Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/November 2010: Difference between revisions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
+ |
Cambalachero (talk | contribs) withdrawn |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Drake/archive2}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Drake/archive2}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of heads of state of Argentina/archive1}} |
|||
Revision as of 11:39, 9 November 2010
- 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 20:25, 4 November 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): --K.Annoyomous (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination before was not promoted due to lack of reviews. The reason why it didn't have any reviews was partially because it wasn't on the nominations urgently needing reviews list. If the nomination is promoted, I can get back to school work, and wikibreak until Winter break! :D --K.Annoyomous (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, but
the external links to riaa and http://junoawards.ca/database/artist-summary/?artist_name=Drake&show_details=1 are not working.Ucucha 19:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They work on all my browsers (IE, Firefox, Chrome). --K.Annoyomous (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both are also working for me now. Ucucha 01:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Seems a bit inconsistent. Some sections only have sources in the table, or only have them in the prose. Why? Choose one, the other, or both. Sources and grammar are good, I give my support overall once this problem is assessed and if any other reviewer has no problems with the article. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some respective awards sites have their award winners listed on one single link, while other awards sites list their award winners by category. I can't do any of your options, because like i said, it depends on the sites that I got my sources from. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use[reply]! scope="row"| and ! scope="col"|-- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Retracted comments for now... its fairer since I would like to see a mass change that I am making notes on the featured list talk page instead. Sorry for the disruption caused. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- The colors in the infobox are annoyingly bright. Perhaps, you could exchange them for the ones used in the rest of the article?
- The infobox template is used in every awards lists. I like related articles to be consistent with others, so if you would like the colors in the infobox to change, it would be best to talk to WP:MUSIC about that. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You could certainly talk to them about it, but don't stress yourself. I'm merely pointing out a minor imperfection here. I wouldn't hold back my support just over this. Goodraise 00:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is somewhat weak. It's less of a coherent piece of writing and more of a pile of facts grouped into paragraphs. It feels rushed and overly minimalistic.
- I agree with you that the lead is weak, and I am hoping to fix the lead when my desktop is fixed. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, it's giving me no pleasure to bring this up in your FLCs time and time again, but I simply can't support nominations with less than exemplary prose. Really am sorry. Goodraise 00:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References 39 through 42 are exact duplicates of reference 38 and don't appear to support what they are used to cite.
- Fixed. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goodraise 07:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- "He began his acting career in 2001 under his legal name, Aubrey Graham, playing the role of Jimmy Brooks in Degrassi: The Next Generation." - any of that cited?
- The whole first paragraph is cited by IMDB. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is not inline (or any other) IMDB citation in this list. Additionally, iMDB is not reliable. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't be lazy with cites. For Young Artist Award you just give one home page. Cite the five places that reference the awards (also denote if won as Aubrey Graham)
- Umm...some sites do not list all their awards in different links, which is why I use the link best for the citation. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This cites nothing. You need to cite the individual pages: 1, 2 etc. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Similarly with the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards
- Similarly with the above reply. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BET Awards cites 10–14 are dead to information not verifiable
- Could you please clarify? --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Try clicking the links! "We're sorry, but something went wrong." Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010 MOBO Awards nomination completely unreferenced.
- The section is referenced by the reference in the prose. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong the prose has one reference [31] which cites the 2009 MOBO noms but not the 2010 one. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "reached the Billboard Hot 100" - you reach #1 but enter the Hot 100 I think
- I believe that reached can also be used in this case. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 38–42 the same
- Fixed. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Four Soul Train pendings need refs
-
- Okay but the prose says he recieved "three nominations". I see another as Aubrey Graham for Un-Thinkable (I'm Ready) but as they don't count it I don't think wiki should (it might be another Aubrey Graham too). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So at this stage I'm opposing. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have Rambo's concerns been addressed? I will give this a review once they are. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, no replies or action on my comments (list not edited since 21 Oct). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I also see now that the user has not edited either since the 20th. Oppose and request archiving, unfortunately. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:23, 4 November 2010 (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 MBelgrano 11:39, 9 November 2010 [2].
- Nominator(s): MBelgrano (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it's one of the most important lists within the Argentine topics I work with. I have checked all the entries with a related book and adressed the points mentioned at a recent peer review. I think that now it should be ready, or at least if there are further final points to adress that I haven't noticed they should be small and easy to fix. MBelgrano (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I believe theres a long list of issues with this just ones I can point to off the top of my head, inconsistent dates, the fact the key (or affiliations as its noted in the article) comes at the end of the article not to mention there is inconsistency in applying these abbreviations. There's a ton of unreferenced information in the Lead. The table for the Triumvirates is extremely confusing to the average reader also and I'd be interested to knowing why it isn't formatted like the other tables. The tables also do not have the correct sort facilities. The Retrieval dates for the references also fail WP:DATE. Afro (Talk) 13:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The table for the triumvirates is formated that way because, unlike the other tables, they were triumvirates, composed of 3 heads of state working at the same time (which is explained at the lead). Horizontal order for the members of a same triumvirate, vertical for first and second triumvirate. Each file has actually four members because in each one a member left it and was replaced. I though that with the notes it would be undertood, and it would be less misleading than making 4 files of 3 members, because history books talk about 2 triumvirates, not 4. Anyway, I'm open to other suggestions. I didn't thought the lead would need much references because that's mostly trivial information, but I included more footnotes as required. I fixed the access dates as requested as well. I can improve the sort feature if needed, but is it really needed? It's a list of heads of state, I didn't thought there could be an interest to read it in another order than the cronological one. MBelgrano (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Sort feature is unquestionably in need of sorting as proved by the Presidents table, after all theres no point in having these if they can't sort, its also required they work by the Criteria. I'd also like to bring up a question as to why the start and end dates aren't separated like I've seen in other articles. The Triumvirates needs to be sorted either way as it seems out of place and the sorting function is very confusing for the table. You've fixed all but one access date. I do assume the lead needs to be referenced better if I am judging WP:LEADCITE correctly. Afro (Talk) 04:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The table for the triumvirates is formated that way because, unlike the other tables, they were triumvirates, composed of 3 heads of state working at the same time (which is explained at the lead). Horizontal order for the members of a same triumvirate, vertical for first and second triumvirate. Each file has actually four members because in each one a member left it and was replaced. I though that with the notes it would be undertood, and it would be less misleading than making 4 files of 3 members, because history books talk about 2 triumvirates, not 4. Anyway, I'm open to other suggestions. I didn't thought the lead would need much references because that's mostly trivial information, but I included more footnotes as required. I fixed the access dates as requested as well. I can improve the sort feature if needed, but is it really needed? It's a list of heads of state, I didn't thought there could be an interest to read it in another order than the cronological one. MBelgrano (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the triumvirate section; to make it more accessible (and the rest of the article)..... Is it good enough? --TIAYN (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
- Don't just write "Interim" and "Resigned" all the time; write a sentence or two on why he resigned or how he became an "Interim" leader...
- Most of the article is left unreferenced...
- There are more, but these two will probably take some time.. --TIAYN (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is that this is a list, not a summary of history. I made a specific efford to remove or reduce all the info that goes to other divergent topics, and keep just those related to the nature or duration of the mandate in the shortest ways possible. Sometimes this simply wasn't possible (such as with the strange system of the 2003 elections), but that was the system I followed. Consider that you are asking for something like es:Gobernantes de Argentina, which lost featured status for this very reason, and I don't think this project has different ideas about this either. As for the references, I followed the system of referencing material "challenged or likely to be challenged", comments like saying that Duhalde resigned seemed very trivial to justify references. But if it's needed to reference each entry of the table, I can easily give the pages MBelgrano (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You shouldn't be concerned about what happens on other projects first off this isn't a good reason to leave out information on the given subject because another project decided it wasn't warranted 3 years ago, looking over the discussion page for the demotion there also seems to of been concerns regarding the POV which may of had more to do with it. Afro (Talk) 14:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you can, see List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom... Either write full-sentenced or remove those one word tags which are all over the article.. They are wasting valuable space, if you are going to have space for it, use it.. If you don't want to have tags, take a look at the List of Presidents of Venezuela. Spanish wiki doesn't work the same way as English wiki, just as Norwegian wiki doesn't work the same way as Russian wiki! --TIAYN (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is that this is a list, not a summary of history. I made a specific efford to remove or reduce all the info that goes to other divergent topics, and keep just those related to the nature or duration of the mandate in the shortest ways possible. Sometimes this simply wasn't possible (such as with the strange system of the 2003 elections), but that was the system I followed. Consider that you are asking for something like es:Gobernantes de Argentina, which lost featured status for this very reason, and I don't think this project has different ideas about this either. As for the references, I followed the system of referencing material "challenged or likely to be challenged", comments like saying that Duhalde resigned seemed very trivial to justify references. But if it's needed to reference each entry of the table, I can easily give the pages MBelgrano (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well, this may take a while, so we can close this nomination for the time being. I would have worked on this topics before nominating if they were mentioned in the peer review, but there's no rush, and I don't want to bottleneck the featured lists nominations with an incomplete list. Just some final clarifications. Do I reference each entry, even if the content is trivial? Even if I expand from one-word sentences, do I keep the policy of mentioning just the info related to the mandate of do I give more lengthy explanations on who was each ruler and the things he did? MBelgrano (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you will have to reference the text in each entry, even if the content is trivial. In my opinion you should reference everything, just as I have done to the List of leaders of the Soviet Union, I don't think this is a 'must do thing' however. Just write to to four sentences about the country under each ruler; try to include the most important events. --TIAYN (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tips, take a look at other FL articles before re-nominating this list again. --TIAYN (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Drawing mostly from the work I've done on U.S. governor lists:
- The Affiliations box is huge and should not be the first thing people see. Furthermore, I'm not sure it's necessary; I can't think of any U.S. politician list that included a list of every political party on it. If people want to know more about the affiliations, we have links. At the very least, it needs to be collapsed, but I don't see why it needs to be here to begin with.
- There's no reason to stack dates and parties. Put them next to each other. Especially since you switch back and forth between formats, there's no justification for that.
- Don't force image size; use upright.
- IMO, if the notes are entirely how they entered and left office then perhaps they can be tagged to the dates as footnotes.
- Not sure we need their lifetime in the table either. Again, they have links. That's not immediately relevant to the matter at hand.
- --Golbez (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.