Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/September 2006

1. Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
2. Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
   • Useful: Summarieses information from 25 seperate aritcles, and allows visitors to easily compare results from successive general elections
   • Comprehensive: Covers every general election
   • Factually accurate: can be verified via Elections Saskatchewan
   • Stable: Will be only be updated every four years or so
   • Well-organised: Easy to find any required information
3. Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes of any kind, ever
4. Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
5. Images: Sole image has approriate copyright status

Tompw 14:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is the list in reverse historical order? Rmhermen 23:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, because all the other lists of provincial general elections are in that order. Secondly, because then the most recent (and therefore the ones most visitors will be interetsed in) will be at the top. You can argue it either way. Tompw 10:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this order. Normally, one will expect a list in chronoligical order, which is adopted in practically all articles. Check these FLs. CG 17:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Normally" and "practically all" do not mean "always" and "all". I fully agree that chronological order is and should be the norm. However, for a list of this type, I strongly feel that it is better to be reverse chronological order. Further, the Featured list criteria state only that the list be "easy to navigate" (which is undeniably is). Tompw 19:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also: if you look at the election results for any given seat or riding, then the results are almost always given in reverse chronological order. Tompw 13:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: You've got the makings of a good article, and you've obviously put quite a bit of time into this, but I don't think it's quite there yet.

1. You need to link to the political parties (past and present).
2. Information on how the number of seats is determined (population?) would be useful (at least as a link).
3. I think that the graph would be better if the total number of seats contested was also represented.
4. The links to the indiviudal elections are somewhat hidden. I'd move the links to the year and probably delete the number column.
5. I would rename the columns "Year" to "Year of election" (increasing its prominence) and "Total" to "Total number of seats" or "Number of seats" or similar.
6. I'd also delete the Social Credit and Indpendent columns and include them all in the Other column. The Independent Liberal and Independent Pro-Goverment should probably also be included in the Other column.
7. Are the Progressive Conservatives, and the Provincial Rights party just the modern Conservative party under a different name? They could probably do with articles, or links if the articles are already there. If they're fundamentally the same party (like the British Tories and the modern Conservatives- see history) then I think you're fine including them together. If they're simply right-wing parties, I think you might have to separate them out.

Sorry for the length of this, but I think these changes will make the article better! (Oh, and I much prefer such lists in reverse historical order!) --G Rutter 11:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK... in order (I made your bullets numbered ones for ease of reference):

1. Done
2. I don't know how's its determined, and have been unable to find a definitive source for this.
3. How about something like this? (done before some of the party changes had been made)
4. Done
5. Done
6. Agree with Social Credit... but I feel there is a fundamental difference between independent candidates and those from misc. parties, so they should go in seperate columns. With regard to the Ind. Lib. and Ind. Pro-Gov.... I put them in the Liberal column, as that reflects the number of MLA's the party had who would support its views.
7. No they are not... good point. I've moved the Provnicial Rights into the "other" column

Thanks for the suggestions and comments. :-) Tompw 13:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support. Sorry for the delay! I like what you've done (and I had a small tidy myself- you needed more links to the important concepts and parties in the introduction). When you've changed the image to an updated version of SK2 then feel free to remove the "conditional"! If they exist, links to things like the Farmer-Labour party and to a history of the legislature would also be useful, but not essential. --G Rutter 18:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please present your source more prominently, preferably formated using {{cite web}}. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I prefer the new graph, and also would prefer chronological order too. I agree that the sourcing needs to be more explicit - in particular, there is no references section, and only one source is given - are no other sources relevant? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The source which is given (to the Elections Saskatchewan website) is sufficient to verify all the information given in the article. I hardly it is worth having a references section for one source. Tompw 15:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article a few months ago and over the past few months I have been worked on bringing it up to featured list standards. Several other users have also made valuable contributions to the list and offered insights on how to make the list better, most notably Rnt20 and AppleRaven. I now believe that the list meets all of the featured list criteria as follows:

• 1. Wikipedia’s best work. The list is unique. In all of my research over the past few months, nowhere on the internet or in print have I found a list of observatories nearly as comprehensive as this one.
• 2. Comprehensive and Accurate. Obviously it would be impossible to include every single observatory on the planet. I have attempted to include all notable observatories in the list. If there are any that I have forgotten please let me know or add them to the list. There are also very few red links, only about 20 out of more than 300 observatories in the list.
• 3. Uncontroversial. There is really nothing controversial about the subject covered here. I have included a few references for the information in the lead. I feel this is sufficient but I can try to add more if other users disagree.
• 4. Lead. The lead is fairly brief but covers some basic information relevant to the list and explains the advantages and disadvantages of different types of observatories.
• 5. Images. I have included images at the top of the subsection where possible. I checked the copyright status of all of these images about 2 weeks ago and replaced or removed the images with questionable copyright tags.

I should also note that this is the first time I have ever nominated anything for featured status so if I have done anything incorrectly, please let me know. --Nebular110 01:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very large and surprisingly allmost complete list. I would enjoy a larger pic in the intro tho. Joe I 11:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded the VLT and Hubble pictures in the lead to 400 and 200 pixels respectively. --Nebular110 15:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't think the lead is too short but would like to see Cheomseongdae removed (perhaps we need a page on ancient observatories). Also I would like to see satellite observatories indicated in some way - italics, different color box? Perhaps another column showing the type of observatory - radio, solar, etc. Rmhermen 15:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: Indicating satellite observatories is a good idea. I'm thinking that italics might be a little too subtle so making the box a different color is probably the way to go. Do you think the same light blue used in the headers would make things confusing or would it be better to go with a light gray color or something like that? As far as another column indicating the type of observatory, I've considered this. However, the vast majority of observatories on the list are optical while others can observe in many areas of the electromagnetic spectrum so this could become quite cumbersome very quickly. I guess I would say that I am opposed to this unless anyone is very adamant that it be included, then I would be willing to add it. --Nebular110 15:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re:Respond: Another color for satellites would be good. I would suggest grey or brown, but not the same as the headers. Rmhermen 23:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The list is missing a couple observatories in Mexico. There is one in Mexico City (which used to be the National Observatory, IIRC) and another one in the Baja California peninsula which belongs to the National University. The list needs an "incomplete list" disclaimer as well as an explanation of why the establishment date is not provided for every item in the list. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the National Astronomical Observatory of Mexico and Tacubaya Observatory as well as an incomplete list tag at the bottom of the list. I believe those were the two observatories you were talking about. Tacubaya used to be the national observatory back in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Tacubaya does not yet have its own article so that is a red link right now while I linked the National Observatory to the paragraph in the UNAM article regarding the observatory. As for the establishment dates, I have unfortunately not been able to find reliable dates for many of the observatories, especially many of the smaller ones owned by astronomical societies in the U.S. While I am working on inserting dates for as many as possible, I would much rather have no date at all than a potentially incorrect one. At some time over the past few months, I have confirmed all of the dates currently in the article using primary sources. --Nebular110 21:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, those are the two. Thank you for addressing my points, my only question now is whether the list itself was compiled from the Astronomy Today article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the Astronomy Today article". If you are talking about the Astronomy Today listed under the references, then the answer is no. Astronomy Today is the basic college astronomy textbook used these days, I just used it as a reference for some of the basic info in the lead. The list itself was not compiled from any one source. Like I said in the nomination, during all of the research that I did in order to compose the list, I did not find any lists observatories anywhere near as comprehensive as this one. I haven't kept track but if I had to guess, I would say I used about 30-40 different webpages, magazines, and books in order to try and make this as complete as possible. --Nebular110 06:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah! My bad, I incorrectly assumed "Astronomy Today" was some sort of journal or magazine from the title (ahem, we chemists tend to give our textbooks more prosaic titles like "Inorganic Chemistry"). Anyway, I won't pester you more with my nonsense, further concerns are raised by ALoan below. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This could be an excellent list, but I am sorry to say that the scope and focus of this list seem a little poorly determined to me. This seems to be a list of places that have been observatories at some point in time, not necessarily still now. You mention Royal Observatory, Greenwich at Greenwich, but don't mention the sites where it was also based, in Herstmonceux from 1957 and Cambridge from 1990, before its demise in 1998. It would be good to add dates when they closed, where applicable. I see you have historical observatories, such as Beijing Ancient Observatory and Uraniborg, but what about other Arab, Indian, Chinese, East Asian, Mesoamerican observatories - Jantar Mantar, Yantra Mandir, Cheomseongdae and many others like Maragha without specific articles? I see that Observatory says that NASA's list of five oldest observatories goes: Abu Simbel, Stonehenge, Angkor Wat, Kokino, Goseck. Also, this list has a {{listdev}} template, so how can we say that this is "comprehensive"? What criterion was used for inclusion? Is there a source that verifies that this list includes all "notable" observatories? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments, you bring up some good points. I like the idea of including a closing date for the defunct observatories. I don't have time to work on this much today but I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Regarding the inclusion of historical and ancient observatories, I have only included those where the astronomical purpose of the structure is more or less undisputed. That is why Beijing and Uraniborg are included while Cheomseongdae and Stonehenge are not (Cheomseongdae was actually in the list until a few days ago when I removed based upon this fact and a suggestion from another reviewer). Based on my research on these two sites, there still seems to be some dispute in the historical and archeological community as to whether these were used for observations and measurements of the night sky or for some other function therefore I did not feel as though they merited inclusion in the list.
    As for NASA's list, I find it somewhat confusing. The articles on Abu Simbel and Angkor Wat (which is a featured article) say nothing about either being used as an observatory. I will work on adding the other two, Kokino and Goseck, to the list. I will also add Jantar Mantar and Yantra Mandir shortly, I was aware of these and thought I had added them previously but apparently I had not.
    Lastly, regarding the comprehensiveness of the list. In my opinion, there is a difference between "comprehensive" and "complete". This list is obviously not complete. It would be impossible and impractical to include every single observatory in the world in this list. For example, one of my neighbors has his own observatory in his backyard. If we were composing a "complete" list of observatories then we would need to include his observatory. However, other than the fact that he has two very nice telescopes, there is nothing notable about his observatory and thus a Wikipedia article about it would fail WP:N. The {{listdev}} template is meant to imply that the list should not be taken as a complete list of observatories but rather a list of those that have some kind of historical or scientific significance and are thus worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I do not know of any source that can confirm the notability of certain observatories. "Notable" is a classification that is based upon personal opinion. Something that is "notable" to me might be insignificant to you and vice versa. However, as I mentioned in the nomination, I can say with confidence that this list is far more comprehensive that any other list of observatories that I have found anywhere on the internet or in print hence this nomination. --Nebular110 19:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The idea of adding closing dates for observatories is a good one, though that date is not always an easy one to define. Is it the date it was last used, last used professionally, last publication, torn down, renovated, etc. One example is Smith Observatory of Beloit College in Beloit, Wisconsin. The observatory was "abandoned" more or less in the 1950's and turned into a coffee house in 1967, then finally torn down in 1968. What would be the closure date? May I suggest an "active" column instead? in which we could place a check or x or something? AppleRaven 02:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • An easier solution might be to utilize the placing of the word "defunct" or "closed" after the name of the observatories that are no longer in operation. This strategy has already been used in a few situations near the top of the list but is not standard all the way through. The vast majority of these observatories are still in operation, it seems to me that this could convey the same information while avoiding the task of creating an entirely new column which could cause some formatting issues. In my opinion, the most logical closure date would be the year that the institution ceased functioning as an astronomical observatory, in the case of Smith Observatory, the 1950's. Once an observatory becomes a coffee house or begins to be utilized for some other purpose, it is no longer relevent to the context of this list. Any thoughts on this? --Nebular110 04:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially a self-nomination; I feel that this article fulills all requirements of a featured list. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 15:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose mainly due to copyright concerns. This list is in danger of being an AfD. See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Non-creative_works and User:Dragons flight/Evil looking lists. There are no references. Further, a list published in an edition of a weekly magazine isn't notable in itself – unless it stirred up an awful lot of outside interest, for which you'd have to be able to quote sources. Colin°^Talk 19:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have to second this oppose. The copyright status of this list is an actual concern. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose NPOV issues, even if it is sourced. (Not that I disagree with them.. but it's still not a neutral point of view) -- Ned Scott 21:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partial self-nomination. This article, in my opinion, meets all of the criteria needed for a featured list. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 15:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose NPOV issues, even if it is sourced. (Not that I disagree with them.. but it's still not a neutral point of view) -- Ned Scott 21:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per copyright concerns. See Wikipedia:Public_domain#Non-creative_works. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me first say that I am completely aware of the red-links problems that this list has, and I am (slowly) doing my best to deal with them, short of de-linking all of them (which I think would be unfair to both the list and the readers). If that dooms this FLC to failure, so be it. However, my peer review for this list got absolutely NO comments whatsoever, excepting some generally inapplicable ones by the automated suggestion bot. So I'd rather see some real critique now from interested editors, despite the likely failure of the candidacy. Many thanks in advance for your comments, Girolamo Savonarola 22:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - As Girolamo mentions there is a large porportion of red links on this list and it was something I mentioned on the first peer review even before it was put on the main namespace. Despite this I feel it is a unique and comprehensive list and that the red links are forgivable for such a specialised subject. I suspect however that I may be in the minority on this :o) CheekyMonkey 22:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is there any way to collapse the reference: 1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ? Perhaps using the older citation technique? Rmhermen 23:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I believe that was caused by a recent editor who decided to repeat the header row at regular intervals within the table. I didn't really think much of it one way or another, but do you think that I should revert it to the original state (identical header and footer rows only) or just drop the reference link on all but the top and bottom copies? Girolamo Savonarola 00:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't like to see the headers removed. Linking only the first and last might be a good choice but I think the old Wikipedia:Footnote3 method would work while keeping all the links. I think there may also be another way of doing this that I can't remember. Rmhermen 15:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - too many red links, improperly formated references, too short lead, too technical. Renata 01:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Too technical? As in, "could you please delete some of that"? Girolamo Savonarola 06:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  No, as in "could you please explain some of that." Renata 11:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me elaborate because it would not be fair not to. Don't get me wrong from the very short comment above. I do think the list is very interesting and is very well suited for FL. I just can image how much time you had to spend on it. On red links part: I could ignore that if everything else is spotless. On references: I am not talking about the first footnote that goes from a to ab (I don't really see problem there). I am talking about all the external links (from "Adventures in Cybersound" down) - try using {{cite web}}. The last two points come together. As I am completely unfamiliar with the topic, I am completely lost: what are you talking about. The lead could explain what it is about, what's film format, why there are so many of them, if there is some sort of historical trend, or something else so that I could look at the table and know what I am looking at. Renata 12:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Please use cite web for website references. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did use of the cite templates (or indeed any other style of reference) become mandatory? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object This looks like an impressive piece of work. I think it will become an FL although not necessarily on this round. Yes, the redlinks are a problem. Please continue creating stubs for them. Also the website links list, while extensive, runs the risk of being called linkspam. As a previous comment suggested, please add line citations where appropriate if using these sites as references. More line citations in general would be a good thing. Keep plugging away: this is a superb list in progress. Durova 02:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the whole "too many red links" has been discussed to death in the past. I don't see how a stub that says "this is a film format" is any better than a red link. That being said, if the list is linking to as much wiki info as it can (within reason) then it's doing it's job, red links or not. Although, maybe to make the others happy you could link to "parent" articles of some sort, like the company who made that film format, so the reader will at least have some info to start from (and the info might be on those articles, and simply not their own stand-alone article). -- Ned Scott 21:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this list is worthy of featured status. It is comprehensive and stable. Joelito (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Some of the pictures overlap and make part of their section's accociated table hard to read. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At what resolution? 800 x 600? Joelito (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Yes, in Firefox (IE just creates blank space). Otherwise it looks good at 1024 x 728. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support upon fixing the overlapping problem. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Don't have time to review this (off on holiday :-). I thought it was discouraged to specify dimensions of thumbnails (the "200px") but to leave the setting to the viewer prefs. That way, people with smaller screens can choose smaller thumbnails, which may interfere less with the tables. There is a difference between IE and Firefox. The later has the table overlapped by the picutre if the window width isn't big. IE handles it better. Pehaps you can look at other "Lists of" with pictures and see how they handled this? Colin°^Talk 13:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed thumb sizes. Image size will follow user's preferences. Joelito (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object As with every other bird list, massive pics in small sections create huge gaps in the text. Either resize the pics, or resize the text, but you can't have full screen legnths blank between sections. This problem seems to be on every bird list, and I have made this same objection on every birdlist FLC. To people who make bird lists: Your lists are good, but format the picturees before you nominate any more lists on FLC Tobyk777 06:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What masive pictures? Picture size are set by user preferences in this list. My suggestion is that you change your pic preferences. Joelito (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you telling me you don't see the huge blank spaces that ocupy more than half of this page? Tobyk777 00:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't see the blank spaces... Spawn Man 08:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a known issue with Internet Explorer, and can't really be fixed. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

previous FLC (21:54, 13 October 2008)