Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Nominations: List of countries by murder rate
Line 61: Line 61:
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nintendo 64 games}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nintendo 64 games}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basil cultivars}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basil cultivars}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Chicago Bears seasons}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Harry Potter films cast members}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Harry Potter films cast members}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of famous Kentuckians}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of famous Kentuckians}}

Revision as of 14:27, 9 January 2007

Featured Lists in Wikipedia

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.
This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.
Here we determine which lists are featured on Wikipedia:Featured lists. A featured list should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. See "what is a featured list?" for criteria.

If you nominate a list, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised. If you nominate something you have worked on, note it as a self-nomination. You may wish to receive feedback before nominating a list by listing it at Peer review.

Consensus must be reached for an article to be promoted to featured list status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived.

Purge the cache to refresh this page
Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

  1. Check the featured list criteria and make sure the article meets all of them before nominating.
  2. Place {{FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated article.
  3. From there, click on the "leave comments" link to create a new sub-page for the nomination.
  4. (If you are resubmitting an article) Use the Move button to rename the previous nomination sub-page to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations → Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations/archive1
  5. Place ===[[name of nominated list]]=== at the top of the new sub-page, write your reason for nominating the article below the heading, and save the sub-page.
  6. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated article. While adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.

Supporting and objecting

Please review the nominated lists fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • If you approve of a list, write "Support" followed by your reasons and sign.
  • If you oppose a nomination, write "Object" followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored.
    • To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s> ) rather than removing it.

Featured list candidates will remain on this page for a minimum period of 10 days. Consensus must be reached in order to be promoted to featured list status, and a list must also garner a minimum of 4 "Support" votes (counting the original nomination as a "Support" vote, provided it is not withdrawn). Featured list candidates that are not promoted after 10 days will be removed from the candidates list to the failed log unless (1) objections are being actively addressed; or (2) although there are no objections, the list has not garnered 4 "Support" votes. In these cases a short additional period of time will be given to the list to see whether it can attract more support.

To archive a nomination

  1. Remove the transcluded discussion from this page. While removing it, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.
  2. Transclude the discussion to this month's log of promoted lists or log of failed candidacies, as appropriate.
  3. Update the log tallies in {{Featured list log}}.
  4. On the article's talk page, change {{FLC}} to {{FL}} or {{FLCfailed}}, as appropriate.
  5. For promotions, update Wikipedia:Featured lists.
  6. For promotions, add a notice to Template:Announcements/New featured pages.
  7. For promotions, add a notice to Wikipedia:Goings-on.

Nominations

List of countries by murder rate

    • (a) Useful: I think it's useful for people doing research since it gives and overview not fond elsewhere on the web, and everything is referenced to reliable sources. I also found it interesting.
    • (b) Comprehensive: info only for countries I found references for in multi country lists or historical info lists, the African countries may not gather the info. There may also be and English language source bias. Additional sources to make it more comprehensive (if only historically) welcome.
    • (c) Factually accurate: the different approaches finding the totals is not always equivalent, and I haven't found the mid 1970s info's source's source.
    • (d) Uncontroversial: While there may be controversy, there hasn't yet - probably because everything's sourced.
    • (e) Stable: not in any edit wars, quite stable since the big changes.
    • (f) Well-constructed: easy to navigate: by decade, then ordered by rate with option to order by country name alphabetically or any other column.
  2. Standards
    • (a) Lead section: the lead was a bit short, but better after its peer review. Missing methodology info.
    • (b) Headings: decades.
    • (c) Table of contents: small horizontal TOC.
  3. Images: has a map with the same colors as used in the tables.-- Jeandré, 2007-01-08t22:34:02z, -- Jeandré, 2007-01-09t10:47z, -- Jeandré, 2007-01-21t06:30z
  • Support, self-nomination. Possible issues italicized.-- Jeandré, 2007-01-09t10:47z
  • Support replaced space with comma; good work Hmains 04:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, nice list. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. I would like to see a little more discussion of the differing methodologies used to gather the data. This is rather important, I think. And is there simply no data for that many African counties? I know you've looked, but I can't help but ask all the same! I'll change to "support" if differing methodologies are discussed a bit more, either in the lead or notes (as distinct from the references). Once these issues have been addressed, I'd love to support such an excellent list, impressive as it is on so many levels. --Zantastik talk 20:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've put it on the to do list. -- Jeandré, 2007-01-21t06:30z
  • I'm unconvinced about the "comprehensiveness" of this list, given that I was able to find the number of murders in 1998 and 1999 for Trinidad and Tobago in a couple seconds.[1] I'm also not sure about the meaning of the final column, "Last" in the 2000s section. Guettarda 04:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've clarified that "info only for countries I found references for in multi country lists or historical info lists", e.g. UN or continent reports, and UK and USA historical info. I haven't searched for individual countries but will start that for the missing ones on the map, begining with African countries.
    The last column is the last known reported figure, used for the map.
    I have a lot of required reading for classes this week, and may only get around to the to do list next weekend. -- Jeandré, 2007-01-21t06:30z
  • Note I didn't promote/fail this along with the other lists I did yesterday. Although there is a lack of consensus and insufficient support votes (hence no promotion), I felt it best to wait until Jeandré had sufficient time to deal with the issues raised. If I found that come this Monday (29th) things hadn't progressed, then I'd fail it. Tompw (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't get around to going thru the to do list. If someone else doesn't clean it up, I'll nominate again later when it's done. -- Jeandré, 2007-01-28t20:45z
  • Object. Until the to do list is cleared. CG 08:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Twenty20 International cricketers

previous FLC

List of Municipalities in the Golden Horseshoe

  1. Best work: This complete information is unavailable on other websites
  2. Easy to navigate: With images to help readers to read the list
  3. Well-Constructed: Information sorted in a systematic way.
  4. Comprehensive: Covers all towns in the Golden Horseshoe
  5. Stable: Not in any edit wars.
  6. Images: Precise images with colour keys.
  7. Factually accurate: Information taken from atlases, and references given.
  8. Layout: Easy to read, information divided into categories.

The list should be nominated as a featured list because this list provides complete information of ALL towns and townships in the Golden Horseshoe. The list is filled with complete information, and an image to help explain the list. As stated in the criteria, the list is accurate, stable (not in any edit wars), and well-constructed. The list also provides references.

--Smcafirst or Nick • Sign Here • Chit-Chat • Contribs at 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Self-Nomination)

  • Oppose.

This list is not [1(b)] comprehensive. It lists nothing but the cities' names. Population, Density, ruling party, economy, founding dates? We need some more info for this list to exemplify our best work.

As for 1.(c), the sentence about population in the lead is not cited. And single reference to which the article referes not once by way of inline citations gives one pause.

As for 1.(f), I belive the article needs work. This list is visually bland and does not encourage the reader to navigate it. In this respect, List of municipalities of Portugal exemplifies our best work. Finally, per 2(a), the lead needs work. Keep plugging away and use the the portugal list as an example. If Golden Horseshoe gets to that level, I'll be glad to vote for it. :) --Zantastik talk 00:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: In addition to Zantastik's comments, I think that this list would be improved with each county somehow having its location given in a map. Also, the one reference given worries me a little. How is this list doing more than regurgitating the atlas? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Miss Madeline. --Zantastik talk 01:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian federal election results since 1867

  1. Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
  2. Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
    • Useful: Summarises information on seats won from 39 elections, and allows visitors to easily compare results from successive general elections
    • Comprehensive: Covers every general election since Confederation
    • Factually accurate: reference given.
    • Stable: Will be only be updated every four years or so
  3. Well-organised: Easy to find any required information
  4. Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes
  5. Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
  6. Images: N/A

(Self-nomination) Tompw (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ontario premiers

List of Bangladeshi Twenty20 International cricketers

(Self-nomination). Complete and up to date. --mdmanser 06:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Nine out of eleven bluelinks is good enough for me. My only concern is that it won't get kept up to date... however, international Twenty20 matches are fairly rare, so it shouldn't be a major difficulty. Also, have you considered havign a key for the abbreivated column headings? Tompw (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We've been here before with cricket lists. Bangladesh have only ever played one Twenty20 match, so the list is basically just the statistics of a single match. As such, the intro is just too short (because there's really nothing to say) and it would be hard to argue that this represents Wikipedia's best work. Wait till they've played a dozen or so matches, when there'll be something meaningful to say about the stats (who has been their best player, for example) and then renominate. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This is just a box score with a four-sentence summary. It's certainly a good list, but does it represent the best of WP? Not at all. -- Kicking222 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zimbabwean Twenty20 International cricketers

(Self-nomination). Complete and up to date, with no red links. --mdmanser 06:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of inductees of Canada's Walk of Fame

I changed the page completely during the previous nomination and thus decided to submit a new nomination. -- Scorpion 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First nomination

  • Support as Nominator -- Scorpion 17:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the point in the renomination, but I still oppose. The list still lacks complete remarks on achievements of each of the described people, and requires a reference to each bio page. The bios listed here are satisfying for this task, but please link each person separately. Styling concerns: What's the point in the reference in the lead? That is already is an external link. Unnecessary space before the "See Also" section and only the first word of the header should be capitalized per WP:MSH, same for the "External Links" section. Even if there is no "birthplace" for Crazy Canucks you should at least add the province where they originated. No such profession as "The Polka King", maybe a singer? ...there are currently 100 stars n the walk - change to 100 people in the walk, the word "stars" has a POV and is unencyclopedic. ...with eight being inducted in 2006 - Change to with eight of them. List of inductees at the Official website - "Official" shouldn't be capitalized. No interwiki links? How about this for example? Fix the above concerns and you'll get my support. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want to include a reference to each bio page, that's why I tried to use as few notes as possible.
    • "the word "stars" has a POV" How so? It refers to the STARS that are put in the walk (Ie. Each stone with an honouree is in the shape of a STAR).
    • In most cases, I used the profession listed at the official website, and they list Walter Ostenak as "The Polka King" -- Scorpion 22:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand that the stars are actual drawings/shapes on the sidewalk: if it's unclear, it should probably be reworded (maybe a photo?). The "Polka King" should be moved at remarks as nickname, the man is a musician. The title (bold words in lead) should not be wikified per WP:LEAD, you could move the link further in the paragraph. Louis B. Mayer and Jack Warner are producers, "Hollywood pioneer" should probably go to remarks. --Qyd 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well otherwise it fails criteria 1c of WP:WIAFL, the point is not to include as few references as possible, but rather to confirm each fact (including profession and birthplace) on the list effectively as the most of the individual article don't do it correctly.
      • I'm sorry, I thought it meant to stars as people, thanks for clarifying that.
      • Since Polka is a sort of music, it will be more understandable to list it this way. You might want to check other of his bio page to see if he's indeed a singer. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Once again, Sennatt, Warner and Mayer were listed as Hollywood Pioneers (So is Fay Wray, but she's easy to group), but I couldn't figure out whether to call them directors, producers, studio founders or executives, so I kept Hollywood Pioneer. Changed Ostenak to "Polka Musician" and reworded lead. -- Scorpion 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rather to confirm each fact (including profession and birthplace)" Like I said, every profession and birthplace listed is taken directly from the list at the official website. -- Scorpion 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be usefull to list professions uniformly, i.e. singer/songwriter/composer/etc could all be listed as musician; this would help in sorting; don't worry if it's not verbatim as the cited official website. A few words as why they were inducted (where it's not clear) wouldn't hurt. --Qyd 22:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, "singer" will become "musician", "polka musician" would become "musician, polka", "rock band" would become "musician, rock", etc. It's just a sugestion, feel free to disagree. Another sugestion: all professions should be in the same style (all Title Case or all Sentence case). The list is starting to look very good. --Qyd 00:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I came back to check progress, and I like what I see. Sadly, the references aren't formatted properly using the {{cite web}} template and there are some capitalization issues, I formatted one reference as an example. The reference in the lead isn't used to confirm a fact, please get rid of it. Remarks are still sentences and require a period. Some POV, avoid using the word famous. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, okay. You tell me to assume good faith, and yet you automatically oppose the article after I completely overhaul it, AND your still complaining even after I added sources just because the format isn't the way you want to see it? I've already gone through and changed the entire article five times just for you AND I still have to add notes for 60+ other people, and you're STILL going to be a dick about it? -- Scorpion 16:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Scorpion, you might want to strike the above after reading Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This nomination has only been active for a couple of days so you've got plenty time left to work on things. Already, suggestions by two editors have resulted in significant changes that have improved the layout and content. Getting featured is/should be difficult. It is quite common for an article to be worked on and improved during the nomination process. I don't think what you're being asked to do is extreme. The above suggestions by Michaelas10 on formatting the references, capitalisation and avoiding certain POV words are all issues that another editor would mention and may (esp. references) cause them to oppose. Whilst the cite web template isn't essential, it does help prompt for things like access date (which is considered important for web references). Michaelas10's comment about the reference in the second lead paragraph is correct but I'd go further in saying that that whole sentence is possibly redundant. The first paragraph is unsourced. Perhaps you could try expanding it a little with info from the various pages on the official site – there do appear to be pages on the history and gala events, etc. This list is definately heading towards FL status so don't dispair. If you think a particular comment isn't reasonable, ask politely for a second opinion. Colin°Talk 17:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There I'm done. I've completely reworked the article using everyone's suggestions. -- Scorpion 20:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comprehensive, accurate, well constructed, stable, nice having an image. Important list for Canadian entertainment. --Qyd 20:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Has come a long way since nomination. Could still do with a ref for the lead. Colin°Talk 20:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-referenced, nicely put together. Just a few minor things that can be easily fixed:
  • Can the first occurrence of each occupation be wikilinked? You don't have to link every occurence of the word "actor," just the first.
  • The table doesn't stretch the width of my browser screen -- is this just me or are the percentages of the table funny? I'm not so good with tables.
  • There's just a little bit of continuity issues with sometimes "Winner of …" being used and sometimes "Won …". I'd opt for "winner of."
  • The title "birthplace" should probably be changed to hometown or something better, as John Kay and Kiefer Sutherland were both not born in Canada, as stated in their remarks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed the table to 90% of the screen, birthplace has been changed to hometown and I'll work on the wikilinking (althugh none of the professions are linked as you mentioned) and continuity. -- Scorpion 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I switch to support. The list seems good enough now for FL status, but I still suggest that the lead would be expanded to at least two paragraphs, take a look at WP:LEAD. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll work on making the lead longer later on, I'll probably have to steal stuff from the main article.

Administrative divisions of Adygea

This is a self-nomination. The list organizes information on modern administrative and territorial division of the Russian republic of Adygea, provides background and brief history, and explains used terminology. The list is referenced and comprehensive. While future changes in administrative division are possible, they are likely to be minor and can be dealt with fairly quickly. There've never been any edit wars or disputes over this list. All used maps are licensed under GFDL. The list undewent a peer review in the past, and most of the peer review concerns have been addressed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I appreciate it very much. Many thanks to Ëzhiki, nice job. I wish he does something similar in ru_wiki, unfortunately I don't even have a hope (sigh). MaxiMaxiMax 17:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I must admit that the feeling and hopes are mutual :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per WP:WIAFL 1a ("useful") requires that "the list covers a topic ... by bringing together a group of related articles". Most of the Rural okrugs do not have articles. What this list currently does is is bring together articles on the Districts and "Urban-type settlements" in Adygea. If the list was named "Districts of Adygea", this wouldn't be a problem. Tompw (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concern, but must say it misses the point. "Administrative division" of any Russian federal subject includes, first and foremost, its division into districts, as well as the definition of status of its inhabited localities, which is precisely what this list is about. Lower levels of administrative divisions (in this case rural okrugs) are generally of very little interest, since they are basically nothing more than groups of rural settlements combined for purposes of having a unified local self-government. One can write a perfectly encyclopedic article about districts or about each inhabited locality, but there really nothing to say about rural okrugs besides the fact that they exist and what villages they include. That's the reason why rural okrugs are not formatted as links—whatever one has to say about them would not be sufficient for such an article to be kept.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I withdraw my opposition. Tompw (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (This is seperate from my above vote - it's some thoughts about possible improvements). I feel the article would benefit from a map showing the location of Adygea within Russia (maybe based on Image:BlankMap-RussiaDistricts.png). Also, it might be worth replacing Image:Adygea districts.png with a trimmed down version showing less of the area around Adygea. Also, some of the items listed under "Administrative division structure" don't have any explanation (what's the difference between an "aul" and a "selo", for instance?) Tompw (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am hesitant to overload the list with generic maps. We already have an article on Adygea with the map you are seeking, and that article is linked to from inside the list. As you yourself pointed out, the list deals with the administrative division of Adygea, not with the republic's general overview and description. While I am not strongly against adding such a map, I'd rather hear more than one voice asserting its necessity in this list.
    As for the map already in place, I'll contact its creator (I wasn't one making it). It could probably use some trimming on left and right.
    Finally, both aul and selo are wikilinked, so a reader would have access to further information. Plus, it is already pointed out that there is no difference in status between various types of rural settlements, and that different names are used purely by tradition (see the "rural settlement" bullet under "Administrative division structure"). If you think that is insufficient, I would appreciate your further thoughts and ideas on how to improve it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree that the map would benefit from L/R trim and also a larger font size even if this means the words escape outside a district. The use of small fonts elsewhere in the article doesn't seem justified and makes it harder to read. The layout isn't attractive IMO. The map juts into the text in an awkward way (don't think we need another map here BTW). The individual district maps could be folded into the tables as a big cell. Perhaps the district name and its language variants could be handled in a more compact form. Although many of the foreign terms are wikilinked, it would help to briefly explain some of them here so the reader can understand the article at a basic level without having to follow lots of links. The list of rural settlement types could have an explanation after each term. I agree that the rural okrugs probably aren't significant enough for articles. The prose is hard work to read due to the foreign terms and the dense amount of info covered. Perhaps someone can help copyedit to make it flow easier? Colin°Talk 20:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, Colin. You are welcome to tweak the list yourself if you can think of any obvious improvements, by the way. Now, to address some of your points:
  • The author of the map intends to tweak it (L/R trim; increase fonts) over this weekend.
  • The small type was used purely to emphasize the fourth-level section titles. When regular font is used, it becomes very difficult to see where one subsection ends and another begins. I agree that small type is probably not the best solution, but I can't think of a better one. Ideas are welcome.
  • The layout has been a problem from day one. Incorporating district maps into corresponding tables has been tried, and the results were far from appealing (cf. administrative divisions of Moscow where this approach is utilized). I am willing to try any other suggestions, though.
  • The types of rural settlements only have different names due to tradition; there is no difference in their status whatsoever (which is already mentioned in the list). Effectively, all these terms are nothing but synonyms. The histories of each type of settlement are different, but they are outside of this list's scope, because, again, none of that matters at present.
  • The prose is indeed dense, but that's the nature of the list and the subject it deals with. My assumption is that people interested in this topic would devote some time to studying terminology, because there really is no way one can understand the subject without understanding the terminology first.

—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nintendo 64 games

List of basil cultivars

  • Support and self-nominate -- I've worked on this list over the last while, and think that it may be qualified to be a featured list at this point. I've made a serious attempt to make it comprehensive, by checking against many lists of culinary basil varieties, and am reasonably confident that it's at least very close to comprehensive. If there are any varieties I've missed, I'll be happy to add them. All entries are sourced, there's adequate use of images, and the list is inherently stable (people just don't make new varieties of basil very often!). Waitak 16:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: per nomination hike395 17:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - lead is too short. And what is "External references"? Renata 09:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • Expanded the leadin
  • Changed "External references" to "General references". Better suggestions invited (or {{sofixit}}!)
Anything else? Waitak 11:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support.
    • Make the name of the list at the first sentence appear in bold, and change it properly to reflect the lists actual name.
      • Done.
    • Per WP:WIAFL, the list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles. Seeing as the articles for the most of the plants in the list don't exist, I suggest creating an at least 2-sentence long stub for each.
      • Okay, I've started on it. I'll work on more over the next few days.
    • "Descriptions" are still sentences, add capitals and periods for each. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.
  • Support. I tried to fix the missing bolding of the title in the lead. It didn't quite work out though. -- User:Docu

List of Harry Potter films cast members

Already been rated A-class by the Harry Potter WikiProject but just needed a bit of tweaking to reach FL status, although I thank Fbv65edel for cleanup and referencing through the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix article. I believe it meets all the criteria, and will be updated as soon as more information is revealed about Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I have always liked this page, even before what it is now. Well referenced, useful, clear and complete. Only two slight objections: The page could do with an image, but this may be difficult to get one that serves a strong purpose. Maybe of Dan Radcliffe? And, the links to the films at the top of the table. COS an POA have cast on the end of the link, where as the others don't, could use some continuity. Gran2 20:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't feel qualified to vote (because in addition to referencing I completely redid the page to make it appears basically as it appears now from its old version), but I'm wondering if this is okay to be featured considering it is known not to be complete? I've also removed the image as I don't think it's appropriate for the page logistically nor within the guidelines of FUC. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent point of reference. Pulls together an incredible amount of information into an easy to read reference page. Truly something by which other lists should be judged. John Reaves 02:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well put together, featured quality list. Hello32020 00:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a suggestion: if I were you, I would center the names that need to appear in more than one column. i.e. Daniel Radcliffe would be centered over Chamber of Secrets - Order of the Phoenix columns. Renata 13:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've centered all the names, just to be uniform (and since it was easier), and I'm having slightly mixed feelings about it… it seems to me that somebody like David Bradley, who appears right in the middle of a bunch of names that don't span all five columns like he does, might be mistaken for only appearing in the center film, namely Prisoner of Azkaban. I'd suggest reverting it to left align, so you see the first movie they appeared in and then follow their name all the way to the end of the cell, as opposed to finding two ends of the cell when the name is centered. Any other thoughts on this? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A well put together list, massively improved compared to the mess it used to be. RHB 01:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very well put together, I see no problems with it. --Wizardman 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The last column(s) need to be filled in so that lines dividing rows appear all the way across the table. Otherwise, well done. Waitak 11:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mean that, for example, the Bloody Baron's row doesn't stretch to the right of the table? That's explained in the lead: the character doesn't appear in the book, and thus "shouldn't" be cast in the film. A grey cell under Movie 5 shows that a character appears in the book but has not yet been cast in the film -- "not yet cast" status. See the difference? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems a bit backwards, and therefore confusing. All the actors are listed in white boxes, while all the roles that don't exist in the earlier films have corresponding grey boxes. If a role has not yet been cast, shouldn't it also be in a white box? Eg. I'm looking at "Grey Lady" and "Moaning Myrtle" and there appears to be a white box connecting them under "Phoenix". I would be tempted read that as saying both roles exist and will be played by the same actor. Is that not what is intended?Gimmetrow 00:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm, I suppose it is a bit backwards. Both the Grey Lady and Myrtle don't appear in "Phoenix" and their row doesn't stretch that far (you'll notice there is no line at the very right edge of the table in their row): they don't appear in the book, and thus shouldn't be cast in the film. The purpose of the grey boxes in the Phoenix column is to show you what characters appear in the book, have had an actor play them in previous films, but haven't yet been (re)cast for "Phoenix." However, I see how this can be confusing if you don't know it. :-) I'm changing it now so that all actors stretch to the right, and those who "should" be cast in "Phoenix" will display an "uncast" in the fifth box. If this isn't liked we can revert it. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I do see the difference now, but I don't think the way you chose to represent it before did it justice. What you've got now is better, but perhaps could be improved on a bit yet. One other possibility might be to use a different shade of gray, or a different color altogether to indicate that the role hasn't yet been cast? Encoding information in more than one mode (gray/white, empty/not empty, cast/not cast) is tricky for the user. Something like:
      • White == cast
      • Dark gray == not cast
      • Light gray == role not yet cast
for example? Waitak 13:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I see that. I've made the changes but just switched around what you said. I made dark gray not yet cast, since it would make sense to keep light gray the same throughout, which is not in the movie. I've also added some notes for characters confirmed not to return, but left those in dark gray. Just wondering if the lead fits okay with the changes I made. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous Kentuckians

Self-nomination - Groups the most notable past and present natives of the U.S. state of Kentucky in one place, organized by area of notability and connection to the state. This is my first time nominating anything for Good or Featured status, so any feedback is appreciated. Acdixon 17:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead pretty much sets forth the criteria for inclusion in the list. What other information should be conveyed? Acdixon 21:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the same notability guidelines for Wikipedia articles apply to this list. In other words, if they are notable enough that a Wikipedia article about them would survive a speedy delete challenge, they could be included here. Acdixon 21:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I'm not sure how useful that is. The problem with a list like this is that it may or may not be significant that they have a connection to Kentucky. If this list is supposed to include a link to every article about someone born in or significantly connected to Kentucky, then a category might be a wiser choice. I know a lot of work was done on this article, and that's great, but.. I think someone might have missed the point. -- Ned Scott 00:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The lead doesn't summarize the topic well, and should include at least one example of a very famous Kentuckian or explain what do you mean by famous. Otherwise, a very nice list. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I support the suggested (talk page) name change to List of people from Kentucky. This would be consistent with all other similar lists and satisfy Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions which explicitly discourage the use of "famous" and IMO "Kentuckian" is an awkward word. All people in such lists must be notable (i.e. have or may be expected to have an article) so the adjective is redundant. In addition, fame is a more fleeting and subjective adjective than just being notable for something.
  • The life dates should use ndash and mdash as appropriate.
  • Don't wikilink every "notable for" such as "actor". Generally you only link the first occurrence.
  • There's too much reliance on IMDB (and the URL often isn't to the Bio page that contains the info). IMDB is largely user-contributed with minimal editorial review, as such it doesn't count as a reliable source. I'd forgive this for the "Notable for" but not the main criteria – their connection to Kentucky. So please try to find an alternative. Google for the name + town or state. Try Google Books and other book sites to dig up any biographies. Are there any local newspapers online that you can search?
  • I don't think you should hyperlink the "publisher" field of cite web. The URL for the article is quite enough linking.
  • The lead is too short, as other have said. The lead is your chance to to sell the article to us. Why should we be interested in people from Kentucky? What are they particularly famous/renowned for? If you lack inspiration, ask for help on your WikiProject. Colin°Talk 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. The list has a nice structure: "Connection to Kentucky" makes it clear why people are included. For people where the article provides the references, a specific one shouldn't be needed in this list. Just two things that should be fixed: the list should be renamed to remove "famous" from the title. Living people's year of birth should be listed as "Ned Beatty (b. 1937)" or "Ned Beatty (born 1937)" rather than "Ned Beatty (1937-)". -- User:Docu
Thanks for your support. Will moving the article to List of people from Kentucky right now affect people's ability to comment on the list's nomination in any way? If not, I will move it ASAP. Acdixon 14:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. The list itself looks very good, but it feels too subjective. I'm alwasy extremely reluctant to approve "list of famous ____" becuase the criteria sually varies between people. Plus not everything needs a wikilink if there's other ones on the page. Also, I can't approve anything where the lead is one sentence. --Wizardman 17:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The list is almost there, there are a bunch of minor formatting/style things which need work, however:
    • I support the page move to list of people from Kentucky; since this nomination will probably fail within a day or two, move the page, work on fixing up the list a bit, and then come back.
    • As has been said, the lead is too short. Sure, it describes the page all right, but can you put in a little more detail? I might suggest listing criteria for inclusion; for example, Diane Sawyer wasn't born or raised in KY, but she lived in Lexington for some period of time and anchored a news show there. How long did she have to have lived there to be on the list, or does she actually not belong on the list?
    • Rename the section "Infamous / dubious" so there's no slash. I think just "Infamous" is fine. As for all sections: I'd change the names so that they talk about people, not about what they did (i.e. Scientists instead of "Science," etc.).
    • Don't link to the same thing so close to each other; link once to actor and then not again. Same goes for things in references, like National Aeronautics and Space Administration (and it's okay to call it NASA).
    • Somebody correct me on this one if I'm wrong, but shouldn't a date like 1825-1903 be separated by an &ndash;, or –?
    • References: it's not "IMDB.com", it's the "Internet Movie Database". And as for IMDb – if you can find any stronger references, that would be great, because IMDb is user-submitted, like Wikipedia, but users don't have to cite their sources, unlike Wikipedia. See if there's any sort of news publication that lists these things. Typically birth places aren't so far off on IMDb, but its trivia sections are less credible and weaken the reliability of the source.
    • Also for References: make sure to take the exact title at the top of the page; something like IMDb doesn't say "Ned Beatty Bio," it says "Ned Beatty."
  • Good work overall though. Come back once the page has been improved a little bit, though, and I'd probably support it. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of House episodes

previous FLC

Italian music terminology

previous FLC

List of New Brunswick general elections

This article has been moved to List of New Brunswick general elections (post-Confederation) Tompw (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
  2. Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
    • Useful: Summarises information on seats won from 35 elections, and allows visitors to easily compare results from successive general elections
    • Comprehensive: Covers every general election since Confederation
    • Factually accurate: references given.
    • Stable: Will be only be updated every four years or so
  3. Well-organised: Easy to find any required information
  4. Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes
  5. Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
  6. Images: Sole image has approriate copyright status

(Self-nomination) Tompw (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose Support. I'm weakly opposing this because it doesn't include pre-Confederation election, which already means it isn't comprehensive. You might want to merge General elections in New Brunswick (pre-Confederation) inside this. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:WIAFL criterium 1b states "Comprehensive" means that the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set. The set here is New Brunswick elections since Confederation. The article states "This article only covers elections since the province became part of the Canadian Confederation in 1867". Also, the introductory paragraph refers to the province of New Brunswick, thus excluding the colony of the same name. (I've added an opening sentence for extra clarity). Tompw (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The title of this list is "List of New Brunswick general elections", which means it should includes all elections. The title of the article also doesn't state if it's a province or a colony, so both should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelas10 (talk • contribs)
  • Support Well written, comprehensive, complete within its defined scope. Resolute 07:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Vote changed to support as article has been renamed to accurately reflect its content - Jord 22:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)) Weak oppose per User:Michaelas10. The change from New Brunswick the pre-1867 colony to New Brunswikc the post-1867 province is insubstantial especially with respect to the elections to the Legislative Assembly. An assembly elected in 1866 continued in office through Confederation until 1870, as did the Executive Council made up of members of that Assembly. New Brunswick general elections elect members to the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, nor the electoral process, nor the electoral laws changed upon New Brunswick moving from a colony of Britain to a province of Canada. This list should include all New Brunswick general elections as it once did. - Jord 15:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK... several points I'd like to make:
      1. I shall say again that WP:WIAFL criterium 1b states "Comprehensive" means that the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set. The set here is general elections in the province of New Brunswick, and the list includes all members of that set.
      2. There is nothing wrong with breaking up a long list by chronology - consider Canadian federal election results (1867-1879) and similar. Should that come up for FL status, no-one would say that the list should include all federal elections, because the list limits itself to federal elections in a given range. So, a list can define its own scope. (For an extreme example of this, see the List of major opera composers, a FL that definately defines its own scope).
      3. I also wish to point out a very direct precedent: List of Nova Scotia general elections includes all general elections for the province of Nova Scotia, and it got FL status.
      4. What happened with the Leglislative Assembly is completely beside the point - this is an article about the elections. You're argumenty would be perfectly correct for List of Legislative Assemblies of New Brunswick (if it exsisted).
    • If you continue to oppose, please state exactly which of the Featured List criteria this list does not meet and why. Tompw (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that this is not comprehensive, we seem to be viewing the list through two different lenses. You consider a list of provincial elections, while I see it as a list of elections to the Legislative Assembly. With respect to the Nova Scotia precedent, had I notice that list up for nomination I would have opposed it on the same grounds. - Jord 18:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The intro states: "This article provides a summary of results for the general elections to the Canadian province of New Brunswick's unicameral legislative body, the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick", which is why I view as a list of provincial elections.
Were it of elections to the Legislative Assembly, it would run something like "This article provides a summary of results of elections to the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick. New Brunswick was orginally a British colony, and is now a Canadian province" (or similar). The article would also be entitled "List of elections to the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick". With regard to NS... someone did raise a similair objection, but this was dealt with by making the introduction more specific. Tompw (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The text written in the lead doesn't matter, you can as well add "presidents only after 2000" to List of Presidents of the United States, but it will still not be comprehensive. This isn't true for List of Newfoundland and Labrador general elections, seeing as the seperate pre-Confederation list is for the colony before it was renamed. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<--(unindent). The problem is partly the article name is ambiguous, so the text in the lead is there to clarify. The name "List of Presidents of the United States" clearly states its content and scope, while "List of New Brunswick general elections" is ambiguous, because New Brunswick refers to a province and an ex-colony.
With this in mind, if the article was named List of general elections in New Brunswick (province) would that help? I wouldn't oppose the re-naming of the list to resolve this matter. Tompw (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is though that the "colony" of New Brunswick, was commonly refered to as and legally stood as a "province" of the British Empire prior to Confederation. I think the solution here is to (re)combine the two articles. It is problematic to have them separate because the 1866 election and the 1870 election returned the same number of members to the same body under the same electoral laws, thus the should be categorized together. - Jord 18:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, ould you suggest a name that would resolve the ambiguity? What about List of general elections in New Brunswick (Canadian province)? Tompw (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that you only split articles/lists up when they become unnecessarily long. Returning the first 20 elections (pre-Confederation) to the same list is the ideal solution in my mind. WP:NAME says "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" and goes on to explain that "names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists", this the unnecessary spliting and disambiguating of two lists about the same subject is not appropriate here. WP:DAB says "when there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate", I do not believe that there would be any confusion for readers if they came to "List of New Brunswick general elections" and found a list of all general elections that have occured in the political entity the province of New Brunswick both in its British days (1784-1867) and its Canadian ones (1867-present). Conversely, spliting the article and creating disambiguatory navigation promotes confusion. - Jord 19:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" - most English speakers would associate New Brunswick with the province rather the colony. "names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists" - again, most English speakers would associate New Brunswick with the province rather the colony. This is why List of New Brunswick general elections contains the general elections for the Canadian province.
    "when there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate" - but you say that the "New Brunswick" could be interpreted as colony or as part of Canada, thus indicating potential confusion (which I have no problem with)... but you don't want to disambiguate.
    Further, there's seems to have a shift in your comments from whether or not the article shoudl become a FL (which you have made clear you have opposed, and why); to the nature of the article itself (which really belongs on the article's talk page). Tompw (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not shifted my comments, I do not believe this should be a featured list because it is not comprehensive. It excludes a great deal of elections that for no reason should be excluded. If they were added, I would enthusiastically support this list's candidacy. As for your rebuttals, you are misunderstanding the crux of my argument. My argument is that there is no difference whatsoever between the election of 1866 and the election of 1870; that "New Brunswick general elections" describes elections to the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, a body which has not changed since 1784; and, that the change of New Brunswick from a British colony/province to a Canadian province did not change the electoral process which this list describes. - Jord 21:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK.... we are cleartly *never* going to agree on this one....I think we have both said everything we want to say, and I don't think there's anythign mro I can add. Tompw (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On that I think we can agree ;) - Jord 03:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=99560964"