Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/September 2012

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 TBrandley 01:51, 30 September 2012 [1].

---

Major contriubtor: User:Chrisdoyleorwell Nominator(s): Lucky102 (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this article meets the Featured list criteria. There are not many lists relating to Ireland or Christianity, 3 for Ireland and 20 for Christianity that are featured, but this one deserves to. There are not many Archbishops without a link. It would be nice for it to be featured. Lucky102 (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead is too short
• Diocese of Dublin is a dab link, as is OFM.
• Captions to pictures and notes should not have full stops unless they are a full sentence; where they are a full sentence, there should be a full stop
• Most of the history section is unreferenced
• "After the Reformation, there are apostolic successions of Church of Ireland and Roman Catholic archbishops." is poor grammar
• Don't use ; to create subheadings because of WP:ACCESS issues. There's no need for those subheadings anyway if that's all that you can say about those topics (and is that really all you can say?)
• Why are some names in bold and others not? No explanation given
• Why are some names in italics?
• Why don't we have stubs or redlinks for the missing archbishops?
• "See also" section should not repeat links from higher up the page
• Reference access dates are a mixture of formats (DMY and YYYY-MM-DD)
• I'm no expert on the accessibility issues involved with table formatting, but I don't believe that the tables are up to current standards - no scope="col" or scope="row" to be seen.
• I've not really started on the notes but I can see problems with overlinking for one.

All in all, it's an oppose from me. I see that you've never edited the list and checked before nominating with someone who has only a few minor edits to the list rather than with anyone with greater familiarity with the subject or the list. Do you have access to the sources, in fact? Bencherlite^Talk 22:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as per above. Nominator, please read WP:FL? carefully. If you are not a major editor, then you should ask the main contributors whether you can nominate it here. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the second most active contributor and he said yes. The first one is not active.--Lucky102 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm not sure this article qualifies as a list. I would be inclined to develop it as an article instead. NapHit (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2012 (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 not promoted by NapHit 16:11, 20 September 2012 [2].

---

Nominator(s): Albacore (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this list meets the featured list criteria. It is loosely based on the Philadelphia Phillies roster lists. I started this list some time back in my userspace and I wanted to finish it before I started anything else. Albacore (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose based on criteria 3b and 5
  • Have you ever discussed this list with the WP:NBA members? ...because it appears you changed the style format from NBA-related to Baseball-related. Did you receive a consensus on that?
  • The way you forked the Minnesota Timberwolves all-time roster list appears to be wrong, to me at least. I strongly want some competent wikipedians(page-move experts) to check all these page-moves that were done. The fact that Minnesota Timberwolves all-time roster is a disamg. page right now looks wrong, as well. Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster, in your example, is not a disag. page, but rather a featured list.

--Cheetah (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I broke the "notes" section into "points", "rebounds", and "minutes played" columns, would that take care of point 5? If you could give me an example of "the style format of NBA-related lists" that would be appreciated.

Charlotte Bobcats all-time roster is in the WP:FL right now. I'd appreciate if you started a discussion at the WT:NBA and discuss the style with project members.--Cheetah (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at the WikiProject's talk page. Albacore (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I believe the change of style is a big enough issue that needs a group consensus.--Cheetah (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How the Minnesota Timberwolves all-time roster page is formatted has nothing to do with this list.

I need some clarification on how this violates 3b. Albacore (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way you forked this article violates the content-forking guideline.--Cheetah (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Not at all content-forking. The Phillies is a good example; the main part can be expanded later...--Kürbis (✔) 10:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose a franchise with such a small number of players and short history should be one page. To be honest I am quite flabbergasted that it would be split into two when there are teams with much much longer histories (and thus more players) on single pages. -DJSasso (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like an example of a team's entire roster on one page that displays all the information this list presents. Further if I combined the lists the page would be upwards of 100,000 bytes and 200 references. I would like to see a FL with those characteristics as well. Albacore (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to use examples I am more familiar with, List of Chicago Blackhawks players and List of Detroit Red Wings players. Both teams in existance for almost 100 years and both include about 850 players and have more information than what you present here. As for 200 references, you don't need a reference for every player. You just need a reference pointing to the all-time roster. You are over referencing. Cutting out a lot of the essentially duplicate references would greatly improve on the size of the page. Take a look at my two examples for how this can be done. -DJSasso (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So a note on the general reference saying all players are reference to their page would suffice? And both of your lists fail MOS:DTT. Albacore (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah they could probably use a bit of sprucing up as they are a couple year old FLs now I think. Was mostly just pointing them out that it is easier to fit it all on one page than you might think. I think the biggest size issue here is the references. Basically I would have one or even a couple links to reliable sources that have the entire past roster listed. I don't know as much about basketball sources as hockey sources so I can't give any good examples. But I know the NHL official website linked to all-time rosters so maybe the NBA does too. Even basketball reference has an all-time roster page. Just put those under General references and you have for the most part covered that they were on the team. You would just then need general references for their stats etc, which may or may not be the same sources. -DJSasso (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree on fewer sources, unless the data of every column is available on a smaller set of sources. Of course the other option is to match the columns to a more limited set of sources.—Bagumba (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as the reference leads to a main all-time roster page that then leads to the rest of the information then WP:V is satisfied for what information isn't already on the all-time roster page. In this case the all-time roster page links to each player page which has the nationality etc that is missing from the main page so it is covered. -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like a fair concession when a source leads to a list of links to other sources.—Bagumba (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I would recommend to follow other similar NBA FLs, e.g. Charlotte Bobcats all-time roster or Dallas Mavericks all-time roster and statistics leaders, or get consensus at WP:NBA for starting yet another model.—Bagumba (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My system would appear to follow the Bobcats list. Albacore (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on my cursory glance, the columns were not consistent; it is closer to the Bobcats than Mavs though.—Bagumba (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Striking the Mavs roster from discussion, as it was incorrectly referred to as an FL.—Bagumba (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right

I've merged the table into one page, Minnesota Timberwolves all-time roster. My list follows the Charlotte Bobcats list, with improvements, and it is an invalid reason to oppose this list's promotion just because other stuff exists. If you want to oppose give me a reason other than "recommend to follow other similar NBA FLs". What is wrong with the way information is presented in this list? What can I improve on? Albacore (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to the Bobcats was to another FL in the same WikiProject, so it seemed to be a viable precedent beyond a random "other stuff" comparison. Perhaps your point is that the Bobcats FL can be improved, and I have no immediate comment if that is the case. My cursory check was to see if there were any differences to a similar existing FL, and that failed. I can detail those differences if they are not apparent; on the other hand, you can present rationales for improvements on the existing Bobcats FL format. Either way, one byproduct would be an informal MoS of NBA all-time rosters list, so that the next NBA roster FLC has a reference point with supporting reasons behind some layout decisions. The benefit would be a more consistent reader experience in similar NBA team roster lists, which I think is consistent with the spirit of FLCR #5. Let me know your preference.—Bagumba (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • S/C Denotes what school or club the player came from → Please clarify school/club the player came from before they joined the Timberwolves or before they were drafted or before they joined the NBA. If you are going for the latter, there is another problem with undrafted American players, who played college basketball and often played overseas before they joined the NBA. Ricky Rubio has another problem, he played for DKV Joventut before the draft and then played for FC Barcelona before he joined the NBA.

• Changed to "Denotes what school or club the player was drafted out of". Albacore (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm still not sure that college team is relevant to this list. Sure it's interesting to see that seven former Golden Gophers have played with the Timberwolves, but it's trivial information. If other reviewers have no problem with this, I won't argue, but to me it's a little irrelevant.
  • I understand the inclusion of points scored and minutes played as the most important basketball statistics. However, why is rebounds more important than assists?

• Rebounds show the defensive ability of the player (i.e against points offensively). They are more important than assists because again they show the defensive and offensive value, and assists only show offensively. Albacore (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • It's weird to have a player in Celtics uniform as the lead image, even if he's the most successful Timberwolve ever. Here's one pic of him wearing the Timberwolves uniform. Here's one pic of him without any team's logos/names.

• Changed.

• • Malcolm Lee is not a center, and he was signed on December 2011.

• Changed to guard. He was signed in December 2011 but he didn't play in a game for the Timberwolves until 2012.

• • Brad Miller was traded to the Wolves on June 2011.

• That's fine, but he didn't play in a game until 2012. Albacore (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Alando Tucker was on the roster for the whole 2009–10 season.

• No, he played for the Suns in 2009 and the Timberwolves in 2010. Albacore (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Wally Szczerbiak is an American who was born in Spain.

• Changed to nation of birth.

• • Sasha Pavlović's nationality is complicated. He is born in SR Montenegro, SFR Yugoslavia (now Montenegro) and he has represented Serbia and Montenegro internationally. However, since Serbia and Montenegro split in 2006, he have not represented either of them. I'm not sure whether he's Montenegrin or Serbian.

• Changed to nation of birth.

• • Michael Olowokandi is born in Nigeria and grew up in England. I'm not sure about his nationality, but his wikipedia article says that he's British.

• Changed to nation of birth.

• • Kosta Koufos has both Greek and American citizenship but he plays for Greek national team.

• Changed to nation of birth.

• • Nikola Peković has represented both Serbia and Montenegro (before 2006) and Montenegro (since 2006).

• Changed to nation of birth.

I'm not sure how to deal with complex nationalities issues here, but I believe that in a sports list, nationality refers to the player's nationality in the sporting sense, which means the national team he represents or eligible to represents. If you decided to go with player's sporting nationality, perhaps this should be explained clearly in the Key. — MT (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On ice hockey player FLs like List of Chicago Blackhawks players we have a legend for the nations and on it we title it nation of birth. We do this specifically to get away from trying to determine the complex nationalities because nation of birth is clear cut. So that is a good way to get around that issue. -DJSasso (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Albacore (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on Alando Tucker, I read from other source that he was traded on December 29, 2009 but I post the wrong source in this discussion. Anyway, I just realized that the year/season criteria is when the player is actually made an appearance for the Timberwolves, not the year/season they joined the roster, so it's all good. If you're going for nation of birth, there are still some inaccuracies: Kosta Koufos was born in the United States, Anthony Randolph was born in Germany and Sasha Pavlović's city of birth is now part of Montenegro, not Serbia. — MT (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When going by place of birth you have to use the country at the time of birth. So you wouldn't go by what it is a part of now. That is standard for anything on the wiki when it comes to birth locations in bios. -DJSasso (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the standard, then Pavlović's nation of birth should be SFR Yugoslavia. This would also applies to all Croatian, Serbian, Montenegrin players who were born before 1991. Furthermore, Vētra, Tskitishvili and Pecherov's nations of birth should be Soviet Union and Randolph's nation of birth should be West Germany.

Anyway, I have another concern about using nation of birth (and the flag) because it seem to violate Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Use of flags for sportspersons which says that Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality. Also, other NBA FLs such as 2008 NBA Draft or NBA Most Valuable Player Award both use representative nationality in the table and footnotes to explain multiple nationalities. As long as the legend is clear, I'm neutral about whether to use nation of birth or representative nationality. However, I personally lean towards using representative nationality since it's more relevant.— MT (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start a thread on WT:NBA regarding listing of country of birth or nationality.—Bagumba (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thread is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Nationality—Bagumba (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of flags in infoboxes is the concern with WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Otherwise, it's not as clear cut they they can't be in lists. The name of the flag's country should appear somewhere; having a legend like the hockey FL would avoid having to repeat the country name.—Bagumba (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to Bobcats format

I've merged the two "begin" and "end" columns into one "seasons" column to save space. I don't see the advantage to having the columns apart, if someone wants to sort by what year the player ended their career with the Timberwolves, the column sorts by the year they began their career with the Timberwolves, so the year ended would be in descending order. I cut the "jersey number" column because I thought it was unimportant and took up space. I changed "assists" to "rebounds" because I thought I have offense with points, and rebounds represent defense. Assists only show offense, and to an extent rebounds show both. In regards to birth place, you want me to change the Soviet Union players to a Soviet Union birthplace, or should I use the SFR Yugoslavia as mentioned above? And are there any problems with the lead? Albacore (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments from Bagumba

1. Pts, rebounds, and assists are pretty much the standard basketball stats. Why are assists being omitted? As an example, FL 50 Greatest Players in NBA History lists pts, rebs, asts.
2. If a stat is going to be added to indicate how much a player played, why choose minutes when games played could be added instead and a reader could get a rough idea of a players averages per game—another common statistic aside from raw career totals.
3. Agree with MT's comment above that schools seem trivial here; more suitable for an article on Minn draft picks.

—Bagumba (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now per preceding comments.—Bagumba (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – In the second sentence, you may want to abbreviate the NBA's name, since the shortened version has been provided already. "accumulating 734 during the 1990–1991 season". The convention is to shorten combined years into something like this: 1990–91. I see a similar instance in the Anthony Tolliver photo caption. What was the Timberwolves' inaugural season? And what season was Gugliotta's record set? Jonny Flynn photo caption could clarify that it is referring to points (I assume). In the Ricky Rubio caption, should "lead" be "led"? In ref 18, Sports Illustrated should be italicized since it is a published magazine. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] All fixed. Albacore (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• One more from checking the changes: "Pooh Richardson holds the single season record for assists, accumulating 734 during the 1990–91 season, and Sam Mitchell for his 338 personal fouls over the same span." The second part of the sentence isn't connected well to the first, prose-wise. Maybe try "and Sam Mitchell committed a record 338 personal fouls over the same span."? Giants2008 (Talk) 18:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded. Albacore (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Of those 179 players" no need to immediately repeat the number.
• "A total of 14 " -> "A total of" is redundant, but make sure not to start a sentence with a number.
• "a Timberwolve" isn't the singular of Timberwolves just Timberwolf?
• What is LSU? Not clear to a nonexpert.
  • Louisiana State University. Fixed.
• "Gundars Vētra " has a diacritic.
  • Fixed.
• What's an "ACL"? Don't abbreviate things before you've explained them.
  • Fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2012 (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 not promoted by NapHit 16:11, 20 September 2012 [3].

---

Nominator(s): Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 23:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the criteria. This page would serve as the central topic for the potential good topic of Recreational Roads in Texas. Aside from this page, only two pages in the topic are non GA's, and both of them are at GAN. I have compared this to List of Interstate Highways in Texas, a FL, and feel this is list is worthy of FL. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 23:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - I have some concerns with this list before I can support it for FL:

1. "With the exception of RE 255, the number of a route decreases with the age of the route." Surely this could be worded better. I would try "With the execption of RE 255, the lower route numbers are for older routes, with increasing numbers for newer routes.
2. Why is Ranch Road 1 mentioned in the list? It isn't an official recreational road and is treated more as being part of the Farm-to-market road system.
3. I would suggest better pictures for the article. The current pictures barely show the road. Try looking on Flickr for an appropriately-licensed image.
4. The article relies mostly on TxDOT and Google Maps for sourcing. Are there any other sources that can be found? Dough4872 22:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Replies:

1. Changed
2. Removed
3. Still searching Flickr for an image I was unable to find a free image, but if anyone else wants to try, be my guest.
4. Unfortunantely, since the routes are all located in rural areas, and all but RE 255 are short, there are no available newspaper articles or books available. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 03:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - This meets the criteria, but I would still suggest looking for better images and additional references for the future. Dough4872 03:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Query—what is "pantone brown"? Pantone Matching System, a trademarked method for specifying colors. The FHWA specifies the analogous colors of road signs with PMS colors. That color would be best named "MUTCD brown", or "PMS 469", but the PMS values are only for print use, not sign fabrication. I really would have nominated this article for a peer review before bringing it here. The lead was revised and expanded immediately before nomination. While that might work for GANs, it doesn't work well for FACs, and I suspect, FLCs. Imzadi 1979 → 04:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have shortened pantone brown simply to brown. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 04:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. As it is now, I do not think this list "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work".

1. Are they called "Recreational Roads" or "Recreation Roads"? TxDOT seems to be inconsistent in their usage. For curiosity's sake, I did Google searches for Texas "Recreation(al) Road" -wiki, which removes any Wikimedia sites from the search results. I got more hits for Recreation than I did for Recreational.
2. Unless you're talking about a specific route, "recreation(al) road" is a common noun and should not be capitalized.
3. "Very similar to the TxDOT's Park Roads, they provide access to recognized recreational areas, while Park Roads serve state parks." This sentence is sloppy and should be rewritten. You should link to the list of park roads and define what a "recognized recreation(al) area" is.
4. What percentage of the Texas state highway system does the recreation road system comprise?
5. "The Recreational Road system was created in 1970." Isn't this redundant to the first sentence of the second paragraph?
6. Unless they're completely obvious, you should define abbreviations like RE before you use them.
7. I don't know if "rapid" growth is the right word. Six routes within two years?
8. "With the execption of RE 255, the lower route numbers are for older routes, with increasing numbers for newer routes." This sentence is incomprehensible; it should be completely revised.
9. What is a "shield"? I know what it is, but that doesn't mean the casual reader does.
10. How large are the "shields"?
11. I'm left wanting a little more prose than what you're giving us. Yes, this is a list, but it just seems abrupt. I would split out the second and third paragraphs into full sections and then summarize them for the lead. However, if you split them out, the sections should have more details than they do.
12. Finally getting to the list itself. Above you said the routes serve "recognized recreation(al) areas", but here it says "parks". Why are they different?
13. Do you have the exact dates the routes were designated?
14. Are these pictures here just to have pictures? They don't seem to have anything to do with the recreation road system.
15. Commenting on something mentioned above: find secondary sources. I completely reject the idea that there are no secondary sources about the recreation road system.

This list has a lot of work to be done before it can be considered Wikipedia's very best work. –Fredddie™ 16:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Replies:

1. Per the Highway Designation Glossary, the TxDOT's official guide to highway designations, they are referred to as "Recreational Roads".
2. All changed (I think)
3. Clarified
4. This is not provided by the TxDOT, so I am unable to include it.

   So look outside of TxDOT. –Fredddie™

   The TxDOT is the only agency in the state of Texas that reports on highways. The FHWA could care less about the different numbered routes of Texas. Because of this, a lack of a source from the TxDOT means that no way to get this information reliably or without violating WP:OR . - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name.

   Wrong. Third-party sources could publish this information. In other words, a newspaper article, a magazine article or even a section in a book could have such information. You are not limited to TxDOT and FHWA or similar sources, and in fact, you should seek out replacements among third-party over those two first-party sources wherever possible. Imzadi 1979 → 06:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Even so, I have been unable to discover a third-party source relating to the RE system. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 21:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5. Removed.
6. Clarified
7. Reworded Removed; To be added in "History" section
8. Majorly revised
9. Reworded, with link to "reassurance marker" added
10. I will add this to the new section(s) Added
11. In the process of writing new section(s) Created sections for History and Signage
12. Because the bulk of the sites served are simply parks. The column title is different because "Recreational Area" would be to long and mess up the table.
13. Added specific dates
14. Unfortunately, these are the best pictures available, and being illustrated is part of the criteria

    Have you tried contacting other Wikipedians who live nearby the routes to see if they can take pictures? Have you made arrangements to take pictures yourself? –Fredddie™

    I have notified WP:Texas about the issue. As for me, there is no way I could possibly get one because of school and the driving distance. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name.

15. A search at Google News and at Google Books yielded no results about the routes or the system. In addition, I did some research with the Fort Worth Public Library's Genealogy, History, and Archives Unit, and found nothing on the system. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 04:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I would contact TxDOT's library for assistance. They may have some idea when news articles were written about the recreational road system or could at least point you in the right direction. –Fredddie™

    A search of the library only helped me out with planing for improving other highway articles, yielding no results on the RE system. In addition, a search of the archives of the Texas Highways Magazine, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the Dallas Morning News, and the Houston Chronicle did not provide any articles related to the system. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 21:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you try contacting someone at the library or did you just do a search of the library's website? –Fredddie™ 01:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind. I have found information on RE 255 potentially being affected by the proposed I-14 from a newspaper article, and have included it in the article. Secondary source added. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 04:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    What about secondary sources for the other routes? Or the system as a whole? –Fredddie™ 22:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have added a secondary source for RE spurs. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 05:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still opposing. The history section is lacking. I'd like to see something on why the system was created and who within TXDOT passed the original minute order. Not the specific people, but what body within the DOT. The images are still an issue. The Procter Lake picture serves no purpose to the article. If we could actually see the highway, I'd have no problem with it. –Fredddie™ 00:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken the points that you fixed or I fixed myself. However, it disappoints me greatly that you're telling me that you looked no farther than the Google search box to find secondary sources. As the absolute bare minimum, I suggest you visit a local library that has newspaper archives in house. –Fredddie™ 07:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed a few things, as TxDOT has defined certain names to be proper nouns in this context. They also don't hyphenate Farm to Market Road. As a specific type of roadway, I would say that they are proper nouns in this context, and shouldn't have their capitalization reduced. It's similar to the distinction between an Interstate Highway (part of the Interstate Highway System) and an interstate highway (any highway that crosses state lines with its designation intact). I would also say that such a distinction applies when discussing state highways (any highway under state maintenance) vs. State Highways (ones that bear that name as part of its designation). Imzadi 1979 → 07:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments "Park Roads system" or "The Park Road system "? Changed "56.596 miles " is it really measured to 0.001 mile? (even if it is, I don't think this level of accuracy is required in the lead prose). Reduced to single digit "RE 2 is the system's second oldest route, while RE 11, the system's eleventh and newest route, is numbered accordingly" may be just me but this sentence is grammatically incorrect, should there be an "and" before the "is numbered..."? Reworded and clarified You link "Farm to Market road" the second time, not the first, and our article calls it a "Farm-to-market road" i.e. hyphenated and not over-capitalised. Corrected over-capitalizing Is "cancelled" with two l's USEng? Fixed Not sure on the necessity for sortability on a table with just one entry. Changed, but it appears that this has done something to the table Use en-dashes instead of spaced hyphen in the ref titles (e.g. ref 6). Added The Rambling Man (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] A reply, but according to the article, "specifically, in the state of Texas, the terms Farm to Market Road and Ranch to Market Road indicate roadways that are part of the state's system of secondary and connecting routes, built and maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)." So yes, in this case, "Farm to Market Road" is correct as a specific type of highway in that state, while "farm-to-market road" is the more generic term used elsewhere. Imzadi 1979 → 06:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Ok, well "used for Farm to Market Road System. The Recreational Road marker, like the Farm to Market Road shield" this is missing a "the" before the first Farm. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] I have replied to all comments. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 22:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose over lack of secondary sources. --Rschen7754 23:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have found and included an article from the Jasper Newsboy. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 04:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Still oppose. "Recreational Road 255 will potentially be affected by the proposed Interstate 14, the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway."? That smells of original research. --Rschen7754 04:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been changed. The fact is is that RE 255 is located along the study corridor. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 16:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This really belongs in the 255 article. Also, "The current proposed routing of the Interstate would run parallel to RE 255, but no official routing has decided on." is not supported by any source. --Rschen7754 06:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed so that it fits reference. This deserves to belong here because, when someone finally gets around to constructing I-14, it will majorly affect RE 255. RE 255 makes up about 2/3 of the recreational road system. If the route were to replaced or redesignated, it would have a huge effect on the system. And, as a note, I have minorly expanded the lead and added an additional secondary source. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 05:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Still no, it belongs in RE 255. Do you have any secondary sources about the system itself? --Rschen7754 00:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm planning to contact the TxDOT to see if they have an archive of the Texas Highways magazine, since, according to the Glossary page, the magazine had information on the system. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 14:10, 14 September 2012 (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 not promoted by NapHit 16:11, 20 September 2012 [4].

---

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting another Michigan fauna article...this time a listing of the threatened, endangered and special concern species in the state. I look forward to your comments, and thanks in advance for the reviews! Dana boomer (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You may want to explain the ranks, eg Special Concern is rather vague. Maybe state the inclusion of animals in a rank. I would add this information in a box or in the lead. Also I am not sure why you capitalicized "Common Name" etc. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi GOP, and thanks for your comments. I'm not sure what further information you're looking for on SC species - I thought that the last three sentences of the first paragraph of the lead were fairly informative about what a special concern listing entails. Also not sure what you mean by "the inclusion of animals in a rank"? I think I've fixed the table headers. Dana boomer (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose Too many red links violates criteria 5a. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the term rank is never explained in the context of the table. Too many red links. Afro (Talk) 08:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To the two comments above: I do plan to work on creating more of these articles, and had in fact meant to do some already, but was sidetracked by family commitments. I honestly don't think the current redlinks harm the integrity of the list. Also, Afkatk, what do you meant by "the term rank is never explained in the context of the table"? A major part of the lead is devoted to explaining the different categories of listing (endangered/threatened/special concern/federal vs. state, etc). Dana boomer (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You may take your time, I will strike off my comment once its done. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be much better to remove the red links and add them later once the article is created, otherwise depending on how long it takes to reduce them it might be easier to renominate the list at a later date. Afro (Talk) 10:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Red links are not a bad thing, see WP:REDLINK, which specifically says "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article." Removing these links would do nothing to help the reader's experience, and could actually harm it if a name had been delinked, but then had an article created and never re-linked. Dana boomer (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I know that red links aren't bad, but the FL criteria call for "a minimal proportion" of them. I counted 120 red links out of the 400 or so items in the tables. Is that too many? It's a judgement call. I personally don't think so, and am not in love with the criterion in general (because it creates the gray area that lists like this one fall into), but it is on the books and should be respected. The best advice I can give is to continue pecking away at the red links, as you appear to be doing. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, through a combination of tweaking links and creating articles, I've dropped the number of red links to 81, out of the 400 or so, a decrease of almost 40 from the time of Giant's count, and more than 40 since the first comments on red links. I would appreciate additional comments on this topic at this point... Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm quite impressed with how many links you were able to turn blue in less than a week. As I said, I don't have an issue with the current number of red links, but it is a subjective matter. If there are continued complaints, you could always create a few more articles. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments just a couple of quick ones at the moment, will return in due course! I know it may be a departure from the norm, but perhaps it would be nice to introduce each section of fauna with a mini-lead? What kind of a mini-lead were you thinking? Something like, "Of the many mammal species in Michigan, twelve are listed as endangered, threatened or of special concern by the state of Michigan, while two hold federal listing status...yada, yada, yada..."? I could see that. Did you have any other thoughts as to what information you'd like to see in them? - DB I think that would be a super starting point... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] OK, I now have mini-leads at the beginning of all of the sections. Further thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'm also a bit concerned over the gradual increase in the proportion of red links as the article progresses. I've been working on these, and since the above comments have blue-linked somewhere around a dozen articles, either by creating them or finding a plausible article to pipe them to. Part of the problem is that WP's coverage in some animal areas is so poor that we don't even have family/genera articles, much less individual species or sub-species. I am working on this, though. - DB Sounds good, I'll reappraise my "concern" shortly! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Would it be out of order to ask for the columns each each table be the same from section to section (so the Species col is the same width throughout the article, and so on)? I think I've addressed this? - DB What exactly is US rank? Which scale are you referring to here? The federal listing. I've changed the column headings to "status" instead of "rank" - does this make it more clear? - DB Given the scarcity of those US rank entries, perhaps remove that column and indicate the US rank by use of a symbol? It would avoid the many empty cells... But then it would be impossible for people to sort by federal status, which I think is a plausible sorting mechanism. Perhaps I could remove the federal column from tables that don't have any, and add a note to the mini-leads that "none of the animals in this table have federal listing status."? This would serve to remove quite a few of the empty cells, without removing the sort capability on the others... - DB Yep, I'd buy that for a dollar since there are so many empty cells... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Now done, which has served to removed a significant number of empty cells. Dana boomer (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Be consistent with the capitalisation, in the list you have "Blanchard's Cricket Frog", in the caption you have "Blanchard's cricket frog", in the list you have "spotted turtle" but in the caption you have "Spotted Turtle"... I think I've addressed this. - DB "A mayfly (no common name)" just (no common name) would be fine. See others... Done. - DB Something I've seen in other articles that use a massive PDF as a general reference, consider referencing perhaps just the sections with the actual page range of the PDF itself? Actually, the MSU ref is the main ref for these tables. The massive PDF is mainly just a backup, as it's technically the official listing, but is a pain in the neck to use, because it's so unwieldy. The federal one is there to update a couple of things that have changed since MSU last updated their listing. So, the big PDF could be removed altogether, if you think it's best? - DB No, that's fine, keep it, my mistake thinking it was the primary ref... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the comments! Replies above... Dana boomer (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2012 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 07:33, 18 September 2012 [5].

---

Nominator(s): --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 11:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list as I believe, that after quite some work, it's ready for FL Status. --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 11:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - not ready for FLC.

• Lead is too short per WP:LEAD.
• Lead bold links incorrect per WP:CONTEXTLINK.
• References need to be correctly and comprehensively formatted.
• Whole article is referenced to "wildstat.com", is that a reliable source? Links don't even work for me.
• Basic issues like you have Q1 in the key and 1Q in the table.

Overall, just feels really lightweight, there's no analysis of any of their major games, look at Liverpool F.C. in European football for instance. And note that's a featured article, not list. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per The Rambling Man. Article is in need of expanding. And, if enough information can be added, it may work better as an FAC. Also create a talk page for this. TBrandley 20:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Thank you for your attention. Some information has been added. Example FL: Rosenborg BK in European football. --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 07:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Why is the title repeated in bold before the first paragraph?
• Much of the lead is written in quite poor English, the second half should read as follows:

“

Neftchi Baku PFC's biggest win in Europe is a 3–0 victory over FC Zestafoni in the 2012–13 UEFA Champions League. In 2012, Neftchi Baku became the first Azerbaijani team to advance to the group stage of a European competition. The club has an excellent European cup record, having not lost at home since the 1999–2000 season. Neftchi Baku's home games are usually played at the Tofiq Bahramov Stadium in Baku. The stadium was built by German prisoners of war in 1951 and constructed in the shape of the letter C to honour Stalin (Cyrillic: Cтaлин), however it was renamed after famous football referee Tofiq Bahramov in 1993 after his death. The stadium also serves as the home ground of the Azerbaijan national football team and holds 30,000 spectators making it the largest stadium in the country. In 2011, Neftchi's domestic games moved to the Ismat Gayibov Stadium.

”

• Also, there are three paragraphs in the lead which are each a single sentence
• And what's with the ticks and crosses in the table?

Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 08:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – On a brief glance, I see stubby paragraphs in the lead, MoS violations (refs before punctuation), a usage of check marks in the table that I haven't seen before, and many references missing information (publishers and access dates). This still needs a lot of work, and if that work isn't done I'd be inclined to close this FLC. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:11, 11 September 2012 (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 not promoted by Giants2008 16:18, 8 September 2012 [6].

---

Nominator(s): Kürbis (✔) 19:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A short article about a short story prize. Regards. Kürbis (✔) 19:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray, literary award lists! I'm a fan, for some unknowable reason. Anyway!

• "The annually prize was founded"

• Fixed

• The first two paragraphs are two sentences each- why?

• Reorganized

• "His wife's work, One for the Chosen, [...] is still flowing into the award funds." - what? How is a book flowing into the funds?

• Reworded

• "The prize money for the winner was increased from..." It's technically fine but feels abrupt- why not say that it's 10k for the winning work, and was 5k prior to 2004? Or that it was 5k when the work was created, but was increased to 10k in 2004? Describing the change prior to either of the two states feels strange.

• I reworded

• "The year's shortlist is certain in May..." certain? You mean chosen/decided? And chosen by who- the writer's union?

• Done

• "...and publishers, for example [blah] in 2011" - "...publisher, for example, [blah] were judges in 2011". It needs to be an independent clause, it feels all weird like it is, and needs a comma after 'example'.

• Done

• Fun, a one-sentence paragraph at the end!

• Merged with first para

• Maybe before you describe the differences between this award and some other award, you should describe what the other prize is? As in, "there is another Candadian short story award, the x award, which is given by so-and-so for best short story debut".

• Done

• Also, define what you mean by publisher-independent.

• It is independent to any publisher, ie indie works

• Do you have any information on why this award matters? Like, sources saying it is an important award, or barring that sources just talking about the award- I mean, I would assume an award by the Canadian Writer's Union is pretty legit, but I shouldn't have to assume, you should tell me how prestigious it is.

• There are not much information, I am afraid.

• My eyes! Why is the list header bright red?

• Blame the Canadian flag >:)!

• Only two of the years have references? I'd expect them all to, and those refs to be in a seperate "ref." column

• I added an external links section with all the winners and nominees.

• That's a whole lot of whitespace- consider making the list wider, maybe centering it in the page.
• Do we have any information on the other nominees for each year? Seems like we do, at the writersunion site. They also mention the publisher of each work- why is that not here?
• Basically, while I'm obviously biased, I would expect the list table to look more like Hugo Award for Best Short Story or Nebula Award for Best Short Story - showing the other nominees (especially as it looks like the Writer's Union notes the runners-up) and the publishers/publications.

• Good suggestion. I reformatted the table. I will do the publisher column.--Kürbis (✔) 14:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done

• You don't have a publisher listed for the globe-and-mail cite.
• Consider archiving your online references so your citations aren't wiped out if the specific pages you're referencing are removed/changed.

• --PresN 05:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your review. I will reorganize the table first, then working on the prose, MOS and references. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 15:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I replied to the remaining comments. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you call out the "other nominees" with green and dagger symbols, but leave the runners-up with nothing? Shouldn't it be the other way around, since the runners-up did better than the other nominees? (Runner up means second place, after the winner). Also, publishers/ publications should be linked, if they have an article, and you still have some of the publishers italicized- Bloomsbury USA isn't a book, its a company, and neither is Little, Brown, and Co., or most of the things you have italicized. --PresN 15:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, different people tell me different things, but ok I will do this. Regarding your first question: because I feel that the second place is the golden medium. This system may be compared with a podium. But I may change it anytime. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 15:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I deitalicized all. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose You should use a symbol as well as a colour per WP:ACCESS for indicating winners etc in the table. Infobox "Canadian Short fiction collections" -> short. Could add an appropraite Category:Awards by year of establishment category. Three dab pages, Terence Young, Jonathan Bennett, Daniel Griffin. "is still flowing into " strange turn of phrase. Still funds? Not done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] removed still I mean replace "is still flowing into" with "still funds"... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Ok, done. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Initially C$5,000 high" no need for "high". "receive each C$5" -> "each receive" Actually, I would suggest you get the lead properly copyedited, there are many issues. Concern over the number of unlinked authors/books here. Publisher or publication column, publications should be shown in italics. False; I deitalicized all. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] You've made nearly all of them italics, why? Publishers not in italics, publications in italics. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Deitalicized non-publications That's not the right Kelly Cooper is it? Don't mix date formats for publication dates. Not done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done ;) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Nope, you haven't had the lead copyedited, nor answered concerns over the lack of linked authors/books. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] I copyedited the last paragraph. I was told redlinks are distracting and against the FL criteria. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] You need an independent native English speaker to look at all the prose. E.g. "The year's shortlist is chosen in May " May is in the past, e.g. "with neither runner-ups " that's "runners-up", e.g. "until the late January." should be "before the end of January" or something similar. It's just not good enough. You also seem to have ignored a few of the comments above... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done, copyedited the lead. The third para may need a slight copyedit. I don't understand your first point, though. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 12:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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