Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/November 2012

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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 22:10, 29 November 2012 [1].

---

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 2008 regional elections of Venezuela were held on 23 November 2008 to choose 22 governors, 2 metropolitan mayors, 328 mayors and 251 aldermen for a four-year term beginning in 2008 and ending in 2012, when the next regional elections are held. This were the second regional elections held during the goverment of Hugo Chávez Frías and the first since he founded the United Socialist Party (PSUV). In this elections, a total 17,308 candidates competed for 603 elected positions, whith around 59 national and 236 regional political parties participated. I am nominating this for featured list because after rewriting the list, it is now up to standard. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBrandley 18:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks like a strong list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose; this list article appears about on par for the equivalent of a C- or B-class article, but there are numerous issues that should be addressed before it is considered as approaching Good or Featured:

1. Crit 1, prose. There are prose errors throughout, some samples:
   1. "Henrique Capriles Radonski, whom became presidential candidate in 2012, ..."
   2. "Pablo Pérez Álvarez defeated his adversary" ... opponent ? Adversary is not necessarily incorrect grammatically, but it's not optimal prose.

   3. The government of the state of Amazonas and nine municipalities were not chosen in this elections because they had been elected after the 2004 regional elections.

      This sentence is indecipherable, repetitive, and has grammatical errors. Why does this List have three supports already with this kind of prose? I'm aware that prose and sourcing standards are slipping in Featured Processes (due to a lack of qualified reviewers), but these are blatant issues.
   4. "The 2008 regional elections were the second during the government of Hugo Chávez Frías and the first since he founded the United Socialist Party." Please explain how we get to "second" (2000, 2004, 2008), and why the clause about the founding of the United Socialist Party is even there ... the reader is left wondering the significance of these statements or why they are included, and I'm not following the math on "second" regional elections.
   5. There is no explanation or link for Alto Apure.
2. Crit 2, lead, "engaging", "defines the scope and inclusion criteria". In addition to the 22 governors and 2 mayors, the lead discusses "17,308 candidates competed for 603 elected positions; around 59 national and 236 regional political parties participated", which are not further discussed. What is the scope of the article? Why is the List confined to a few Mayors and Governors? Previous versions had more coverage. It appears that the earliest versions of this article were more comprehensive, but that the faulty sourcing used in earlier versions was never improved to anything close to Featured status.
3. Crit 3, comprehensiveness, "It comprehensively covers the defined scope", no. See at minimum the lack of coverage of the issue of candidates being removed on corruption charges.
4. General requirements for all Wikipedia articles:
   1. Sourcing: WP:NONENG-- English language sources are preferred on the English Wikipedia, and there is very little content in this article that was not covered by high quality English-language sources. Using those sources would also help with some POV issues.
   2. Sourcing again: Several of the sources are not high quality or without bias. Considering the coverage available on this topic, it should not be necessary to resort to sources like www.voltaire.net, globalexchange, and stratfor. Why is an editorial/opinion piece listed in Further Reading?
   3. POV, or lacking in balance and comprehensiveness:
      1. Note as but one example this source included in Further Reading, with pretty much none of that content making it into the article. Similar for this article.
      2. "During the elections, the Venezuelan General Comptroller banned almost 300 candidates who had been accused of corruption. The Supreme Tribunal ratified the bans and removed the candidates from the process." Severely POV, the story did not stop there, and a human rights issue amply explored by the international media, completely left out of this article.
      3. "The Venezuelan opposition managed to attain the metropolitan municipality of Caracas, ... " Managed to attain?? POV, and hardly reflects what the sources say.
5. A random sampling of English-language sources not included:
   1. Time magazine
   2. CNN
   3. CBC News
   4. One example of the trumped up corruption charges (dealt with by numerous human rights orgs), covered by USA Today, explored further at Manuel Rosales.
   5. Discussion of 2008 charges from Human Rights Watch.

This is a very small sampling of missing sources-- there are scores. This candidate should be withdrawn, and the article should be rewritten after a comprehensive literature search, and upgraded to higher quality sources to deal with comprehensiveness and POV. I am aware that other Venezuelan articles and lists have attained featured status when they do not meet standards: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- that does not make it acceptable. In the event I am not able to revisit my Oppose, delegates can ... be delegates :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no POV. Also, this is a list, not an article. I found that enough information to warrant a detailed article is not out there. Elections such as these are always better explained by the numbers with a brief explanation at the lead rather than a full article. I am not withdrawin this nomination, and I consider that all main issues have been adressed. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a list, and not an article as you say, where is the corresponding article then? It's not linked from the list. And information to make a comprehensive list or article is most certainly available in sources, only a few of which I've listed above, but a trip to the library will reveal a multitude more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to develop a main article including all these information, like Venezuelan regional elections or something. That should be better, in my opinion. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this is the article about the 2008 elections, and it does not comprehensively cover the 2008 elections, or elections in general. I have not examined the quality of, for example, Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2010, recently, but that more closely resembles what a fully developed C-class election article should look like, and this isn't even on that level. Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2009 is another example of a more developed Venezuelan election article. This page is, can be, warrants, and there are sources for an article; we shouldn't arbitrarily denote an article as a list, allowing us to have it become featured without writing the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, parliamentary elections are different, I can tell you that as a venezuelan who lived and voted on both elections, actually. Parliamentary elections are usually more covered and the 2010 ones were very different from the ones in 2005. There, Opposition participated and achieved a high amount of seats and this was unprecedent since 2000. And this is not the article about the 2008 elections; this is the list about the winners and candidates for government and metropolitan mayorships of the 2008 elections. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am well versed in Venezuelan politics and elections, including the 2008 regional elections and their significance, there is and was a story in 2008, I've listed only a few sources (the issue of corruption charges, for example, was so significant that it is still mentioned in 2012 sources): this is the 2008 election article-- it just hasn't been written yet, and we shouldn't arbitrarily call a topic about which much can be written a List. The structure of all of the Venezuelan election articles makes this ... an article ... just like the rest of the suite of Venezuela election articles. It's unfortunate that folks are supporting without considering prose, sourcing, and even more ... the distinction between an article and a list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unfortunate because this was written as a list, not as an article. I know you are well versed in Venezuelan politics, although I am afraid not better than me, who has lived all elections and voted on them since 2000 and still have no POV or political affiliation [But my off-wiki work is not relevant]. I guess that the main issue is that I see this as a list [the specific article] and you consider the topic as an article, rather than the article itself. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at all regional elections pages. Then, you will see it, I guess. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that won't do it. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, regional elections are a new phenom in Venezuela (part of Chavez changing elections in Venezuela) so we don't have a lengthy history to look at, and the question is not what other stuff exists on Wikipedia but whether sources exist to write this article. They do. I'm sure you're aware of the controversy surrounding the 2012 regional elections, which still warrants an article even though no one has bothered to write it (the sources exist) -- but the relevant question on Wikipedia is not whether any editor tries to make a list an article or makes the effort to expand a beginning article beyond a list, but whether there are sources to write the article. There are, and this is the 2008 regional election article. Focus on the sources; there are plenty-- well beyond those I listed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of the 2012 controversy and I am thinking that a list may not do the trick for the 2012 regional. Also, I still don't think there is enough information to write to make this an article. Otherwise, I would have done it as I am planning to do with all presidential and parliamentary elections. I can't make a reasonable detailed article about the 2008 elections when the only controversy was the human rights issue and all the information is very well explained by the table itself. It is not that I am not open to write a detailed article about thise elections, it is that I believe it couldn't be long enough to fall outside the list class. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy has raised some valid points about the scope of the list, and whether it should be a list as opposed to a regular article. If sources exist to write an article that goes beyond a simple list, that is probably the course that should be taken. The resulting page can then go through GAN/FAC, if it's of sufficient quality. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can close this if you wish. I am not interested into deveoping this as an artice rather than a list, and I have no internet service to follow any other concerns written here. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:42, 28 November 2012 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:31, 27 November 2012 [2].

---

Nominator(s): Greatuser (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it meets the FL criteria, The list is complete for every awards each Reliable source is provided etc etc.. Greatuser (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Data should be in tabular format.
• Negligence of MOS, which includes but not limited to date formats, dashes, WP:MOSNUM, etc.
• Overreliance on Bollywood Hungama and paucity of reliable sources.
• Inadequate prose quality.

— Bill william compton^Talk 09:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Solid oppose: As creator of this article, I can say without doubt that this article is nowhere near featured list criteria and fails several conditions, the least of which is the quality of sources. Bill has given some good points which need to be addressed and this is a premature nomination. I even doubt if the article has potential to be a featured list. Secret of success · talk 14:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per poor prose quality. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on prose; doesn't have very good quality. TBrandley 22:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose: Prose is extremely poor and sources are unreliable/not formatted properly. An extremely premature nomination. _{S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk)} 14:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Biggest oppose in history: Per above. Bruce Campbell (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2012 (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 not promoted by Giants2008 00:28, 17 November 2012 [3].

---

Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 09:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An important mathematics prize. Regards.Tomcat (7) 09:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• In the infobox, remove "The" from "Abel Prize"
• In the infobox, in Awarded for, the first word ("outstanding") should be in capitals
• Remove period from "outstanding scientific work in the field of mathematics." in the list's infobox
• Unlink Norway per WP:OVERLINK

• I unlinked Norwegian.

• Same goes for all countries linked in the table
• "The amount of money that comes with the prize is usually close to US$1 million, similar to the Nobel Prizes, which are awarded in Sweden and Norway and do not have a category for mathematics." stuff like that needs referencing, there's also more, please check

• In progress...

• Removed

• Merge the last paragraph in history, as it is very small
• Add plainrowheaders to the table's coding for MOS:BOLD and MOS:ACCESS
• In the laureates table, half of the citations aren't referencing. Why?
• I don't think lots of those see also links are needed (like List of prizes, medals, and awards – mathematics), could you maybe remove some, or replace some?

• Agree, removed some. I left out two that are notable

• Why do some references use cite web and others don't? Be consistent. I'd use cite web for all them, as it looks better.
• Ref. 2 is missing author, accessdate, exact date
• Same goes for Ref. 3, 4, 6 (just the accessdate for that one)

• I removed some references as per Naphit.

• New York Times should be The New York Times
• Ref. 5 doesn't have the author in the right place and everything, use cite web for all, for such cases.
• Ref. 13 as publisher, say "Abel Prize" just instead of "The Abel Prize Official Website"
• "The Abel Prize official web site" just say "Official website"
• "The Abel Symposium web site" no space needed, say "website", as said above
• Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order
• Add alt text to the image as per MOS:IMAGES and WP:ALT

TBrandley 15:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done the half. Thanks for your comments. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done the rest. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 09:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• "It is named after Norwegian mathematician Niels Henrik Abel (1802–1829)." could do with a reference, not something that is widely known
• Don't think we need six references for the mathematician's nobel prize, two or three would suffice

• Removed a few.

• "It comes with a monetary award of NOK 6 million, which is approximately US$1.06 million." Does this go to the winner? make it explicit, also needs a reference

• See above.

No that was a different issue, this sentence is still here and still needs referencing. NapHit (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters annually declares the winner..."

• Removed

• Countries should not be linked per WP:OVERLINK

• See above.

• "The amount of money that comes with the prize..." not great prose, needs revising

• I removed this sentence.

• "formerly awarded (1947–1989)..." include the years in the prose instead of brackets

• Done

• Not keen on sentences starting with "In..." its poor prose re-work sentences that start with that prefix

• Done

• "made known in 1897," remove this from the sentence adds nothing and is written poorly

• Removed

• "In 1899, shortly before his death, Sophus Lie proposed establishing an Abel Prize when he learned that Alfred Nobel's plans for annual prizes, made known in 1897, would not include a prize in mathematics." needs a reference

• It is referenced? The refernce is [4]

• "King Oscar II was willing to finance a mathematics prize in Abel's name, and the mathematicians Ludwig Sylow and Carl Størmer drew up statutes and rules for the proposed prize." when was this provide context for the reader

• Done

• "In 2001, after interest in the prize had risen..." how can interest in the prize increase when it does not exist until 2001? referring to it as a concept would be more appropriate, as that was all it was at the time

• Clarified

• prime minister -> Prime minister

• Done, although you can also writer in small letters.

• "A book series recently commenced, with one volume every five years, will present the Abel Prize laureates and their research." I have no idea what this sentence is trying to tell me

• Reworded

• "The first volume[12] covers the years 2003–2007." move the ref to the end of the sentence

• Done

• Citation column should be unsortable

• Done

• Image could do with alt text

• See above.

• Table needs colscopes to meet MOS:DTT

• Done

• What's reference those citations?

• What?

All but one of the citations are not referenced, they ALL need referncing. NapHit (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ref 1 publisher appears to be ScienceNOW

• Corrected

• ref 2 needs an author, retrieval date and correct date of publication adding. Publisher is also Nature

• See above.

• ref 3 needs a tag noting it in Spanish, a retrieval date and correct publication date
• Again ref 4 needs an author, retrieval date and correct date of publication adding, Publisher is Scientific American
• ref 5 spell out what max is, not everyone knows what every acronym means, also an access date is needed
• ref 6 is published 31 May 2009, not 1 June 2009 and again there is no retrieval date

• Ref 3 (that is why you need to wait before I resolve the comments raised by other people)

• As ref 12 is a book, you need to add authors and publishers, I'm not sure there is much point in having that doi when its just links to Springerlink and nothing specific

• Authors not added as those are editors. Publisher already available.

• ref 2 makes no reference to abel prize being the maths equivalent of the novel prize
• ref 7 does make any reference to the abel prize complementing the Holberg Prize
• ref 8 makes no reference to Norway providing a fund, ref 9 does though, so would remove ref 8
• ref 11, I don't see any reference to where the prize is awarded or that fact it used to host the nobel prize

You really need to do spot checks before you nominate lists, as everyone you nominate has the same issues. FLC is not a peer review process, please check the refs are formatted correctly and the prose is of a decent standard before nominating. NapHit (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, most of the issues you listed above were already commented on by me, and Tomcat7 said that he would work on addressing the issues. Cheers, TBrandley 23:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, and most are just duplications. Very unpleasent. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of my comments are not mentioned by TBrandley, most of the duplicates are about refs and Alt text, which is not most. The point is this list should not have been brought here with all these issues outstanding (especially ones where references don't validate what the article is claiming), if you're going to moan about me posting similar issues to another reviewer then address the issues when they are raised, instead of fixing half and then not bothering for a while. Had the same issue with George Harrison discography, where at one point it took you two weeks to respond to issues I arose. If you can't be bothered fixing issues then why nominate a list in the first place? NapHit (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Since it is such a recent prize, it should discuss how is the prize different from more established ones in math such as the Fields Medal, and how was is viewed? I am personally curious which of the Fields and Abel is considered more prestigious. Also, what are the criteria (i.e. does the guy have to be alive when he is awarded?) Who makes the nominations? The group deciding is formed of what members? Nergaal (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I added more information--Tomcat (7) 18:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Arsenikk ^(talk)

• First occurrence of NOK should be spelled out (Norwegian krone). Later occurrences can use the abbreviation.

• Done

• Currencies fluctuate a lot. Stating the USD conversion with such an accuracy will just make it inaccurate (today it is already 1.04). Stating that it is approx. $1M would be as accurate as you can be.

• Rounded up

• Prime minister of Norway -> Prime Minister of Norway (unique titles are capitalized)

• Reverted

• "Union" is not capitalized.

• Decapitalized

• Perhaps it could be mentioned, if my understanding is correct, that the Able Prize and the Fields Medal are the two "Nobel prizes of mathematics"?

• I added a reference.

• Is there a relevance to the medal being "a Nobel prize" in the grounds that it is issued by Norway, who also awards the Nobel Peace Prize? Do any of the sources mention this?

• There are non-Norwegian awards that are referred to as a Nobel prize.

• The lead says it is presented by the king, while the infobox says the academy presents it.

• The award itself is presented by the Academy, while the King presents the statue. However, I made it consistent.

• Sophus Lie and Oscar II are linked twice.

• Delinked

• Numbers over a million should be a combination of number and words, not eight digits in a row.

• Done

• Have you controlled that value for the exchange rate for 2001? I remember buying USDs for 9.45 NOK back then, which would make the USD amount somewhat smaller (this is why I don't convert currencies, it just creates a mess).

• I don't know how to do check this.

• Don't worry too much, it is probably close enough. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Norway gave the prize... by this you presumably mean the Government of Norway?

• Yes, done

• It is not obvious how the title is referenced.

• What do you mean?

• My apology, I meant how the table is referenced.. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose issues have not been resolved in due time. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I did most of the points. Will resume later.--Tomcat (7) 18:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I responded to every point. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have some additional comments:

• Now that there is both a history and a selection criteria, the lead must summarize all the content. This is not the case, as it tends to over-focus on the history and say near nothing about the award itself. For instance, the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters is not mentioned in the lead. The first one and a half sentences in the lead is very good, but then it sidetracks and starts off discussing the dissolution of the union. I would advise that the most important information is presented first and then a second paragraph be created for the history.
• Who are the other members of the committee? How many members does it have?
• I am a bit confused by the first paragraph of "selection criteria". Is there a board? Is this the same as the committee?
• Does "That person" refer to the nominator or the nominee?
• The following long quote can easily be paraphrased to avoid a quote. Including such inline declarations as "According to the official website" should only be used if there is a reasonable doubt that this is not the case.
• "The Abel Committee" should be "the Abel Committee"
• Avoid using "and/or". The sentence could be formulated "Both Norwegians and non-Norwegians may serve on the committee."
• "Abel Laureate" is not a proper noun, so it should be "Abel laureate".
• Who is Sophus Lie? Perhaps add that he was a mathematician.
• Drop "the centenary of Abel" as this is stated in a previous sentence.
• "a volume of a book series recently commenced" reads very awkward.
• The table needs a caption (created with |+)
• Abbreviations should be avoided, such as NYU, MIT and UT.
• "Royal Institute of Technology" is the official English name of KTH and should be used here.
• As noted above, albeit with a confusing typo, the table is not referenced.
• "Fields Medal" should not be in the see also section as it is linked in the lead.
• Ref 4 has a syntax error.

Comment the vast quantity of basic fixes that have been required here lead me to believe that this should be withdrawn and worked on, probably taken through peer review, and brought back here. Unless all the above concerns are dealt with in double-quick time, that's what I'm going to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2012 (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 not promoted by Giants2008 00:30, 17 November 2012 [5].

---

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because as part of my on-going attempt to improve articles about the great Maya Angelou, I think this qualifies as a FL. If this passes, I believe that the articles would then be eligible for a Good Topic. Thanks for the consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is not very large and may fail criterion 3 b. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per criterion 3 b, too small, and much seems to be fan trivia, also. And, I don't its prose is up to FL quality either. TBrandley 23:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see why the list cannot be merged into the plot summary in the main article, or there could be a subsection there detailing the main characters. Because each character in this list has only a short paragraph, they could easily be merged into a couple subsections, rather than one for each character. Reywas92^Talk 02:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate doing this or making any other major structural changes because the current version of I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings is very close to the version that passed as FA. I do believe that some of the information, such as the characterizations of the major characters, could be folded into the main article. If I do that, I'll drop this FLC and request that the list be deleted. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status of this list? I'd like to know so that I can remove this nomination and stop wasting everyone's time! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry to keep you waiting so long Christine. In my humble opinion, this isn't an ideal candidate for FLC. It's probably a good article in the making. I'm not overkeen on the extremely short character descriptions, I'm not keen on some of the referencing being directly to the book (i.e. Angelou herself as the primary source). I'd find it challenging to support it as a featured "list". Are there any examples of character lists like this which currently are featured lists? The only ones I can recall are video game character lists whose character descriptions are much longer than these... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm inclined to, as I state above, fold the useful content into other articles and ask that this list be deleted. I only brought it here because my goal is to have a FT, and one of the requirements is that all lists be featured. If this isn't necessary and it gets in the way of that goal, why keep it? Go ahead and close this nom then, please. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2012 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 16:57, 11 November 2012 [6].

---

Nominator(s): Jona^{talk to me} 20:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...I believe it satisfies the criteria. Jona^{talk to me} 20:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Any image?

• There's no free image available. Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "American Latin rap band the" remove the

• This is answered below. Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "wanted to create" to "proposed creating"

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Charles Koppelman; who signed the group" semicolon should be comma

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "while its lead single" change while to but

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "while its two singles; "I Wish" and the song of the same name charted on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks at number 48 and 86, respectively." reference for any of that?

• Yes its in the tables (singles). Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ""Una Nacion" which" add comma after song name

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• " / " should be replaced by a word, such as "and", etc.

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "List of albums, with selected chart positions, sales and certifications" your missing "studio" which should be before "albums"

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Same goes for the other table captions used, it should included the full part too, like instead of "List of albums", "List of compilation albums", etc, as done at all other discography FLs

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is nothing in the sales and certifications parameters of the tables, if there is none, then make a note of it, by placing {{N/a}} there?

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why doesn't the music video table have a table caption, as all others do, as per MOS:DTT?

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is Billboard linked in ref. 6, and not ref. 1. Be consistent with everything. Same goes for AllMusic references, as well as others they, check.

• It would be WP:OVERLINK to continue to do so in references as explained in several of my failed-FLC peer reviews. Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do some references for Billboard use {{cite news}} and others don't, they use {{cite web}}, all should use one. Be consistent.
• Why do some references have the "106 (21): 112" thingy and others don't?

• Because information retrieved is not currently accessible. Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is it "AllMusic" in some references and "Allmusic" in all others. They should all be "AllMusic", as that is the correct title name.

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And, in some references, have work and publisher, and some just have work, or just publisher (see ref. 23, it should have publisher), this goes for all

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Some reference titles may be incorrect, please check
• Any external links?

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to see if the reference stuff are formatted correctly, and good, and are consistent, as FLC is not meant to be a peer review process. Thank you. TBrandley 18:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose prose issues, and grammar problems.... (e/c)

• " Latin rap band the Barrio Boyzz" are they "The Barrio Boyzz" or just "Barrio Boyzz"?

• According to newspapers/magazines they introduce the group as "The Barrio Boyzz", "Barrio Boyzz" and "Los Barrio Boyzz". Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead sentence, don't mix numbers and words for numericals.

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The groups debut album" missing apostrophe.

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1995, the group" new para, reemphasise the group name.

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "and released four singles" no, the album didn't "release" four singles, perhaps four singles were released from the album...

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Barrio Boyzz' " -> "The Barrio Boyzz's". (etc)

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Navidad, Tu y Yo" just links back to the band, create a new article for it if it's worthwhile.

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "two singles; "I Wish" and the song of the same name" I thought the first was a "song" as well?

• It is, but the second single is the same title as the parent album so that's why I wrote "and the song of the same name". Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is, you've lost the context of "of the same name" by this point in the sentence. Needs reword. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "on Latin charts on Billboard magazine." not sure I understand this English.

• If you take a look here, Top Latin Albums and Latin Pop Albums are "Latin charts" of Billboard magazine. Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So why does it say "on Billboard magazine"? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "hovered the top 10 on the" this is not English.

• According to this it is. Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the word is in the dictionary but not in this usage. Besides, if it didn't make it into the top 10, it was "below" the top 10. Hovering means floating on top of something... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "which did not share chart success" - share with whom?

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Table captions are not unique, please make them so.

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Release dates, where are they referenced? What territory are they relevant to? (see WP:V).
• Not sure of the point of a compilation album table of chart positions where not one single album charted...

• This is a discography not a page that is is built on peak positions. Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Too many "releases" link straight to the band, not to the releases themselves. Red links are permitted.
• You link Billboard in ref 6 but not in 1, 2, 3 ... 7 etc... why?

• As per many peer reviews telling me not to WP:OVERLINK in references. Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My point is, why is is just ref 6, when it's used in refs 1, 2, 3 .... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 20 - Allmusic, where all others are AllMusic... please check your refs thoroughly.

• Done Jona^{talk to me} 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2012 (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 not promoted by NapHit 00:34, 3 November 2012 [7].

---

Nominator(s): TBrandley 23:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it satisfies all of the featured list criteria. Cheers, TBrandley 23:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: I'm not reviewing it on the featured list criteria since I have no experience with that; however, I'm curious as to whether all of these guests appeared in both realities. If not, can notes be used to indicate which reality they appeared in? Ryan Vesey 23:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that there is no source to indicate this information is true. Thanks for commenting. TBrandley 23:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree with TRLIJC19, I can't believe these are all really guest stars. On a separate note, almost half of the actors listed don't even have pages themselves, how notable is this list really? I don't think this warrants its own page. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: About the "they can't be guest stars, if they're not even notable enough to have their own article" argument; actually, several television series do often declare any guest appearance as "guest star", even sometimes with very obscure actors. Several X-Files episodes credit actors like this, for example. Several actors billed as "guest actors" that don't even have articles can also be found in several Awake pages, such as the FAs Nightswimming (Awake) and Say Hello to My Little Friend. For what it's worth. Bruce Campbell (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just want to point out that you have misquoted me there. I did not say that actors without their own pages can't be guest stars on a show.--Logical Fuzz (talk)
    • Bruce Campbell, if this was a list of Awake guest characters, then the notability of the individual cast members would not be as important. However, this is a cast list, so ideally all the actors listed should have a certain degree of importance. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I find it hard to believe that they were all credited as guest stars in the opening billing. Actors/characters listed in the credits are not guest stars, they are minor additive characters. Also, for a one-season cancelled show, I do not think the "guest stars" merit their own articles. I think it should just be an Awake cast star list, with guest/recurring stars included. No, they are "guest stars". They are just known as "recurring guest stars". Also, a separate list isn't needed, as all cast members are on the main Awake article, and it wouldn't seem right, either. TBrandley 00:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] My question is, are they credited at the beginning of each episode as guest stars? If not, they are not guest stars. And, what wouldn't seem right? A one-season cancelled show does not need a list for just guest stars. Just make "List of Awake cast members" with a table for stars, and a table for guest stars. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thank you, I appreciate a second opinion. Technically, yes, I wouldn't believe so, either, but yes, "recurring guest star". I'll merge into a new "List of Awake cast members", and create one. TBrandley 00:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Okay, done. I've added more prose also, due to this. TBrandley 18:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "A month later, Minnette was cast as Rex, while Wilmer Valderama, Steve Harris, Wong, and Allen also garnered roles, being cast as Efrem Vega, Michael's detective partner in the "red reality", Isaiah "Bird" Freeman, Michael's detective partner in the "green reality", Lee, Evans, and Hannah." -- This sentence is a bit confusing. Adding 'respectively' to the end should help clear things up. Done. TBrandley 19:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Producers of the show initially approached Michaela McManus to play Hannah.[5] However, later, Allen was cast instead, while McManus obtained the role of Tara, which Allen had originally auditioned to play." -- These sentences should be merged cautiously. Done. TBrandley 19:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "The main cast of Awake were praised by critics, particularly Isaacs performance." -- "Isaacs" needs an apostrophe at the end; it's possessive. Done. TBrandley 19:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Criticism came from critics, however." -- Unclear – is this referring to the guest cast, or the show's second half? Done, I think. I don't know what you meant by "show's second half", though. TBrandley 19:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] As noted above, I highly doubt all of these actors were actually credited as guest stars in the opening billing; actors listed in the closing credits are not guest stars, and should not be on this list. It's a cast list, so ideally the majority of the cast should be fairly notable. As noted above, yes, they are. The ones at the end aren't on the list. TBrandley 19:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] There is an inconsistency with wikilinking in the citations. Done. TBrandley 19:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] This article is categorized under Category:Lists of celebrities, but not all of these actors are "celebrities". Category:Lists of actors by drama television series is the proper one for this kind of list. Done. TBrandley 19:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – for now
  • The doctors listed on the guest cast list should have a period after the "Dr" abbreviation.
    • Done. TBrandley 19:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not done – you didn't fix them all, and in addition, "Mrs" needs a period after the abbreviation. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The normality for tables is a coordinated key, not a written explanation of the table's meaning.
    • No, there's no policy or guideline against that. See National Tourist Routes in Norway, a FLC right now, as well as others. TBrandley 19:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is absolutely no need to have the legend/key in prose. When a reader is matching up what something means, a color coordinated key is the easiest/fastest method of navigation. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That said, the "S" is not a good choice; "S" stands for 'starring', and none of the actors listed received star billing. Perhaps use "G" to indicate guest appearances, and "R" for recurring – something along those lines.
  • Per the featured list criteria, there are far too many red links on the list. Once you cut out the minor additive characters, and leave the true guest stars, the red link count should fly down.
    • They are the "true guest stars!" TBrandley 19:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, no need to "scream" at me. Regardless, there are too many redlinks per the FLCR, so unlink the actors without articles. Should an article be created on one, it can be linked later. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another issue I have with the list is the order. It's a cast list not a character list, so the cast should be listed first in the guest star table. As for the main star table, it would be better if you wrote the actor's name, with the character's name in parentheses.

TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose at this point. I have yet to review the list in full, but I still have the same reservations as does TRLIJC19 regarding the guest stars. The source that you use for this (RadioTimes [8], where you state "Information is listed on individual episodes included on the list") just lists each episode's cast, it does not distinguish anyone as guest stars. What is your source for guest star billing? I feel you need one. Note that your source for the main cast (TV Guide [9]) has a significantly shorter guest cast listed on the same page. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just watched an episode, and those guest stars all appeared at the begging with a caption in the bottom corner saying "Guest starring", and only one of them was at that TV Guide source. Some very key characters and actors to the series aren't there either, I'm assuming that list is incomplete, or something. Also, as the main cast members are listed at TV Guide, we know those are main cast, and at Radio Times it shows them, then others, which makes it obvious that the others are guest stars, or "recurring guest stars". I suppose I could reference the episode using {{cite episode}}. TBrandley 16:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disagree, but it is not obvious from the RadioTalk source that those are guest stars. And if the TV Guide source "is incomplete, or something", then how can you claim it obvious that the RadioTalk source is correct and all those listed are guest stars, despite not being labelled as such? That source is not usable for guest stars. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More:

• Since this is now a cast list, and not a guest star list, the image seems out of place as a guest star. This should be a starring role.
• "A month later, Minnette was cast as Rex, while Wilmer Valderama, Steve Harris, Wong, and Allen also garnered roles, being cast as Efrem Vega, Michael's detective partner in the "red reality", Isaiah "Bird" Freeman, Michael's detective partner in the "green reality", Lee, Evans, and Hannah, receptively."
  • It is respectively, not 'receptively'.
    • Done. TBrandley 23:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this sentence needs to be split up. IMO, there are too many roles lined up here that the reader must sort out. From what I count, you have 5 actors and 6 roles listed. Make it 2 or more sentences. I'd pull out Efrem Vega and Isaiah Freeman, because of the additional descriptions used.
• "Producers of the show initially approached Michaela McManus to play Hannah, but later, Allen was cast instead, while McManus obtained the role of Tara, Rex's tennis coach, which Allen had originally auditioned to play." Another sentence I think can benefit from splitting for clarity.
  • It was, but the above reviewer TRLIJC19 suggested that it be merged into one. TBrandley 23:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "In addition to the show's main cast, guest stars were also a staple of Awake." I don't like this sentence. Of course the main cast is a staple, I see no reason to mention that. How about just Guest stars were a staple of Awake. I'm still not crazy about the use of "staple", though.
  • Done. TBrandley 23:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• " The first episode that featured guest stars in Awake was "The Little Guy", the show's second episode, garnering ten guest appearances."
  • Get rid of 'in Awake', it seems repetitive because it is also in the previous sentence.
    • Done. TBrandley 23:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • which garnered instead of 'garnering'.
    • Done. TBrandley 23:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Several guest stars have featured as recurring characters on the series, including Laura Innes, Kevin Weisman, and Mark Harelik." change to 'have been featured'.
  • Done. TBrandley 23:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Logan Miller and Daniela Bobadilla both made over five appearances to the show before its end."
  • on the show, not 'to the show'.
    • Done. TBrandley 23:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get rid of the "before its end". That's obvious and unnecessary.
    • Done. TBrandley 23:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to your table, Logan Miller appeared in 2 episodes, not 5.
    • Done. TBrandley 23:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "while "—" means that the actor did not appear in the episode whatsoever." Get rid of the "whatsoever". 'Did not appear' is sufficient.
  • Done. TBrandley 23:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with TRLIJC19, the actors should be listed first, this is a cast list, not a character list. I also think the 'S' designation should be changed.
• Related to the point above, the main cast table should be redone as well. Again, the focus is cast, not character.
  • Done per your reasoning and WP:ACCESS. TBrandley 16:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• External links: change the title of the IMDb link to List of Awake cast members.
  • Done. TBrandley 23:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per 3b, as this should not be a stand-alone article. First, I would say Wikipedia is not IMDb; it is not our job to list the credits of everyone who appeared on a show. I do not see why redlinked non-notable actors need to be listed (or why they're called guest stars). Further, I fail to see why all the guests need to be in a table, as the vast majority of it is dashes. Perhaps List of Awake episodes could say "In episode X, people who played a one-time character include John Smith, Jane Doe, William Johnson, and Harry Williams. This can and should be done in prose: two-thirds of the article is formatting to show the actors aren't in most episodes! Reywas92^Talk 18:24, 30 October 2012 (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 not promoted by Giants2008 23:22, 2 November 2012 [10].

---

Nominator(s): — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a highly detailed, well-sourced list of all major spaceflight events in 2011, including orbital and suborbital launches, spacewalks and deep-space rendezvous events. It also includes an informative summation of the year in spaceflight above the main list. As far as I am aware, it is complete; all known launches in 2011 are included. — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for several fundamental reasons:

• The article needs a proper lead, not two sentences. Leads in list are typically longer than in articles and are normally expected to be referenced. See WP:LEAD.
• The table is not accessible, per WP:DTT. This includes the need of a table caption and the use if scopes. Rows should not be used as headers inside tables.
• The entire section "Overview of orbital spaceflight" is unreferenced, as is "Deep space rendezvous" and "EVAs"
• I find the table very difficult to read, in part because information is combined in three rows. It took me several minutes to actually understand how to comprehend the table. There seem to be ten actual columns, some which could be explained in short-hand and one which could be color/symbol-explained (outcome). I would strongly advise that the main table be made as a sortable one-row-per-launch system. Use footnotes if comments are necessary.
• Abbreviations need to be spelled out, either in the list or as a last resort in a key
• There are citation needed, disambiguation needed and clarification needed tags.
• In tables, anything which is permitted linked should be linked at every occurrence.
• The UN flag should not be used as a "world" or "international" flag; it can only be used for actual UN organizations.

That being said, this is a most interesting list and if it is properly formatted it has more than a good chance at reaching FL status. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Arsenikk. The list also needs tables that meet WP:ACCESS, as various doesn't right now, including scope cols. It needs a proper lead, per WP:LEAD for this list, in particular. There are even some citation needed, disambiguation needed and clarification needed tags, that need to be fixed. And, in tables, anything which is permitted linked should be linked at every occurrence, as was said above. Categories should also be sorted in alphabetical order. There needs to be a caption for the infobox. Alt text needs to be added to the images per MOS:IMAGES. And, abbreviations need to be spelled out, as further said above, per MOS:ACRO. Are there any external links? Link problems in references. And, lots of full sections are unreferenced, as said above. See the featured list criteria. TBrandley 21:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nowhere near featured standard

• Main issue is that tables do not meet accessibility guidelines, per MOS:DTT as Arsenikk mentioned
• Another issue is the referencing it is unclear what is referencing the tables. Some of it is referenced while the majority is not. The overview of orbital spaceflight has hardly any inline citations. The refernces that are give don't look reliable, what makes Encyclopaedia Astronautica, Space Launch Report and Space Information Center reliable?
• You have a section entitled EVAs, with no explanation of what that term means. So to the average reader it is unaware what that table is referring to
• I would also expect the lead to be longer per WP:LEAD. There should be at least three paragraphs
• Prose issues as well, it mainly just reads like a list of events and is definitely not of "professional standard" as the criteria state it should be. For instance: multiple sentences starting with "On..." which creates no flow. "After resupplying the space station, Atlantis returned to Earth, landing at Kennedy Space Center's Shuttle Landing Facility at 09:57 UTC on 21 July, and concluding thirty years of Space Shuttle operations." what were the supplies? the last bit of the sentence is grammatically incorrect.
• "Numerous scientific exploration missions were begun in 2011. In March 2011, the MESSENGER probe became the first artificial satellite of the planet Mercury. In July, the Dawn spacecraft became the first artificial satellite of the asteroid 4 Vesta." Surely you can be more specific than numerous? Another example of prose reading like a list of items

There is too much wrong with this list for it to be promoted anytime soon. I suggest withdrawing this nom, FLC is not a substitute for a peer review process and it should have gone there first. NapHit (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2012 (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 not promoted by Giants2008 23:22, 2 November 2012 [11].

---

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam... --TIAYN (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Done Don't overlink Vietnamese language in the lead. Done I think it's legitimate to actually link Vietnam in the lead. Done "The office has throughout its history " -> "Throughout its history, the office has..."*Done "Present" -> present. Done "8th convocation" seems to have a space before it. Done Don't understand why you have continually indenting bullet pointed See also links. Done "that doesn't happen " avoid contractions. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] (I've removed the see also section, so what to do?) "(for a list of South Vietnamese prime ministers, see Leaders of South Vietnam)." that's what the See also section is for. Done Add a See also section. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done "there have been eight prime ministers of Vietnam,[5] but there has been 29" have... has.... consistency. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments from Arsenikk (talk) (I can't seem to fix that) Is it possible to narrow the first two columns (no.) so they do not take up so much space. Done I would suggest removing all the forced widths from the tables, that should resolve the issue. NapHit (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done No need to include links in the see also section included elsewhere in the article (that goes as far as I can see for the three last entries). Done I do not understand how the information in the tables are referenced. I've referenced them now, see the References section.. A list of general sources has been included in the article (both Vietnamese). --TIAYN (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done The second paragraph seems to be an overkill in establishing what the government official thinks about the position, which could be formulated a bit shorter. I would like to see a ref for the total numbers. Done The lead is a bit short. Could for instance include information on how prime ministers are appointed/elected. Done Odd space before 4th convocation. Arsenikk (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'm back... I've been gone for a while, due to the fact that I'm working in the army, but I'm free this upcoming weekend, so I'll fixs all the outstanding issues with this list then, OK? --TIAYN (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'm currently waiting for the reviewer to reply. --TIAYN (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Have you contacted Arsenikk directly, via his talkpage or email? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Waiting to support until TBrandley's issues have been addressed. Arsenikk (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Comments Done Add alt text to all of the images, for the one in the template, perhaps you can edit the template itself, and add alt text to it, this is all per MOS:IMAGES and WP:ALT Done After its first link and mention, "Vietnamese" should not be linked again, as per WP:OVERLINK. "known as Chairman of the Council of Ministers (Vietnamese ...) it should not be linked there, as its first link is above. Done "The prime minister is also" remove also as it is redundant and not necessary Done "has been responsible, at least de jure," huh? I don't get the second part. "Done According to the website of the office of the Prime Minister, the modern office of the Prime Minister" wow, there is a lot of "of" in there, can that full sentence be copy-edited, and changed, mainly due to that? Done "Officially there has only been 8 prime ministers" remove only as per WP:NPOV Done As per MOS:HEAD, please do not link words in any section headings. Why are there two scope rows in the first "Cabinet Secretary of the Empire of Vietnam (1945)" table, there should only be one scope rows, as per MOS:ACCESS guidelines There are not two-scope rows; I even failing to see the difference between that table and the others. --TIAYN (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done The "Chairman of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam (1969–1976)" table does not meet WP:ACCESS, that "Chairman of the Provisional Revolutionary Government (1969–1976)"'s formatting doesn't, please use table captions instead, per MOS:DTT and MOS:ACCESS Same goes for the "Chairmen of the Council of Ministers (1981–1992)" of a different table, and "Prime Ministers (1992–present)" I have no clue what you mean... If what you're saying is that I should break up the section Prime Minister of Vietnam into two, then no... Its organised the same way in the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union --TIAYN (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done Don't "shout" in reference titles Done "Staff writer" is strange, remove it, as it is unknown, it should be kept blank. That is unnecessary and redundant. TBrandley 01:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'll fix this (and more if there is more) on friday or saturday, okay??? --TIAYN (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I think there's much more repetition in the lead than is necessary. A good copy-editer could likely turn it into much less dull of a read. (WP:GOCE) Some examples:
  • Done "he is ranked he is third in the Political Bureau (Politburo) ranking"
  • Done "elects the prime minister. The prime minister is responsible"
  • Done "to the National Assembly, and the Assembly elects"
• Done "has been 8 prime ministers" (WP:NUMERAL)
• "According to the Prime Minister's website" – Why do we need this?
  • Because its official conformation. --TIAYN (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't explain to me why we need the in-text attribution, but fine, it's a minor point anyway.
• Done "the modern office of the Prime Minister traces its lineage back to Hồ Chí Minh" – Is there also a dated office of the Prime Minister?
• Done "office of the Prime Minister" – Shouldn't this be the "Office of the Prime Minister"?
• Done Why no link to South Vietnam?
• Done Why are there two "No." columns in some tables?
• The one em dash in one of the "Rank" columns makes me curious. Could an explanatory note be added?

This is explained. See the notes. --TIAYN (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which one?

Beneath the column No. on all the tables: [note 2] --TIAYN (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[note 2] doesn't explain what an em dash in the "Rank" column means. I suppose Phạm Văn Đồng had no rank at that time, but I'd like to understand why or how that occurred.

• Done The last table in particular is in violation of MOS:DTT.

Explain.. --TIAYN (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done "Do not place column headers in the middle of a table to visually separate the table." Please see MOS:DTT for details.

• Though not mandated by guidelines, please consider using fewer col- and rowspans for the benefit of our readers using text-only browsers or screen readers.

Explain. --TIAYN (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:RexxS/Accessibility. Minor concessions to visual appeal can greatly improve the reading experience for users of text-only browsers or screen readers.

For now, I'll have to oppose promotion of this list. Goodraise 07:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revisited. Goodraise 10:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment: FLC isn't peer review. By listing an article at FLC you make the implicit claim that it meets the featured list criteria, which includes complying "with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages." Reviewers are not here to give you step-by-step instructions on how to improve the article or to explain content guidelines and policies to you. Rather, it was your responsibility to have read and understood relevant guidelines and policies beforehand and to have made sure the article met those requirements before listing it here. I'll gladly answer all your questions relating to my comments, provided you at least read the pages to which I'm pointing you. Moreover, it is not enough to fix the examples I give. You'll have to identify and fix similar problems in the article as well. Goodraise 08:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never had these problems with other FL nominations; such as those with column and violation of MOS:DTT... That is why I have been asking these questions. --TIAYN (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

• Done There's two stray "]" in the article. Easily fixed, but one really shouldn't find these kind of flaws in featured list candidates.
• Done I'm also not happy with how the scope of the article is defined in the first sentences and then expanded in the last paragraph.
• Done The "Rank" columns seem out of place. As properties of the politicians' holding the respective office rather than of the office itself, it would seem to make more sense to place those columns after the "Name" and "Portrait" columns.

I disagree on the grounds that I think its better for readability for having them there. Secondly, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam and Chairman of the National Assembly of Vietnam were accepted without any fuss on where the rank column was placed. --TIAYN (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done [note 2] confuses me. From what it says, I'd expect the first number to be higher, not lower than the second.

Remaining opposed. Goodraise 08:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer is not responding... --TIAYN (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns were not addressed to my satisfaction. As it stands, the best I can do is strike my oppose. Support this nomination, I can not. Goodraise 18:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but you have to say what is not good enough so that I can fix it; it doesn't help me if you just say its not good enough.. How can I further improve the article??? --TIAYN (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving you advice, but not because I'm under any kind of obligation. Read the guidelines. Fix not only the examples I gave, but the issues they exemplify. Make the list clearly define its scope. And have a decent copy-editor work on the prose. Goodraise 21:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having troubles why you are not supporting because I've done everything you've told, but okay. --TIAYN (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done At least for myself I am waiting for you to remove the excess "scope=row" from the presidency column in 1969–1976. If that is the sole issue Goodraise is asking for, I am not certain of. The colspan in 1981–1992 will also make that table incomprehensible with a text-only browser. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all the scope things.. Better??? --TIAYN (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goodraise is not responding, and I'm not sire what he thinks I should fix... What should I do?? --TIAYN (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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