Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2014

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of colleges and universities in Delaware[edit]

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

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)[reply]


List of plantations in West Virginia[edit]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • I'd like to keep it, so I've added the symbols to each row. -- Caponer (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • You don't need access dates on real book souces- unlike websites, they don't change
--PresN 03:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PresN, have I properly addressed all your above concerns? -- Caponer (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Ruby2010, thanks again! Did I address all your above concerns properly? -- Caponer (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Cirt (addressed) — Cirt (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Okay, great, no rush, keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]


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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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 SchroCat 10:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2013[edit]

Nominator(s): Simon (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I think this list is appropriate for being a featured list. Simon (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not a fork because this has much more information and highlights about number-one singles only in 2013, while the list of 2010s does not include this. Also I have added several third-party sources — Simon (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject" - the subject being Hot 100 number-one singles, so the decade and individual year lists will always be content forks of each other. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is indeed meticulously cited, nice job so far by HĐ, however as to the quality of the sources themselves, I think it likely that third-party-sources exist for this info. Are the current sources satisfactory for WP:RS and WP:V? Yes. But still it could only help to improve the page further to buttress those with additional third-party-sources, as well. As far as the existence of the list page itself in relation to List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s, as mentioned above by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, I think I'd like to hear from additional editors about that element, before weighing in further on that issue. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WikiRedactor
  • I agree that it would be nice to more sources outside of Billboard; I see they're are some that are from other websites, but I'd like to see more.
    • I have currently provided more third party sources, and there are now four — Simon (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to see the dates written out in the citations, as opposed to the current number abbreviations in the article.
    • Per MOS:DATEUNIFY, dates can be formatted as YYYY-MM-DD and there's nothing wrong with that — Simon (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add Prometheus Global Media as the publisher for all of the Billboard sources (same with Hearst Corporation for Digital Spy.) WikiRedactor (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The publishers are not really necessary here and are repetitive. Nothing wrong with that — Simon (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a problem (since some of my suggestions appeared to be just personal preferences), and the content is all in order, so I will support this nomination. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:30, 6 February 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.

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

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  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC) diff.[reply]


Nominator(s): MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked really hard on this article to be a stand out above others. Besides this, I belive Bruno Mars and all his fans deserve this, despite so far having a short career the nominations and awards have been plenty regarding hsi music skills and achievements. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments to get you up and running - a lot to do here.
  • Don't unnecessarily bold parts of the lead just to get a bold intro.
  • Check WP:LEAD for length recommendations for this article.
  • Ensure your numbers add up, the number of noms/awards in the lead isn't the same as the info box.
  • Check MOS:NUM and avoid mixing number formats, e.g. " received 8 nominations and won 2 award, one" should be " received eight nominations and won two awards, one"
  • The intros to each award contain unreferenced material.
  • Is ASCAP really a "company"?
  • Tables need to comply with MOS:DTT for row and col scopes.
  • Is it "pending" or "TBA"? Be consistent.
  • Ensure article complies with WP:DASH i.e. avoid spaced hyphens, use en-dash.
    • Done. Should I put in refs too? Do the awards need too? For example: Producer of the year - non clssical? I can't put in "Doo-Wops & Hooligans" album because it won't redirect to the article.
  • Ensure date formats in references are consistent.
  • Make sure works are in italics e.g. Daily Mail.
  • Avoid SHOUTING in refs.
  • Make sure refs are fully formatted, i.e. have publisher information, access and publication dates etc.

Suggest this is withdrawn until the fundamental issues noted are resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have struck suggestion to withdraw, but haven't got time to re-review yet, it looks improved however. Sorry I didn't get back here, it appears I didn't add it to my watch list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delegate's note: this nomination was archived, but owing to issues with the bot closure appears to be taking longer than usual. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 23 March 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 not promoted by SchroCat 10:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC) [2].[reply]

List of songs written by Bonnie McKee[edit]

Nominator(s): Samjohnzon (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. The list contains table-sorting facilities and is very easy to navigate, contains images and is a stable article. Samjohnzon (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Her debut single "American Girl" was released in 2013—but the table lists "Trouble" and "Somebody" from Trouble (2004) as singles?
  • You don't need the refs in the lead and the photo-captions for stuff that is referenced in the table. Remove them.
  • She was named Rolling Stone's "Best Secret Weapon" in 2011—this sentence makes it seem like an official, major honour ("she won for Best Album at the Grammys), when it's likely just an off-the-cuff remark.
  • McKee is perhaps best known for collaborating with fellow singer-songwriter Katy Perry—the cite at the end doesn't seem to back this up. I also think it's a bit much to call Perry a "singer-songwriter"; it makes it seem that she is in the mould of McKee.
  • "Thanks For Nothing" → "Thanks for Nothing". Audit for similar throughout per the rules of MOS:CT.
  • Decapitalise the all-caps titles in the references per MOS:CT. The "(Legal work)" is also unnecessary.
  • I urge you to use WebCite or something to create a backup of your BMI refs, just in case they change their URLs suddenly (it's happened in the past with several industry websites).
  • Some of the refs are missing publisher name; some are wrongly name "BMI | Repertoire Search". Please audit all your references for errors.
  • Not a fan of the separate table for the chart toppers; mostly a redundancy. Instead I suggest two things, choose either: a) list UK and US chart positions for all the songs in the main table or b) create a hat-note or symbol for the chart-toppers (separate ones for UK and US).
  • Those three notes right at the bottom need a better home, and also should be alphabetised instead of numbered to prevent confusing with the ref nos. I suggest doing what I did at List of current Indian chief ministers (see below the main table).
  • In the "Contents" you should remove the alphabets with no entries; "0-9" and "N", for eg.
  • The "Indicates songs written solely by McKee" symbol is unnecessary IMO. That she wrote it solely is self-evident from seeing her name alone. Also it seems to only apply to her Trouble songs.
  • "Indicates promotional single release" should be replaced by a hatnote since it's a single occurrence.

Lots of niggling problems, but no biggies as far I can see. Once these are resolved I look forward to supporting.—(locked-out) User:Indopug 122.172.11.178 (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Should have fixed all of these problems now, thanks for the feedback. Samjohnzon (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'll take another look in detail and give my support after the weekend. Indopug 122.172.46.163 (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I forgot about this. One last thing: you haven't added a source that verifies the songs that topped the charts.—indopug (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support once the above comment is taken care of.—indopug (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is quite well referenced throughout, and also has great tabular presentation and formatting that looks high quality to me as compared with previous Featured Lists. One small issue with this particular one: the notes at the end of the list, the four last notes at the end of the subsection Songs, should be contained in their own separate subsection called Footnotes. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • No need for that bold start in the lead, certainly no reason to have bold links.
  • Image captions which are not complete sentences do not need to take a full stop.
  • No need to repeat McKee three times in the first three sentences.
  • "McKee is well known for co-writing" this sounds like an opinion without a reference.
  • ""Dynamite" became the second-best-selling song by a British artist in the digital era." is this claim referenced?
  • Notes are typically referenced if they make claims which aren't referenced elsewhere.
  • Check ref titles for WP:DASH compliance.
  • Avoid SHOUTING in ref titles.
  • Check refs have publisher information, e.g. check ref 37 for instance.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of these with the exception of:
  • ""Dynamite" became the second-best-selling song by a British artist in the digital era." is this claim referenced?
  • Notes are typically referenced if they make claims which aren't referenced elsewhere.
  • Check ref titles for WP:DASH compliance.
  • Check refs have publisher information, e.g. check ref 37 for instance.
I'll leave these for the nominator who likely has more knowledge of the subject than I do. Gloss • talk 21:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • I'd lead in with the 50+ credits and move the number of number ones to later one (probably just a straight switch). You want to define your scope clearly from the outset and then move on to more specific information; as is the opening sentence sets up expectations of a very brief list.
  • I'm not convinced the table needs indicators for number one singles; this can easily be set up either in the lead, in referenced captions along the side (for example, the Katy Perry one could be expanded with a list of which five, followed by a ref; this would also fill up a little more white space). As we have it, it just seems odd to focus so up-front on only two markets.
  • Where has this woman been all my life?
  • Consider alt text for your images to better comply with WP:ACCESS.
  • "Eight of these have topped either the British or the American charts" -> I'd explicitly mention and link the UK Singles Chart and Billboard Hot 100 here
  • "In 2012, McKee co-wrote three songs on Adam Lambert's album Trespassing and two songs for Ke$ha's album Warrior, "C'Mon" and "Supernatural", the former of which served as the second single from the record." -> Overly long. Best bet might be to name the Lambert songs, end sentence, start a new one for the Kesha songs.
  • ""Dynamite" became the second-best-selling song by a British artist in the digital era." -> Big claim, needs a ref. Might also be worth clarifying what the "digital era" is (given that compact discs are digital media, is this from the mid-80s on, or is this from the advent of downloads in chart figures, or somewhere in between?)
  • There are songs in the table with no artist or album, which I assume are just owned by a label until they're assigned to an artist; it might be worth clarifying this situation in the lead (it'd be more valuable as information than, say, what song was a single from which album).
  • There's a few instances of refs preceded by an unnecessary space.
  • I've never seen the point of alphabetical anchors in a sortable table, but that's just aesthetic on my part really.
  • Not sure it's optimal to have "N/A" sort in the midst of real entries; would it combine with {{sort}} to be shunted off to the end? If not, don't worry about it.
  • If "BMI" is Broadcast Music, Inc., pipe it.
  • Remember that the lead and table are due to date soon; information on the new album should be incorporated as soon as it can be reliably sourced.
GRAPPLE X 05:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also question whether it is really necessary at all to indicate which songs were number ones in the US and the UK. Why just those two nations? For example, "Let There Be Love" apparently topped the US Hot Dance Club Songs chart, and "Ooh La La" was number one in South Korea. Wouldn't that make them "number-one singles"? That's just my initial thought about this list, I'll give a fuller review when I have the time. Overall, it seems to look pretty good. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the claim about "Dynamite" by Taio Cruz seems to be based on this source. Although it doesn't specifically say, I think these figures relate to America only, not the whole world, so that should be made clear. Also it seems to relate to "the Nielsen SoundScan era", which is probably not exactly the same thing as "the digital era", whatever that is...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This nomination is pushing two months old. Please deal with the comments as soon as possible, or the nomination may be archived. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 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 not promoted by Crisco 1492 11:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC) [3].

Jared Leto filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I have recently completely updated and improved the article according to WP:FILMOGRAPHY. Earthh (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's not a single reference outside the lead. That means that there's nothing to support any of the information in any of the lists. Have a look at List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan for an FLC on a similar topic to see how the information is supported by reliable sources. That's why there is a column provided for sources in the example at WP:FILMOGRAPHY. - SchroCat (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list you cited is not a filmography. This article meets the criteria at WP:FILMOGRAPHY; if you read it, the Source column is an optional field that is to be used when a work may be obscure or difficult to confirm. A film in which an actor starred does not need to be sourced. Take a look at other featured lists such as Clint Eastwood filmography, Christopher Walken filmography, Robert Bathurst filmography or Vittorio Storaro filmography; they do not need sources for films they starred or directed, unless it is a work obscure or difficult to confirm.--Earthh (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your advice. I've just added the filmography from the New York Times as a source. I've also added single sources for uncredited parts and other credits which the NYT does not list.--Earthh (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my reply above; a film in which an actor starred does not need to be sourced (see WP:FILMOGRAPHY).--Earthh (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourced the whole article.--Earthh (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). I see some valiant effort on improving sourcing throughout the entire article has been made by Earthh after the above comments were made by SchroCat and ChrisTheDude. See changes made by Earthh, at DIFF. Also, as a side observation, no idea why this particular page seems to be the subject of incoming vandalism from apparent odd user accounts and IPs. I think I'll hold back from commenting further here until SchroCat and ChrisTheDude have had another chance to reevaluate the page since the improvements made by Earthh. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Humblest apologies, I completely forgot that I'd commented here. I'll try and have another look over it in the next few days..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries, ChrisTheDude, keep us posted. And Earthh, if I myself also forget to revisit, feel free to remind me with a ping or post to my user talk page. — Cirt (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the current ref 23 (used in the TV table) does not support the specific episodes of "Camp Wilder", "My So-Called Life" or "Almost Home" that he was in. It also seems to have a couple of roles not listed here...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The specific episodes of the television series are sourced by IMDb, it's the only source available (if you don't consider tv.com, tvguide.com or tvrage.com). Those not included are not acting roles, they're appearances in variety shows.--Earthh (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note: This nomination has been archived. It may take several days for the bot to pass through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 8 February 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.

List of AO-rated video games[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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

  • 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)[reply]

Comments

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose I have to agree with Red Phoenix here about 3a. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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 SchroCat 10:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC) [4].[reply]

List of heads of state and government by net worth[edit]

Nominator(s): The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because It was previously nominated for GA by another editor and that was removed with the person stating it should be a FL and I believe that it fulfills the requirements, it just needs a clean-up of the references. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose:
    • What's the cutoff? Why go as far as Rousseff but no further? Is the lack of anyone else because they are worth less than half a million, or because there's no sourcing for them?
    • A few in the 'former' section have no years attached. And, again, what's the criteria for exclusion/incluson? It includes dead people, so how long are they to remain on the list? Why not, for example, Ronald Reagan, who according to the linked article was worth $13 million? Why do a few (like Clinton, Carter, and Marcos) have multiple two values? Why is Imelda Marcos listed, despite not being a head of government or state? If her, why not Nestor Kirchener, or Hillary Clinton, or even Jacqueline Onassis?
  • This article seems to have fundamental issues with its scope. --Golbez (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Major issues. The inclusion criteria seems to be random (why nobody between .5 million and 700 million?) and the net worth column doesn't even sort properly...Mattximus (talk)
  • Oppose In addition to the above, the lead is not descriptive of the article whatsoever, just giving the limitations of comparison. How do I know the list is comprehensive for the ungiven cutoff? I am quite certain that Singapore's PM, who makes $1.7mil/year, his predecessors, and its president should be on the list, and I'd expect several other leaders to be included as well. I don't know why Bill Clinton's 2007 worth should be listed when he left office in 2001, or Carter's 2011. Reywas92Talk 05:27, 23 January 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 not promoted by SchroCat 10:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC) [5].[reply]

List of Minnesota Timberwolves head coaches[edit]

Nominator(s): --K.Annoyomous (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I've nominated an FLC! More than two years! It's great to finally be able to edit again. Anyways, back to the process. I am nominating this list because it first off meets the WIAFL, and is consistent with other NBA head coaches lists. I am also nominating this for FL because I need to finish what I started, and actually complete the NBA head coaches topic so that I can nominate that for FT. If there has been changes to the process or if there is anything I need to be updated on, please let me know. Thanks in advance! --K.Annoyomous (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rejectwater

Resolved comments from Rejectwater
*Tables must comply with WP:ACCESS. See MOS:DTT for help with this.
    • Head coaches table are missing row scopes. Neither table has a caption (I imagine it easy to believe captions are unneccessary in this case, however the policy does not leave room for exceptions). Rejectwater (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image alts. See WP:ALT, especially the Bush/Blair and Queen Elizabeth examples.
    • Alts are vastly improved, however I find it hard to believe the image of Flip Saunders was chosen due to it showing him biting his pen. Rejectwater (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the playoffs columns sort properly due to most cells use ndash to signify n/a. Replace ndash with {{sort dash}} to correct this.
  • Ndash, does not apply, is not in key table. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kevin McHale is listed twice, once for each term. Negates the usefulness of a sortable table.
    • I used the MLB managers lists format and created a separate section just for head coaches with multiple tenures. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand why you did that. It's redundant and unneccessary. Why not just list McHale in the main table on one line? Rejectwater (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That will inhibit the readers to clearly see the chronology of the position. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening paragraph of the lead reads like a list of trivia. Should focus on the topic at hand.
    • I rewrote some of the lead. Sorry to be a bummer, but there really isn't much I can add onto the lead. I made the lead look less trivial, but other than that, nothing much has changed. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The size of the lead is appropriate to the article (I wouldn't object to it being longer, and believe it could be, but I think it is adequate in size). The content of much of the first paragraph, however, is outside the scope. Delete everything from "The team was one of two..." through "David Kahn is their general manager." Replace it with a description of what a Minnesota Timberwolves coach is and what they are responsible for. See WP:LEAD: "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Rejectwater (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I couldn't find a suitable definition of a head coach for the article. The description of the position varies across mediums. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2013 (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/February_2014&oldid=607556928"