Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/December 2009: Difference between revisions
fail 1 |
+1 withdrawn |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Minnesota Vikings head coaches/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of BC Lions head coaches/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of BC Lions head coaches/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New York Yankees first-round draft picks/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New York Yankees first-round draft picks/archive1}} |
Revision as of 02:57, 8 December 2009
- 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 Dabomb87 02:57, 8 December 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): – PeeJay 09:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list as a follow-up to my nomination of List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks. I believe that the list meets all of the criteria for a featured list as the general structure has been copied from List of Kansas City Chiefs head coaches (another featured list). The only major difference is that I have removed the colour from the table as I believe that it presents accessibility issues and does not add anything more to the table than the symbols that are already next to each name. As I am not particularly well-versed in matters of American football, I would appreciate any comments that anyone may have about the facts in the "History" section. – PeeJay 09:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose from KV5
Normally I don't offer an oppose right off the bat unless I see a huge amount of mistakes to be fixed. In this case, however, it's two main things:
- No sortability (this, however is easily fixed)
- You are right that it is easy to add sortability to a table, but with the colspan in effect in the column titles, this would make sortability technically unimplementable (is that a word?). I'm not sure how to get around this without creating separate tables for regular season and post season games, but I would welcome suggestions. That said, I'm not even sure that sortability is necessary in this instance, seeing as the entire table is currently visible on even the lowest monitor resolution.
- As to the sortability v. colspans: Many lists have been brought to FL with colspans in their headers, which was later removed in favor of sortability, which is part of the criteria. The format of the list you copied isn't that old of an FLC, but requirements have tightened in the last 17 months since it passed. It's easy to talk about postseason play and regular season play in the same table; a good example of a recently promoted list that does so is List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I can sort that out. The Oklahoma Sooners list is actually a pretty good template for other lists of football head coaches! – PeeJay 22:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As to the sortability v. colspans: Many lists have been brought to FL with colspans in their headers, which was later removed in favor of sortability, which is part of the criteria. The format of the list you copied isn't that old of an FLC, but requirements have tightened in the last 17 months since it passed. It's easy to talk about postseason play and regular season play in the same table; a good example of a recently promoted list that does so is List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right that it is easy to add sortability to a table, but with the colspan in effect in the column titles, this would make sortability technically unimplementable (is that a word?). I'm not sure how to get around this without creating separate tables for regular season and post season games, but I would welcome suggestions. That said, I'm not even sure that sortability is necessary in this instance, seeing as the entire table is currently visible on even the lowest monitor resolution.
- This list has only seven items; ten is the arbitrary minimum. Other reviewers should view and comment on this list, because there is a great amount of prose here which gives background on the coaches themselves. At this time, though, I don't think this passes muster.
- I don't see anywhere in WP:WIAFL that says that a list must have at least 10 items. Furthermore, I don't believe that it is fair for a list to be denied Featured status just because it doesn't have "enough" items, whatever the definition of "enough" may be. Without wanting to violate WP:CRYSTAL, it is almost certain that the Vikings will - one day - have had 10 head coaches in their history, but I can't imagine any reason why the basic structure of the list would differ just because of the addition of three extra rows to the table.
- See my reply below. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anywhere in WP:WIAFL that says that a list must have at least 10 items. Furthermore, I don't believe that it is fair for a list to be denied Featured status just because it doesn't have "enough" items, whatever the definition of "enough" may be. Without wanting to violate WP:CRYSTAL, it is almost certain that the Vikings will - one day - have had 10 head coaches in their history, but I can't imagine any reason why the basic structure of the list would differ just because of the addition of three extra rows to the table.
Awaiting input from other reviewers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments, mate. Sorry if my replies above sounded a little bitey. Must be my inner lawyer coming out to play! – PeeJay 02:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - This is unfortunate because this looks good. But had to oppose because the number of item is below 10.—Chris!c/t 02:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, I don't see anywhere in WP:WIAFL that says a Featured List must have at least 10 items. If I'm missing something, please point the relevant policies out to me. – PeeJay 02:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is not on WP:WIAFL because it is an unwritten rule. Please look at the archive of the talk page.—Chris!c/t 03:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect to the guys who run WP:FLC, the reason why it's an unwritten rule is that it's complete BS! I assume that this "rule" only exists in order to provide some sort of definition to the term "list", which I could understand if the list was limited in some way, but since this list is completely delimited (i.e. it's a complete list of every head coach of the Minnesota Vikings, with no exceptions) the whole reason for the "rule" falls apart. Anyway, if that's the rule, that's the rule, I just don't believe it applies in this case. – PeeJay 08:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's truly not BS. Yes, the rule is fairly arbitrary, and there have been lists promoted with less than ten items (like List of Philadelphia Phillies no-hitters, a list that I wrote). It's not a bright-line rule, but it is generally adhered to. In this case, there is more prose than list, making this more appropriate as an article at this point. Sometimes, as unfortunate as it is, we have to say WP:NOTNOW. For another example, the baseball project has been working on promoting its lists of awards in a featured topic push. When trying to determine the format for the Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award, it was determined during the 2009 season, while it was being worked on, that we needed to wait until the 2009 season was completed, and the 2009 award was presented, before attempting to have that list promoted, simply because of this unwritten rule. The main issue is that a list with less than 10 items can easily qualify as a content fork, which is expressly forbidden by the criteria. Thus, I must unfortunately still concur with Chrishomingtang, and oppose the promotion of this list based on length. It disappoints me because the list has great prose, but that's the way things work at the moment. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, as an extension of FL criterion 3b and WP:CFORK, I can see why a list with less than *insert arbitrary number* items could be disqualified from Featured status. However, if you consider the scenario that the Vikings disestablished tomorrow, meaning that the list would never grow beyond seven items, would it still be ineligible under the aforementioned criteria? If so, I find it absurd that a list, regardless of its quality, would be denied Featured status purely because of its length. As I said earlier, every single Vikings coach is listed here, so there should be no reason to deny promotion based on the scope of the list. – PeeJay 22:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only after nominating List of Oklahoma Sooners head baseball coaches for FL did I notice this discussion which would affect my nomination as well. It is hard to argue that my list and this one violate 3b when lists such as List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches and List of Detroit Lions head coaches are FLs. Otherwise they would all fail under the same criteria.—NMajdan•talk 19:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. The length of those lists precludes them from being reasonably included as part of another article. A list of eight baseball coaches can be included within an article as an embedded list much more easily than a list of 25 football coaches, etc. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only after nominating List of Oklahoma Sooners head baseball coaches for FL did I notice this discussion which would affect my nomination as well. It is hard to argue that my list and this one violate 3b when lists such as List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches and List of Detroit Lions head coaches are FLs. Otherwise they would all fail under the same criteria.—NMajdan•talk 19:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, as an extension of FL criterion 3b and WP:CFORK, I can see why a list with less than *insert arbitrary number* items could be disqualified from Featured status. However, if you consider the scenario that the Vikings disestablished tomorrow, meaning that the list would never grow beyond seven items, would it still be ineligible under the aforementioned criteria? If so, I find it absurd that a list, regardless of its quality, would be denied Featured status purely because of its length. As I said earlier, every single Vikings coach is listed here, so there should be no reason to deny promotion based on the scope of the list. – PeeJay 22:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's truly not BS. Yes, the rule is fairly arbitrary, and there have been lists promoted with less than ten items (like List of Philadelphia Phillies no-hitters, a list that I wrote). It's not a bright-line rule, but it is generally adhered to. In this case, there is more prose than list, making this more appropriate as an article at this point. Sometimes, as unfortunate as it is, we have to say WP:NOTNOW. For another example, the baseball project has been working on promoting its lists of awards in a featured topic push. When trying to determine the format for the Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award, it was determined during the 2009 season, while it was being worked on, that we needed to wait until the 2009 season was completed, and the 2009 award was presented, before attempting to have that list promoted, simply because of this unwritten rule. The main issue is that a list with less than 10 items can easily qualify as a content fork, which is expressly forbidden by the criteria. Thus, I must unfortunately still concur with Chrishomingtang, and oppose the promotion of this list based on length. It disappoints me because the list has great prose, but that's the way things work at the moment. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect to the guys who run WP:FLC, the reason why it's an unwritten rule is that it's complete BS! I assume that this "rule" only exists in order to provide some sort of definition to the term "list", which I could understand if the list was limited in some way, but since this list is completely delimited (i.e. it's a complete list of every head coach of the Minnesota Vikings, with no exceptions) the whole reason for the "rule" falls apart. Anyway, if that's the rule, that's the rule, I just don't believe it applies in this case. – PeeJay 08:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is not on WP:WIAFL because it is an unwritten rule. Please look at the archive of the talk page.—Chris!c/t 03:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, I don't see anywhere in WP:WIAFL that says a Featured List must have at least 10 items. If I'm missing something, please point the relevant policies out to me. – PeeJay 02:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not commenting on whether this article meets or does not meet a standard, but the applicable FL criterion would be 3b: "in length and/or topic, [the article] meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." (emphasis mine) Dabomb87 (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I kind of forget about 3b. This is applicable here.—Chris!c/t 20:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See my reply above. – PeeJay 22:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I kind of forget about 3b. This is applicable here.—Chris!c/t 20:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Hate to pile on here, but the other reviewers have it exactly right. For a list of less than 10 items to have a chance at gaining an exception to the unspoken limit (which has been around for a long time; I'm surprised you haven't seen a similar case before), it needs to be a unique case. A simple coaches list isn't unique, especially not when it has the same format as similar, longer lists. Why don't you try making a Notes column in the table and including facts about the coaches in it (think a more extensive Achievements column); for example, you could say how many times a coach reached the NFL playoffs and his best playoff finish. That might give the list some added value, in a similar fashion to the no-hitters list KV5 linked above, which has an example of a Notes column. Not sure that would do it, but the list might at least have a better shot than it doesn now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to reviewers Please elaborate as to how the article fails an FL criterion (I believe 3b is the one everyone is concerned about). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know no one has commented on this review for a while, but I did want to make it known that a table listing the records of the head coaches is already included in the team's main article. I don't see any reason why this table couldn't be copied into the main article, along with a very condensed lead paragraph incorporating the information in this article. Then the information in the history section can be merged into the team's actual history (some of it's already duplicated), and we'd have a clean and tidy little merge on our hands. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't we keep this list and just not promote it to FL status. It's pretty obvious to me now that it doesn't meet the criteria, but I don't think it's entirely necessary to merge it back into the Vikings main article. – PeeJay 09:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the main point of identifying a content fork, as far as I'm aware, is to merge it into a more general article. Most of the delisted FLs that were removed as a result of the tightening of criterion 3b were merged, though I know that some were merely delisted. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PeeJay, should I withdraw this? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think that would be a good idea. Thanks for all the comments everyone! – PeeJay 02:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PeeJay, should I withdraw this? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the main point of identifying a content fork, as far as I'm aware, is to merge it into a more general article. Most of the delisted FLs that were removed as a result of the tightening of criterion 3b were merged, though I know that some were merely delisted. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't we keep this list and just not promote it to FL status. It's pretty obvious to me now that it doesn't meet the criteria, but I don't think it's entirely necessary to merge it back into the Vikings main article. – PeeJay 09:14, 7 December 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 Dabomb87 18:28, 5 December 2009 [2].
- Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First ever CFL head coach list FLC nomination, and hopefully my 29th head coaches/managers FL. I'll try to find some secondary sources, rather than the primary sources currently used like CFL, BC Lions, and CHOF websites. Grammar/copy-edit mistakes can be boldly fixed by you, the reviewers. Everything else should be fine.-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I saw that an additional row for Adam Rita is added for sorting purpose. I don't think this is a good idea because it confuses readers. I wonder if there is FL precedent for this.—Chris!c/t 04:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's confusing and odd. We should not be confusing the text just to make the software work. I suggest choosing one of the two methods and deleting the other: list each term separately or combine the two stints into a total stats for his time with the Lions. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the readers wouldn't be confused, as there is a note that indicates that the column is for their own sorting purposes. There is no FL precedent for this, but how about color the column light gray, to indicate that the column is for sorting purposes? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with the note or the color, it is still extremely odd to have another row showing the sum of the numbers of 2 other rows. I'd say remove it as people can easy add the numbers up themselves.—Chris!c/t 03:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Made another section. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not sure if this is a good idea, but I will wait for others to comment first.—Chris!c/t 20:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is precedent for the separate table, though I don't like it. I think that readers can do math, so I don't think it's necessary. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Rlendog also used a section of managers with multiple tenures on his MLB managers FLs (ie. List of New York Yankees managers), but ehh...Removed section. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is precedent for the separate table, though I don't like it. I think that readers can do math, so I don't think it's necessary. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not sure if this is a good idea, but I will wait for others to comment first.—Chris!c/t 20:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Made another section. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with the note or the color, it is still extremely odd to have another row showing the sum of the numbers of 2 other rows. I'd say remove it as people can easy add the numbers up themselves.—Chris!c/t 03:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the readers wouldn't be confused, as there is a note that indicates that the column is for their own sorting purposes. There is no FL precedent for this, but how about color the column light gray, to indicate that the column is for sorting purposes? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's confusing and odd. We should not be confusing the text just to make the software work. I suggest choosing one of the two methods and deleting the other: list each term separately or combine the two stints into a total stats for his time with the Lions. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - On a sentence level the prose is acceptable, but overall it doesn't flow well.
- The opening sentence is a bit boring, and doesn't indicate at all what the article is about. If I didn't know better, I'd assume this was some duplicate of another page.
- The name “Lions” was based on a two similar mountain peaks that can be seen north of Vancouver. - Seems really out-of-place and irrelevant to the article.
- The first paragraph seems like a few random facts were organized into a block of text.
- To answer the first four comments, the first paragraph is an introduction to the BC Lions, in case people don't know who are the BC Lions. I kind of agree with your fourth comment, though is there any way of having a better introduction? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Lions' first head coach and general manager was Annis Stukus, who coached the team for two WIFU seasons; the Annis Stukus Trophy is named after him. - Last part is off-topic.
- Annis Stukus Trophy is for the best CFL head coach of the season. Now explained on article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dave Skrien, who coached the Lions for seven seasons in the 1960s, has coached the Lions to two... - "Coached the Lions" twice in a row.
- Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excluding the previous mentioned, no other coach has won the Annis Stukus Trophy with the Lions, and Dave Ritchie and Steve Buratto are the only other head coaches to have coached the Lions to a Grey Cup championship, in 1994 and 2000 respectively. - Previous what mentioned? Doesn't seem like good grammar.
- Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this isn't ready yet.
- It is ready, but just has a few minors that need to be fixed, that's all. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
–Juliancolton | Talk 03:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
|
Support. My issues have been addressed and I feel the editor has made a substantial effort in resolving the issues of other editors.—NMajdan•talk 20:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments – To start, I feel that I must say something about the nomination statement. You may feel that it saves time for reviewers to make copy-editing changes, but they should feel no obligation to fix a page that they haven't worked on. The nominator should be the fixer, unless a reviewer graciously offers copy-editing services. Look at it this way: it will help you avoid similar errors in the future, saving time for everyone involved.
- I tell reviewers to copy-edit the article for me, as I barely have any time to do anything these days, plus I copy-edited myself twice already.
"In their 56-year history, the team have appeared in nine Grey Cup finals, and have won five Grey Cup championships." Second use of Grey Cup is a redundancy and those words can be safely chopped.
- Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "who coached until the Lions first CFL season". Apostrophe missing at the end of Lions. Also, it's pretty obvious from this that he was their first CFL coach; not sure the next bit is needed.
- Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now reads "who coached three games into Lions first CFL season." Think this should be "the Lions' first season", as I suggested before. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't the Lions first season, it was their first CFL season. If the current revision still doesn't satisfy you, then just DIY. --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now reads "who coached three games into Lions first CFL season." Think this should be "the Lions' first season", as I suggested before. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"led the team to two consecutive Grey Cup finals in the 1963 and 1964". Faulty grammar.
- Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Vic Rapp was then hired in the 1977 season, coaching for 96 games until the end of the 1982 season, winning...". Don't like this structure, which has an -ing on top of an -ing. Try "Vic Rapp was then hired in the 1977 season and coached for 96 games until the end of the 1982 season, winning...".
- Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason why people are criticizing the flow may lie with the third paragraph, which is long compared to the rest of the lead. Try siphoning a couple of sentences to other paragraphs, which may help this feel more flowing.
- I'll try my best to do that if I have time. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - normally I don't criticize the prose because I am not a good writer myself. But paragraph 3 is just poorly written. There are so much repetitions. Instead of cramping every facts into the sentence, please be clear on what you want to say. Also, you shouldn't just tell reviewers to copyedit for you, you just learn to do it yourself. Because in the end, it is going to help you improve.—Chris!c/t 01:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Look above. I'll try to fix the third paragraph sometime this week. Hope I have time for Wikipedia... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I kind of fixed the lead, and the flow of the lead, though more improvement on grammar could be possible. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some tweaks and believe that the prose have improved. Though before I support, I want others who are better equipped to locate and fix prose problems review this first.—Chris!c/t 23:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I kind of fixed the lead, and the flow of the lead, though more improvement on grammar could be possible. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please ask opposers to revisit the FLC and check whether their concerns have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do that sometime later, if possible on Friday. --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Archiving this FLC as unsuccessful. Although the list was improving, there were still outstanding opposes and concerns over the prose, and on a brief runthrough I still easily found errors. I think if the nominator can work with one or two editors over the prose during the next week, the next FLC will be much smoother. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:10, 5 December 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 Dabomb87 22:41, 3 December 2009 [3].
- Nominator(s): Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried nominating this last month, but had to close it down due to the backlog and other active nominations. Please feel free to resume the conversation now. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody watching this? --Muboshgu (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transcluded. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid me, I forgot to properly list this FLC. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- "with the team possessing the worst record receiving the first pick." The structure of this sentence needs revision. The noun+-ing structure is awkward enough, but this sentence has multiple -ings after the noun.
- Hyphen for "World Series winning".
- The lead is outdated in multiple places after the Yankees' 2009 World Series title. It states that Jeter has four titles, instead of the five he now has, and Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain have now joined him and Thurman Munson as first-round picks who won a championship with the Yanks.
- The part about the Yankees not gaining a compensatory pick for Mark Prior needs a cite somewhere, either in the lead or a note. A simple link to the draft rules should do.
- What makes http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/ a reliable source? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been almost a week since I commented. Is a response forthcoming? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I've been real busy. I'll try to get to this. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to do this, especially since I am a Yankees fan, but I'm moving to oppose now. It's been almost two weeks since I originally commented and five days since the nominator last responded here, and the list has seen no changes. We can't leave lists at FLC indefinitely without response to comments, and the outdated parts and shaky source concern me too much to consider supporting this now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I agree. Unless someone else can step in and make the changes, please close this down. I've gotten swamped and it's going to be this way for a decent amount of time. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to do this, especially since I am a Yankees fan, but I'm moving to oppose now. It's been almost two weeks since I originally commented and five days since the nominator last responded here, and the list has seen no changes. We can't leave lists at FLC indefinitely without response to comments, and the outdated parts and shaky source concern me too much to consider supporting this now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I've been real busy. I'll try to get to this. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Didn't even see this baby had made it's way to FLC. Nice!
- The image captions could use some alteration, in my opinion, particularly the lead image. Something like "Derek Jeter, the Yankees first-round pick in 1992, has won five World Series with the franchise." The rest work, I suppose, but the simple [Name] ([draft year]) is very dull looking.
- Needs serious updating per 2009 World Series. Jeter needs another WS added to his name, and as I write this I see Giants already mentioned this. :p
- Agreed that MLB Trade Rumors is a very so-so source. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Is calling it "The Bronx, New York" accurate? I honestly don't know. I would think something like "The Bronx burrough/county of New York City, New York" would be more accurate.
- The While in the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph is not needed.
- I second Gaints2008 issues with the reliable source and Mark Prior fact.
- Should Schools be sorted with the "University of"? Meaning should, say, University of Texas be sorted as "Texas" instead of "University of Texas"? I may have to go dig around the MoS to find out.
Outside of these issues, the rest of the sources look good and the images look good.—NMajdan•talk 16:47, 2 December 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 Dabomb87 22:17, 3 December 2009 [4].
- Nominator(s): Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 22:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria despite limited information even in a club book. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 22:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment empty cells should have centered emdashes (—). Mm40 (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How do we centre? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 19:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just add align=center| to the cell; I've done the first row for you.—Chris!c/t 18:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 19:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just add align=center| to the cell; I've done the first row for you.—Chris!c/t 18:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Color need to be accompanied with symbol; see recently promoted featured lists for example—Chris!c/t 06:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- You use VFL without explaining it.
- "The club Best and Fairest award ..." isn't it "The club's..."?
- You talk about the Best and Fairest a bit, but then launch into "Dick Reynolds won the Brownlow Medal..." what's that awarded for? And I'm guessing it's not an Essendon award, so for non-experts you should offer us some context...
- Don't relink best and fairest, and be consistent with the capitalisation.
- "a club record " hyphenate club-record.
- Instead of just "Premiership" for the key, perhaps you could say "Essendon won the AFL Grand Final" or similar, to make it clear to non-experts what you mean.
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- The VFL/AFL link redirects to AFL, so that doesn't have much use. Also, I remember seeing somewhere that slashes are discouraged in text. Maybe try a dash?
- Hyphen for "record equaling".
- Remove comma after Kevin Sheedy.
- "Despite no player kicking 1000 career goals, full-forward Matthew Lloyd, is the clubs leading goal-kicker with 925, ahead of ruckman Simon Madden with 575." Couple of issues here. Lloyd didn't score 925 despite no one having 1,000, so I don't get that sentence. Also, change "clubs" to "club's".
- Change semi-colon in last sentence of lead to a regular comma.
- Any reason the names are sorting by first name rather than last? Is this a custom for Australia-related lists that I'm only discovering now?
- Will do Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Check 1937 Crichton Medal winner for a broken wikilink.
- Crichton Medal is given as W. S. Crichton Medal in the lead and W.S. Crichton Medal (without spaces) in the table. I'd imagine it should be the former throughout, since that complies better with our naming guidelines and avoids a minor redirect. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done the rest. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:01, 29 November 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 Dabomb87 23:17, 1 December 2009 [5].
- Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel I have fixed every (real) problem that was brought up at the last nomination and over two peer reviews. The article is not perfect and I'm sure some cool things could still be done to it, but they would only be navigational aids and not anything new content wise. Let me know if the images need adjusting, as I can fix those pretty quickly. I feel the redlinks to county roads without articles should be left, as they encourage the creation of those articles. However, if the choice between pass or fail comes down to redlinks, then I will remove some of them. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
Discussion with no votes placed
| ||
---|---|---|
Alright, I believe I've addressed all of the above. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Restarted Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to reviewers Please revisit this FLC and a) clearly restate the remaining issues, if necessary, and b) if possible, make a succinct declaration (i.e., support, oppose, or neutral). Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, The list, as it is, has too many redlinks. --Fredddie™ 06:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would lean more towards support if the current list format is scrapped for a format similar to List of highways in Hamilton County, New York. --Fredddie™ 04:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Golbez
|
---|
Try this: {{Roadlink/KL|8}}. It's shorthand for a superimpose template. The only other parameter which can be changed is the left-right justification {{{x}}}. --Fredddie™ 05:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Still not ready to support. Too many unresolved comments.—Chris!c/t 06:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of those comments are personally keeping you from supporting? So far the only unresolved comment seems to be the redlinks, and perhaps the image size (though I made the requested adjustments). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 07:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I support if the comments are resolved as you said.—Chris!c/t 20:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not certain they are, but I believe they are. You'll have to use your judgement or see what the posters say. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I support if the comments are resolved as you said.—Chris!c/t 20:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - This list has too many major issues:
- There are not supposed to be citations in the lead unless that information is unique.
- There are large areas of uncited information in the prose portion of the list.
- The article has too many redlinks.
- Reference #4 appears to be a personal website and is probably not reliable.
- The article relies too heavily on Google Maps as a source. ---Dough4872 00:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) That is a choice, not a policy. Refs shouldn't be in the lead, but can be.
- I haven't actually checked this article, but note that according to WP:LEADCITE, the lead can either be uncited or cited, as long as the convention is consistent (i.e. do not cite half the lead and leave the other half uncited). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No citation in the lead was unique, so I've removed them. This lack of desire for citations in the lead directly contradicts the requirement for a sourced statement in the lead for DYK. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't actually checked this article, but note that according to WP:LEADCITE, the lead can either be uncited or cited, as long as the convention is consistent (i.e. do not cite half the lead and leave the other half uncited). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2) What is in the prose that you find controversial and in need of a source?
- 3) Not part of the criteria, should be forbidden as a reason for opposition, but I am fixing this atm.
- 4) Looks can be deceiving. That website is run by a member of the MTO and is the only reliable source on the subject. They will be releasing a book within the next several months which I will source upon its release.
- 5) As stated before, google maps is for user convenience. Official MTO roadmaps are used for highways, and local maps used for county roads. I had an idea for fixing this which I will implement later tonight. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The main sticking point for my oppose is the lack of citations in the prose. Every piece of information needs to contain a citation. For example, "Although they are generally one lane in either direction, several short sections with two lanes in one direction as a passing lane exist along the highways. The municipality's lone freeway, Highway 115, is two lanes in either direction for its entire length." needs to have a reliable source stating the number of lanes on the road and this statement can easily be challenged without a citation. ---Dough4872 03:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Wikipedia:When_to_cite, not everything needs sources. Only information that is controversial or that may be challenged needs sourcing. Unlike the US, Canada does not have straight-line diagrams describing highways mile for mile, nor do many counties provide more than a simple diagram or list of their county roads. However, information such as how many lanes a highway has can be discovered on a variety of maps and by looking at satellite imagery. It may be slightly outdated at times, but that does not mean it can't verify the validity of the information. I feel I have sourced all of the information that could incur a genuine challenge, so if you'd like to point out specifics that you don't believe to be true, or information that you'd contest the validity of (without being a beaurocrat and contesting each and every sentence without a citation at the end), I'll try and find the most reliable source available on the information, otherwise you are effectively prohibiting all Canadian (or at least Ontario) roads from ever having the possibility of being a featured article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The main sticking point for my oppose is the lack of citations in the prose. Every piece of information needs to contain a citation. For example, "Although they are generally one lane in either direction, several short sections with two lanes in one direction as a passing lane exist along the highways. The municipality's lone freeway, Highway 115, is two lanes in either direction for its entire length." needs to have a reliable source stating the number of lanes on the road and this statement can easily be challenged without a citation. ---Dough4872 03:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) That is a choice, not a policy. Refs shouldn't be in the lead, but can be.
Could all reviewers please note the new set-up for referencing. All the Google Maps references are separated, and are exclusively used for the 1/10th of a kilometre accuracy for route lengths (whilst being supplemented by a reliable up-to-date 2010 paper atlas that I've measured using the scale and a digital caliper ruler). I have also updated many other refs (Such as the continuations into other regions) to the 2010 atlas. I also expect to make at least another 4 roads (4, 7, 9, 18) into articles within the next day or so. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have collapsed my earlier comments; I am going on a trip soon so may not be able to address responses, so I didn't want my oppose to weigh upon the deliberations. Switching to neutral for now. I still think the tables need smaller shields, but the work on fleshing out the redlinks is moving along. Also, at current, one of the refs is broken, giving a big red error at the bottom. --Golbez (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I have now changed the way the shields are displayed in the left column. This should take care of the whitespace issue. Where once I could see a max of 8 at a time, I can now see up to 14. In addition, I've added {{nths}} to the two terminus columns, so that they now sort the highways and roads with numbered designations into order. The redlinks are also several magnitudes better than before. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Looks okay, but needs substantial work.
- Title is purely descriptive, and thus the boldfont in the first sentence should be killed.
- The shortest numbered road is Kawartha Lakes Road 3, Hartley Road, a causeway just less than a kilometre long crossing Mitchell Lake. - Why link to Road 3 if it redirects to the same page...?
- The city of Kawartha Lakes was formed on January 1, 2001, and was known as Victoria County before that. - Out of place and quite off-topic for this article.
- The shields in the Secondary highways segment are so small that they contribute no additional value to the text; I suggest removing them, to be honest.
- Almost all of the citations are inconsistently formatted/need more info.
- The "Route Maps" thing is bizarre. Just cite Google Maps collectively and remove the dozens of ugly footnotes.
- Misplaced punctuation all over.
–Juliancolton | Talk 04:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the first two. The part regarding the Victoria County bit is important (on top of the fact of it being historical), as the article makes many references to the past roads, or to Victoria County roads that were replaced. As for the shields in the secondary highway section, they are the same size as in a junction list, and were mostly there to show the difference in their appearance, but I have removed them. I will not replacing the end footnotes to Google Maps, as each one is a link to a map of that route, and I hardly see that as an inconvenience or detrimental aspect. The punctuation and inconsistent citations I shall take a look at, but are there any places in particular that you feel need attention? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it necessary to cite an almost identical Google Maps source dozens of different times when you could simply list one neat and concise general source? As it is, the large block of Google Maps links isn't really visually appealing. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Every entry is unique, and shows the route of the road in question. Citations are never visually appealing, so I don't understand why its detrimental to have them. Yes I could list google maps and say "This is a source... Except its not sourcing anything... But you can use it to see the various routes and the directions they take... oh, but you'll have to find them yourself because Google just removed an information source and is 15 years out of date", but it would be absolutely and completely useless and unhelpful to readers. Information always trumps appearance in my books.
- My point is that by condensing all 50 Google Maps footnotes into a single general citation, you don't lose any additional information. And visual appeal is indeed a valid objection per FL criteria #5a; "Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and it has a minimal proportion of red links." –Juliancolton | Talk 19:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Into a single reference to maps.google.ca? How absolutely useless would that be (its ok to go over 100% for this one)? I'd lose all of the information! Point noted, but disregarded. Those references will all be remaining, because I absolutely refuse to remove hordes of valuable information on the grounds that one editor finds it visually displeasing, probably based on dissimilar articles. They provide a visual accompaniment to what is otherwise a distance. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that by condensing all 50 Google Maps footnotes into a single general citation, you don't lose any additional information. And visual appeal is indeed a valid objection per FL criteria #5a; "Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and it has a minimal proportion of red links." –Juliancolton | Talk 19:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Every entry is unique, and shows the route of the road in question. Citations are never visually appealing, so I don't understand why its detrimental to have them. Yes I could list google maps and say "This is a source... Except its not sourcing anything... But you can use it to see the various routes and the directions they take... oh, but you'll have to find them yourself because Google just removed an information source and is 15 years out of date", but it would be absolutely and completely useless and unhelpful to readers. Information always trumps appearance in my books.
To be quite honest, I'm going to restart this candidacy when it expires. Two of the opposes were from editors involved in a quarrel with me elsewhere on the project, and they have made a point of not returning to counter those votes despite me making the improvements they requested. Not to mention that the point of FLC's is back and forth communication. I'm aware the pending holidays play a role in this. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your frustration, but as an FLC director, I respectfully ask you not to re-nominate, at least not immediately. The disagreements that have surfaced here don't seem to be resolving themselves. I will be archiving this FLC tomorrow, as there is clearly not a consensus to promote. Re-submitting will not be helpful or fair to the other FLCs (this one has been up for about six weeks). FLC is not the place for dispute resolution, nor is it where articles should be overhauled (that's why we have peer review). I suggest that you and the other involved take a break from the article for a few days to cool down and have time to regain focus. Then, start a centralized discussion somewhere (article talk page, WikiProject talk page, or peer review) and try to work out your disagreements. When significant progress has been made in that front, please consult me or another FL director, and we will be glad to let you re-nominate the list. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not planning to until after new years. There are no disputes on this article right now, they were regarding a completely separate issue. I simply feel their anger towards that brought them here to oppose this. Dough and JC have made legitimate comments that I can improve the article with in the mean time. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:52, 1 December 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.