Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/May 2013
Contents
- 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 The Rambling Man 10:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Nominator(s): PresN 18:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Back again, and again switching from video game lists to increasingly-obscure sci-fi/fantasy award lists. This time around we have a list where the wiki source text is longer than all of the winners combined: the Dwarf Stars award. The super-short-form counterpart to the Rhysling Award (aka the biggest sff poetry award, an admittedly small field), Dwarf Star winners are poems 10 lines or less. Hopefully, this nomination will be short as well! As always, the list format is taken directly from my previous sff award FLs, and reflects comments from those previous FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 18:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Short and sweet. Very well done :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Crisco 1492
- Obscure is right. Any secondary sources with critical commentary? Otherwise this may not be notable.
- Anything worth noting about the poems themselves?
- "the leaf whisperer" - Deliberate?
- "Knowledge Of" - Caps in original?
- "Troll Under Bridge" - Caps in original? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All capitalization matches that of the poems. I'll look for more secondary sources, right now I just have that Locus tracks the award. --PresN 20:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I'll wait. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What's happening with those independent sources? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All capitalization matches that of the poems. I'll look for more secondary sources, right now I just have that Locus tracks the award. --PresN 20:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative Support, if no editor finds an issue. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Shouldn't it be "ten lines or fewer"?
- In the Publisher or publication column, I can't see any publishers?
- Is there any third-party source that could be used to clearly demonstrate the notability of this award?
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I did TRM's fixes above, but I've been unable to find any good secondary sources. I've found conferences that mention that authors they have speaking there have won it, I've found author's webpages that mention when they win it, but beyond verifiability that the award exists, I'm not finding anything that clearly states anything about the award that's not a primary source. I guess I've been approaching the line on how obscure I could get with these award lists, and I may have crossed it here. I'm going to withdraw this nomination for now- I'm convinced that there are sources out there, but I don't have the time/energy to do a more intensive search for them right now. Sorry all. --PresN 18:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn by nominator, 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.
- 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 Giants2008 10:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Mickey798 (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because Mickey Mouse is a popular character is the list of his cartoons should be used at least to show appreciation to Mickey Mouse since the article has a lot of work to do. Mickey798 (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Was this article submitted for a peer review prior to it being placed as FLC?
- There are no citations for anything in the introduction.
- 1928: Steamboat Bill, Jr. and The Gaucho should be in italics. That Disney was making parodies of these films should be sourced.
- Far too many notes have no citiation.
- 2010s: Get a Horse (2013) What is this supposed to mean???
- Releases section: I think it would be better if this was placed at the top; possibly it could be merged with the Production section. Names of DVD releases should be italics. Mickey Mouse in Black and White, Volume Two has the comma in the wrong place. Jimknut (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
- The IMDb usually isn't considered a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb).
- The Disney A–Z ref. needs to be fixed.
- In notes write The Encyclopedia of Disney Animated Shorts (EDAS) → not just EDAS.
- Provide page numbers for all Disney A–Z notes.
- Notes 5, 15, etc. need to be fleshed out. Add full publisher info + date retrieved.
- The Smith notes → Are "Mickey's Pal Pluto", etc. chapter titles?
- Tomart's Illustrated Disneyana Catalog and Price Guide → when, where, what is this? If I wanted to look this up how could I do it?
- There are many things that aren't sourced. For example:
- The entire introduction.
- The voices actors in the "Production" section.
- Most of the directors in the "List of Films" section.
- "In 2013, a series of 19 new Mickey Mouse shorts will air on Disney Channel starting June 29."
– Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on referencing and style. External links in the body should not be at this level... that should have gone well before FLC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:31, 17 May 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.
- 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 Hahc21 10:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, its been three years since I last submitted one of these OoB articles, but this follows the pattern of the six others I've done. This lists the orders of battle and casualties of two linked battles fought at sea off Gibraltar in 1801. Although not first rank battles, they are most interesting as the first was a rare defeat for the Royal Navy during this war. Any comments welcome. Regards Jackyd101 (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| Note sorry it's taken anyone this long to get back to you. I'll make a full review of this tomorrow. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 13 April 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.
- 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 Hahc21 10:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Lester Foster (talk | talk) 03:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it fits the Featured List criteria. It is based off of two other featured lists on mayors: Mayor of San Francisco and Mayor of Jersey City. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 03:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Brief comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 13 April 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.
- 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 10:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Astros4477 (Talk) 19:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel it meets all the criteria and matches other MLB Opening Day starting pitchers lists. Astros4477 (Talk) 19:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
In the first sentence, the "team" right after "franchise" should be dropped.The en dash in the first sentence of the third paragraph shouldn't be unspaced according to the MoS. It should be spaced or made into a larger em dash.In ref 2, the publisher shouldn't be italicized since MLB isn't a print publication of any kind, but an organization.Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- I addressed all your comments.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 23:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
—Bloom6132 (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – meets FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I'd switch " that played from 1887 to 1899 and were based in Cleveland, Ohio." to "that were based in Cleveland and played from ..."
- Fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "from 1887 to 1888" does this actually mean "in the 1887 and 1888 seasons"?
- Yes, fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Opening Day" is over linked in the lead.
- Fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "a score of". This seems entirely redundant to me.
- Fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "from 1891-1899" see WP:DASH and WP:YEAR.
- While the key may be generic to these lists, it features a number of items that will never be used here so I suggest you ditch them.
- Should add a note about the perceived confusion over the location of the Opening Day of the 1888 season...
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 3 May 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.
- 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 10:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list. List is comparable to List of Calgary Flames award winners, which is currently a FL. My last Chicago Wolves based list was not promoted due to criteria 3b. With the large amount of information covered and the overall length of the multiple tables I don't think that is concern with this page. Cheers Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Oppose – Sorry, but I see a number of issues in the writing at the moment.
|
- "As four time league champions the Wolves have won two titles in both the AHL and the IHL." The use of "As.." at the start of the sentence seems an odd construction: I would suggest cutting it, and rephrasing: "The Wolves are four-time league champions, having won two titles in both the AHL and the IHL."
- changed
- Is there a reason you use YYYY–YYYY rather than the MOS preferred YYYY–YY for seasons? (1999–2000 being an acceptable exception.)
- In past FLCs it was asked to standardize the date, so with the inclusion of 1999-2000 I went with all of them being YYYY-YYYY. I can Change it if you think that would be better.
- I think following MOS:YEAR would be preferential. Harrias talk 20:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay I have changed all dates to the YYYY-YY format, except for those that cross the century lines.
- Does the "Description" column need to be sortable in the tables? It seems a little odd, as there isn't really any logic to the ordering.
- No reason, just lazy I suppose. Removed the sort-ability.
- A number of sentences need extras commas: "Playing in both the AHL and IHL the Wolves have won two championships.." should be "Playing in both the AHL and IHL, the Wolves have won two championships.." and "While members of the IHL the Wolves.." should be "While members of the IHL, the Wolves.." are two such examples, but there are more scattered through the article.
- I got the two listed and I think I found a couple of others, but commas aren't my strong suit so I'm sure I missed some.
- "Brown's back to back scoring titles were also part of three in four seasons for him personally." This sentence seems awkwardly phrased. I'm not sure how relevant it really is to this list anyway, given that the two titles with the Wolves have already been listed, but if you want to keep it, it should be re-written.
- Removed
- It seems odd using "Top performers at each position over the course of the season." As the description for both First and Second-team All-Stars.
- I followed suit with other ice hockey list of awards winner pages, most notably the List of Calgary Flames award winners, which is a FL.
- Fair enough. As I say, it just seemed odd. Harrias talk 20:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The 2006–2007 season was one of the most successful for the Wolves in terms of individual awards with two players winning four individual trophies and three players garnering end of the year All-Star team honors and two making the All-rookie team." Noun plus -ing, should be rephrased.
- Reworded
- "Although Krog was shutout of the postseason awards, he made up for it the following year" The use of "shutout" seems a little journalistic, rather than encyclopaedic, and particularly given that ice hockey uses the term as a specific statistic, I think it would be best to use a different term. The bit of the sentence after the comma certainly seems more journalistic rather than encyclopaedic.
- Removed
- "In 2007–2008 Krog led the league in goals, assists, and points becoming .." Add a comma after "points".
- added
- Personally I would list the individual awards by league first, ie
- International Hockey League
- International Hockey League All-Star Game selections
- American Hockey League
- American Hockey League All-Star Game selections
- Moved around to the suggested organization.
I'll leave it there for the time being (as I have to get ready for football (soccer) this evening) but I will continue later. Harrias talk 16:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed or commented on the above and will keep an eye out for further comments. Thank you for the review. Cheers --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 23:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --K.Annoyomous (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose sorry for taking so long to get to this....
- First lead para is a little clunky for me, four very short factoid sentences.
- "are four time league " shouldn't that be "four-time"?
- " Maltais is the most decorated individual in franchise history. He won three individual trophies along with being named a First Team All-Star three times and a Second Team All-Star three times." consider merging to avoid short, clunky sentences.
- "plus former head" not keen on "plus" in regular prose.
- Last two sentences of lead, these read odd for an encyclopedia, if "best typifies Breslin's on-ice spirit and team-first attitude" and "demonstrates the most outstanding dedication" are quotes, they should be in quotes, if not then they're not particularly encyclopedic.
- Why is there a col heading missing for "Ref(s)" in the tables?
- "Playing in both the AHL and IHL, the Wolves have won two championships in both leagues," -> " The Wolves have won two championships in both the AHL and the IHL..." perhaps?
- "The 2001–02 championship occurred in the ..." -> "coincided with"?
- "for excellence in all areas off the ice" same comment about non-encyclopedic tone applies here.
- "called them a "Forerunner..." shouldn't be capital F.
- "to 1998 award was given to champion of the Southern Conference/Division." perhaps make this note (and others) standalone, i.e. "Prior to 1998, the Robert W. Clarke Trophy was awarded to...."
- If "IHL First All-Star Team" doesn't have an article, why is it notable enough to be listed here in this awards list? Same for other awards without articles.
- You need a key for non-hockey readers. What's LW? What's D? etc.
- "the two point performance " shouldn't that be "two-point"? And what is a two-point performance? I assume a player gets a point for an assist and a point for a goal but that's not noted anywhere, and I'm not a hockey expert.
- "reintroduced in the 1994–1995 season." be consistent with year ranges per WP:YEAR.
- "Kevin Connauton represented the Wolves at the 2012 All-Star Classic" needs a period.
- "Kari Lehtonenf," e.g. I would put notes after the comma (as you would a ref).
- Notes e, g, h have periods, f doesn't, why?
- Notes a thru c are in regular size font, e thru h are smaller. Be consistent.
- "Brett Sterling was the Dan Snyder Man of the Year Award winner in 2010" needs a period.
- Why start "bolding" awards in the team award section?
- "played parts of two seasons with the Wolves, playing in" quick repeat of "play" here, rephrase.
- "Mark Matheson was the 2012 winner" of what? and needs a period.
- "an International Hockey League (IHL) expansion team" avoid overlinking, you've already linked IHL (and explained the acronym) and you've already linked expansion team.
- Ref 5 title number range needs an en-dash.
- Ref 6 has an error.
- Times Leader appears to really be called The Times-Leader.
- I expect there's a "list of awards" category that could be added... (e.g. Category:Lists of award winners)
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 3 May 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.
- 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 10:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]
- Nominator(s): I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because having extensively developed the tables and prose, I believe it now meets the FLC standard. (And now this my only open nomination.) I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The leading section does not follow any logical order. It jumps from a single to an album and back. It is difficult to understand. In addition, please, count the number of "also"s in the leading section. It is an obvious example of "also abuse". Ruslik_Zero 18:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Performed a copyedit - removed three of the "also"s, and tried to make the order and flow of the lead more logical. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 21:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments Support
- The first paragraph in the lead should be broken up (perhaps separated by album releases).
- "contained five singles which all reached the top" → all of which
- Wiki-link Ludacris in the lead.
- In the live album and EP section: Formats → format
- Citations should be added to all claims in the Notes section
– Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Avoid blank cells in tables, if there's nothing to say, perhaps add an en-dash.
- This seems somewhat unnecessary - if there's nothing to say, why add anything? Yes, we put en-dashes in the chart position cells, but that's more a matter of neatness than anything as tables would just be full of tiny empty blank boxes - the certification cells are much bigger, so adding a dash hardly makes any difference. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 10:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, not a big deal, but neatness applies throughout, not just the chart positions. The Rambling Man (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.