Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/November 2015

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by SchroCat 13:22, 27 November 2015 [1].

---

Central Committee elected by the 17th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Why? I felt it was important. Its pretty much a list of the entire Soviet party leadership 1934–1939. If someone notices why so many people died during the 1930s its because Stalin killed them. Thanks, --TIAYN (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please replace all symbols with their corresponding symbol template for accessibility, similar to what you did for the Star of David. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Thisisnotatest: They don't have corresponding template, and unlike the venus symbol and the star of david, these are random symbols which can mean whatever the editor wants.. There is no reason to templatize them. So why should I?--TIAYN (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Trust Is All You Need: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Text says some of those symbols will likely be read aloud to blind people using screen reader software as question marks. Rather than creating new templates, you could replace those symbols with symbols that already have templates. Thisisnotatest (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Thisisnotatest: But this is what I don't understand.. You said to templatize the star of david because there could be some people didn't know what the star of david was.. OK, so another description was added. ... But these symbols are random; so "† Indicates that the individual died of natural causes" should be enough (and a person can read this to a blind person). --TIAYN (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Trust Is All You Need: I believe I said it wasn't accessible to blind people. The reason is that screen readers won't read it. But actually, I was thinking about it today, there's a larger issue. When it was just one symbol on that other page, the Star of David, which is well recognized for Jewish, that was probably okay. But now, this key is adding multiple symbols with meanings unrelated to their appearance. That's a lot of meaning for all people, not just blind people, to keep in their heads (or to scroll up and down and up and down) as they try to use the table. It would be better to replace the symbols with a brief word or two and just add another column to the table to contain that new word.

Abbreviations used
K	"K" is an abbreviation of the word Keys.
All	Individual membership in the Politburo, Secretariat and Orgburo.
Pol	Politburo member.
Sec	Secretariat member.
Org	Orgburo member.
Pol(Cand), Org(Cand)	"Cand" refers to "Candidate member"
Keys
	Indicates that the individual was born into a Jewish family.
Natural	Indicates that the individual died of natural causes.
Suicide	Indicates that the individual committed suicide.
Murder	Indicates that the individual was murdered.
Arrested	Indicates that the individual was arrested by Soviet authorities while holding a Central Committee seat.
Removed	Indicates that the individual was removed from the Central Committee.
Expelled	Indicates that the individual was expelled on 8 December 1937, but that the expulsion was confirmed later by the 13th Plenary Session on 20 January 1938.
Elevated	Indicates that the individual was elevated from candidate to full member.

@Thisisnotatest: The table is to big; we use symbols so that they don't take much space. The "Keys" section is there so that people can go back and forward. There is no need for the changes you're calling for. Its normal, other FLs do the same, for instance List of San Francisco 49ers head coaches, List of Indianapolis Colts seasons, List of Alabama Crimson Tide bowl games, List of Silver Slugger Award winners at catcher (I could go on forever). No need. --TIAYN (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Trust Is All You Need: There are plenty of other things in the table that take space. The table needs to be accessible and easily usable. One advantage of making each symbol a template as that it would also mouseover so that someone wouldn't have to scroll back up to the key. The fact that many pages use this system doesn't make it accessible or usable or that the featured list program ought to excuse it in the future. If you're concerned about space, then at least an abbreviation for each term would still be more usable than what is there now.

Abbreviations used
K	"K" is an abbreviation of the word Keys.
All	Individual membership in the Politburo, Secretariat and Orgburo.
Pol	Politburo member.
Sec	Secretariat member.
Org	Orgburo member.
Pol(C), Org(C)	"C" refers to "Candidate member"
Keys
	Indicates that the individual was born into a Jewish family.
Nat	Indicates that the individual died of natural causes.
Sui	Indicates that the individual committed suicide.
Murd	Indicates that the individual was murdered.
Arr	Indicates that the individual was arrested by Soviet authorities while holding a Central Committee seat.
Rem	Indicates that the individual was removed from the Central Committee.
Exp	Indicates that the individual was expelled on 8 December 1937, but that the expulsion was confirmed later by the 13th Plenary Session on 20 January 1938.
Elev	Indicates that the individual was elevated from candidate to full member.

Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – 13:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

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 archived by SchroCat 13:22, 27 November 2015 [2].

---

Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution

Nominator(s): Drdpw (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, after viewing several history text timelines and after taking a look at the archived discussion of this article's unsuccessful 2008 "FLC" I set about revamping the page. There are now inline citations, more key events are noted, and more information given about those events. Also, the article now has a good introduction and helpful organizational headings. Drdpw (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maile

First of all, congratulations on the reformat. It looks soooooo much better without the table.

• The images are fine, but there's a long stretch without any images. Any chance there might be some on Commons to add?
• There are a lot of dates with no sourcing citation.

— Maile (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Maile. I have added a couple images and will attend to the citations (plus additional images) soon. Drdpw (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drdpw: Wow - time flies. I didn't realize I hadn't gotten back to this - didn't mean to hang this nomination out to dry.

• Sources - I see you added citations to each item/paragraph. I ran Earwig's tool for copyvio/close paraphrasing. Looks to me like what it considers violations begin with You Tube, which is notorious for copying Wikipedia, and other sites that have copied You Tube or Wikipedia. The sourcing you've used all appears to be credible.
• Images - I see you have added the captioned images as stated. Please see WP:ALT. For screen readers used by the visually impaired, each image also needs alternative text added.
• See also section - Anything that is in the bottom navbox should not also be in this section. — Maile (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Maile66: Thanks for your input and help enhancing the TL. Alternative text has been added to images and the See also section contents trimmed. Drdpw (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - You've taken care of everything I asked. Happy to support you on this. — Maile (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose—there are many lines in this timeline with no inline citation. I would have expected at least one inline citation for each entry on the timeline. –Grondemar 23:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Maile66:@Grondemar: Every entry in the TL now has at least one inline citation. Drdpw (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – 13:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

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 archived by SchroCat 13:22, 27 November 2015 [3].

---

Raveena Tandon filmography

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 19:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the list meets the criteria and provides a sourced and well-written listing of her films. Raveena Tandon is one of Bollywood's most popular actresses. She has received critical acclaim for portraying strong women in several films and has also won the National Film Award for Best Actress. Looking forward to lots of constructive comments.Krish | Talk 19:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Seems odd to have some fields filled in, but others empty. Like "Director" field for some, but not all. Either way, should try to have increased standardization for maximum uniformity, throughout the page. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: I have filled the table. Thanks for noting it, don't know how it slipped out of my mind. I was very busy so couldn't do it then.Krish | Talk 05:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks much better. Keep us posted here if you do any more filling in on the Notes sect. — Cirt (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

• Too many missing entries in the table re: directors, roles. Referencing needs a lot more work as they don't act as source for all the info in the table. Leads needs more work on its prose.

Done.Krish | Talk 04:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• "This was followed by a series of poorly received films which continued with her 1993 releases" Needs to be rephrased.I think you mean that the 1992 film was the start of her string of films that performed poorly at the box office. Unclear what poorly received means. By critics or commercial or both?

Done.Krish | Talk 04:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• "In 1994, she appeared in eight Hindi films, most of them were commercial successes. Among these were two of the box-office hits — the action thriller Mohra and the romantic musical drama Dilwale". According to table she was in nine Hindi films in 1994. BOI source goes to 1991 not 1994. What's the source for most of them being commercial successes? The first sentence says most of them were commercial successes but the next one says only two were box office hits.
• "Her other notable film was" Can't state that the film was notable, have to provide evidence why. Should avoid words such as as hit or flop.
• "The later year, she appeared in " What does this mean?
• In regards to BOI, we can't use their phrasing of what a hit is.

Done.Krish | Talk 04:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Source needed for her taking a break from her films because of marriage
• Confusing to discuss a TV show she appeared in before marriage, right after a sentence saying she appeared on occassion on television after marriage.
• For the cameo in Bombay Velvet, you need a source that summarises multiple critics not just two as it's POV.

Removed.Krish | Talk 04:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Shab needs a source that proves it's filming.

Cowlibob (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: Done. Sorry for the delay, but I was very busy with my University exams. Coming to your points, her ninth film of 1994 was a cameo appearance, mentioned in Notes. And, rest tweaked, rephrased and corrected. Thanks. Krish | Talk 15:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

To expand further on the referencing

• Patthar Ke Phool character is "Kiran Khanna" according to the BH source. Also need to add an in line for the Filmfare Award.
• Jeena Marna Tere Sang doesn't specify who the director is or if she appears in it.

Done.Krish | Talk 04:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Pehla Nasha links to the BH source for Parampara.

Done.Krish | Talk 04:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Kshatriya character name is listed as "Nilima" in BH.
• Parampara director is listed as Naresh Malhotra, Yash Chopra, Uday Chopra in BH.

Done.Krish | Talk 04:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ratha Saradhi needs a better ref. Amazon can't be used.
• Bangaru Bullodu ref only acts to verify that she appeared in it, not the director or name of role.

No sources available. Hence removed.Krish | Talk 04:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Zamane Se Kya Darna. Is there really no reference for what role she played in this film?

IMDb says her character was named "Anju Rajpal", how about using that info to find a reliable source to verify it?

Like IMDB is reliable. No way, there are no refrences for the role, hence Unknown.Krish | Talk 04:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Laadla BH ref specifies character is "Kajol". Needs in line for the Filmfare award
• Mohra BH ref specifies character is "Roma Singh".
• Main Khiladi Tu Anari ref just says she made a special appearance not that she played herself

Done.Krish | Talk 04:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Sadhu. Any better refs than the director's website. It also doesn't specify her character's name as "Selvi".

No refrences, hence removed the role name.Krish | Talk 04:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Taqdeerwala. character name is "Lilly" according to BH. Director is "K. Murali Mohan Rao"
• Zamaana Deewana. according to BH character is "Priya Singh".

I'll just stop there. Could you fix these and check for each film that all the details in the table are verified. Cowlibob (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: Done. Do you think it's my mistake that Bollywood Hungama doesn't write film details correctly? It's the only reliable sources for films as far as old films are concerned. I had added all names as per the films and what actually her character are named in.Krish | Talk 15:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Have struck comments that are resolved. Left comments that remain unresolved. Cowlibob (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Question: Is Ratha Saradhi (1993) directed by Lata Mangeshkar?? Is Amazon a RS?? - Vivvt (Talk) 04:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no information about this film on internet. I have tried to cite it by it's DVD. So, it's obvious I'll cite an online store.Krish | Talk 15:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• DVD cover does not mention Lata Mangeshkar anywhere. What you are citing is a store which has no authority to list Lata as a director overriding DVD cover.
• Also, looking at the comments above by Cowlibob, I got another question. Is BH a RS? If yes, provide a WP discussion concluding BH as a reliable source for the filmography. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nor is IndianTelevision.com reliable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I know my job better than you Dharam (your work is just opposite of your name). Indiantelevision is as much reliable as other sources, they are behind Indian Telly Awards. So before posting your frivolous points, it would be better to do some research atleast. Don't you think? Krish | Talk 15:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Krish!: Hey. No personal attacks. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not a chat forum. We may get passionate about editing, but we should strive to act in an academic, collegiate manneer.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

About-us of this source says that they are "online Media, Advertising, Marketing & Satellite Television resource" and "Apart from conceiving and executing promotional campaingns targeted at the Media, Marketing & Television Trade online, it also offers similar services offline, thus providing clients with a 360 degree media service and marketing solution". Wikipedia does not promote such promotional websites; see WP:CITESPAM. And indiantelevision.com has previously also been questioned: on this FLC nom by User:The Rambling Man in 2013 and this FLC nom by User:Krimuk90 recently in June 2015. "Being behind" some award only means they can monetarily afford it but now also makes that award dubious. (I stand by my name.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: Indian Television is very much reliable souurce and since I don't want to waste my time arguing to prove that thing, I had replaced that source with another.Krish | Talk 16:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Birdienest81

• "This was followed by a series of unsuccessful films which continued with her 1993 releases." I'm stil confused about why this sentence follows her 1991 film. What about "Continued" suggests that Jeena Marna Tere Sang was also unsuccessful.
• Recently, using Amazon.com as a source in itself has come under scrutiny as a RS as discussed at the noticeboard. If there is no reliable source, I would consider dropping that film since you don't make mention of it in the lead or make reference on a specific number of how many films she made; Therefore it's not that big of a deal.

Otherwise, it looks better since Cowlibob last reviewed.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Birdienest81: Done and yes all her films from 1992 and 1993 were unsuccessful as per Box Office India. Thanks for the corrections. Krish | Talk 11:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments – The spaced em dash in the first paragraph goes against the Manual of Style; try a smaller en dash here. There should be a "which" before "though initially a box-office disappointment" for that sentence to be more grammatical. Why is the TBA film sorting in the Year column before her earliest releases, when it will be released later than anything else currently in the table? Several notes in the Television table need some words de-capitalized. Only the "Directed by" note should have anything after the first word capitalized. Reference 3 needs a publisher. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Giants2008: Done and removed the Delayed/Not released film as there are no information about its release or whatever. Thanks for your inputs. Krish | Talk 11:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – 13:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

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 withdrawn by Giants2008 18:08, 19 November 2015 [4].

---

List of writers who have returned the Sahitya Akademi Award

Nominator(s): Jim Carter 11:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Sahitya Akademi Award is considered one of the most significant and prestigious literary award in India. And the returning of such a valuable award is currently the most important subject among Indian veteran writers. I've tried my best to satisfy FL criteria, I appreciate constructive criticism in a polite manner. Cheers! Jim Carter 11:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - what on earth is the ordering of the table based on? It doesn't seem to be based on year or name, in fact it seems completely random.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: It was not random, it was based on the first writer to return the award; listed in the article first and so on. But yes, it's an issue since we exactly don't know the return dates. I've sorted it based on the names. Thanks! Jim Carter 09:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There seems to be a lot of clean up needed for this list. Since the list is about writers who returned their award, shouldn't there be a column for reason for returning the award? Also, is it possible to locate the books of the authors instead of saying "unkonwn"? Also there is a column saying "books" but many of the entries are plays or poems, etc... What does translator mean, translates into Hindi? From what language? Is the list sorted alphabetical by first name? Is this normal? Mattximus (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mattximus: The reason for return is same for all writers which is already mentioned in the lead. Obviously I can locate those books but due to lack of reliable coverage we can't add them. I've changed the column "books" into "works". "Kannada translator" for example, a person who translates into Kannada language. They may translate from any language, it should not matter here. Yes, the list is sorted alphabetically by first name, since most of the writers returned on the same date, sorting by returning date is implausible. If this is not normal, what is normal? Jim Carter 03:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Normal sorting would be by last name, unless first name is an Indian convention I'm not aware of. But the reason for return in the lead is stated as "as of 2015 the award has been returned by many writers for various reasons". But there is no column to describe these reasons. Also, what do you mean "lack of reliable coverage we can't add them." Why can't you add the name of the books? Mattximus (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• I actually agree with Mattximus. I remember a few days ago when I checked the article the first thing I felt was this thing, a reason column. --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• It looks better now, however 2 columns "notes" and "refs" are slightly confusing, as I see there are some refs in notes column too. --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Question Why do some entries in the writers column have blue backgrounds? If there's a reason, you should put in a key that explains what that reason is. If there's not a reason, they shouldn't have blue backgrounds. I came here from WP:DYKN, in case anyone wants to know. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Well, this is great candidate for featured list, which is a much debated yet most controversial issue. These kind of content need to be written with WP:NPOV. Issue mentioned on DYK Nomination should be addressed. There is no "criticism of award returners" is written which had vast media coverage. Otherwise list is good. --Human3015^TALK  14:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Withdraw I withdraw this nomination. I'm currently too busy with other works. Jim Carter 09:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

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 PresN 22:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC).

---

List of cricketers who have scored centuries in consecutive matches from Test debut

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(ping) 12:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Another cricket list. Currently has eight entries, but it will certainly grow. This one follows the same format as similar lists. As always, look forward to comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _(ping) 12:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• List is not any categories. Also, why can't this be merged into List of centuries scored on Test cricket debut? It's rare (8 entries, and only 2 of those in the last 19 years) and there are no sources at present speaking directly to the noteworthiness of a streak of centuries scored from debut onwards. At the moment, it looks like being statistics for the sake of statistics. Bencherlite^Talk 12:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, they overlap with each other, but not same. I think a fork definitely makes sense – scoring a century in the (first) two matches is definitely more "significant" than just on debut. Besides, the stat. has received adequate coverage in the media, including Wisden and Cricinfo (both are used in the article). Here is another one [5]. —Vensatry _(ping) 12:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• The Wisden reference mentions it in this way: "Given below is the trivia [emphasis added] associated with this unique feat [scoring a century on debut, i.e. the main list] achieved over the years in Test cricket history." Scoring a century in your next match is listed along with retiring hurt, or people scoring a century on debut on the same day or in the same match, or never scoring another test century again (which is in fact far, far more common than scoring a century in your next match). Not exactly significant coverage. The other page is simply a statistics page, with no more evidence of independent notability than "List all the 100-plus Test partnerships for the eighth wicket which have come after the seventh wicket has fallen at or before 150" (a suggested statistics page linked from the target you've given). This short list fails the 3(b) test: "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". It could be, so it's an oppose. All the main list needs is a few footnotes to say that these eight people scored centuries in their next match, or in Azharuddin's case, two matches. In passing, "Kallicharran" is misspelt in the lead, Queen's Park Oval is missing its possessive apostrophe, you've got "Kingston, Jamaica, Jamaica", "DNB" isn't glossed for those who don't know that it means "Did Not Bat", Eden Gardens has a stray space after it on one occasion. and I wouldn't link the cities per WP:OVERLINK (do we even need "Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney" - since where else would it be?) Bencherlite^Talk 13:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• I quite understand your concern but not convinced. Consider this parent list and its overlapped forks: List of India cricketers who have taken five wickets on Test debut and List of Pakistan Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut (both being FLs). In this case, scoring a century on debut is not the same as scoring a century in the second match as well. Coming to the coverage, there are sources that call this as a feat. Reg. exclusive coverage I got one more: Trivone Digital Services Pvt Ltd. Also, a partial coverage [6], [7], India Today dating back to 1985, and The New Zealand Herald. Besides, this one from the Australian Cricket Board seems to have the exact table. Thus, this one definitely has independent notability. That said, I'd like to have the opinion of the delegates: @Giants2008, Crisco 1492, SchroCat, and PresN:. —Vensatry _(ping) 15:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• I will pass on the finer aspects, not understanding the sport, but if sources treat it differently we can easily treat it differently as well. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Also pinging in @Harrias, The Rambling Man, and ChrisTheDude: who have more expertise in this area. —Vensatry _(ping) 16:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm no expert on cricket and what should be considered a notable statistic, despite having reviewed many cricket articles and lists in my time here. That said, the list looks a little shaky to me on 3b grounds. I see no reason why this feat couldn't be highlighted with a color and symbol in the main List of centuries scored on Test cricket debut article. I suppose that, if there is separate independent coverage, we could consider a separate list, but eight items is quite short for an FL; usually lists that short that reach FL have some kind of note column to pad things a bit. I don't want to be the one who shoots this down, but I would like to more coverage that treats this as a unique topic, and doesn't put it with numerous other lists that aren't going to be notable enough for Wikipedia standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The comparison between List of cricketers who have taken five-wicket hauls on Test debut and [[List of [nationality] cricketers who have taken five-wicket hauls on Test debut]] on the one hand with List of centuries scored on Test cricket debut and List of cricketers who have scored centuries in consecutive matches from Test debut on the other is, I hope, obvious. In the first case, the main list has been broken down into sub-lists by nationality, primarily for ease of navigation. It is the same achievement. In the second instance, you are saying that there are two achievements: scoring a century on test debut, and scoring two centuries in one's first two test matches. No-one can be on the second list without also being on the first list. As it's only eight names, and unlikely to increase in size quickly, I don't think it merits its own featured list within the FL criteria. Bencherlite^Talk 11:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but not everybody on the first will be on the second. Secondly, this isn't an arbitrary statistic; a couple of sources (which treat the topic independently) are available. I think, it can be legitimately forked out to have a standalone article. If length is your only concern you might want to look at List of India cricketers who have taken five wickets on Test debut, an FL with eight entries. —Vensatry _(ping) 14:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Never got around to stating my opinion on this list. I agree with Bencherlite- this list is a trivial content fork. We already have a list of players scoring a century on debut; noting that 8 of them scored a century in their next match (or two) is a footnote that you've expanded into a list. The sources note the facts, but none of them area really about it- you could just as easily have a list that is "List of cricketers who have scored 5 centuries in 20 consecutive matches" and I'm sure you could find sources, but that wouldn't make the list a good idea. --PresN 02:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I never denied that argument. But we have sources which treat both the topics in a unique way. —Vensatry _(Talk) 06:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, at this point 2 delegates including myself have expressed concern that this is a 3b violation, and one editor has opposed over it. The fact remains that this list could be easily included in the list of players scoring a century on debut list, either as a table or as a simple footnote, and as such is a 3b violation. I'm going to close this list as not passed, rather than leave it open to just remain stalled. --PresN 22:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

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 PresN 22:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC).

---

List of British Columbia general elections

Nominator(s): --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This article was previously promoted to Featured list status in December 2006 (and subsequently became part of a Featured topic in January 2007). However, earlier this year, in April 2015, this article was delisted as a Featured list due to its lack of inline citations, out-of-date referencing, and MOS-type problems with its table-lists (e.g. not adhering to WP:SALORDER, and antiquated table coding, etc.). I have spent the last few weeks attempting to resolve those issues, and I believe this article is now ready to be relisted as a Featured list, so I am (re-)nominating this article for Featured list status. (Most of the other Canadian provincial elections lists articles have also been delisted as FL's, outside of List of Alberta general elections which is still a Featured list, and I hope to fix those other articles, and renominate those over the next couple of months... But I am starting with the British Columbia article, as the one closest to being completely renovated enough for WP:FL status.) I look forward to working through this process. Thank you! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Just some drive-by comments, no time for a full review yet.

• "This article provides a summary of results" is no longer considered appropriate for featured lists, nor is "The chart on the right shows", and "The table below shows"...
  • (Interlacing my replies here.) OK, I have eliminated that kind of language from the lede. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• The lead should summarize the table, for example include sentences on any trends over the years, and referenced explanations. It needs to be substantially rewritten.
  • I have substantially reworked the lede. I doubt it's anywhere near "perfect" yet, but hopefully it's getting there. I based the first paragraph off List of Alberta general elections, but reworked the intro sentence so it's not just a "copy" of the Alberta one. (That intro sentence may be "clunky" as a result – if so, please let me know...) But hopefully the lede is at least more "professional" now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• The second graph is missing the latest election results.
  • That second figure is a problem. I can't tell what it was worked up in, but I don't think it was Microsoft Excel. As a result, I doubt I can just whip up an "updated for 2013" version of that one that'll look similar to the way that figure looks now. Additionally, it seems wholly redundant with the article's first graph-figure. As a result, if there's no objection, I'd like to just remove the second figure from the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• The first paragraph of "Elections prior to provincial political parties" has a reference, but I can't find any of that information on page 6 as indicated.
  • OK, I hope it's OK to quote the source verbetim for the purposes of this discussion, but I'm going to do so (this is from p.6, as per the reference at the article):

    ...Before 1903 lines were drawn between Government supporters, grouped around the Premier, and the Opposition, grouped around one or more Opposition leaders. Candidates declared themselves as one or the other, or as Independents. There was no formal selection process for the most part so it was not uncommon for Government (or Opposition) candidates to be running against another Government (or Opposition) candidate... After an election, and not infrequently during the life of a Parliament, the position of Government and Opposition was often reversed. From 1871 to 1903 there were eight parliaments and fifteen governments; the seventh and eight Parliaments accounted for six of those governments. Allegiances shifted frequently depending on the issue, there was little to no discipline. In 1886 separate Labour candidates first appeared and in 1900 a Socialist candidate was nominated. The 1900 general election is also significant in that although the traditional division of Government and Opposition was still present, party groupings were beginning to play a role and it foreshadowed the election of 1903 along full party lines.²

    I think this section of the source pretty much confirms the first paragraph of the 'Elections prior to provincial political parties' section, as well some of what's asserted in the second and third sentences of the last paragraph in the lede. However, it's certainly possible that both of these can be worded better to align them more closely with the quoted text from the source, above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• The entire second paragraph of "Elections prior to provincial political parties" is completely unsourced, missing any wikilinks and needs to be written more clearly. That whole paragraph is painful to read.
  • I've added wikilinks for the premieres. (In terms of sourcing I'll see what I can dig up, and come back with what I find...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• "Full details on any election are linked via the year of the election at the start of the row" is almost tautological for any wikipedia user. And is written twice in the article.
  • You're right – I've removed that sentence. But, follow-up question: Is the phrasing "The table below shows..." in this section still acceptable language? Or is that also antiquated for FL's, and so needs to be reworded? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely improved since it was demoted thanks to your efforts, but there is still quite a bit of work to get it back to featured status. Mattximus (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! And, noted! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Round two:

• The lead is much, much better than before. Just a minor quibble: the last sentence is bit clunky, and can be fixed by being a bit more clear by writing something like ... "which won every election since 2001" or "all subsequent elections since 2001" or something like that.
  • I reworked the last sentence of the lede – I think it's better now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Yes better to scrap the second image since the information is contained within the first one anyway. The first one is good, but it would be much better if the grey background was white, but that's not a reason to oppose the nomination.
  • Yes – I put in a request to the original author to update that second figure, but have heard nothing back. As it is redundant to the first figure in any case, I have simply removed the second one from the article. As to improving the first figure, I think it was worked up in Microsoft Excel – I was thinking about trying to recreate it anyway to, among other things, get rid of the gray background (which was the default background color for graphs in certain versions of MS Excel...). I will probably be busy this week, but I will try to get to that soon... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• As for the table, I'm not sure if the explanatory paragraph is needed at all. Maybe it can be removed and the title changed to "Summary of election results", especially since the 1903 cut off is explained in the paragraph below and the paragraph above. The table looks good but can it be left justified?
  • I've left the intro paragraph in for now, but this particular question is an important one because if consensus is that these tables need no direct "intro text", that will affect all of the other Canadian Provincial election articles as well. So I wouldn't mind hearing from others for their opinions on this question... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oops – forgot to mention that I removed "centering" on the main elections table, so it is now 'left-justified'. Do you want the second (pre-1903) elections table also left-justified? – I'll admit: I prefer that one "centered" as it's smaller. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• The paragraph under "Elections prior to provincial political parties" needs a bit of rewording. For example: "Until the 1903 election, political parties in BC had no official recognition" is needlessly passive. Can be written "Political parties in British Columbia had no official recognition until the 1903 election. The next sentence does not make sense. Can get rid of "however" and start with Some candidates.... "and were considered as "Government" candidates"..."whereas those not in support of the present administration were considered "Non-Government" or Independent." What is meant by "did not bear out"... that should be clarified.
  • Again, reworked this paragraph. Let me know if it still needs work!--IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• The last paragraph needs to be rewritten to be more clear.
  • FTR, I'm still going to look for some sourcing for that paragraph – if I can't find adequate sourcing, I intend to just cut it from the article entirely. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking close to a support! Mattximus (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Round Three: Looks much better overall than before, I think my nitpicking is complete. If you do get a chance to change that opening graph, in addition to making the background white, I would also remove the horizontal lines as they weave in and out of the bars making it quit distracting. The only part preventing me from supporting is the unsourced last paragraph. It contains interesting stuff, but it needs to be sourced. Mattximus (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this nomination has been open for 2 months without a support, so I'm going to have to close it as not passed. Feel free to renominate in the future, and remember that the best way to get more reviewers for a nomination is to review other nominations yourself. --PresN 22:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

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 PresN 22:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC).

---

FIFA World Cup top goalscorers

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is an interesting stats page that passes all the FL?. Last time it failed because of lack of reviewer interest, which I hope will not be the case this time. Nergaal (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment please fix all the SHOUTING in the references, there's no need to have the surnames of every player capitalised, even if that's what the website you're using does. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

done. Nergaal (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Technical comments Tournaments column doesn't sort properly. Use consistent accuracy for goal average. Make sure all player names include their diacritics. Don't use bold alone as a way to distinguish between players. Date format should be consistent from table to table. Why isn't the second table sortable? Why are you suddenly abbreviating country names without a key? Ref 2 doesn't ref the numbers in that table at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorts now. so you want a 1.00 instead of 1.0? You have an example where I missed it and it doesn't? Done. What date format are you referring to? Which column would you consider it to be necessary sortable (since it is a timeline table)? For brevity/clarity purposes as having the full names seems to clutter the table too much. Which table, the intro? Nergaal (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The last one: TBH I did a manual count since FIFA doesn't really seem to have compiled an aggregate one. That is why I used ~ and >. I could put 20 links like [8] and [9] if you think that is better. Nergaal (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'll do a proper review once these issues are resolved, right now it needs a lot of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (1) "The 29 top goalscorers played for 17 different nations, seven players being Brazilian, and eight from Germany or West Germany." Looks like the actual numbers for Brazil and (W) Germany are 5 and 3 respectively.

Not sure where that error appeared from, but thanks for catching it. Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

(2) Can you please fix the sorting using the 'world cup' column in the 'top scorer by tournament' table. Once you sort it using one of the other columns, clicking the sort in the World Cup does not sort in the order of world cups.

Figured out what is happening. When you sort using the 'world cup' column, it now sorts as per the host country. So the Argentina 78 appears first, followed by Brazil 1950, Brazil 2014 etc. The column should be sorted according to the year of the competition - 1930, 1934 etc. Tintin 09:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the sorting with that column. Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Few more quick quibbles before a proper review, I wish WP:PR was still functional these days....

• Number of goalscorers[2] isn't referenced by [2].

FIFA seems to have switched the links quite a bit (so I have to go though quite a bit of other refs to relink them). I switched the used reference to something that is a list to all the WCs. I could change that to a note saying something like "see a complete list for 1930, ...., 2014 if you think that is more appropriate. As I've said above, FIFA does not seem to provide a compiled table (as of now), so all the counted totals are just that, manually counted (that is why I have ~ and >). Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• See WP:CAPTION.

added "."

• Respect diacritics.

I am not sure what you mean here. Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

For players names, be consistent with diacritics. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The only place I wasn't strictly consistent is in the FIFA titles that FIFA themselves use. Outside of the ref titles, all the names should be consistent. Nergaal (talk)

They need to be correct, not just consistent. Suker, Eusebio, (Rivellino needs to be spelt correctly), James Rodriguez, Oscar Miguez, Zidane.... to name a few. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Gave it another comb though the text. However, for the titles of the references I don't understand the rules. If a title used somewhere uses a different name spelling then it is considered wrong and should not be used when quoting the title itself? Nergaal (talk)

• Goal average still isn't to the same precision.

I can change it, but to me saying 1.00 seems a bit strange. Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Same precision please. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• "at least 5 goals" MOSNUM please.

I thought anything under 10 should be spelled out. Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Uhhuh. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

?

5 is under 10. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait, are you talking about the table caption? If yes, do the same MOS rules apply since tables generally do contain numbers? Nergaal (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Date formats in the article like "1930-07-13" are just a joke, not easily readable by normal humans.
• Three-letter-abbreviations for countries is bad, spell it out.

They are commonly used in FIFA broadcasts.

This is a Wikipedia article, not a FIFA broadcast. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

changed

• 1+1?

Twice, there were two separate games played at the same tournament against TCS and Turkey.

That's not clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You prefer "1, 1"? Because saying turkey twice seems weird to me. Nergaal (talk)

How does it look now? Nergaal (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Publisher is FIFA, not FIFA.com.

fixed

• WP:DASH fails in ref titles, e.g. ref 31.

I think I fixed them. Nergaal (talk)

• "M.espn.go.com. " is ESPN.

fixed

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I have fixed most of the issues you mentioned, and left a few clarification questions for the remaining few. Any suggestions? Nergaal (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, there are some things I can still see that need to be addressed.

• The micro-table in the lead may be referenced by [1] but how? [1] just leads to a generic FIFA website page.

Do you think this is a RS? Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• You need to explain why goals in penalty shoot-outs are not included.

It is the sort of thing if you follow the WC you "just know" but honestly not sure how to find a ref why FIFA doesn't include in the stats. The best I could find is help.bet365dotcom/en/rules/rules-sports/soccer which is blacklisted. Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I added a ref showing totals explicitly excluding shoot-outs. Nergaal (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• You have "2,300" then "1200", so be consistent throughout.

fixed

• "edition" is very American, why not just use the name of the tournament, e.g. instead of "The top goalscorer of the first edition was" perhaps "The top goalscorer of the inaugural competition was"?

Inaugural competition sounds awkward to me but I changed to that. Nergaal (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Since then, only 22 players have surpassed this threshold at games " not clear, it seems that Stábile scored all his goals in a single tournament. This sentence is unclear.

He did score only in 1930. It appears he only played 4 games for Arg, those all at the 1930 WC. Is the current formulation more clear but not too awkward? Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• " in 1954" Easter egg link.

There are a few links like this. You think I should just remove all the yearly links? Nergaal (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have been encouraged to remove them from GAs so as this is a featured candidate, yes, rephrasing it each time is the solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed all the easter eggs. Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• "managed to improve on this record" clumsy, just "improved on" is fine.

changed

• " in only six games" POV. State the facts, don't apply POV.

He has the third best g/g average. Doesn't that count as "only"? Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• "at the 1970 edition" awful, perhaps, "in the 1970 World Cup finals".

Changed to just the year. I tried to stay away from repeating "World Cup" too much, and finals is a bit confusing as it could refer just the final game of each tournament. Nergaal (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• "during Germany's win" Germany or West Germany?

fixed

• " a total of " unnecessary.

removed

• "between 1998 and 2006." easter eggs.

see above

• " Germany's Miroslav Klose would go on to" why relink Germany national team?

removed

• " Germany's Miroslav Klose would go on to" why "would go on", it's happened, speak in English.

changed

• "consecutive tournaments between 2002 and 2014" easter eggs.

see above

• " Pelé with twelve between 1958 and 1970, and Jürgen Klinsmann with eleven between 1990 and 1998." easter eggs and unreferenced.

They are referenced in the table though. Nergaal (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

So that's half-way through the lead, I'll give more feedback once these issues are addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and as for player's names, I didn't mean the ref titles, I meant their usage in the article itself. Make things like (right) into (right) in image captions. spell Ernst Wilimowski correctly, explain what "Goal average" means (we know this, but why should a layman get it?), I'm also not seeing how the up arrow is adequately referenced, e.g. Tim Cahill's link doesn't demonstrate that he played for Australia within the past twelve months (and surely that will age really quickly, you need a different way of explaining this....) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I sincerely am completely unable to find the examples you see; I went multiple times and still cannot catch any missing/inconsistent diacritics.

e.g. Oscar Míguez should be Óscar Míguez, Zinédine Zidane should be Zinedine Zidane etc etc... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

At least the ones you emntioned I've fixed. I really have a hard time finding others so please let me know if I am still missing any. Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I had absolutely no idea about the italics use but I changed it.

Fixed the Wilmowski name.

Added tooltip to goal average even though I find it extremely weird.

Well you could change the name to "goals per game" then. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Changed the wording to "have continued playing for their national team after the 2014 tournament".

Nergaal (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

A few more thoughts on the next portion of the lead:

• "with 9 goals" MOS says "nine".
• Image captions which are complete sentences need full stops.

The only one that doesn't is not a full sentence. Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I still fail to see how ref [1] verifies the information in the table in the lead.

Is this a RS so I can use it as a replacement? Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if that's an RS, have you asked the football project? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

So I added a 100% reliable ref for all those up to 4 goals, but for 3, 2, and 1 I still have that one. At least one FOOTY user (Jaellee) "found no sign of user-generated content and I haven't seen anything else which would disqualify it". Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• "90 players who have scored at least five goals, only five " per WP:NUMNOTES, "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures".

I tried to redo the numbers per what I think the rules are. Let me know if I screwed up anywhere. Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Don't repeat first names after the first usage of a player's full name.

removed

• "60 footballers came from " why past tense? Especially as several are still active.

present

• "60 footballers came from UEFA (Europe), 26 from CONMEBOL (South America), and only four players" NUMNOTES again.

fixed

• The lead is surprisingly devoid of references, e.g. where is inclusion in the all-star team referenced?

Unless I completely messed something up, everything in the intro that does not have a ref there has a ref in the tables below. You would prefer to double up the ref usage? Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll repeat: where is the all-star team inclusion referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice catch. I completely missed that the teams were not in there. I added a somewhat detailed note with appropriate links instead. Nergaal (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I fixed or addressed all the concerns you have pointed out. Let me know what is there still left to be done. Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

What makes sporting99.com a reliable source? I can't see any evidence that it meets our requirements. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I looked multiple times and I couldn't find any good ref for the All-Star team before 1994 so I removed the column entirely. Nergaal (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tintin1107 and The Rambling Man:. Nergaal (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this nomination has been open for 2 months without a support, so I'm going to have to close it as not passed. Feel free to renominate in the future, and remember that the best way to get more reviewers for a nomination is to review other nominations yourself. --PresN 22:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

In these 2 months I did like five or so reviews, and gotten only TRM here... This must be like my 5th straight FLC not getting reviews, so I think I'll stop submitting here. Nergaal (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

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 PresN 21:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC).

---

List of Governors of Arkansas

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This was a featured list from September 2007 to this May, when it was rightly delisted for having an old format and poorly sourced information. After getting back into the governor list groove, I've taken the time to upgrade the format to include a term column (much superior to the previous style of percentages to indicate shared terms) and a portrait column (since we now have enough portraits to fill most of it out).

I also was bold and removed the living governor list (I can speak only for myself but I see this as excessive trivia that has no real world import) and the 'other high offices held' list, which I found to be difficult to maintain. It requires a bit of clunky prose, and ends up being a bit subjective. My personal rules were: Congressional offices, high executive offices, cabinet, district court or higher appointments, and ambassadorships. However, this would leave out certain things that people would be perhaps better known for, like commissioner of baseball or mayor of large cities. I will argue against replacing the living governor list, but I can easily go along with replacing the other high office list if people think it makes sense to keep.

Finally, the reason this was delisted: Data. Turns out that the best available sources on when Arkansas' governors took office disagree by a day or two for much of the state's history, so extensive verification and logical thinking had to be done to come up with the list as it is. Everything should be properly sourced now. Also, I discovered a new governor, Thomas Fletcher, which is not a sentence that often makes sense, but here we are.

It's been years since I've brought a list to FLC, so I expect my old standards are lacking, so I look forward to learning what new hotness I need to employ in this. Thank you! --Golbez (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I should point out that I'm also kind of doing this as a referendum; a new format has been brought to List of Governors of California and it includes things such as previous job, number of days in office, and the governor's birth and death dates and age. I don't like these; in order, they are subjective and not that useful (for Richard Nixon for president, would we say 'none'?); excessive trivia (it might just be me but I honestly don't understand why anyone cares); and irrelevant (their dates have nothing to do with this list. if someone wants to know them, the article is right there. including them is akin to including their wife's name, or place of birth). I seek discussion on not just this list, but it in comparison to that new format; if this list gets featured as it is then I'll work with the creator of the CA format to adapt it, and if this list doesn't get featured because of the other format being preferred, then I guess I'll stop fighting it. [And if this is absolutely the wrong place to have this discussion, please tell me where to take it. :)] --Golbez (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Object: The party is indicated with color only, which is not accessible to blind or color-blind people. If you decide to add a visible R/D, make sure it has good contrast with the background, for example, a black letter R or letter D as text and a pale red or pale blue background. Or you could add a party column, the same as the California list. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There... is a party column? --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Golbez, I believe they mean the red that indicates Republican and the blue that indicates Democrat. — Maile (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know what they mean. And there is a party column. That's my confusion. It's right there. Reads "Democratic" and sometimes "Republican". --Golbez (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment For the record, those tiny "party shading" (half-)columns are standard practice at U.S. politics (e.g. Pres. and Governor) lists, and at some of the Canadian elections lists too, and I really dislike them strongly. It should either be a full separate column, with written "R" & "D" (or "Rep" & "Dem") labels, or we really shouldn't bother! So this isn't just a problem with this Arkansas Governor article, but with U.S. politics lists articles in general. (I think someone tried to fix this at List of Presidents of the United States a few months back, but got voted down IIRC...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a column. With labels. I'm very confused how people aren't seeing this. The color bars are simply for added illustration (and shouldn't have text over them). That way it's easy to see party control over time without having to scan for words. It also makes it easier to see Lt Governor parties, who don't get their own party column. --Golbez (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

What I mean by this is that it's not a separate 'Party' column with "R" & "D" labels included right there in the cells. I find the way this has been handled at the U.S. politics lists to be highly... inelegant. I understand that they've been this way forever, and there's a lot of inertial support for them, but I strongly prefer the way this is handled at, say, List of Alberta general elections or List of post-confederation Prince Edward Island general elections. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The rows used to be entirely colored. Then we went to the color bars. I find that more elegant than coloring in the party column, I don't like (and in many cases it runs afoul of accessibility) having text over color. I look at those articles and I want to split the winner column into one with a color bar and the party name. --Golbez (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That seems to me like it might be the best ultimate "solution" for these articles – move the party-colors "half-column" over to be with the 'Party' label column, rather that the awkward way it's currently included with the officeholder's name. But I'd better drop this here, as this discussion has less to do with this specific FL nominee, than it does with a discussion that maybe should be held about the entire "suite" of these articles... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean!... OK, what I'm saying is I'd prefer that the party "colors" should be moved over to that column. (Something would have to be worked out for the Lt. Gov. column too...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Well that is certainly possible, though then we have the odd construction of color/party/color/name (due to lieutenant governor). Putting the color bar on the left gives people a quick look at the party before scanning to the middle of the table, and balances the color bars out. --Golbez (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't find the colour an issue for the main Governors, as the party is described. However, for the Lt. Governors, if a screen reader user was accessing the list, how would they know what party each Lt Governor was? If the two always aligned, it wouldn't be a problem, but as they differ at times, it is. Harrias ^talk 16:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Orval Faubus served the longest term as state governor, being elected six times to serve twelve years. Bill Clinton, elected five times over two distinct terms, fell only one month short of twelve years." I was puzzled at the six and five terms. I think you need to leave it out or explain that the term was changed to four years during Clinton's governorship.
• "so there was a single line of governors, though as the state fell to Union forces there was a loyalist government put in place with an insignificant Confederate government in exile." This seems to me confusing. Perhaps something like "but when the state fell to Union forces in 1863, the Confederate governor maintained an ineffective government in exile until 1865, while a Union governor was appointed in 1864."
• "Murphy was elected provisional governor by a loyalist government set up after Union control of the state was established". This is a bit vague. Did the US President appoint a government which chose the governor until the state was re-admitted to the Union in 1868?
• A fine list. Just a few minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It's been 2 months without sufficient support, so closing this nomination as not passed. --PresN 21:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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