Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/February 8/archive1
- 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) [1].[reply]
February 8 edit
February 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- @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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- @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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- @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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- @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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- @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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- @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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.