Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/May 2015: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Withdrawn at request of nom
archive 2
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2015 Cricket World Cup squads/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Meghan Trainor discography/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The Boat Race results/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The Boat Race results/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Adolf Hitler's personal staff/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Adolf Hitler's personal staff/archive2}}

Revision as of 08:28, 7 May 2015

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 08:28, 7 May 2015 [1].

2015 Cricket World Cup squads

Nominator(s): RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfills the criteria. There were some unreferenced teams, which I have fixed. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at the featured list criteria, I think it has a chance- it's the first time an article I've worked on has been nominated, so I don't really know much more to say. I've done a few minor date fixes, and added a picture of the MCG, as it was lacking in pictures. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the lead is exceptionally short for an article of this length, and does not sufficiently summarise the content. The tables all lack row scopes, which are required for accessibility. The tables would further benefit greatly from being sortable, and does not require the flags in the final column (in fact, MOS:FLAG frowns upon the flags being used like this anyway.) The lead image requires alt text for accessibility. The tables appear to be unreferenced, as it is unclear which (if any) citation covers them. It needs to be made clear when the ages and the number of matches played refers to (the start of the tournament, the final?) The section headings should not be linked, and definitely should not include flags. It would be useful to include appearances in the tournament as an additional column, to give an indication of who played, and how much. Harrias talk 18:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please wait for a couple of days, Joseph2302 has already strated working, and me too. I hope within 2 or 3 days, the article will be according to your suggestions. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rush, featured list candidates have to be open for at least ten days, and most are closer to a month. Harrias talk 18:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Hi, all the references had been added. Please let me know what more should be done. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently adding the number of matches each player played in the World Cup. Also, I think it would be good if each team had a few lines of text about their squads, not just 1 sentence. I've added some detail for England and Australia. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I've added a lead, with a better summary of the scope of the article i.e. more about the 2015 Cricket World Cup, and clarified the ODI and age figures in the lead section. I can see how the referencing of player details looks bad, so am going to add sources for them (it'll take ages to do, because I need to run a stats query into a database for each player, to get the correct info at 14 Feb). I guess using similar queries on the same database I can also find all matches played in the World Cup, and add this. Flags I can deal with too, but I'll probably do it last. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I'm planning to add total World Cup appearances after the tournament finishes on Sunday, using sources from here. We're currently working on the nightmare task of adding sources for all the currently listed player stats, as we need 2 sources for each player (so over 400 sources in total). There's unfortunately not a more efficient way, I searched every cricket stats site. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question to the nominator – I'm not sure if your are a major contributor to this list. Leaving that aside, did you go through the criteria and ensure that this list meets the prime requirements of an FL. Also, are you aware of WP:PR? —Vensatry (ping) 18:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Looks good. I've added rowscopes, column scopes and made all columns the same width. Blackhole78 talk | contrib 06:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments
  • No need to have 2015 Cricket World Cup in bold.
  • I don't think that there is a need to mention the 2011 and 2019 tournaments in the lead of this article. In general, I think the lead would benefit from discussing less about the tournament in general, and more about the composition of the squads. For example, maybe mention that Jayawardene had played the most ODIs prior to the tournament, and maybe mention how many World Cups he had played in, stuff like that.
  • Now that the lists are sortable, {{sortname}} should be used so that the players name sort by surname.
  • The ODIs column for the England table doesn't sort right for me either.
  • A Key would be beneficial so that it is obvious what the ODI and CWC 15 columns signify.
  • Remove the flags from the coaches.

This list is moving in the right direction, for sure. Harrias talk 19:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from User:Joseph2302 to these points
  • Removed
  • Removed the unnecessary stuff, will add some interesting squad stuff (Jayawardene, maybe the oldest/youngest players too).
  • Will add the sortname thing at some point.
  • Wiki didn't like Morgan's note, I moved it which fixed the problem. Error didn't make sense, since Ronchi and Joyce notes didn't affect their columns.
  • Added a key, now changed the key so it's a table.
  • Removed flags. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. This has been open long enough, and there is still an outstanding oppose and no sign of any support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that's about 100 hours of my life wasted improving this article- won't be doing this again anytime soon. I'd basically fixed most of the problems, yet no-one else could be bothered to contribute. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2015 (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 08:28, 7 May 2015 [2].

Meghan Trainor discography

Nominator(s): All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe I have worked hard on it and it satisfies most of the criteria. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from HĐ (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A comprehensive list. Good work! HĐ (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Azealia911
*Quick comment: Writing credits need sourcing, and although I see it's not essential to have on a discography, I see Trainor has no videography, would it be worth adding her music videos?
  • Apart from that, Support, can't see anything that would hinder this from meeting criteria, great article. Azealia911 talk 13:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I have replaced the superior lead paragraph wording that was implemented by NeilN but removed by another editor. The better wording mentions the article subject, while the inferior wording mentions Trainor first. The reader's focus should first be on the article subject. Have made some wording simpler (we are supposed to write for readers in such a manner that the average 6th grader can understand it), removed a redundancy or two, fixed some punctuation. Removed WP:OR and WP:SYNTH peacocking not used by or verifiable through reliable references. Question: Is there precedence for the nomination of such a short list article with its sub-subject being a brand-new recording artist with only one major-label album? Time will tell if this article is a viable candidate, I suppose. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ariana Grande discography is an FL with two albums, Lorde discography is an FL with just one major-label album. This article is definitely a viable candidate. This is not a random decision, you have to put a support vote if you support or give something to improve on. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 15:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't "have" to do anything. You wanted comments (see here [3]), I provided some. See WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed with how the article has shaped up. Just the lead section can have some c/e by a GOCE member, and it should be fine. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kailash29792: The lead was just copy edited by a member of GOCE and looks great now! All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 20:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article is up to my expectations, it has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Billboard is uninitialized in several references
  • Why do you list tracks for two albums in the "Studio albums" section but not the others?
  • Her first three albums were taken out of circulation as a build-up effort what's a "build-up effort"?
  • I don't see anything referenced from "IFPI Digital Music Report 2014", p. 15.
  • and preceded Trainor's debut EP, Title (2014) which comma needed after "(2014)
  • Trainor's second single release, "Lips Are Movin", on October 21, 2014, which peaked at number four on the Billboard Hot 100. this isn't a complete sentence...
  • This marked Trainor's second consecutive top-five single in the United States. I don't think this is needed, especially with the "third-consecutive" comment mentioned later in the lead
  • The song preceded Trainor's fourth studio album Title (2015), which replaced her EP of the same name. I'm not sure "replace" is the correct word; it didn't "replace" the EP, it was just released afterwards
  • Upon release, Title debuted at the top of the Billboard 200. the EP or the album? Clarification needed here.
  • Her third single, "Dear Future Husband", a track from Title the EP or the album? Clarification needed here.
I think I addressed all your concerns. As for the tracklist, there is consensus that tracklists for albums that don't have their own articles should be provided on the discography. I dnt see any probem with it though. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 08:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the songs within the track lists aren't notable, why should they be included?
  • Consensus at the AfD for the lists of songs recorded was to merge the track lists as noted above. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It topped the national charts of 58 countries I don't see this referenced in the citation given
  • It was certified double platinum by the RIAA. reference needed
  • the album debuted at the top of the Billboard 200 → the album debuted atop the Billboard 200
  • Her third single, "Dear Future Husband", was certified Gold by the RIAA reference needed
  • Ref 23 needs an access date
  • Can you make sure these charts are up to date? I randomly checked the SWI reference, which lists "Dear Future Husband" at number 68. Seattle (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, although I think you are confusing the Swedish chart and Swiss chart. The article lists the swiss one which correctly lists DFH at number 73. And the track lists, per Chase's comment above. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 18:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been four months since the Spotify Sessions album has been released; why isn't it available for sale in those regions? Shouldn't those just be ndashes if they didn't chart?
    • Spotify albums aren't released for sale on a whole. It's a streaming service, accounts are created and used for free, there's no transaction fees involved. See Lorde's EP's for example. Azealia911 talk 13:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it isn't for sale, why wouldn't you move that note to the "Sales" column and add "—" to the "Peaks" section, as it didn't chart anywhere? Seattle (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because there should be note to make readers aware that the project wasn't available for sale, as opposed to have them think that it was, but failed commercially, as you may well have from your original comment on the situation. Azealia911 talk 17:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Never mind, misunderstood your point, doing what you suggested now! Azealia911 talk 17:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thoughts, changed it back, the EP was released in all countries, but not for sale, only for streaming purposes. The note below the section states ""—" denotes items which were not released in that country or failed to chart." but the EP doesn't fit into any of these categories. Azealia911 talk 22:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the "—" means that the album didn't chart– which it hasn't. Its commercial status doesn't matter; it didn't chart. The note should be moved to the "Sales" section. Seattle (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't believe this is notable on the grounds that she simply hasn't released much music at all. As such, only one album has charting info, and only three singles have been released. Her discography is not notable enough to warrant a stand alone article. There was nothing wrong with including the Title charts table and a singles table in her bio, and a singles table on in the article for Title itself. Until she releases another album and has more of a discography, I won't be able to support this nomination. For someone who has only released one commercially successful album and three singles, the article looks very fluffed up to look more than what it is, such as including three albums which never charted anywhere. I don't want to be rude, but I think this unnecessary article is a case of WP:FANCRUFT.  — ₳aron 07:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't really need "commercially successful" albums to warrant a discography. Charli XCX has a discography, Lorde has a discography (which is an FL by the way), Carly Rae Jepsen has a discography, even Iggy Azalea has a discography (which is also an FL). There is a lot of support above. There is also consensus that Trainor is notable enough to warrant a discography. As for your accusations of CRUFT, I don't see anything of that sort. But I respect your opinion, and if you think there is cruft, please point it out so I can remove it. Trainor has four, reliably sourced, albums. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 10:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean is that the first three albums have 0 information with regard to charting, sales and certifications, so the reader doesn't actually gain any information about them at all. With regard to those singers you mention, I have just explained why I have given my oppose in comparison on my talk page (for anyone else reading this, see User talk:Calvin999#Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Meghan Trainor discography/archive1.) My comment about fancruft is more to do with you as an editor rather than the list, specifically. I often see you being warned about edit warring on Trainor-related articles, and I believe that this very short, not detailed and 'un-comprehensive' list is a creation of your fandom, which I do not mean as an insult in any way, shape or form.  — ₳aron 12:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to let the closer make the call on this one but I essentially see no reason as to why you would consider a 4-album list fancruft. There is clear consensus for the discography's existence. Although, all I can see is that there is nothing here that I can improve upon so... All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 12:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, it is ultimately up to whether the closing delegate decides if your supports provide solidarity in opinion to outweigh my oppose, or if my oppose brings up issues of notability which outweighs those supports. Again, I'm not saying that a four-album discography is fancruft, I'm saying that the creation of the entire list in the first place is what I believe is fancruft. There's no denying you're a Trainor fan, and I think you have prematurely created this list with what is a very, very small discography which I don't think is notable at all because you're a fan. You're not quite understanding my point on that. There are things you can improve on, it's not a perfect article, but I'm not going to list everything that needs correcting or changing when I don't believe the list should even exist (yet). And there are quite clearly a lot of issues, per the editor's comments above.  — ₳aron 12:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Calvin999 it's not the fact she has a large discography, it's the fact she has a large main article. Her article would be too large then. And you can't claim fancruft on me, as I actually dislike her music, not even tolerable to me. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a moot point to make, and I'll explain why. Meghan Trainor article is not large at all. It's actually very short. If someone like Trainor had a large article for what a little discography she has and her age, then something would be wrong. If you think Meghan Trainor is large, then I'd like to know what you think Mariah Carey's is, or Celine Dion's, or Beyoncé's. Trainor's discography would be far better suited to being in Meghan Trainor. That's why it's a moot point. (And I'm not sure why you're making a point on me "claiming fancruft" on you).  — ₳aron 13:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per ₳aron. Nom is premature as article shouldn't exist -- his Captain Obvious comment that this article exists as a result of fandom is right on. It's already been nominated for deletion once, unsuccessfully so. While the article is now well-written, construct isn't the problem: one major label release and three singles doesn't make for a discography with notability. Should be a part of the Trainor article and definitely shouldn't be a FL candidate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at this time per ₳aron's comments. I will add that his concerns are particularly relevant to #3b of the featured list criteria: "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article."
  • "meets all of the requirements for standalone lists" – Not sure. The notability guidelines for standalone lists require that the list topic be "discussed as a group or set [emphasis not mine] by independent reliable sources." Has Trainor's discography as a whole – not just "All About That Bass" – been discussed extensively in reliable sources? It would seem doubtful given that she's only distributed one album in wide release and she hasn't even been famous for a year, but I'm willing to be proven wrong on this.
  • "does not violate the content-forking guideline" –  Met.
  • "does not largely duplicate material from another article" –  Obvious fail. Almost all of the content in the lead is included at the main Meghan Trainor article.
  • "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" –  Debatable, but probably could. Trainor's article is not that large. A few extra tables wouldn't hurt it IMO.
I appreciate the work that has been put into this, but sorry, not right now. And MaranoFan, whether or not other similar lists should exist (or be FLs) or not is completely unrelated to this FLC. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The nominator has self-imposed a script-enforced wikibreak that will prevent her from editing until October. An early close may be needed unless someone else is willing to address comments and make fixes. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. With several outstanding opposes and the nominator gone, I don't think there's much of a reason to keep this open. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2015 (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 09:47, 5 May 2015 [4].

List of The Boat Race results

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, part of The Boat Race mega-work. This has been spun off from the main Boat Race article as it took up an awful lot of space and was better placed as an individual article. I've added in a bunch of factoids and prose lead and some nice images from "over the years". Of course, I will be 100% dedicated to resolving each and every issue levelled against the list, I look forward to hearing from the community. As always, I thank each and every one of you for your time invested and energy spent in this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rodw A nice looking list but a few questions/comments:

  • In the lead the link to the 1877 race is a bit of a teaser and may need to be explained (otherwise there could be a light blue riot)
    Could you be kind enough to suggest something that wouldn't result in 'Tabs running riot? I expand on it in the main part of the article... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe just "this excludes the dead heat in 1877, which Oxford claim they won by 5 feet (1.5 m)" or something similar.— Rod talk 09:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it best if I remove that Oxon claim altogether from the lead and deal with it in the main text, which I've done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox we see largest margin of victory = 35 lengths - and yet in the table we get "easily" is this more or less than 35 lengths (how long is a length anyway?) & is that claim backed up by a reference anywhere?
    Yep, that's my laziness. "Easily" is what some of the official results have been recorded as, and actually, as I note in the main text, the majority (i.e. all but six) of the races have been held on a different course from that one where 35 lengths was the winning margin. I can do a number of things here, remove the "biggest winning margin" altogether, caveat it with where it was made and include the main winning margin, try to explain to the reader that often, in early times, "easily" was a standard way of reporting results....? Also, a "length" is really not that well defined but often used, even in reliable sources. Back in the day, they had to count the seconds between the winner crossing the line and the loser following up. Divide by about three, that's how many "lengths" are reported. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you've taken it out. All sounds a bit casual in the "old days" before the current microsecond technologies came into play. While we are discussing units - how much is a "canvas" is it less that the 1 ft (30 cms) given in the infobox?— Rod talk 09:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly was a lot more "approximate"! A canvas is longer than a foot, if you look at a modern rowing eight (or this which shows a coxed four), the canvas extends from just behind the bow man (or just behind/in front of the cox, depending on which end you're talking about, and where the cox is situated!!) to the tip of the boat. It's usually several feet. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm learning a lot from this I thought it meant the width of canvas (ie half an inch or less).— Rod talk 13:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to be of service! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I came to ask the same question - to me, "canvas" is another word for the sails ... but boats solely propelled by oars don't have sails. The article on the Boat Race 1980 doesn't explain it either, whereas the Boat Race 1952 uses the term three times, one of which has the parenthesis "(approximately 9 feet (2.7 m))", with no further explanation. I think that in this list, "canvas" should either be defined in a footnote, or be linked, perhaps to an article on rowing terminology. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, it can be linked to the glossary if you think that helps? Individual rowing articles should definitely not be the place to explain rowing terminology, if we need a better explanation in the glossary, that's a different question. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the "1 foot" for the smallest margin have a metric conversion?
    Infobox? I've modified it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the table itself I see the Number column links to one of your myriad articles which provide references for the statistics (eg winning time, margin of victory etc) but these don't seem to be supported by citations on the list page. I know it will be a major job to add citations for all of them, but I tjhink it has to be done & I know you have all possible reference materials on this topic.— Rod talk 19:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick response, all of the results (i.e. winning margins, times) are referenced by the Boat Race "results" page. Do you want more than that? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see now the ref 6 in the header of the column provides the source - I hadn't spotted that before.— Rod talk 09:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new section on "Unofficial wartime races" which is referenced to The Times (Refs 15-18) however these are showing a CS1 error "|accessdate= requires |url=" either a link to web site (even if behind a paywall) should be added or the accessdate removed. They may be in BNA if you have access (if not some free accounts are available).— Rod talk 09:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you could see, I didn't add this section, but it's adding some value, so I'll do my best to work on that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now resolved those "CS1" errors (not that I know what a CS1 error is, nor which actually show up to most normal readers, FWIW, but hey, in for a penny etc etc). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CS1 = Citation Style 1. A CS1 error is a red error message emitted by any of those templates. Most (all?) of them are described at Help:CS1 errors. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As I said, they only show up to some dedicated editors, and not our readers. But they should be fixed now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks fixed.— Rod talk 07:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Harrias
  • Only glanced through this so far, but my main concern is with the Goldie/Isis table. I guess the columns for the team names are just alphabetical, but for me it looked a bit confusing having Oxford on the left and Cambridge on the right in the "Main race" table, but Goldie (Cambridge) on the left and Isis (Oxford) on the right in the "Reserves race" table. Harrias talk 20:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I'm not even really sure how relevant this listing is, but I'm happy to stick with these results being included, and will perform a dramatic switcheroo any time soon.... (ish). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Switch performed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Ref 13 ""University Boat Race". The Times. 17 December 1849" and ref 21 "Rosewell, Mike (2 April 1990). "Light Blue Light at the end of the tunnel"" need {{subscription required}}, or something similar
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBN for Burnell, Richard (1979) should optimally be 13-digit hyphenated; see WP:ISBN for a converter.
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the Thames in south-west London. why not add this on the first mention of the Thames?
    Because the first race wasn't in south-west London. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Seattle (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • officially recorded that Oxford won the race "easily". where? by whom? Can you provide direct reference for this quote?
    In the official record, referenced by The Boat Race Company Limited list of results. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having won the ninth Boat Race "easily" can you reference this directly?
    Ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the only time in the history of the event that the race was decided in such a manner "in the history of the event" superfluous phrase; used twice in this section
    Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (which has been widely accepted as a victory to Oxford by several feet) accepted by whom? Can you provide a few references here?
    Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Seattle (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The overall record has been tied on just three occasions: following The Boat Race 1836, it was one victory each, Oxford's third consecutive triumph in the 1863 race took the record to 10–10, while Cambridge's sixth victory in a streak of thirteen wins between 1924 and 1936 tied the universities at 40–40 can you rework this? Oxford's third consecutive triumph especially doesn't flow with the rest of the sentence
    I can't see an issue with this. But I split it into two sentences. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It ran on. It reads much better now. Thanks. Seattle (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1943, a race in front of a crowed estimated to be between 7,000 and 10,000 took place at Sandford-on-Thames... → In 1943, a race took place at Sandford-on-Thamesn in front of a crowd estimated to be between 7,000 and 10,000
    As you like. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 24 March 1877 "Dead Heat" in the "margin of victory" section but "Dead heat" in the "Winner" section
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1940–1945 no race" not sure this is accurate; no official races, but races occurred
    Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "foul" sorts last in the "Winning time" section of the main race table but "No time" in the "Reserve races" section sorts first
    Well, I've tried all sorts of tricks with sort templates and nothing seems to fix this. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Will leave this out as well. Seattle (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why aren't scope col tags used on any of the tables?
    Added, but I have been "reliably" informed that the wikitable class now provides these without having to code them explicitly. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the "No." column is needed at all; can't you just link the "date" to the article and use scope row tags for that column?
    I disagree. The Boat Races are variously referred to by both their year and their number, so both are relevant here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanity Fair shouldn't be italicized in the photo captions

Oppose overall, based largely on 5(b) concerns. Seattle (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Responses above. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination thanks to Rodw, Harrias and Seattle for your comments and assistance in improving the list. It is currently subject to an edit war, and I am no longer pursuing it to FL. As such I would like this nomination to be withdrawn. Sorry for wasting your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nomination has only been open a few days, so has plenty of time left to run. Obviously, it's up to you, but there is no rush on account of FLC at the moment. I have every hope that the edit warring can be resolved before this FLC needs closing. If not, what harm in trying to come to a solution and then withdrawing in a week's time? Harrias talk 18:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's fine, thanks Harrias. I have no desire to pursue this any further, we're at loggerheads, a very unpleasant encounter indeed. Of course, someone far more diplomatic than me can renominate the list, I've barely touched it really since it was spun off, so no problems there. Thanks again for your support and interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SchroCat: would you mind closing this please? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2015 (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 Crisco 1492 13:44, 2 May 2015 [5].

List of Adolf Hitler's personal staff

Nominator(s): Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This lists was created and written as an article under the name Adolf Hitler's adjutants. During the GA-review and FL-review, it was decided to be a list by consensus and the title was change to List of Adolf Hitler's adjutants. Then, after suggestions on the previously mentioned review pages, the article was renamed yet again, this time to List of Adolf Hitler's personal staff and now includes adjutants, cooks, secretaries, chauffeurs, aide-de-camps, valets, dentists, surgeons, physicians, and so on. Please contribute with comments for improvements or throw in an oppose or support vote. Best regards, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
    • Image lacks alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not a requirement)
    • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
    • Image is PD and appears to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
    • Caption looks fine (no action req'd).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
    • I did a copy-edit and made a few MOS tweaks pls see my edits here [6]. Anotherclown (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Anotherclown, for both your copy edits and vote. :) Best, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsOppose by MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead you use wording such as "large personal staff", "large group of aides-de-camp and adjutants", "part of his entourage", "Many from Hitler's personal staff", etc. This wording gives the impression that the group of people to be considered for this list is unquantifiable and therefore raises the question if this list is complete? Do you consider this list complete? If yes, I would avoid these vague phrases, if no, you need to add some verbiage explaining why these people have been listed.
The list is complete; I have tweaked the sentences in question. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I, a few minutes ago, discovered that Hans Baur and Georg Betz, Hitler's pilots, were not included and have added them to the list. Now the list is surely complete! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 00:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eastern front" should be linked and capitalized
Done. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the list is initially sorted alphabetically by first name. It is good practice to explain the order sequence.
Good call, done. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who was later sacked" and "was fired as" I find this wording too colloquial
Reformulated. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Berghof" should be linked on first occurrence, or better on every occurrence since list is sortable
Done. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brother of the better known Martin Bormann", better known? maybe "Brother of Hitler's private secretary Martin Bormann"
Martin is obviously better known, but tweaked per your suggestion. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was the only one of the 15 used to survive World War II." 15 what? Who were the other 14, you claimed earlier that the list is complete.
Me and Kierzek have concluded that the food taster does not belong on the list of Hitler's personal staff, as they were being forced (and some kidnapped) and most likely never befriended or even met Hitler, as all the others did. Accordingly, Margot has been removed, so, yes, the list is complete. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she was not really part of his staff but only a functionary used by the SS for a certain task; further, all the others used for the same task are unknown, as you noted MisterBee. Kierzek (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "Me and Kierzek have concluded that the food taster does not belong on the list of Hitler's personal staff". This raises the concern if this list meets the WP:NOR requirement. Please comment MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She has never been listed by any WP:RS source as being "part of his staff" and from what is written and cited she was only one of several people used by the SS for the function of tasting food. Jonas used wording which is not stating the whole picture. It has nothing to do with OR. Kierzek (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think (I had expressed this in an earlier review of a variant of this list) the article/list would benefit from more verbiage explaining the roles and tasks of the various military adjutants.
A longer discussion toke place on what the lede should write and this was the result. In an attempt to add a little extra to each on the list, a "Notes" subsection was added which gives a little info on each individual.
Okay, that is fair; however I am not satisfied with some of the notes as they do not relate to role as adjutant or servant. Example, Gerhard Engel, the note states "A recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves". Over 800 people received the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves. How does this fact relate to the Engel's role as Hitler's adjutant? Or Georg Betz, how does the fact that he was killed in Berlin relate to his service as co-pilot. I would expect to see some commentary that indicates why he qualified as Hitler's co-pilot. In general I think that the notes should be linked to the topic.MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MisterBee1966, the notes given to each on the list is not, necessary, meant to relate to their role in Hitler's staff, but simply something related to that person. I think you're overthinking this. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 11:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jonas, I understand your point, but MisterBee has a point, as well. I did tweak several entries. Kierzek (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had another look and I acknowledge that improvement was made. However, I am still not 100% satisfied. I strongly believe that the roles of these adjutants, especially the military ones, need to be better motivated. I assume they helped prepare the daily military situation briefings for Hitler. What role did the adjutant play on the day of the Normandy Invasion? Was it the decision of the adjutant not to wake Hitler in the early morning hours? One can speculate what influence this may have had on the further events, that is not my point here, but we need more verbiage explaining the roles. Look at the note on Julius Schaub, it says "Hitler's longest serving adjutant.", what was he responsible for? Buying his toilet paper? Friedrich Hoßbach, it says "Dismissed as adjutant in 1938 for unfavorable conduct.", this raises more questions than it answers. Have a look at List of battleships of Germany or List of heavy cruisers of Germany, both lists are featured and check the amount of motivating detail that helps the reader understand the articles. Please don't get me wrong, the article is making good progress, it is a worthy topic, but it just needs more work to be featured. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MisterBee1966, I have made further edits according your comments. I can't do more than this! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P. S. Burton had commented on the previous FLC review. He explicitly mentioned the work "Managing Hitlers Court" in High Society in the Third Reich by Fabrice d' Almeida. I think it would be good if he would comment on the current state of the article/list as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ISBN numbers should be formatted uniformly. You currently have 10 digits and 13 digits, and some dashed and some not. Examples 0-393-06757-2, 978-1559707282 and 978-1-60239-804-7
My understanding has always been that using both ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 numbers were acceptable at best and didn't matter/make a difference. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys, but that simply strikes me as being too irrelevant. Unless you tell me it's a WP policy, I won't do it. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jonas this List is "your baby" for which I have been glad to help with, but you need to relax. What I can tell you is that neither is wrong, either 10 number or 13 number, ISBN; but the 13 number system has become more of the standard for newer books and Wikipedia does suggest it be used, if known; further uniformity is something to work towards. There are conversion tools, etc. Kierzek (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check on disambiguations. Currently two links "Pilot" and "Wiking" require attention. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the links. Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are currently lacking alt text (see WP:MOSIM on WP:ALT), I believe this is madated at FLC MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am opposing this nomination until the roles and responsibilities of the various people are clearly worked into this article. I don't care if this is done through a thorough expansion of the lead or by addressing this concern in the notes section of the table. If this concern is adequately addressed; I may change my opinion (if the other items I pointed out are addressed as well). Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intentions of changing the lead or adding more on the roles and responsibilities of the various people, so I suppose I'm just gonna' have to swallow your oppose vote. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jonas consider my latest comments above. Kierzek (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kierzek, I tweaked the 10 ISBN's to 13 ISBN's. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by the nominator

As of this moment, it looks like the fate of this candidate comes down to whoever votes next. I will leave a message on the military wikiproject and ask some people to vote here. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand the paucity of images. Nergaal (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only free images are allowed to be used in Lists. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I recently discovered a lot of images from their main articles could actually be used; I have added more pictures. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 00:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Any of the people in the group pic not have a table pic? If yes, crop that face and put it in the table pls. Nergaal (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Schaub, Julius and Morell, Theo Prof. Dr. are in the lead pic but do not have a table image. Nergaal (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In EU images become PD after 70 years. Since these people died or them images were taken more than 70 years ago the following images should be relabeled as PD:
  • File:Fritz Darges photo in color, early 1945.png
  • File:Hans Hermann Junge.jpg
  • File:Hitler visiting Heinrich Borgmann in hospital after the failed 20 July bomb plot.png
  • File:Schreckj.jpeg
  • File:Karl-Jesco von Puttkamer.jpg
  • File:LudwigStumpfegger.jpg
  • File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1976-096-007, Max Wünsche.jpg
    • The image is incorrectly placed as "Karl Wilhelm Krause" MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Nazi Party and SS member Wilhelm Brückner in 1924.jpg
The following people died in 1945 so by the end of the year their images should also be PD:
  • File:Georg Betz.jpg
  • File:Julius Schaub in his adjutant uniform.png

Someone with more copyright knowledge please check these images so they can be used in the table. Nergaal (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is Martin Bormann not in the table? Nergaal (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Failed_log/May_2015&oldid=661224170"