Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 2013: Difference between revisions
Razr Nation (talk | contribs) +1 |
Razr Nation (talk | contribs) +1 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hawaii Warriors in the NFL Draft/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rosenborg BK league record by opponent/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rosenborg BK league record by opponent/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Lagaan/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Lagaan/archive1}} |
Revision as of 15:34, 26 March 2013
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Wizardman 06:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since I nominated a list, and since baseball's nearly listed out at this point, I'm bringing over a football list instead, one based off the newly promoted List of North Carolina Tar Heels in the NFL Draft.
This one gives us nearly 70 players from Hawaii. Only a handful of big football names on the list, but I fund the non-football guys more interesting; we have at least one musician and one mayor on this list, as well as a murderer sadly. I addressed everything in advance that I think would be an issue, so hopefully this will be a rather easy list for you all to tackle. Wizardman 06:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Perhaps link the AFL Draft to "separate draft" instead of just "draft" to make it clear where the link is going (otherwise the reader may believe it is simply a link to the article on drafts in general).
- Also the tables in the key need to meet WP:DTT (specifically use of scope and a caption).
- Any reason the table isn't sortable? It would be nice to be able to sort for instance by overall pick and NFL team.
- Some references use the ISO date formatting and some write them out. Please be consistent.
- It would be nice if works/publishers such as ESPN and Sports Illustrated were linked, either every time or on first occasion. For information from the NFL, could you please be consistent about spelling it out in full or abbreviating it, and make sure either the first or all are linked.
Overwise a nice list. Arsenikk (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If I remember right I tried making one of these sortable once before, and because of the way the years are listed (just one for each group), adding a sort option breaks the table completely. If I were to split the years and make that column like everything else then it would work, but since no other draft lists have that I'll get a second opinion on that first. The rest I'll address soon. Wizardman 17:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sortability code was changed not that long ago. I tried making the table sortable and it works good to me, as the first column is "fixed" automatically. Have a try at it and see if you're happy. Arsenikk (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done except for the DTT thing, since I'm not sure what else is needed even after reading that. The colors are different and different icons are used, which I figure should address any accessibility concerns. Wizardman 16:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sortability code was changed not that long ago. I tried making the table sortable and it works good to me, as the first column is "fixed" automatically. Have a try at it and see if you're happy. Arsenikk (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"One warrior, Jim Mills, is a member of the Canadian Football Hall of Fame." "warrior" needs capitalization.- Photos could use alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Hahc21 10:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Arsenikk (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this article will become the fourth Rosenborg FL. I believe it meets the criteria, but I'm sure you guys will find at least a few issues I've overlooked. Arsenikk (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - my main concern is that the article only includes stats from 1967 onwards - what about the teams/games Rosenborg played before that date? Current FLs like Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent include stats for all league games, in the case of Luton even from the super-obscure United League. If the intention is to only include top-flight stats then a) why is that? and b) surely 1978 should be excluded as well..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The main reason for starting with 1967 is that no reliable sources have published statistical information for earlier seasons, so it is physically impossible to produce a more extensive list within WP guidelines. I agree that going back to 1918 would be ideal, but back then RBK wasn't even allowed to join the FA (for instance it is not even known which date Rosenborg played its first match). While Luton Town always has been a spectator-based team, it was first in the 1950s did Rosenborg become sufficiently good to draw a significant crowd and even then it was a smaller player in town. All major, reliable sources I have come across (the club itself, major news sites etc) put 1967 as the starting points for stats. Thus starting in 1967 is the only way to not violate WP:OR and WP:V. As for inclusion of 1978, I have a neutral stance. I have included it because the source includes it, but if it would make the article more neutral by excluding that season, then I am open to that too. Arsenikk (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it the book by Svardal that puts 1967 as starting point? On the website "Motstandere" published by Rosenborg BK, cited in the article, all league-matches from 1964 are listed. If we mail them, and ask if they could add the matches from the 1963 season, would it be OR to add those 4 seasons at the second tier to the list? I think starting from 1963 would be reasonable, as the Norwegian league-system was reorganised in 1963. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several possible starting points and 1963 would also work, as would the "marathon" 1961–62 season. As for the website you mention, it has been updated further since I created this list and adding that information would be fine, although I am not sure if it is complete or not. I'll have to look a bit closer at the stats. Arsenikk (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Statistics is complete back to 1964, all three additional season when RBK played in the Second Divison. I can add these years, alternatively remove 1978 or leave it as it is. Either way is fine for me, but I would prefer any discussion to take place before I do the bulk of the work. Arsenikk (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it would be strange to start in 1964 and not 1963, so if the stats from 1963 is unavailable in RS's, we have two options left: remove 1978 or leave it as it is. I have no opinion on which of those two options should be chosen, but I understand that it looks strange to only have one season at the second tier included. On the other hand, when RS's included 1978, why shouldn't Wikipedia? Mentoz86 (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Statistics is complete back to 1964, all three additional season when RBK played in the Second Divison. I can add these years, alternatively remove 1978 or leave it as it is. Either way is fine for me, but I would prefer any discussion to take place before I do the bulk of the work. Arsenikk (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several possible starting points and 1963 would also work, as would the "marathon" 1961–62 season. As for the website you mention, it has been updated further since I created this list and adding that information would be fine, although I am not sure if it is complete or not. I'll have to look a bit closer at the stats. Arsenikk (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it the book by Svardal that puts 1967 as starting point? On the website "Motstandere" published by Rosenborg BK, cited in the article, all league-matches from 1964 are listed. If we mail them, and ask if they could add the matches from the 1963 season, would it be OR to add those 4 seasons at the second tier to the list? I think starting from 1963 would be reasonable, as the Norwegian league-system was reorganised in 1963. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The main reason for starting with 1967 is that no reliable sources have published statistical information for earlier seasons, so it is physically impossible to produce a more extensive list within WP guidelines. I agree that going back to 1918 would be ideal, but back then RBK wasn't even allowed to join the FA (for instance it is not even known which date Rosenborg played its first match). While Luton Town always has been a spectator-based team, it was first in the 1950s did Rosenborg become sufficiently good to draw a significant crowd and even then it was a smaller player in town. All major, reliable sources I have come across (the club itself, major news sites etc) put 1967 as the starting points for stats. Thus starting in 1967 is the only way to not violate WP:OR and WP:V. As for inclusion of 1978, I have a neutral stance. I have included it because the source includes it, but if it would make the article more neutral by excluding that season, then I am open to that too. Arsenikk (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 21:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments Just suggestions, but I am inclined to support the list.
|
- Support--Tomcat (7) 21:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "on" matches and "on" seasons in Tomcat's suggestions above should be "in" matches and "in" seasons. "On" is not correct English in those sentences -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
—Bloom6132 (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – meets all 6 criteria in my opinion. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you say in the lead "Rosenborg joined the top league in 1967" and then at the top of the list "Rosenborg BK has played in the domestic league from the 1967 season and onwards", so a simple question, did Rosenborg have a "league record" before 1967? If not, then this list is either incomplete or incorrectly titled, or inadequately caveated in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The section header title was proposed by a reviewer here, so I guess I have to get more careful of what advice I accept. I have changed the section header title. I have only been able to find a league record for a single season prior to 1967, per the discussion above, which is why the list has the chronological scope it has. Arsenikk (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The parent article, Rosenborg BK, discusses the club's history prior to 1967, or 1964, or any arbitrary time-frame being discussed. I accept that you can only provide reliable information for that time period, but unfortunately, without the remaining information, I think that the list is incomplete, and fails criteria 3a. Harrias talk 09:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Hahc21 10:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Surge_Elec (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this list for featured list because I feel that I have significantly improved the quality and it meets all 6 FL criteria. Surge_Elec (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Four paragraphs for an article of this size is too much
- The prose is not so engaging. For eg., "Lagaan dominated Indian film award ceremonies, earning various nominations and winning numerous awards, including Best Film and Best Director, in each." The sentence is non-neutral and needs to be verifiable. The film did not win "Best Film" and "Best Director" awards at the National Film Awards.
- The "Recipients and nominees" column lists not just the recipients, but also the work
- Nobody would be interested in "Date of ceremony". Rather you could mention the order of the ceremony
- References are incomplete and some are non-reliable (IMDb, Apunkachoice.com, to name a few)
- All in all, this list needs copy-editing and reference formatting. Consider taking the article to PR before bringing it here for the second time
- All in all, this list needs copy-editing and reference formatting. Consider taking the article to PR before bringing it here for the second time
—Vensatry (Ping me) 12:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - suggest the nominator follows Vensatry's advice. At a glance I can see several MOS issues (e.g. WP:CONTEXTLINK, WP:HASH, MOS:REF, WP:DASH), grammar issues (e.g. "in Time magazines' list"), not to mention those issues raised above. It's a good framework for an FLC, but it needs a thorough copyedit. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]
- Nominator(s): EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it has the quality required, according to the Featured list criteria, to qualify to be considered a top article. The subject itself is also noteworthy as it determines the club World Champion. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Toa Nidhiki05 |
---|
Comments
Toa Nidhiki05 02:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support - All concerns addressed. Toa Nidhiki05 21:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed those issues. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Astros4477 |
---|
Comments –
-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support-- Astros4477 (Talk) 23:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- No need for two Corinthians links in the lead.
- The List of finals heading has two words more than it needs. The last word would make a fine heading by itself.
- All of the photos need alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed the above issues. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good work and well sourced page. --Carioca (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As the nominator, I also support the promotion of this list to FL status. Since it is long past 10 days, and seeing that it clearly exceeds the criteria, can someone go ahead and finish this? EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just as a general note, you don't need to support your own nominations - it is generally regarded that, by nominating it, you support it. Regardless, I agree this should probably be promoted. :) Toa Nidhiki05 00:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments The list is confusing. First, the competition names in the lead should be bolded. Then I think the list should be moved to List of FIFA Club World Cup winners or List of FIFA Club World Cup finalists, as it seems the competition was renamed (?) and you discuss the finalists, not the finals. However, I would name it List of FIFA Club World Cup winners, because the emphasize is given to the winners, and it is logical that each competition has a final. And additionally I am not sure if this list is standalone, even if the main article is large enough. The Club column in "Results by club" does not sort correctly. I think "Results by confederation" may be merged somewhere, perhaps into a column. If that does not fit, I would remove the Host column in the section "List of finals", since the Venues column includes cities, and in which country a season was played does not seem to be very notable. Finally I think the only table which should remain is "List of finals", because the below tables are overall redundant given that there were not many finals and every reader would be able to count, particularly if you have listed the flags. These are my initial thoughts; I am happy to revisit this nomination once these issues are addressed. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)--Tomcat (7) 12:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List of FIFA Club World Championship and Club World Cup finals = finals. If you find that confusing, you need help. On the FL criteria, and lists in general, there is nothing saying that anything in the lead needs bolding. As a matter of fact, I have never seen a list with bolded material in its lead. As for the rest of this rant, I go back to the first sentence.
- BTW I fixed the sortable issues you mentioned. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You need help making constructive comments without personal attacks. I clearly indicated my position. This list is clearly confusing, especially for non-football gurus. You are writing about the winners, not the finals. As for the bolding, see WP:BOLDFACE: "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the article title, and often synonyms, in the lead section (first paragraph)." We have a lot of featured lists with highlighted phrases, for example a bunch of WP:GRAMMY lists. And finally, because of your harsh response and the list's failure to meet 3b, I am opposing this list for promotion. The initial table can be merged into the main article, and other tables are redundant. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 17:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with this assessment - I am by no means a soccer guru (aside from US women's soccer), but it is quite clear as to what the event and finals are. The finals are included and listed, in the very first section no less, and if you didn't see that you must not have looked over the article very well. Bolding is either way, but I don't really see it as needed and I haven't seen it on many other soccer lists. Toa Nidhiki05 19:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Toa, the reason I didn't took anything he said seriously is because I know there are people that likes derailing things out of personal spite. Don't feed the troll and just ignore him. Nothing he said made sense and that is how one knows not to deal with their issues. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with this assessment - I am by no means a soccer guru (aside from US women's soccer), but it is quite clear as to what the event and finals are. The finals are included and listed, in the very first section no less, and if you didn't see that you must not have looked over the article very well. Bolding is either way, but I don't really see it as needed and I haven't seen it on many other soccer lists. Toa Nidhiki05 19:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You need help making constructive comments without personal attacks. I clearly indicated my position. This list is clearly confusing, especially for non-football gurus. You are writing about the winners, not the finals. As for the bolding, see WP:BOLDFACE: "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the article title, and often synonyms, in the lead section (first paragraph)." We have a lot of featured lists with highlighted phrases, for example a bunch of WP:GRAMMY lists. And finally, because of your harsh response and the list's failure to meet 3b, I am opposing this list for promotion. The initial table can be merged into the main article, and other tables are redundant. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 17:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW I fixed the sortable issues you mentioned. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* List of finals section: "Yokohama, Japan's International Stadium Yokohama (横浜国際総合競技場)" is unnecessary detail, particularly the Japanese text. "The International Stadium Yokohama in Japan" would be plenty.
|
Oppose for now.
- On a spot-check of sources: the 2009 final has three cited sources, none of which seem to verify the attendance (unless I've missed it). If it isn't there, you may want to check the others.
- Following on from that, the main table rows all have several references, but some of them seem superfluous. For instance, the contents of the 2000 row is entirely verifiable from the FIFA ref. I can understand that you might include the RSSSF page as an independent source, but can't see what the Portuguese-language honours page at the Corinthians website adds? Or any of the other honours pages, for that matter.
- It seems that you've done quite a lot of work on the list, edited the lead, added refs and some prose etc. But the article itself, including the main table and lead section, was created quite recently by User:Arbero. Have you considered asking them to co-nominate, or to become involved in responding to reviewers' comments?
Struway2 (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed every single issue above. Now...about the 2009 final and the spectators...there are links on the above page that details in statistics and whatnot and you can see it there. I didn't want to be too redundant in putting references from the same source on one final.
- As far as sources go with things like this, I like having a FIFA link, RSSSF link and a link from the club that won said competition. If anyone needed any information on the final, the details or the victorious squad, that would be three links that anyone can use. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps add a sentence explaining what the Toyota Cup was and why it should be absorbed/merged into this competition. Also, in English I think it's generally called the Intercontinental Cup.
- What's more concerning is that some of the cited sources don't verify the sentence they go with. e.g.
- "FIFA agreed with UEFA, CONMEBOL and Toyota to merge the Toyota Cup and Club World Championship into one event.[4]": ref#4 doesn't mention the Toyota Cup or CONMEBOL or UEFA;
- You've removed UEFA and CONMEBOL from the sentence, but the ref still doesn't mention the Toyota Cup. Struway2 (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Milan crushed Boca Juniors 4–2, in a match that saw the first player sent off in a Club World Cup final: Milan's Kakha Kaladze from Georgia at the 77th minute. Eleven minutes later, Boca Junior's Pablo Ledesma would join Kaladze as he too was sent off.[15]" ref#15 shows the players sent off, but not the minutes, and I can't see anything to say Kaladze was the first to be sent off in a final.
- Still nothing to say Kaladze was the first to be sent off in a Club World Cup final. Struway2 (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "FIFA agreed with UEFA, CONMEBOL and Toyota to merge the Toyota Cup and Club World Championship into one event.[4]": ref#4 doesn't mention the Toyota Cup or CONMEBOL or UEFA;
Struway2 (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed all of the above issues.
- Yes...I do use American English and that shouldn't be a problem. After all, Wikipedia is an American website that was founded by an American. If you noticed, I use the American way of dating things.
- I am not putting any more information into the Toyota Cup than it needs. A mention is more than enough since it will only derail the article from its main purpose: to provide information on the FCWC finals. For your information, the competition was a friendly tournament officially called "European/South American Cup" by its organizers, UEFA and CONMEBOL, and later renamed to "Toyota Cup" for obvious reasons. It has been called "Intercontinental Cup" informally. If anyone wants to learn more about it, they can click on the actual article or go into the main FCWC itself. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you over-react on two counts.
I asked if "would show its class" was acceptable usage in American English, that's all. The featured list criteria include a requirement for "professional standards of writing".
Second, on the Toyota Cup. If the reader comes across a sentence telling them that the Toyota Cup was merged into this competition, then they'll want to know at the very least what it was. And if this article is intended to be an example of Wikipedia's "very best work", it shouldn't be driving the reader to another article, or off the site entirely, for want of a few words of explanation. Struway2 (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If I go by your logic, I will have to do the same for every club and nation mentioned since that is of far more relevance to the list than a friendly competition. Derailing the article would not be considered a "professional standard of writing".EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you over-react on two counts.
Since I reviewed, a couple of quoteboxes have been added. Not sure what the Martin Edwards quote adds, but the second one hints at controversy: perhaps that might go better with context in the relevant bit of prose than in a quotebox.
I'm sorry, but I can't devote any more time to this review. Those facts that my limited spot-check turned up as unsourced and have not been capped, have still not been fixed. While this is the case, my oppose stands. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Navbox {{FIFA Club World Cup}} (below the article) uses unbelievable terrible colours. Nominator wrote this is "FIFA colours" (#234670) without explanation where we can read about "FIFA colours". Other FIFA navbox use standart blue colours. Need change all FIFA templates (not only this one) or keep all in standart colours. Also in section List of finals key to table must be above table but not left of it. Lead section is without bold text. Also unneeded big quotes are present in article. NickSt (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nominator is indefinitely banned as a sockpuppet of an account indefinitely banned for disruptive editing. Kevin McE (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: the "history" section in this list is more relevant in FIFA Club World Cup (which is full of false and useless information, as all the writing and citations discredit the Intercontinental Cup in a whole paragraph not have any relation with this tournament) being a companion article to the "main" article. In addition, the two citations included in this article does not make any reference to any final, but there are part of the author's attempt to give more value to the competition.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Since this is a club competition, honours are reserved just to clubs, not countries or confederations of origin of the winning team.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]
- Nominator(s): EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it has the quality required, according to the Featured list criteria, to qualify to be considered a top list. The subject itself is also noteworthy as it determines the club World Champion. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:FLC states "Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." - The nominator has already nominated Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FIFA Club World Championship and Club World Cup finals/archive1, and this one is one of four FLC that was nominated yesterday. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose what Mentoz said plus the same situation as the other list. The only table that is actually needed is the very first one, which may be easily merged into the main article. Finally, you need to clarify how this list is standalone, how a manager differs from other ones, etc. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 17:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been unsuccessful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]
- Nominator(s): — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I have recently finished a major cleanup and sourcing effort, adding reliable references for every orbital and suborbital launch in 2012. As far as I can tell, the list is complete – no major launches are missing – and it meets the FL criteria. As well as listing all of 2012's launches, it includes useful and properly-sourced information on EVAs and deep-space exploration. — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 14:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*General comments
|
I am not sure about the accessibility of the first table, mainly because of the "sections" within table (eg January, February). I think they are used as column headers, which are disregarded. The table is complicated and I must confess I am not an expert in accessibility. I will ping User:RexxS. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- The months, January, February, ... are not marked up as headers and won't cause any problems for screen readers in this case, although the nature of the organisation of the table (where the 11 pieces of data for each launch are wrapped onto 3 lines) rather precludes making the table navigable by a screen reader, other than by left-to-right, one row at a time. I'd prefer to consider the table as a layout table that is designed merely to present the information in a convenient form for a sighted reader. We are probably aiming too high if we try to fit 11 pieces of data into each row - as we would need to make a more accessible table:
Date and time (UTC) | Rocket | Launch site | LSP | Payload | Operator | Orbit | Function | Decay (UTC) | Outcome | Remarks |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9 January 03:17:09 | Long March 4B | Taiyuan LA-9 | SAST | Ziyuan 3 | MLR | Low Earth | Earth imaging | In orbit | Operational | – |
9 January 03:17:09 | Long March 4B | Taiyuan LA-9 | SAST | VesselSat-2 | Luxspace | Low Earth | Earth imaging | In orbit | Operational | – |
- As you can see, one launch would require being 'unpicked' into a row for each payload - and even that won't allow us to create useful row headers because of the duplication of key information. So, in brief, we could improve accessibility of these tables, but it would be a small gain for a large effort - particularly as the templates seem to be used in about 70 pages and we'd need to check each of them if changes were made. My recommendation is to accept that it's not perfect, but probably about the best we can manage under the circumstances. I wouldn't oppose this list on the grounds of accessibility of that table. --RexxS (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am actually impressed by this list. It still needs an expansion of the intro, and perhaps a bit more detail under the Europe entry in the top summary table. Nergaal (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, high quality, incredibly well sourced, meticulous in citations. Also, SCIENCE! — Cirt (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 11:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Quick comment still see reference issues, eg some questionable sources (FlightGlobal, etc), [7] does not show the content. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support nitpicks were resolved. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question - did the accessibility of the table get resolved? I find it hard to work out as a sighted reader, so I'm not sure how this comes across to a screen-reader user. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick answer - it's usable, if not optimal. --RexxS (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- RexxS, as always, thank you so much for spending so much time helping us to decipher our way through some the accessibility hurdles. I can honestly say that, as a visually able reader, I find the current table to be too complex. I hope we can simplify it for everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose really sorry but I find the table virtually impossible to navigate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain why that is the case? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The rows don't seem to follow the key, either in content or colour, there seem to be multiple rows while the key indicates singles rows, it's very hard to know what's what. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with TRM. I am not happy with Level 3 headers inside a big table that only have row headers at the beginning. Are we supposed to scroll back to the beginning each time we want to know which thing is which? My recommendation is to break the table into 12 tables, each for each month, with their correspondent row headers to identify the content. In my opinion, as it is, it doesn't meet accessibility. — ΛΧΣ21 17:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The dates are already noted in the Date and time cells, so there should no problems. --Tomcat (7) 18:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say that my oppose is still here, stronger than ever, the list is far too difficult for me to interpret. It seems my esteemed colleagues think otherwise but I cannot support this list in its current format, it's far too confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your concern, but I'm afraid that I'm limited to improving the list's sources and content - I don't really know my way around these complex wikimarkup templates. If a more skilled editor could do some work on the table's layout, that would be a great help. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say that my oppose is still here, stronger than ever, the list is far too difficult for me to interpret. It seems my esteemed colleagues think otherwise but I cannot support this list in its current format, it's far too confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The dates are already noted in the Date and time cells, so there should no problems. --Tomcat (7) 18:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with TRM. I am not happy with Level 3 headers inside a big table that only have row headers at the beginning. Are we supposed to scroll back to the beginning each time we want to know which thing is which? My recommendation is to break the table into 12 tables, each for each month, with their correspondent row headers to identify the content. In my opinion, as it is, it doesn't meet accessibility. — ΛΧΣ21 17:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The rows don't seem to follow the key, either in content or colour, there seem to be multiple rows while the key indicates singles rows, it's very hard to know what's what. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What is the FL policy on redlinks? To me it looks messy and I'd prefer them simply removed rather than red. This is the only thing holding me back from a full support !vote just now. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 09:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Red links are allowed. — ΛΧΣ21 17:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To the best of my knowledge, FL doesn't have any policy that differs from the guidance at Wikipedia:Red link where the summary is "Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it." If there are any redlinks to topics that have no prospect of being created as articles, I'd encourage you to remove them; otherwise they remain a good source of inspiration for editors looking for new articles to create. --RexxS (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Hahc21 and RexxS for clearing that up. In that case I move to Support - Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 11:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick note: I've been checking some of the red links, so far at least two actually have articles under slightly different names. I've only really checked down to March so far and will continue to do so later if I get a chance. I would suggest the nom maybe go through and check that all red links are, in fact, red because an article doesn't exist and not just point at the wrong target. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 11:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm delighted that you've done that checking, Cabe, and I'm sure Michaelmas1957 will want to take on board your suggestion. This is yet another example of how the FLC process gets multiple editors involved in collaborating for the benefit of the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for bringing that to my attention - I'll do some redlink cleanup now. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done – I've resolved redlinks that already have related articles. Most of the remaining redlinks would need a specific new article created for them (which, as RexxS noted, is why redlinks are allowed). – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for bringing that to my attention - I'll do some redlink cleanup now. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm delighted that you've done that checking, Cabe, and I'm sure Michaelmas1957 will want to take on board your suggestion. This is yet another example of how the FLC process gets multiple editors involved in collaborating for the benefit of the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick note: I've been checking some of the red links, so far at least two actually have articles under slightly different names. I've only really checked down to March so far and will continue to do so later if I get a chance. I would suggest the nom maybe go through and check that all red links are, in fact, red because an article doesn't exist and not just point at the wrong target. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 11:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Hahc21 and RexxS for clearing that up. In that case I move to Support - Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 11:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]
- Nominator(s): I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 10:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe, after significant revisions of prose and the tables, that it meets the criteria. As always, any comments are appreciated if they help me to improve the page. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 10:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Literally a third of the lead is about one song. (just sayin')
- Trimmed it a little, but I don't think this is that unreasonable – the digital downloads in the UK fact is a rather notable chart feat, so I feel that should stay as well. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Similarly, the "Crazy" row looks comically large compared to the rest of the Singles table. I suggest removing the Gold certs; the song article can cover it.—indopug (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point, but we can't just remove valid certifications for the reason of a song being massively more successful than the others in the table. This seems somewhat unnecessary, and I've never seen it done at any similar discography. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support, as my comments have been addressed. Holiday56 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Ruslik_Zero 16:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Three further singles – "Smiley Faces", which reached the top ten of the UK and Irish singles charts,[8][9] "Who Cares?" and a cover of the Violent Femmes song "Gone Daddy Gone" were released from St. Elsewhere, although none of them appeared on the Billboard Hot 100.[10]
Add another hyphen after "Gone Daddy Gone".- Everything else seems good to me. Good job! Toa Nidhiki05 02:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS explicitly states that positions on the Bubbling Under chart should not be shown as a Hot 100 position of x+100..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Editorial opinion is widely divided on this topic, and it has been allowed in multiple FLCs before, but if you're still determined that I should do this to make it a FL then I'll make the change. Personally, I'm fine with this listing as long as a note is added explaining that it is not a direct extension, as Billboard themselves and Joel Whitburn's books have used this method. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very concerned about the 3b issue here. Oddly, the main article on Gnarls Barkley actually goes into more detail about the releases than the discography article, and I don't think that can be right. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I acknowledge that it's not as long as other discographies, I don't think it's quite short enough to violate 3b - it has a similar number of releases and similarly detailed lead to Gotye discography, which you recently supported (sorry if that probably violates WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). As some of their releases are not very notable, it isn't really content forking to list them here, Also, the prose in the Gnarls Barkley article isn't that great: lots of it is unreferenced, and mostly concerns "Crazy", and the most significant aspects of its chart performance have already been mentioned in the lead. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but all I'm saying is that you could easily merge the tables back to the main article right now. To answer you query about the Gotye discog, it was 26KB in length and the main article is 34KB. This discog is 22KB in length and the main article is 13KB, in total about half the size of the Gotye effort. So, combining the leads and removing repetition for the Gnarls Barkely stuff, you'd end up with a reasonable length article. I don't think it's a good idea to fork out a discog which is twice the size of the main article but still repeats a lot of the content of the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article on the bandleader Cee Lo has 19kb prose text. And since Green is the main force behind the band, his article should not be fully ignored. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As this is clearly a significant issue that will require great effort on someone's (probably me) part to expand the Gnarls Barkley and Cee Lo Green pages, I would (with great sadness - sigh) like to withdraw this nomination. I am currently unaware of how to do this, so any assistance would be well appreciated. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 20:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article on the bandleader Cee Lo has 19kb prose text. And since Green is the main force behind the band, his article should not be fully ignored. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but all I'm saying is that you could easily merge the tables back to the main article right now. To answer you query about the Gotye discog, it was 26KB in length and the main article is 34KB. This discog is 22KB in length and the main article is 13KB, in total about half the size of the Gotye effort. So, combining the leads and removing repetition for the Gnarls Barkely stuff, you'd end up with a reasonable length article. I don't think it's a good idea to fork out a discog which is twice the size of the main article but still repeats a lot of the content of the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I acknowledge that it's not as long as other discographies, I don't think it's quite short enough to violate 3b - it has a similar number of releases and similarly detailed lead to Gotye discography, which you recently supported (sorry if that probably violates WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). As some of their releases are not very notable, it isn't really content forking to list them here, Also, the prose in the Gnarls Barkley article isn't that great: lots of it is unreferenced, and mostly concerns "Crazy", and the most significant aspects of its chart performance have already been mentioned in the lead. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Hahc21 10:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it's one of the last steps in the long process of the establishment of a Maya Angelou featured topic. It's very ready to be declared a FL. The sources are strictly accurate. Please enjoy. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Weak oppose based on a quick run-through....
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment what would you like to do Christine? If you're going to overhaul it, I'd suggest a withdrawal. If you're going for GA, then obviously this nomination is no longer relevant. Let me know what you think. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have started to overhaul it, see here [11]. It's my intention to continue, and to perhaps finish in a few days. All it's required is reformatting the information in a list and writing up a short blurb about each honor. The sticking point I can see here is the honorary degrees. It's never going to be a definite list, not without some primary research. If the reviewers think that's in the way of this being a FL, then I'll withdraw, work on the formatting, and submit it to GAC. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, well let's give it a few days and see where we go from there. No stress. Oh, and we have {{incomplete list}} for a reason! No problem with that being used.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude thanks! Appreciate it. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: so I've finally completed formatting/expanding the table. Please tell me if the formatting's off or can be improved. For those who have a better grasp at tables than I have, could you please tell me what we can do about the image of MA with Pres. Obama, and how we can increase the size of the table? Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude thanks! Appreciate it. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, well let's give it a few days and see where we go from there. No stress. Oh, and we have {{incomplete list}} for a reason! No problem with that being used.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would convert the table into a wikitable. Some notes are not referenced as far as I can see.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikitable done. The references in the far-right column ("References") correspond to everything in its row. If I have to cite every cell, I'll just remove that column. That seems like over-citing to me, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as references for the claims in the second columns likely exist, I see no reason to view the content as original research. I think everything is in order. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "African American" normally hyphenated or en-dash, can't recall which.
- Hyphenated when modifying a noun or verb, as in "African-American writers". I re-checked, and the only error was the lead, which I fixed. Thanks for the catch.
- "Maya Angelou, reciting..." no need to repeat her first name.
- Got it.
- "the longest-running record (two years) on" sorry, was it a record or a book?
- A book; I changed the phrasing so that it's clearer.
- When I sort by year, the first sort shouldn't make any difference as the table should be originally in chronological order, but things move....
- No need for the References column to be sortable.
- Similarly, since the Notes column is free text, no need for it to be sortable.
- Fixed.
- Be consistent with your use of periods at the end of the notes.
- Pretty sure I got 'em all.
- Avoid using acronyms when you haven't explained them (e.g. NAACP).
- "1975.[49]" no need for those periods, any of them, in that section.
- Finished addressing all the above.
- Worth checking the refs still work....
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All done; thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [12].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Sycamore (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I took it to GAN and the editor who closed the Good Article nomination believed that it was more of a list and would be suited for FLC. A peer review was just recently closed after I had addressed all comments by the reviewer. While this article uses two primary sources, these are only to establish the exact wording of the description of the award and the complete list of recipients; other important information is sourced by third-party secondary sources. I believe that this list is now ready for FLC. Sycamore (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, are you able to make a table for the recipients, the years they recieved it etc etc? Otherwise, nice dataCoal town guy (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly could. I currently have it as a three-column list because I thought at first that it was more attractive to have a shorter list than a long table, but if other commenters feel like a table would be better, it would be a simple change. Sycamore (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. With table or without it is a nice list. However, it can benefit from being decorated by a couple of photos of its recipients. Ruslik_Zero 16:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [13].[reply]
- Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When this page was nominated in 2009, it was quick failed, and it's clear to see why. Now, even though there are only eight "items" for this list, I believe that the additional sources discussing the topic and the quality of the page merits featured list status, once I address any concerns. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The opinion I expressed in the previous FLC still stands, and I do not believe 3b is met. I see no reason why this page cannot be merged into African Americans in the United States Congress, especially when looking at the similar and replaceable table at African Americans in the United States Congress#United States Senate. While the prose in that article needs working on, it is still somewhat redundant with this article's lead as well. Reywas92Talk 19:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the argument that it doesn't meet 3b. I disagree, however. There are sources that discuss the fact that only 8 African Americans have been seated in the US Senate, enough so that I believe this meets 3b. I think the Senate and House are different issues, as pointed out by the gerrymandering of House districts to make majority minority districts. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose under 3b, the majority of this is covered elsewhere, as noted above. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [14].[reply]
- Nominator(s): ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 12:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list status because I've been working on this for a few years (on and off) and taken it through a couple of peer reviews, and I feel it is now ready for a full review. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 12:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the list is very nice, but I am opposed to the inclusion of the 'Other active teams'. First, I don't think youth teams in general are notable enough to be listed. [15] lists five teams in passing, but I see no reason why they deserve to be mentioned here. [16] mentions the first game for a local club, but I see no evidence that the team still exists. I am astonished that the Sheffield Vipers are included, as they are souced just to a Facebook page. This news article also mentions the creation of a team, without proof it is still active or why it's notable. Think about football/soccer teams in the UK, or American football teams (and even soccer) in America: there are way, way too many at all levels without notability to list every one. Although there are few UK Am. football teams altogether, that does not lower the bar for notability for inclusion. The rest of the list looks terrific and I support its nomination. Reywas92Talk 16:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean restricting the list to teams that are actually affiliated with a league? I certainly don't have an issue with that - consider that section gone. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 19:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the list and, as you suggested, there were a few stray hyphens lurking about. I believe I've dealt with all of them so the list should now comply with WP:DASH. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 16:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
I've decided to remove the Touchdown UK references until I can get hold of those page numbers - thankfully, all the statement which used this book are also backed up by other references. I can re-add them as soon as I can get hold of another copy. I believe this addresses all of the comments now. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 09:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.