Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2012: Difference between revisions
Giants2008 (talk | contribs) Archive 1 |
add |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Queens Park Rangers F.C. seasons/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of India ODI cricketers/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of India ODI cricketers/archive1}} |
Revision as of 20:50, 20 February 2012
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 20:50, 20 February 2012 [1].
- Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is now complete and I believe it meets the FL criteria. I've based this article off the recently promoted List of Brighton & Hove Albion F.C. seasons, although since this is easily my largest table to date. Unusually for these types of season articles it includes the wartime results since I had the results and tables for them (results in the cited book, and tables via RSSSF). Miyagawa (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*History. Who's E.D. Robertson? if he's important, add his status (club captain? secretary? whatever) or replace the name with his status, or if not, just say "the team's name was suggested"
Hope some of this helps. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comments. Glad to see that others are reviewing the prose, so I haven't looked at it in detail. Apologies if I'm repeating points already made by others.
- For competitions that don't have a WP article, might it be worth a footnote saying what each competition was?
- And the Other competition Results column still sorts alphabetically rather than by Winner/Final/SF etc.
- Your bright green F* unfinished finals entries are begging for a note explaining why they were unfinished. Struway2 (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoping to go and access the newspaper archives at the BL tomorrow, which should add a few listings to the other competitions - so I'll sort out the sorting after I've added those. Also hoping to create some stub articles for the competitions that don't have an article currently (created one for the West London League this morning). Miyagawa (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I took a trip to the British Library today and unfortunately the West London Observer isn't one of the papers they've current digitised. So I did some searches on what else they had and turned up one more year's results for the Amateur Cup, which I've added to the table. Also discovered that QPR were in a league called the Southern Football Combination during the same season they first entered the Southern League. Irritatingly though I've just discovered that I copied down the league table from the week before the end of the season and not the final standings. Also typically is that someone uploaded the final standings to the internet in 2010 and unfortunately its gone offline. I think there's a difference between an incomplete table and not knowing a table is incomplete. I know that there is information missing from this table now, especially the West London League results over several years. Therefore I would like to elect to close this nomination. I'll keep working on it and hopefully re-nominate it in a few months once I've tracked down the additional information that I know is out there. Miyagawa (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2012 (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 Giants2008 23:21, 6 February 2012 [2].
- Nominator(s): Vyom25 (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because the list is now updated and many changes have been made. It was a featured list in the past but lost it's place may be because lack of continuous updates. I have also added a new section for all the captains. An image is also added to this list. Vyom25 (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*
|
Still Opposing. I'm still not happy with the prose, its shaky in a lot of places. For a start have a look at the difference between the opening sentence in this list and in List of India Twenty20 International cricketers. The sentence in that list sums up what twenty20 is much better than the sentence here which rambles in about ODIs. India should be mentioned in the first paragraph not the second as they are the focus of the list not ODIs. The readers doesn't have much idea of the success of the Indian team, have they won any ODI tournaments, e.g. World Cup, this should be listed, so the reader has an idea of the status of the team. The best thing to do is have a look at the T20 list and note the differences between the prose, because at the moment, its like day and night. NapHit (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose – Unfortunately, I don't think this is that close to meeting FL standards. I see a reference before punctuation (should be after), multiple instances of spaces not provided between sentences in the Captains section, many hyphens in the tables that should be dashes, and a lack of sources for the captains table (even the main table's sources aren't that clear). Prose is also concerning; the worst bit I saw during a brief scan was "Ganguly,Azhar India's two most capped captains come close with 54% win rate." A lot of work is needed before this can reach the required level, and I'm not sure it's doable during this FLC. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Oppose due to the unresolved issues above, and generally bad presentation and language. Harrias talk 14:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- which ones if you point them out specifically it would be helpful.--Vyom25 (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per the above concerns. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.