting the same (the color is enough of a visual cue).
• Concinna and several others are missing a description.
• Sect. Coridium is missing a summary and description
• The only footnote is that H. atomarium is naturalized to Portugal. That could just be in parentheses within the table cell instead.

Reywas92^Talk 20:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• The title at the top should read List of Hypericum species per MOS:ITALICTITLE
• All tables need scope rows and scope cols per MOS:ACCESS
• All dashes should be en dashes (–) per MOS:DASH
• Image cols should be centered

• On top of this, many don't actually have images, so they should have centered en dashes

• All integers zero through nine should be spelled out per MOS:NUMS
• I agree with Lirim all these description sections shouldn't be empty
• Arthrophyllum Jaub. & Spach contains five species – why is it written like this in many instances?
• Agree with Lirim ALL images need alt text
• Many links are green, blue, and brown. Also many are just urls

For me there's too many problems right now. I'm sorry but I have to oppose – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This list is nowhere near a featured list. Interesting topic, but the list is unfinished.–Lirim | Talk 02:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - multiple empty "description" sections suggest that the article simply isn't finished -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I like lists like these but the structure is overwhelming.

• I think the species could be one (non-collapsed) table. Just need a column for the Sect/subsect.
• There is no need for a whole heading and 2 subheadings dedicated to each Sect. There should be a single heading for the details of each Sect, each of which can have a short paragraph within this single heading. This will significantly reduce the page length and the table of contents would be less ridiculous without the hundred subheadings.
• I would break off all notospecies into a new page called List of Hypericum nothospecies which would make the single table suggested for this page much more manageable.

I would be willing to help with this new formatting if you are interested in collaborating. Mattximus (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I like the idea of breaking off the notospecies and I've started removing the extraneous headings. I think that would at least be a good start, but one table for 500 species? I just think it may be too much... I'd never turn down an offer to help though, and I am committed to getting this list to FL-status just as soon as I can. Thanks to all for all the input and constructive criticism, it'll be put to good use. Thanks again, Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 17:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a long way from featured list sadly, there are sections that are entirely unreferenced for example. Are there 500 species excluding notospecies? Mattximus (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fritzmann2002 it's been a month since anything has happened here for this nomination, and with the opposition above, coupled with no apparent decision to action any of the comments, do you wish to withdraw this? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be fine. In a few weeks I will have a lot more time to dedicate to meeting these criteria and implementing the above suggestions. Once I've done all of those things mentioned and really completed the article I will re-up the nomination, and it should hopefully be a sufficient article then since I'll have addressed all the criticisms by that point. Thank you to all for your suggestions, I'll put them into action as soon as I can. Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 15:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 21:15:15 5 May 2019 (UTC) [8].

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A list on the songs that reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100, arguably the most notable record chart in today's music industry, throughout the 2000s. Comprehensive, detailed and well sourced, this list is up to FL criteria in my opinion. I look forward to comments, HĐ (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Change chart date to Issue date. Chart date sounds more like the period the charts are compiled. The charts are issued on the date.
• Weeks at number one could be abbreviated as Wks. with Template:abbr. The column is quite large for 1 and 2 digit numbers. <- goes for all tables
• Looks great otherwise.--Lirim | Talk 05:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of abbreviating "Weeks" I did so with "Number one". Otherwise everything's done :) HĐ (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Another issue I see in the table is the old syntax. align="center" – Old version; |style="text-align:center;" – New version :: Shoul be replaced everywhere--Lirim | Talk 06:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Does it really matter (I think the latter is the old syntax anw, how can one tell which one is new and the other is not)? HĐ (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Old syntax still works, even though I'm not a fan of it. Overall great list.--Lirim | Talk 00:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I was about to say that I appreciate that the list consolidates the decade much more efficiently than individual year lists, but then I realized there are lists for every year as well. I'm really confused, why do we need this article and List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2000, etc. duplicating the exact same content? If we can have a featured-quality article that effectively gives every number-one hit for the 2000s, there should absolutely not be articles that show the exact same information with no additional content.

• The list for the 2000s decade summarize the chart data for the decade overall, while respective lists for years elaborate further on music trends/statistics of that year only. For instance, the 2004 list mentions the rise of urban music with specific data on chart entries, and the 2005 list contains information on successful artists of that year that is not very significant compared to the decade as a whole i.e. Kanye West. Hope this helps :) HĐ (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a "Trends" or "Genres" section would be a great way to discuss various genres! A single paragraph there doesn't justify the duplication of the list itself, and the last sentence applies broadly to several years. The info about artists like West isn't exactly additional information, it's just selected facts from the table in prose form. The decade list is still welcome to include year-specific mentions (A sort of "Highlights" section would look great even). Reywas92^Talk 08:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think for a list on chart data the discussion of genres or music trends should serve only to provide readers a glimpse, as the in-depth discussion can be found in 2000s in music; therefore I'm hesitant to add a separate section analyzing such subject matter. "Highlights" can be seen from "Statistics", I believe. HĐ (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 1990s's -> 1990s'

• I think the usage of the apostrophe here is correct per Oxford Dictionary. HĐ (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm I guess that's a fair interpretation of whether it's singular or plural to begin with but actually I'd suggest just "1990s" as an adjective modifying "trend"

• "accumulating...spent..." should be parallel

• Done

• acts -> act

• Done

• over -> at least

• Done

Reywas92^Talk 05:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks for the comments, HĐ (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have not done a full review, but a quick glance shows the table does not meet WP:ACCESSIBILITY due to the column headers in the middle of the table for each of the years. Allied45 (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks so much for the crucial issue, HĐ (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I have done a wider review and have the following further comments:

• Justin Timberlake is not linked in entry #938
• All images need WP:ALTTEXT
• Make the "Titles" column unsortable for the "Artists by total number of number-one entries" (sorting the multiple artist singles is pointless)

Looks good though! Allied45 (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All issues have been addressed. Thanks for the comments! :) HĐ (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Allied45 (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Reywas92. This fails section 3a of WP:FLCR. The subject of the lists are identical (i.e. coverage of Hot 100 number ones in the 2000s just over 10 different pages instead of just one). That has to be resolved. The other issue is that there are no secondary sources. Primary sources should be used sparingly and to add context. Per WP:PSTS, analyses "must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". Without reliable secondary sources, that's all this is. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained to Reywas92 above, this list encompasses statistics for a ten-year duration incl. artists with the most number ones and similar subject matter, while lists for respective years focuses on the trend/data for that year only. And analyses in this list are not my analyses as you claim, they are done by editors of Billboard, who themselves analyzed the data on the Billboard charts. Not sure if secondary non-Billboard sources provide any in-depth analyses at all, but so far the result has been futile. Furthermore in this case I won't describe Billboard as a "primary source", because the articles already elaborate on the chart trends, stats, etc. HĐ (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are the list of number ones of the 2000s and the list of number ones in 2000, which represents 1/10th of the years represented in the former. By summarizing the key trends and chart info from both sets of lists, either could reasonably be included as part of the other. That can be decided upon by consensus. Yes, "the articles already elaborate on the chart trends, stats, etc." which are discussed in Billboard, the primary source of this info. So Wikipedia is synthesizing the material Billboard provides about their own charts. It's well written and looks great, but it doesn't meet the criteria for FLs. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 09:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "primary source" the way you think it is; "primary sources" are sources from which raw/unprocessed data/info are provided. Thus the purpose of "secondary sources" is to explain/interpret the data/info. Billboard being primarily used here does not necessarily mean it is a "primary source". And Wikipedia's articles all synthesize available information on the internet/in books, so I don't think it's a big deal. Regarding this list and lists for separate years, I'm having second thoughts and will come back to resolve prolly after a week or two. HĐ (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for withdrawal @Giants2008: I would like to request for withdrawal for this FLC, to resolve the issues concerning this list and lists for respective years, raised by two commentators above. Thanks so much in advance, HĐ (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2019 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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