Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/September 2014

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

The list was archived by SchroCat 07:53, 28 September 2014 [1].

National Film Award for Best Supporting Actor

[edit]
Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk · contribs) 02:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the articles, National Film Award for Best Actor and Best Actress, I have made it the way they are, the lists that are having the featured status presently. Apart from that the article is comprehensive, up to date and lastly meet all other FL criteria. FrankBoy (Buzz) 02:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Dharmadhyaksha
  • ”Unknown” roles should be filled in.checkY
  • The line "Nana Patekar, Mithun Chakraborty, Prakash Raj, and Naseeruddin Shah are the only actors to win the National Film Award in this and Best Actor category." has no ref.
    • There is no source regarding the claim so I have removed the line.
  • It should be "It is one of the".checkY
  • Has the cash price always been this amount?checkY
  • Please mention that Ghare Baire was Bengali film.checkY
  • "in the Hindi film Satya (1998) respectively at the age". Whats the "respectively" for?
    • Removed.
  • And am against mentioning youngest and oldest winner as age has nothing to do here. Its trivial. Maybe if a child actor won such award ever then its worth mentioning. At age 30 its nothing but trivia.
    • Removed.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All cleared up.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 21:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Redtigerxyz
  • There are some actors who have won the award for two films. This also needs to be noted in the lead. Also I will suggest a different colour key be used for these.checkY
  • The only tie also needs to be the lead.Redtigerxyz Talk 10:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)checkY[reply]

--FrankBoy (Buzz) 11:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Dadasaheb Phalke Award. There is some committee I think. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FrankBoy (Buzz) 20:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) 06:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from —Vensatry (ping)
  • 54th National Film Awards linked twice in ledecheckY
  • In the table all entries should be linked as the table is sortable.checkY
  • "The National Film Awards instituted the "Best Supporting Actor" category in 1984 as the "Rajat Kamal Award for the Best Supporting Actor" - This is unclear. I guess the DFF must be having the authority to introduce new categories.checkY
  • "Pankaj Kapur won the awards for his performances in Hindi films Raakh (1988) and Maqbool (2003).[6] While Atul Kulkarni won the awards for his performances in the Tamil-Hindi film Hey Ram (1999) and the Hindi film Chandni Bar (2001)." I have no idea about why you have begun the second sentence with a "while". Also no need to re-iterate the first names of winners in the lead that too when they appear successively.checkY
  • "Paresh Rawal and Dilip Prabhavalkar have won the award for two performances in a year. Rawal has won the award for his roles in Woh Chokri and Sir at the 41st National Film Awards while Prabhavalkar has won the award for the roles in Lage Raho Munna Bhai and Shevri at the 54th National Film Awards" - "has won the award for his roles in" is repetitive stuff. Consider rephrasing it.checkY
  • The sentence which talks about tied winners should indicate the languages of the films rather than their roles. Also a "respectively" should be there to avoid ambiguity.checkY
  • "The most recent recipient is Saurabh Shukla, who was honoured at the 61st National Film Awards ceremony for his performance in the film Jolly LLB". This should really go to the end of the para as we follow chronology in these kinds of lists.checkY
  • "The character remained unnamed throughout the film." Needs a reliable sourcecheckY
  • I don't think FN #3, which talks about Deepankar De's charatcer in Paroma, is really needed. What's so special about it?checkY
  • Link Oneindia in ref.checkY
  • PDF refs. need page noscheckY
  • Why is DFF linked in in refs #1 and #7 alone?checkY
  • Link Press Information Bureau in refs.checkY

—Vensatry (ping) 08:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)--FrankBoy (Buzz) 06:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was archived by SchroCat 07:53, 28 September 2014 [2].

List of public art in the City of Westminster

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ham (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For several years I have been creating this list of public artworks (very broadly defined) in the City of Westminster, the borough of London which includes the official centre, where that city's most important concentrations of memorials can be found. All the major works and the lion's share of the more obscure ones have been covered with citations, images, co-ordinates, notes and sometimes Commons categories, so I feel that the page meets the criterion of comprehensiveness. Only architectural sculptures have had to be excluded due to the sheer size of this list; for them there is a separate article. I eagerly look forward to your comments. Ham (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an excellent list (I'm slowly working on some of the S/W outer London areas). I don't think it is comprehensive enough yet though (you've set yourself a tricky task with an area with as much public art as this). From a search on geograph I found various examples like this, this, etc. The first station I randomly checked on Art on the Underground had this. I don't think it is practical to expect comprehensive coverage, but where something has already been documented in a nice database like geograph I think it is practical to ask for everything there to be included. It's a horrible website to use but have you also checked the article against what's in the PMSA database?
Also you haven't put in any photos of murals on buildings. I'm no expert in copyright but the 1988 UK law explicitly grants an exemption for photographs of copyrighted buildings (including any fixed structure, and a part of a building or fixed structure). I can't see how something painted on to a building does not count as a part of that building even if it would count as a 2D graphic work if it was painted somewhere else instead. In the abscence of any knowledge of legal cases testing the exact dividing line I would say that we would be OK in using any images that are clearly of a 3D looking building but maybe not just attempts to reproduce the 2D artwork element of the mural. Has there been any discussion of this on wikipedia previously? JMiall₰ 18:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JMiall: Thanks for replying and for the kind words‍—‌I was starting to worry that I might get no response! I know that there are more examples but haven't been able to find sources for them‍—‌for instance the sundial on Pickering Place you've noted has a few mentions on the web but there's no information on who made it or when. The FL criteria define comprehensiveness as "providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items", and in my opinion it wouldn't be practical to include anything for which there's no verifiable information. I wouldn't have thought that images on Geograph count as a source in these circumstances.
I would say that they do count as a source of the information that there is a piece of public art in that location if nothing else. For something that is a bit ambiguous about whether it is actually art or public I'd omit them but if it seems obviously public art then I'd include whatever information is available. JMiall₰ 10:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re your other examples: Tottenham Court Road station is in the borough of Camden, and I counted John Maine's work at Green Park station as architectural sculpture on the basis that it's carved into stone and incorporated in the fabric of the building, but it can be tricky deciding what fits that definition when it comes to contemporary art. It might be better to have it in the main list after all. I wasn't aware of the Art on the Underground site; I'll go through it to see if there are examples I have missed. The PMSA's database doesn't have any entries for the City of Westminster, or, at least, the works in Philip Ward-Jackson's 2011 book aren't on it (unlike those in his 2003 book on the City of London, despite both books being in the PMSA's Public Sculpture of Britain series).
Re copyright, I'm not sure what you mean by "copyrighted buildings"‍—‌isn't there Freedom of Panorama in the UK?‍—‌but your suggestion about showing murals in their 3D context sounds like a good idea. I might mention this issue later at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, to see if there has been past discussion on Wikipedia about it. Ham (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is freedom of panorama but that doesn't mean that buildings aren't copyrighted, just that taking photos of them doesn't infringe any copyright. JMiall₰ 10:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see you reference one of the council's conservation area audits. They seem to have these for many conservation areas and some (eg St John's Wood) have decent lists for what the council regards as public art. Have you checked that their lists and yours match?
Also if you look at the map with all the coordinates there seem to be some suspiciously large gaps (St John's Wood is one). I know it's difficult to prove a negative but are you fairly sure there really isn't anything in these areas? This also shows a W/E error on the Norwegian War Memorial coord.
I would count listed benches as public art in the same vein as ornate drinking fountains etc. JMiall₰ 11:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen this list of mosaics? It has a Westminster section. I've no idea how public most of them are but there's a picture of the Marble arch mosaics here. There's also a sculpture which seems to be designed to be easily seen from the road, not sure if the land it is on is publicly accessable. JMiall₰ 22:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JMiall: Thanks for all these pointers‍—‌plenty of work for me to do! I've gone through all the conservation area audits now, identified the works to be added (the highest number is in St John's Wood) and started to add them. I think I can work out in most cases which works in the database are outdoors (this, for instance) and which are not. The sculpture at The Lancasters is worth including, provided that it's permanent (which looks likely). I'll call back here as soon as all those changes are made. Ham (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JMiall: I've now gone through the conservation area audits with a fine comb and left out only those works for which I can't see any trace on Google Maps or Street View, incorporated the suggestions you've made on the article talk page and here and restored the pics of murals and tube station interiors. Ham (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. I've had another look through geograph for art in the NWish part of Westminster that seemed quite empty on the coordinates map. This is what I found: 1, 2, possibly the mural from 3 or is this the remains of old advertising?, possibly 4 but the image seems to be taken over a wall and looking on streetview they aren't particularly public murals, 5, 6, 7 (for the architectural list), 8, 9, 10 (too recent to be on streetview). I will search around for more. JMiall₰ 17:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some more from geograph in the fairly empty southern bit of Westminster: 11 (still on streetview in June 2014), 12. It might be worth mentioning the Rootstein Hopkins Parade Ground at Chelsea College of Arts which seems to have an ongoing selection of works on display. Anyway given it wasn't that hard to find more works in these areas this makes me suspicious that there's lots more works in the rest of Westminster that aren't included either. A problem in an area with such a huge amount of art. JMiall₰ 18:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Fitzrovia Mural doesn't seem to be in Westminster. JMiall₰ 19:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JMiall: I've added the Rootstein Hopkins Parade Ground, as well as [6], [9] and [10], as I've been able to find other online sources for them. I've also removed the Fitzrovia Mural. I'm still really apprehensive about citing sites like Geograph or Flickr as sources, which feels roughly on a par with citing Wikimedia Commons, another user-generated image upload site‍—‌not up to scratch for a featured list. If a work hasn't been written about elsewhere it does raise questions about its notability for inclusion; WP:LSC is a useful point of reference here. The beauty of Geograph is that the photos can be added to Commons anyway, and be there as an aide-mémoire until more information can be found about the individual works. Looking at a Commons category like this (which includes image [5]), it's clear that not every work there needs to be included in the list. I personally think the page currently meets the criteria for comprehensiveness and that any additions are an added bonus but not essential (though I will address the remaining suggestions on the talk page next). Not to be immodest, but the list does cover the topic more comprehensively than any book that currently exists!
Re the north-west and the south being under-represented, it's worth noting that "Whitehall to St James's" is considered a "monument saturation zone" by Westminster City Council, and I would expect the more residential areas to have less public art. Ham (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem believing that this list is more comprehensive than any book. Hopefully you've been through all the major books on the topic making sure this is the case.

I've not reviewed a featured list before so may be applying too high a standard. My point of view is that I'm trying to review this list against a scope that has the possibility of being quite vague (What is art? What is public? What isn't architectural sculpture? What is permanent? etc) but against the criteria that the list should be of professional quality and attempt to include all items. So would I expect a professional quality list to include say just a photo from a user-generated website with no other info? No. Would I expect a list that is trying to be comprehensive to deliberately omit an item that verifiably belongs in that list? No. What I've been trying to do by suggesting various pictures from geograph etc is not to say that everything I've suggested needs to be in the list but that these things need further investigation because they may be evidence that the list isn't comprehensive. Is it 'practical' to investigate some of these? I'd say yes. So if there was info in a geograph page associated with an image that couldn't be found elsewhere then I'd email the photographer and ask where they got that info from etc.

Maybe I'm trying to apply the (professionally) well-researched criteria from FA when that isn't actually in the FL criteria? Anyway, I'm happy to believe that the really major items are included and that there probably aren't that many of the size of say ShackStack missing and that if you didn't add anything else to the list I wouldn't use that as a reason to oppose.

Some comments on the list rather than what isn't in the list:

  • Link Shaftesbury Memorial Fountain, Still Water (sculpture) on their entries.
    •  Done. (Incredible that it took till last month for someone to write an article on "Eros"!)
  • I would cut down on the amount of bracketed text in the 2nd paragraph of the lead.
    •  Done. I've kept only the first parenthesis.
  • 'Many of the most notable sites for commemoration' – what does this mean?
    • The three areas named‍—‌Trafalgar Square, Parliament Square and the Victoria Embankment‍—‌have an especially high number of memorials. It can be verified that these are considered to be especially notable as Ward-Jackson's Public Sculpture of Historic Westminster (2011) has dedicated essays on each of them, but not for the other districts within the book's scope. (From that book's blurb: "The use of Parliament Square, Trafalgar Square and the Victoria Embankment as sites for commemoration is discussed in sections within the topographical survey...")
  • 'on the western edge of the modern borough' – if this is an attempt to squeeze in the info that the borough boundaries have changed then I'm not sure this is important info for the lead.
    • I've reworked the sentence; it now has a different emphasis and mentions the Victoria Memorial.
  • Zimbabwe House is an unneceessary redirect (admittedly to an article that probably should be titled Zimbabwe House) (also do we need to know it used to be the BMA building here if the article is linked?)
    •  Done. Changed the redirect. The reference to the BMA is because the sculptures' symbolism relates to the building's original use rather than to Zimbabwe.
  • It would be nice if there was some way the reader could tell from the text they see that the link in the Title/Individual column was going to take them to the article about the individual or the statue. (this is already done for some of them)
    •  Done. Italicised all the names of individuals which link to artworks.
  • Might as well link St Martin's Lane and Drury Lane. And St James's & Hyde parks on first mention. + Queen Caroline, Royal Parks Foundation, Tiffany & Co, Queen Elizabeth II, Greatcoat, Diana, The Long Water, Frock Coat, Dirce etc
    •  Done. Linked St Martin's Lane, Drury Lane, Queen Caroline, Elizabeth II, Greatcoat, Diana, Frock coat, Dirce and others.
    • Re the parks, which is best, linking them on first mention but not in their dedicated sections, only linking them in the latter (as is the situation now), or both?
  • I'd link Father Thames without a piped link (which I'd prefer was a redlink than the current useless redirect) or just link the Thames part.
  • Sigismund Goetze looks worthy of a redlink.
    •  Done. I'll create an article shortly as I don't like red links!
  • 'The installation of the Canada Memorial in the park in 1994 marked the end of a traditional reluctance by government to site memorials in the Royal Parks' – this can't be true as the SHAEF memorial in Bushy Park had already been erected in March 1994.
    • Rephrased as "Governments have traditionally been reluctant to situate memorials in the Royal Parks, and there were none in Green Park until the installation of the Canada Memorial in 1994".
  • Round the coordinates to the same number of decimal places throughout?
    • Is there a particular way of doing this? An automated or semi-automated way? It sounds like quite an operation otherwise.
      • You can use the round template within coord if you wanted to do it that way. I think that anything currently given to 6dp (about 10 cm precision) needs rounding to 4 or 5 dp as it is falsely precise otherwise. If you are confident that all the coordinates given to 5 dp are good to within 1 m then round to 5 dp, otherwise 4 dp would seem plenty to me. JMiall₰ 20:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need George Gilbert Scott linked 13 times in a row? Also the frieze table is overlinked.
    •  Fixed. All duplicate links within sections have been removed. But I've kept some duplicate links thinking that if, for instance, someone were reading the entry for the Cenotaph and wanted to follow a link to Edwin Lutyens, they wouldn't have to scroll all the way up to "Aldwych / Strand" to find it. In the list entries the links "reset" for every new section, as it were.
  • another possibility?
    • My feeling is that it should go under architectural sculpture. Bluerain on the other list is very similar.
  • I added a photo of Timelines.
    • Thanks! :)
  • Allies has a spare #
    •  Fixed
  • something could be said about the cooling tower it is covered by a number of online sources
    • I don't think the online sources really say anything about it; it would be better to find a good essay. This applies for the Tottenham Court Road mosaics too. (I said above that the station was in Camden; that was because the article for it was miscategorised at the time.)
  • this ref doesn't work for me. JMiall₰ 00:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links/refs: I've tried to load every cited website that wasn't added recently.

    • @JMiall: Thanks for your rigour in going through all these.
  • I don't know what most of the link in #51 is meant to be doing but just this part seems to have the same effect. There are other long google book search links that could probably also be trimmed.
    •  Fixed the first instance.
  • 1, 2 (also no menton of registraton required unlike other ODNB entries), 3, 4, 5, 6 don't work for me.
    • [1] replaced with this archived version; I'll replace [2] with a citation from Pevsner when I get a chance to visit a library which has it; I've replaced [3] and [4] with this more up-to-date link; [5] works fine for me; [6] is the broken link already noted above‍—‌I'll have to email PaddingtonCentral to ask about an alternative printed (or, less likely, online) source.
  • #245 has no retrieved date if you are citing it as an online resource or publication info if published as a book.
    •  Fixed. Today's date added.
  • #478 was retrieved in 1920 & 526 in 201!
    •  Fixed. Today's date added for both.
  • #563 needs registration but this isn't noted
    •  Fixed. The author seems to have changed the settings of her blog to private; I've found a more public link instead.
  • I haven't done very much checking of facts against refs as a proportion of the refs but what I have checked has seemed OK. JMiall₰ 18:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have some more redirects to this article please, currently there is only one. Things like 'List of statues in Westminster', 'Sculptures in the City of Westminster', 'Mosaics in Central London', 'Public Art in Westminster', 'Public sculpture in Westminster', 'Statuary of Westminster' and variations on those themes. I'm sure others can think of more terms people might try to search for. JMiall₰ 19:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creating the following:
Ham (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by SchroCat 10:15, 22 September 2014 [3].

List of Hammond organ players

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first attempt at FLC. The Hammond organ is a popular keyboard instrument used by a wide variety of artists. I have been steadily working on this list for about a year, trimming out questionable entries and ensuring it is comprehensive and properly sourced. I've recently tidied up the presentation to include images wherever possible, and after a short informal peer review I now believe it is a good introduction to the people who contributed to the Hammond's notability, and meets the standards for a formal FLC review.. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments

  • As there's no real way to claim this list is comprehensive, it should use the {{dynamic list}} template.
Agreed - plus I considered the list should only consider people where a reliable source has documented their use of the Hammond as significant. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why aren't photos used where available, e.g. James Brown?
I took the view that photos should only be included where they specifically depict the subject playing a Hammond organ. For example, File:Jamesbrown4.jpg shows him playing a Roland synth. Same problem with all the images of Tony Banks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not unreasonable, but you could include them if they're not playing anything, or crop existing available images to suit. But it's not a big deal. I have a natural inclination to dislike empty cells, they always appear to me as if someone's forgotten something... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair comment - in some instances the "models played" field is empty simply because no reliable source seems to document it, many just say "organ" or even "keyboards". There are plenty of unreliable sources that document models, but I am suspicious of some of the claims just being of the "oh, it's on the internet so it must be true" variety. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A typical Wikipedian after their best friend pointed out several violations of MOS:ENDASH in their edits
  • Not convinced that sortability is helpful since the tables are already split alphabetically. Would be helpful in a single table...
Done - was only really useful for names anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Names should sort by surname, using the {{sortname}} template.
Isn't this now obsolete, since sorting has been turned off? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but now make sure that each table is in alphabetical order, e.g. put Bundrick before Burke. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only one that I can see is contentious now is Money Mark, where "Mark" is not obviously a surname. How do we normally cope with pseudonyms in a list of real names? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go by the stage name, so just list by Money. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for WP:DASH violations, e.g. in reference titles.
I guess this is an opportunity to install User:GregU/dashes.js and try it out - is that likely to fix them? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's altogether possible. I use a script too. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More later, The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Martin has picked up the baton and is fixing stuff. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... am keeping a low profile, as I can't stand the powell Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Comment
The introduction outlines the instrument and its role in music, but, except for Smith, players are not mentioned. Since this list is about players, It would be of interest to the general reader to learn about some of the important figures associated with various styles, developments, techniques, etc. in different genres, time periods, etc. (something roughly similar to the List of jazz bassists, but with refs). Maybe open with a general statement like, "Players in several different musical styles have contributed to the popular use of the Hammond organ. Beginning with jazz players in the 19XXs, such as..." Otherwise, the layout and use of images are visually appealing. The Associated acts (shorter is better, but see Booker T. entry) and Notes are informative and it appears that there is at least one ref per entry. I agree with the comment about the empty cells though—the Ms look unfinished. May include a popular song or album under Notes if nothing else. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at fleshing out the lead with some of the obvious names. The problem I had with this is that I thought for a reasonable lead, it would be tricky, not to mention POV, to determine what names went in it and what got left out. Jimmy Smith crops up in multiple sources, but for the remainder I've made a best guess as to those players who have been predominantly associated with the instrument. I'll see what I can do about fleshing out the "Notes" field; I just didn't want to go overboard on it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 06:04, 21 September 2014 [4].

List of United Kingdom food and drink products with protected status

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sotakeit (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe if fulfills all of the FL criteria:

  • Prose: It features professional standards of writing;
  • Lead: I think the lead sums up the list and its scope well, including inclusion criteria and sourcing.
  • Comprehensiveness: List includes all items listed by the European Commission as having protected geographic status, with a brief description of the restrictions placed on each product.
  • Structure: The list is well laid out, and has been separated into section headings based on the 'classes' they are divided into by the European Commission.
  • Style: The list complies with the MOS. Is visually appealing and makes use of appropriate, free-use images.
  • Stable: The list is stable, and will only need updating if/when more items are approved for registration or removed (only one product has been removed since implementation of the schemes in 1993). Sotakeit (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I will do a full review of this later, but don't have the time right this moment (lunch break about to end :-)). As a start, I noticed this:
    • "Limited to hops prepared, processed and produced in specific area of Kent" => "Limited to hops prepared, processed and produced in a specific area of Kent"
  • More to come........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments as far down as the end of fruit and veg...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No reason to bold "United Kingdom food and drink products" in the lead
    • "relatively few when compared to France (217 protected status products), Italy (267) and Portugal (125)" - would seem to make more sense to put these in numerical order, either ascending or descending
    • Same for the next sentence
    • "described as a "traditional unimproved breeds"." - if "breeds" is meant to be plural then the "a" shouldn't be there
    • "using only birds over 20 weeks old, have been dry plucked, hung to mature and eviscerated after this period of hangin" - this doesn't read grammatically correctly, suggest the word "which" is missing after "birds"
    • "Products must be no more than 12 months old at the time of slaughter" - seems a bit odd to refer to the animals when they were still alive as "products"?? This applies in a few places in the first table
    • "cows milk" (with an apostrophe) is used in a few places, this doesn't look right to me.....
    • "using tradition or commercial methods" => "using traditional or commercial methods"
    • "Limited to potatoes produced in an area bounded by Ardkeen, in the south," - first comma not needed
    • "Limited to rhubarb produced with the Rhubarb Triangle" => "Limited to rhubarb produced within the Rhubarb Triangle"
All fixed, thanks. Sotakeit 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Protected from what? The intro does not do a good job at explaining that. Nergaal (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even more comments -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Nergaal above, it isn't really clear as it stands what the impact/benefits of the status are. Something along the lines of this should be added: "The purpose of the law is to protect the reputation of the regional foods, promote rural and agricultural activity, help producers obtain a premium price for their authentic products, and eliminate the unfair competition and misleading of consumers by non-genuine products, which may be of inferior quality or of different flavour. Foods such as Gorgonzola, Parmigiano-Reggiano, Melton Mowbray pork pies, Piave cheese, Asiago cheese, Camembert, Somerset Cider Brandy and Champagne can only be labelled as such if they come from the designated region" (copied from Geographical indications and traditional specialities in the European Union)
    • "Products much be produced using traditional methods" => "Products must be produced using traditional methods"
    • "Limited to sardines that have been caught within six miles of the coast of Cornish coast" - ???
    • "Limited to Atlantic salmon caught up to 1500 meters" - we are talking about Britain here, so the spelling of metre is wrong
    • "Products must use grapes from vines growing at a height below 220 meters" - same here
    • That appears twice in the wine section, in fact............
    • abv is only wikilinked the fourth or fifth time it appears - it should be linked the first time
      • Fixed. In regards to the explanation in the lead, I've gone for: The purpose of the scheme is to protect the reputation of regional products, promote traditional and agricultural activity and to eliminate non-genuine products, which may mislead consumers or be of inferior quality or different character. - how does that sound? Sotakeit 08:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
What I meant is that it needs to say explicitly that it is protected from being reproduced in other places and commercialized under the name listed here. People know what a patent is, but a protected drink? Nergaal (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal, any better? Sotakeit 07:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks clear now. I would use yhe Scotch example though since that is by far the most widely known entry, and give specifics in one sentence. Nergaal (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, example updated to Scotch :) Sotakeit (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a closer look now, and I am happy with the first paragraph. However, the rest of the intro is just too much about the regulation, and too little about the actual list. I think a lot of the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th para can be mover into the first section, and just keep the essence there. Then you could add another para about the items on this list, or some statistics (idk, maybe how many are edable and not, how many fit into the 3 categories?). Also, is there a rationale for these particular subsections (i.e. the legislation actually splits them into these categories?). And the former protected item: when was it removed? Nergaal (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal. Okay, so I've moved more information into the first paragraph and extended what is now paragraph 2 to give a little more information on the list's contents. I've also attempted to explain in paragraph 3 why the list has been categorised as such. Finally, I've added the date that protected status was removed for Newcastle Brown Ale. Sotakeit (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a bit better, but what I was thinking is move most of the legislation stuff into the first section and maybe call it something like legislation. That way the "boring" stuff is not in the intro. Nergaal (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: I've moved some of it down into the first section and renamed it "legislation" as suggested. I wanted to keep some explanation in the intro of what exactly the scheme is, so haven't altered it too much, mainly moving the more technical part that actually talks about which laws govern the schemes. Sotakeit (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See if the format I left works for you. I would prefer some more discussion on the actual 57 products but that might be impractical. The only issue I have left is with "meat, dairy and fish products, honey, fruits and vegetables ... beverages made from plant extracts, bread, pasta, pastries, cakes, biscuits and confectionery". What is with the quotes and the "..."? I don't know where you got this from, but how about actually list all the edible entries here and put in parenthesis how many of them are in the 56 items. E.g.: "meat (101), diary (2), beferages (5), bread (1), etc." Nergaal (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: Your amendment is much neater, thanks. Regarding the ""meat, dairy and fish products, honey, fruits and vegetables ..." section, I've not listed all the edible entries and their numbers as this could be a little messy and, after all, that's what the list itself is for. I have listed the three most common types (cheese, meat and fish) and given their number. How does that look? Sotakeit (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, try to wikilink a few of the less common terms like offal and rhubarb. Nergaal (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the total. My bad - I was looking at the total on the DOOR database, forgetting that wines and spirit drinks aren't listed on there. Sotakeit (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to also fix this bit: "Most of the products hold either PGI (32) or PDO (23) status, with only two products being designated as TSG." - that still adds up to 57 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me! Fixed. Sotakeit (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I've only had a brief look over this article, but I can already see just too many manual of style errors for me to support. This was an ambitious article to improve, as there are really no other featured lists that cover a similar subject, and I'm sure that, when it does reach FL status, it will set the precedent for similar lists to follow. But, in its current state, I'm not sure that it is yet at FL standard.

  • The referencing seems quite odd to me. {{Sfn}} is really only needed if you're citing the same source repeatedly, but it seems like most of the sources given in the Sources section are linked to just once in the References section – why not just cite them directly using <ref></ref>?
  • The section headers don't seem as concise as they could be. Wouldn't something like, say, "Baked goods" be just as precise as "Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker’s wares"? The parenthetical remarks containing "etc." can probably be omitted, and I think "Fresh meat and offal" would be preferable to "Fresh meat (and offal)".
  • Per MOS:ALLCAPS, the words in all caps should be replaced with either sentence or title case.
  • Per MOS:DTT, each table needs row scopes, column scopes and table captions.
  • Spaced hypens ( - ) need to be spaced en dashes ( – ).
  • There are colons with either spaces on both sides (i.e. " : "), or no spaces at all. Ideally, you need just one on the right-hand side.
  • The captions for the two images need terminating full stops.
  • Major geographical locations (such as countries) don't need to be wikilinked.
  • Why isn't "Traditionally farmed Gloucestershire Old Spots pork" sorted under T?
  • Similarly, "Anglesey sea salt/Halen Môn" needs to be above "East Kent goldings".
  • What's the difference between "English wine" and "English regional wine"? This wasn't clear to me.
  • "References & sources" -> "References and sources"

I think this article still needs a lot of work done to it, and I wish the participating editors all the best in improving it. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • A Thousand Doors:
    • Referencing: I went with {{Sfn}} so there wasn't a glut of writing in the coding. The names of some of the EC articles are quite long, and the links even longer, so I thought this style be a little easier to edit for future editors.
    • Section headers: They're taken word-for-word from the EC section titles. Would you think it better to explain this in the article, or still cut them down? I understand in their current format, they are a little long winded.
    • Spaced hypens, image captions, alpabetisation, "References & sources", row/col scope, colon spacing, capitalisation, overlinking (hopefully), wine explanation: fixed. Sotakeit (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination appears to have stalled. I am thus archiving it.
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2014 (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 withdrawn by SchroCat 19:52, 14 September 2014 [5].

Leader of Alderney

[edit]
Nominator(s): The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this is a comprehensive list of the known leaders of Alderney. It also consists of a comprehensive background section that gives a breakdown of all the various guises of the leadership. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (first round) Comments on List table

  • Each date (when only a single year is listed) or pair of dates for the rulers’ reigns should have a reference
  • Some of the dates look incomplete when the prior or subsequent date should provide necessary information (e.g., W. Chamberlain II to J. Chamberlain II; J. Chamberlain II to Chamberlain; Colles to Le Febvre, etc.)
  • For consistency (I could be wrong on this) I suggest using the full four digits of the year each time.
  • What does “acting” for another mean (a note or definition would be helpful)?
  • Is the first name of Chamberlain (1630s) known?
  • Very little is said about a 200+ year vacancy from 1238 to 1546, but there seem to be two leaders (Eudes and Porteman) during that time. Is it a typo?
  • Le Breton (1683–1684) was acting for de Haynes. Who was de Haynes, they are not on the list?
  • Under Judges- Jean Gauvain, Thomas Le Cocq, and Nicholas Barbenson are all listed as "acting", but for whom? Do you mean "interim"? The same question goes for the remaining Judges listed as "acting".
  • Do you have any interest in making this list sortable (e.g., name, title, dates)? -- Godot13 (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 01:55, 12 September 2014 [6].

List of National Football League rushing champions

[edit]
Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on it to the point where it comprehensively covers the subject matter. The article gives an overview on what the topic is, who the rushing champions are for each season, and also what major awards or honors they received. Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well this bites. Not a single review in two months. I sadly have to archive this, but feel free to renominate at your own pace (i.e. no problem with it being renominated before two weeks are up). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 01:55, 12 September 2014 [7].

List of songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars

[edit]
Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after a failed nomination I believe it satisfies the criteria. The article contains a fully-comprehensive list of songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars. Credits are supported by the liner notes of the appropriate record, while additional commentary is verified by reputable sources. Any comments will be addressed swiftly. Thanks, Earthh (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well this bites. Not a single review in two months. I sadly have to archive this, but feel free to renominate at your own pace (i.e. no problem with it being renominated before two weeks are up). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by SchroCat 08:03, 8 September 2014 [8].

World Fantasy Award for Best Collection

[edit]
Nominator(s): PresN 17:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, after two months that video game list is off the nominations page, so it's time we turn back to sci-fi/fantasy award lists! Following in the footsteps of the World Fantasy Awards for Best Novel, Best Novella, and Best Short Story, (not to mention the dozens of Hugo Awards, Nebula Awards, etc.) we have my latest: the World Fantasy Award for Best Collection. And it's a strange one. Not so much for what it is now, and what it originally was- an award for the best collections of fantasy works by a single author- but because for 10 years in the middle of the 40 it's been around, anthologies of works by multiple authors were eligible, until they so overran the category that they got split out into their own. I've tried to make it clear what's going on, though, so there shouldn't be any confusion. Anyways, this list follows the same format as the previous 28 sci-fi/fantasy award FLs- table, winners, sorting, yadda yadda yadda, and as always comments from those previous FLCs have been replicated for this list. Thanks all for reviewing, and hopefully this won't take another 2 months! --PresN 17:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was archived by SchroCat 08:03, 8 September 2014 [9].

1929 in tennis

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 14:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because these types of pre-professinal tennis era articles better qualify for a list format. They are basically compiled of vast series of reliable sources. We've started these lists a couple of years ago and it's the third edition of them and I feel it has been forged into a readable, well-formatted structure by now. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 14:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The lead does not seem to have been copy edited.
  • "The year 1929 in tennis was a complex mixture" I would strike 'complex' as superfluous.
  • "The professionals were mostly coaches who coached for a living, while amateur rules prohibited tennis players to benefit financially from playing." This is wordy and clumsy. Perhaps "Most professionals were coaches, and amateurs were prohibited from benefiting financially from playing."
  • "The amateur events were almost all all-comers' event and the majority included a mixed title contest." Repetition of all - the first could be replaced by always. I do not understand "a mixed title contest". Mixed doubles? But then why mention that and not men's and womens' doubles?
    I felt that this explanation is needed because even in the Wikiproject:Tennis people seemed to be confused that there are no separate Men's tour (like ATP World Tour) and women's tour (like WTA Tour). At the time a championship had both gender singles, doubles and mixed doubles, which could be surprising to casual readers as it only happens in Grand Slam tournaments nowdays (because those four are the only tournaments where men and women compete together). In 1929 it was a usual thing but I want it to be noted in the lede. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 13:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this needs spelling out as I did not understand it - e.g. "There were no separate men's and women's tours and almost all amateur events had men's, women's and mixed doubles contests." Dudley Miles (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The women's most successful players in the European international championships were Esna Boyd of Australia and two players from the United States Elizabeth Ryan who was thuspunished by the United States Lawn Tennis Association for her commitment to European events compared to those in the U.S. and Helen Wills Moody who won the two most prestigious tournaments in Europe," This has 3 lines without even a comma and two words run together - thuspunished. Needs tidying and I would leave out 'thus'
  • "The Four Musketeers" - this links to a disambig. Needs correcting and I would add who they are in this article.
  • "Also the Australian Championships was won by a British player, Colin Gregory." The word 'Also' is ungrammatical and unnecessary.
  • "the Davis Cup (called the International Lawn Tennis Challenge)" - perhaps "officially called"
  • "the Mitre Cup (South American version of the Davis Cup)" I am not sure any edit is needed but it sounds as if politics was involved. Chile played in the Europe zone of the Davis Cup and presumably the other South American countries went off and had their own cup?
  • Wightman and Davis Cups. 'edition' is an odd word here - year or held for xth time?
  • International Tennis Federation should be linked.
  • "The tournament was split into the American and European zones. The winner of each sub-zone played in an Inter-Zonal Final." I do not understand this. If zones were split into sub-zones then this should be explained.
  • "The United States defeated Cuba in the America Zone, but would then lose to France in the Challenge Round," Why give the winner of the American zone but not the European. Perhaps something like "The United States won the American zone, but lost to the winner of the Europe zone, France in the final, called the Challenge Round."

Table

  • N/A seems to be used inconsistently, sometimes no competition, sometimes opponent retired. Perhaps sometimes previous year's winner only played in final and had not entered, or had that rule been abolished by that time? I think it would be better to explain in each case, not put N/A.
    I used N/A for the "no information" (currently). That's its sole purpose. If there was e.g. no women's contest I greyed the whole coloumn out. Retired in the final is abbreviated "ret." as explained in the Key section. No competition is always phrased like "prizes shared" or "remained unfinished due to [rain]" or simply "suspended" depending on what sort of source is available to verify it. As for your last question no Challenge round was in effect at the time except for the Davis Cup (which is obviously called the Challenge round, which is in the lede) but do I have to explain the rules of tennis within a list article? I mean I already listed the change of rules that happened exactly in 1929 but do I have to present tennis to readers? Or mention that challenge round was abolished sometime before WWI? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 13:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that N/A is ambiguous. I took it to mean Not applicable. I think 'Not known' would be better. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed doubles Cannes January shown as suspended. The source says due to bad light. If not resumed it should be shown as abandoned.
  • February Bill Tilden. "His US number one ranking was also due to be regiven to him." I don't think regiven is a word. Why not restored?
  • David Cup May 2nd round. The winners and losers do not line up on my screen.
  • June. "The British ladies' team beat the French rivals without losing a match." should be their French rivals or leave out the word 'rivals'.
  • I do not like the Footnotes and Works cited in boxes so that you cannot see them all at the same time but that is personal preference.
  • A first rate list but text needs tightening. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review and the in-depth details. I will work on it and update this page accordingly. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 13:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by SchroCat 08:03, 8 September 2014 [10].

List of Millennium characters

[edit]
Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 23:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another topic from a little-loved show. I took a bit of licence with this one as it's not a style of list that's been covered much, and what samples I could find seemed to focus mostly on "in-universe" material. I've defined a scope and stuck to it, but for the most part Millennium was a series devoid of any real weighty characters beyond the lead role. I am a little underwhelmed by the lead; I think maybe it needs something visual to break it up but nothing leapt out beyond possibly moving the Henriksen image up (two attempts at PR led nowhere at all). As always I'll be watching this like a hawk to reply to any concerns as quickly as I can. Thanks in advance, guys. GRAPPLE X 23:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comments - Haven't had a chance to look at prose in full (yet)

  • Could rowscopes be added in the summary table?
  • There are some cases where a character's full name is written many times over; the surname would just suffice after the first mention. For instance "Hollis was conceived as a "skeptical" partner for Frank Black", paragraph before gives his name in full. Likewise "Andrews turned on fellow group members Black and Peter Watts."
  • "Black's initial mentor in the group, they work together", reads a bit shorthand compared to the rest of the character's profile
  • Accessdate for Ref 64? Lemonade51 (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by SchroCat 08:03, 8 September 2014 [11].

List of How I Met Your Mother characters

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 15:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because in the 76 edits I have made to the page, I have given it several thorough copyedits, added images and reorganized and do not think I can improve it any further. A recent peer review had little input, which I hope means that there were few issues. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 15:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 05:14, 5 September 2014 [12].

List of currencies in North America

[edit]
Nominator(s): Matty.007 14:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because (fairly obviously) I feel this meets the requirements. Hopefully this will be third time lucky, the previous two nominations seem to follow a pattern: small issues are raised, I try and fix them, a large issue is raised, I try and fix it, then no-one else votes. I have done the things suggested in the previous FLCs (sort by currency rather than country, remove all sorts of things, and re-jig it). Now, I hope there is nothing too major needing doing. Third-time lucky? Thanks in advance, Matty.007 14:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all, I apologize for not getting back to the previous nom, things got busy. That said:
    • Guadeloupe and Martinique are not dependencies of France; they are part of it. Listing them separately would be akin to listing each U.S. state or Canadian province. Likewise, San Andres etc. is part of Colombia and should at least use the Colombian flag, if not simply say "Colombia". I'm unsure if the same applies to some or all of the Netherlands islands.
    • British Virgin Islands is missing.
    • No need to say "United States of America", few other long-form names are used.
    • The intro states that "all de facto currencies" are listed here. I know you mean this instead of de jure, but that leaves out a lot of currencies. For example, I know that Mexican pesos are accepted at some stores inside the U.S. along the border; does that make it a de facto currency of the U.S.? So my thought is this should focus purely on de jure currencies, with the major de facto ones (i.e. ones with official or semi-official support) mentioned either separately or with a healthy footnote. --Golbez (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Golbez, sorry, thought I had replied to this. Fixed first three (though US Virgin Islands is doing something odd, would you be able to fix it please?), but I don't quite understand what you suggest with the fourth point, please can you clarify? Thanks, Matty.007 15:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, is it listing de facto or de jure currencies? It claims de facto; where does that diverge from de jure? And "USA" is also too informal, "United States" is quite fine, sorry I didn't clarify that before. Also, the table is now a bit weird around the USVI. And... France appears to have disappeared entirely? As well as Colombia? I didn't say remove them, they're still in North America and their currencies are still used there. --Golbez (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • No idea regarding USVI, I'll have to try and see if I can get someone who knows their way around (Godot 13?) to help. Re-added France and Colombia. I think it is probably de jure, as you say. What are you suggesting is changed though, other than the opening statement? Thanks, Matty.007 16:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, is the U.S. dollar de facto or de jure a currency of Panama? Or Ecuador? If the list states itself to be a list of de jure currencies, but it's not a currency by law in those countries but is widely spread enough to be considered a national currency, they should have a note explaining why they're on this list. --Golbez (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Initial comments –
  • Image should have ALT text per MOS
  • It's preferable if there can be a separate column for the references, since they look rather cluttered within the table.
  • US dollar needs an extra rowspan in order to encompass US Virgin Islands.
  • Scope row needed for all entries under the "Present currency" column per WP:DTT.

—Bloom6132 (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry I forgot to mention this, but in order to remove the bold effect that comes along with scope row, the "class=" parameter at the top needs to read "sortable wikitable plainrowheaders". —[[User:|Bloom6132]] (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More comments –

  • A commonly used North American currency is the United States dollar. – this sounds kinda "random" to stick it in as the opening sentence of a paragraph. Do you have a source verifying it as the most commonly used NA currency?
    • No. Anyway, specifying it as the most commonly used currency would mean determining whether to use population using it, amount in circulation, or some other rationale. I could probably find a reference for either, but I think the first sentence encompasses both. Thanks, Matty.007 15:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But by increasing the United States dollar's value, its position as a reserve currency damages United States exporters. – replace with "However, its position as a reserve currency damages American exporters [or exporters from the United States] because this increases the value of the United States dollar."
  • The last paragraph is a bit disorganized. The second sentence (The East Caribbean dollar is pegged to the United States dollar, and has been for over 35 years since 1976) should have the comma deleted between "years" and "since"; it should also be followed immediately by "…, having previously been pegged to the pound sterling." (no capitalization on the "p" of pound).
  • By adding the above phrase, you can delete the sentence Before the East Caribbean dollar was pegged to the United States dollar, it was pegged to the Pound sterling
  • The Eastern Caribbean Central Bank was formed in 1983. – How is this relevant to NA currency? This appears to have just been randomly stuck in.

—Bloom6132 (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many of those people have been to/seen an actual exchange office recently. Nergaal (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also commented on this last FLN but they were not added. I really think they should include the 3 letter ISO codes, not just for exchange offices, but it's on plane tickets, train tickets, stock markets, etc. Quite useful to have. Mattximus (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I have explained, Crisco 1492, Godot13, and Dudley Miles gave consensus to remove them. If they have changed their minds, I will add them but until then I cannot see the point of adding something which seems 50/50. Thanks, Matty.007 18:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead needs quite a bit of work.
  • A commonly used North American currency is the United States dollar". What are you trying to say here. What do you mean by commonly. Is it the most? The currency with the highest circulating value?
  • As I explained to Bloom further up this page, it is a common currency. I can narrow it down if you want, but there are several options (by amount of currency, by number of people using it) which it could be narrowed down to, and I think that disambiguating to that level is a step too far. Thanks, Matty.007 19:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But why does this sentence even exist? It adds nothing without some qualifier. A nice opening sentence for that paragraph would say something like the US$ is the most used currency by number of people and amount in circulation (with a ref). As is, it serves no function.
  • "It is the world's reserve currency." There are several reserve currencies, not just the US$. The US dollar is currently the one with the largest foreign exchange reserves which should be made clear.
  • You have a mess of passive sentences. For example " In international commodity markets, the United States dollar is also standard." Should read "The United States dollar is also standard in international commodity markets". But you should probably qualify what standard means.
  • Many more tweaks are needed. Please be careful of passive sentences one after the other. It makes for a tough read.
  • Here is another passive sentence that should be made active: "By the number of countries in North America sharing a currency, the East Caribbean dollar is most used."
  • Please strive for one idea per sentence. This extremely long sentence needs to be broken up, it's unreadable:

In the phenomenon known as 'dollarization', the U.S. dollar has been adopted as the official currency of several other countries;[6] but semi-dollarization also exists in a few other countries where the U.S. dollar is recognised as legal tender alongside another currency, and unofficial dollarization exists in many areas where the U.S. dollar is widely used and accepted-although it is not recognised as legal tender. Mattximus (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed both. Thanks, Matty.007 12:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have the feeling the lead needs a thorough copyedit. It's quite poorly written. Paragraph 2 should start off with something like "The United States dollar is the currency with the highest value circulation in North America", then talk about how it is a reserve currency. Then talk about how is is used outside of USA borders. That would be a logical paragraph. Words like "However" and "a commonly used" are not useful and should be removed. The third paragraph is mostly about the East Caribbean Dollar, but then switches to talking about countries with 2 currencies, then back to the american dollar which was the subject of the 2nd paragraph. Needs some work. Oppose until a copyedit is done to the lead. The table itself however is looking much better. Mattximus (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • You may want to consider defining (in the first or second paragraph) exactly how many countries and/or dependencies exist in North America (with a few good references).
  • Both “A commonly used North American currency is the United States dollar” and “The East Caribbean dollar is the most used currency by the number of countries in North America utilising it.” are somewhat ambiguous sentences because there are no concrete anchor points (which would be possible if North American inclusion was defined with a finite number).
  • It may read better if you could make statements like “10 of 40 North American countries and dependencies (25%) use the U.S. Dollar” or something along those lines. Same thing for the East Caribbean dollar.
  • Also, if ISO codes will help garner support, you might want to use them... - Godot13 (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 06:51, 1 September 2014 [13].

List of nearest exoplanets

[edit]
Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After quite some work I think this is a neat list. Let me know how can it be improved further. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ST11 comments

[edit]
  • the age on 82 G. Eridani is clearly wrong, since that's older than the universe itself. It also contradicts what is in the 82 G. Eridani article itself. This needs to be fixed since it's a blatant factual error.
good catch, I didn't even notice it. Nergaal (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it myself. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is V = 6.3 the cutoff for naked-eye visibility, when the commonly-agreed upon value mentioned in most places is 6.5, and the Bortle scale gives even lower values?
I'll change it to 6.5 and update the note. Nergaal (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tables in the exoplanets statistics section should probably have different cutoff values. Nearly all have most of the planets in a single category, such as most of the stars in the orbital radius table being in the first bin, which doesn't tell much to the reader.
That is an artifact for exoplanets in general, Mercury-like planets are easier to detect. I don't see how should I choose the cutoffs such as a reader can get something out of it, if not taking them from Mercury. Nergaal (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you make a good point. You might want to say in the tables that the cutoffs are based on the mass of objects in the Solar System then, for clarity. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have any ideas how to make such an addition "elegant"? Nergaal (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found a solution for this. Let me know what you think of it. Nergaal (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is too long to read comfortably. Please consider adding sections.
I tried to have the lead summarize key points in the table. Any ideas what could be moved into a section? Nergaal (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the technical stuff into a criteria section. Nergaal (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a way the statistics section could be presented more neatly? I think splitting it into two columns would be great for readability, since even on my 1280x800 monitor, it only really takes up the left half of the screen (note that this isn't a requirement for me supporting, but would be nice).
Good idea! Nergaal (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gliese 370 entry needs to be renamed to its HD number, considering that is what is most commonly used to refer to the star. So does the Gliese 785 entry. The Gliese 892 mention in the notes needs to be changed to its HR number for the same reason.
Done. Nergaal (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the mention of the UPGS object from the 4th paragraph of the inclusion criteria section, since it is not currently confirmed as a rogue planet, and may be a brown dwarf instead.
That article gives it a min mass of 4 Mj. Wouldn't that make it a sub-brown dwarf? Anyways, I've added "potential" modifier to the sentence. Nergaal (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "potential" addition solves the problem too, so this is fine. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the table, I would change the "notes" column to a "references" column, and add the actual notes to right next to the planet designation.
Done. Nergaal (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After all of these are addressed, unless I see something else, I will support. Only thing left is the age of 82 G. Eridani. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per content review. Btw, sorry to see the trouble at WPELEM; you're clearly in the right there from what I can gather. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pertinent comments. The WP:ELEM thing is history for me now. Nergaal (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
--PresN 18:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed all these issues. I will double-check once the doi bot decides to update the links. Nergaal (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Support --PresN 18:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and support! Nergaal (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Regretfully in this case. But several editors, myself included, have offered suggestions for improvement to this list candidate at its Talk page, basically on the grounds that the article's lead can and should be improved on WP:LEAD grounds, and that the article needs to be divided in to more sections. But the article's original author has rebuffed not only these attempts, but pretty much all attempts at discussing the issue, and is completely uninterested in any consensus-building on solutions. --IJBall (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One should note that this particular opinion comes from somebody who thinks the article should look like [14] - that is splitting the text into eight sections with one sentence per section. I would prefer if some experienced editor, be it a coordinator, tries to explain why such standards are inappropriate, at least for a FL. Also, "several" equals two in this aprticular case, with one editor having less than 6 months experience of editing. Nergaal (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you ignore the accompanying Edit summary that I did with that reversion. I also have already made clear in the Talk page comments that I personally feel that User:Cliffswallow-vaulting's version is probably too far in the other direction (i.e. over-sectioned), but at least it's a starting point. And it's not "two" editors: it's at least three (myself, Cliffswallow-vaulting, and the IP editor (assuming that the two IP editors are the same person)). But, by all means – keep clinging to your WP:OWN tact on this, and I'll continue to oppose this list as a 'Featured list' as you seem completely unwilling to work towards a consensus solution here, which is all the rest of us are really asking for. --IJBall (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, how about use the current version as a starting point instead of some joke of an article. Nergaal (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, I completely disagree with restructuring the list to have a bunch of tiny sections- it's almost never okay to have one-sentence paragraphs to start with, much less as one-paragraph sections, much less multiple one-paragraph sections. The current list has descriptive summary information in the lead section and details about how planets get in the list in the Inclusion criteria section, and that seems entirely reasonable. --PresN 22:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


JR

[edit]
  • Comment. New here. I came in response to an RFC call and got redirected to the FLC. The following remarks are substantially what I already have said in the RFC. The article does have shortcomings, but the operative ones are not to be ascribed to paragraph length in particular, nor section length, nor (much) to the quality of writing within paragraphs. It has to do with the structure and function of this article, which is a problem in its own right, because this is a list article and most of its non-list content should be covered in associated articles such as Exoplanet, leaving mostly material that aids in the use of the lists. For a start, a quick scan suggests that the data in the various Exoplant-related articles do not necessarily correspond. ("Over 1800 exoplanets have been discovered right?) It is hard enough just to keep the lists up to date in one article. Keeping the individual articles mutually comprehensible is even harder, not to mention keeping them in substantial agreement.
Let me try to do this item by item. This list is not about 1800 exoplanets, but about less than 100 entires. What is the problem you have? Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There also is a perennial misunderstanding of what the lede is for; you see it in article after article. A surprisingly large faction seems to think that a lede is a formally required block of text, measured in paragraphs, that one puts at the start of the article to hold up the hat notes, and that the right dose is four paragraphs, independent of paragraph length, content or mutual coherence.
It isn't. Shouldn't be anyway.
And I think that the intro is meant to summarize the article/list. Where does the current intro not adequately summarize the list? Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A lede is whatever will suffice to tell the reader why he should, or should not, read on. If you need more than a few lines for that you should re-think what you are saying, and why you are saying it. I am unconvinced that this article needs any lede at all, but if it does, I am not sure that anything in the current lede is suitable. If it is, then that part is in the first paragraph, but then someone needs to get in there and in 23.37 words explain what this list is intended to achieve. Having done so, he will probably realise why none of the current "lede" belongs in the lede at all.
I have done so and I have not been able to "realize" why the text does not belong to the "lead" at all. Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then there should be a section heading along the lines of Status quo or The current situation or something similar. The remaining three paragraphs currently in the lede might go into that, possibly augmented in the light of the blinding revelation that that section actually has a function, and that the function is to fill the reader in on the plot so far. The most worrying aspect of this proposal is that some poor sucker will have to keep an unwearying eye on those figures. In case some innocent out there thinks that in this field of study those figures will stay put... weellllll....!
By status quo you mean what is the summary of the present situation? How is this not summary of the table below and how it shouldn't be part of the intro? Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Inclusion criteria section currently is a dogs breakfast. Its third paragraph ("Usually, nearby exoplanets have been discovered...") should be extracted, labelled with a section heading something like Search technology, and placed after the then more coherent Inclusion criteria section; that third paragraph does not deal with inclusion criteria. The paragraph starting "There are known examples of potential free-floating sub-brown dwarfs, sometimes..." should be appended after "...above it, an object is classified as a brown dwarf." In that position there is little reason to make it a separate paragraph, but suit yourself.
Please go and read the entire paragraph and in your own words, "having done so you will probably realize why the text" ... belongs there. Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The remark "Notable uncertainties exist ..." could be left where it is to close the section (my preference) or put into the Search technology paragraph. Take your pick according to taste.
Let us take a parallel example: if there is a list with "cities over 1 mil pop" how would you treat the cities that according to some sources have over that threshold while others are below that? Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article should have the minimum of possible explanation and general exposition; it is a framework for the lists, not a lecture. Or anyway, it should be. Much of what is in it at the moment could better be clearly fitted into related articles and linked to. Just think: what do you have at the moment? A "See also" paragraph that contains a list of list articles and no expositionary articles! (No I am not joking! See for yourself.) Enter Exoplanet into a Wikipedia search. There are over 2000 hits, most of them irrelevant of course, but at least a couple of dozen are directly relevant, and frankly, some of them make it look as though either they or this article must be superfluous, or at least painfully redundant, crying for a merge or needing linkage. Even if this article remains, some of its paragraphs could be excised or at least pruned and replaced with links such as "(main article on detection at:...)"
What do you mean by expositionary articles? I honestly don't understand what are you trying to suggest here. Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having done all that, read the whole article (minus the lists of course) aloud to some uninvolved, literate party and look for sticking points. Never mind whether the audience has a degree or is an English Colonel or whatever it might be, or is illiterate. If you have to explain anything you may conclude that you have boobed and it is back to the drawing board. And that will have nothing to do with whether you are addressing the Simple English crowd or not. Or how many paragraphs you have or how long they may be. Churchill, who was a natural and imposingly excellent writer, said something somewhere on the separation of paragraphs, but nary a word about how long or short they should be. He spoke, more or less, about their sense and flow or something along those lines. If I have a spot of time I'll try to find the source, but don't hold your breath. JonRichfield (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I honestly don't understand what are you trying to suggest here. Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I forgot how fulfilling editing wikipedia is so I'll try to be nice so I'll just say I am not sure what JR is trying to say. Anybody care to translate? Nergaal (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why bother? It's pretty clear that no matter how many other editors offer style and formatting suggestions on this article, you as the original author, and at least two other editors here at WP:FL, see absolutely nothing wrong at all with it. So it's pretty clear that you all are just going to do what you're going to do. The rest of us see that it's pointless, and I'm sure no other "suggestions" will be forthcoming. So just go to it – there's no need for "snark". You've won – go buy yourself a beer. --IJBall (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: Well, you did ask, so try this and like it. This is an FLC. Something to do with ranking with the best WP article standards. OK? (Stop and ask again for a bit of assistance when I lose you; I won't mind.)
Fine, I tried to assume good faith and be considerate but it seems that you seem to have very little respect for other people's work. So here we go. Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands the article not only is far from the best standards, but isn't up to normal standards. Maybe you omitted to do so, but I have now had a quick look at the documented FLC criteria. They included:
THIS IS A LIST. In case you have a hard time understanding, the "L" in FLC stands for list. Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Professional standards of Prose." ('Nuff said on that point?)
Dear Mr Smug: WTF are you talking about. Can you care to give specific examples or you just like to hear yourself fart over somebody else's work? Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"An engaging lead that ... defines the scope and inclusion criteria." If you go back to what I said, you will find some very specific hints on how to do something about that. Pretty close to the start in fact. At the moment what you have in the position of the lede isn't even coherent, never mind introductory. I can see why some folks said split it up, because it made hard reading. Unfortunately, splitting and simplification are not what it needs; it needs revaluation and redeployment. Which is what I recommended, right? Possibly the best options would be omission or replacement, but that is an open question just now.
Again, can you enlighten me and give me an example of what it should look like in your "humble" opinion? As I've said before, I really have a hard time understanding your points. You seem to have a problem with a scientific article trying to explain things, but I am having a hard time understanding what you are talking about. You know the saying people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones? Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Skip a few items in the FLC for now, since you don't seem to like text walls, however attractive...
What are you talking about Mr Babble? Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Structure." This could be embarrassing. "Easy to navigate? Section headings?" For an article of this size it is hard to read, never mind navigate. It doesn't have any section headings. Yes, certainly there are lines in section heading format all right, but they don't match what appears in the "sections", and much of what does appear in the "sections" does not clearly belong in the notional section topic and is incoherent. Again, I did suggest some improvements. You are welcome to ignore those proposals of course, but if you don't do something of your own, something at least as radical as those suggestions, and equally calculated to improve the current status, I don't know why you are bothering with editing at all, let alone FLCs. As things stand, the article hardly earns its WP space, let alone FLC nomination.
"Style etc." Yer. Riiight.
Again, this is a list not an article. Quote from FL?: "and includes, where helpful, section headings" you seem to have a hard time understanding the "where helpful part"; it is surprising, considering you seem to be so full of opinions that you have a hard time explaining, that you seem to have a really hard time understanding a 15 word sentence. Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.... More elisions
"Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars..." I hadn't previously looked at this article, but in response to this point I did take a look at the history. Fortunately I forgot what I saw there, so I shall not ask myself any embarrassing questions about that, because I had made no suggestions on the subject and hope that I never need to.
Well, if people would have a brain and use it to communicate and not just throw farts around, then this (and wikipedia in general) would be a very peaceful place. Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Are you getting the picture now? Since I do actually have other matters on my hands, please this time try to make some sense of what you have written and then of what some other folks have written before asking again. Then ask again. JonRichfield (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't understand what are you suggesting. You have a problem? Then you should probably check out some of the instructions at for reviewers like you: To oppose a nomination, write Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it... Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. So again, what are your specific objections? Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for FLC directors. The opinion of the editor above seem to be summarized in his words at: "As things stand, the article hardly earns its WP space, let alone FLC nomination... Yer. Riiight." Nergaal (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 77.57.25.250

[edit]

Couple of issues:

  • Splitting terrestrial/gas giant based on mass values is utterly misleading, it isn't supported by the evidence from actual exoplanetary discoveries. E.g. consider Kepler-10b vs KOI-314c. Yes I know Planetary Habitability Laboratory does this but that website is so full of unfounded speculation and bogus values that it should not be considered a reliable source.
That was not intended to be misleading. The point is to have some sort of categorization among the 60+ entries. Any ideas how to fix that? Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in my comments below, I think this is not an easily fixed problem. It's a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that we reflect reliable sources and don't do original research. If there isn't a categorization that is well-supported by reliable secondary sources, then we can't categorize, full stop. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you think I should remove that table altogether? Nergaal (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Systems visible to the naked eye" - to be pedantic, the system is not visible though the host star(s?) may be.
At night people say that they see a car passing by, not some headlights. Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

77.57.25.250 (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if I see Pollux, I say I've seen a star, not the Pollux system. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the categories. The table should not be viewed as a categorization but as a data binning as used in a histogram. In the comment by 77.57.25.250 the Kepler-10b is presumably meant to be Kepler-10c - a Neptune-mass rocky planet. This page is getting difficult to follow with comments being inserted into the middle of other people's comments. Astredita (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, glad this is resolved. Actually the comparison was definitely intended to be Kepler-10b: a 3-Earth-masses terrestrial versus the Earth-mass gas dwarf KOI-314c. Kepler-10c is not such a good contrast because of the relatively high volatile fraction (5-20% by mass), which is orders of magnitudes larger than a terrestrial planet. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peter coxhead

[edit]

Generally I agree with the central point of JonRichfield's comments. The lead section is supposed to summarize the article; basically there shouldn't be any new information there. It doesn't.

Why am I having such a hard time getting myself understood. STOP quoting guidelines and give me SPECIFIC examples. I totally agree with following guidelines, but can you please show where exactly the text does not follow guidelines? Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are not reading what Jon wrote. He explained very clearly. This is a list article. The lead section should summarize the content, i.e. the list, not go into complex details.
@Peter coxhead: And could you please list these "complex details"? Nergaal (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the purpose of this list, an exoplanet is regarded as ... – the article also seems to be based on significant original research. Wikipedia doesn't decide what an exoplanet it; it just reports what reliable (secondary) sources say. I certainly can't support it as a featured list. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the continuation to that is "as unconfirmed when there is only a single (primary) report which presents its discovery, but there are no follow-up papers discussing their existence." Can you please tell me what is wrong with the sentence and not with part of it? Did you even read the section? The list DOES NOT DECIDE WHAT IS AN EXOPLANET and what that section is saying is that the unconfirmed planets don't get confirmed through an official process. For example, in order for a new element to be officially confirmed, a specific agency WAITS to see that other people observe the same thing, and only after that accept it; by parallel, if there was an agency accepting official claims for planets, they would wait more than a single report of a planet. Since you obviously did not go through the list before expressing your opinion, there are a couple of planets reported in 2014 alone, and these have only received a single primary report. In science, unbeknown to you, reviews can take even years, so if there is somebody out there that already has the data to prove that these claims are wrong, he will take several years to write the report and get it accepted in a journal and by the research community.

Now, for the purpose of keeping this away from turing into some bashing, can you and other future reviewers please explain how to IMPROVE the current text with specific examples of problems and sensible solutions? Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be interested in constructive discussion, unfortunately, so I'll stop after this attempt. The continuation of the sentence (which of course I'd read) doesn't alter my opinion that it's OR. If there is only a single primary report, why is the item present in the list at all? If I put "citation needed" after your there are no follow-up papers discussing their existence, what reference will you add to support this statement? Answer: there isn't one. Why? Answer: because it's your statement that there are no follow-up papers, not that of a source. I know perfectly well how long it takes for there to be reliable reviews in secondary sources, but if there are no secondary sources supporting the existence of a particular exoplanet, why is it listed in the article? Answer: because you (not a referenced secondary source) decided that "unconfirmed" as applied to an exoplanet means "I know of only a single (primary) report which presents its discovery, and no follow-up papers discussing its existence". I quote from WP:OR "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." You are interpreting primary source material – a single report with no follow up – as meaning that you can list the exoplanet as "unconfirmed". Again from WP:OR, including the bold text: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." You are are doing precisely what is proscribed there unless there is a reliable secondary source that lists exoplanets as "unconfirmed" on these criteria.
ACTUALLY if you would have bothered to check a single reference from the table you would have seen that those are links to databases, that THEMSELVES list all the papers that have been published on each item in the table. There are currently 6 items listed under this category and since you seem lazy to check them out here are the direct links to the references supporting the statement made in the body of this list: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Nergaal (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You ask what to do. The answer is (a) ensure that the lists presented in the article are taken from reliable secondary sources, removing entries that are not (b) as JonRichfield suggests, take out all the text which does not directly relate to the lists. Of course you need to include a brief account of the criteria employed by the reliable sources from which you took the list(s), but it should only be brief, with links to other articles where readers may need more explanation. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a) If you doubt the reliability of the sources the please be specific in which are these that you consider unreliable; had you paid any attention to the discussion in the talkpage you would have noticed that discussion on such entries did exist, and the sentence ending in "have been widely disproven since, as was the case for Teegarden's star and VB 10" is a direct result of that. b) Again, please tell me specifically and explicitly which text does not relate to the list. Nergaal (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JR2: Is this what you want?

[edit]

@Nergaal: Choose the action and you choose the consequences. Get snitty, and you needn't expect much sympathy. Ignore counsel, and soon there is not much use asking for comments, much less sympathy. Let's get back to basics and forget whatever was getting up our respective and collective noses. This will require flexibility as well as restraint on both sides.

So let me try another tack. You said in effect "...less guidelining, more specific examples..." right? In my wall of text that you dismissed unread as unreadable, I told you precisely what to do; twice, counting what I, in my innocence, said on the talk page. A good start on your part would be to go through it systematically, apply the recommendations and see what you get. Then add any changes or improvements that occur to you, run it up the flagpole and count the salutes.

@JonRichfield: Ok, I am going to repeat my previous thought: you seem to complain about the text that is not about the article, yet your "wall of text" doesn't seem to be much more than blabbering. Try bullet points as specific examples and you will see that that "wall of text" of yours doesn't say much about the actual article. Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that sounds too much like hard work, let me know and I'll do it for you (I have no difficulty reading what I wrote!) You need not of course commit to my changes, much less acknowledge them; I would recommend if you do take me up on it, that you most certainly make sure that you carry on after I have done, till you like the product; you won't wound my feelings, for sure! I have refrained so far, partly because this is not my subject, but largely because it is not often a good idea to fiddle with someone else's article (yes, yes, I know about possessiveness with articles!) while an RFC or other debate is under way.

I don't care about having people actually working on the article. The only think I had a problem with was dumbing this article to a level where it looked incredibly "unprofessional" and more of a joke. If you have constructive suggestions I will be the first one to take them into consideration. Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, and IMO, much better, see whether you can put up with another wall of text, but read and interpret it before continuing:

This "article" is a list article. The text should include a lede saying what it is about, not explaining the technology, history and politics etc. If your lede is more than say... three lines long, polish and prune it. Not because anyone round here can't understand long sentences, but because that will be good evidence that you are talking about stuff that doesn't belong in this article.
Please show me a featured article that has a lead 3-lines long. Currently, the lead is mean to be (from my perspective) a summary of that long table below. Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the body of the article (not counting the actual lists of course; I haven't checked them in detail, but I expect that they are OK) you can give a very brief explanation of the criteria. Not the technology; that belongs in the main article, together with a few cross-links where they would be helpful. You might want a few footnotes to some of the table entries, but avoid them whenever a link would be equally useful.
The section you are talking about has nothing to do with the technology, and only mentions an artifact of the technology that influences the quality of the data listed, and therefore the quality of the assignments. (I.e.: criteria is below a threshold, artifact yields an error in the order of magnitude of the threshold) Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Either before or after the lists (suit yourself, but I think after hath its charms), put a section comprising mainly a (possibly annotated) list of links to related articles, covering ALL the tech stuff you want in this list article, apart from what is in the list, If you feel like including a suitable list of list articles at this point, go ahead, but that is not the main point of that section.
I don't fully agree with this rationale, but I've added a link to the detection methods in the see also section. Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You will find that you wind up with a lot of material missing, material that you and the users either need, or would like to have covered. For each such item create links to the articles that cover that information, or if they SHOULD cover it but do not, YOU go there and add it (in proper context of course!) till all your links are functional. JonRichfield (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I am not aware of ANY material missing, otherwise I would have not brought it here at FLC. One of the points of a FLC is that reviewers bring to attention different perspectives and give specific opinions/examples, not "feelings", where is the text lacking, and explicitly and specifically what is missing. "You will find that..." is IMO a synonym of "I have a feeling of something missing but I don't know what and/or don't bother me with asking for more explicit, specific details because I am too important to be bothered by such trivial activities." Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate's comment - I will shortly be archiving this nomination as unsuccessful (it has, after all, been over two months), but it disturbs me greatly that there is so little understanding of what a featured list is here. A featured list is a list of a certain kind of thing and/or aspects of a thing, which is long enough to stand on its own and not be merged into a parent article, if any. This list portion (the "article" proper) is supported by a lead which introduces the topic, highlights key points found within the list itself, and defines the inclusion criteria and other list-related things, if necessary. This article (at least, this version) does so admirably. It defines the term exoplanet, indicates highlights and trends which are readily visible from the list itself (i.e. prosifies content already cited in the list), and defines the scope. I'd trim a bit, personally, but that's me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 06:51, 1 September 2014 [20].

Timeline of the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season

[edit]
Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 1995 Atlantic hurricane season was the third most active season in recorded history. With a large number of tropical cyclones, impact was widespread and there were some interesting systems. Felix threatened the East Coast of the United States once and Bermuda twice. Luis was a strong hurricane that brought destruction to the Lesser Antilles that rivaled Hurricane Hugo. Marilyn dealt similar amounts of damage to the Lesser Antilles as Luis. Opal brought severe impact to the Gulf Coast of the United States. Finally, Roxanne's bizarre path in the Gulf of Mexico allowed the storm to produce extensive flooding in Mexico. Personally, I believe this timeline satisfies the requirements of a featured list. Enjoy!--12george1 (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from Golbez (talk):
    • "Although Hurricane Allison formed on June 2, 1995,[3] the season officially began on June 1" This is an odd construction, is it common in the featured hurricane timeline articles? It seems better to just say "The season officially began on June 1, with the first named storm forming just the next day" or something. --Golbez (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from TropicalAnalystwx13:
    • Hurricane season begins and ends at 4z, not 0z.
    • "Tropical Storm Allison intensifies into a Category 1 hurricane. Simultaneously, Allison additionally attains peak intensity with winds of 75 mph (120 km/h) and a minimum barometric pressure of 987 mbar (29.1 inHg)." - you could combine these two sentences (and other instances throughout the timeline) for better flow.
    • "Tropical Storm Allison makes another landfall near Saint Marks, Florida with winds of 65 mph (105 km/h)." - could we use numbers for clarity? This is the second landfall.
    • Nothing important, but try to be consistent with wording. If you use "area of low pressure", use that for all of them. Also, no need to say it formed from a tropical wave. It formed from a low that developed along the wave axis.
    • We need a lot more reference points. You can take the latitude and longitude values as provided by the preliminary reports, plug them into Google Earth, and get distances relative to specific cities to add to the timeline.

TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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