Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/November 2016

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry311 (need to talk?) 15:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is an important article about American involvement in World War I. Currently an A-class list. It has had a FLC before but was failed due to a lack of comments. All comments welcome.Tomandjerry311 (need to talk?) 15:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Although I don't know much about these specific topics, I question what more could be added or improved and could not think of anything. I'm sure those familiar with this topic will have some comments, but as far as I can see this list is an excellent candidate that deserves FL status. Great sourcing, can't really ask for more information on the lead (or any cleanup for that matter) and I feel like this is comprehensive and complete. Well done on this list, I hope it gets promoted this time. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Although i would have recommended you peer reviewed it first. Here's a few comments Tomandjerry311 (talk · contribs), feel free to cross them out when they have been dealt with or if you feel it is not necessary,
• "During the United States campaigns in World War I the AEF fought in France alongside French and British allied forces in the last year of the war, against Imperial German forces." Should specify the last year of the war, incase someone doesn't know, purely because it's in the lead paragraph.
• " seized German ships, borrowed Allied ships, " this could use some rewording, perhaps "german ships seized by the navy, and ships that were borrowed from allies,"
• "Barely any American troops were sent to Europe in 1917, since Pershing ordered all AEF forces to be well-trained before going overseas." two things with this one, for one what does well trained mean? it does not elaborate, and two, when the next paragraph talks about 1 million troops in 1918, the barely any part seems a little weird, if it is saying that his order was repealed, then it could use some clarification.
• The different army breakdowns could use some work, while I do love conciseness, I feel that they are a bit lacking.
• The image under I corps is excellent, more should be added if available.
• Is there a reason that some of the field artillery regiments and motor regiments aren't linked when no article exists and some are?
• The unassigned divisions thing could perhaps have some better explanations, of why they weren't attached, or else if they function on their own or just joined up with other units ad hoc.
• That's the end of my comments, good job overall, I think it should definitely get promoted. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments A very constructed list, but I have some queries before I give my support. Except the first four sections, in all other sections the "Notes" is completely empty with nothing for any of divisions. In such case, remove the columns completely from the respective sections. Because keeping such empty is of no such other than making it more heavy. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has not addressed any of the issues raised by Iazyges or me. There are no improvements done to the list following the review. Close to 2 months I would like to ping PresN, Giants2008 and The Rambling Man to decide on this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question Did the various armies and corps have non-divisional units assigned to them? (artillery, engineers, supply units, etc). If so, they should be added in some way. Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator appears to have stopped editing (last seen beginning of October with a message that they may retire), and there are still pending comments, so closing this nomination as not promoted. --PresN 22:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, 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 not promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): AffeL (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria and all that, and Peter Dinklage is awesome. I look forward to all the constructive comments on how to improve. AffeL (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you have another nomination that is still ongoing, having only been up a week or so, I believe it's against policy to have two nominations at one time. Suggest a procedural close. Mattximus (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It says that "Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." The first nomination has been up for ten days and has gained support and reviewers. And all concerns has been addressed. AffeL (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jimknut

Introduction

• "In the early 2010s, Dinklage became better known." – This line is not necessary.
• "In 2011 he played a role in the romantic comedy A Little Bit of Heaven, The following year and since he has played Tyrion Lannister in the HBO series Game of Thrones, earning him international attention and acclaim."- "The link to 'romantic comedy' needs to be fixed so it does not redirect. There should be a period after A Little Bit of Heaven and not a comma. Since the first sentence lists the year 2011 then the opening of the next sentence ("The following year") would indicate 2012, yet in the list Game of Thrones is shown to have started in 2011. This next to be fixed. Suggestion: "That same year he began playing Tyrion Lannister …

Television

• The column name of "Channel" should be changed to "Network". ("Channel" is for British usage, whereas "Network" is American and hence more appropriate since all of Dinklage's television work has been in the United States.) Jimknut (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimknut: Thank you so much for the comments. I have fixed all the things you mentioned. AffeL (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment Shouldn't this page be called Peter Dinklage on screen and stage? Sam Waterston on screen and stage is an example. If not, please explain the difference.--Cheetah (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crzycheetah: Maybe, I think so.. I don't know to change the name of a page. Could you help me out? - AffeL (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cowlibob

• The lead is far too short. At 1333 characters it wouldn't even qualify as a DYK.
• The filmography type article should have in its lead a summary of the actor's career which shows their journey in the industry: debut, ups, downs, breakthrough, most critically and commercially recognised films.
• There's no mention of the stage career in the lead.
• Perhaps you could make a sourced directors column in the film table.
• Ref 8 should be publisher=Academy of Television Arts & Science
• Just a Kiss ref has a typo
• Fix the WP:SHOUTING in Ref 14, ref 31, ref 37
• Questionable sources: Ref 11, Terapeak is a reliable source, moria.co.nz in Ref 23, moviejungle in Ref 29, futon critic in Ref 37, tvfodder in Ref 38,Failoobmennikmania3.wixsite.com in Ref 48, Ref 33 (Daily Mail). Please replace these.
• Ref 26 needs to properly formatted as an ebook.
• For all tables, everything in the table must be sourced eg: roles, year of release, theater, that they acted as producer.
• For names of roles they need to be sorted with the sortname template so that they sort by last name.
• Titles of films also need to be sorted so that "The", "A" are ignored.
• Film table is missing The Three Christs of Ypsilanti, television is missing Ice Age Columbus: Who Were the First Americans?

Cowlibob (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as not promoted- no work done in months. --PresN 20:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, 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 not promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then. I took a long break from the governor lists, and some changes have been made to the format, some good, some ... I disagree with. This is my attempt to reconcile some of them. Major changes from previous lists:

• No more "parties" bar. IMO, it's not that useful - the ebb and flow of party dynamics are much better expressed in prose rather than numbers, which nearly always require some gymnastics to figure out, due to repeat governors, acting governors, etc.
• No more "other offices." I mean, I'll put it back if people really want it, but I found it to be a bit too subjective and not terribly useful.
• I *want* to take away the "living former governors" box but I think there's a consensus for it to stay; however, if y'all agree with me, then into the chute it goes.
• Much better use of the 'term' column, to include the election year (and a link, if available).
• More context for lieutenant governors; this isn't a list of them, but the dates of vacancies, etc. are useful.
• And as mentioned in the previous FLC, I discovered a new governor. That's pretty neat.

Let's do this. --Golbez (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• comment- I might have time to do a full review later but for now you will at least need a small legend indicating what the blue and red colours mean next to the names. This may not be clear for non-Americans. Mattximus (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put back a row at the top with the colors, but this has nothing to do with Americans vs non-Americans, as the same kind of style is used everywhere on Wikipedia. --Golbez (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant most Non-Americans would not know that the colour blue represents the Democratic party, and red Republican. Mattximus (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• "the power to either approve or veto bills passed by the Arkansas Legislature" Can the legislature override a veto with a two thirds vote?
  • Probably, but we have to have a line here between the governor and not-governor. The legislature can also impeach the governor, but that is also beyond the scope here. Maybe there shouldn't be any real explanation of powers, since that's beyond the scope of the article. (I'm not saying this sarcastically; I'm all for removing stuff outside the scope of an article. Like the list of living governors.)
• Why no party designations for governors of the territory? If the post was then non-political, I think you should say so.
  • Appointed posts are nearly by definition non-partisan, IMO, since you aren't nominated or endorsed by a party for it. That's different from non-political.
• There are no references for the items in the table. These are needed.
  • This I'm going to need more clarification on. The table is a synthesis of data points from multiple major references, which are contained in the 'general' references. (though that does need to be pruned, there's way too many there. It should just be the NGA and encyclopedia links. Fixing.) For specifics, when necessary, there are specific citations in the footnotes. I don't understand the need to have a citation for every single row when they're all going to the same site, and I can say "hey here's the site[s] used" in the general references.

• All data must be fully referenced, but you can have a single citation for a column listing the source or sources used in that column. For example, see List of incorporated places in Maryland. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Five citations in a row that go to the same place. I think this is not the best method of citation. I'll consider this, though. --Golbez (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "though as the state fell to Union forces there was a loyalist government put in place with an insignificant Confederate government in exile." This is unclear but I assume you mean that it fell earlier than other states. A date would be helpful, and did the Union government then appoint a new governor? (I see you explain in the notes, but I think clarification here would be helpful.)
  • I think I mean... when the Civil War began, there was no Union government in exile, but as it ended, there was a Confederate government in exile. I tried rewording it, please check.
• "the next in line for the governorship was the speaker" is the speaker?
  • Nope, because that only applied to the period before the office of Lt Governor was created.
• Why do you not use the photo of Winthrop Rockefeller at [[File:Paige, Huckabee, Rockefeller, and Hutchinson with large check, August 2002 - cropped to Rockefeller.jpg]] Is there something wrong with its licence?
  • No, because that's of lieutenant governor Rockefeller (died 2006), not his father, governor Rockefeller (died 1973).
• "The most recent death of a former governor was that of Dale Bumpers (served 1971–1975, born 1925), who died on January 1, 2016. The most recently serving governor to die was Frank D. White, who served from 1981 to 1983 and died on May 21, 2003." It took me a while to understand this. It should be more clearly expressed, although I doubt whether it is needed.
  • I agree. Any objection to deleting that whole section? I've never understood the strange obsession some on Wikipedia have with having easy access to a list of the former people in an office still alive; it's kind of relevant for Presidents (what with secret service protection, long-standing tradition of trivia, etc), but Governors? Nah. Middle-click the last few until you start running out of live ones. Done.
• "The Speaker of the House declared that the measure had lost because it did not receive a majority of the highest vote total from that election." I do not understand this.
  • It's hard to understand. It seems that at the time, Arkansas had a weird rule - or thought they did - that a referendum that people voted on had to receive at least as many votes as to win the highest-vote-getting question on the ballot. In the case of amendment 6, it received 45567 votes in favor, winning by a mere 361 votes. However, another election chosen on that same ballot (it doesn't say which; maybe some congressman or something) received 135517 votes in total, so they said that, for a referendum to pass, it had to receive at least enough votes to win that contest, i.e. 67758 votes. In 1925 they realized a 1910 act had amended that so it only needed a majority of the votes cast for that particular question. I think another way of looking at it is: There were 135517 votes cast in total, if people didn't vote for either 'pro' or 'con' the referendum, then it was assumed they voted 'con' instead of assuming no vote at all. I've expanded on the footnote to attempt to explain this rather arcane incident.
• What is meant by "General" references. If the source is used in the article, it should be cited for the specific statement it references. If they are sources which are cited in the "specific" references, the arrangement is unusual and confusing. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above for my explanation of "general" vs "specific" references. --Golbez (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The usual arrangement is citations and then sources. If you want to call them specific and general references that is fine - people use different names for them - but the specific references should come above the general ones and the constitutions. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? The general and constitution are designed to be seen by readers and directly gone to, whereas the specific ones are designed to be accessed via the footnote. Things that are less immediately useful to the reader should go lower. --Golbez (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you back at this! As general comments to your changes, I kind of liked the Other offices section, but I've felt living former governors is simply trivia; perhaps just have one sentence elsewhere summarizing the number and the one oldest (or who served the longest ago). I like the election year in the terms. When the Lt gov is elected separately, I'd just as well leave it out completely - the positions are entirely unrelated beyond succession, and there's a separate (though usually inferior) article for that list. Reywas92^Talk 07:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Some responses:

• My problem with the 'other offices' section is that it was becoming subjective. I never included mayorships, yet for some, being mayor of a major city would be a pretty notable job. For some, being CEO of a major corporation would be a notable job. Sarah Palin is obviously most notable for being a VP nominee, but on my criteria that wouldn't have listed. And for judgeships, I had to just decide on a level to stop at. To me, it felt like "trivia about the people" rather than "trivia about the position." The only info should be who held the office, when they held the office, and why who held the office changed. What they did when not governor is not at all relevant. Now, for some states, this could simply be removed to a paragraph about how many of their governors have served as President - basically, New York - but otherwise it just seemed like a soulless list of data.
• Yeah, I originally just had term number - and I shouldn't say "I" because I borrowed that from Spartan7W's excellent idea implemented on the California list, much better than my previous "fractions" idea. IIRC, I had included the election year as a link under the number; someone else then came along and moved it out to parenthetical election year, which was a great idea. Finally, I was working on Georgia, and ... honestly no one seems to know how many governors Georgia has had, in part because during the Revolution they had 6 month terms. Yeah. So I gave up on trying to number the terms and just gave the year they were elected. I haven't done that here yet because it wasn't necessary, but I probably should - the year they were elected is much more useful/relevant than the number of term they served.
• The Lt Gov and Gov not being elected on the same ticket is only one sentence, and is useful to explain why several Lt Govs are of different parties than the governor. (Which has to be noted due to accessibility concerns)
• "Usually inferior" what do you think one of my next projects is :) --Golbez (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit frustrating, but this nomination has been open over 2 months without any support and hasn't had a comment for over 6 weeks, so I'm going to have to close it. --PresN 01:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): adamstom97 (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this series was recently cancelled, and so the listing won't be changing. I (and several other editors) have been working on the article for over a year now, and I believe that it is good enough to become a featured list. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This looks more like an article than a list to me. I'd nominate this at WP:GAN first. The lead is too short for this page. Also, the descriptions of some of the characters are too short and some are too long; just try to balance them out. You can check out this page for an example.--Cheetah (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Smallville list has different sized sections for different characters as well, and I think it all boils down to how much information there is about each character which is presumably based upon importance. The lead can be expanded though. As for your first statement, I'm not sure how this isn't a list. We literally list characters. In fact, this seems like more of a list to me than some other articles I have seen promoted to FL (like this recent example). - adamstom97 (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page actually talks about each character. The prose in this page is twice as much as in that example you provided.--Cheetah (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that all the prose makes it more of an article than a simple list? I could understand that, and a potential move to GA instead. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's my opinion of this page.--Cheetah (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is much more like a GAN than an FLC, suggest this is closed and the nominator takes to the GA brigade. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crzycheetah and The Rambling Man: As you have suggested, I am going to take this over to GA now. Is there a specific process that I need to go through for ending this discussion? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Withdrawing by the nominator - The FLC staff will take care of it.--Cheetah (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. --PresN 01:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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