Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/December 2008: Difference between revisions
m Bot updating FLC archive links |
failing 2 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Prime Ministers of Canada by time in office}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of career achievements by Gary Gait/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of career achievements by Gary Gait/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine/archive1}} |
Revision as of 00:56, 17 December 2008
- 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 promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [1].
previous FLC (20:02, 8 September 2008)
previous FLC (00:56, 17 December 2008)
Third time's a charm? I hope so, since all of the objections raised in the two previous nominations have been addressed. BomBom (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My concerns have been resolved, and it looks like the image concerns are fixed too. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks excellent. john k (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support though it would be nice if you can expand the lead a bit more.—Chris! ct 02:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead has been significantly expanded. BomBom (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Could you try to include a link to dynasty somewhere in the lead?
- The lead gives a background for the topic, but doesn't really summarize the list. Could you maybe mention who had the longest reign, shortest, etc?
- Also in the lead, could you add a couple sentences explaining and maybe what form of government Egypt went to after the monarchy was abolished?
- Could you add a key somewhere that explains the colours?
- Overall, a pretty nice list. -- Scorpion0422 20:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A link to dynasty has been added in the lead. A key explaining the colours has also been added. Your second and third concerns will be addressed simultaneously when the lead is expanded. I am currently working on such an expansion and will notify you once I am done with it, so that you review the new text in the lead. Regards. BomBom (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead has been significantly expanded. It now summarizes the list, providing a brief description of each monarch. It also mentions who had the longest reign and the shortest reign. Information has also been added regarding the form of government Egypt went to after the abolition of the monarchy. Is the lead OK now? BomBom (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A link to dynasty has been added in the lead. A key explaining the colours has also been added. Your second and third concerns will be addressed simultaneously when the lead is expanded. I am currently working on such an expansion and will notify you once I am done with it, so that you review the new text in the lead. Regards. BomBom (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that all links from the Official Website of the Egyptian Presidency show up as dead according to the link checker. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. This is quite strange since the links were still working a few days ago. Anyway, there are two possible solutions to this problem. The first solution would be to include links to archived copies of the pages in question, all of which are available in the Internet Archive. The second solution would be to remove the links to the Presidency website altogether, and replace them with links to the website of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, an equally trustworthy source. The latter has profile pages for all the monarchs in question, albeit in Arabic. Which solution do you prefer? BomBom (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The likely problem is that the site is temporarily broken. In that case, since this nomination is only three days old, I think we would be better served by waiting. If the links have not fixed themselves by say, January 1, then replace them with the web archive links. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replaced the links with the web archive links. Are all the sources used OK now? BomBom (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replaced the links with the web archive links. Are all the sources used OK now? BomBom (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The likely problem is that the site is temporarily broken. In that case, since this nomination is only three days old, I think we would be better served by waiting. If the links have not fixed themselves by say, January 1, then replace them with the web archive links. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. This is quite strange since the links were still working a few days ago. Anyway, there are two possible solutions to this problem. The first solution would be to include links to archived copies of the pages in question, all of which are available in the Internet Archive. The second solution would be to remove the links to the Presidency website altogether, and replace them with links to the website of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, an equally trustworthy source. The latter has profile pages for all the monarchs in question, albeit in Arabic. Which solution do you prefer? BomBom (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:02, 4 January 2009 (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 promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [2].
All concerns of reviewers in the previous nomination had been addressed when it was closed, and I can't find a rule against immediately resubmitting an article, so here it is again. If there are any new problems I'll fix those ones too. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support All my issues have been resolved. It is often good to say that you have fixed the issues on the FLC page itself. I didn't know that you had until just now, which is why I did not support last FLC. Anyway, the article is good now. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closing notes:
- Despite only one review in this FLC, it has been extensively reviewed in previous FLCs. I think there was nothing else to mention on this FLC, and IMO it met the criteria.
- This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:05, 4 January 2009 (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 User:Scorpion0422 22:51, 13 December 2008 [3].
Very extensive, detailed and well organized. --Yarnalgo talk to me 19:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose
- There isn't a prose.
- There are no references
- Tables should be sorted.
- The "External links" section should be gone.
- The references aren't even citing the achievements.
- Physical statistics aren't achievements.
- I suggest a peer review.
-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 19:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per SRE.K.A.L.24. Too many problems for a FLC. Suggest withdrawal and a peer review. The JPStalk to me 20:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per the above, not enough prose, references, and needs formatted tables. Gary King (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose - nothing is referenced, "Other Interesting Notes" heading is extremely unencylopedic (and not MoS-compliant), no lead. There's more, but I think that more than suffices for an oppose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 01:46, 6 December 2008 [4].
This is number 5 of 6 Laureate lists. I'm planning on getting the main Laureates list to FL eventually (plus the Peace Prize one) and take it to WP:FTC. As always, all concerns will be addressed by me. As for the images, I was a lot more careful in the ones I added this time, so I think most of them should be good. -- Scorpion0422 21:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportEverything looks great! I'd like to see more pictures in the table though. I know it's a long list to work with, but there are still a lot of empty image fields, and the respective person's articles usually do have an image. Reywas92Talk 19:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is an awfully short article, it's unlikely to be lenghtened much, and a majority of the information is repeated in this list. Is there any way they can be merged? Sorry, but I'd like this related main article to be taken care and more images in the table of before I can support yet. Thanks, Reywas92Talk 19:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither concern is actionable. He's under no obligation to improve the article on the prize, regardless of how crappy it is. It's a 100+ year award and immensely prestigious, so separating out a 55K list from what should be a large article is more than appropriate. As for the images, he's limited by the images with good rationales and the images available. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 20:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded the page for the main Prize. I think that there is more than enough material out there to justify having a seperate page for the award and list.
- As for the images, I would love for every row to have an image too, but there are two main problems:
- The lack of images is not due to negligence on my part, I went through every page and added whatever free image I could find. The only way I might have missed any is if they are not on the Laureate's page. If there are any free images with proper licensing out there that I have missed, then by all means please add them. -- Scorpion0422 20:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
"While commonly referred to as the Nobel prize in Medicine" Shouldn't "prize" be capitalized?- Yes.
"Laureates have won the Nobel Prize in a wide range of fields relating to physiology or medicine." "relating"-->that relate.- Done.
"One winner of the Nobel Prize, German Gerhard Domagk (1939), was not allowed by his government to accept the prize"-->Gerhard Domagk (1939), a German, was not allowed by his government to accept the prize. This eliminates the repetition of the idea of winning the prize.- Done.
- Have the pictures been checked by an experienced image reviewer? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but I was much more careful when adding them this time. Besides, David might block me if I ask him to do another review. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 15:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would still be more comfortable in supporting if they were checked. As an example, Image:RobertKoch cropped.jpg is missing an author. Ask User:Awadewit if you are afraid of David. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am reviewing the images on the article talk page. The list was becoming rather extensive for an FLC page. Awadewit (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would still be more comfortable in supporting if they were checked. As an example, Image:RobertKoch cropped.jpg is missing an author. Ask User:Awadewit if you are afraid of David. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but I was much more careful when adding them this time. Besides, David might block me if I ask him to do another review. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 15:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update Awadewit left a review on the talk page. I have removed all of the bad ones. -- Scorpion0422 22:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice. I would like to see Awadewit approve all the changes and fixes made before supporting. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose in current condition. The names and countries would be better sortable. Everyone always wants to know how many there own country won, and see any multi-winners. Making sortable is easy, but then names should have sort key so they sort by family name.Dillypickle (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue of sortability has been discussed in previous FLCs for other Nobel lists. I prefer having the image column without its own header, and many years have had multiple winners and some who won for the same thing. Making every single winner have its own individual line would make things a lot more confusing and thus it would be harder to pick out such instances. The years would have to be duplicated, so one would have to repeat the same summaries, which would lead to a lot of unnecessary repitition. Also, there is a List of Nobel Laureates by country. -- Scorpion0422 13:55, 4 December 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 22:30, 2 December 2008 [5].
I believe that this list meets all the critera. It has a good introduction, with a suitable image and appears to have good prose. ISD (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "The Bookseller/Diagram Prize for Oddest Title of the Year, also known as the Diagram Prize, is a humorous literary award, normally given each year to the book with the oddest title."-->The Bookseller/Diagram Prize for Oddest Title of the Year, also known as the Diagram Prize, is a humorous literary award that is normally given each year to the book with the oddest title.
- "The award was created by Bruce Robertson as a way of providing entertainment during the Frankfurt Book Fair in 1978."-->The award was created by Bruce Robertson to providing entertainment during the Frankfurt Book Fair in 1978.
- Link "diarist".
- "As of 1993, readers of The Bookseller were allowed to nominate titles." "were"-->was.
- "deliberately designed to be funny are normally regreted." Is "regreted" a word or a typo?
- "but as of 2000"-->since 2000.
- "internet" Should be capitalized.
- "but he later changed his mind and
insteadnow creates the short list of finalists." - "The prize is either a magnum of champagne or a bottle of claret, and increased publicity for both the book and its author." No comma needed.
- "A book covering the Diagram Prize"-->A book that covers the Diagram Prize...
- "So far, two special anniversary awards known as the "Diagram of Diagrams" have been presented, to honour both the 15th and the 30th anniversaries of the Diagram Prize." No comma needed.
- "The nominations of the prizes where all of the previous winners up to that point in time" "where"-->were.
- "In 2008, the second "Diagram of Diagrams" award was presented, in honour of the 30th anniversary of the Diagram Prize." No comma here either.
- "The winner announced on 5 September 2008, was Greek Rural Postmen and Their Cancellation Numbers, the 1996 winner." The first comma is not needed.
- Years and dates should not be linked, I unlinked them for you, but note that for the future.
- Ref 11 should have
format=PDF
in the citation template. It also needs publisher info. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comments: I've carried out all the changes you asked for. ISD (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Looks good! The list is well written, referenced and very interesting. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Bookseller/Diagram Prize for Oddest Title of the Year, also known as the Diagram Prize, is a humorous literary award that is normally given each year to the book with the oddest title. the word "normally" just stands out. I know it wasn't given out on occasions, but why not just state that later in the lead, it is better.
- The award was created by Bruce Robertson to provide entertainment during the Frankfurt Book Fair in 1978. - who was Robertson? (what did he do, profession?)
- It was later run by Horace Bent, the diarist of British literary magazine The Bookseller. - WP:WEASEL, exact years/date that this occurred?
- The winner was originally voted for by a panel of judges, since 2000 the winner was voted for by members of the public via the Internet. - there needs to be a transition word between "judges" and "since" like though, however, or but.
- The lead needs to give a summary of the list, such as what was the first book that won the award, the most recent one, why there weren't any awards given out, etc.
- So far, two special anniversary awards known as the "Diagram of Diagrams" have been presented to honour both the 15th and the 30th anniversaries of the Diagram Prize. - 1)WP:Weasel, be exact, i.e (as of 2008) 2)I don't know if the country you are from spells it that way, but in American English, the word is spelled as honor (w/o the u).
- The article uses British English, hence the "u" in honour. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The winner announced on 5 September, 2008 was Greek Rural Postmen and Their Cancellation Numbers, the 1996 winner. - in the date in the lead that is in this format doesn't have a comma (i.e 5 September, 2008) so which is it, w/o a comma, or with one, it needs to be consistent.
- I fixed this with a date audit using Lightmouse's script. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs 9, 10, 11 need to be made into general references, like they are in the FL 2008 WWE Draft.
- The table should be made sortable.--TRUCO 23:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to opposition: I've made the changes you wanted. ISD (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost there. Their should be a separate prose for just the summary of the list, so move the sentence about the first book into the new paragraph and add more about the list; significant winners, the most recent winner, and statistics - overall count, etc.--TRUCO 23:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've created the new paragraph. ISD (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - my review was resolved, but there were many prose issues, but it now meets WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 02:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. I think author / publisher column should be seperated, and those that have nameable authors not currently mentioned (if any) are filled in, and likewise the name of the first publisher for those that only have an author. If publisher is interesting info, it should be for all books, not only those that are easiest to find because the award stated them.Yobmod (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comment - That may be difficult. Some books have only been given the name of the publisher, or the editior or the author. By having the one column, I think it makes the table look better, and it also gives some guide behind the people or the company behind the work. ISD (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Difficult, but actionable. I just spent a week tracking down publishers for such a list. The prize website gave the title and author, but not publisher. The info is findable and citable, so should be included. Our list should be better than the official list if possible - if it only replicated the info directly found from the prize gives, it seems useless. Knowing the publisher is obviously useful, or it wouldn't be given for any of them. Hence i oppose based on this.Yobmod (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to opposition - Can you give me these links please, then I can use them in the table. ISD (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Difficult, but actionable. I just spent a week tracking down publishers for such a list. The prize website gave the title and author, but not publisher. The info is findable and citable, so should be included. Our list should be better than the official list if possible - if it only replicated the info directly found from the prize gives, it seems useless. Knowing the publisher is obviously useful, or it wouldn't be given for any of them. Hence i oppose based on this.Yobmod (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 22:30, 2 December 2008 [6].
I am submiting this list because I think its ready to achieve featured list status, Jaespinoza (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - another great list, good work and it meets WP:WIAFL.--SRX 22:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment "making her as the first Hispanic singer to accomplish this feat"—What feat? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC). Answer: Debuting at number one in the Billboard 200. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose It only has 5 distinct entries, streched out by date. If formated to actually be a list of albums with dates of being nuzmber one, it would be five lines long! Not suitable for a FL imo. If all the info can be attractively presented in 5 lines, needs a very good reason to be 52 lines, which i don't think it has. Should be merged into a decade long list.Yobmod (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: Actually I am glad you bring this up. I will have the same issue with the list for 1993 (1 album), 1994 (3 albums) and with this one, I do not know if its better to make a list for the number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1993, 1994 and 1995 altogether or something else. Any suggestion? Jaespinoza (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support if it were merged into a year range of contiguous years. With the individual years as redrects, it would save time and look better. I saw that other years are long enough to meritt seperate articles, but even they are not huge. Is it feaible to merge all of them into 3 or 5 year periods?Yobmod (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer:It is possible to merge 3 years on the same list, let me work on something, Jaespinoza (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is my proposition for the merged list: List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1993, 1994 and 1995 Jaespinoza (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Slight oppose this list for now; weak support for merger. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are you going to redirect this page to the 1993, 1994, 1995 list then? -- Scorpion0422 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I need an opinion about that, the lists for 1993 and 1995 have all the refs for every week at number one, should I put those refs on the merged list so I can redirect them? Jaespinoza (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so I understand, you're problem is that each ref only covers one week, and most of these artists have been number one for more than a week, which could lead to a problem with over-citing? As well, if you are going to merge the pages, then this one should be withdrawn. I can close it tomorrow, if you like. -- Scorpion0422 04:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The refs only cover 1 week each. I can place 150 refs in the merged list, but is that overciting? Jaespinoza (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so I understand, you're problem is that each ref only covers one week, and most of these artists have been number one for more than a week, which could lead to a problem with over-citing? As well, if you are going to merge the pages, then this one should be withdrawn. I can close it tomorrow, if you like. -- Scorpion0422 04:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I need an opinion about that, the lists for 1993 and 1995 have all the refs for every week at number one, should I put those refs on the merged list so I can redirect them? Jaespinoza (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.