Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 2024

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [1].

---

List of chief ministers from the Indian National Congress

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 06:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I am re-nominating this for a featured list because the last nomination yielded no results. Although all issues have been addressed in a timely manner, please feel free to provide your constructive inputs, and I will do my best to resolve them. Much Thanks 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 06:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose – I hate to oppose a FLC so quickly, but the list has fundamental issues with sourcing and formatting. Many tables do not have their own sources and would seem to all be sourced from worldstatesmen.org, which was deprecated in a 2020 RfC. The lead also has large unsourced sections. The tables have wildly differing formats – for instance, table headings are included in some, omitted from others, and incorrectly formatted as rows in some cases. Each table should be structured the same way per WP:FLCR #1 ("professional standards of writing" include consistency to me, as different formats look sloppy) and #5a ("suitable use of text layout, formatting, [and] tables"). Other immediate issues include links in section headings (violates MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS), incorrect sorting (names in sortable tables should sort by last name), and missing alt text for images. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Original !vote struck. See my comment below. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

*:Hello @RunningTiger123, thanks for you comments. I've included references in the lead section. Regarding the tables, as you can see, there are a large number of them in this list. Could you please specify which table requires correction? 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC) For starters, by my count, the tables for Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Odisha, Punjab, Puducherry, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh lack references. (That would be over half of the states/union territories listed.) Other tables with sources seem questionable – for instance, the Andhra State Act 1953 does not provide information about the leaders who came after its passage. Formatting also needs to be fixed in essentially every table because they all vary so much and need to conform to a single standard. Things to consider: Should the tables have a visible header or not? (They need some form of header in every case; it can just be set for screen readers only.) Should consecutive terms following different elections be combined into one cell or split into separate rows? Should references go in the table header or in a column heading? In my opinion, it seems fine to have a reference attached to the table header. Still, I would like to know your view, if using 'blank' instead of 'No Image Available' is going to cause any trouble Should cells use "no image available" or just be left blank? What do you recommend?--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 10:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC) For all of the items listed here, my point is solely that there needs to be consistency. It doesn't matter which approach you choose as long as you do it for every table. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Hello @RunningTiger123, I have restructured the entire list with a new format and have utilized mostly different sources for each table. Please take a moment to review it and let me know if it's good to proceed. Thanks. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC) The list still needs work but I think there's at least a clear sense of what a "standard" table looks like, so I'll offer a re-assessment within a few days. One quick note: The table caption should use proper formatting, not just a row spanning all columns at the top. See H:TC. (I was unclear about this by referring to captions as headers; my mistake.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Thank you so much for the H:TC part. Corrections have been made. I will await your further notes. Thanks again. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 14:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC) And so on. There's even more I could point out, but I think I've made my point for now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC) All your suggestions noted. Also, allow me couple days to make corrections recommended by you. Much thanks. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 03:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC) Re-review of the article after changes: "3 December, 2023" – no comma when using day-month-year format  Fixed Link Himachal Pradesh like the other states  Fixed Do not link States and union territories of India twice in the lead  Fixed No reason to add the abbreviation "UTs" if it's not used elsewhere – avoids awkward use of parentheses back-to-back  Fixed "twenty-eight states and three union territories" → "twenty-eight states and of three union territories" – this clarifies that "each" earlier in the line doesn't apply to the union territories as there are more than three of them  Fixed "state level" should not be hyphenated  Fixed Citation needed for last sentence of second lead paragraph  Fixed "Okram Ibobi Singh ... has been the longest-serving chief minister from the INC." – but the tables show Gegong Apang served longer?  Fixed "longest serving Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh" – any reason why this state is more relevant than the others?  DoneOther states included like Delhi, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh as well. All tables: Names should sort by surname/family name  Fixed All tables: Portrait columns should not be sortable  Fixed All tables: Since the term in office header spans three columns, sorting is only applied to the first column (start of term), and it is not possible to sort by the other two. It might be worth splitting into "Start of term", "End of term", and "Span" columns (or similar) if you want to be able to use all three in sorting. This is an optional change. Allow the list stick to its existing state please, if it's okay. All tables: Ordinals should have specified sort values so they sort in numeric order instead of alphabetical order (e.g., sort value for "First" should be "1"). Even ordinals in numeric form (e.g., "12th") need this since I suspect the MediaWiki software will not recognize that as a number.  Fixed All tables: Add row scopes (see PresN's accessibility reviews throughout WP:FLC for more)  Fixed Andhra Pradesh: Time span for Marri Chenna Reddy is incorrect (probably a bad parameter)  Fixed Arunachal Pradesh: Add table caption; add sorting; why is Apang's term split into four "subterms" (not supported by source)? I think they should use a single start and end date while keeping separate rows for the assembly column. If they are to be listed this way, each subterm should have its own time span (same for Tuki)  Done Assam: Add table caption; address Bordoloi in same way as Apang above  Done Bihar: Use rowspan=2 instead of repeating name, portrait, constituency columns (like you do in other tables); fix format for Rai's start date; use years and days for Mishra's second term  Fixed Chhattisgarh: Add table caption  Done Delhi: Add table captions; "Office Abolished, 1956–93" is not an appropriate table caption; address Dikshit in same way as Apang  Fixed Table caption added That's plenty to start with. I would highly suggest you look for similar issues in other tables – in particular, confirm that all tables have captions, row scopes, and correct sorting, and that all tables address the "subterm" issue (in essence, each start and end date should have a span in years/days that is associated with only those dates, whether those dates covers all subterms or just one – let me know if more clarification is needed). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Hello @RunningTiger123, I have endeavored to address all the issues that were raised. Could you please review it and advise on any further requirements. Thank you. Sorry for the delay, didn't get a ping (I think you have to sign your edit for it to ping a user). From the edits above, the remaining issues are: Row scopes still missing as best as I can tell Could you please highlight those tables specifically? It will help me resolve the issue quickly. Incorrect name sorting for third table for Andhra Pradesh  Fixed Tuki's time span should be split in two, like Apang  Fixed Incorrect name sorting for Assam and for Bihar  Fixed I made several other edits to fix small typos and the like. I can look further once these tables are done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC) @RunningTiger123 I have made the required changes. Please have a look.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Okay, I wasn't super clear but some of the sorting errors are still there; K. Rosaiah is incorrect in the Andhra Pradesh table and Abdul Gafoor is incorrect in the Bihar table. For row scopes, those need to be added to all tables. (I also missed it earlier, but column scopes are also needed.) See MOS:DTT#Overview of basics – tables should have captions, row and column headers, and scopes for the row and column headers. Note that if a column header spans multiple columns, it needs scope="colgroup" instead of scope="col". (It's similar for rowgroup when row headers span multiple rows.) I'll provide an example of what this can look like for the Andhra Pradesh tables, just to prevent further confusion. Given the length that this review has lasted, I suggest that this review be closed as not promoted – to tweak a different saying, FLC is not cleanup, and lists that have a long way to go should be worked on through a separate process such as the article talk page or peer review. I would gladly re-review the list in a new FLC after it's been polished. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC) Hello @RunningTiger123 I would request not to close this review, rather allow me some time. I will make the necessary changes and also look into other FL for reference. I shall get back to you once I am done. Thank you for your patience. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 05:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC) Hello @RunningTiger123 I have made the required changes. Please take a look. If there are still many issues remaining, please close this review, and I will nominate at the appropriate time. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking through the article now, it looks like formatting and citations have been broadly addressed. I'll add new comments in a bit. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

New review:

• Lead generally looks fine, though I didn't carefully reread it since I already commented on it
• I noticed you hid the table captions for sections with only one table. I understand the reasoning – I generally do the same thing – but in this case, I would suggest showing the heading in all cases so you can link to the state/union territory, since those are otherwise unlinked. (Just makes it easier for readers who aren't familiar with Indian states like me.)  Done
• Andhra Pradesh:  Done
  • Link for Hyderabad State should go to Hyderabad State (1948–1956)
  • Move the second listing for Kotla Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy up to be with the first for consistency
  • Still skeptical that ref. 18 – a 1953 law – can support information through the present
• Assam: Add link for 8th assembly  Done
• Bihar:  Done
  • Remove space before reference (WP:CITEFOOT) – same for Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir
  • Make the first table sortable for consistency
• Delhi:  Done
  • Ref. 24 is deprecated
  • Ref. 17 seems to discuss the wrong state?
  • Add links to Delhi in caption
• Goa: Done
  • Numbering for assemblies seems off
  • Link Goa, Daman and Diu
• Gujarat: Done
  • Move the second listing for Solanki to be with the first
  • Term lengths for Desai, Patel, and Solanki use the wrong format
• Himachal Pradesh: Done
  • Suggest moving the key (this applies for all sections with one) to its own section before all other tables
  • First table should use "Chief Ministers" (plural) – as best as I can tell, you've opted to use singular when there is one person in a table and plural otherwise
  • First table is unsourced
  • Link should be to Bilaspur State (1950–1954)
  • Second table should not be sortable
  • Do not use forced line breaks in the assembly cell for Parmar. Suggest splitting the cell into two rows, one for "1" and one for "2"
  • Rohru should not have row scope
• Karnataka: Done
  • First table should only say "1" in assembly cell – no need for other details
    • Same in second table
  • "Third" should not be spelled out; also, split "3" and "4" into separate rows
    •  Not done @RunningTiger123: I tried best to split but it's not happening. Could you please help me segregating it --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 12:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
      • Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

        Thanks a lot mate 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Add asterisk to mark Siddaramaiah as incumbent
• Kerala: Second table is unsourced Done
• Madhya Pradesh: Done
  • Link to states in captions
  • Use "Chief Ministers" (plural) in captions
  • Disable plain row headers in third table
  • Arjun Singh does not sort correctly
  • "Eighth" should not be spelled out

Pausing here; will continue shortly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Continuing:

• Maharashtra: Done
  • WP:CITEFOOT
  • "NA" → "N/A" (same for Rajasthan, Telangana)
  • Second table should not be sortable
  • Ashok Chavan's terms are non-consecutive and need separate time spans
• Meghalaya: "Days" should be lowercase for Rymbai Done
• Mizoram: I'm assuming the 1984 elections should be written as "1"? Done
• Nagaland: Split "5" and "6" into separate rows for Sema Done
• Odisha: Done
  • Remove "pre-independent" from assembly cells
  • Several months are abbreviated and should be spelled out
  • Choudhury should be listed before Mahatab in second table
  • Biswal was not just in the 11th assembly
• Punjab: Done
  • Footnotes f and g are unsourced (could just be removed) – same for footnotes h and i under Tripura
  • Add link to PEPSU
  • Use "Chief Ministers" (plural) in third table
  • Name sorting is incorrect in third table
  • Amarinder Singh's terms are in the wrong order; he should also be moved up based on his first term
  • Beant Singh sorts incorrectly
• Rajasthan: Done
  • Sukhadia's time spans should be split
  • Mather's first time span is wrong
• Tamil Nadu: Done
  • Link states in captions
  • Remove link from "Assembly" in header
  • Rajagopalachari's time span is incorrect
• Uttar Pradesh: "Portrait" is misspelled Done
• West Bengal: Done
  • Do not force line break in constituency cell
  • Footnote l implies Roy served in 3rd assembly, but table does not show this
• I would highly suggest using citation templates to ensure the references use the same format throughout the article – WP:CITE doesn't require any specific format but does say to use a single consistent format, and templates are the easiest way to do that.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Some other points not to do with table formatting:

• "As of 3 Dec, 2023," - the date should be written properly i.e. month not abbreviated
• "is in power in 3 states" - numbers lower than ten should be written as words
• Also, in that sentence it should be "the three states of....."
• "In Tamil Nadu, Bihar & Jharkhand" - "and" should be written as a word
• "Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Janata Dal (United) & Jharkhand Mukti Morcha respectively" - and here too
• "most of the States" - no reason for capital S on states
• "who served as the chief minister of Delhi held the office" - last three words are not needed
• "who was chief minister of Manipur for 15 years and 11 days" / "served as chief minister of Assam for 15 years, 6 days" - why the different format? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @ChrisTheDude all  Done. Please have a look. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 11:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @ChrisTheDude Could you please review the list and suggest any additional corrections if needed? Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Has the stuff RunningTiger123 raised been addressed? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: The issues I've raised seemed to have been broadly addressed with smaller cleanup still needed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Hello @ChrisTheDude: Seeking your advise on any further requirements. Thank you--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 04:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824's comments

• The only ref for the PEPSU tables doesn't talk about the entries present.

 Added

• I'm sure you can find a better source than elections.in used for Andhra Pradesh.

 Added

• Given that Gegong Apang is the longest serving INC chief minister, you should add his total time as CM in the lead. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Added

Hello @MPGuy2824: Have a look now.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 12:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• PEPSU: The tribune link doesn't talk about Raghbir Singh being "Premier of PEPSU" before 1952. Also, the only ref for CMs of PEPSU still doesn't talk about either of the list entries.

 Fixed please have a look and let me know if it's good to go.

• AP: You've replaced the ref with a oneindia.com one. A few editors don't consider it reliable.

 Fixed I apologies, had no idea about oneindia.com not being reliable.

• Lead:"Deputy Chief Minister is a member of" to "The deputy Chief Minister".

 Fixed

• Lead: "While not a constitutional office, it seldom carries any specific powers." to "It is not a constitutional office, and seldom carries any specific powers." -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed

@MPGuy2824: Let me know if there are more points to be addressed. Thank you.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123 and ChrisTheDude: Do either of you intent to return to your reviews of this nomination? --PresN 19:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm done reviewing this FL. At best I'd change my !vote to neutral leaning oppose; there are still some unaddressed items and I'm tired of sinking time into this repeating points and rechecking entire sections. I think this edit hits the points pretty well – the incorrect link change for Bilaspur State (1950–1954) is small but mildly irritating; more importantly, it goes in the wrong direction by adding a source that I've said is deprecated multiple times. I also didn't dig too far into most sources, but a proper source review would probably turn up more stuff. @25 Cents FC: I appreciate the work you've put into this list, but I said earlier "FLC is not cleanup" and I'm drawing the line on my cleanup help here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @RunningTiger123, @ChrisTheDude @MPGuy2824 @PresN This list is quite lengthy, and because of that, it's becoming tough to clean. I have tried my best to bring it up to FL level. If the list still requires significant improvement, please mention those points and conclude the review. If it needs only minor work, please let me know those points. Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

This nomination has been open for 3 months; in that time, it has received no supports, and one review that I would still count as an oppose. Just flipping through the list, I see inconsistencies in how each table is captioned (are the years the state existed included or not?), and no explanations of how the state boundaries have changed and been renamed over time despite being the source of table breaks. You can't sort by length of office (only beginning date); people who served in multiple successive legislatures in some cases (Arunachal Pradesh) are listed multiple times with each session individually, but for others (Assam) they aren't; if you sort by date where there isn't a gap then (again for Assam) someone in 3 sessions gets 3 rows with the same dates; there's definitely some wonky sources in there (unacadamy?!) as well as formatting problems... long story short, after 3 months and multiple reviews I should be checking if this is overdue for promotion, but instead I'm seeing lots of problems. I'm going to archive this nomination. Please make sure to fix all problems, even if the list is long, before renominating. --PresN 20:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• 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.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [2].

---

List of state presidents of the Indian National Congress

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 09:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This list has been improved significantly. All your constructive inputs are welcome. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 09:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.

 Fixed

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !class="sortable" |State becomes !scope=col |State (you don't need the "sortable", as you marked the whole table sortable). If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.

 Fixed

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | [[Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee|Andhra Pradesh]] becomes !scope=row | [[Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee|Andhra Pradesh]]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.

 Fixed

• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 03:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @PresN: Thank you so much for such a clear explanation. I have made the required changes. Please do let me know if more improvements are required. Thanks again.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 05:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@PresN Could you please have a look at this FL. Awaiting your response. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

You were missing several columns, and didn't actually put in a caption for the tables. I've fixed it for you. --PresN 16:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@PresN Thanks a lot mate. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 12:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This nomination has received no comments after nearly 2 months, and also should not have been nominated as the nominator's other list had not received substantial support at the time (or now). As such, I'm closing this out to keep the nomination queue moving. Once this is eligible to be renominated, feel free to do so, though I recommend reaching out to wikiprojects and interested editors to get more reviews. --PresN 21:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• 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.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [3].

---

February 8

Nominator(s): Dan the Animator 04:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I worked on this article for a while, adding in the missing refs and fixing every issue I could find. I also brought the article through a peer review back in late October-early November, where the few issues raised were addressed. While this article may be unique in that it falls under the strict Wikipedia:Days of the year consensus (link to guidelines here) which differs from the standard FL-guidelines in some regards (particularly for the formatting/structure of the lede), I don't think this should preclude a FL-nomination for this or any other DOY article. Besides, once the first DOY article successfully passes FLN, it would pave the way for how the other 364 DOY articles can eventually also get FL status. I recognize this is a significant challenge but I'm willing to do whatever is necessary to get this article, February 8, its article-quality recognition. Best, Dan the Animator 04:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by commment

• Can you expand the lead? A lead of literally just one sentence isn't really appropriate for a FL...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  ChrisTheDude: I completely agree though unfortunately because of the wikiproject's strict guidelines (which are based on this article template), I can't change the lead without changing the consensus (I tried to diverge from the template before on an issue much more minor than this and got reverted within a few hours for it). That said, I started yet another discussion on the wikiproject page but until there's a consensus there, which might not even happen, there's not much I'll be able to do. Highly encourage taking part in that discussion though to help move things forward (and maybe convince the editors involved in the wikiproject to consider changing the template). Cheers, Dan the Animator 20:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not going to put a flat-out "oppose" here but I don't feel that I can support an article with a lead of literally just one sentence for FL status. Sorry about that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: that's alright and honestly agree with your concerns. Do you have any suggestions though how I might successfully get around the issue of the lede? The discussion I opened has been open for over a week now and there seems to be a strong consensus against changing the size/formatting of DOY ledes. I'm thinking the only way forward given this might be to create a narrow exception to WP:FLCR for DOY articles where there current lede could be retained and the article could successfully complete the FLN process. The only policies I can think of though to back up this sort of workaround is Wikipedia:IGNORE and maybe WP:COMMON, which is as weak as it gets imo. I'm not an expert of all the WP policies so maybe if there's one I'm missing that could help in a case like this, please let me know. In any case, thanks for replying and no worries if you can't/don't want to help. Cheers, Dan the Animator 04:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Btw Hey man im josh, feel free to help with the above too if you can/are willing. The issue of the lede is a tough one to say the least but the only way to get past it is to get as many editors voices/help on it as possible. Dan the Animator 04:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Dantheanimator, I think there's a general feeling that a list with a lead this short shouldn't pass at FLC. Unfortunately, based on the consensus against changing the leads of DOY articles, it seems impossible to get DOY articles promoted. I will say I commend you for the effort and detail that went into this. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Josh! :) While I agree this review seems to be in a bit of a bind right now, I still think there's a way for it to pass. Much like the uphill effort it took to get articles like 2001 to GA status, I think a wider discussion is needed on how DOY articles should be assessed. I'm planning on starting a WP:RfC about this later today but open to other ideas too as always. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments by Hey man im josh

• Inconsistent date formats
  • I looked through the article but I couldn't see any differing date formatting. In the lede & events section, the MDY formatting is used consistently (to match the title yk). The rest of the article follows the DOY project guidelines consistently (for how the birth/death year are displayed, which are never shown as complete dates per the DOY template). Maybe I misread your suggestion?
• A number of unreliable sources used
  • I went through and took out/replaced as many as I could find but not sure if I got all of them. Let me know if there's any unreliable refs left and I'll fix them best I can.
• The lead desperately needs to be expanded
  • see my reply above

Hey man im josh (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: many thanks for the suggestions and apologies for not replying sooner! Feel free to ping me back when you get a chance to take another look at the article. Cheers, Dan the Animator 04:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Days of the year

• Oppose – I personally don't believe any content from the Days of the year WikiProject and similar projects should be eligible for any form of recognised status purely because of the dynamic nature of the content. There are almost two million biography articles on Wikipedia and this list is saying that James Dean was the only notable person born on 8 February 1931; what about Shadia, who was born the same day and not included? What is the determining factor there, what makes Dean more notable than Shadia, so much so that she is excluded from the list? They both have WikiPedia articles, shouldn't they both be included? These lists are far too dynamic and cannot be complete. On another point, this list does not have an engaging lead, failing FL criteria two. Unless that is changed, it is impossible to promote this list. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Idiosincrático: Completely agree with your points on notability but as far as I understand it, anyone with a wiki article and sources verifying their birth & death dates are eligible to be included on DOY articles. Thanks for pointing out Shadia (I'll add her in a little bit) and feel free to let me know if there's anyone else missing that has English Wikiarticles so I can add them too. About the dynamic nature of the articles though: I agree that these articles are somewhat dynamic but that doesn't make them ineligible. Consider country articles like Bulgaria and Canada. Both are dynamic (the history/demographics/other major parts of countries change all the time and I'm sure the article for Canada could use updating too (from a quick skim, I couldn't find any mention of the quiet notable 2023 Canadian wildfires and no mention is given of Canadian aid to Ukraine)). That said, just like those articles are eligible for GA and FA status, I think these articles are just the same. For me, the point of giving DOY articles any status is to single to the readers that they are relatively accurate/reliable and to give some sort of concrete goal for what direction the articles should go in yk. Anyways, I'm going to start an RfC about this soonish as mentioned above so feel free to share your thoughts about this there when I get it opened and thanks for the comments here too. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC on lead issue opened

• Per the comments above, here's the link to the open RfC on handling the lead issue for these articles. Feel free to add your thoughts/comments/etc. to that page. Thanks! Dan the Animator 02:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude, Hey man im josh, and Idiosincrático: Pinging involved users in this discussion (sorry for the bother!) Dan the Animator 02:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

At this point, after 2 months there have been no supports, no alignment on the lede issue, and the RfC has turned into a reforendum on how DoY lists should be structured in the first place with no clear resolution. As such, I'm going to close this nomination for now; if the lede issue ever gets resolved, it can be re-nominated with a fresh slate. --PresN 21:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• 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.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.