Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2017
- 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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC) [5].
- Nominator(s): Bluesphere 17:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Mel Gibson's list of film and television credits, which includes some of my favorites. After completing the article extensively from top to bottom, I'm now confident that this deserves the featured list status. Have at it! Bluesphere 17:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
This is a comment.
|
Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
|
- Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from Littlecarmen (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
Comments from Littlecarmen
|
- Support. Littlecarmen (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
PresN, this looks good to go, what do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, source check required... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 21:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [10].
- Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I am continuing my attempt at standardising all list of municipalities. Specifically, and with the help of many others, my goal is to have high quality featured lists of municipalities in all states, provinces and territories in North America. This will be the 14th such nomination and I believe this article is a complete and comprehensive list of all municipalities of Rhode Island.
I have modeled this list off of other recently promoted lists such as Montana and Alabama so it should be of the same high standard. I've incorporated suggestions from recent reviews to make this nomination go as smoothly as possible. I hope I caught them all. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Thanks again for your input. Mattximus (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
Comments sorry you had to wait nearly a month for some comments....
The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
|
- Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley
edit- " 5 historic counties which have no government." This sounds a bit odd. Maybe "which have no municipal functions as the state has no county level of government" - and delete same comment below.
- Done, I've modified the second comment so that it refers back to the first one, while adding some new information. Does that work?
- What is the difference between a city and a town? Are there any differences in powers between them and is the definition a USA one or specific to Rhode Island?
- Reworded to show they are interchangeable. The difference lies in their type of government.
- "cities provide services commonly granted to county governments in other states." What does this mean - that cities provide services which are provided at state level to towns?
- Cities provide services which are normally given to counties in other states. I'm not sure how to reword this one.
- An explanation of the different forms of government would be helpful.
- I added a large section dealing with the types of government, hopefully well-sourced. I think this is an excellent comment, something I should have added before nominating.
- Looks fine - these queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Dudley Miles, sorry it took so long to make your changes, I must have missed the ping telling me you had given me a review. Always appreciated, and I'm happy to make further recommended changes. Mattximus (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Support and a couple of nit picks.
- "provide services commonly granted to county governments in other states" I would prefer "commonly performed by".
Done - "city or town manager that is generally appointed" I think "who is generally appointed" would sound better. Done Dudley Miles (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks again, all nit picks are very welcome. Mattximus (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
Comments – Mostly small formatting nit-picks from me.
|
- Support – I cleaned up one remaining issue from the fixes; everything else looks good now. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 01:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC) [12].
- Nominator(s): Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Over the last 4 years a number of us have been worked to improve all 414 medicines on this list. The leads of each item now provides a decent well referenced overview of the subject in question and an article exists for each of the medicines / combinations. The WHO just released an image under an open license for use to us. World Health Day is April 7th and 2017 also marks the 40 anniversary of the EML. Would be nice to get this ready for the main page for that date. I also believe it meets the FL criteria. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- comments Ozzie10aaaa
perWikipedia:Featured_list_criteria
- Criterion 1- is consistent with professional standard [13]
- Criterion 2- is consistent with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section (and WP:MEDMOS[14] where applicable)
- Criterion 3- a. covers the scope of WHO Model List of Essential Medicines very well[15]
- b. consistent with Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists and does not violate Wikipedia:Content_forking
- Criterion 4- African trypanosomiasis........ Medicines for the treatment of 1st stage African trypanosomiasis...seems to be "two" headers, would you be willing to merge or get rid of one of them?
- Criterion 5- a.consistent with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style, makes good use of text layout, minimal redlinks
- b.could use between 2-5 images to bring more interest in the "list" for our readers?
- Criterion 6- is stable, no Wikipedia:Edit_warring.............@Doc James:
--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Have adjusted the headers[16] let me know what you think. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- perfect,and consistent with the rest of the list, thank you.
- the other issue is images as indicated above (2-5 images) as our readers will be more interested when they see as well as read.[17] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Okay will pull in a few more :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Have adjusted the headers[16] let me know what you think. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
as a result of [18] and [19][20][21][22][23][24] in reference to this Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates nomination I therefore
- support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- BlueRasberry
Delete per Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. No evidence is provided that the WHO released the copyright to this creatively compiled list, nor is any argument made that this list is ineligible for copyright. This is an ordered ranking based on judgement, separating medicines which matter more from ones which matter less. The WHO's copyright policy is at http://www.who.int/about/copyright/en/. They forbid anyone from having access to their health information with only some exceptions, and it seems that they do not find it essential for anyone to have access to their essential list of medicine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm, well that could be problematic. Can we obtain permission to use it like we apparently did with ICD-10 (Talk:ICD-10#ICD-10)? (Though I'm a little confused by how we are using ICD-10 unless the WHO relicensed it CC-BY-SA, which I don't think they did.) Sizeofint (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thks Blue. Will work on solving copyright.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Bluerasberry I have gotten formal release of the list under a CC BY SA 3.0 IGO license. Have sent the permission to permissions-en and cc'ed you on it. Here is the ticket Ticket:2017013110007321 Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- P.S. will work on the ICD stuff next. The prior director recently retired. Not sure who has replaced him. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep All copyright concerns are resolved. This article should not be deleted because it has a free and open license. I processed the OTRS ticket and posted a note at the top of the talk page documenting the free license of this list. This is no longer a deletion discussion, and can now resume as a review of a candidate for featured lists. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- User:Bluerasberry anything else? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep All copyright concerns are resolved. This article should not be deleted because it has a free and open license. I processed the OTRS ticket and posted a note at the top of the talk page documenting the free license of this list. This is no longer a deletion discussion, and can now resume as a review of a candidate for featured lists. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- P.S. will work on the ICD stuff next. The prior director recently retired. Not sure who has replaced him. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Bluerasberry I have gotten formal release of the list under a CC BY SA 3.0 IGO license. Have sent the permission to permissions-en and cc'ed you on it. Here is the ticket Ticket:2017013110007321 Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thks Blue. Will work on solving copyright.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm, well that could be problematic. Can we obtain permission to use it like we apparently did with ICD-10 (Talk:ICD-10#ICD-10)? (Though I'm a little confused by how we are using ICD-10 unless the WHO relicensed it CC-BY-SA, which I don't think they did.) Sizeofint (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support from bluerasberry
A Thousand Doors suggests that this article include more discussion of the items in the list. That user also suggests merging essential medicines to this article, saying "There isn't really a massive amount of content in Essential medicines anyway – a merge probably wouldn't be entirely unreasonable." I had these thoughts too, and I think other people would.
I do not think these articles should be merged because this article already has a large browser size Wikipedia:Article size and should not be made longer. Also, this list is complicated enough already, with 400-500 technical terms to maintain.
I agree that the "essential medicines" article is short but that article could be much longer. On the talk page there, I posted links to sources about the history of determining what is and is not an essential medicine, and to discussions of drug patents for essential medicines, and the impact of identifying essential medicines. Each one of those concepts probably passes Wikipedia's WP:Notability guidelines and could be its own Wikipedia article. Besides that, these concepts each apply regionally - so the story about history, patents, and impact of the essential medicine concept in India will be different from Brazil. It seems like there are sources to tell these stories from the perspectives of multiple countries.
There is another muddled concept here. This list is for the "model list", which is sort of general and global, whereas individual countries may have their own list. Like for example, a country with tropical diseases may need medicine which a colder country would not need, and both of those countries may have their own modified lists separate from the model list. There are thousands of papers published on this concept and it seems like at least 100 of them are comprehensive enough to cite. I am not aware of anyone with broader plans to summarize all this in Wikipedia, but combining the list with the concept compromises both. If this model list were combined with information about regional variation, then that confuses the purpose of the model list.
I am not bothered that only a few self-published sources are cited here. Typically on Wikipedia we establish notability and neutrality with third-party sources, but in this case, notability of this list is not in question and the WHO is the only authoritative source for the list.
I did question whether there should be a section about the history of revisions to this list. I would not mind it, but neither do I think it is essential. List articles do not always go into such detail, and I think that history of the concept is better placed in the "essential medicine" article, leaving this article to be a well-considered copy of the list.
The criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Points 3-6 I take for granted; the list is comprehensive, has the correct wiki-structure, follows Wikipedia's manual of style, and this is a non-controversial article. I will comment that not every featured list has established Wikipedia articles for all its list items, but this one does, and that is superb.
Criteria 1 is about the prose, which is suitable. Criteria 2 is the toughest one. I addressed the issue above by talking about what should and should not be in the article. I fail to recognize a sort of additional prose content which could be added to this article to complement the list. Right now, the lead introduces the concept, describes the ordering of the list, describes the historical list versions, and describes a derivative concept. There are other derivative concepts, particularly lists for countries, but I think it is fair to mention the children's list because that one too is a model list where as country lists are not. I am open to conversation but I say pass. ✓ Pass Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Support from RexxS
This is a commendably comprehensive list in Wikipedia terms – not just because of the breadth of its content, but because of the depth of coverage provided by all the linked articles on each individual medicine, a factor sometimes overlooked when assessing whether a list deserves to be described as "one of Wikipedia's best works". The contributors to those articles deserve our gratitude for the immense amount of work put into them as well as this list.
I usually try to assess lists for common breaches of accessibility compliance, and baring two minor concerns, I believe that the list meets our accessibility requirements in general:
- The list is properly structured with sections and headers meeting Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Article structure;
- it contains no text that is too small to read per MOS:FONTSIZE;
- no use of colour makes text unreadable, per MOS:CONTRAST;
- no information is conveyed solely by use of colour, per WP:COLOR;
However, the use of the dagger typographical symbol † might be worth re-considering. Older versions of some of the most common screen readers don't read that symbol, although I'm told that support for many symbols has been improved in the latest versions of JAWS. To address that problem, we have a template {{†}} which substitutes an image and alt text that all screen readers can speak. The only other small concern is the lack of alt text in all five of the images, but as those images serve merely to illustrate the appearance of particular medicines, rather than making a point, the caption alone serves the main needs of alternative text. In these sort of cases, I wouldn't feel that the lack of alt text a sufficient issue to prevent promotion, although I'd naturally encourage editors to provide alt text where they feel able. --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks User:RexxS will fix. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hum, the article uses {{ref}} which does not accept that other template. Might take until I get home in a couple of days to figure it out unless someone beats me to it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that template {{ref}} is being misused as it's designed for each {{ref}} to have a corresponding {{note}}, rather than just one note (which breaks the backlink). I have a look at the documentation a little more closely and see if I can find a simple solution. --RexxS (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks :-) Added alt text for completeness. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that template {{ref}} is being misused as it's designed for each {{ref}} to have a corresponding {{note}}, rather than just one note (which breaks the backlink). I have a look at the documentation a little more closely and see if I can find a simple solution. --RexxS (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hum, the article uses {{ref}} which does not accept that other template. Might take until I get home in a couple of days to figure it out unless someone beats me to it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks User:RexxS will fix. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
User:RexxS have switched to an "Alpha" symbol. Does that solve the issue? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Doc James: That's likely to be an improvement, as most screen readers can make some sense of some Greek characters. You never really know unless you have the time and facilities to test large numbers of screen readers, and there are often settings that can be enabled to speak text that is not voiced by default. Anyway the web helps sometimes: for example, there's a resource at http://accessibleculture.org/research-files/character-references/jaws-we-all.php that gives a survey of what characters JAWS and Window-Eyes will speak. If you really, really want to be sure all screen readers will speak a symbol, you have to stick to normal text plus the symbols you get on a standard English keyboard, like *, #, $, etc. Anyway, I'm not suggesting you should change the symbol again, as one could spend forever trying to cater for every possible case. --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
| Comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
*Citations need to be in ascending order, i.e. [8][4] -> [4][8]
This was an ambitious article to improve, and I'm sure that, when it does pass FLC, it will set a precedent for similar lists to follow. Unfortunately, I don't think it is there yet. I wish all editors the best of luck in improving it. Happy editing, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
|
- Strong oppose I'm sorry to be such a Debbie Downer, but I really don't think this article is good enough just yet to be featured. I see that this candidacy has already achieved support from four editors, but I'm pretty sure that two of them have never even reviewed a FL before and one is apparently "not bothered" by the lack of sources, which raises something of a red flag for me.
- I really don't think that this article is of as high a standard as it could be. As I've mentioned previously, there's very little in the way of prose – the Notes section is longer than the lead, which I don't think I've ever seen in a FL before. Speaking of which, the difference between core medicines and complementary medicines should actually be the in lead, not buried away in a note at the bottom.
- The layout is a little uninspired – it's just the list itself with half a dozen images dotted about. The WHO structure this list in a table, which contains much more information – could that layout just be copied?
- If nothing else, at the very least the lead image issue needs to be resolved, which, for my money, is this article's biggest issue. If that image isn't used yet by the WHO then including it in this article to illustrate this subject is original research. If it might be used by the WHO then it violates WP:CRYSTAL.
- As I've said before, this was a challenging article to improve, as there are currently no similar FLs – when this article reaches FL status, it will probably set a precedent for similar lists. But I do think it should perhaps it would benefit from a thorough peer review first. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 07:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes getting images is an issue as getting WHO to adopt an open license is a slow effort. I guess all we can do right now is wait and see if they use the image unless you have a better one in mind.
- World Health Day is now over. The lead does and has for some time discussed the difference between core and complementary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- If you want an example of a different layout that this list could use, I would expect it to look something more along these lines (not collapsed, obviously):
| Medicine | Image | Core/ complementary |
Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amoxicillin | 
|
Core | Powder for oral liquid: 125 mg (as trihydrate)/5 mL; 250 mg (as trihydrate)/5 mL
Solid oral dosage form: 250 mg; 500 mg (as trihydrate) |
| Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (amoxicillin + clavulanic acid) | 
|
Core | Oral liquid: 125 mg amoxicillin + 3125 mg clavulanic acid/5 mL AND 250 mg amoxicillin + 625 mg clavulanic acid/5 mL
Tablet: 500 mg (as trihydrate) + 125 mg (as potassium salt) |
| Ampicillin | 
|
Core | Powder for injection: 500 mg; 1 g (as sodium salt) in vial |
| Benzathine benzylpenicillin | 
|
Core | Powder for injection: 900mg benzylpenicillin (=12million IU)in 5-mLvial ; 144 g benzylpenicillin (=24 million IU) in 5-mL vial |
| Benzylpenicillin | 
|
Core | Powder for injection: 600 mg (= 1 million IU); 3 g (= 5 million IU) (sodiumor potassium salt) in vial |
| Cefalexin | 
|
Core | Powder for reconstitution with water: 125 mg/5 mL; 250mg/5mL(anhydrous)
Solid oral dosage form: 250 mg (as monohydrate) |
| Cefazolin | 
|
Core | Powder for injection: 1 g (as sodium salt) in vial
For surgical prophylaxis a>1 month |
| Cefixime | 
|
Core | Only listed for single-dose treatment of uncomplicated ano-genital gonorrhoea |
| Ceftriaxone | 
|
Core | Powder for injection: 250 mg; 1 g (as sodium salt) in vial
Do not administer with calcium and avoid in infants with hyperbilirubinaemia. a>41 weeks corrected gestational age |
| Cloxacillin | 
|
Core | Capsule: 500 mg; 1 g (as sodium salt)
Powder for injection:500 mg (as sodium salt) in vial Powder for oral liquid:125 mg (as sodium salt)/5mL |
| Phenoxymethylpenicillin (penicillin V) | 
|
Core | Powder for oral liquid: 250 mg (as potassium salt)/5mL
Tablet: 250 mg (as potassium salt) |
| Procaine benzylpenicillin | Core | Powder for injection: 1 g (=1 million IU); 3 g (=3million IU) in vial
Procaine benzylpenicillin is not recommended as first-line treatment for neonatal sepsis except in settings with high neonatal mortality, when given by trained health workers in cases where hospital care is not achievable. | |
| Cefotaxime | 
|
Complementary | Powder for injection: 250 mg per vial (as sodium salt)
Third generation cephalosporin of choice for use in hospitalized neonates |
| Ceftazidime | 
|
Complementary | Powder for injection: 250 mg or 1g (as pentahydrate) in vial |
| Imipenem/cilastatin | 
|
Complementary | Powder for injection: 250 mg (as monohydrate) + 250mg (as sodium salt); 500mg (as monohydrate) + 500mg (as sodium salt) in vial
Listed only for the treatment of life-threatening hospital-based infection due to suspected or proven multidrug-resistant infection Meropenem is indicated for the treatment of meningitis and is licensed for use in children over the age of three months. |
- Now, I suggest the above as an example only: you may want to do things differently. Perhaps you can think of another column or two that might be useful to include. Perhaps you think the bolding is unnecessary. Maybe you have ideas for better images that could be used. Maybe you'd like to include appropriate use of colour in there somewhere (e.g. to differentiate between Core and Complementary, perhaps). But a layout similar to the above would, I believe, be more representative of Wikipedia's best work, and would therefore make this article a better candidate to be featured. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- We do not typically include dosing information per WP:PHARMMOS for a number of reasons (1) we do not consider mediawiki a stable enough platform and (2) it is more than general knowledge.
- Also not a big fan of putting all our content into tables. One issue with tables is they format poorly on mobile, and most of our readers are on mobile (look at your suggestion on mobile, pictures are so small, you need to scroll side to side, the list becomes way way long). The other is that they are harder to edit which makes updating more difficult.
- Some medications or complementary in their entirety while for others only certain formulations are complementary. We already use "α" to indicate that a med is complementary. Is that point significant enough to give it more emphasis? I am not convinced.
- By the way the list currently formats very nicely on mobile. This is something the FA process need to take into account to a much greater degree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Now, I suggest the above as an example only: you may want to do things differently. Perhaps you can think of another column or two that might be useful to include. Perhaps you think the bolding is unnecessary. Maybe you have ideas for better images that could be used. Maybe you'd like to include appropriate use of colour in there somewhere (e.g. to differentiate between Core and Complementary, perhaps). But a layout similar to the above would, I believe, be more representative of Wikipedia's best work, and would therefore make this article a better candidate to be featured. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Resolved comments from DarthBotto
|
|---|
|
- If I may say so myself, this list satisfies all six of the criteria for Featured List status- you have my Support vote. @Doc James: If you could spare a bit of time to review Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Alien characters/archive1, it would be greatly appreciated! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- User:Giants2008, USer:PresN, and User:The Rambling Man was hoping to have a health related list on the main page for World Health Day on April 7th. The review has run slower than I had hoped but wondering your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- For us to schedule it now, this FLC would need to be promoted in the next day or two. I can't edit the TFL blurbs in the final couple of days before a main page appearance because I don't have the necessary admin tools. Colleagues, do you think a consensus has been achieved here? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- I am heading to the mountains tomorrow and likely will not be able to address any further issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- For us to schedule it now, this FLC would need to be promoted in the next day or two. I can't edit the TFL blurbs in the final couple of days before a main page appearance because I don't have the necessary admin tools. Colleagues, do you think a consensus has been achieved here? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment huge list, more like a glossary, one thing that struck me was that all the footnotes are unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley
- Done "The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML), proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO), contains the most effective and safe medicines needed to meet the most important needs in a health system." I think "published" would be better than "proposed", and "contains the most effective..." implies that WHO is infallible. Maybe "lists the medicines considered most effective..."
- DoneI assume the list includes drugs under patent as well as generic ones, but I think it would be helpful to spell out the position.
- DoneI am not clear what the list includes. You refer to a main list and an adult list as if they are different, but you say that all medicines in the children's list are in the main one, which implies that there is no separate adult list.
- Fixed
- Done You use the α symbol to indicate a complementary item, but you say some are only in the complementary list and some are in both, and it is not clear whether the symbol covers all complementary or those only in the complementary list.
- For those ONLY on the complementary list. Will clarify. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- You say in the notes: "An α indicates the medicine is a complementary item, for which specialized diagnostic or monitoring or specialist training are needed. An item may also be listed as complementary on the basis of higher costs or a less attractive cost/benefit ratio. The following is supported by:" I think these comments should be in the lead (or a note at the beginning of the list) as it is needed by the reader at the start. Eg (for the last part) "The list and notes in this article are based on the 2015 edition of the WHO main list."
- Have adjusted some. Let me know if that works. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- The use of header levels is confusing. For example, you have a four dash level for Antiretrovirals, five for Protease inhibitors, and six for Fixed-dose combinations, but these all just show as identical bold text to the reader. You need to delete all levels below four or use some other method of distinguishing lower levels such as indentation.
- I remember something in the MOS that one should stick with headers.Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Headings I do not really understand the exceptions User:Dudley Miles What do you suggest? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- I do not know but I do not see any point in header levels which are indistinguishable to the reader. You could try asking for advice with a {{helpme}}. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Dudley Miles (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks will go through these. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to finally get this closed one way or another- @Dudley Miles: other than that header issue, are you fine with Doc James's changes? {[re|Doc James}} it appears that the headings are messed up in the Estrogens section- you have a level 3 followed by other level 3s? Or is it that Estrogens is an empty section (in which case, why is it there?).
As to the use of level-5/6 headers, and their visual similarity to level-4 headers- yeah, I think something has to be done here. You're eschewing tables, and that's fine- I'm not sure what relevant information you could put in the table that isn't covered by the "subsection" the drugs are in already- but by using a list instead of a table you're also dropping the big advantage of the table, which is that it makes structured data, especially hierarchical data, easy to parse. If you're going to lay that all on the subsection headings... then they have to be able to do the job. And they're not right now- you can't tell the difference between the bottom 3 levels, so it becomes a muddled mess. Example: Antiviral medicines; it goes Antiviral medicines->Antiretrovirals->Protease inhibitors->Fixed-dose combinations, and there's literally no way for a non-medical reader to know that's the hierarchy, because the last 3 headers look identical. And they don't seem to even be used consistently- the next level-4 section, Antihepatitis medicines, uses bare text as a psuedo level-6 header instead. I'd recommend just making all level-5 headers italicized (to distinguish them from level 4), and all level-6 headers bare text, so that at least there's some visual distinction. --PresN 16:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I will be happy to support if the header issue is fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- User:Dudley Miles and User:PresN Does this work[28] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm okay with it, but I'm good with small text- @RexxS: what do you think? While using 'small' tags in a heading is generally frowned upon as per MOS:FONTSIZE, it does give us the advantage here that Doc James can keep the text in a level-6 heading instead of breaking it out into bare non-heading text. --PresN 01:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Having headings is pretty valuable for screen readers, so please don't use pseudo-headers (formatted/bare text without the header markup). The problem you see is because the MediaWiki CSS chooses to display
<h6>...</h6>as 100%;<h5>...</h5>as 108%; and<h4>...</h4>as 116% of normal font size, which seems to be insufficient difference for you to distinguish between them. This is a problem common to all Wiki software, not just English Wikipedia, and certainly not just this list. The solution really should be to alter our MediaWiki:Common.css so that heading levels 4 to 6 become more distinguishable. For now, Doc James' work-around (small for h5 and small-italic for h6) seems a workable solution. It doesn't result in any text smaller than 85% for old folk like me, and the small/italic markup won't be noticed by most screen readers. Given what we start from, it's likely the best compromise. --RexxS (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)- I don't think that italics for level 6 works as showing a lower level, and I would much prefer a hierarchy of indents, but I see no point in pursuing the matter further. I support this first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I there a way to indent a true heading? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think that italics for level 6 works as showing a lower level, and I would much prefer a hierarchy of indents, but I see no point in pursuing the matter further. I support this first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Having headings is pretty valuable for screen readers, so please don't use pseudo-headers (formatted/bare text without the header markup). The problem you see is because the MediaWiki CSS chooses to display
- Hmm, I'm okay with it, but I'm good with small text- @RexxS: what do you think? While using 'small' tags in a heading is generally frowned upon as per MOS:FONTSIZE, it does give us the advantage here that Doc James can keep the text in a level-6 heading instead of breaking it out into bare non-heading text. --PresN 01:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- User:Dudley Miles and User:PresN Does this work[28] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
<div style="margin-left: 1.7em; font-size:85%;">
====== Small indented level six heading ======
</div>
which gives:
Small indented level six heading
editYou can experiment with the 1.7em value to change the amount of indenting. Does that help? --RexxS (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Cool thanks. Do people prefer this? If so feel free to update to it. I am heading off hiking for a week. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- I do think it's better, now done. Source review passed, the only outstanding oppose is about the list of terms vs table issue which the other reviewers and myself disagree with, so, promoting! --PresN 15:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Cool thanks. Do people prefer this? If so feel free to update to it. I am heading off hiking for a week. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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 promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC) [33].
- Nominator(s): Paparazzzi (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I have been working on it for the past days and I think it meets the criteria for a FL. Tove Lo is a Swedish singer and songwriter who has not only written songs for herself but for other artists too, and this list features all of those songs, and it is referenced with sources such as the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers and Broadcast Music, Inc.. Paparazzzi (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comments from Aoba47
-
- All of the images need an ALT description. Done
- Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- There are some instances where you say "Lo" instead of "Lov" so double-check to make sure you correct this.
Comment: The nickname of the artist is "Tove Lo", not "Tove Lov". I understand, it is kind of confusing!
- Oops, sorry for my mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- This is more of a clarification question, but do we know who Lov offered "Love Ballad" to (you identify the person as "an artist" and I was just curious if we know exactly who this person is)? If not, then it is fine as it currently stands. Comment: Sadly, no. Lo never revealed the name of the artist.
- Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- All of the images need an ALT description.
@Paparazzzi: Very strong list! I just have two rather minor comments and one clarification question. Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Aoba47: I have addressed your comments! Thank you so much for the review
. Regards! --Paparazzzi (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Support: Great work with this! Good luck with this list. If possible, could you look at my FLC as well? Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Aoba47: Ok, I'm going to take a look at your FLC. Regards . Paparazzzi (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Aoba47: Ok, I'm going to take a look at your FLC. Regards
| Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
The FLC has been left without comments for a while. Here's some.
Cowlibob (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
|
Support Good list. Cowlibob (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Cowlibob: Thank you for everything! Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
Comments Looks good overall. These are my edits, please revert if you disagree with any of them.  Comment: Thank you! --Paparazzzi (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 08:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
|
- Support If certain webpages can't be archived then there's really nothing more that you can do. Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: I have addressed your comments.Thank you so much, Paparazzzi (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC) |
Comments –
"which talks about 'different kind of rushes in life'". This bit is ungrammatical at the moment. I would change one word in the quote to "kind(s)"; the MoS does allow for such minor changes inside quotes in situations like this. DoneIn the intro's photo caption, we don't really need "pictured" in parentheses, as it's fairly obvious to readers that this will be a photo of Lo. The other photos refer to both Lo and a singer, so there could be some confusion as to who is in the photo; that isn't the case here. DoneIn the table, A l'infini isn't sorting in the right order in the Album(s) column. This is because of the Latin character at the start, and will require a sorting template to fix. Done
Giants2008 (Talk) 00:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Giants2008: I have addressed your comments. Thank you, Paparazzzi (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support – The fixes all look good, and I believe this meets FL standards now. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Paparazzzi this just needs a source review now and then it's good to go. Hopefully you can find someone to do a spot check? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: I checked the links by myself. There were eleven dead links, that I replaced/archived. Regarding the format of references, Cowlibob left comments about it, comments that I have addressed. I don't really know what else to do here, since this is my fist FLC and I don't really know many users. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Mmm, the references that I replaced now appear as ""soft 404". Is it a problem? because they actually work. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well the point of the source check isn't just to identify if they're alive or dead, but to ensure they actually reference the material they're claiming to, hence it's usually conducted independently of the nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: Aoba47 will do a spot check tomorrow night! Paparazzzi (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well the point of the source check isn't just to identify if they're alive or dead, but to ensure they actually reference the material they're claiming to, hence it's usually conducted independently of the nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Mmm, the references that I replaced now appear as ""soft 404". Is it a problem? because they actually work. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Source review by Aoba47
-
- Note that the access dates are not necessary in the references that are archived as the archive date covers that (no real reason to have three dates, publication/access/archive, in the citations as it is a lot).
- While checking this, several references have the message "Soft 404" as indicated by The Rambling Man above me. However, the links are working fine for me, and all of the information is supported through the references. Spotchecks and formatting checks passed. Aoba47 (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, Aoba!
- @The Rambling Man: I have addressed Aoba's comments. So now that the source review has been done, I guess the list can be promoted. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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.