Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/November 2017

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

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Artoasis (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is a rather exhaustive list of awards and nominations received by Ben Affleck. I have included all the notable accolades supported by reliable sources, and I think it meets all of the FL criteria. Thank you for taking the time to review it. Artoasis (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Unclear as to why this isn't just a single list? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Sorry for the late reply. I somehow missed this on my watchlist. I think it's more or less the standard format for Featured lists of awards received by actors and/or filmmakers, such as List of awards and nominations received by Amy Adams and List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence. And for better navigation, the awards are put into several categories according to List of film awards. Artoasis (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:25, 26 November 2017 (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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Sportsguy17 (T • C) 22:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the last time this article was an FLC, it was archived due to my inactivity. But for now, I am back to make any changes necessary for it to pass. Additionally, I believe I addressed any concerns from the previous FLC, so I'm hoping the second time's a charm. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 22:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These will be some quick comments.

• Wouldn't it be better to have the key before the lines?

• It would and I have made that change.

• Why is "Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation" in bold in the lead?

• No idea but I unbolded it and instead linked it to the corresponding Wikipedia article.

• The lead seems a bit long. In addition, you do not specify the inclusion criteria.

• I'm a bit confused about this one to be perfectly honest.

That is all for now. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 17:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyBugz: I have taken care of the first two bulleted items, but I'm a little confused about the third, particularly with regards to the inclusion criteria. Do I need to explicitly state that included on the list are current stations only plus a section for future and former stations, respectively or is it something else? As for cutting down the lede, I don't think the fourth paragraph is necessary, so I'm just going to add to the first paragraph that there are not currently any planned extensions of the system. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 19:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It means stating, at the beginning of the lead, what the article is about. It is where you do "This is a list of xyz". RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyBugz: I will work on that shortly. I need to flip through similar articles that are Featured Lists to see how to set it up. Thank you for the feedback. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyBugz: I have added a short history section about how the system came into being. I'm going to work on the paragraph more, but it's a start. I have a few questions/comments of my own:

• In the "Lines" section, is it worth including Weekday Ridership and/or the mileage of each line in the table? I'm tempted to include the former, and neither set of statistics are hard to find, but I will only include them if they will add to the list.
• Should I add more images? I feel like the list may be a bit lacking in that respect.
• As for scope/inclusion criteria, see List of MBTA Commuter Rail stations and List of SEPTA Regional Rail stations for examples. They don't state in bold that it is a list of stations because in my opinion, that's not good writing at all. I clarified that the stations on the list are active stations, so if you read the first paragraph it should be pretty obvious what the list is about.

Let me know if there'a anything else I can do for the list. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 15:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd specify a time frame regarding average weekday ridership being 292,000; as of when was this figure accurate?

•  Done - Stats have been updated to 2015/2016 depending on what was most recently published.

• "all are within a short radius of each other" - I'd give some indication as to what "short" is? How big is the radius?

•  Done

• Do you think information about the planned Romeoville station should be included in the lead? As there's only one planned station I'm getting the impression new stations aren't added very often so this might be of interest. Up to you.

•  Done - I added a small bit about it, but nothing too grand because it does deviate from standard practice.

That's all I found. I've never really looked at a list like this before so I'm assuming the way you've provided access to external links in your 'Stations' table is the accepted standard. Freikorp (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: Though I don't particularly like it, many FLs about train stations do you external links instead of references in part due to the shear number of stations and it's far easier. Once I find the radius number all of your comments will be resolved. All comments have been resolved. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 15:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'd actually probably shorten the information about the new station myself. I'd drop "Construction on the new station began in May 2017" and just say when construction is due to be completed. Again, up to you though. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments really quick runthrough...

• Lead image is too small to be of any utility. Suggest making it 300px or similar.

•  Done

• Regional Transit Authority is a dab link.

•  Done

• " New York City-area systems" it's just the New York metropolitan area, not New York City.

•  Done

• "487.5 total miles " convert to metric please.

•  Done

• " Additionally, Metra funds..." this sentence has no reference.

•  Done

• Explanations in the key don't need a full stop if they are sentence fragments.

•  Done

• Same applies to image captions.

•  Done

• Key table needs to meet MOS:ACCESS.

•  Done

• Lots of stations in the key piped to redirects.

•  Doing... - This will take a while because pretty much all of them are redirects.

• I would expect to see 27th Street to sort before 103rd Street.

•  Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• "of Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (NIRC)" and "operated by the NIRC". Be consistent: either include "the" for both, or neither.
  •  Done
• "walking, biking, driving" I would find "cycling" preferable to "biking".
  •  Done
• The Key table needs row and column scope per MOS:DTT.
  •  Doing...
• As does the main Stations table.
  •  Doing...
• The Stations table appears to be initially ordered alphabetically, with the numbered streets rising: 18th, 27th, 55th etc. However, if you sort by Station, it orders differently. I feel this needs to be fixed so that the sort order is the same as the initial order.
  •  Doing...
• I feel Hegewisch station's fare zone could do with a note, given how different it is.
  •  Doing...
• Make "Info" an unsortable column.
  •  Doing...
• Ref #5 has "Metra" in italics, while all other do not. Ref #7 has "metrarail.com". Be consistent.
  •  Done
• Another consistent issue with the date formats in the references; as this is a US article, use MMM DD, YYYY throughout. Much as it pains me.
  •  Done
• My biggest issue with this list is whether it meets the verifiability criteria. The article is largely based on Metra's own information; eight of the twelve references are Metra, and three of those four are only sourcing the Former stations table. WP:V asks us to "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I'm not sure I'm happy that this list does that at the moment.
  • Not really sure how I can address this beyond trying to replace some Metra sources about its history with maybe newspaper articles (such as about the opening of the North Central Service in 1996). Beyond that I'm not sure how to address that one. Sorry.

Harrias ^talk 21:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Director note – The nominator hasn't edited in a couple of weeks, and there are still unresolved issues to address. If we don't see some activity soon, this FLC will need to be archived as unsuccessful. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the wait, I will get to it as soon as I can, I'm a bit bogged down IRL at the moment. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 19 November 2017 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Optimistic Wikipedian (talk) ~ 08:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every major promotion (especially WWE) is detailed accurately and is sourced appropriately. It is also a significant improvement over its predecessor. Please feel free to give your opinion and state why/why not this should be a featured list. Thanks.

• Comment - This probably should have been brought to peer review first. I've just scanned the article, but a few things stood out to me. The lead needs to be fleshed out per WP:LEAD, a lot of the article lacks sources, and there are some MOS problems. For example, per WP:HEADER, headings should not be wikilinked. AAA's title matches section is blank. Nikki♥311 13:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - 2017 is not over and this is not even updated through November 2017. Not FL level at present.  MPJ-DK  18:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Here's the big catch; when you say "every major pro wrestling promotion", you put the most well known promotions from the US, Japan and Mexico. But what about the the other promotions across those countires and the rest of the world? Nickag989^talk 20:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - one-sentence lead, WWE title matches are completely unsourced, and CMLL anniversary show is still showing as TBC even though it took place nearly two months ago. That's enough for me to oppose, I'm afraid.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Too many problems for me as well. Wait until 2017 is over then give it another shot. But I agree that this should've been brought to peer review first. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, premature. --PresN 19:51, 9 November 2017 (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.