Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of state symbols of Maryland
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 17 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 01:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
| Current Opinion | User |
|---|---|
| Support | Circeus |
| Neutral | Kalyan |
| Neutral | BirgitteSB |
| Support | Colin |
| Support | TonyTheTiger |
| Support | Crzycheetah |
Self-nom. Geraldk 21:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now: Apart from the first few symbols - others lack references. Till the time references are added, i don't think this article meets FL criteria --Kalyan 06:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]- The Maryland Manual Online, which is the reference listed as number 1 and placed at the title of the table, is the reference for all the information on the table. The references next to a number of the early entries are simply explanatory notes. Geraldk 16:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As Geraldk notes, There is a master reference covering the entire list. Maybe switching it to a not-note and leaving the content notes might be better...
OpposeI'd like to see all the symbols linked, if not blue-linked.I see no need to bold the symbol columnI think the Latin names should be put in parenthesisIf you move the master reference into a non-note "references" section, rm the "Maryland symbols" table header.Consider removing the dividing headers to make the table sortable (I think having the possibility to order them by year adopted is a good enough plus).
- Circeus 04:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and done. Without the subsectioning, dropped the background color scheme too since it no longer made sense. Geraldk 15:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeutral My main concern is poor referencing. There are no references for the intro paragraph and the notes appear to be referenced but the website given does back up everything stated (i.e "the flag had been used since colonial times.") You show 26 items in the list but only 21 items are given in the one reference provided. Other concerns:
- MoS says that the intro paragraph does not need separate referencing unless there are specific quotes contained therein. It should be a summary of information referenced in the body of the article. All of the statements in the lead are either specifically addressed in the Maryland Manual source or are just restatements of what's obvious from a glance at the table (e.g. most of the symbols were designated in the last few decades). And the Maryland Manual source does address 24 of 26 symbols: two are listed under 'sport', two under 'theater', the motto is described under 'seal'. The colors were simply derived from the flag, and are visually obvious to the extent that I hadn't thought they would need a reference, but they are not official and nothing in the source states that they are unofficially Maryland colors, so I've removed them. The remaining symbol, the nicknames, now has its own separate reference in the references section in addition to the notes section, which is where the reference existed before. Geraldk 22:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue of inline citations in the lead is still being debated at the MoS. An ideal FA (note, not FL) would have a lead that is a pure summary of the extensive text that follows. With an FL, this is seldom true. While the lead may summarise some of the facts presented in the list, it often also serves as an introduction to the subject. In addition, some of that summarising requires an interpretation of the data that may go beyond what we as editors are allowed to do. I mention this purely because some of the MoS is written or discussed by editors who think about FACs more than FLCs. It is not a specific comment on this list, which I haven't looked at yet. Colin°Talk 10:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not super familiar with the MoS for lists, but I can find nothing in that website about anythig "not being formally adopted". Not mentioning anying about formal adoption, is not the same thing as saying something was not formally adopted. Personally I think that However, two of the more famous symbols of Maryland, the state motto and the state nicknames, were never made official by the state government. is completely orginal research. The source neither say they are more famous than other sybols, nor that they are unofficial. In any event you took out the worst of the unreferened bits so I will not oppose.--BirgitteSB 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point now. But I'm not sure it's original research. Every other entry on the MSA site specifies when the symbol was officialy adopted, and it just makes sense that the nickname and seal were not separately adopted, because their is no such description. I just think it's hard to prove a negative. Geraldk 16:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it is original research doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong or doesn't make sense. Original research has just as much chance of being right as it does being wrong. It just isn't allowed. This source doesn't prove that negative, some other source might. Unfortunately we are slaves to our sources.--BirgitteSB 17:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 1c: I have problem with the factual accuracy of some of the images. Image:Tortie-flame.jpg is not a calico according to the image page. I am uncertain that Image:Horse-racing-4.jpg shows Thoroughbred horses. It is a horse race in Munich and doesn't state the breed. Image:Jousting renfair.jpg does not show ring jousting, which is actually a sport, but rather a sort of theatre.
Criteria 3 All the images lack "alt" text, also Image:Maryland state seal.png has no source.--BirgitteSB 16:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what you mean by "alt" text. If you're referring to captioning, my understanding from looking through existing featured lists is that when used to demonstrate something in a list, no captioning is necessary. I think the problem on the seal picture is solved. Geraldk 22:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "alt" text is what I did on the thoroughbred picture (mouse over the pic). It is for people who don't load pictures or use screen readers and is list as a requirement at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria--BirgitteSB 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've made some edits to the list wrt footnotes, layout and sections. Let me know if you hate any of them :-). I preferred the grouping that was present prior to making the table sortable, though I've reintroduced it using sections to allow TOC navigation. Sorting by year is IMO unlikely to be particularly enlightening. Much better to make the list directly accessible by grouping and sectioning. I made the images a bit larger and centred the image/year but removed the overall centring since that doesn't appear to be a common style on WP. Birgitte has a point about the OR wrt lack of formal adoptions. I'd also prefer if the lead was a bit longer. Perhaps you could write something about state symbols in general (sourced, of course). Could you think of how to comment on the lack of date, without explicitly stating "there is no date"? How about if the footnote said "The Maryland State Archives give no date of adoption for this symbol." If you can expand the lead in other ways, you might be able to drop the contentious aspect. For example, can you find out some history behind the choices; why were certain things chosen as state symbols? Colin°Talk 14:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I find it hard to believe this meets WP:WIAFL 1b. Unless this list stops growing it is almost by definition incomplete. What makes this comprehensive? For example, why hasn't the state declared an official turtle symbol since the state is identified with terrapins.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, I think you've got the wrong idea of what 1b is about. We have lots of featured lists that aren't finite sets, forever cast in stone. This list, as its main references, uses a government list of official state symbols of Maryland. The reference is comprehensive and detailed. (here's another that backs it up). There is no reason to believe the (very reliable) references is incomplete so why should this list be incomplete or not-comprehensive. And you're example of the terrapin gives me reason to believe you haven't really studied the list or its reference. The State Reptile is the terrapin. It is in the list. Colin°Talk 08:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportI wholeheartedly support a list derived from an official list of the government.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]