Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/May 2010
- 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, 19 May 2010 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list removal reassessment because, in its previous FL state it was incomplete and out-of-date. It had no info on the band's music videos, no chart positions, too many extraneous "comments" sections, still discussed their 2008 album as "upcoming", and made no mention of the recently-released compilation album It's Been a Long Day. Now, I've solved most of these problems, but since that involved a top-to-bottom rewrite I feel that its FL status needs to be reassessed. If the new article maintains FL status, great, but there may be reasons why it might not. For example, there are redlinks (not too much of a problem, I'll probably create the articles soon) and I couldn't find a non-Youtube source for the "I Know You Love Me" video or the names of any of the videos' directors. These could be solveable problems, but I'd like a reviewer to decide if they impact the article's status. IllaZilla (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From a preliminary glance, the list seems to be alright (consider it to be in keep territory), apart from a few style niggles. However, I don't think this is the best place to have a "reassessment", as FLRC is not frequented often. You would be better off taking this to peer review, where the list is guaranteed to get at least one review. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2010 (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 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 20:59, 6 May 2010 [2].
- Notified: User:Digirami
I am nominating this for featured list removal because many of the feautures on this list are outdated, wrong, or simply redundant in nature. As wikipedians, we have to stride to constant updates to make things simpler and better. This list does not meet the requirements noted but of those with personal wants. I have presented a prototype as an update but it keeps getting shunned by other editors who simply would like to disagree with me regardless of the many contributions I have made. Jamen Somasu (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep as an disruptive nomination. The nominator is in a dispute and is using several processes including WP:ARBCOM, WP:SPI and now WP:FLRC abusively. This is getting disruptive and if the nominator keeps up this editing pattern he will be blocked. Rettetast (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - This is not a serious nomination. The nominator is simply bitter at having his suggestions rejected by the community. – PeeJay 20:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep since this is the latest in a series of actions by the nominator as disruptive and unfounded. The list design hasn't changed since it became a featured list, there is no good basis to remove it's status. Digirami (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2010 (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 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 removed by Dabomb87 02:29, 6 May 2010 [3].
- Notified: WP:NHL, User:FutureNJGov — KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it doesn't meet the current criteria. Not sure if it can be brought up to standards, but I would love to see it improved. Major concerns include no lead image, only a one-paragraph lead (a list this long should have three to four paragraphs of this length), the format of the opening sentence (and the second, single-sentence paragraph, which isn't necessary). There's inconsistency in the formatting of the notes: some are complete sentences, and punctuated thus. Others are fragments, but some are punctuated properly and some are not. Every row should have a similar format. I would personally prefer to see references moved into their own column. The images are too small to be of any use to the article. The column widths appear to be the reason that the images can't be made larger. The notes column should not be sortable. For that matter, I don't see what purpose sorting by first name has, because of the piped links. The format of this list could be greatly improved to be more in line with the criteria for aesthetics. There is at least one note that is not referenced. The blacklinks for duplicated names which are much further down in the article than their original occurrence should be linked again. The reference section should never be enclosed in a scrolling box per MOS, and there are several sources of questionable provenance, as well as some deadlinks. Shockingly, this list is also tagged as being "incomplete" at the bottom. In sum, the current version fails the following criteria:
- Criterion 1 (professional standards of writing): the lead contains quite a bit of informal language in addition to the issues mentioned above;
- Criterion 2 (lead): the lead is not long enough and doesn't summarize the list;
- Criterion 3a (comprehensiveness): if the list is truly incomplete, then it needs to be completed. If it cannot be, then that needs to be indicated;
- Criterion 4 (structure): in my opinion, the structure of this list with the piped name links makes it very hard to navigate;
- Criterion 5 (MOS): reference scroll box, as well as improper use of bold text.
In addition, the questionable sources make it unable to meet (at this time) one of the "requirements for all Wikipedia content". I'm also concerned about the abbreviation in the name, but that's minor. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove Apart from a short lead, it doesn't justify why family bonds in NHL are as relevant as to justify a list. Talking of contrived conjectures, could there equally be a List of relations in the European Parliament? Sandman888 (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove – Lead needs quite a bit of work, including cites for anything not covered in the many table notes. In addition, I see some of the same structure flaws that KV5 does, the microscopic photos in particular. There are also a few disambiguation links, along with loads of dead reference links (over 40 at least). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:55, 23 April 2010 (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 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 removed by Dabomb87 02:29, 6 May 2010 [4].
Notified: Skully Collins, WikiProject Motorsport, and WikiProject Formula One
This FL from late 2006 has serious sourcing problems that cause it to fail modern criteria. There isn't an inline reference to be found, which surely leaves much of the lead and notes uncited. The general references leave something to be desired; of the four, the only one that appears to cover the list as a whole is the F1Complete link, which is dead and may not be reliable anyway (not sure how much the book covers). The lead could also stand to be improved; it has the old "This is a list of...", and feels like it could be expanded (the absence of the name Aryton Senna amazes me). A couple sorting issues exist (drivers sort by first name, not last, and the track Osterreichring doesn't sort in the right order), but otherwise the main table itself looks nice. Without better sourcing, however, it's not enough to meet 2010 FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have archives that go back quite a way so I'll see if I can add some references to a lot of these. Readro (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Work on addressing the sourcing continues (over 70% of the list is now inline referenced), which should also allow us to drop less reliable sources such as F1Complete. The sorting issues should all be addressed (drivers sort by last name and the Osterreichring now goes in the correct place). AlexJ (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent work. Could we have in-line citations for the notes as well? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be fairly easy, although I'm pretty sure that in all the ones I added, the source covered the note as well as the table text. Is it worth repeating the same citation in the footnotes, or would it be better to merge the notes into the table? AlexJ (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Typically we'd expect notes of such detail to be cited individually. If you consider you could merge the notes back into the table elegantly enough then I'd pursue that approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be fairly easy, although I'm pretty sure that in all the ones I added, the source covered the note as well as the table text. Is it worth repeating the same citation in the footnotes, or would it be better to merge the notes into the table? AlexJ (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent work. Could we have in-line citations for the notes as well? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Work on addressing the sourcing continues (over 70% of the list is now inline referenced), which should also allow us to drop less reliable sources such as F1Complete. The sorting issues should all be addressed (drivers sort by last name and the Osterreichring now goes in the correct place). AlexJ (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got a book by Yates, Brock W. ( "The Indianapolis 500: The Story of the Motor Speedway." Harper and Brothers: New York. 1956. ) I picked up at an antique shop and will try to fill in more for the U.S. Indy 500 deaths. See Chet Miller. Do we want to add Carl Scarborough, who retired from the race and died shortly afterward from heat exhaustion? If so, that technicality needs to be added to the overall list. Guroadrunner (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It comes down to technicalities, as you say, but I don't believe that Scarborough can be described as having been in a fatal accident, and hence his omission from the list is correct IMO. AlexJ (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would add it as a comment in, perhaps, the lead but I think the scope of this list is those who died during a Formula One event, and perhaps Scarborough didn't quite match those criteria because it occurred after the event. A cited note would be a good thing though, and perhaps clarification of the inclusion criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the list is called List of Formula One fatal accidents, the scope is probably just accidents. Otherwise the naming is wrong. Readro (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would add it as a comment in, perhaps, the lead but I think the scope of this list is those who died during a Formula One event, and perhaps Scarborough didn't quite match those criteria because it occurred after the event. A cited note would be a good thing though, and perhaps clarification of the inclusion criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It comes down to technicalities, as you say, but I don't believe that Scarborough can be described as having been in a fatal accident, and hence his omission from the list is correct IMO. AlexJ (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of good changes have occured in the referencing department; one of the last inlines is in all caps, which should be removed from the cite, but otherwise things there are looking much better. The lead still needs some refurbishment, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as referencing goes, I own a copy of "The Complete Book of Formula One"(ISBN 9780760334560), so if you guys need me to look anything up and add references, let me know, preferably on my talk page because I'm likely to forget to come here. :) Matthewedwards : Chat 01:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove because of MOS violations and other issues:
- Whys is Forty-five drivers spelled out, while such numbers as 8, 4, and 9 are not? All single digits should be spelled out. Other numbers should be probably spelled out as well for consistency.
- No driver has suffered a fatal accident since 1994, making this the longest period in F1 history without a driver fatality Sorry, but the table includes two accidents from 2000 and 2002.
Ruslik_Zero 19:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the scope of this list, which will probably result in some considerable changes to the article one way or another. Suggest removing FL status and reapplying when the discussion is complete and the list restructured, or at least waiting a few days. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.