Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/September 2007

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 1 support, 4 oppose. Fail. Crzycheetah 23:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: It's nominated for both FLC and FAC because I'm not sure if it's an article or a list. please discuss both options here as both FAC and FLC discussions link/redirect here. —Markles Also note: I'm not trying to "fight" for Featured status for this article. I nominated this article to make it the best possible article it can be.—Markles 15:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidacy

Support. It's been through a lot of edits (by more people than just me). If it's not good enough for "Featured" status, then we need suggestions on how to improve it so it IS good enough.

List or Article

It's quite clearly a list Raul654 17:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you're right. However, it's a bit prosy at the beginning before it gets to the monotony of the lists. Is there a good standard that differentiates the two?—Markles 17:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• List. Suggest removal from FAC. (Please sign your entries.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a list

• Oppose This is not quite stable enough in my opinion for criterion 1(e), and can become outdated far too easily. It's practically an ongoing event until the next elections! There are also issues with presentation (wildly different from a section to the other), forking (duplicates in part Current members of the United States Congress) and structure (huge table of content). Circeus 04:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are few (if any) edit wars. It does not change daily. It only changes when: new significant legislation is enacted or membership changes. Otherwise, it changes only when reviewers improve it as per criterion 1(e). Is that too unstable? It is an ongoing event but that doesn't mean it's unstable does it?—Markles 15:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This article is far far away a featured one should be!--Hadrianos1990 11:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you tell me why?—Markles 15:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I can't get beyond the opening few words, which are inconsistent with the article name. Either amend them or move the article. --Dweller 14:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you mean. It says, "The One Hundred Tenth United States Congress is the current meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, comprised of the Senate and the House of Representatives." Can you tell me where the inconsistency is? I'm really just trying to do everything I can to make this a top-notch article.—Markles 15:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I was vague. 110th vs The One Hundred Tenth is the inconsistency. --Dweller 18:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an unfair criticism I think, since we often use the 'colloquial' title in the name, and the official one in text. --Golbez 23:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do? Even if you're right, it seems a bit pointless - and it looks silly to have an inconsistency in the very first words of an article. --Dweller 00:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've spent much of the last half hour or so flicking through a bunch of FAs and current FA candidates. Inconsistent names are normally used either where the article name includes disambiguation, or where abbreviation has been used. This is neither. I can't see any good reason to do anything other than stick to the official nomenclature. --Dweller 00:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, too unstable. The list of major legislation alone will almost certainly change, as will the membership. This is not like a list of governors or presidents, those change once every four years. This could change every two weeks depending on what events happen. Will support nomination in January 2009, however. (get back to me then :)) However, if you want some actionable criticisms: 1) I think more needs to be said about the Democrat takeover, especially considering the context of the War and the 2004 Republican hold; 2) Events is a bit sparse, even if the congress is only 9 months old; 3) no explanation of the blue shaded boxes is given, and I'm not sure it's needed; 4) However, I do like listing the affiliations for each time period. --Golbez 00:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What if I/we nominated its predecessor, 109th United States Congress, instead?—Markles 17:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it were brought up to the standards of the 110th, I'd look at it. As it is, it's pretty bare-bones. --Golbez 19:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have made many improvements and I've now nominated 109th United States Congress for FL. Please comment there. —Markles 23:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with everything above. Wait until this session (is that what it's called? I'm not even sure) is over and done with. I would also suggest nominating previous congress articles, and 109 would be as good an article as any. Drewcifer 21:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15 days, 1 support, 1 oppose. There were also several concerns marked as a comment. Fail. Crzycheetah 23:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent a lot of time transforming this list disorganized list full of redlinks into a proper episode list. I have reviewed all other featured episode lists and feel that this one complies with the standards set out by those lists (including the acceptability of redlinks for directors/writers and the lack of episode summaries for series with many episodes). Having said that, I am very willing to implement any suggestions, as I hope I have proven by my work on the article so far. This diff shows the transformation of the article, all of which save for two small edits were mine. Also, I submitted the list for peer review, with minimal results. Cheers, CP 17:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like "bundyology" is a fansite, and generally using fansites as a primary source is discouraged. As well, IMDB usually isn't useable as a source in featured content. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I suppose it may be considered a fan site, but it's been up on the internet since 1997 and it's the largest collection of Bundy production information on the internet, which means that some information may be impossible to find anywhere else. Having said that, I will try to replace as many of the references as possible with non-Bundyology ones in the next day or so and will update on my progress. I have removed the IMDb reference and used TV Guide to cite that fact instead, so that should no longer be an issue. Also, the episode names, directors, writers and airdates are not taken from Bundyology (unless otherwise noted), but from the cites in the "external links" section. Should I move these ones up to "references" to make this clear? Cheers, CP 18:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should be moved. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progress update... well there is none. It's difficult to find any of this stuff on non-fansites and, as predicted, most of it isn't available aside from Bundyology or IMDb. I can't even find a reference to her failed pregnancy on a non-fan site (not surprisingly, her own site doesn't discuss this, and even on Katey Sagal, it's an unsourced fact. Then again, maybe I'm misinterpreting what a fan site is... Cheers, CP 02:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the problem, I edit a lot of Simpsons articles, and it really is a pain that I can't use some of the best fansites, like The Simpsons Archive, which qualifies for its own Wikipedia page. I still have some problems with the sourcing. TV.com and epguides.com usually aren't considered good enough for featured quality pages, so that eaves thye TV guide ref, and it seems to only have titles and brief outlines (unless I'm missing something). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — While not every FL list of episodes is yet to use the {{episode list}} template, it would be good to get it in use here. Beyond that, it looks well-done. Cliff smith 20:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose The episodes themselves are in superstub class, but apparently it doesn't matter anymore.

The issue of whether all the items on the list need their own articles has been discussed already on this page. I do agree that with four exceptions, most of the episodes should probably be deleted. Cheers, CP 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Where are the individual descriptions of episodes? Is it out of fashion, too? Are we trying to decrease the quality of our LoEs now?

Series with large amounts of episodes (see List of The Simpsons episodes and List of Shin Lupin III episodes) don't have individual episode summaries in order to avoid the page from becoming excessively large (at least I think that's the reason). Cheers, CP 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and for that reason the examples you mentioned contain individual articles of each season where the descriptions are present. I don't see any "Season" articles here.--Crzycheetah 22:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I am willing to add episode summaries to every single episode (or do a page for each season) BUT I'm not going to waste my time doing it if Scorpion0422 is right and the sources will prevent this article from rising to FLC anyways. So consider the objection being actively addressed, unless something else will fail it anyways. Cheers, CP 22:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. The coloring of each season is in an awful condition right now. Black font on dark colors looks like...hmm, I just can't see it.

I suppose I could change it, but the chosen colors are representative of the colours of the DVD box banners (where there's a DVD) or light grey (symbolic for Al's depression? I have no idea what I was thinking). If there are suggestions, however, I am willing to implement them. Cheers, CP 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to use lighter colors and use different colors for each season.--Crzycheetah 22:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Is there any particular colours I should use or should I just pick them at my discretion? Cheers, CP 22:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Get rid of all red links for the writers and directors. They're just not notable enough to have an article anyway.

I left the redlinks in for the sake of consistency in linking the first instances of everyone's name (see List of RahXephon media), but if other reviewers agree, I'd be glad to remove them. Cheers, CP 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. "The Complete Seventh Season" or "Season 8"? Pick one version and go with it.

 Done Cheers, CP 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I suggest to withdraw this nomination because I highly doubt you can add the descriptions during the next ten days. --Crzycheetah 21:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still support this article, but I do understand yours and especially Scorpion0422's concerns. There's only one day left, I might as well let it run its course. Cheers, CP 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 0 support, 3 oppose. No attempts to meet the opposition. Fail. Crzycheetah 17:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This page was created by Mike40033 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 12 September 2007
• Comment: You should leave some kind of comment about the FLC. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It-burns-my-eyes oppose
  • Far too jargonic to be understandable for most people, even those with more mathematical knowledge (heck, I got most of Polar coordinates at FAC, but this has me utterly stumped). The lead fails to even give a readable layman definition of polytope.
  • Overgrown table of Content
  • Too many redlinks in the larger tables
  • See also section bloated with unnecessary links.
  • Unbolded lead topic
• And so on. Circeus 21:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For all of the reasons above. It also doesn't help that there are no individual citations at all. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, since there is no other reason to have entries be cited individually here (unlike e.g. the lists of LGBT people), we have a firmly established precedent that general citations are fine for lists (and they have the advantage of being more manageable for use: see Discoveries of the chemical elements). Circeus 16:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Very jargonistic, but to a certain extent I can understand a list like this being a little dense. A bit more layman explanations would go along way. Also, the lead is really choppy and full of one-sentence paragraphs. Drewcifer 19:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 2 support, 2 oppose. No consensus, or active discussions. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good list which is well developed and sourced with information about the topic being described. Tarret^talk 15:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: None of the shorts have their own pages and you need a source for all of the individual episodes. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think any of the shorts should have their own pages and that doesn't mean that this can't be a great list. There is a source for all the facts. It is in Richmond pp. 14-15 as written in the references section. --Maitch 16:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's part of the FL criteria: 1a1 - brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria. I personally dislike that one, but oh well. And each episode should have it's own individual citation because there are descriptions. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, a one-minute short shouldn't have a page of its own. If that makes it fail FLC, then it has to be that way. --Maitch 16:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The shorts not having pages doesn't matter and isn't required to make a good episode list. Gran² 16:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oppose as well; heck yes it matters. 1a1 is probably the most important criterion. The list has to bring together a series of articles. As mentioned, the shorts aren't notable enough for their own, so it will have to remain unfeatured. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 21:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Perhaps if we could expand the production info on the page, we couldtry getting it to GA status, like Smallville (season 1). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if I'm not horribly mistaken, the third possible criteria for 1a is "contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles." I believe this is an honest mistake by the above, as there are plenty of featured lists that use this criterion to satisfy 1a. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sephiroth is quite right. Opposing on that basis is a simple misreading of the criteria.--Pharos 00:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe so, but would you consider a list of 2 minute shorts to be a "significant topic of study"? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't honestly know how this information should be treated (if at all), but the current situation is certainly better than each one having it's own article! :)--Pharos 01:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Golbez 00:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, 2 support, 2 oppose. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the page is modeled after the recently promoted Hart Memorial Trophy and is fully sourced.

In what may prove to be a controversial move, I have decided to only list the actual winners of the trophy and not the goal scoring leaders prior to the trophies creation, although the Art Ross Trophy (awarded to the NHL points leader) lists the pre-trophy "winners". My reasoning is that in the case of the Art Ross, both NHL.com and Legendsofhockey.net list all of the points scoring leaders in the history of the NHL. However, neither source lists every goal scoring leader in the case of the Richard Trophy. A version of what the list looked like WITH every goal scoring leader can be found here.

Any concerns that are brought up will be addressed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I think it looks fine. I like the historical background given for the trophy and the table is easy to read. ludahai 魯大海 04:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per tiny lead. Renata 05:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded the lead and it is now about the same length as the one for Hart Memorial Trophy, which is an FL. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, somebody should have opposed/commented on that one too. They both currently fail WP:LEAD. BTW, since this is the only article on the trophy, it should have more background stuff on it (history section is rather stubby). Renata 14:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would love to add a long and detailed history section to every trophy page, but we can only add what the sources say we can add. Besides, I think MOST of the essential information is covered and I can't really think of anything vital that is missing.
      • As for the lead, I added a bit about the current winner. Do you have any other suggestions as to how I could expand the lead? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The whole list is too short to be featured.--Crzycheetah 21:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table in List of current champions in WWE only has 9 rows, this one has 11. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, I didn't check the List of current champions in WWE during its nomination (there are several concerns there). Second, I meant the whole article(or page) not just the table. This article's size is less than six KiB and that's just too small.--Crzycheetah 22:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly, I am concerned about all of these trophy pages that were recently nominated. These are just lists of recipients of those trophies. There needs to be information about the trophies. Sevearal suggestions: who that guy on the trophy is(I know it's safe to assume that it's Maurice 'Rocket' Richard, but the addition is not redundant), what material was used to create this trophy, overall look description, who designed it. Where did the Montreal Canadiens get this trophy from? I wouldn't be so worried if this page was named List of recipients of Maurice 'Rocket' Richard Trophy. I would even overlook the size of this page and support. --Crzycheetah 23:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can only add what the sources allow and unfortunately, there isn't much out there. Splitting the winners from the main trophy pages would make them stubs. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have readded the list of goal scoring leaders prior to the creation of the trophy.

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 14 days, 3 support, 1 oppose. No consensus. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this meets the criteria: it's very useful (I've used it a few times :-)), is well-organized, is properly sourced, and it explains everything fairly well. There are no images, but I don't think any are necessary. IMO, it is one of the best lists around, so here we go. --Boricuaeddie 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Excellent article, I must say. I'm sure I'll be referencing it all the time now! A few suggestions:

• The References section should give more than just the titles (ie stuff like publisher, date, etc. See WP:CITE)

 Done --Boricuaeddie 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Notes section and References sections should be swapped (Notes first, then References).

 Done --Boricuaeddie 23:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the entries provide a useful explanation/example, but few of the entries don't (Hay/Straw, Reign/Rein).

 Not done I can't seem to find examples for those. Should I remove them? --Boricuaeddie 23:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say remove them. But it couldn't be that hard to just make up some examples, right?

It is for me. I don't think they should be removed; this isn't a "List of commonly misused English language phrases and examples of their use" :-) --Boricuaeddie 18:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd recommend swapping the first and second PARAGRAPHS around. (edit: I accidentally wrote sentences instead of paragraphs. I've fixed it. Drewcifer)

 Done Not sure why it was that way in the first place :-) --Boricuaeddie 23:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The introduction should be referenced a bit, since that's the only non-list part of the article.

Comment: I removed some info for which I could not find references. Is that enough? --Boricuaeddie 03:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly better, but FA standards to require most statements of fact to be referenced. For example, the following sentences would need citations:

"It is possible that some of the meanings marked Non-standard will pass into Standard English in the future, but at this time all of the following Non-standard phrases are likely to be marked as incorrect by English teachers or changed by editors if used in a work submitted for publication."

"The words listed below are consistently used in ways that major English dictionaries do not condone in any definition."

"There may be regional variations in grammar, spelling and word-use, especially between different English-speaking countries."

"Such differences are not seen as incorrect once they have gained widespread acceptance in a particular country."Drewcifer 18:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much it. Drewcifer 06:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support - This could become a strong support with a few things. Inline citations are paradigm, and particularly the items in the list. I know that you're making reference to a handful of sources, but I'd like to know which item refers to which reference. Another matter, and this is more a matter of preference based on discussion, I'd say: are these really "frequently" misused English words? I would rename it as "commonly", rather. Another matter is that some of these are not words so much as misused grammar. I think perhaps that a more suitable title would be "List of common English language grammatical errors", or something to that effect. I just don't think the title is directly accurate of the content of the page. One last thing is that you draw reference to "venal" and "venial" with two examples of use of "venial", though with none for "venal". Maybe one for "Venal" would be appropriate to compensate? Other than these minor gripes (and my agreement with drewcifer's items), I'm a support vote, but still weak support for now. --linca^linca 10:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse the idea of changing the name, but not to "grammatical errors", as the mistakes are not solely grammatical. Maybe "List of commonly misused English words"? --Boricuaeddie 00:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about "List of commonly misused English language phrases"? I think it's implicit taht we use the term "language" as we're not referring to the country, and it's quite susceptible to be perceived as such. Further, I believe "phrase" rather than word is appropriate, as some are not incorrect uses of the words themselves, rather the context of the words used around them (i.e. at times, the other words cause the phrasing issues, rather than the word itself, especially in the case of words lie "I, me, myself" etc). linca^linca 02:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that's fine. Do I move it now, or do I wait for others to post their opinions? --Boricuaeddie 02:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you agree with the suggestion, then go for it. If you adress that and my other concerns, I'll convert to strong support for it. linca^linca 06:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done. Page moved. --Boricuaeddie 16:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- thanks for your input. I'm working on addressing your concerns :-) --Boricuaeddie 20:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think that it should give the origins of the misuses. If most of the misuses have the same general origin (eg similar spelling) then that should be mentioned and the misuses that have a different origin from this (eg meaning divergence, similar sound) should be mentioned somewhere. The sentence about homonyms in the lead appears to do this, but not all examples are homonyms. For example, I heard somewhere that lie/lay is due to someone deciding that one is always intransitive, while the other is always transitive. Basically, the causes of the misuses should be given. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you find references for such claims? --Boricuaeddie 22:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - I love the list and will use it with some of my students. Other than some of the comments that have already been mentioned, I would recommend a further proofreading for typos. I did notice one in the "comprise" entry, but there could be others. ludahai 魯大海 14:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, Word didn't find anything wrong in the compromise entry, and it's hard for it to find others, as some are incorrectly written on purpose. Could you be bold and fix some yourself? --Boricuaeddie 18:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Maybe I'm missing something, but where are the objective criteria these examples were chosen on?--Pharos 03:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you advise how objective criteria can be defined? With a listing like this, it's a matter of "commonness". SHould it become definitive, then it could be defined, but language matters are fickle, to say the least. There may be many items of misuse that are not identified here as they've been identified or considered as too trivial, however the ones used herein are common mispractices. According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and we need to be careful not to be indiscriminate and allow any obscure misuse to be listed and only indicate those as described in the title as being "commonly misused" (which was previoudly "frequently misused"). linca^linca 06:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Firstly, the list should be moved back to "... of words" since it is a list of words. A list of commonly misused phrases would include "begs the question" and other phrases. The examples could be considered original research. The definitions are also on dangerous ground: too close to the source and it is plagiarism, to far and it is original research. It fails WIAFL 1a1 since it (with a couple of exceptions) doesn't link to articles. Instead it links to Wiktionary definitions. In addition, the entry criteria are vague. Who determined these are "consistently misused"? What is a "major English dictionary"? The issue of international differences is fudged. It fails 1b (comprehensive) since I can easily find a missing misused word pair: "which/that". It fails 1c due to the lack of inline citations that are essential for dynamic lists. The lead needs some serious copyediting attention (which is ironic since this list concerns careful English). Some examples of poor, unprofessional or discouraged (on WP) phrases are "meant to include", "so-called", "it is possible that", "at this time", "are likely to be", "words which". The lead discusses "usage writers" and "dictionaries". They can't be treated as equivalent arbiters of English usage. Many dictionaries see their purpose as documenting current usage rather than traditional usage. As such, they will be far more liberal in accepting "poor usage" than someone writing a style guide. This may be a useful resource, but I'm not convinced it belongs on WP. Colin°^Talk 13:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a debate a long time ago to see if it was appropriate for Wikipedia; it was determined that it was. The other points, I'll do my best to fix them. --Boricuæddie 20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Nomination Withdrawn. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:CHICOTW has been cleaning this article up in hopes that it might be positively reviewed by the October 7 2007 race date. It has a lot of text and a lot of list content. I hope the abundant text does not diminish it eligibility.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose Sorry, but this is not a list. It's an article with a section that happens to be a list. Compare Boston Marathon and List of winners of the Boston Marathon (although the main article could use a shortened "winners" section, you get the point). For a more extreme example, see the "diversity" section in Plant. It boils down to "the list is not the most prominent aspect of the article". Circeus 04:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose Same reasons as above. This is not a list. Create a separate article with the list of winners. However, including a list in an article does not count. ludahai 魯大海 13:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn and renominated as List of Chicago Marathon Winners (see above)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Nomination Withdrawn. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have forked this off of the failing WP:FLC Chicago Marathon as it appears is desired.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  1. Lead is too short.
  2. Sorting does not work in the first table.
  3. Any note explaining what happened in 1987's race is needed.
  4. The second table needs some section heading.
  5. I think all names should be linked because the table is sortable and there may be an instance when the very first winner's name is unlinked. I suggest to get rid of all red links, as well.
  6. There is a List of winners of the Boston Marathon that is similar to this list, but it uses a different format for its title. It needs to be corrected.--Crzycheetah 06:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn and fork below reverted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 20 days, 1 support, 2 oppose. After 20(!) days, no consensus is reached. Fail. Crzycheetah 04:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You should leave some sort of statement about the article when you start an FLC... -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I hereby nominate Raëlian Church membership estimates for featured list status.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 00:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose
  • Lead significantly too short.
  • Too many links to the same article.
  • No complete ref for Palmer.
• Circeus 19:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two concerns have been fixed. Now I will try to expand the lead.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 20:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead has been extended.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made conditional edit to the placement of the ref tags. This can be undone.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 20:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The assumption that the Palmer and U of Virginia numbers are taken from the raëlians, although pertinent, is entirely speculative in the absence of sources. Circeus 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It appears that from your crossing out the three rather short objections you had, that you don't object to the nomination, but do not necessarily support it either. I'm sorry that this is your last comment.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 01:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My new concerns regarding original research have not been addressed. Circeus 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok. I changed the lead. Do I have to change the last column as well or is that fine?◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 03:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • For that matter, would you suggest removing the phrases in the last column that says "citing the Raelians" or "citing a Raelian"?◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 03:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I suppose that from the placement of your comment, you also mean that the other stuff has to go away. Done.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 03:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as self-nom. Issues expressed so far have been addressed.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 00:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is not to short. One article that Circeus supports is Lester B. Pearson Award which has a shorter lead.
  • The links that were many, were removed.
  • Palmer is cited.
  • The assumption that concerned Circeus has been removed.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 00:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Some one apparently added this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra%C3%ABlian_Church_membership_estimates&curid=11741974&diff=154764409&oldid=154713916

Most, if not all of these estimates originate from numbers given to journalists by representatives of the Raelian Movement during media interviews etc. Occasionally journalists will quote outdated information which would account for what appears to be a decline of thousands of members in a short period of time.

• ◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 11:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Fails 1a. Just a collection of estimates from around the world. Nor are these distinct estimates. Most are just newspaper articles repeating info they got from a press release or the church's website. So I guess it fails 1c as well. Colin°^Talk 16:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote others I give you this from Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Law_enforcement_in_British_Columbia,_2005:

How are these estimates not distinct? On the contrary, they are all distinct and mutually exclusive, as no two have the same combination of estimate, date, scope, and source. Also, there is no evidence that most of the media used the internet or a press release in order to get the numbers, that is pure speculation and WP:OR that was added by an IP. The claims relevant to the articles is that the estimates exist and who last gave the estimates, not that the estimates in of themselves are true or undeniable. That they exist is verifiable. There is no need whatsoever to prove which sources are "true" (WP:TRUTH). The article Raëlian Church membership estimates, contains the words estimates, hence estimates - no less.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list of estimates does not fail 1a. The following are examples provided by Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, and the last one is the one this article matches:

1. brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria; (OK, NOT THIS ONE)
2. is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced; (OK, NOT THIS ONE) and
3. contains a finite (YES::not infinite), complete and well-defined (YES::date, size, scope, source) set of items (YES::membership estimates) that naturally fit together (YES::date, size, scope, source) to form a significant topic of study (YES::membership estimates), and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles (YES::they are just estimates)

1c claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations.

• FIRST CLAIM Various news media have Raëlian Church membership estimates, and the statistics agree with a long-term term trend of past growth.

• SECOND CLAIM However, despite the media's efforts to provide coverage on the Raëlians, the estimates taken within a given year can vary by tens of thousands. Outliers appear when charting the dates of membership estimates.

• THIRD CLAIM In addition to the media, Susan J. Palmer, a Canadian sociologist who has studied fringe religious movements has given several estimates of the size of the movement in different years, and a member of the University of Virginia has given estimates as well.

• FOURTH CLAIM Claude Vorilhon the founder of the Raëlian Church gave the earliest estimates of the movement's size in his 1970's Raëlian books.

• Most, if not all of these estimates originate from numbers given to journalists by representatives of the Raelian Movement during media interviews etc. Occasionally journalists will quote outdated information which would account for what appears to be a decline of thousands of members in a short period of time. Struck out WP:OR.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 20:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. To address your points. You accept it fails 1a1 and 1a2, but challenge 1a3. Perhaps we are interpreting "finite" differently, but I can assure you it was intended to mean a list that had a limit or bound. There is no fixed limit to the number of estimates. Tomorrow, you may find another you hadn't spotted before. This is a dynamic list. You avoid asserting it is complete, since that would be hard to prove. In contrast, for example, a list of locks on a canal is finite and easy to determine completeness. The various estimates of Raëlian Church membership is arguably not a "significant topic of study" but I suspect you will disagree on that point.

My second argument is that they are (mostly) neither estimates nor distinct. An estimate involves someone conducting research into the numbers and publishing a figure. If several sources republish that estimate, that doesn't increase the number of estimates. Looking at a handful of the sources I can access:

• "the Raelian Movement, a group that claims 35,000 members worldwide"[1]
• "A Japan-based press official for the cult said that the group has 55,000 followers in 84 countries and that Japan has the largest number of followers at about 6,000."[2]
• "Roehr [a national priest for the U.S. chapter] said the coverage of the cloning announcements raised interest in the movement, and worldwide membership went from 55,000 to 60,000."[3]
• "the Raelian Movement said it will mobilize its more than 60,000 global followers"[4]

I could go on... Although these news sources may be RS, they are generally careful to attribute these statistics to a third party. That party, the Raelian church or its members, cannot be considered a reliable source since they are not independent. The newspapers do not give the figures authority by stating them as simple facts. Therefore we must not give them authority by stating them as simple facts. Any such "estimate" must be presented as coming from the Raelian church, not from an independent, distinct, source. I know you have a few independent estimates, but together they wouldn't make enough data to form an decent article.

I've also found at least one place where the source doesn't back up the table: The table says the estimate for Utah is 20. The source merely says "the Brunson's gather with about 20 other members in the region". The size of this region is unknown and there may be other members who choose not to meet up with "the Brunson's".

Some of the news sources don't cite the source of their information. However, I can smell regurgitated press-release data when I see it. You don't seriously suggest ReligionNewsBlog conducted its own research to estimate the "80 Raelian members in New Zealand and 60,000 worldwide".

Colin°^Talk 22:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Size

It would take some mega hardcore field work to count Raëlian membership in 80+ countries. One would have to attend at least 80 Raelian national seminars around the world, and not every Raelian even attends those. Census records are unacceptable methodology for a group that is worldwide in many different countries, and is quite small. Not every country that Raelians are in have a sophisticated infrastructure conducive to polling and sampling large numbers of people. Estimates based on brochures, online downloads of books would be insanely unreliable. When it comes to small, worldwide groups like the Raelians, it appears to me that the most reliable source would be the Raelians themselves, however unreliable they may be. This remains so as long as their criteria for membership stays the same (i.e. Raelian baptism).◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 05:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the criteria again:

1. It is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed. * (a) "Useful" means that the list covers a topic that lends itself to list format (see Wikipedia:List). For example, the list:

            1. brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria;
            2. is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced; and
            3. contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles;

Those are just examples, but the key is that it "covers a topic that lends itself to list format". That is just absolutely true, since membership estimates fit the list format perfectly. Don't tell me that it would be better off written as prose, that what it used to look like: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra%C3%ABlian_Church_membership_estimates&oldid=146575676

         * (b) "Comprehensive" means that the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject.

It is a dynamic list. That does not disqualify it. With vast inclusion of the majority of sources found on Google News, it'd be safe to say that no major decade of the moment's history has been omitted, and that for which more estimates are available have been used as sources.

         * (c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for lists with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.

As demonstrated above, the claims made in the articles lead prose are verifiable by looking at the sources themselves. That is indisputable.

         * (d) "Uncontroversial" means that the content of the list is not disputed (see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles).

As of now, there is no actual disagreement regarding the content. They are membership estimates. The sources "references" reflect the content in the list. There are no more disputes regarding the numbers matching what the list says (the "Utah" thing has been fixed).

         * (e) "Stable" means that the list is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reverts and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.

I'm the only one who does significant changes to the article. It is clearly stable.

         * (f) "Well-constructed" means that the list is easy to navigate, and is annotated with information as appropriate.

Yes, I believe it is well constructed and helps compare membership estimates according to different criteria.

  2. It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including:
         * (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the scope of the list and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;

Yes, it has a good lead.

         * (b) where appropriate, a proper system of hierarchical headings; and

It's not appropriate for this article to have hierarchical headings.

         * (c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help).

It has a substantial TOC that is not overwhelming.

  3. It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text and acceptable copyright status. Non-free content (fair use) images must pass the non-free content criteria.

The image is made entirely by me. There are no image difficulties here.

◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 06:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 19 days, 2 support, 2 oppose. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New topic. Let me know what you think about any specifics or generalities. --maclean 11:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

a. There should not be any redlinks, especially in the lead. In the table itself there's no reason why some of the missing locations are redlinked and some aren't linked at all.

b. It would be useful to have some kind of legend or key to the color coding in the table.

But, otherwise, good job on the referencing and the layout. Geraldk 15:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a. I was surprised how many red links there were. I will stub some and remove others. There are some unlinked because the detachment does not actually cover the community (and therefore the statistics are not for that community), but rather the rural areas surrounding the community. I forgot to explain that but I have added a note to each one. Does it make sense? Is there a better way of communicating this?

b. Good point, I hadn't thought of that. --maclean 02:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral and restarted nom to get more comments. I'm personally still iffy about the title (format is usually used for elections only). I don't think it is necessary to used colored table headers (and they should be actual table header cells, too!). Circeus 17:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks good. GreenJoe 02:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. It's not a list it's just a table of statistics. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. I'll support the deletion of this list. CG 14:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are not "random statistics" (compare Rambot-generated articles like Millbrook, Alabama), it falls under the "almanac" provision expressed in Wikipedia:Five pillars: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia[...]. It incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." Circeus 15:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is an article on "Law enforcement in British Columbia" that happens to contain two large tables of statistics. It isn't a "list of xyz" and doesn't help with navigation (it doesn't link to either municipal or provincial detachments). Like CG, I'm not sure that collecting such detailed, specific and temporal statistics is what WP is about. Colin°^Talk 16:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: the last part, I call it "local cruft". See Musicians of Mysore Kingdom or Rainfall in Karnataka for weird examples (I fail to see why create the latter instead of Climate of Karnataka). Circeus 17:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 16 days, 1 support, 1 oppose. No active discussions. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Alabama have endeavored to bring this list up to featured list quality. I believe it now meets the qualifications set forth in Wikipedia:What is a featured list. --Dystopos 20:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose
  1. How many counties were there when Alabama became a state? It should be added in the lead.
  2. The Origin and Licesne # columns need references.
  3. The counties should not be linked in the origin column, since they're already linked in the Counties column.
  4. This list states that Franklin County was formed by territorial legislature in 1818 and at the same time Marion County was formed by territorial general assembly. I think you need to explain the difference between territorial legislature and territorial general assembly.
  5. In the Origin column, it states both "Formed from XXX County" and "part of XXX County". Just choose one version and go with it for cosistency.
  6. All the names in the Named for column need dates(birth-death), plus it would be better to note that Jefferson was the 3rd U.S. President, Monroe 4th(?), Madison 5th, and so on.
  7. It would be beneficial to mention where the county seats got their names from. I don't mean all county seats, just the ones that were used to name the county.
  8. I think the fictional counties section is trivial and should be removed. I am not too sure of this, though.
  9. The Defunct counties section would look better in a table, see List of counties in Massachusetts for an example.
  10. Oh, almost forgot, is it possible to create a template for the imagemap at the top?

--Crzycheetah 19:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: defunct county, most of them are not "defunct", they were renamed, that's different. But I think the fictional counties are okay. We have them in List of parishes in Louisiana and I think it's just fine. However, both these section needs proper sourcing. Circeus 00:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]