Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/November 2014

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 Crisco 1492 08:54, 22 November 2014 [1].

Nominator(s): David Condrey (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I spent a great deal of time working on this article and it was suggested by Tom (LT) during this articles peer review, archived here, that it would be a good candidate as a featured list or potentially a good article. I couldn't decide which would be more appropriate... David Condrey (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure what exactly you are listing. It appears the list contains four completely different types of entries. 1. Places, 2. Languages, 3. Types of creation myths/specific creation myth, and 4. Indigenous group. I'm really confused as to what kind of structure has been chosen to this interesting list. Mattximus (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: It's set up as a list of all of the stories of the Raven character and split up by tribes which told these stories, so each tribal region is listed with a brief lead followed by a list of the stories which originate from that tribe. David Condrey (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to have drawn the short straw. Sorry, but I'm going to have to archive this nomination as stale. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2014 (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• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close.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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2014 (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 archived by Crisco 1492 03:22, 15 November 2014 [2].

Nominator(s): Mhhossein (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria of being a FL. As a main contributor, so much effort have been done to enhance the quality and to respect MOS. Mhhossein (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This needs a good copy edit to bring the laguage up to an encyclopaedic standard. The formatting also needs looking at - there are some basic errors there, like spaces between opening bracket and the first word, a comma without a space after it, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat:  Done Thanks to Strivingsoul, the wording is improved and the errors are corrected. Mhhossein (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The language still isn't encyclopaedic enough to pass at FL, unfortunately. There are also formatting issues in the table which need working on (spaces before references—Muhammad ibn Abdullah [d] [11] is one example—inconsistent formatting—why is The Beloved italicised, and other bracketed names not, etc). "Note A" needs to have the citation formatted properly

You should also probably help out people unfamiliar with the terminology used. The third column refers to full name and "Kunya": although I can click on a link to find out what it means, a note on the page will stop people leaving the page and getting sidetracked into not coming back. (Do the same type of explanatory note as you have with the dates column)

In terms of the references, your refs refer to Tabatabaei 1977, but Shi'ite Islam is shown in the bibliography as having a 1979 publishing date. Why have a long bibliography, and still have a full book description in the refs (FN 33 – and Note A). There are a stack of books in the bibliography that shouldn't be there because they're not referred to in the text, as well as a number of titles in shouty caps that should be formatted properly (but only if they have been referred to in the text). – SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list seems of good quality, but here are a few issues:

• The column structure is confusing. For example it took me a while that the name and title columns contain two separate entries each. why not have subcolumns?
• move the death date into the last column
• "53 (before Hijra)" an equivalent date in the modern calendar would be "53 BCE" not "53 (BCE)"
• "The exact location of her grave is unknown" should be split with the "-" thing
• the burial location for #1?
• perhaps having a map (with birth, death, burial places) would be nice to those not at all familiar with the subject
• d though bh footnotes should be included in the table

Nergaal (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: Thanks for your smart suggestions. Please pay attention to the following:

• I think having subcoloumns is not possible due the restriction in page width. This is while we have no problem with the page length. Do you still believe that we'd better make subcoloumns?
• Placing the death date beside the birth date enables the reader to have a quick view of the individual's life length and his/her era. However, there's no problem and we can simply move it if there's problem with current state.
•  Done (BCE)------>BCE
• What should be split with "-" in "The exact location of her grave is unknown"?
•  Done Burial place for No.1
• Having a map is a nice suggestion. I'll try to find one, although it's not easy.
• What do you mean by "d though bh footnotes should be included in the table"?

I'm looking for your further suggestions. Mhhossein (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2014 (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 archived by Crisco 1492 03:22, 15 November 2014 [3].

Nominator(s): Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 06:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following a previous nomination, with only one comment (a support vote), I am hoping this renomination will get a bit more attention. No issues were raised in the past nomination and I think the article is FL standard. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 06:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm sorry, but this needs MANY more citations. The "Guest stars" and "Other characters" are almost entirely unreferenced, and many of the "Secondary characters" have no references at all. On another note, Marshall's father should simply be described as "Marvin Eriksen" and son should be "Marvin W. Eriksen" (or "Marvin Wait-for-it Eriksen"), and "intelligent but gullible" should simply be "gullible". Of the references that are used, it relies to heavily on the episodes themselves. More secondary sources should be used. I suggest withdrawal, and perhaps putting up for peer review, as this is going to need extensive work to meet FL criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start by saying that I'm perfectly fine with you opposing — I'm just really glad to get a comment here, but I'd like to try and get a better understanding of what the problems are and why.

Citations: in the criteria, it has a quick link to WP:CS, which states "This page explains how to place and format citations" — I hope you'd agree that all citations in this article are formatted fine. It also links to WP:V: generally, everything in the article is sourced to the TV show itself — there's simply no other authority on an article solely focused on How I Met Your Mother. Not a single thing, to my knowledge, has ever been challenged, but there are 37 references in the articles, put in all places I thought material was likely to be challenged and several more. So that's why there are unsourced sections: How I Met Your Mother itself is a general reference for just about everything in the article.

I can't find (and don't even think there is) a featured list on characters from TV series X — the closest I can find are List of human Sesame Street characters (which seems pretty irrelevant), List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters and List of Naruto characters. Please point out if I've overlooked a relevant FL, but I've got little to base this article's format off. Following Naruto, I could reference all 208 episodes of HIMYM and have occasional incites to them, as well as Footnotes for any non-HIMYM sources: I'd be happy to do this if you thought it would be a good idea. Tokyo Mew Mew follows a similar style to this article: Notes for any explanations needed, and Footnotes for anything not sourced to the manga/anime, or anything contentious.

For secondary sources, what are we looking for? I assume you're thinking about 3(a) here: what is stopping the article from being comprehensive?

I think I've fixed the "Marvin" issue and I changed "gullible".

As for peer reviewing: well, I've been there and the article got little attention. Same with the previous FL nomination and even this one. I don't think withdrawing the FL nom and putting up for PR will help anything — make your comments here and if it's too much to deal with, I'll withdraw or let the nom fail. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 17:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Marvins" and "gullibility" are addressed, good work on that. As for secondary sources to use, I recommend things like episode reviews or announcements for upcoming guest stars. The citations used are formatted properly, but "Zap2It" is not a reliable source, and I'm really skeptical about "Popculturology". It's going to take substantial work to get this up to standard since most of the characters are unsourced, and is best done outside of this FLC nomination. The Sesame Street list you linked to is actually a really good example to follow. Good luck. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zap2It is reliable, but I've backed this up with another citation to Digital Spy anyway. I've removed the Popculturology citations — there's still one citation left for that fact and more detail in both The Mother (How I Met Your Mother) and Last Forever. I'll look for more citations and real world detail, but are you just suggesting that I do this just for guest stars? Should I do this for all major characters? All secondary characters? Should I go through reviews of all 208 episodes and see what I can find? Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 16:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: are these changes to Victoria, Abby, Honey and Karen the sorts of changes you recommend? Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 10:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good start. However, you'll have to cite ALL characters, and that's going to be too much work to do within an FLC nomination. Let this nomination close, work on the referencing, and then renominate. A good rule of thumb is to have at least one citation at the end of each paragraph/bullet line. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:31, 9 November 2014 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2014 (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 archived by SchroCat 19:55, 11 November 2014 [4].

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after a substantial amount of work years ago, and some further work recently, I feel it meets the criteria. It has been completely revised according to WP:DISCOGSTYLE, with the addition of new sections, tables, and sources. Any comments will be addressed swiftly. Thanks, Earthh (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Prosperosity

Have you thought about moving the video albums section? I've never seen them up the top there like that, instead in its own section on par with albums and singles.

Moved next to music videos.

The UK is listed in the charting box for video albums even though none of their DVDs have charted there, apparently.

It is listed because an album received a certification there, even if it didn't chart.

The band has two other albums, The Demo Album and K-Mart Disco. Especially since K-Mart Disco has a page at Wikipedia (and according to that page it was an album with a commercial release), these should probably be noted in some way. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These albums are not official and should not be included per WP:DISCOGSTYLE.--Earthh (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well in that case I support the nomination. --Prosperosity (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2014 (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. – SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2014 (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 archived by Crisco 1492 08:08, 7 November 2014 [5].

Nominator(s): Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this list because it is (1) brings together all the 3d weapons made (2) it is likely to raise eyebrows and interest people enough to have a look since there is no other article or collection like this anywhere on the internet (3) it is informative and has information on how the weapons were made i.e which pritner and printing methods were used, and how much it costs. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shame there's been no interest. I'll be archiving this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2014 (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2014 (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 archived by SchroCat 10:19, 6 November 2014 [6].

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this passes FL? Nergaal (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
• Will be back later, but here's a few to be starting with........
  • "The top goalscorer of the first edition was the Argentinia's" - Argentina is spelt wrong, also there is no need for "the" in front of it
  • "His record stood for more than three decades until Brazil's Ronaldo to scored" - no need for the word "to" here
  • "The fifth Brazilian goal was credited to Jair, but are now credited to Ademir" - has a citation needed tag, not acceptable in a FL
  • Ref 1 is a bare URL, needs to be formatted
  • "Seven different players scored, with André Maschinot scoring a brace" - unnecessary use of slang, just say "scoring two goals"
  • "Davor Suker was part of the Yugoslavia's squad" - no reason for "the" to be there
• As mentioned above, I'll be back with some more later....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed all these and cleaned up a few more refs. Nergaal (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I can still see "The top goalscorer of the first edition was the Argentina's Guillermo Stábile" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• And you still have "a brace" in one of the notes (which links to a disambiguation page, by the way) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about those. Fixed. Nergaal (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2014 (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. – SchroCat (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2014 (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 archived by SchroCat 10:19, 6 November 2014 [7].

Nominator(s): I Am... ***D.D. 20:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it meets the required criteria. I Am... ***D.D. 20:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ThirdWard

• I'm not sure if "one-off concerts" in the infobox is the best wording. I assume you're combining the residency shows and the notable concerts, but obviously the residency shows were not one off concerts. It's not entirely clear.
• Beyoncé's first co-headlining The Verizon Ladies First Tour –-> This could be reworded, maybe "Beyoncé's first co-headlining venture, The Verizon Ladies First Tour..."
• The tour was overally praised by critics and Beyoncé along with Keys was particularly hailed for her elaborative performance and considered as the highlight of the shows –-> Try "The tour was generally praised by critics, with Beyoncé and Keys particularly being hailed for their elaborative performances."
• Remove "two days before Beyoncé's 26th birthday." in The Beyoncé Experience table
• the I Am... World Tour was a worldwide tour –-> "the I Am... World Tour was Beyoncé's second worldwide tour"
• US $119,5 million --> US $119.5 million (english period used to break up numbers)
• The tour is currently on track to become the second most successful tour of all time when looking at average gross revenue per show --> The tense of this might need to be changed now or very soon since the tour is over
• A live DVD of the show and a one-hour Thanksgiving television special aired on ABC News in late November 2009. --> Differentiate the DVD and the Thanksgiving special. Maybe just add "A live DVD of the show was released, and a one-hour..."

• After these minor changes I of course Support (Note I did significantly contribute to the lead in July, 2014) ThirdWard (Lolcakes25) (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything adressed. I Am... ***D.D. 19:00, 17 September 2014 (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. – SchroCat (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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