Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2014

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates | Failed log

List of Interstate Highways in Michigan

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 SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]


Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 02:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I present to you the list of Interstate Highways in Michigan. This is the first, of what I hope will be, a series of similar lists for the Michigan State Trunkline Highway System, and hopefully the first of several similar lists on highways in the U.S. The list used List of Interstate Highways in Texas as a starting point, but it uses specialized templates developed to implement WP:USRD/STDS/L, a project standard for lists of highways. We hope to use feedback from this nomination to improve both this list and the new list standard. Imzadi 1979 → 02:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I reviewed this at the ACR and feel that it meets all the FLC criteria and sets a model for what highway lists should look like. Dough4872 02:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I like it a lot, but a question: In the table cell for I-75, it says "only highway on both Upper & Lower peninsulas, only freeway in the Upper Peninsula". What is the difference between a highway and a freeway? To me they've been synonymous. If that's the case, then the first distinction is unnecessary. --Golbez (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The term freeway refers specifically to a controlled-access highway. -happy5214 18:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a wikilink might help... --Rschen7754 18:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The term freeway is linked in the Description section, which explains the specific requirements to be an Interstate Highway. Imzadi 1979 → 01:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't explain the difference between "freeway" and "highway", though, and it just says "highway," it doesn't specify "Interstate Highway". I hope you see my confusion here, as someone who grew up with freeway and highway being completely synonymous, that maybe there's a better way of describing this. Maybe say "The only freeway in both peninsulas, and the only interstate highway in the UP"? --Golbez (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Golbez: except that "highway" and "freeway" are not synonymous. There are three concepts at work here. An "Interstate Highway" (yes, the capitalization matters), is a type of freeway, but not all freeways are Interstates. A freeway is a specific type of highway, one with full control of access (meaning traffic can only enter at specified junctions and adjacent property owners cannot build driveways to access the highway) and grade-separated junctions (meaning that intersecting roads pass over or under the freeway on a different grade, or level). Beyond that, to be an Interstate, the freeway has to meet specific criteria for lane widths, shoulders, etc and it has to be numbered as part of the Interstate Highway System. Michigan has several freeways that aren't Interstates, some of which are constructed to Interstate Highway standards, some that are not. In short, if you were to draw a Venn diagram of the concepts, "highway" is a big circle, "freeway is a smaller circle within that, and "Interstate Highway" is within that, like the rings of a bullseye.

    In any case, I-75 is the only highway of any kind to traverse a route on both peninsulas, and as a result it is the longest in the state, again of any type. It is also the only freeway in the UP; the divided-highway sections of US 41/M-28 and US 2/US 41 are not freeways. Imzadi 1979 → 23:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    "except that "highway" and "freeway" are not synonymous." Except that I don't think I'm alone in thinking they are. It's perhaps a regionalism, or a distinction that I never really learned. I'm not saying they aren't; I'm saying, to many (most?) people, they are. It seems easiest to link to definitions, or be more specific as to what you mean by freeway and highway, like perhaps specifying controlled-access. Otherwise I suspect this question will continue to come up and you'll continue to have to answer it. --Golbez (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Golbez: it's not a regionalism; it's a matter of definition. Rather than continue an intractable argument, I've added two redundant links to the notes. However, if someone complains about overlinking, I may have to remove them. Imzadi 1979 → 06:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean the distinction between "freeway" and "highway" is a regionalism; I'm saying, growing up thinking they're the same, and using one or the other, is. It's easy to find dialect maps online with the question "Do you call it a freeway or a highway?" I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm just saying, if it's confusing to me, it's likely confusing to others. Thank you. --Golbez (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, another comment... this probably goes to project standards but it's just something I thought of so I'll put it here. It seems to me that it would be very useful for the auxiliary highways to include in the notes or another column what their purpose is, or at least their metro area. Looking at that list, I could not tell which are beltways around Detroit. Or bypasses. Or spurs. So, for example, I might include that 194 is a connector to Battle Creek; 196 is a spur to link 94 and 96; 275 is in the Detroit area; etc. --Golbez (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I will be out of town until July 1. Any comments requiring attention will be addressed after that time. Imzadi 1979 → 10:59, 27 June 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 SchroCat 08:05, 31 July 2014 [2].

List of countries by GDP (nominal)

edit
Nominator(s): Zach Vega (talk to me) 23:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the list previously had outdated GDP information, poor referencing, and underdeveloped prose. Those issues have been resolved and it is believed that the list meets all criteria. Zach Vega (talk to me) 23:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article includes a list of countries in the world sorted by their gross domestic product (GDP), the market value of all final goods and services from a nation in a given year. The opening sentence isn't appropriate, for an article, it's improper to say "This article describes...", see WP:LEADSENTENCE. The lead should not speak about the article itself but should instead introduce the topic. The lead needs a complete rewrite from where it stands now; include a comparison of the various GDPs per country (highest, lowest, etc). Explain the italics used on various countries above the list. Provide a sentence on what exactly is photographed. As it stands, I'm leaning oppose. Seattle (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have fixed the lead sentence, added to the caption, and clarified about italics, however I'm not sure what you mean by suggesting to "include a comparison of the various GDPs per country (highest, lowest, etc)". That's what the list does. Zach Vega (talk to me) 21:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Summarize the list in the lead. Say "The country with the highest GDP is x, while the lowest is y", or something similar. Search for sources that say why the country with the highest GDP has the highest; and likewise for the lowest. The lead is designed to summarize the article, or, in this case, the list. Seattle (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have added the information for the countries with the highest and lowest GDP (United States and Tuvalu, respectively). Zach Vega (talk to me) 23:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Should information about other major economies be appended to the lead? Zach Vega (talk to me) 21:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Seven disjointed paragraphs won't work for a featured list. My suggestion would be to cut the lead to three solid paragraphs. I would cut the second paragraph entirely. The figures presented here do not take into account differences in the cost of living in different countries... Don't write using "here", don't refer to the article itself when writing the lead, just the material contained. If GDP does not take into account differences in the cost of living, say that, instead of the "figures here". I'd keep the start of the first paragraph and expand more on GDP, you can combine the third and first together to serve as the first paragraph. Cut the entire fourth paragraph, excluding the GDP calculation, which you can move to the first paragraph. Keep the fifth paragraph for now and make it the third. Combine the sixth and seventh paragraph to make the second paragraph. I can fine tune points of the lead after it has a solid structure. Seattle (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment: Italy GDP has one too many digits in the UN list... Mattximus (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New York (pictured) serves as the nation's largest financial centre." – unsourced
  • The image is very dodgy. The uploader has not made any other edits on Commons or en-Wikipedia, and can be found on various websites. I will be nominating it for deletion.
  • "...calculated as the population times market value of the goods and services produced per person in the country." This overcomplicates things. How about 'calculated as the total market value of the goods and services produced by the country", or something to that effect?
  • What are "demographic problems"?

Adabow (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great list! One thing that I find lacking is that the intro does very little to discuss the tables - other mentioning #1 and #last; for example the top 25 is surprisingly consistent among the 4 sources so you might want to mention where are the top countries located geographically. And there are some non-italicized entries that are not ranked such as San Marino and Somalia; why? Asides from that, would you think that merging the 4 tables would be feasible? And in that case would you think that the median values could be used to sort the countries? Nergaal (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • This is a very good and valuable list. A few minor points.
  • "calculated at market or government official exchange rates." Worth a comment that official rates can be distorting?
  • "Tuvalu is the world's smallest national economy with a GDP of about $40 million because of a lack of natural resources, reliance on foreign aid, negligible capital investment, demographic problems, and low average incomes." This is misleading. Tuvalu is poor, but not one of the poorest countries in the world. It is bottom because it has the third smallest population of any country and the two below it are wealthier. Does "demographic problems" mean a small population? (It is interesting that the smallest by population, Vatican City, is not in any list in this article and the second smallest, Nauru, only in one list, although I think they are both richer.)
  • No change needed but some of the exclusions from the lists are fascinating. The UN and World Bank exclude Taiwan - the UN presumably because of pressure from China but does the same apply to the World Bank? Why does the World Bank exclude Zanzibar?
  • Notes. EU etc - I think it is enough to say that groups of countries are excluded from the rankings - superfluous to say which country is ranked instead.
  • Note 6. I am not quite sure, but I think the MOS would have the external links as references, not direct in the text.
  • I would suggest adding list of countries by GDP per capita to 'See also'. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I have been fairly inactive recently but this is a fairly important list so I thought I'd take a quick look. I'm opposing over WP:V/WP:OR concerns - I quickly checked a few numbers from the third column (random choice). Looking at the WorldBank source:

  • (61) Slovakia has no 2013 value. Comparing its 2012 value with 2013 values doesn't seem correct, especially without explanation. Cuba, 2011. Slovenia is not in WB 2013 list etc. Others...!?
  • (65) Syria is not anywhere in that source.
  • The WB13 source goes Namibia then Mauritius. The list has "Guernsey + Jersey; Chad; Zimbabwe; Nicaragua" inbetween
    • The Chad figure contradicts the 13,414 value given
    • Zimbabwe given as 12,801 etc.
    • Different value for Nicaragua in source too
    • No value for Jersey + Guernsey that I can see (nor Channel Is., although they are more than J+G anyway)

With so many discrepancies from the only source I checked I cannot support this list. Regards, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:51, 27 July 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 SchroCat 08:05, 31 July 2014 [3].

Angela Aki discography

edit
Nominator(s): Prosperosity (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria, as it was modelled on the recently featured Kumi Koda discography page. Prosperosity (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on referencing, redirects, and alt text. I do have a question though: why is the "TWN" (G-Music) chart included on the studio albums section if it never charted there? Zach Vega (talk to me) 00:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd left that in since I figured it was visually important to show that it didn't chart on the main chart (if you just saw that it charted on the sub-chart, you might get the false impression she did better than she actually did). I'm happy to get rid of it, though. --Prosperosity (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise to remove the chart listing, as it doesn't add anything to the article. Zach Vega (talk to me) 01:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done! --Prosperosity (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Write out all numerals in the lead or use all figures. See WP:NUMERAL.
Done. --Prosperosity (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • seven studio albums, two compilation albums, five video albums, one extended play, 13 singles and 5 video albums. "Video albums" is repeated twice
Done. --Prosperosity (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead you list "13 singles" but in the infobox you list 14.
Done. --Prosperosity (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For her fifth anniversary, Aki released White (2011), an album composed of a mix of new songs, re-recordings and covers. Perhaps you could clarify what "for her fifth anniversary" means, "fifth anniversary" of what?
Done. --Prosperosity (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link or explain "video album"
Done. --Prosperosity (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In references like 28 and 29 RIAJ looks like it's used as the work but in references like 30 and 31 it looks like it's used as the publisher. Be consistent. Seattle (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Prosperosity (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The list looks really good, it's referenced, no dead links etc. However, I think the lead would benefit from a sentence or two about her most popular works (on charts). It's just my suggestion though. Ryoga (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? --Prosperosity (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! Ryoga (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is that? I had to do some restructuring since the upper section was chronological and the final paragraph was reflexive. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:43, 6 June 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 SchroCat 08:05, 31 July 2014 [4].

List of North Carolina Tar Heels bowl games

edit
Nominator(s): Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 04:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I've put a solid amount of effort into this article and I believe it now meets the FL requirements. Go Heels. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 04:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – A temporary return to the nominating side of FLC has encouraged me to get off my lazy rear end and give something a review. This looks good for me, given my interest in sports.
  • The 20-10 score needs an en dash, not the hyphen it currently has.
  • I assume Carl Snavely was the head coach? This isn't entirely clear from the lead.
  • Can Boston College be linked in the fourth paragraph? There should be a general article on the school's football team, if not one on that specific season.
  • "Withers helped the Tar Heels become eligible and participate in the 2011 Independence Bowl". Should "eligible" be "bowl-eligible"?
  • "where they lost by seventeen to the Missouri Tigers." Add "points" to this, perhaps?
  • Key: None of the three general items appear to apply to this list, and there aren't any ties (and likely won't be in the future).
Woops, did not do that column. Fixed Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 02:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the bowl and opponent columns in the table, there should be general bowl game and team links available if more specific articles have not yet been created. It would look more appealing if almost half the bowl game weren't left unlinked, and the number of opposing teams without articles (seven by my count) is small enough that you could probably just red-link them if you wanted. Note 4 says that there are supposed to be general articles when needed in this column, but few are provided.
  • All of the scores in the table need en dashes.
  • Note 2: "an" should be "a", and this again refers to ties when none exist.
  • References 3, 6, and 7 need en dashes for their page ranges, and ref 3 should be formatted as pp. instead of p. If you are using the cite templates, changing the page= parameter to pages= will fix this.
  • Conversely, the single-page refs 2 and 5 should be formatted as p.
  • All caps in ref 9 should be removed.
  • Not essential, but it would be nice if the bibliography was in alphabetical order. Shouldn't be hard since there are only a couple of books there.
Done and done, thanks for the look over! Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 04:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the establishment of the team in 1888 Linking only "1888" is a WP:EGG link
  • Since the establishment of the team in 1888, North Carolina has appeared in 30 bowl games.[1] Included in these games are three combined appearances in the traditional "big four" bowl games (the Rose, Sugar, Cotton, and Orange). I'd combine these sentences.
  • "20–10" is another EGG link
  • The 1974 entry either has the wrong text or the wrong color.
  • Reference 3 does not go to the appropriate bibliographic link.
Fixed the issues above. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 03:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... in 30 bowl games, included in these games are three combined appearances ... Change "included in these games are" to "including". Otherwise, it looks good. Seattle (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got it done. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions)
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 08:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC) [5].[reply]

List of Christina Aguilera concert tours

edit
Nominator(s): Simon (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think that this list meets all of the FL criteria. I have considered the name and decided to change the title from List of Christina Aguilera performances to List of Christina Aguilera concert tours per other FL standards (such as Madonna), as well as the performances done by Aguilera are numerous since her career debut. I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions. Cheers, Simon (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  • Looks great, just a few minor things....

— Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since when are we promoting lists with 5 items? Can at least the table be expanded to compensate for the extremely short list of contents? Such as adding countries visited? Nergaal (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That contains much more than the names of the studio albums. Nergaal (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how about now? There is no more "Concert tours" section in the Christina Aguilera article. Simon (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
wp:CFORK. You are missing the point. Nergaal (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: How can this be forked from Christina Aguilera? Even the article does not list the Bionic Tour. Simon (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate's comment - This nomination has been archived. Nominators are asked to wait two weeks before nominating another list and address unresolved comments from this nomination during that wait. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:50, 19 July 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 08:52, 19 July 2014 [6].

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Daniel Vettori

edit
Nominator(s): S.G.(GH) ping! 21:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets, or will certainly meet with a little fine-tuning from list experts here, the criteria for FL. The prose I believe will pass, the list is comprehensive, and with a little assistance from those in the know (similar to what happened at the FLC for List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Fred Trueman) it should be deemed suitable. I've modelled the design on similar featured lists List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Ian Botham and List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by James Anderson, neither of which I was involved with. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

25 days and not a review! What a drought. Some notes:
  • Link "wicket" on first mention in article.
Done
  • Can you link 420 cricket to a specific article?
Sorry, how do you mean?
My mistake, I misread the statement. Seattle (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He made his Test debut in February 1997 February 1997 is an WP:EGG link.
That link points to the article on the Test series that he made his debut in. Is this okay?
Link "debut in" along with "February 1997" and that should be good. Seattle (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done!
  • Link "runs"
Done
  • five-for until his 5/30 in July 2004 What does the notation "5/30" mean?
Five wickets at the cost of thirty runs, I'll explain it in the lead.
  • Number 17 has a typo "Drawm"
Fixed
  • Number 17 #Shakib Al Hasan perhaps a typo?
Fixed
  • "Key"– Result – The result for the Australian team in that match. New Zealand?
Fixed, that's me being an idiot.
  • He is yet to achieve would prefer "has not achieved" here.
Will do.
@Seattle: Thanks for your help, I've addressed your points. Could you please take a quick look at the two I've questions for? Cheers, --S.G.(GH) ping! 13:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • You hyphenate five-wicket in the title, and that's what the cricket glossary article uses, but everywhere in the lead you say "five wicket". Please fix.
  • "thirty runs - 5/30 - in July" - should either be unspaced mdashes like "thirty runs—5/30—in July" or spaced ndashes like "thirty runs – 5/30 – in July", but certainly not hyphens. I prefer mdashes.
  • You do "Inn." and "Econ." with a period in the table, but not the index.
  • --PresN 21:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Believe I've caught all of these, thanks! S.G.(GH) ping! 14:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Of his five wicket hauls, 20 have come in Test cricket and two in ODI matches." → Of his five wicket hauls, Vittori has taken 20 in Test cricket and two in ODI matches.
  • "...seven wickets at the cost of 87 runs." → ...seven wickets for 87 runs.
  • "...he played his first match in March 1997." should be the first part of the sentence!
  • No need of "- 5/30 -", this is redundant.
  • "...five wickets for the cost of only seven runs." → five wickets for seven runs.
  • Be consistent, use either numerals or words (i.e seven wickets at the cost of 87 runs, five wickets for thirty runs, etc.)
  • You have stated that "He has taken ten wickets across an entire Test match on three occasions." whereas the list shows only 2
  • The Wkts column doesn't sort properly for example 6 wickets for 28 runs should come earlier than 6 wickets for 70 runs and so on.

—Zia Khan 04:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from —Vensatry (ping) (lede alone)

  • You could also mention his action in the opening sentence (off/leg right/left arm).
  • Link five-wicket haul in its first instance
  • "involves the taking of five or more wickets in a single innings" -> "involves a player taking five or more wickets in a single innings"
  • Why not abbreviate Twenty20 Internationals when it's used twice in the opening para itself?
  • Full stop missing after "two in ODI matches". The first para looks messed up and possibly needs a re-write.
  • No need to honorify Mr. Hadlee
  • Add England in the pipe "Test debut in February 1997". Borders WP:EASTEREGG
  • Link Sri Lanka
  • Phrases like "His best return with the ball" and "cost of only ..." aren't plain English. Rephrase them in simple words
  • "He did not take a five-for until his five wickets for 30 runs" This sentence reads like "He did not turn 18 until his eighteenth birthday". The sentence needs re-structuring.

—Vensatry (ping) 17:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delegate's comment - This nomination has been archived. Nominators are asked to wait two weeks before nominating another list and address unresolved comments from this nomination during that wait. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:49, 19 July 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 tornadoes in the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak (April 25–26)

edit
Nominator(s): United States Man (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This list is the confirmed tornadoes from the first two days of the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak, the largest in history. This outbreak was in fact so large that it started breaking templates on the original "list" page, so the list had to be split in two (the first time that has happened with a tornado outbreak). Anyway, I feel that this is up to standards with the only other FL tornado list (List of tornadoes in the 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak), and I think this should be able to reach FL as well.

The first FLN (see here) ended up having most of the focus on the title. If you have any questions/concerns about the title, please check there first to make sure I didn't answer your question when someone else asked it. I did correct the minor issues brought up by the only user that commented on the content, so I feel that it is time for another go. Thanks to everyone in advance for any comments you may have. United States Man (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @United States Man: If you cite the NCDC's Storm Data Publication carefully, i feel that you could reduce the overall size of the list quite significantly. While i realize these are only accessible for 24 hours after the link is generated; you can webcite them which preserves the link forever. Also im slightly concerned that there is no sources used from outside NOAA on this list - if you can find some they may be great to cite and get the list size down even further.Jason Rees (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what you mean by reducing the list size. The only way to do that would be to take off tornadoes, which isn't even in the question. The list is fine, citing that storm data publication is no different than using the individual, and more in depth, storm events database that I have already used. Now with the outside sources, there will be little to nothing that any other sources have that is correct, other than local news articles that are just duplicating NWS survey information. United States Man (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lists size is 115,373 bytes, which from memory the MoS says needs splitting. Now im not suggesting taking off tornadoes or splitting out the article further, but as i said earlier if you use the storm data publication carefully you should be able to bring that down. This is because you would be using ref name rather than constantly putting citation templates in, however i am not sure what additional information that you feel the Storm Events Database contains but the summaries are the same as far as i can tell.Jason Rees (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note dont be so dismissive off outside sources they may sometimes dont reflect the numbers we think they should reflect but they can be useful. For example this journal article in BAMS, has a few bits on the outbreak as a whole that could be useful to cite.Jason Rees (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that they are the same. I never really compared them and just assumed that there would be a difference. I will work on that fairly soon then. But, as I was saying, it does no good to list an extra ref that is just duplicate info. If I come across something that can add anything, instead of duplicating the NWS, I'll add it. United States Man (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done – I went ahead and fixed the references. United States Man (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi USM, apologies for the delay in getting back to you - i must off over looked the edit when it popped up on my watchlist. Anyway thanks for adding in that reference, if you look at the page history it is now at around 82kb which a lot better than 115kb. Will have a proper look over it and maybe support it if i get chance later.Jason Rees (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the point in having the {{April 25–28, 2011 tornado chart}} below the first table. The template tells us exactly many tornadoes occurred broken down on the EF Scale, which is what the totals column on the right hand side of the table tells us. If you need to keep the note about Canada id rather you found some other way to tell the reader about it.Jason Rees (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a play with the table in order to add in a link to the EF Scale, which seems imo to be better than having it in the see also template especially if you accept my first point.Jason Rees (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That makes good sense. I will just revert your test revert to add that in. United States Man (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that we have level three headings here is so that it fits under "Confirmed tornadoes", and it isn't just a small section at the top with a table or two. I don't think it is making editing that difficult. United States Man (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im finding it difficult because im using a laptop screen atm, but its not worth arguing about so i Support the promotion to FL. I will also see if i can find several other people to give this list a review.Jason Rees (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, assuming a few fixes are made:

  • Sorting the April 25 table by max width puts the one giant one out of order (probably since it's the only one in miles instead of yards)
  • "NE of Crossroad" in April 25 table is bold for no reason
  • April 25 table is sortable by start coord, but April 26 isn't
  • Sorting the April 26 table by max length puts the one tiny one out of order (probably since it's the only one in yards instead of miles)
  • You flipped the styling of La Porte/LaPorte- the county has no space, the town has a space
  • --PresN 18:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Everything has been fixed. I didn't realize that the mi/yd difference would affect sorting. United States Man (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is something myself and others in the project have tried; we even held an RfC, but that unfortunately got nowhere. This is the best we have. If you have any suggestions... United States Man (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally your comment "This outbreak was in fact so large that it started breaking templates on the original "list" page, so the list had to be split in two...." does make me wonder.Jason Rees (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it did break templates. You can ask TropicalAnalystwx13; he was the one who suggested that they be split in the first place. United States Man (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im just not sure that the template breaking was because of the size, since when i merged the two articles yesterday there were no broken templates.Jason Rees (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it may break again once that page is upgraded to the new table. I don't see what the big deal is anyway. United States Man (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally i have no problems with the title or two separate articles if it is justified. I should note that i have something up my sleeve to test out if the table will break when merged. It hasnt so far! Jason Rees (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per criterium 3.b. I have seen plenty of lists with 300+ items on them so I see no good reason to break it into two lists that take it hard to compare across the whole table/list. If something gets broken because of say wiki code, then the format should be changed until the code gets upgraded. 3.b does not state "unless not allowed by wikipedia's code". Nergaal (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator Comment – Okay, with the fact that 3 tornadoes were found to have been added by someone that didn't read the reference closely, we ended up with tornadoes from 2007 on this page. Also, per Jason Rees and Nergaal, I can probably condense this back into one list (at least I will see). For now, I will withdraw the request. United States Man (talk) 22:07, 8 July 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 Crisco 1492 14:27, 10 July 2014 [7].

National Film Award for Best Supporting Actress

edit
Nominator(s): —Prashant 11:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I've been working on this list for quite some time and have developed this from scratch. I've modeled this list based on National Film Award for Best Actress, a similar featured list. I look forward to your comments and suggestions.—Prashant 11:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dharmadhyaksha
  • ”Unknown” roles should be filled in
  • It reads, "Konkona Sen Sharma is one of the two actresses to receive honours in both acting categories: Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress.". So who is the second?

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added and i think its not neccessary to fill "unknown" roles as some of featured filmographies have these.—Prashant 15:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some like which? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose (lot of inaccuracies)
  • A majority of the stuff in the first two paras have text spun off from existing articles without proper attribution.
  • You say 31 awards in the lead but the table and infobox say 33
  • Although the Indian cinema
  • "the actresses whose performances have won awards have worked in eight major languages: Bengali, English, Hindi, Manipuri, Malayalam, Oriya, Tamil, and Urdu." This sentence is not at all clear and needs rephrasing
  • Link 32nd National Film Awards
  • "The actresses who have won the most number of Rajat Kamal awards are Surekha Sikri and K. P. A. C. Lalitha with two." misleading again as Rajat Kamals are given not only for this category
  • Factoids like "Rajeshwari Sachdev and Kangna Ranaut are the youngest actresses to win this honour" and Aranmula Ponnamma being the oldest winner fails to meet WP:V. The sources does not even mention their ages.
  • "The most recent recipient are Amruta Subhash and Aida El-Kashef, who will be honoured at the 61st National Film Awards" – Tense needs to be changed.
  • Kalpana and Urvashi being only siblings to win the National Film Award in this and any other acting category – Not at all true. I must say The Hindu is wrong here. Have you heard of Haasan Brothers?
  • Many factoids needs "As of..."
  • ALT texts need to mention the names of people in lists like this
  • Link the names of films and actresses in the table. Red links aren't an issue
  • Link all entries as the table is sortable.

—Vensatry (ping) 17:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected almost all the points.—Prashant 15:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to the delegates – I'm not going to comment on this FLC anymore (including future FLCs by this nominator) mainly because of his unpleasant attitude in resolving queries and some personal attacks based on reviewer's comments at FLCs. So you can ignore my comments thus far. —Vensatry (ping) 17:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good list and and great presentation. The list provides immense detail about the subject with a good prose. Have all my support to pass FLC. Keep up the good work. Daan0001 (talk) 01:03, 16 June 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 Giants2008 00:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC) [8].[reply]

List of thrash metal bands

edit
Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list that includes the majority of the thrash metallers who have a Wikipedia article. Most of them are sourced with Allmusic, giving due the website's large area of covering the genre.--Retrohead (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX

edit
  • "This list, however, also includes"..... I don't think the "however" is needed
  Fixed Agree.
  • "These bands essentially played"..... "essentially" doesn't sound very encyclopedic
I think it sounds more "officially" than other alternatives such as fundamentally or basically.
  • "Four American bands, Anthrax, Megadeth, Metallica, and Slayer"..... do we really need to mention nationality or the number of bands?
The reason I mentioned that is because there are these other bands (Sodom, Kreator, and Destruction) which are referred to as the "Big Three of German Thrash"
  • Lead could use some expansion as paragraphs look a bit short
  Fixed I've expanded the intro with information about the history of the genre.
  Fixed Replaced it with an article by Joel McIver from Total Guitar
  • You only need to link AllMusic in the first ref it is used for
The template I've used, Template:Allmusic, automatically links the website.
I've tried, but the Allmusic template doesn't feature such an option.

Overall looking pretty solid. You'll have my support after these points are addressed. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 14:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snuggums, I have completed the majority of the notes, except for the last two, which can not be fulfilled because of technical restrictions.--Retrohead (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, simply use the "cite web" template and insert the URL, publisher, author, and such. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 16:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the format on over 180 references would be really exhausting. Leaving it this way won't change anything significant from reader's perspective.--Retrohead (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it really wouldn't change their understanding, but that is how the refs could be more flexible. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 20:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sergecross73

edit
  • Support - Spot checked a bunch of entries and their sources, and they were all properly asserted by a reliable source. (Something of a rarity in my experience here on Wikipedia.) Well written intro, well organized and sourced list. I have no opposition. Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 3family6

edit
  • I cannot support or oppose since I just added a bunch of bands, but I will comment and say that someone should check to make sure that all of the references actually support the band listed. I say this because I just noticed that Kekal was sourced to its AllMusic bio, which does not support thrash. I think at some point the original ref became a dead link, and so someone changed the reference to the AllMusic bio. I supplied a reference that actually supports the band being thrash, but this type of thing might have happened to other bands listed.--¿3family6 contribs 00:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3family6, I have double-checked the Allmusic references today and they classify all of the bands here as thrash acts either in the biography or in some album review. Regarding Kekal, the source you have provided is not reliable, so unless you find a better one, I'll have to omit them. About the latest additions, please consider twice before attaching bands such as Motörhead, Napalm Death, Zao, and As I Lay Dying, which have nothing in common with thrash metal. Please see Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability. We need to summarize what the majority of the writers say, not to use some isolated or fluky mentionigs of thrash metal in the text. For example, anyone who listens to Napalm Death will be bewildered why they are grouped with these bands. Second thing about the newest additions, please keep the citing format consistent. Watch the capital letters in the titles and attribute the author using "|first=" and "|last=", not "|author=" as you did is some cases.--Retrohead (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for double-checking. Sorry about the inconsistency in the refs, I copy-pasted some and missed some stuff in the process. The citation generator also now produces "|first1=" and "|last1=" as a default, so that was beyond my control, though I should have gone back and changed the refs to be consistent with the rest of the list. The Kekal source is reliable, as Matt Morrow is/was a writer for HM, but I'll put in a different source, the zine Phantom Tollbooth, which while certainly not well known is reliable within the Christian music scene and referenced by other reliable sources in that scene. There is a review by HM magazine that calls the band thrash, but HM underwent a site redesign a couple years back and the weblink no longer works. As for Zao, I've done a more detailed search and the only source that really supports thrash that I can find is the one I already provided, so you can remove that one. AP2 is probably a throw-away, though I haven't looked very hard for additional sources, and thrash is only one of MANY styles tossed together on Suspension of Disbelief. I didn't add Motörhead by intention, if that band was added it was by accident. Napalm Death and As I Lay Dying have multiple sources calling them thrash. For As I Lay Dying, in addition to the AllMusic source already provided, you have you have Noisecreep, and a quote from Music Connection cited in an HM article (I don't know how to access that review directly, and I'm sure that those are not the only ones. For Napalm Death, I found the following additional sources just from AllMusic alone: [9], [10], [11], and [12]. I have no vested interest either way, just trying to be faithful to the source materials out there.--¿3family6 contribs 01:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3family6, can you list here the bands you've recently attached? The diffs are somehow muddled and I can't quite read the latest additions. From what I've noticed so far, there was one band sourced with About.com, which was pointed by Snuggums as a bad reference. I would advise you not to add groups with dubious refs such as this, where the author is credited only as Matt (not Matt Morrow as written in the cite).--Retrohead (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the one Kekal ref since its more trouble than its worth. I took out Nodes of Ranvier as the About.com ref as the other sources that I found called only a specific song by the band thrash. I cited the About.com ref because Chad Bowar is an experienced music journalist, having written for Outburn, Hails and Horns, AMP, Lollipop, and Loud Fast Rules, but since he is the only one who describes the group as (partly) thrash, he alone is not enough.

Here is the list of bands that I added, plus the sources:

  1. ^ Ryhänen, Pekka (March 9, 2014). "Antestor - The Defeat of Satan" (in Finnish). Imperiumi.net. Retrieved June 17, 2014.
  2. ^ Heaney, Gregory. Awakened - As I Lay Dying at AllMusic. Retrieved June 17, 2014.
  3. ^ Henderson, Alex. Total Brutal - Austrian Death Machine at AllMusic. Retrieved June 18, 2014.
  4. ^ Rivadavia, Eduardo. The Crucified Biography at AllMusic. Retrieved June 17, 2014.
  5. ^ Gatto, Chris (July 2, 2013). "Still Metal After All These Years". HM. Doug Van Pelt. Retrieved June 17, 2014.
  6. ^ Ramirez, Carlos. "Top 10 Christian Metal Bands". Noisecreep. AOL. Retrieved June 17, 2014.
  7. ^ "Fearscape Signs With Bombworks Records". Blabbermouth.net. Roadrunner Records. January 23, 2009. Retrieved June 17, 2014.
  8. ^ Figgis, Alex (August 1, 2000). "Lengsel - Solace". Cross Rhythms (58). Cross Rhythms. Retrieved June 17, 2014.
  9. ^ Rivadavia, Eduardo. The Descent - Mantric at AllMusic. Retrieved June 17, 2014.
  10. ^ Long, Andy (February 6, 2006). "Mortal Treason - Sunrise Over A Sea Of Blood". Cross Rhythms. Retrieved June 17, 2014.
  11. ^ Henderson, Alex. Bootlegged in Japan - Napalm Death at AllMusic. Retrieved June 17, 2014.
  12. ^ "Oil". MusicMight. Retrieved June 17, 2014.
  13. ^ Mansfield, Brian. One Bad Pig Biography at AllMusic. Retrieved June 17, 2014.
  14. ^ Powell, Mark Allan (2002). Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music (First printing ed.). Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. p. 785. ISBN 1-56563-679-1.
  15. ^ "Sacrificium Sign With Black Lotus Records". Blabbermouth.net. Roadrunner Records. September 13, 2005. Retrieved June 17, 2014.
  16. ^ Powell, Mark Allan (2002). Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music (First printing ed.). Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. pp. 810–811. ISBN 1-56563-679-1.
  17. ^ Colgan, Chris (January 10, 2011). "The Showdown: Blood in the Gears". PopMatters. Sarah Zupko. Retrieved June 17, 2014.
  18. ^ Odle, Kevin. Thanatos Biography at AllMusic. Retrieved June 17, 2014.
  19. ^ "Ultimatum: 'Heart of Metal - 20 Years Of Ultimatum' Details Revealed". Blabbermouth.net. Roadrunner Records. October 6, 2012. Retrieved June 17, 2014.
  20. ^ Keel, Fred (December 24, 2008). "Zao, "The Splinter Shards the Birth of Separation" Review". Jesus Freak Hideout. John DiBiase. Retrieved June 17, 2014.

Just to reiterate, my only intention was to help populate the list, I do not have a vested interest in these bands.--¿3family6 contribs 13:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all of the refs clearly label these acts as thrash metal, either on albums or songs. My point was to add bands that primarily fall under the thrash metal umbrella. From these groups here, only Austrian Death Machine, The Crucified, Oil, One Bad Pig, Sacrament, Thanatos, and Ultimatum would be a sure pass. I was thinking of including bands like Vendetta, who were playing "pure" thrash. You can take a look at this website, Classic Thrash, made by some fan obviously, in order to have better navigation when searching bands.--Retrohead (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ritchie333

edit

I've been asked to help review this, and while I admit that thrash is not my chosen specialist subject, I'll make comments and then determine if it meets the FL criteria.

  • "Thrash metal evolved in the early 1980s from combining elements of the New Wave Of British Heavy Metal and hardcore punk" - the Music Radar source specifically states the drumming came from punk while the technical playing came from NWOBHM.
  Fixed Clarified where the music elements came from.
  • "with a heavy emphasis on Satanic and occult themes" - are you sure that that label applies to the majority of bands here? Even the stereotypical "satanic" band, Black Sabbath, did "Changes", "Fluff", "Planet Caravan" and a bunch of other not-satanic-at-all themes, and I'd always believed Metallica and Megadeth's lyrics to be based on historical themes, particularly war.
This refers to the bands from the first wave of black metal such as Bathory, Venom, Raven, etc. Even though these bands are known for creating black metal, Joel McIver specifically points Venom's debut, Welcome to Hell, as the first thrash metal album. McIver also noted these bands for playing "primitive thrash".
Okay, understood. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Snuggums implied, I think the "big four" is okay, but for featured status you should really cement this with another source. If it's a widely known label, another good one will exist.
  Fixed Agree, supported the claim with another source.
I see the source specifically has the "big four" as its main topic - even better. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness." - this sounds like a disclaimer. Surely if this is a featured list, representing the best we can do here, it is to all reasonable purposes complete - the only exception being bands that the community has decided are non-notable or not obviously in the thrash genre.
  Fixed The text was automatically set because the Template:Dynamic list was inserted. I've replaced it with Template:Inc-musong
I don't care a lot one way or the other, but I think the original notice is better - how can we ever know if we have every notable thrash band out there listed here? There are new ones coming out all the time. How do we know when we've listed them all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3family6 (talk • contribs)
You could say that about everything on Wikipedia - even your favourite featured article may have potential to address new events or reword things. I would take existing consensus and go with whatever else is on the majority of featured lists that deal with band categories. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333 I found a featured list which uses the Dynamic list template. See List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A. Now, whether this list of thrash metal bands falls under a dynamic list category or not, I am not sure, but I'm leaning toward the opinion that it does fall under that category.--¿3family6 contribs 22:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at specific entries later. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, more comments. I had a look at some other featured lists, including Metallica discography, List of Megadeth band members and (for variety) Pop Idol discography, and from that I can see two obvious things that need significant improvement.

The lead is too short. Based on what I see in other FLs as an example, I think you want four paragraphs that give a thorough but concise overview of thrash metal in exactly the same way the lead on a FA quality article about thrash metal itself would look like.

The individual entries need some better presentation to compare with other FLs. For each band, I would try and see if you can put each entry as a table, and include a free picture (if one exists), years active (including reunions), labels signed to, highest album chart position and any other notes. Allmusic should give you most of this anyway. I can't find another music genre FL so I'm just guessing what I think the criteria might want to include, based on other lists I've looked at.

That sounds like a lot of work, but I tend not to do intricate table formatting so it may take ten minutes for all I know.

Also, what makes this a reliable source? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Might take ten minutes" - try a few days. It would be impressive if we could get all of that information on a list, but it's probably too much. Years active I think would work, and probably national/regional origin. Maybe make the list more like the List of Viking metal bands? Also, maybe major record labels and regional scenes could be included, like on the list of avant-garde metal artists. As for the source for the band Oil, see MusicMight.--¿3family6 contribs 17:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try expanding the intro with some information about the regional scenes, as 3family6 suggested. I'll replace the source about Oil with another one right away.--Retrohead (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see 3family6 developed the lead for me. Thanks for his help.--Retrohead (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think you want pictures (if free ones exist), nationality and years active at least. Not too worried about the other stuff. Remember this is a featured list candidate, and therefore it should be one of the best cursory introduction to all the thrash bands you know on the internet without having to click anywhere else! And I can't see a "this list is incomplete" tag on any other FL, so I think it should probably just go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find a credible source for Oil, so I did the easiest thing-dropped it. Referring to the inclusiveness of the list, well, it will never be complete. There are many non-English thrashers that have Wiki-articles, but lack references because they are hardly notable. Sanatorium, Dorso, and Vendetta, are the first that come to mind. Secondly, new articles are consistently being created, so that is another factor that determines the scope of this list. For example, Blood Feast's article was created two months ago. Now, speaking about the intro, I think citing bands outside the thrash metal genre is unimportant (the grindcore and crossover groups will have to go). Sure, the lead can be filled with information about the genre's lyricism, instrumentation, but remember that this is a list. The lead should be a brief introduction on what these bands play. Further information can always be found on thrash metal's page.--Retrohead (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"grindcore and crossover groups will have to go" - I understand about grindcore groups, as that's its own genre, but how would crossover groups NOT warrant inclusion? To me it just seems like we're getting into original research territory if we start saying "well, this band doesn't play PURE thrash, even though they're sourced as thrash or a thrash fusion, so therefore we won't include them."--¿3family6 contribs 22:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, never mind, I missed that you were talking about the lead. I think it's important to at least briefly mention crossover thrash, as that is a form/fusion of thrash.--¿3family6 contribs 22:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the tables as you proposed Ritchie333. I'm about to address the newest comments. Thanks for the patience though.--Retrohead (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nergaal

edit

Ok, the list seems reasonably complete and referenced, but I can't approve of a list that is just a listing of names. How about putting them in a table with a couple of extra columns: country of origin, and release of first album (and perhaps also the last). That way you can get something out of this list. Nergaal (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't adding the information, but whether the information is related to these bands playing thrash metal. The things Ritchie333 and you pointed out, such as incorporating record labels, origin, period the bands being active, and a couple of albums, are not really connected to the topic. A great number of the bands listed here haven't played thrash through their entire career, so there is a big chance we might end listing an album not of this genre.--Retrohead (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't include albums. Just list the date of formation, national origin, and a field for additional notes. See List of Viking metal bands and list of melodic death metal bands.--¿3family6 contribs 14:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, such a table would be perfectly fine. Nergaal (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay Nergaal, I had some off-Wiki activities. I believe I did the task as required.--Retrohead (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better, but I still prefer a single table. I remember seeing FLs where the TOC was linking to parts of a huge table. I suggest to something like that and use it as a model. Nergaal (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's not a big change, I think the capital letters can stay. If you're done with the notes, can you leave a vote about the nomination?--Retrohead (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until all my comments are addressed. Nergaal (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Single table, as required. Hope not too late.--Retrohead (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from A Thousand Doors

edit
  • The main sticking point for me is the lead – for such a broad topic, it still seems incredibly brief. Per WP:Summary style, I'd expect a bit more information describing thrash in general for the uninformed reader. I don't know much about thrash metal, and I was still left with questions after reading this article, which makes me suspect that comprehensiveness is not as high as it needs to be. For example, the decline of thrash metal is briefly mentioned in the second half of one sentence, but then not elaborated on. Which bands were affected by this decline in popularity? Did any split up? Why is the Clash of the Titans tour considered to be so important? Who played on it? The way the article reads at the moment, it makes it sound like Metallica did, but according to the Clash of the Titans article, they did not. Which were the thrash bands that emerged in the early 2000s? Have they been as popular as their predecessors? Which bands play subgenres of thrash? Have they been commercially successful? Is there a particular nation or nations that are more closely associated with thrash (can't imagine that there are all too many British thrash metal bands, for example)?
  • I also agree with Nergaal that this list might be better served as a table, listing other factors, such as years active, nationality and anything else relevant that could be reliably sourced.
  • Per WP:LEADSENTENCE, the article shouldn't be introduced as "This is a list of..."
  • Watch out for malformed title case, e.g. New Wave Of British Heavy Metal -> New Wave of British Heavy Metal, "Thrash Is Back On The Menu With The Big Four" -> "Thrash Is Back on the Menu with the Big Four", "Japan's United To Release New Album" -> "Japan's United to Release New Album", etc.
  • Agent Steel needs to be above Anacrusis.
  • Similarly, Sacrament needs to be above Sacred Reich.
  • Per WP:ISBN, use 13-digit ISBNs where possible (use this converter to find the 13-digit ISBNs for books with only the 10-digit numbers).
  • Spaced hyphens ( - ) needs to be spaced endashes ( – ).

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Doors, can you offer an example on how the opening sentence should state? I noticed that the current one isn't according to the guideline, but I'm short on ideas right now.--Retrohead (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More from Ritchie333

edit

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm leaning towards oppose on this, though I'll wait to see if things can be improved first. I had a look at the article and it just doesn't look well presented enough yet - the table is messed up (though that presumably is a quick fix) and the pictures don't align with the individual bands depending on the resolution of your monitor. They probably want to be greatly reduced and put inline as a column. The "Notes" column looks a bit fallow, I wouldn't necessarily expect every band to have something, but some could do with particularly noteworthy stats (eg: Metallica's grammy awards). I'd go for (Picture) - Band - Years Active (to cover hiatuses and splits) - Origin - Notes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, when I put in the pictures I did not intend for them to line up with the band in question. There aren't enough pictures for the artists on this list to make that look pleasing. I just put them in alphabetical order, and tried to line them up according to each letter section.--¿3family6 contribs 13:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that if you view the article on a low resolution display, such as Wikipedia's iPhone app, the images all appear first, before the text. You then have to scroll all the way past them to get to the actual list itself. That's a serious accessibility problem. I don't see a problem in leaving spaces where we don't have free images for a band - List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members doesn't have a complete set of images, but is still a featured list. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with Ritchie on this one. When you use a tablet computer, the colon of images is what shows up first. Not a very practical aspect of the page, in my opinion. But as far as the criteria goes, the number of illustrations shouldn't be a problem. Even one image will be sufficient.--Retrohead (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing nomination—I'm leaving the nomination since the discussion carried away in an improbable direction. I think discussions such as number of images, their resolution, or whether the table should be split up or merged have nothing to do with the FL criteria. The delegates can close the candidature at any time.--Retrohead (talk) 10:41, 5 July 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 07:08, 1 July 2014 [13].

List of Sword Art Online episodes

edit
Nominator(s): FairyTailRocks 05:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone! I believe that this is another anime list qualified for FL quality. I have expanded and fixed all tweaks regarding the article all in one edit [14] because I have experimented it first in my sandbox before publishing it. Plus it will be amazing if it passed the criteria because this is one of the interesting animes I have watched. Thanks! FairyTailRocks 05:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add that Sword Art Online was ranked seventh in the most viewed anime and manga articles as of April 2014 with the list ranking 84th. Thanks! FairyTailRocks 12:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DragonZero

edit
Resolved comments from DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Anime Calendar is not a reliable source, especially since they are advertising illegal links to anime and manga.
  • Why not show director and writer? They are available after all. Ep 1
  • Added in the Aincrad arc. Since I cannot understand Japanese and Google Translate is not even helping, I used Anime News Network's encyclopedia for this, but the sources are from the official website. I will continue tomorrow. Done.
  • Inconsistent sourcing. Why is TV guide sourced in the first table in the header, while the second table has it all besides the English dates?
  • Fixed
  • Why are you sourcing to Toonami Faithful instead of their source? Toonami Faithful has not established reliability as a source as far as I know.
  • Fixed.
  • Why are the tables divided by arcs?
  • Before I nominate this, I read the criteria and in no. 4 which it says "easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities." That's why I added it.
  • There's probably something about using in-universe terms as a subheading but I don't care enough to push this further.
  • Why is the first English media release double sourced when you got a source from the official publisher?
  • Fixed.
  • The uploaded picture needs to be reduced in size.
  • If you reduce the image further, you won't need size restrictions on the thumbnail. Then you'll have to put the old revisions for deletion.
Fixed, but I used jpg instead. I nominated a speedy deletion for the former image and added a new one.
  • It would've been easier to upload a new version and use orfurrev for the file.
  • But you said I have to delete the old revisions of the image. It is just the same, I only added a proper name for the file.
  • That was advice for the future, not what should be done here.
  • Sword Art Offline is only included in the Japanese volume releases?
  • Nope, Aniplex of America added these episodes in the English version.
  • Then is placing the series under the Japanese media release correct?
  • I putted the episodes under the "Japanese media release" because they were released in Japanese with English subtitles and not dubbed, also the Sword Art Offline: Extra Edition has not yet distributed outside Japan. Aniplex of America added the 25 episodes in English dubbed in North America. FairyTailRocks 10:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your response was unclear. If Sword Art Offline was also included in the English media disc releases, subtitled or dubbed, it should not be exclusively under the Japanese media release.
  • Deadurl=no for archived links that are live.
  • First general reference link is not helpful. Also, general references is an outdated way to source episodes.
  • I added that so that the readers know the director and producer of the overall show. I already added the director and writer of an individual episode, not to get confused though.
  • Fixed. Removed the director. FairyTailRocks 01:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you did but I was referring to the general section under the reference header. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to note you don't need to take every suggestion thrown at you. Unless it goes against some MoS or criteria, you could argue against it. Here is my suggestion for the general reference. The final general reference are English summaries. You could copy the style in the Code Geass lists or not.

After this, I'll have to fact/prose check the list. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might not be able to complete my review. Don't wait up DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can complete my review. I'll note you should keep improving on concision and removing unnecessary information. Randomly jumping into the list "Kirito accepts the invitation, but hides the fact that he is Level 40, twice the average level of the guild" is the level thing necessary? Being level 40 has no meaning what-so-ever to a general reader. "June 12, 2023" Same thing. As of now, I don't think the prose is at the level to garner my support (Haven't fully checked). I also want to note having the ref tab satisfies 5a better, in my opinion, as it prevents crossovers ([17]) on higher zooms and mobile devices. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed some minor issues. FairyTailRocks 13:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by KirtZJ

edit

I'm going to list some of the things wrong with this page which I feel pose a hindrance to a potential FL. I might be judging the page a bit harshly, but it's probably what's expected given the high standard a FL has to live up to.

Resolved comments from —KirtZMessage 20:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
:*The actual episode template doesn't conform to Template:Japanese episode list
  • Code Geass is a really old page by Wikipedia's standards and at the time, that was the accepted template format. Since it has been updated, the newest format should be used. DZ knows this. —KirtZMail 05:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, already fixed. Thanks!
  • The lead is confusing. There isnt a clear distinction between anything. A suggested division would be as follows: four paragraphs — Plot/Intro — Production/TV airings — Licensors/Home media — Musical themes. (Also the plot in the lead is way too long, a series overview is enough, no need for arc-descriptions)
  • I added those arc-descriptions because Sword Art Online spans several virtual-reality worlds and not only in the Sword Art Online game. It is a general idea for the readers to know which it summed up the whole episode list per WP:LEAD. Fixed some of it. FairyTailRocks 11:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why the Bleach anime has descriptions of arcs in each seasons?
  • Bleach has a mixture of plot and filler episodes in addition to being much longer than this anime so in that particular case, those can be distinguished. Also if youre citing the Bleach lists, much like the Code Gease case, those pages are old by Wikipedia's standards. —KirtZMail 05:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference column in the episode template is unnecessary if most of the references are next to the airdates. Sort of defeats the purpose.
  • That's to cite the director and writer of each episode, per DragonZero's comments.
  • I dont think you understand. Every single reference inside the template should either be moved to the reference column or remove that column altogether if it is not being used like this. —KirtZMail 05:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. The ref is beside director and writer of each episode.
My comments were to add the directors and writers. The ref slot is an aesthetic choice to prevent repeated linking in the same row and to include an English summary which caused opposition to an old FLC. It will also prevent cross overs on mobile and higher zooms ([18]) DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note next to the "Ep. no." is absolutely unnecessary. People know what "Ep. no." means. Also, reducing THAT particular column's size opens up valuable real estate to be added elsewhere.
  • The summary for Sword Art Online: Extra Edition is way to short considering that it is about 1 hr and 40 mins long. I might add that the second half of that episode summary was completely deleted for whatever reason. Wikipedia has spoilers. See WP:SPOILER.
The length of the episode should not be related to the episode summary. Conciseness and completion should be enforced. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The episode summaries have in-universe jargon which, even though some are wiki-linked, need to be generalized. See WP:INUNIVERSE
  • Fixed.
  • Abbreviations such as "VR" and "PK" (to name a few) need to be written in a generalized, non-universe form. WikiLinking those terms to save space is a tad bit lazy. —KirtZMail 19:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then what is purpose of having Wikipedia articles? It is just one click away for accessing information to that particular subject. Added some a few.
  • Better. A summary is meant to give a person a firm grasp on a large concept without having to do extra research. In this case, an episode summary should appease a person without them actually having to watch the episode to understand what happened. This needs a consistency check now to make sure the terms make sense with the plot. —KirtZMail 05:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the episodes have plot breaks at strange places. They may need to be completely rewritten from scratch instead of being reduced forms of what was already there.
  • Not Done—Since the episode list is the main part of the page, this needs checking over and rechecking by a third party for plot and tense consistency. Mostly plot though. —KirtZMail 19:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not unsourced, someone just removed it from the table and I reverted it earlier. TV Guide publishes its own magazine and provides television program listings information. FairyTailRocks 03:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • TV Guide was an American program listings from the 1990s gone digital. Being non-user edited/suggested and that I have not encountered an error when using it, I'd consider it acceptable on the same level as amazon; so it should be replaced if better sources exist. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CAWylie

edit
I feel the Ref column is also unnecessary since the episodes have aired. Removing this column also frees up "real estate". — Wyliepedia 05:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I'm trying to explain. —KirtZMail 05:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "The players discover that they cannot log out where the creator of the game, Akihiko Kayaba issues them an ultimatum" - when, not where; needs a comma after Kayaba
  • "The series premiered from July 7 to December 22, 2012" - it can only premier once, it's just broadcast after that
  • "Eventually, Aniplex of America announced that the English version will be airing on Adult Swim's Toonami block starting from July 27, 2013" - eventually is editorializing, and the tense is wrong
  • "The first DVD and Blu-ray Disc volumes[...]concluded on June 26, 2013" - you need a new subject for that second verb
  • "An English dubbed version was released in North America on August 13, 2013" - dvd, or broadcast?
  • "While its second ending theme, used from episodes 15 through 24, is "Overfly" sang by Luna Haruna." - sentence fragment
  • "The third ending theme used for the final episode, is "Crossing Field"." - comma is unnecessary
  • Note A has a sentence fragment
  • "If they die in the game, their real bodies will perish, as well." - don't need that second comma.
  • "Kirito tries to warn him, but Illfang strikes down first" - strikes down?
  • "When Keita learns of his guild's demise, and Kirito's player level, he jumps to his death." - why would he kill himself because of Kirito's player level?
  • "However, their meal is interrupted by a scream." - you do this a few times, the "however, simple phrase" is really choppy- consider combining it with the previous sentence with ", but"
  • "Later, Yolko, Kains' girlfriend mentions" - comma after girlfriend, whenever you have an appositive where you define a name you just stated you need commas before and after it
  • You switch from Lisbeth to Liz in episode 7 without ever mentioning that it's the same person
  • I'm just going to stop here, I feel like I'm starting to skim the sentences and missing a lot. There's a lot of prose problems, even after all the comments above, and the whole list needs a copy-edit.
  • Additionally, I feel like the episode summaries could really be cut down. I know people above have said the same thing, but they still get a bit too in-depth even now.
  • --PresN 19:15, 24 June 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 SchroCat 09:54, 8 July 2014 [19].

Jared Leto filmography

edit
Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after a failed nomination I believe it satisfies the criteria. Jared Leto is a well known actor who deserves his own filmography page. I think the lead covers the most important information of his films and the tables explain in a good way his several activities. Thanks, --Earthh (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I would strongly suggest that for the film roles, the box office gross of each film should be listed if available. Otherwise, I will Support this list for promotion
--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:FILMOGRAPHY, filmography tables should reflect the current best practice, which does not include box office gross.--Earthh (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about awards or accolades that he received for the roles? I know he won many awards including an Oscar for Dallas Buyers Club. Looking at Rani Mukerji filmography which was recently promoted, this is very important. Those belong under the notes section.
Awards are not included because they belong to the article List of awards and nominations received by Jared Leto. They belong under the notes section when there is no separate awards section or article.--Earthh (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sorry to have to do this, but it's been sitting at FLC for nearly two months with only one comment. Give it a couple of weeks and try again - and ping the previous commenter that you've done so, which will give you a better chance of picking up enough support by the end. – SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 8 July 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/July_2014&oldid=619257517"