Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/May 2014

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates‎ | Failed log
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.

List of Christina Aguilera concert tours edit

Nominator(s): Simon (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think that this list meets all of the FL criteria. I have considered the name and decided to change the title from List of Christina Aguilera performances to List of Christina Aguilera concert tours per other FL standards (such as Madonna), as well as the performances done by Aguilera are numerous since her career debut. I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions. Cheers, Simon (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor
  • Please include alt. text for the picture of Aguilera performing "Dirrty".
  • "In 2004, Aguilera was expected to return to North America in the summer of 2004..." Please remove one mention of 2004 so this sentence doesn't sound redundant.
  • Please clarify that Stripped and Bionic are Aguilera's fifth and seventh albums in the introduction.
  • Can you insert the {{clear}} template at the end of the introduction so it does not interfere with the table?
  • Under the information for the Bionic Tour, I would put "(planned)" by the 20 shows that were originally scheduled, so there is no confusion as to whether it was started and then canceled.
  • I'd also recommend organizing the references in columns of three instead of two as they currently are.
  • Is Aguilera's website an important external link to include here? I think it should just be included in her biography. WikiRedactor (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done All. Thank you for your comments. — Simon (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as it is a concise list which is meticulosly sourced throughout and has accurate information. Prism △ 17:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate's comment - This nomination was never transcluded at WP:FLC (until three hours ago) and as such this nomination was malformed and did not get much access to reviewers. Since this nomination is already 3 months old (well older than the nominations I've archived as stale) I recommend that the nominator withdraw this, renominate (keeping in mind that he/she is only allowed one nomination at a time), and contact the earlier reviewers to ask them to revisit the nom. This will keep it fair, more or less. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2014 (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 Crisco 1492 12:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC) [1]].[reply]

Grand Theft Auto V soundtrack edit

Nominator(s): -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 14:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC), CR4ZE (t • c) 14:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This list presents all licensed music from in-game radio stations on Grand Theft Auto V, one of the most successful video games in history. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 14:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning toward oppose. Why aren't there any citations for the songs (besides PlayStationLifeStyle, which I'm not sure is reliable), for what genres/formats they are, or (where applicable) for where they appear? The intro also seems too short; it doesn't talk about production, the various stations and formats available, or the background of the game. And some of the citations have incomplete formatting. Tezero (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tezero, looks like Rhain1999 addressed your concerns. CR4ZE (t • c) 11:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Talk stations" still has no citations while "Other in-game music" only cites one of the three songs. And I really don't think an IGN wiki is a reliable source. Tezero (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added citations to "Talk stations," and the citation in "Other in-game music" applies to all three songs (to avoid confusion, I've shown this). Also, I've replaced the IGN Wiki reference with an article from Metro. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 02:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'll support, then; no issues spring out at me and the article's improved a lot. Tezero (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose tables fail WP:ACCESS, they need col and row scopes per MOS:DTT. Some WP:DASH violations. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I would go to the comment of Rambling Man since that is like the problem here. But I have some more comments: Why are the songs arranged alphabetically by artists? I think it's better if it's ordered according to songs in default because they're the topic here. It's a songs list/soundtrack article. Make that song column in row scopes. I hate to see that "1985 version" footnote there; it's unnecessary as the year and artist is already there. I think the tables need more info like the writers, length, etc. Link "DJ" for the first time, and delink the other "DJ" just after that. Link everything that is linkable in Other in-game stations section. Italicize "The Hollywood Reporter" in ref 3. Thanks. — Mediran (t • c) 03:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments.
@Mediran: I'm going to make an attempt to order the songs by their default listing in the game. As for extra columns in the tables: is it really necessary? I think finding the writers for each song would be quite difficult and very time-consuming, and finding the length would be a similar process (a lot easier, but still quite time-consuming). Additionally, if you look at List of songs in Guitar Hero II (a Featured List), there are six columns: Year, Song title, Artist, and then three other columns directly relating to the game itself (which would not work in this article). They do not include anything about the length, or the writers, of the songs. However, if you really feel that the article needs this extra information, then I guess I'll try and find some time to research it and add it to the article. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 05:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I was not expecting replies for this but OK. OK. About those extra columns. Well, that's just my comment. If you feel like strongly against that, well that's OK. More comments. The list is really not like FL right now. Lead is too short. Citing the article you've linked above, see its lead? That's what your lead should look like. (See List of songs in DJ Hero, etc.) I think you should just merge prod section with lead (if that's OK). Tables should have the same width: "They're not pleasing to the eye" and by that I mean it's hard to browse because the tables aren't consistent. The songs are still not sorted alphabetically. Like that "Guitar Hero" article you linked, the songs in its list are arranged alphabetically. Please fix this list's. Please. The list needs images. Try adding some artists/contributors images to make it more appealing and not boring to browse. Other in-game music section has no prose text, try to add some. Just saw this: "Additionally, WCTR also features..." I think you should drop "also" there. Still oppose. There are so much more to do to make this FL. — Mediran [talk] 02:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate comment - I don't see this going anywhere in the near future. I'm archiving this. Please work over the issues brought up here before trying to nominate again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2014 (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 Crisco 1492 03:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC) [2]].[reply]

List of colleges and universities in Delaware edit

Nominator(s): Caponer (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-nominating (see archive1) this list because it has been written and formatted according to the precedent set by previous featured lists of American colleges and universities in the U.S. states of Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia etc. etc. Please note that this is the second nomination of this list on account of my withdrawing it because I already had two other lists nominated for FL review. Thank you all in advance for your review, suggestions, and guidance. -- Caponer (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the situational awareness of the FL reviewers, this article was reviewed and featured in the Did you know? column. The DYK review may be referenced here: Template:Did you know nominations/List of colleges and universities in Delaware. -- Caponer (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support A very good clean looking list, looks adequate for FL to me. Just a few things:

  • Last paragraph about the accrediting could do with a citation or two at the end.
  • Watch overlink in notes and type column to Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, just one link in the notes should suffice.
  • Same with the location column, should only really link to one city once.
  • Might want to blue link the red links for looks.
  • Also watch for overlinking publishers in refs, looks just about OK though I think.

♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, thank you again for taking the time to review this list and provide the above feedback! I've added an internal citation at the end of the final paragraph, removed overlinking from the column notes, removed excessive links to placenames, and removed overlinking of the publisher information in the citations. I'm working on turning the blue links red. Your attention to this list is greatly appreciated and I commend you for your assistance! -- Caponer (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • "Five of Delaware's post-secondary institutions listed under the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education are private and five are public" - you just mentioned the CCIHE 2 sentences ago. You can just say "five of the post-secondary institutions are private and five are public."
  • I disagree with Dr. Blofield, not linking all the locations in a sortable list seems off to me, but since it's so short I suppose it's alright.
  • Why are the two defunct universities not mentioned in the lead?
  • I'd combine notes 2,3,4 into one note- "School locations, controls, and types are based on the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.[1]"
  • Expand the reflist width to 30em, 20 is super-narrow
  • Drop the (DIMER) from the publishing field in ref 9
  • I don't usually say this, but since the table is narrow, maybe put some more free images of universities running down the right side

--PresN 22:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PresN, thank you so incredibly much for taking time from your editing schedule to review this list! I've addressed all your comments and suggestions, and I feel they have significantly improved the list. In keeping with the precedent set by previous college and university FLs, I'd like to refrain from adding images on the right side. Please let me know if you have any other comments or suggestions! -- Caponer (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support; last comments: I don't much care for short paragraphs, so I'd prefer if the first two in the lead were combined; I think it would also read better if it were "Delaware once had two additional private post-secondary institutions for men and women respectively:". --PresN 03:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ColonelHenry

  • Claiming that the University of Delaware was founded in 1743 is arguably more than a little disingenuous, since for its first 90 years it was little more than a high school and UD wasn't chartered as to grant post-secondary degrees until 1833. List of Colonial Colleges#Other colonial-era foundations describes this quickly, but this claim is unsupportably false at present and needs to be qualified. I cannot support this article as long as it puts that claim forward as an unquestioned or unqualified fact.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to come...--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ColonelHenry, thank you for the suggestion. I have fixed the dates and added a footnote for further explanation. Please let me know if my edits fully address your concern. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an exceptionally thorough fix, and I appreciate your attention to it. I promised I'd look through the article, and I will do so later today.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it odd when the table I'm looking at is actually shorter than the key. I would like to see more information in the table about the various colleges and universities, particularly as the lists are so short. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Rambling Man, thank you for taking time to review this list. The content listed here is standard information for lists of colleges and universities, and all other information is usually captured in the list's introductory paragraphs. It just so happens that in this case, Delaware has few colleges and universities compared to other U.S. states. Is there a specific type of information that you would like to see listed here? -- Caponer (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe that certain accrediting organizations (e.g., APA mentioned for the University of Delaware) can only accredit a specific graduate program or sub-program, not the institution as a whole. Alternately, MSA accredits entire colleges or universities. It may need to be explained in the text so as not to confuse the reader.--Godot13 (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delegate's comment - This nomination has been open for a little over two months, and it does not seem like a consensus will emerge soon. As such, I am archiving the nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2014 (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 Crisco 1492 03:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC) [3]].[reply]

List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names edit

Nominator(s): Seattle (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A nice list on obscure MLB players from the 19th century. Seattle (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm going to call into question the Notability of this list. A Google search brings up only Wikipedia entries, and does competing in a MLB satisfy the notability guidelines Lewis, McBride, Stafford, Sterling and Sweigert all competed in one MLB game and have articles but would say competing in a major grand slam in tennis like the 1940 Australian Championships satisfy the notability guidelines for R. Compain to be made for example. and would criteria satisfy a "list of tennis players with unidentified names" the list would certainly have enough reliable sources. (I apologize if the comment is a little all over the place.) Aureez (Talk) 21:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. If a player has played in a professional game, at major league level, that player is implied to be notable per WP:WPBB/N. All players on the list have played in a major league game, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith (baseball) established the precedent that these players could be unnotable, due to a lack of information and sources. Because some articles such as Booth (baseball) were similar to Smith, only two lines and unlikely ever to be expanded, those players could be nominated for deletion individually, and deleted. A list would be a way of compromise, so that these players could be kept because they're encyclopedic but not notable enough for their own individual article.

I can't speak for tennis but WP:NTENNIS would be a good place to start, which says he would be notable. If there's more than a few tennis players without an identified first name, than I would create it. Seattle (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merging them into a single article, would be adequate (ala Minnesota Twins minor league players), considering the information scrapes through notability but there doesn't appear to be enough to stand on it's own, the articles should they become comprehensive enough later can always be moved into their own article. Also Ref 1-6 need retrieval dates. Aureez (Talk) 03:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 do not need retrieval dates per WP:CITEHOW. Added an accessdate to reference 3. Thanks for the review! Seattle (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also a bit uncomfortable with with list's notability, but more specifically the individual articles. How can someone like this possibly be considered notable when we don't even know their name? I don't understand the concept that a single game with a professional team (if you can even call it "professional" when you play a single game in 1875) makes you a notable person; this definitely does not pass GNG. More specifically, why does this list not link to all the pages like Shaffer (baseball)? These should be merged to this list, which contains all the information anyway. Reywas92Talk 18:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • All players listed have played in at least one baseball game at a professional level, thus meeting notability standards as outlined in WP:WPBB/N. The reason why this article doesn't link to articles with limited notability is that those articles are likely to be deleted. If you would nominate individual articles like the one you linked, it would most likely be deleted per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith (baseball). A list containing such players came as a compromise, and it seems sensible to include these in an article because they meet notability guidelines but aren't notable enough for an individual article. Seattle (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a cute list, but how do we know it's complete? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I used all players with unidentified first names listed at List of 19th-century baseball players to comprise this list. Holes certainly could be present, but that wouldn't be the failure of Wikipedia to list them: historians discover new box scores from time to time, see [4] for instance, and this could lead to the discovery of previously unknown players. I suspect, though, that a majority of these have been found and that there is little chance of discovering a previously unknown ball player. With that in mind, the list is up-to-date, so to speak, on current baseball research. Seattle (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'd be reasonably happy to see that template added, after all who knows how many other lurkers are out there..... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's Comment - This has been open for a little over 2 months, and there is no consensus just yet, nor does it appear likely that consensus will be met soon. I am archiving this (but please note my comment above). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2014 (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 Giants2008 20:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC) [5]].[reply]

List of Major League Baseball players with 400 doubles edit

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because, after a substantial re-working, I think it meets the criteria. The edits I made were largely based on List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples, which I brought to FL in 2009. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • A whole lot has changed since 2009, and if that triples list was at FLC now, it wouldn't be passed.
  • Firstly, scope rows and cols are required for the table per WP:DTT. The scope cols are for the column headers, while the rows are for the players' names.
  • Turn the key into an actual table to improve WP:ACCESSIBILITY. It'll also require scope rows and cols.
  • Add table captions to both the key and full list.
  • See 30–30 club and 50 home run club for recent examples on these new changes.
  • The introductory prose needs to be more detailed. In addition to the above two FLs, see 300 win club as a good example of thoroughness.
  • Is there any explanation as to why 400 doubles is important? Why 400 and not, say, 300, 350 or 500? This FLC just got failed because it couldn't establish why 300 was used as the cutoff point.

—Bloom6132 (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're right, there have been quite a few changes since I last nominated something for Featured List. I doubt my skills are up to the task. This nomination should probably be withdrawn. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry if my comments were in any way discouraging. It's just that I, myself, was hit with the same surprise when I nominated the above two FLs in 2012. All the best if you do decide to renominate this list in the future. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mean to sound negative: your comments are fair. I just know that, having looked at the new standards, I won't have time to teach myself how to code them, let alone to then rewrite the whole table. And as to 400 being arbitrary: it is. I can't really justify that, it's just how I found the list and it seems like a good round number. So, I'd recommend that the delegates here fail this thing and maybe I'll bring it up again next year some time. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note – Request for withdrawal: the nominator has indicated above that he'd like this FLC nom to be closed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2014 (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 Crisco 1492 07:43, 08 May 2014 (UTC) [6]].[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Chris Gayle edit

Nominator(s): —Zia Khan 18:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Indian hard-hitter, Chris Gayle, played many interesting innings in international cricket including successful chases. He scored centuries in all format of the game. This list includes covers almost every aspect of his international centuries and I think this according to the Wikipedia featured list standards. Looking forward to your comments and suggestions, as always! Regards, —Zia Khan 18:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a really good list. However, I spot-checked the game at Lord's, and the date in the list doesn't match the date in the ref. Have you double-checked that all the info listed is correct? Furthermore, some of the ODI entries aren't entered in date order (sort by date then look at the No. column and you'll see what I mean). Adabow (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Zia Khan 11:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another inconsistency: the ref for the 18 May 2006 gives the location as Sabina Park, not Kensington Oval. Please check all the data for every single entry. Adabow (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done. —Zia Khan 11:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • "Christopher Henry Gayle (more commonly known as Chris Gayle)" - far more succinct to just put "Christopher Henry "Chris" Gayle"
    • "fifteen, twenty-one and one occasion" - the fact that 15 and 21 are plural numbers but then you use the singular "occasion" really jars, but I'm not sure how to re-word it. Maybe put "he has scored centuries (100 or more runs in a single innings) on fifteen occasions in Test matches, twenty-one occasions in One Day" etc etc
    • "man-of-the-match performance in Queen's Park." => "man-of-the-match performance at Queen's Park."
    • "Gayle is one of the four players to achieve two triple centuries in Test cricket" => "Gayle is one of four players to achieve two triple centuries in Test cricket"
    • "and is most successful against New Zealand and South Africa" => "and has been most successful against New Zealand and South Africa"
    • "Gayle started his ODI career from a match against India" => "Gayle started his ODI career with a match against India"
    • "He is the first and one of the nine players to score a century in T20I" => "He was the first player to score a century in T20I and one of nine players to achieve the feat as of April 2014"
    • Photo caption: "Gayle scored one of his triple century" => "Gayle scored one of his triple centuries"
    • Note 2: "The other three players to accomplish this feats" => "The other three players to accomplish this feat"
  • Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your kind comments and support! —Zia Khan 00:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate comment - This has been open for two months with very little interest, and thus I am archiving it. Please feel free to renominate at a later date. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2014 (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 Crisco 1492 07:43, 08 May 2014 (UTC) [7]].[reply]

List of TNA Television Champions edit

Nominator(s): WillC 12:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first list I have nominated in quite a long time. I'm not sure of what updates have taken place with tables or featured lists in general. I hope y'all can update me on these new requirements so I can better this list. This is the last list of champions from TNA that is not an FL. I'm working on my old topic of TNA titles.--WillC 12:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delegate comment - This has been open for two months with very little interest, and thus I am archiving it. Please feel free to renominate at a later date. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Failed_log/May_2014&oldid=610172700"