Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/September 2013

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 10:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Zonafan39 (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it could be a featured list, but if not I will be able to finally see what can be done to get it there. I have requested help in seeing what could be done to make this a featured list with no help at all. This list has come a long way from when I first started editing it three years ago. The lead was a single sentence, there were no citations, the table was screwy, and there were no pictures. Zonafan39 (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to several Bare URL citations I see here. Please fix and expand them. Thank you. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 02:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the best way to fix the citations? Zonafan39 (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the reference links tool. In the future, use the "Cite" tool in your editor to easily make citations.--NortyNort (Holla) 20:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done.. There are no more bare url's. What else will prevent this list from being featured? Zonafan39 (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well Thank Jesus thats fixed. Support. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 23:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now.

• I don't think the list should include "proposed" or even "approved" skyscrapers as per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. So many of these projects never come to fruition, perhaps under construction would be acceptable as there is something to physically report on. Not a big deal here as there is only 1 or 2 listed.

• Many of the "notes" have a period, and many do not. Some are sentences, some are not. Please be consistent with punctuation and style. Some notes are also rather tenuous and unsourced (example: "this building is said to be haunted", who said this? Is this important?). This section needs revision before it can acheive FL status.

Mattximus (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most other tallest building featured lists (Examples include Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and Chicago) have approved or proposed sections. The punctuation issue in the "notes" section is a quick fix, as for the Pfister Hotel being haunted, I inserted a reference about ballplayers such as Justin Upton being spooked when staying at the hotel. If it's not a good source, the info will be removed. Zonafan39 (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the notes section... for now. Is it acceptable? Zonafan39 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick fix. Notes better, but please check the notes from the other tables as well. The "haunting" still needs a source (directly after the statement would be ideal). As for proposed, I did check the other list of tallest building pages before commenting, and despite finding similar sections in other FL, I still don't think speculation belongs in a Wikipedia article for reasons listed above. If it's "under construction", I will accept as *something* is there, but if it's just a proposal. Respectively, I don't think it belongs.

Mattximus (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source for the "haunting". Is it reliable? Zonafan39 (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs to follow the piece of information directly . How do I know if it's source 45 or 46 that has the info in it? Mattximus (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Source number 6 for "the couture" doesn't even mention the name of the skyscraper in question, and it's over a year old. What is the current status? Is it under construction?
• Nitpicking passive sentences: "With the antenna, North Tower's height reaches 482 feet (147m)." ->" North Tower's height reaches 482 feet (147m) with the antenna."?
• Still a few concerns above that have not been addressed.

Mattximus (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put in another source naming The Couture as such. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2014. I fixed the Sandburg Hall note. What else needs to be addressed? I won't remove the Proposed, Approved or Under Construction table until it is removed on every other featured Tallest Building List. Zonafan39 (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still feel there are issues with prose. For example "Two proposed skyscrapers will stand"... will? How do you know they will be built? Should Wisconsin be linked? And respectfully still believe that proposed buildings run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL and just because the exist on other featured articles is not a valid argument as per Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.

Also, it would be nice if there was a link to maps for the coordinates of all the buildings, as the one found in List of tallest buildings in Mobile. Mattximus (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the prose in the lead that you pointed out issues with. I agree that it would be nice if there was a coordinates column in the table, however I dont know how to do that. I am considering doing away with the "Proposed" section, because it would be too much work to maintain all tallest building lists in regards to this matter. Zonafan39 (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put the "haunting" citation next to the verified statement. Zonafan39 (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been trying to fix other FLs of tallest buildings and they are a graveyard of incomplete proposed buildings with dead links. Also I don't think a column for coordinates would be useful, but I do like what was added to the Mobile list, where you can click on a single link and google maps (or bing maps, or whatever accepts coordinates) opens up and you can see exactly where all the buildings stand. I would love to see this as a feature of all featured tallest buildings list. Mattximus (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now.

• The article before the main list currently has two panoramic skylines and one historical image. The result is the lead text appears to be squished into one corner. Try to reorganise the layout, or drop one or two of the images.
• Drop the words "...tallest building between Chicago and Minneapolis". It sounds silly because those two cities are little more than 300 miles apart with Milwaukee the only major city between them.
• Be consistant with the use of the convert template - it is not used in some places.
• Saying something like "It is the 451st tallest building in North America" will become difficult to maintain as more buildings are completed every year throughout the country. In my opinion it is probably best not to make such comparisons.

Astronaut (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done.. I hated dropping the nighttime Milwaukee image, but if it helps, then that's fine. I also took out the pointless minor stuff. As for the cite template, if inconsistencies can be pointed out, I will be able to clean all of them up. Zonafan39 (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nighttime image was nice, but the lead is better with fewer images. How about adding a Commons link to the bottom of the article using the {{Commons category}} template?

I modified the heights to use the convert template throughout (except in the tables) and removed the use of the adjective form - I felt constructions like "standing at 235-foot-tall (72 m)" did not read well compared to "standing 235 ft (72 m) tall". One other thing, the first sentence of the lead mentions 27 taller then 250 ft, but the list contains those taller then 230 ft. That seems a little odd to me and perhaps you should trim the list to 250 ft, or say "32 taller then 230 ft". Astronaut (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added the commons link and change the list to read: "32 of which stand taller than 230 ft (70 m)." Thanks for fixing the convert template. Zonafan39 (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been adding and changing the pics in the table to pics that I think are better. Just letting everyone know that I am still working on this list. Zonafan39 (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE in present form.

• I am out of my usual frames of reference, as I am not deeply versed in architecture. However:
• Lead could be pared without losing any info. Just trim a bit and tighten it up. I would do it if it weren't for the ongoing review.
• I find the References column in the list baffling. Why all that trouble for a couple of tiny little blue numbers to float in white space? Recommend deleting column from list and moving the cites to the next column to the left.
• Otherwise, you have already been nitpicked pretty thoroughly.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Grapesoda22 (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken steps and re-written the article to renominate it effectively. Grapesoda22 (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You managed to break the nominations around this one, now fixed, I hope. --PresN 22:52, 3 September 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s):  — AARON • ^TALK 16:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel the list meets the criteria. She has a lot of songs and it has taken a long time to input all the entries. I would like some feedback on the lead though. I don't know if others might feel that I should cut down the amount of info about each album paragraph to make way for a paragraph about the songs on which she has been featured by others. Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 16:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments I think author info could be displayed in refs 17, 20, and a date for ref 9 would be nice. In ref 11, MTV should be MTV News, but not linked. Also, not sure if you would need to do this for a FL but for ref 4, the author and date should come before the title. The author and date should be displayed like this "Lazerine, Devin (October 28, 2010)." Overwise, I'll Support this for now. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 17:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done everything, but Devin Lazerine is the publisher, not the author, so his name should not be at the start. Thanks for your support :-)  — AARON • ^TALK 10:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Looks great! I would just fixed the wikilink for Buzz Media to Spin Media – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 21:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I'm amazed by its content's quality, why don't you try to enhance other R&B artists list of songs. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 21:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I've already done 7 other lists like this. Currently doing Whitney's.  — AARON • ^TALK 21:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd really appreciate if you do any of this amazing jobs on Destiny's Child discography. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 03:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do know someone who started the songs lists for Beyoncé and Destiny's Child.  — AARON • ^TALK 09:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Just 2 things: Los Angeles Times should have its publisher in brackets, and I'm confused, is Rap-Up's publisher Devin Lazerine, Rap-Up, LLC, or SPIN Music Group? Its article body states Lazerine, its infobox shows Rap-Up, LLC, and its website states "SPIN Music Group, a division of BUZZMEDIA". Et3rnal 22:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I've always known Rap-Up's publisher to be Devin Lazerine, as that is what I was told it was, so that's what I've always used.  — AARON • ^TALK 09:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah ok, might as well leave it at that then. Et3rnal 10:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "'Roman's Revenge' references both artist's alter egos". Apostrophe should be moved to after the s.
  • Done.  — ₳aron
• Apostrophe needed after Trey Songz in his photo caption. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So: Minaj is a guest vocalist on Trey Songz, (pictured) song "Bottoms Up". ? That doesn't make sense.  — ₳aron 20:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said apostrophe, not comma, as in "Trey Songz' song" or maybe "Trey Songz's song". Giants2008 (Talk) 00:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - mostly on sourcing and comprehensiveness

• Suggest linking mixtape
  • Linked  — ₳aron 10:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Trinidadian-American rapper Nicki Minaj has recorded songs for two studio albums, one re-issue and three mix tapes, some of which were collaborations with other performers." - ambiguous. Are these "some of" the songs or the "two studio albums, one re-issue and three mixtapes"?
  • Some songs are collaborations with other artists, on her albums and others.  — ₳aron 10:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What is the purpose of note 1, especially after the opening sentence, which states nothing about songwriting?
  • Yes it does. Her stage name is Nicki Minaj, her songwriting credit name is sometimes Onika Maraj or Onika Tanya Maraj, which is her birth name. The table of contents uses Onika Maraj, as that is the name in her booklet. BMI sometimes uses the former, sometimes the latter. So it does actually have everything to do with her songwriting. It was suggested that I do this. It explains why Onika Maraj is used in the TOC.  — ₳aron 10:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps include this in the "Writers" cell then. Adabow (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What is the source for the single releases? Are you piggybacking off the linked articles; if so, the release of "5 Star Bitch" in that article is unsourced (the remix is actually described as a promo single). This is the main reason for my oppose.
  • "5 Star Bitch" isn't the focus here as Minaj is not on it. She is on "5 Star" (Remix), which can't be a promo single because it is available to download here, and as I'm sure you know, promo singles are free.  — ₳aron
    • My point is that the single releases are unsourced in this list. Adabow (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • How do you suggest I source all the singles as singles?  — ₳aron 10:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Press releases, purchase information, radio data - the same way that single releases are verified in any other article. Adabow (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Turn Me On" is actually on PF:RR, and not the Re-Up.
  • Corrected.  — ₳aron 10:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There seems to be quite a few holes here. "Massive Attack" sticks out to me off the top of my head. Performances as part of Young Money should be linked to, if not included (eg We Are Young Money). Mixtapes are mentioned in the opening sentence, but there are no songs from them listed here.
  • Who do you suggest I incorporate "Massive Attack" and Young Performances? Basically "BedRock". Only Beam Me Up Scotty (mixtape) has an article, but there are no writers available. If I include, 23 songs will have the N/A template for the songwriter column. If I can't source the writers as there is no booklet, how do I in turn source the song?  — ₳aron 10:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand what you mean by the first two sentences of your reply. Not including items means the list fails 3a. There are other sources besides the album liners. While I'm on this point, I hope you've actually cited where you read it, not just taking WP articles for their word and citing the relevant album liners. Adabow (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant "Where do you suggest". Have "Massive Attack" and Young Money performances as a separate paragraph at the start? Every writer in this list is attributed to the corresponding album booklet or to BMI. If I haven't got the booklet myself, I've acquired scans from online. The most time consuming part of this list is checking all the writers for each song.  — ₳aron 10:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the list, just like every other song. Adabow (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also see entries at Nicki Minaj discography#Guest appearances. Adabow (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• .The Lonely Island sorts before Alicia Keys, but 'L' comes after 'K'.
  • Corrected.  — ₳aron 10:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Press Conference" isn't actually a song, but rather an interview. I realise that it is listed on the track listing and can technically be considered a song; I think it should either be removed or be accompanied by a footnote.
  • Why are there featured artists, writers and producers credited then?  — ₳aron 10:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because other artists feature on the interview. Adabow (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adabow (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Okay. I didn't realise it was an interview. I've removed it.  — ₳aron 10:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — In terms of referencing and table formatting this list seems solid, but I have concerns over whether this is a comprehensive listing of Minaj's body of work. As Adabow brought up:

• None of Minaj's mixtape work appears in the list.
• Over one half of Minaj's featured appearances are omitted from this article. Some noticeable holes include DJ Khaled's "Take It to the Head", Drake's "Make Me Proud", French Montana's "Freaks", Justin Bieber's "Beauty and a Beat", and a lot more that I can name from the top of my head.

And some minor quibbles:

• Some background on Minaj's early mixtapes could be added to the lead.
• Was "Champion" released as a single? It's only listed as a song in its article.
  • Amended  — ₳aron 21:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a better pipelink for "Fireball" would be "[[Willow Smith#Discography|Fireball]]"
  • Piped.  — ₳aron
• If we have the Cheryl Cole remix of "Check It Out" listed here, then I don't see why we can't also list the Lil Wayne remix of "Roman's Revenge" (which was released as a single).
  • Added.  — ₳aron 21:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm gonna have to oppose for now based mainly on the comprehensiveness issue. You've done some good work on this, but I feel that there's still a whole lot more to be added. Holiday56 (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegate comment: To Adabow and Holiday56: Are all of your concerns addressed, or your opposes still stand? And if they still stand, why? I want to make sure nothing is left behind to make up my mind on promoting/archiving this candidacy. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My oppose still stands due to there being unsourced statements (eg single/promo single releases) and incomprehensiveness ("Massive Attack", for one). Adabow (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that my oppose will still have to stand for now, as I don't believe my concerns over comprehensiveness have been fully addressed. Not that this isn't good work, but the list strikes me as not meeting 3a of the criteria due to the lack of mixtape recordings and multiple featured appearances. Holiday56 (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Adabow and Holiday56, for the prompt response. I will close this now. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:02, 29 September 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 22:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it covers the topic completely and is of very high quality. Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 22:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The lead needs a drastic expansion, the references need a lot of work on formatting, and I'm not sure that the tables meet accessibility (for example, the tables include a date on each row, but I see no release date header, so this needs to be clarified). — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I fixed the Release date header and other problems, but could you please give some tips on how to improve/expand the lead? I don't know what more should be added, since the title is pretty much self-explanatory. Thank you.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 00:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is no header text for the columns with the names. --Mika1h (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I have added "Name" headers to all tables and fixed other issues. Thank you.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 15:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose no lead per WP:LEAD, references inadequately formatted, tables don't meet MOS:DTT per WP:ACCESS, captions don't comply with WP:CAPTION, use of colour alone fails (yet again), WP:ACCESS, ref titles fail WP:DASH. Recommend instant removal from here, and perhaps listing at WP:PR if someone there is bold enough to review this. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What can be done in your opinion to improve color coding in the list? Also, do you think that the lists should have sorting dates? Thank you.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 17:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Familiarise yourself with WP:ACCESS. Sortable dates would be great. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the captions and made the tables sortable. Do you have any suggestions for the lead? Like I said earlier in another response, I don't know what more should be added, since the title is pretty much self-explanatory. Thank you.

I'd recommend going into the decision-making behind why these different colors were created. Were they promotional? Due to poor sales? How were they received by critics? How did they differ in packaging and functionality? How were they marketed? There's a whole lot that can be done. I've found WT:VG a helpful place to get this kind of feedback, generally. czar ♔ 01:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, as per TRM above, this fails multiple MOS guidelines, and is a long way from being featured quality. This is not the place for drastic article improvement, that should be completed at WP:PR with an experienced editor. Harrias ^talk 20:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on WP:FLCR #2: incomplete lead, which has the potential to be really compelling. Probably won't be possible to expand in current FLC timeframe. czar ♔ 01:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This article has the bare basics, but that only earns it a Start-Class. It has no lede, defining structure or anything that warrants FA status. I apologize if I sound harsh, but I feel I should be honest with this. DarthBotto _talk•cont 03:30, 25 September 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 20:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the article is among the most important ones of the Freedom of Speech project. It is cited with reliable sources throughout the whole article, and I have not found a thorough list of journalists killed in Mexico in my research. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 20:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments- A few initial observations:

• Date – If the default is supposed to be chronological, the second entry is out of order. Also, the sorting function for date is not working properly. Because the dates are not consistent in their format (i.e., some have day/month/year and others month/year, and a few just year) you may need to use a hidden key for sorting and should refer to MOS:DTT.

Good catch. I didn't see the second entry out of place. Some of the sources, unfortunately, only give the year. I'll do some research again for those that only have the year and see if I can find the complete dates.

See hidden key sort to get an idea of behind the scenes sorting.-Godot13 (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Name – The column is sorting by first name, it would be better by last name.

Thanks for the suggestion. Do you mean I should put the last name first and then his first name (i.e. Doe, John)? I'm not sure what you're looking for.

That could be one way. I think the names look better as is, it's a matter of behind the scenes sorting to get them to list alphabetically by last name.-Godot13 (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Location – Sometimes the town/city is accompanied by the state, sometimes it is not. This needs to be consistent. Also, the town (or state, if the town does not have an article) should be linked to the relevant article. Since this is a sortable table, it should be linked each time. What does “N/A” mean for location? The place of death is unknown? I’m not sure how that would be not applicable.

(1) The ones that stand by themselves are the states. Some sources only mention the state they were killed, unfortunately. I also left Mexico City on its own b/c it is a federal entity and is not within a state.

Ok.-Godot13 (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(2) I just linked the towns, cities, and states without doing overlinking. So should I link each place for each journalist?

In a sortable table, a link in necessary each time. Given that the city link will provide the relevant state in its article, I personally don't think you need to link the state as well. But each line in the location column should have at least one link (in my opinion for a sortable table)-Godot13 (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Though it might be bizarre, there are sources that give all the other information (date, name, and media outlet) but do not mention the place. I'll make sure to double check on the web and see if I can find anything, though. The N/A in this case means "Not available."

• Media outlet – Whenever possible, these should be linked to articles. Articles may not exist, please check to be certain.

Thanks, just linked the ones that have an article. Would linking a newspaper twice be consider overlinking?

ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 05:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, given it is a sortable table.-Godot13 (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Check reference 40 for the date.

Good catch. Ref fixed.

• Suggestion – a relevant image for the lead paragraph that is visually engaging for the reader.

Thanks. I'll see if I can make a map of Mexico with the states and killings using data from Committee to Protect Journalists. The states with the most murders of journalists would be in darker red, and the ones with the least (or none) in lighter red or blank.

• Looking through the references it is evident that you have put in a great deal of work on this list.-Godot13 (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thanks for your suggestions above. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 05:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a drive-by comment, the fact that the dates are sortable is, currently, not particularly useful. Rather than 1 January 2013/January 2013, you could format it as 2013-01-01/2013-01, which would allow us to sort by date. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting. Year-month-day, correct? ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 06:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, extremely important page related to WP:Freedom of speech and Freedom of speech. — Cirt (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The intro is very interesting to read, but it doesn't really cover the table very well. I would not mind another paragraph with some of the more famous assassinations, and perhaps some statistics; also, a graph about reported deaths per decade? Nergaal (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion, Nergaal. Where do you think the statistics should go? On the first paragraph by the end or in the final (two-sentence) paragraph? Given that this Wikipedia list is WAY longer than any list provided by Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, ARTICLE 19, and others, the figures provided by them will be conflicting with the number of journalists mentioned on this list. This is the only reason why I decided not to include so many stats and numbers, because many sources have different death-tolls—I assume this is rooted on the disagreement surrounding the definition of "journalist", who knows. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 23:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments/oppose

• The table needs to meet WP:ACCESS per MOS:DTT for row and col scopes.
• The table sorting needs to be fixed (e.g. the date column's sorting is completely wrong).
• Refs don't need to be sortable.
• Section titles include "Drug War" but this isn't mentioned in that form in the lead. I would reduce the lead and have introductory paragraphs for each table.
• Ref 26 for example, "p. 25-26." page ranges need to be pp. and use an en-dash, not a hyphen per WP:DASH. Check others.
• Avoid SHOUTING in ref titles.
• New York Times is The New York Times.
• Global Post -> GlobalPost. And it looks like a publisher rather than a work.
• Please add page numbers or ranges to refs which use PDFs.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): mijotoba (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have made substantial changes to the list and numbering, something that I was responsible the first time around. Substantial changes have been made to the listing, and the current list takes in consideration both local and international audiences, explaining all the intricacies that revolve around the history of the Office of the President. Having this list be a Featured List would provide a guide for the improvement of over 100 articles related to the presidency and the president of Colombia (presidents, vice presidents, designates, first ladies, etc). I'm also hoping that by going through this process, issues that may have escaped me can be addressed, and that other more experienced users can suggest changes or improvements. mijotoba (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to list what redirects there unless there's a disambiguation to be noted.

Don't understand what you mean. mijotoba (talk)

• Don't start with "The following is..." ...

Fixed. mijotoba (talk)

• The section descriptions are great, but the lead needs to be much longer.
• No comma after '1821–1831' or Gran Colombia

Fixed. mijotoba (talk)

• No comma after 'Vice President Santander'

Fixed. mijotoba (talk)

• Grenadine section: No commas around 'and last'

Fixed. mijotoba (talk)

• 'furthermore' needs a comma after it, and it should start a new sentence. Semicolon before 'since' in the same sentence.

Fixed. mijotoba (talk)

• No comma after 'could not take office'

Fixed. mijotoba (talk)

• Start a new sentence at 'as pretender to presidency'.

Done. mijotoba (talk)

• There are a lot of misused commas and run-on sentences. Please have someone copyedit this for you; I'm not going to point them all out.
• In the United States of Colombia and R of C tables, merge all the empty cells for Vice President into a single row-spanning cell.

Done. mijotoba (talk)

• See if you can add pictures for those without them. A quick look at the articles of Restrepo and Ayala showed they had pictures.

Done. There is no free image of President Valencia available. mijotoba (talk)

Good work overall. Reywas92^Talk 03:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead gives the impression this is a random list related to places named Columbia, I presume that some continuity of existence is seen by the current Colombia that goes back to 1819 but it is not clear why these should not be seperate lists.
• In the image caption it uses the term administration can it be made clearer is this just the Presidents office or something bigger, not sure you need current it is not very encyclopedic, perhaps something like official residence since 19XX.
• RoC 1819-1831 the first sentence mentions the consititution of 1831 taking effect in 1821 which is a bit confusing.
• RoC 1819-1831 has 1819-1831 in the title then starts to use 1821-1831 was a bit confusing.
• Not sure about the big blue blocks used table cells, I can see that they are not applicable but are very distracting.
• RoC 1886 "For Colombian leaders before this, see the above lists." not sure it is needed as it is a bit obvious.
• I did get a bit confused about acting presidents and why they exist but that may be down to my ignorance of South American politics and government!

An interesting article but it gets a bit wordy in places, it may be my lack of previous knowledge on the subject but I will have another read later in the week and see if I have any mnore comment. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MilborneOne, thanks for the comment. It is true the lead was confusing, because someone changed it from the original, I changed it back so the lead should make sense now if you want to take a look at it. And yes, the Presidential system in Colombia is very confusing, I myself had to navigate through dozens of books to understand it properly, and that is why it is a bit wordy, because there are some people who are mistakenly called "president of Colombia" when they actually never held the title, so the individual leads is to avoid any controversy, and to clarify why the individuals included or excluded are so. mijotoba (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments/oppose

• We don't start lists with "This is a list..." any more (haven't done for a couple of years now).
• Lead is too short and should summarise the whole list.
• Tables need to meet WP:ACCESS, particularly with regard to MOS:DTT which allows screenreaders to announce the table. I suggest these complex tables are reviewed by an expert, perhaps User:RexxS if you can get the time from him?
• Large paragraphs of text are entirely unreferenced.
• Not sure about the mix of normal and small font, what's the point?
• What does an entirely grey cell represent?
• Using colours alone for the party representation is another contravention of MOS, per MOS:COLOUR.
• Please apply WP:YEAR to year ranges.
• Most, if not all the notes should be referenced.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
• Large blocks of unreferenced text, most of which is not a summary of the referenced tables
• No explanation given in the lead as to why these distinct administrative regions are in fact continuations of the same Columbian state
• Lead does not summarize the text/tables
• Poor distinctions between acting presidents and regular ones- the first one is mentioned as being elected in the text, and the second one is not even mentioned. I'm confused as to what "acting presidents" are supposed to be, and the text isn't helping
• If there is nothing in a cell, it should have a — there, not a eye-catching gray block
• I don't like how the presidents have their birth-death dates beneath their names, in the same format that the vice presidents and acting presidents have their reigns
• The living former presidents section seems out of place

--PresN 22:31, 3 September 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): WestminsterFullerine (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Driveby nom; no nominating rationale, and the nominator has never edited the page. --PresN 22:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Quick oppose this list has been previously nominated, but as far as I can tell it hasn't been updated for a few months and as PresN notes, the nominator has no relationship with the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 23:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some work on this, and looking for more chart positions as I could before this discography was a section in the Buggles article, I think this article's ready to be a Featured list. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 23:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Archive other online sources with webcitation.org. You can use this page (step-by-step instructions there) to manually archive all online references which will guarantee they remain accessible even if the site goes down. After this has been resolved, I would be happy to support! SoapFan12 10:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Sources archived except for Sydney Morning Herald which had an error that prevented it from being archived. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 14:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Awesome! Good job on meeting every single FL criteria! SoapFan12 16:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 16:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. I can see that you've exerted much effort in creating this, but there are still several issues.
• Comments
• "Accessed from (date)" – This wording doesn't really make sense: "Accessed on (date)" is the correct and more frequently used wording. I'd suggest using the cite web template; it's far easier to use than just writing all that down manually.
  •  Done EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Should Drama really be included here? It was only released under Yes' name, and just because Horn and Downes were involved in its recording doesn't automatically make it a Buggles album. Was this album released under the Buggles name?
  •  Done No, so removed. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• No point in a certifications column when none of their two albums have actually been certified.
  •  Done EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• For consistency, "CHE" should be replaced with "SWI"; Germany isn't written as "DE", after all.
  •  Done EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Music videos could have some director info, if available, and should be placed in table format. And those Dailymotion/YouTube sources aren't officially uploaded by the band or their label, and therefore aren't suitable for inclusion as references, let alone external links. Are there any DVD releases or periodical sources that include/mention these videos? I'm sure there's a far more reliable source to be found for the "Video Killed the Radio Star" video.
  •  Done Surprsingly, there weren't any Video albums by this group, and most of the videos are only rare youtube uploads. I've add a reliable source to indicate that videos for both "Plastic Age" and "Video", and the rest I've removed from this. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "made 2 studio albums, a collaborative album with Yes, 9 singles, and 6 music videos." – Since they're smaller than 10, those numbers should be in written form ("two", "nine", "six"). Once again, I question the inclusion of the Yes album here.
  •  Done EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't think it's really suitable to include an image of the band where Downes isn't present. Perhaps this one could be used, and you could add a fair use rationale for its use on the discography page.
  • I don't think wikiproject discogs allows non-free images, and I've removed that image. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Prose needs cleaning up; perhaps the Guild of Copy Editors could help.
  • Did a bit of stuff to it, but I'll ask the Guild of Copy Editors to see what I could do. Thanks for the review!! EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think its starting to look better, but I don't know if its enough for this to be a FL. I'll see if the Guild of Copy Editors will do anything. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 22:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Holiday56 (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Issues have been fixed, so these comments by Holiday56 are now irrelevant. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 14:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A copy edit was requested at the GOCE page, and I have done one. --Stfg (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Obviously until the merge template issue has been resolved, this cannot be promoted.
  • It was nominated for a merge shortly after I nominted this for a FLC. There have been two oppose votes so far, including one from me. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 03:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • UPDATE: Merge discussion was closed as no consensus. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 21:00, 15 August 2013 (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 10:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): NortyNort (Holla) 20:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...I believe it meets Featured List criteria and is a great resource for the world's current premiere dam builder. It lists the major dams and their reservoirs which are complete or under construction. Given the large number of dams and reservoirs in China it is by no means comprehensive but includes the largest and tallest dams along with those with the largest reservoirs by volume and surface area. I also included dams on the list which may not be the most notable but for which Wikipedia has articles. I submitted it for Peer Review nearly two months ago. The concern was pictures in the article. There are not many pictures for dams in China and the several licensed pictures that exist can be placed prior to or after the list given the list's width. Thank you.--NortyNort (Holla) 20:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative oppose simply because it is not clear to me what is the criteria for inclusion in this list, and how many other dams are there that might be missing from here. I strongly suggest reordering this list from alphabetical to the dam height (or perhaps basin size if you really think that is better) and then choose a threshold for inclusion and provide a reference that the list is at least reasonably complete. 30 meters or 100 feet might seem fine as a limit, but considering that there are 22k dams above 15 m, I highly doubt that there are less than 1k dams above that threshold. More realistically would be 50 meters. Also, it might be better to change "division" to "province or region". Nergaal (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scope for the "Dams and reservoirs in <country>" is generally wide and all inclusive. I have never seen criteria for one of these lists, nor is one an FL. Is a very specific criteria mandatory? The problem with a 50 meter minimum height is that smaller dams like Jinping-2, which have very large hydroelectric power stations and are therefore significant, would not be included. I made it low at around 20 meters to keep less significant local dams off the list. There are many ways to organize this list of dams and reservoirs and since there is sometimes no real correlation between dam height and reservoir size I figured alphabetically by dam name was best as a default since every column can be sorted. I am not sure about making a further change to the organization. By dam height would be my next option. As far as divisions, the dams are located in provinces, regions and in some cases like Chongqing, a National Central City. I changed the column title to reflect that. Thank you for taking the time to review and comment. Your continued thoughts are appreciated.--NortyNort (Holla) 20:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try to have a section which will be 100% complete, and perhaps add below something like other notable dams. Nergaal (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am getting the feeling that I should create List of tallest dams in China then. There is not much of a scope to this general list and, inherently, it will never be complete. If an FL needs a scope with dam height then I should withdraw this nomination.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I dare make an analogy to the various "tallest building" FLs, they have defined criteria for inclusion (usually 70 m and above if I recall correctly), and I guess this is similar. You could have two lists, one with dams above 50 metres and those between (say) 20 and 50 metres. If you'd like to withdraw, please let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination due to the list's general scope. When I get some time I will make a similar list of dams over 100 meters, as the tallest dams. Thank you all for the help. I understand "scope" a lot better now.--NortyNort (Holla) 16:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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