Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2014

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

List of colleges and universities in Delaware[edit]

Nominator(s): Caponer (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this list because it has been written and formatted according to the precedent set by previous featured lists of American colleges and universities: List of colleges and universities in Michigan, List of colleges and universities in Minnesota, List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, List of colleges and universities in South Dakota, etc. etc. Please review and provide guidance so that I may improve this article to FL status! -- Caponer (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

List of plantations in West Virginia[edit]

Nominator(s): Caponer (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this list because it gives an exhaustive listing of former plantations once operational in the present-day U.S. state of West Virginia, and provides a comprehensive introduction. The list also features images of the majority of the plantations accounted for. I am also nominating this list because I feel it meets most FL criteria and can easily be improved to meet the criteria not already achieved. -- Caponer (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Quick Comments - I didn't read the text yet, just skimmed for obvious problems
  • Lists shouldn't start with "this is a list of" any more than articles start with "this article is about"
  • Modified to conform with this suggestion. -- Caponer (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You can't use just color to differentiate things in a table- use dagger symbols or the like as well
  • Would it actually make more sense to remove the NRHP reference number column altogether, and just include the symbols in the name column? -- Caponer (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If you think the number is useful to have in the table, then just do symbols - like "03000346" for NHL, and "03000346" for NRHP. If you don't think the numbers are useful, just stick the symbols after the name and drop the column entirely. Your call. --PresN 04:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd like to keep it, so I've added the symbols to each row. -- Caponer (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Your table isn't sorting names that start with "the" correctly- see the {{sort}} template for a way to fix it
  • The notes column is completely empty- why is it there?
  • Removed. I had originally thought to place facts about each property in that column, but could not decide upon consistent content for each. -- Caponer (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You don't need access dates on real book souces- unlike websites, they don't change
  • Removed the access dates. -- Caponer (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
--PresN 03:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
PresN, have I properly addressed all your above concerns? -- Caponer (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Another quality, interesting article from Caponer, I see. :) One (easily remedied) concern I noticed is your long sentences, which could be split or at least injected with a semicolon to ease readability. I've included a few of these below, along with a few other minor issues:

  • Plantations initially developed in the counties lying within the Northern Neck Proprietary of Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron within the Shenandoah Valley and South Branch Potomac River valleys, carrying over the practice of slavery from the plantations of the Piedmont and Tidewater regions of Virginia, where plantations had become the foundation of society and industry -- can this be split at all? It's a bit long and consequently confusing.
  • The Washington family sentence is also long; it could do with another comma at least.
  • I've split this sentence up as well, thus moving the listing of plantations to its own sentence. -- Caponer (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You mention the American Civil War in the paragraph after the discussion of secession and statehood. This seems odd, especially for readers unfamiliar with the war or its dates. I recommend making this a bit more chronological.
  • The article is written in chronological order, but the link to ACW should definitely be moved up in the text, so I've moved the full link to the section discussing the Reorganized Government of Virginia. Good catch! -- Caponer (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You end the lead a bit abruptly with the ending of slavery. Could you add some more information on what became of some of the houses? Something like, "Since then, many of the plantation houses have acquired places on the National Register of Historic Places, an official list that includes sites, buildings, and structures deemed worthy of preservation..."? Also, who owns these houses? (are they largely privately owned still, or does the government have ownership now)? I realize some of this information might be difficult to find. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 15:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Ruby, thank you for suggestion an extension to the lead as it was quite abrupt. I've added a modified version of your suggested sentence, and have also added a sentence about many of the houses serving as private residences. I'm not sure what citation would go here, as this information is gleaned from the NRHP registration forms and the sources listed at the bottom of the page in the bibliography. Few, if any, are owned by a government entity, with the exception of the mansion at Blennerhassett Island Historical State Park, which was rebuilt by the state of West Virginia. Ruby, as always, thank you so entirely much for taking the time to review this list and to provide your incredibly valued guidance! It's always a pleasure working with you on Wikipedia! -- Caponer (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the speedy reply. Your changes look great, though I did make one small one and move the NRHP content to the end of the lead -- this just seems to fit better there (especially as you bring it all the way up to 2014). Also, it looked weird in the opening paragraph due to the lack of a transitioning sentence. I am happy to now support this list for promotion. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 00:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Ruby2010, thank you for your thoughtful suggestions and support! Should you have any additional suggestions in the meantime, please let me know and I'll incorporate them into the article ASAP. -- Caponer (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Ruby2010, thanks again! Did I address all your above concerns properly? -- Caponer (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, you did. The list looks great! Ruby 2010/2013 02:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Comments by Cirt (addressed) — Cirt (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments by Cirt
  • Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). A few comments to hopefully help improve the page's quality a bit:
  1. NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. Not sure what the standard is on using {{Dynamic list}} template at the top of Featured List pages. I'm not averse to it, whatsoever, just was curious what the current practice is on that.
  3. The lede intro sect has a total of eight (8) paragraphs. Per WP:LEAD, the lede intro sect should have a maximum of four (4) total paragraphs.
  4. The paragraphs in the lede intro sect are a bit short, some are one-sentence-long-paragraphs or two-sentence-long-paragraphs. Best to merge these if possible, to help deal with too many total paragraphs in lede sect, as noted, above.
  5. Please watch out for overusage of commas in lede sect, this can cause potential for run-on sentences, or if not run-on sentences then just sentences that are a bit too long in general, for the most part, and it might be a good idea in some of those cases to split up those sentences in two, of course retaining the relevant citations at the end of the relevant parts afterwards, and I think that will help with readability as well. :)
  6. There's a bit of empty white space after the Plantations subsection header. Perhaps using {{Clear}} would help fix this issue if placed at the end of the Key subsection.
  7. Per WP:LAYOUT, the See also sect should go above the References sect.
  8. See also sect could do with perhaps three to four more entries.
  9. References - suggest changing coding in sect from {{Reflist|2}} to instead be {{Reflist|33em}}.
  10. Would be nice to see a few more relevant external links added to the External links sect, if possible.
  11. Overall, very nice work, shouldn't be too hard to address above. Ping me or message me on my user talk page if I forget to revisit, please.
  12. NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Cirt (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Cirt, thank you for your review! I hope to have each of these addressed within a day or so. Stay tuned! -- Caponer (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, great, no rush, keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Cirt, I've finished addressing your above comments and suggestions. I've removed the dynamic list template from the top of the article, as this is a very comprehensive list completed after extensive research. Should another property that formerly functioned as a plantation be identified, it will be added. I've also removed unnecessary information from the lede, and after some reformatting, I was able to whittle it down from eight to four paragraphs. I've also added a clear template at the end of the "Key" subsection. "See also" has been moved above "References." I added National Register of Historic Places listings in West Virginia to the "See also" section. The references have been reformatted to {{Reflist|33em}}. I've also added West Virginia Division of Culture and History State Historic Preservation Office to the "External links" section. Thank you again for your very thoughtful and comprehensive review of this list, and please let me know if there are any outstanding issues to be addressed. -- Caponer (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I can now most comfortably Support this list page for Featured quality. My thanks to Caponer for responding so well to my recommendations. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

List of WWE personnel[edit]

Nominator(s): Vjmlhds 22:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... This list meets all qualifications for WP:FL status. It is well referenced, makes solid use of images, is concise, and is pretty much to the point of what it represents. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose: and suggesting a quick fail. This article strongly fails Wikipedia:Featured list criteria #6 which states: "It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process." - this article is constantly involved in edit wars, even making the news over being one of the biggest topics to spark edit wars on Wikipedia. Also changes day to day due to the obsession some editors have over listing wrestlers as "inactive" or not. Gloss • talk 22:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and suggest nominator withdraw. The instability in the edit history is very concerning. In addition, the lead is poorly referenced, and many of the references for the body are incomplete and/or poorly formatted - bare urls, incorrect capitalization, unreliable sources, etc. Dana boomer (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The nominator has withdrawn here. Gloss • talk 17:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Bruno Mars[edit]

List of AO-rated video games[edit]

Nominator(s): ViperSnake151  Talk  18:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a particularly notable subject; in line with the NC-17, its interesting to see that relatively few "mainstream" games have ever dared to receive an AO rating, and I bet you most people don't even realize there's something higher than M! I did a lot of cleanup lately, adding some more backstories, filling out references, adding a lead, etc. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Quick comments by Mattximus (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm not too impressed with the list itself. The note section only has a few notes, most have a dash, one is blank. Maybe a year column would benefit? What is the difference between "PC", "Windows", and "Windows PC"; all three are under that one column. You have a cancelled game, a game that was re-rated, there seems to be no real criteria for inclusion here. I'm confused.
  • These are all video games that were rated AO by the ESRB; how can the criteria for inclusion be any clearer? And I fixed up those formatting issues. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


  • I'd mention when the ESRB started, probably at the end of the first paragraph.
  • Might also be worth mentioning its equivalents in other countries, or that it's like NC-17, if you can find sources.
  • "was given the AO rating for its violent content, so much so that when its publisher" - 'so much so' what? It was rated so much? Sentence needs reworking.
  • Since the platform column is sortable, every instance of each term should be linked.
  • I'd add a release date (or at least release year) column, as well as a developer column.
  • You seem to have notes only on the non-sexual games- any way to get notes for the others, or would they all just be "digital nudity and explicit sex"?
  • The Joy of Sex should sort under J, not T.
  • If you add notes to the other games, you can drop the sorting on the notes column, since the result is arbitrary.

--PresN 05:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I fixed up the Thrill Kill mention, but I can't seem to find release years for those remaining AO games that are otherwise unremarkable and lacking notes (aside from Lula 3D; which I also got a chance to add to List of video games notable for negative reception as well). This table is sourced directly from the ESRB pages, which don't distinctly list developers or release years. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past...:

  • Tables need to comply with MOS:DTT and utilize column and row scopes.
  • Do we have any more info about the games? Usually lists of video games include title, developer, publisher, and year. I'm not pushy about needing a developer column since we have the publisher list, but I think a column with year of release would be helpful and necessary to make this a complete list. I can see PresN noted this, but I would say it's necessary to meet criteria 3a of WP:WIAFL. You may want to try using IGN or Allgame to fill in some of the information on some of these games.
  • Instead of having a ref next to the game title, it might be better to place it in a separate column since there are individual references for each title here and not one overarching reference. See List of Sega 32X games for a suggestion on how this might be accomplished, and would neaten up the title field.
  • Though not necessary, you may want to place {{portal}} in the See also section to add a link to the Video games Portal, which may be helpful for readers.
  • There's an extra ] next to the word Windows in the last paragraph of the lead.

Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 22:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Reiterating the need for release dates, or at least release years, especially for the blacklinked items. If the only source used does not contain them then it is not an adequate source for an FL, we'll need more. --Golbez (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no response from nominator or edits to article for a month regarding adding developer or release date to table; that you would have to find another source beyond the ESRB for those is not a valid excuse. --PresN 19:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is certainly useful, but valid concerns have indeed been raised above. I think the refs from the Title column should be moved instead to the Notes column, for uniformity with other FL quality list pages I've come across. Also, I've left a helpful reminder note about this ongoing discussion page at user talk for ViperSnake151. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have to agree with Red Phoenix here about 3a. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)