Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of former NTA Film Network affiliates in the United States/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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of former NTA Film Network affiliates in the United States edit

Featured article candidates/List of former NTA Film Network affiliates in the United States/archive1

Nominator(s): Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) C 20:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an list that I should have nominated earlier but could not due to lack of consensus on a certain edit. I believe this article is well-detailed and has excellent use of references (1125!). There is an excellent introduction to kick things off. Spelling is good here. Lastly, I think trivia has been limited to only the crucial. Overall, a perfect complement to the parent article (it is a Good article). Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) C 20:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My bad! I screwed up; this is supposed to be a FEATURED LIST! Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) C 20:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wow, what a list. Massive.

Don't start lists with "This is a list...".
Avoid bold links.
Explain abbreviations before you use them, like NTA (perhaps that needs a page move), NBC, CBS, etc etc.
Six-para lead is over the top. Perhaps consider a "history" section or something to enhance the article.
" the 1961–1962 television" see WP:YEAR.
What does "channel number" really mean? In the UK we have channel numbers that differ between Freeview, Sky, Virgin etc.
Programs Aired -< aired.
"now on 19" etc, WP:ASOF.
Not one single of the programs aired has an article? Really? Is this list even notable?

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have called for the attention of WP:TVS on the comments. We will discuss them. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) T | C Member: WP:TVS 15:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thought this was your own nomination? If there's no activity here soon, we'll archive it, and I would suggest you take the article to peer review before renominating. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third bullet (explain abbreviations before you use them) is covered by MOS:ACRO. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NTA already explained as "National Telefilm Associates"; recent edit to clarify. I also removed the "this is a list". The networks may be better as acronyms though. (The Rambling Man, you probably never even heard of the networks NBC, CBS, and ABC. Even there are full names [and CBS is now pretty much a orphan initialism; see article], here in Canada, that's how we call them.) By the way, you may wish to explain clearly some of your cryptic commands. I'm 15 years old. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) T | C Member: WP:TVS 23:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing cryptic as far as I can tell. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing changes here within 24 hours, I'll archive the nomination, the nominator hasn't edited since 1 June, and there seems little likelihood that the comments will be addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use simple English please. Explain the changes needed. (I swear to God that there is some sort of regional bias here. This would have been way easier if an American took over.) Don't discourage me, okay? Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) T | C Member: WP:TVS 20:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, perhaps you should ask User:Giants2008 or another non-British contributor. There's no regional bias, we just expect that people nominating a list at WP:FLC have a clue as to what we're doing here. Sorry if that's not coming across for you. By the way, for Simple English, there is another Wikpiedia, called Simple English Wikipedia. You may feel more at home there? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this FLC because my name was linked above by TRM; the notification system picked up on it, which is about the first worthwhile thing it's done for me since being introduced. I'd hate to see a newcomer to FLC scared away by comments they have trouble understanding, as we've all had difficulty with new concepts on this site at one time or another. Allow me to elaborate on TRM's points above:

The "This is a list of" opening has been discouraged at FLC for a while now. We wouldn't start the main NTA Film Network article with "This is an article about", since that is needless and not an inviting start for the readers. Lists should ideally have a better intro, and it seems that this has been fixed already.
Bold links, such as the NTA Film Network one in the lead and numerous links in the table, are discouraged by the Manual of Style, which FLs should follow.
Abbreviations may confuse readers who are unfamiliar with them, so it's a good idea to define them when first using them. NTA has been defined already in the first sentence, while CBS, NBC, and ABC could do with similar definitions even if most Americans will recognize them. ABC is also the name of an Australian network, to name one possible problem.
According to the guidelines at WP:LEAD, the lead section shouldn't be longer than four paragraphs. One way to get around this is to create a history section and summarize it in the lead, as TRM recommends. Personally, I think you could get away with merging a couple of the paragraphs because they aren't that big; this would leave a four-paragraph lead, which suits a list of this size well.
Year ranges are usually supposed to be given in the form of 1961–62, omitting the first two years of the second year. I heard somewhere that this was changing, but WP:YEAR doesn't reflect that, so I'd go with the shortened format.
I think TRM is asking for an explanatory note for the channel number column in the table, but I'm not 100% sure. If I'm wrong, I'm sure he will clarify further.
Since "Aired" isn't a proper noun that would normally be capitalized, it shouldn't be capitalized in the table headings. Generally, headings with more than one word shouldn't have capitalization after the first word, unless they would normally be capitalized in prose.
"Now" is a term that will become outdated quickly, so its use is discouraged. Adding "as of" states to the reader when this was updated, and can help with article maintenance.
If the programs are notable enough for their own articles, then red links could be added for them. More than a minimal amount of red links could cause problems with the FL criteria, however. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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