Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/May 2020

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The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Soulbust (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this list satisfies all of the FL criteria, and it would be one of the first Internet or YouTube-related lists to be promoted to FL status, which I think is exciting. Thank you and best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The year bars violate WP:ACCESS --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy oppose I was thinking "Wait, how the heck is the guy the most-watched youtuber with 10ish videos a year?" and then noticed the "Selected videography" header. So how the hell were these ones "selected" but the other 4,000 videos were not? The lead doesn't mention the inclusion criteria at all so this is a massive failure of criterion 3a. Honestly this should be nominated for deletion. Just because he has the most views doesn't mean Wikipedia should catalogue his videos. Reywas92^Talk 02:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Dynamic lists shouldn't be considered for FL, especially one of PewDiePie's videography. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 04:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I don't see how we can consider for FL a list which contains about 2% of the content which the article suggests. It would be like Shakespeare bibliography just listing one play and one sonnet (and no I am not comparing PewDiePie to Shakespeare :-)). There aren't even any criteria shown for why these particular videos were selected..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Cool, I accept that most of the videos not having their own article isn't an issue - disregard my comments about that. But what about the fact that PewDiePie has apparently published over 4000 videos, only 80 or so of which are listed here, with nothing in the article to indicate why these ones were chosen and the rest not? TBH that's probably more of an issue...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that is an issue, and it is one that makes me highly consider withdrawing the nom if possible. With the inclusion criteria I was working off of I thought it was more or less comprehensive (although it is still a dynamic list, so maybe not). However, I would like to ask for some suggestions with this. This discussion has leaned more deletionist, and I totally disagree with that (as the lists I showed above support that one's individual works don't need to have their own articles, yet their whole discography can still be both catalogued an promoted to even Featured-list status). I am also fairly certain I could continue to make legitimate and substantial improvements to the list. However, I would like to ask for some constructive suggestions here. Like, how to address the accessibility issue in which the gray year bars violate WP:ACCESS. Is it that the gray is too dark? Also, would you suggest mentioning my inclusion criteria (i.e. that a reliable third-party source covered the video, usually through both embedding the video in their coverage + giving descriptions of the video)? Or would you suggest that I forgo that criteria and just do a legitimate and comprehensive listing of his videos. By the way, after thinking about it and reading the comments given on this discussion, I'm definitely leaning more for the latter. It makes a lot more sense to me at this point. Soulbust (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm assuming that if the list expands to be a more total and comprehensive listing, we probably wouldn't even need the year bars. Perhaps just different sections correlating with individual years. Soulbust (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose perReywas92 ~ HAL333 22:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Reywas92 and ChrisTheDude; and agree that it should be nominated for AFD. - Brojam (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I'm surprised this is still an open nom, but I would like to just withdraw the nom if possible. I also would like to ask if you think splitting this list into PewDiePie videography (2010), PewDiePie videography (2011), etc. (similar to List of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert episodes (2015), [...], List of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert episodes (2020)) would be a good alternative to having over 4,000 videos listed on one page? I think it the size of the list would make the page rather unwieldy and harder for a reader to navigate. I'm also considering maybe having the PewDiePie videography page have Playlists listed (perhaps the thing most comparable to an album, for a YouTuber). That way it can be condensed, and still reliably sourced. This can be done whether or not the list is split by years. Soulbust (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: The nominator wishes to withdraw the nomination. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:35, 23 May 2020 (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) 00:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): User:G._Moore Talk to G Moore 01:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:G._Moore is nominating this for a featured list because it is a comprehensive look at North Carolina militia units during the American Revolution. It contains an introduction and sortable list of the units and their first commander. It will be of interest to readers of the history of the American Revolution and early North Carolina history. G._Moore (talk · contribs) Talk to G Moore 01:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW what makes Lewis (carolana.com) a reliable source? It just seems to be some random guy's personal website...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has a book that documents his research and has put all of the information in the database that is online. I have compared his results to all of the other sources and have found it most accurate. He actually used some 50,000 sources to compile the information. I added an intro to the bibliography about the work that has been done. Whenever I see a discrepancy, I send him a note and he corrects it based on the original sources. William S. Powell, a state historian in North Carolina, has produced an encyclopedia of NC history, much of what is now online in a cite called NCPEDIA. Together, these have been my guides to NC Revolutionary History. I found that having this in WikiPedia was really nice because it links to the other info in Wikipedia on NC and the Revolution. Let me know if there is anything else that I should do to the list. User:G._Moore User talk:G._Moore
    • I don't think that note above the bibliography is needed, and referring to the "heroic efforts" of historians definitely doesn't conform to WP:NPOV..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I took out the non-NPOV wording. I think the intro for the bibliography does add to the historical perspective on how we know about these units. It was not just a matter of copying from muster rolls and Tables of Organization. I asked J.D. Lewis to review the page. I put his comments on the Talk page. Is there anything more to do on this FL nomination? User:G._Moore talk 18:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Per WP:SPS "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, content farms, internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Has Mr Lewis been published on the subject (by independent outlets - his books listed in the bibliography are self-published)? Has he been cited in others' publications? Trying to establish if he is regarded as an established expert on this subject rather than simply an avid amateur....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Lewis's works are cited in the following journals, bibliographies, books, historical societies, public education curricula, and South Carolina County governments. His books are also available via Google books:

• "The Battle of Moores Creek Bridge". Journal of the American Revolution. January 6, 2014.
• "Evolution of Marion's Brigade after the Fall of Charleston" (PDF). Francis Marion Symposium. 2018.
• "St. Joseph the resting place of Revolutionary soldier". News Press Now.com. November 17, 2019.
• Whitney, Frank (2015). Jean Ternant and the Age of Revolutions: A Soldier and Diplomat (1751-1833 ... ISBN 978-1-4766-6213-8.
• "National Humanities Center, America in Class, Primary Sources in the American Revolution".
• "Francis Marion Trails".
• "Annual Francis Marion Symposium". 2014.
• Smith, Claiborne T. (1979). "Alston Philip". NCPedia.
• "Lesson Plan: Overview, Into the Wild: Settling the South Carolina Backcountry". Teaching American History in the South.
• "Swamp Fox Research Hub". seeking liberty.org.
• "A Roadside Guide to Chester County, South Carolina Association of Counties" (PDF). 2019.

G._Moore (talk · contribs) 22:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • @G. Moore and ChrisTheDude: - Popping in the discussion review. I'm really not sure about Carolana. I've been working on a GA review of William Woods Holden, and have concluded that a portion of Carolana's page mirrored the 2007 version of the Wikipedia page on the subject. If it uses Wikipedia as a source, I don't see how it can be a WP:RS. Hog Farm (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro

• Table needs scope rows and cols per MOS:ACCESS
  • I think that I fixed this for all rows. Is this how it should be? G._Moore (talk · contribs) 18:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC) G._Moore (talk · contribs) 20:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Images seem a little big. Also, why is the lead image smaller than the rest?
  • I added upright in the pipe, so all portraits are similar. Does this work? G._Moore (talk · contribs) 18:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• All notes should have references
  • All notes now have references G._Moore (talk · contribs) 20:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Most refs should be archived
  • I am not quite sure how to do this. G._Moore (talk · contribs) 18:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There you go. Under "view history", there's a link that says "fix dead links" which will take you to the IABot which tags and fixes dead links. There's also an optional button that says "add archives to all non-dead references" which you click. It makes it much easier to do it manually. HTH :-) – zmbro _(talk) 15:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• All images need alt text
  • Done. G._Moore (talk · contribs) 19:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Many urls have connections issues (seen here)
  • I think this is fixed G._Moore (talk · contribs) 05:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• In background, you say "thirty-five" then "37" three sentences later. One or the other
  • There were 35 counties and two counties had two regiments as explain in the text. Will try to make this clearer in the text. G._Moore (talk · contribs) 19:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry what I meant by that was you spell out "thirty-five" but then use numbers for "37" a few sentences later. I just meant either spell it out or use numbers for both. My bad.

• Is there a template box that can be added?
  • The template is at the bottom of the page {{NCRevWarUnits}} Militias were at the state level and I don't think there is a template for all Militia units in the United States during the revolution. G._Moore (talk · contribs) 18:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Rumple, Jethro Rev (1881). A History of Rowan County." This is a book and will need much more than author year & title
  • Added pages G._Moore (talk · contribs) 05:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Connor, Robert D.W. (1916). Revolutionary Leaders of North Carolina (PDF). Greensboro: North Carolina State Normal & Industrial College." This is in both "references" and "bibliography"
  • Left as just Reference G._Moore (talk · contribs) 05:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure if "carolana.com" is an RS (same with "beaufortartist.blogspot.com" on ref 67 since it's a blog)

What I've found so far. Lots of problems but seems do-able. – zmbro _(talk) 16:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • See note above. The carolana.com website is a database based on the books that J.D. Lewis wrote on the North Carolina militia. He lists the sources used in the database, also. It is considered by the researchers of the North and South Carolina Revolutionary War history a Reputable Source. Carteret County during the American Revolution 1765-1785,
  • I am still trying to find a more direct link to the book, Carteret County during the American Revolution 1765-1785, by Jean Bruyere Kell

This has been quite the learning experience. I will take a look at it again tomorrow and see if everything is fixed. Thanks everyone for your help and kind advice. G._Moore (talk · contribs) 05:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Took a final look at everything this morning and added: a few links, description of places were the units fought with existing ref; image of MG Smallwood (2nd NC Militia commander, sorry no images of John Ashe, Sr. the 1st cc, he died in 1781); summary of table. Can't think of anything more to add or fix. G._Moore (talk · contribs) 16:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no more unresolved issues, what is the process for making this a Featured List? G._Moore (talk · contribs) 03:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't all of the books in the Bibliography have a publisher? Besides that, everything looks good --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added publishers for all the Bibliographi references and inline citations that were books. G._Moore 19:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Chidgk1

A few minor things:

• An article description could perhaps be added. Done. G. Moore 23:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider linking to Major general.

Done. G. Moore 22:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not familiar with US history: " .... the head of the Council of Safety which oversaw resistance to British rule." implies there was more than one Council of Safety or should there be a comma after Council of Safety?

There was a Council/Committee of Safety at the Provincial level. and each county in North Carolina had a Committees of Safety. See Committees of safety (American Revolution) and Rowan County Committee of Safety

• "....arranging representation in the executive body." so by "the executive body" you mean the council? If so maybe change to "... in the council".

Done. G. Moore 22:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand "organised" in "The North Carolina Provincial Congress authorized 35 existing county militias to be organized on September 9, 1775.". Perhaps "called-up"?

The wording comes from the Provincial Congress minutes. The militia were only county entities until the Congress acted to organize them in the interim government. Again, I think this is what is stated in the minutes of the Congress. G. Moore 22:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not recognise the meaning of "subordination" but figured it out from the context - I cannot think of the proper word though.

Subordination is a common term used in the military to show the hierarchy of units. G. Moore 23:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose LTC means Lieutenant colonel - maybe I missed the link.

It is a common abbreviation for a US Army Lieutenant Colonel. I linked Lieutenant Colonel, the first time it occurred and added the abbreviation in parenthesis. G. Moore 22:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time could you point out my mistakes in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey/archive1 Chidgk1 (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at it. Going through a Featured List review is one of the most instructive things that I have done in Wikipedia. G. Moore 23:04, 5 March 2020 (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) 21:24, 10 May 2020 (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 unsuccessful by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list along with Javila200084898 because I believed that this page already meets FL Criteria and guidelines, Javila200084898 and I is the most contributed to this page. First, as you can in the previous version which is the table, date, sources, font, and else is a mess so I've made my contributed to clean all the mess until it meets the criteria. In terms of reference, the reference of the previous version is very incomplete and I've resolved this problem. The Lead, Prose, Comprehensiveness is created by Javila200084898 and I believed that the sentence doesn't need the copyediting also in that section I only solved the problem of the date to make all of the dates are consistent. 19:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Johhnyfrankie13 (talk)

• Speedy close - once again, this editor has started a new FLC despite the fact that he/she has one open which has clearly not yet gained support. The FLC page clearly states "Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2020 (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.