Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/September 2014

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates‎ | Failed log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crisco 1492 (talk | contribs) at 06:51, 1 September 2014 (archive 2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 06:51, 1 September 2014 [1].

List of nearest exoplanets

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After quite some work I think this is a neat list. Let me know how can it be improved further. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ST11 comments

  • the age on 82 G. Eridani is clearly wrong, since that's older than the universe itself. It also contradicts what is in the 82 G. Eridani article itself. This needs to be fixed since it's a blatant factual error.
good catch, I didn't even notice it. Nergaal (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it myself. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is V = 6.3 the cutoff for naked-eye visibility, when the commonly-agreed upon value mentioned in most places is 6.5, and the Bortle scale gives even lower values?
I'll change it to 6.5 and update the note. Nergaal (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tables in the exoplanets statistics section should probably have different cutoff values. Nearly all have most of the planets in a single category, such as most of the stars in the orbital radius table being in the first bin, which doesn't tell much to the reader.
That is an artifact for exoplanets in general, Mercury-like planets are easier to detect. I don't see how should I choose the cutoffs such as a reader can get something out of it, if not taking them from Mercury. Nergaal (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you make a good point. You might want to say in the tables that the cutoffs are based on the mass of objects in the Solar System then, for clarity. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have any ideas how to make such an addition "elegant"? Nergaal (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found a solution for this. Let me know what you think of it. Nergaal (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is too long to read comfortably. Please consider adding sections.
I tried to have the lead summarize key points in the table. Any ideas what could be moved into a section? Nergaal (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the technical stuff into a criteria section. Nergaal (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a way the statistics section could be presented more neatly? I think splitting it into two columns would be great for readability, since even on my 1280x800 monitor, it only really takes up the left half of the screen (note that this isn't a requirement for me supporting, but would be nice).
Good idea! Nergaal (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gliese 370 entry needs to be renamed to its HD number, considering that is what is most commonly used to refer to the star. So does the Gliese 785 entry. The Gliese 892 mention in the notes needs to be changed to its HR number for the same reason.
Done. Nergaal (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the mention of the UPGS object from the 4th paragraph of the inclusion criteria section, since it is not currently confirmed as a rogue planet, and may be a brown dwarf instead.
That article gives it a min mass of 4 Mj. Wouldn't that make it a sub-brown dwarf? Anyways, I've added "potential" modifier to the sentence. Nergaal (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "potential" addition solves the problem too, so this is fine. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the table, I would change the "notes" column to a "references" column, and add the actual notes to right next to the planet designation.
Done. Nergaal (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After all of these are addressed, unless I see something else, I will support. Only thing left is the age of 82 G. Eridani. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per content review. Btw, sorry to see the trouble at WPELEM; you're clearly in the right there from what I can gather. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pertinent comments. The WP:ELEM thing is history for me now. Nergaal (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

--PresN 18:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed all these issues. I will double-check once the doi bot decides to update the links. Nergaal (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Support --PresN 18:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and support! Nergaal (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Regretfully in this case. But several editors, myself included, have offered suggestions for improvement to this list candidate at its Talk page, basically on the grounds that the article's lead can and should be improved on WP:LEAD grounds, and that the article needs to be divided in to more sections. But the article's original author has rebuffed not only these attempts, but pretty much all attempts at discussing the issue, and is completely uninterested in any consensus-building on solutions. --IJBall (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One should note that this particular opinion comes from somebody who thinks the article should look like [2] - that is splitting the text into eight sections with one sentence per section. I would prefer if some experienced editor, be it a coordinator, tries to explain why such standards are inappropriate, at least for a FL. Also, "several" equals two in this aprticular case, with one editor having less than 6 months experience of editing. Nergaal (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you ignore the accompanying Edit summary that I did with that reversion. I also have already made clear in the Talk page comments that I personally feel that User:Cliffswallow-vaulting's version is probably too far in the other direction (i.e. over-sectioned), but at least it's a starting point. And it's not "two" editors: it's at least three (myself, Cliffswallow-vaulting, and the IP editor (assuming that the two IP editors are the same person)). But, by all means – keep clinging to your WP:OWN tact on this, and I'll continue to oppose this list as a 'Featured list' as you seem completely unwilling to work towards a consensus solution here, which is all the rest of us are really asking for. --IJBall (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, how about use the current version as a starting point instead of some joke of an article. Nergaal (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, I completely disagree with restructuring the list to have a bunch of tiny sections- it's almost never okay to have one-sentence paragraphs to start with, much less as one-paragraph sections, much less multiple one-paragraph sections. The current list has descriptive summary information in the lead section and details about how planets get in the list in the Inclusion criteria section, and that seems entirely reasonable. --PresN 22:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


JR

  • Comment. New here. I came in response to an RFC call and got redirected to the FLC. The following remarks are substantially what I already have said in the RFC. The article does have shortcomings, but the operative ones are not to be ascribed to paragraph length in particular, nor section length, nor (much) to the quality of writing within paragraphs. It has to do with the structure and function of this article, which is a problem in its own right, because this is a list article and most of its non-list content should be covered in associated articles such as Exoplanet, leaving mostly material that aids in the use of the lists. For a start, a quick scan suggests that the data in the various Exoplant-related articles do not necessarily correspond. ("Over 1800 exoplanets have been discovered right?) It is hard enough just to keep the lists up to date in one article. Keeping the individual articles mutually comprehensible is even harder, not to mention keeping them in substantial agreement.
Let me try to do this item by item. This list is not about 1800 exoplanets, but about less than 100 entires. What is the problem you have? Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There also is a perennial misunderstanding of what the lede is for; you see it in article after article. A surprisingly large faction seems to think that a lede is a formally required block of text, measured in paragraphs, that one puts at the start of the article to hold up the hat notes, and that the right dose is four paragraphs, independent of paragraph length, content or mutual coherence.
It isn't. Shouldn't be anyway.
And I think that the intro is meant to summarize the article/list. Where does the current intro not adequately summarize the list? Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A lede is whatever will suffice to tell the reader why he should, or should not, read on. If you need more than a few lines for that you should re-think what you are saying, and why you are saying it. I am unconvinced that this article needs any lede at all, but if it does, I am not sure that anything in the current lede is suitable. If it is, then that part is in the first paragraph, but then someone needs to get in there and in 23.37 words explain what this list is intended to achieve. Having done so, he will probably realise why none of the current "lede" belongs in the lede at all.
I have done so and I have not been able to "realize" why the text does not belong to the "lead" at all. Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then there should be a section heading along the lines of Status quo or The current situation or something similar. The remaining three paragraphs currently in the lede might go into that, possibly augmented in the light of the blinding revelation that that section actually has a function, and that the function is to fill the reader in on the plot so far. The most worrying aspect of this proposal is that some poor sucker will have to keep an unwearying eye on those figures. In case some innocent out there thinks that in this field of study those figures will stay put... weellllll....!
By status quo you mean what is the summary of the present situation? How is this not summary of the table below and how it shouldn't be part of the intro? Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Inclusion criteria section currently is a dogs breakfast. Its third paragraph ("Usually, nearby exoplanets have been discovered...") should be extracted, labelled with a section heading something like Search technology, and placed after the then more coherent Inclusion criteria section; that third paragraph does not deal with inclusion criteria. The paragraph starting "There are known examples of potential free-floating sub-brown dwarfs, sometimes..." should be appended after "...above it, an object is classified as a brown dwarf." In that position there is little reason to make it a separate paragraph, but suit yourself.
Please go and read the entire paragraph and in your own words, "having done so you will probably realize why the text" ... belongs there. Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The remark "Notable uncertainties exist ..." could be left where it is to close the section (my preference) or put into the Search technology paragraph. Take your pick according to taste.
Let us take a parallel example: if there is a list with "cities over 1 mil pop" how would you treat the cities that according to some sources have over that threshold while others are below that? Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article should have the minimum of possible explanation and general exposition; it is a framework for the lists, not a lecture. Or anyway, it should be. Much of what is in it at the moment could better be clearly fitted into related articles and linked to. Just think: what do you have at the moment? A "See also" paragraph that contains a list of list articles and no expositionary articles! (No I am not joking! See for yourself.) Enter Exoplanet into a Wikipedia search. There are over 2000 hits, most of them irrelevant of course, but at least a couple of dozen are directly relevant, and frankly, some of them make it look as though either they or this article must be superfluous, or at least painfully redundant, crying for a merge or needing linkage. Even if this article remains, some of its paragraphs could be excised or at least pruned and replaced with links such as "(main article on detection at:...)"
What do you mean by expositionary articles? I honestly don't understand what are you trying to suggest here. Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having done all that, read the whole article (minus the lists of course) aloud to some uninvolved, literate party and look for sticking points. Never mind whether the audience has a degree or is an English Colonel or whatever it might be, or is illiterate. If you have to explain anything you may conclude that you have boobed and it is back to the drawing board. And that will have nothing to do with whether you are addressing the Simple English crowd or not. Or how many paragraphs you have or how long they may be. Churchill, who was a natural and imposingly excellent writer, said something somewhere on the separation of paragraphs, but nary a word about how long or short they should be. He spoke, more or less, about their sense and flow or something along those lines. If I have a spot of time I'll try to find the source, but don't hold your breath. JonRichfield (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I honestly don't understand what are you trying to suggest here. Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I forgot how fulfilling editing wikipedia is so I'll try to be nice so I'll just say I am not sure what JR is trying to say. Anybody care to translate? Nergaal (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why bother? It's pretty clear that no matter how many other editors offer style and formatting suggestions on this article, you as the original author, and at least two other editors here at WP:FL, see absolutely nothing wrong at all with it. So it's pretty clear that you all are just going to do what you're going to do. The rest of us see that it's pointless, and I'm sure no other "suggestions" will be forthcoming. So just go to it – there's no need for "snark". You've won – go buy yourself a beer. --IJBall (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: Well, you did ask, so try this and like it. This is an FLC. Something to do with ranking with the best WP article standards. OK? (Stop and ask again for a bit of assistance when I lose you; I won't mind.)
Fine, I tried to assume good faith and be considerate but it seems that you seem to have very little respect for other people's work. So here we go. Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands the article not only is far from the best standards, but isn't up to normal standards. Maybe you omitted to do so, but I have now had a quick look at the documented FLC criteria. They included:
THIS IS A LIST. In case you have a hard time understanding, the "L" in FLC stands for list. Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Professional standards of Prose." ('Nuff said on that point?)
Dear Mr Smug: WTF are you talking about. Can you care to give specific examples or you just like to hear yourself fart over somebody else's work? Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"An engaging lead that ... defines the scope and inclusion criteria." If you go back to what I said, you will find some very specific hints on how to do something about that. Pretty close to the start in fact. At the moment what you have in the position of the lede isn't even coherent, never mind introductory. I can see why some folks said split it up, because it made hard reading. Unfortunately, splitting and simplification are not what it needs; it needs revaluation and redeployment. Which is what I recommended, right? Possibly the best options would be omission or replacement, but that is an open question just now.
Again, can you enlighten me and give me an example of what it should look like in your "humble" opinion? As I've said before, I really have a hard time understanding your points. You seem to have a problem with a scientific article trying to explain things, but I am having a hard time understanding what you are talking about. You know the saying people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones? Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Skip a few items in the FLC for now, since you don't seem to like text walls, however attractive...
What are you talking about Mr Babble? Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Structure." This could be embarrassing. "Easy to navigate? Section headings?" For an article of this size it is hard to read, never mind navigate. It doesn't have any section headings. Yes, certainly there are lines in section heading format all right, but they don't match what appears in the "sections", and much of what does appear in the "sections" does not clearly belong in the notional section topic and is incoherent. Again, I did suggest some improvements. You are welcome to ignore those proposals of course, but if you don't do something of your own, something at least as radical as those suggestions, and equally calculated to improve the current status, I don't know why you are bothering with editing at all, let alone FLCs. As things stand, the article hardly earns its WP space, let alone FLC nomination.
"Style etc." Yer. Riiight.
Again, this is a list not an article. Quote from FL?: "and includes, where helpful, section headings" you seem to have a hard time understanding the "where helpful part"; it is surprising, considering you seem to be so full of opinions that you have a hard time explaining, that you seem to have a really hard time understanding a 15 word sentence. Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.... More elisions
"Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars..." I hadn't previously looked at this article, but in response to this point I did take a look at the history. Fortunately I forgot what I saw there, so I shall not ask myself any embarrassing questions about that, because I had made no suggestions on the subject and hope that I never need to.
Well, if people would have a brain and use it to communicate and not just throw farts around, then this (and wikipedia in general) would be a very peaceful place. Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Are you getting the picture now? Since I do actually have other matters on my hands, please this time try to make some sense of what you have written and then of what some other folks have written before asking again. Then ask again. JonRichfield (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't understand what are you suggesting. You have a problem? Then you should probably check out some of the instructions at for reviewers like you: To oppose a nomination, write Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it... Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. So again, what are your specific objections? Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for FLC directors. The opinion of the editor above seem to be summarized in his words at: "As things stand, the article hardly earns its WP space, let alone FLC nomination... Yer. Riiight." Nergaal (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 77.57.25.250

Couple of issues:

  • Splitting terrestrial/gas giant based on mass values is utterly misleading, it isn't supported by the evidence from actual exoplanetary discoveries. E.g. consider Kepler-10b vs KOI-314c. Yes I know Planetary Habitability Laboratory does this but that website is so full of unfounded speculation and bogus values that it should not be considered a reliable source.
That was not intended to be misleading. The point is to have some sort of categorization among the 60+ entries. Any ideas how to fix that? Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in my comments below, I think this is not an easily fixed problem. It's a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that we reflect reliable sources and don't do original research. If there isn't a categorization that is well-supported by reliable secondary sources, then we can't categorize, full stop. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you think I should remove that table altogether? Nergaal (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Systems visible to the naked eye" - to be pedantic, the system is not visible though the host star(s?) may be.
At night people say that they see a car passing by, not some headlights. Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

77.57.25.250 (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if I see Pollux, I say I've seen a star, not the Pollux system. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the categories. The table should not be viewed as a categorization but as a data binning as used in a histogram. In the comment by 77.57.25.250 the Kepler-10b is presumably meant to be Kepler-10c - a Neptune-mass rocky planet. This page is getting difficult to follow with comments being inserted into the middle of other people's comments. Astredita (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, glad this is resolved. Actually the comparison was definitely intended to be Kepler-10b: a 3-Earth-masses terrestrial versus the Earth-mass gas dwarf KOI-314c. Kepler-10c is not such a good contrast because of the relatively high volatile fraction (5-20% by mass), which is orders of magnitudes larger than a terrestrial planet. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peter coxhead

Generally I agree with the central point of JonRichfield's comments. The lead section is supposed to summarize the article; basically there shouldn't be any new information there. It doesn't.

Why am I having such a hard time getting myself understood. STOP quoting guidelines and give me SPECIFIC examples. I totally agree with following guidelines, but can you please show where exactly the text does not follow guidelines? Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are not reading what Jon wrote. He explained very clearly. This is a list article. The lead section should summarize the content, i.e. the list, not go into complex details.
@Peter coxhead: And could you please list these "complex details"? Nergaal (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the purpose of this list, an exoplanet is regarded as ... – the article also seems to be based on significant original research. Wikipedia doesn't decide what an exoplanet it; it just reports what reliable (secondary) sources say. I certainly can't support it as a featured list. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the continuation to that is "as unconfirmed when there is only a single (primary) report which presents its discovery, but there are no follow-up papers discussing their existence." Can you please tell me what is wrong with the sentence and not with part of it? Did you even read the section? The list DOES NOT DECIDE WHAT IS AN EXOPLANET and what that section is saying is that the unconfirmed planets don't get confirmed through an official process. For example, in order for a new element to be officially confirmed, a specific agency WAITS to see that other people observe the same thing, and only after that accept it; by parallel, if there was an agency accepting official claims for planets, they would wait more than a single report of a planet. Since you obviously did not go through the list before expressing your opinion, there are a couple of planets reported in 2014 alone, and these have only received a single primary report. In science, unbeknown to you, reviews can take even years, so if there is somebody out there that already has the data to prove that these claims are wrong, he will take several years to write the report and get it accepted in a journal and by the research community.

Now, for the purpose of keeping this away from turing into some bashing, can you and other future reviewers please explain how to IMPROVE the current text with specific examples of problems and sensible solutions? Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be interested in constructive discussion, unfortunately, so I'll stop after this attempt. The continuation of the sentence (which of course I'd read) doesn't alter my opinion that it's OR. If there is only a single primary report, why is the item present in the list at all? If I put "citation needed" after your there are no follow-up papers discussing their existence, what reference will you add to support this statement? Answer: there isn't one. Why? Answer: because it's your statement that there are no follow-up papers, not that of a source. I know perfectly well how long it takes for there to be reliable reviews in secondary sources, but if there are no secondary sources supporting the existence of a particular exoplanet, why is it listed in the article? Answer: because you (not a referenced secondary source) decided that "unconfirmed" as applied to an exoplanet means "I know of only a single (primary) report which presents its discovery, and no follow-up papers discussing its existence". I quote from WP:OR "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." You are interpreting primary source material – a single report with no follow up – as meaning that you can list the exoplanet as "unconfirmed". Again from WP:OR, including the bold text: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." You are are doing precisely what is proscribed there unless there is a reliable secondary source that lists exoplanets as "unconfirmed" on these criteria.
ACTUALLY if you would have bothered to check a single reference from the table you would have seen that those are links to databases, that THEMSELVES list all the papers that have been published on each item in the table. There are currently 6 items listed under this category and since you seem lazy to check them out here are the direct links to the references supporting the statement made in the body of this list: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Nergaal (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You ask what to do. The answer is (a) ensure that the lists presented in the article are taken from reliable secondary sources, removing entries that are not (b) as JonRichfield suggests, take out all the text which does not directly relate to the lists. Of course you need to include a brief account of the criteria employed by the reliable sources from which you took the list(s), but it should only be brief, with links to other articles where readers may need more explanation. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a) If you doubt the reliability of the sources the please be specific in which are these that you consider unreliable; had you paid any attention to the discussion in the talkpage you would have noticed that discussion on such entries did exist, and the sentence ending in "have been widely disproven since, as was the case for Teegarden's star and VB 10" is a direct result of that. b) Again, please tell me specifically and explicitly which text does not relate to the list. Nergaal (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JR2: Is this what you want?

@Nergaal: Choose the action and you choose the consequences. Get snitty, and you needn't expect much sympathy. Ignore counsel, and soon there is not much use asking for comments, much less sympathy. Let's get back to basics and forget whatever was getting up our respective and collective noses. This will require flexibility as well as restraint on both sides.

So let me try another tack. You said in effect "...less guidelining, more specific examples..." right? In my wall of text that you dismissed unread as unreadable, I told you precisely what to do; twice, counting what I, in my innocence, said on the talk page. A good start on your part would be to go through it systematically, apply the recommendations and see what you get. Then add any changes or improvements that occur to you, run it up the flagpole and count the salutes.

@JonRichfield: Ok, I am going to repeat my previous thought: you seem to complain about the text that is not about the article, yet your "wall of text" doesn't seem to be much more than blabbering. Try bullet points as specific examples and you will see that that "wall of text" of yours doesn't say much about the actual article. Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that sounds too much like hard work, let me know and I'll do it for you (I have no difficulty reading what I wrote!) You need not of course commit to my changes, much less acknowledge them; I would recommend if you do take me up on it, that you most certainly make sure that you carry on after I have done, till you like the product; you won't wound my feelings, for sure! I have refrained so far, partly because this is not my subject, but largely because it is not often a good idea to fiddle with someone else's article (yes, yes, I know about possessiveness with articles!) while an RFC or other debate is under way.

I don't care about having people actually working on the article. The only think I had a problem with was dumbing this article to a level where it looked incredibly "unprofessional" and more of a joke. If you have constructive suggestions I will be the first one to take them into consideration. Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, and IMO, much better, see whether you can put up with another wall of text, but read and interpret it before continuing:

This "article" is a list article. The text should include a lede saying what it is about, not explaining the technology, history and politics etc. If your lede is more than say... three lines long, polish and prune it. Not because anyone round here can't understand long sentences, but because that will be good evidence that you are talking about stuff that doesn't belong in this article.
Please show me a featured article that has a lead 3-lines long. Currently, the lead is mean to be (from my perspective) a summary of that long table below. Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the body of the article (not counting the actual lists of course; I haven't checked them in detail, but I expect that they are OK) you can give a very brief explanation of the criteria. Not the technology; that belongs in the main article, together with a few cross-links where they would be helpful. You might want a few footnotes to some of the table entries, but avoid them whenever a link would be equally useful.
The section you are talking about has nothing to do with the technology, and only mentions an artifact of the technology that influences the quality of the data listed, and therefore the quality of the assignments. (I.e.: criteria is below a threshold, artifact yields an error in the order of magnitude of the threshold) Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Either before or after the lists (suit yourself, but I think after hath its charms), put a section comprising mainly a (possibly annotated) list of links to related articles, covering ALL the tech stuff you want in this list article, apart from what is in the list, If you feel like including a suitable list of list articles at this point, go ahead, but that is not the main point of that section.
I don't fully agree with this rationale, but I've added a link to the detection methods in the see also section. Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You will find that you wind up with a lot of material missing, material that you and the users either need, or would like to have covered. For each such item create links to the articles that cover that information, or if they SHOULD cover it but do not, YOU go there and add it (in proper context of course!) till all your links are functional. JonRichfield (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I am not aware of ANY material missing, otherwise I would have not brought it here at FLC. One of the points of a FLC is that reviewers bring to attention different perspectives and give specific opinions/examples, not "feelings", where is the text lacking, and explicitly and specifically what is missing. "You will find that..." is IMO a synonym of "I have a feeling of something missing but I don't know what and/or don't bother me with asking for more explicit, specific details because I am too important to be bothered by such trivial activities." Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate's comment - I will shortly be archiving this nomination as unsuccessful (it has, after all, been over two months), but it disturbs me greatly that there is so little understanding of what a featured list is here. A featured list is a list of a certain kind of thing and/or aspects of a thing, which is long enough to stand on its own and not be merged into a parent article, if any. This list portion (the "article" proper) is supported by a lead which introduces the topic, highlights key points found within the list itself, and defines the inclusion criteria and other list-related things, if necessary. This article (at least, this version) does so admirably. It defines the term exoplanet, indicates highlights and trends which are readily visible from the list itself (i.e. prosifies content already cited in the list), and defines the scope. I'd trim a bit, personally, but that's me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 06:51, 1 September 2014 [8].

Timeline of the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 1995 Atlantic hurricane season was the third most active season in recorded history. With a large number of tropical cyclones, impact was widespread and there were some interesting systems. Felix threatened the East Coast of the United States once and Bermuda twice. Luis was a strong hurricane that brought destruction to the Lesser Antilles that rivaled Hurricane Hugo. Marilyn dealt similar amounts of damage to the Lesser Antilles as Luis. Opal brought severe impact to the Gulf Coast of the United States. Finally, Roxanne's bizarre path in the Gulf of Mexico allowed the storm to produce extensive flooding in Mexico. Personally, I believe this timeline satisfies the requirements of a featured list. Enjoy!--12george1 (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from Golbez (talk):
    • "Although Hurricane Allison formed on June 2, 1995,[3] the season officially began on June 1" This is an odd construction, is it common in the featured hurricane timeline articles? It seems better to just say "The season officially began on June 1, with the first named storm forming just the next day" or something. --Golbez (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from TropicalAnalystwx13:
    • Hurricane season begins and ends at 4z, not 0z.
    • "Tropical Storm Allison intensifies into a Category 1 hurricane. Simultaneously, Allison additionally attains peak intensity with winds of 75 mph (120 km/h) and a minimum barometric pressure of 987 mbar (29.1 inHg)." - you could combine these two sentences (and other instances throughout the timeline) for better flow.
    • "Tropical Storm Allison makes another landfall near Saint Marks, Florida with winds of 65 mph (105 km/h)." - could we use numbers for clarity? This is the second landfall.
    • Nothing important, but try to be consistent with wording. If you use "area of low pressure", use that for all of them. Also, no need to say it formed from a tropical wave. It formed from a low that developed along the wave axis.
    • We need a lot more reference points. You can take the latitude and longitude values as provided by the preliminary reports, plug them into Google Earth, and get distances relative to specific cities to add to the timeline.

TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Failed_log/September_2014&oldid=623674781"