Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/May 2011

Kept

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by The Rambling Man 17:35, 9 May 2011 [1].

---

List of Alberta general elections

Notified: Tompw, WikiProject Canada

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it lacks citations and the table is not quite as informative as one might expect from a FL. Nergaal (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments Maintenance tag, bad start. Election graph uses only colour to convey information, contravening WP:ACCESS. Bad start "This article provides a summary..." we don't do that any more. Table is in the wrong chronological order, could be sortable, doesn't incorporate row or col scopes, per WP:ACCESS. Currently it's a delist for me, but hopefully fixes can be made. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Why is descending order the wrong order? It should be consistent with the other provinces. 117Avenue (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC) No, it should be in chronological order, no matter what "other provinces" have. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC) The graph is simply the main table presented in an alternate format, so I don't see a WP:ACCESS issue there. The main table, properly formated, removes all such concerns. That said, there is a lack of referencing for the body, and the body itself could be expanded significantly. I'm inclined to agree with a delist at this point. Resolute 18:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC) No, tables and images have their own requirements for accessibility whether you see an issue or not. There's no alt text and only colour is used to convey the information in the image. The table is in the wrong order, and lacks row/col scopes per accessibility. It also appears to use a very narrow coloured bar to indicate the "winning party" with "bold" text, but we know we ought not to use bold in this way as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC) To clarify: would you rather the coloured bars and bolding got removed altogether? How about adding a "winning party" column (which would use the colours and have text)? Tompw (talk) (review) 20:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC) No, I'm not advocating removing anything altogether, I'm simply suggesting the existing data is enhanced for accessibility. Follow WP:ACCESS and WP:MOSBOLD and, if necessary, have a winning party column. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC) (I changed your bullets to numebered for ease of reference).... (1) I agree the maintaince tag is bad - but what material isn't referenced? Feel free to add {{fact}} tags liberally. (2) The graph contains numbers on the chart, so it is simlpy not true to say it "uses only colour to convey information". I agree that alt text should be provided - any thoughts on what exactly? I agree about scope text. (3) Agreed. (4) Why is descending order the wrong order? To me, it pus the most recent (and useful) information at the top. However, if there's a MoS point I've missed, please point it out. I shall work on fixing the issues you've identified. Tompw (talk) (review) 20:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Chronological order isn't necessarily prescribed but it's recommended, and I haven't seen a list go by FLC for probably two years which is presented in "reverse" chronological order. Alt text advice could be sought from FLC's good ACCESS friend User:RexxS. I thought the purpose of the chart was to indicate how many seats were won by which party. Sure, a number will add information, but how does that relate to who won the seats? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC) As for the maintenance tag, I can't see where the 2008 results are referenced, but I didn't place the tag there so it could be more than that. I also can't be clear where the footnotes are referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Further comments - delist still not good enough for me. No need for bold linked Alberta in the lead, just linked is fine. The colours in the graph don't match the colours in the table for each party which is confusing. Table is still in the wrong chronological order (you don't have the graph in reverse chronological order, after all....) Other Parties->Other parties. "The winning party's total is shown in bold" I can't see this anywhere, and bold shouldn't be used alone to convey information. I still don't see row or col scopes added for screen readers (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial for help here) Notes A and B need referencing. No mixed date formats in the references please. Second general reference needs an en-dash for the year range. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC) The notes can be verified with the external links, just like the data. 117Avenue (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources#General reference for why this is undesirable. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC) You guys keep saying that it is thin on the references, do you what it repeatedly tagged with the same reference? 117Avenue (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC) My personal advice is to deal with my comments and then we'll see about specific referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC) How does it look now? 117Avenue (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Still in the wrong order. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC) I am still a bit upset, that the other provinces haven't been targeted, they have all the same problems, maintenance tags, "wrong" order, coloured bars in the table, using general references, graph colours not matching. 117Avenue (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Well chance's are that they will be nominated here in due course if they all suffer the same issues. It's nothing personal. Please make the list chronological. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Done, I was catching up on my watchlist, I didn't think you would respond so fast. 117Avenue (talk)

• OK, I think I have dealt with all your points except the one about the graph. (Let me know if you disagree). I am stumped by what should be done to the graph - can you say exactly what should changed? Tompw (talk) (review) 21:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• The list is still extremely thin on the references side. Nergaal (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment very much improved. There's still Nergaal's issue about light referencing, and I'd prefer to see the years unbolded, along with the Coalition relinked on every line (to the appropriate page of course) as the table is sortable, but these, in my mind, are relatively minor. Good work to 117Avenue and Tompw. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Everything has been referenced, unless you have a specific example? 117Avenue (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've added fact tags where there is a blatant need for a ref. Still, the intro needs some more expansion. THe table should also have a total seats column. Nergaal (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I have added a ref for the Lieutenant Governor, the other facts can be verified with the cited data, and does not need a ref per WP:CALC. 117Avenue (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I am not sure what is the point for this edit. I've placed tags which you simply removed. I am not sure this type of unfriendly fixes are the solution out of a FLRC. Nergaal (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
      • What is it that you are questioning?
• Does the Lieutenant Governor call the election? Yes, I have provided a reference saying so.
• Does an election typically get called in the fourth or fifth year? Yes, take a look at the spacing of the elections, which are verified by the Elections Alberta reference.
• Did the first election elect 25 seats? Yes, 22 Liberal, 3 Conservative, verified by the Elections Alberta reference.
• Was the first election in 1905? Yes, as verified by the Elections Alberta reference.
• Did the last election elect 83 seats? Yes, 72 PC, 9 Liberal, 2 NDP, verified by the Elections Alberta reference.
• Did the number of seats increase over time? Yes, 83 is more than 25, and a graphical summary of all elections shows an upward trend.
• Has the province been ruled by four "dynasties"? Yes, Liberal (1905–1921), United Farmers (1921–1935), Social Credit (1935–1971), and Progressive Conservative (1971 to present), were the winners according to the winners column, which can be verified by the big numbers in the referenced data, and the graphical summary, with no party winning an election after losing their "dynasty".
• Has no minority government ever been elected? Correct, the winning party has always been elected to more than half of the seats, as verified by the referenced data, and the graphical summary. The winning numbers were bolded, but it was suggested here to keep them unbolded.
• Can it be said that Alberta has continuously had a dominant-party system for its entire political history? Yes, see previous bullet.
• Can it be said that the dominant party has changed over time? Yes, see dynasties bullet.

Did I miss any? 117Avenue (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Then why isn't the text referenced accordingly if the refs exist? Nergaal (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The intro shouldn't have a lot of references, per WP:LEADCITE, it would just be repeating the same citation. The intro is a summary of the following article. 117Avenue (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The referencing issues seem to have been cleared up. I just have a few comments:

• The final paragraph of the lead is a bit redundant as it just reads out the key.
• Could you put refs 4 and 5 in the table header?
• Are there any voter turnout stats?

Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How should the graph be addressed in the prose, or does it need to be mentioned at all? The Rambling Man suggested that the references be spread through out the article. I could only see turnout back to 1979, are you suggesting another column? 117Avenue (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think the graph needs to be mentioned in prose at all. I can't see TRM's comment about spreading refs, and I think that placing them in the header would make it easier to read. Yes, I was suggesting another column for turnout - it is quite a major factor in elections. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misinterpreting the 31 March comments. 117Avenue (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think so...I still don't see it. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How is it? I had some difficulty getting the new column to sort correctly. 117Avenue (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It sorts fine for me. Is that all the turnout data available? Surely there is more? Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find it through Elections Alberta, and by the looks of Election by the Numbers it may not be possible. 117Avenue (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, but there may be a book somewhere which has such information. Maybe ask at WP:ALBERTA. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - update required from contributors please. Otherwise, as it stands this will be closed as keep in the next couple of days. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

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 removal 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 kept by The Rambling Man 16:37, 5 May 2011 [2].

---

Municipalities of Lithuania

Notified: Renata3, WP LITH

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is poorly referenced. It has only one source in the reference section, and one note. Eisfbnore ^talk 20:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Unfortunately, the single reference is to the search page. Users have to enter the search parameters manually to access the information. It would be advantageous to use other sources (such as the CIA book, or even something in Lithuanian would be okay) besides this one. If this information truly is not available, well, the reference used does actually source all information in the table so it's not that big of a deal that it's the only one we have for the table.
  • Most of the sentences in the lead now have inline cites. Please flag any remaining sentences that need one. Novickas (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Some of the Lede has information that isn't found in the table. These things should be sourced:
  • "there are 43 district municipalities that roughly correspond to districts that existed under the Soviet rule." should be sourced
  • "The special status of Visaginas city municipality (based on the 13th largest city) can be explained by the fact that the majority of the residents are Russians."
  • " Palanga city municipality is called this despite actually including a group of popular sea resorts rather than a single city." etc
    • These three have been removed. Novickas (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• The reference has updated population and population density figures for 2010, and our table should be updated to reflect that
  • • This requirement is a little worrisome in terms of maintenance. I really don't think their populations changed much over the course of two years. An update every five years would seem in order tho. Novickas (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Many of the images of the coats of arms have .png and .svg alternatives which should be used instead of the .gifs
  • • Could you explain why .png format is more desirable, and/or point to WP guideline page on this? Novickas (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The article really isn't that bad, so hopefully it can be saved. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• First of all, there should be two articles, one called municipalities of Lithuania, which is a general discussion of the local government and geographical subdivision, and one article, list of municipalities of Lithuania, which actually lists all of them.
• Population needs updating
• The prose is below featured standards, with many grammatical and not least punctuational oddities.
• I would liked to have seen the municipality column only list the name, and then make a second column with "district", "city" or "municipality", which would allow the reader to sort by type.
• I'm not convinced if we need to include rank columns, as the table is sortable, and the reader will get a pretty good idea of how the municipality is ranked.
• The lead is entirely unreferenced.
• The reference provided is perhaps okay, as it is fairly straight-forward to get out numbers.
• Footnoted comments and references are mixed.
• To ease readability, the numbers should be right-aligned.

Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • See article for lead rewrite, reference additions, separation of notes and references. I agree with the addition of a 'type' column, we could remove the ranking of density to make way for it. I rather like the rankings in general, but would defer to a consensus for removal. As far as right-alignment of numbers, I'm not seeing that in the other FLs I checked (e.g. List of tallest buildings in Chicago). Novickas (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delist unless much better referenced. Nergaal (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've requested three books from the local library system. They will arrive at my branch within a few days, hopefully they'll offer some useful stuff. Additionally, an IP posted on the talk page of this nomination that people may have missed:

  Hello. I'm lithuanian moderator Profcard in Wikimapia project. Sadly wikipedia contains poor information. Unfortunately, I had to write municipality short description in wikimapia myself. I permit using english text of municipalities (from wikimapia, as I'm only author) if this helped to keep this feature from failure here. Just note full wikimapia.org link that people would found box with descriptions by few clicks. Contact me in wikimapia if there'll be questions.

  I'm not familiar with WikiMapia's licensing and its compatibility with Wikipedia, but it's something to look at. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Two of the books I ordered came in. They don't really have the information we need for this page. :( Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think this list should discuss counties also, which would mean have another table with area/population/etc of counties and rename the article to "Municipalities and Counties of Lithuania". Nergaal (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Why? Counties have their own little list. Renata (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• I will try to see what can be done to address the issues. (Sorry for a late reaction -- it was on my mental to do list, but I forgot about it until it popped up on my watchlist today again). Renata (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Some questions - one, do these sorts of articles need to be updated annually to maintain featured status? (the current population stats are from 2008). Two, another editor has called for a separate, stand-alone article; do other editors see it as a prerequisite to Featured List status? Clearly one could be written here, but I don't see it in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Three, I'd like to ask for an extension to the review period of about a week - any objections? Novickas (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Question for other reviewers how is this list not a content fork of the counties list, Counties of Lithuania (or the other way around?)? This has 60 entries while the counties has 10. And it's not like either of these lists has any extra information asides from the tables (like historical issues). Being such a small country, I don't see why there is a need for two FLs. Nergaal (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That's a very good point. Given that the combined size is about 30kb, they're strong candidates for a merge into Counties and municipalities of Lithuania. —WFC— 12:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • For the record, I know this is the oldest current FLRC, but work is ongoing, so I'm very happy to see it carry on for a while. —WFC— 15:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This one does have some historical info now. Could you explain why you see the counties list as a content fork? Counties and munis are quite separate. (LT counties are not just an aggregation of munis, their governors are appointed by the central govt, among other differences). Novickas (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment about being a possible content fork stricken. The situation in Lithuania seems analogous to MPs vs local government in England; no-one would suggest merging lists on those topics, regardless of size. —WFC— 22:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Can I get a status update? The list hasn't been edited in about two weeks. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for missing it. My main concern about referencing has been solved, but I'll let other editors answer about content forking. Eisfbnore ^talk 23:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My concern about forking has been dealt with; the only thing now is that the lead itself needs to explain (in a roundabout way) what is significant and distinct about municipalities. As far as I can tell, all actional comments have been responded to (not necessarily resolved, but the balls are in the reviewers' courts), and no fresh ones have been made. That said, work has stopped and at a glance I don't think this is quite ready to be kept, so I'll do a brief review. —WFC— 00:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments from WFC

• I'm going to give the lead a go myself over the next day or so. I'm not an expert, but I've got a reasonable idea of how to structure it.
• Okay, I've tweaked the lead's structure, adding in a few basic facts based on the country's article. I'll dig for sources tomorrow and make any corrections if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
• I think we need a paragraph (probably between the current first and second paragraph), explaining what municipalities actually do. At the moment we are listing a political subdivision, but not explaining why this level of subdivision is distinct or significant from the ones above and below. If a paragraph of this nature is added, it would further improve the lead, and dispel any lingering concerns over whether this is a fork. —WFC— 00:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• The referencing situation appears worrying at a glance, but isn't a big deal. You don't need many references to verify this entire list. However, all reference dates should be formatted in the same way (whichever date format you like, as long as it's consistent), and ref 8 is a footnote, and should therefore have its own area.
• I see no point at all to the rank columns, given that the table is sortable. Furthermore, by removing these columns, there would be space to add in a column for individual maps (such as File:Varena district location.png).

At a glance this list appears to be in worse shape than it really is. I'll do what I can with the lead, and then we'll take it from there. —WFC— 00:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Fixed footnote 8. Removed rank columns (these pre-dated sortable tables) and hacked something to replace them. I do believe having ranks provides very useful info. I do not believe adding locator maps is wise -- they will be either too small to be useful or the table will balloon. Renata (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Unconventional looking, but the principles behind that hack are an excellent compromise. —WFC— 09:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Looks like work is ongoing. Can someone ping me on my talk when the remaining issues are addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
        • ...and now it's been four weeks since the article was last edited. I don't want to delist this article given the effort put in, but if no further activity occurs, I may have no other choice. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Why? Pretty much all of the objections have been resolved. Renata (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Are they? It's hard to tell what has and hasn't been addressed when many of the above concerns remain unstruck. Could you ask all reviewers to revisit this FLRC? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
              • Done. Notified all (I think). Renata (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments There's a couple of "bugs" still, but overall there's been some great work from everyone who edited this article. Nominator's issues seem resolved, as are mine (mostly, see below) and most everyone else's, too.

• Lead is good, but one question: why when translating the words for "counties", "municipalities" and "elderships" is the singular for counties given first, but plural version for municipalities and elderships?
• No link to the article "municipality". Since it has different meanings to people in different parts of the world, linking, or explaining exactly what a municipality is or equivalent to (town, city?) would help. As would explaining briefly what an eldership is (Similar to a village or hamlet perhaps?)
• The colours on that map need toning down a bit. The colours for Klaipeda, Vilnius, Alytus and Utena are horrendous against the black text and make it hard to read (paste the article's URL into the field at http://colorfilter.wickline.org/?j=1;t=a and then when the results page loads, click a few different variations in the Green box. Nice soft pastel colours like those at Help:Using colours would be an improvement.
• Earlier in the nomination I was asked to explain why .png format is more desirable than gif or jpeg for the shields, and/or to link to a WP guideline on this. Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format. However, while this should be done, it's not something that any of the Featured list criteria ask for, so it won't stop it being kept in the end.

Almost ready to say "keep". Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• Soviet Socialist Republic doesn't need to be linked twice in the lead.
• Check the sorting of the second, third, and fourth columns. The diacritics that some of the places begin their names with are causing them to sort after those that start with the regular (English) alphabet, when they should be sorting with their respective letters. May need sorting templates to fix this one.
• The general reference should be formatted with the same information as an inline citation, not as a bare external link. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• The references are not a big issue anymore, but I am still not sure we need both a "municipalities" and a "counties" FL when they overlap so much. Nergaal (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Weak Keep – The citations have been improved, which were the issue I started this FLRC with. However, I'm not sure if there is a consensus on merging or not merging this list with Counties of Lithuania. I hope that issue will be solved before the closing of this FLRC --Eisfbnore ^talk 19:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delist unless concerns have now been addressed. It's been nearly four months, and while these can last as long as needed, 4 months is pushing it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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