Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/BBC Young Musician of the Year

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 promoted 16:52, 20 March 2008.

BBC Young Musician of the Year edit

I've worked on this list extensively for the last week or so, and now - I honestly believe its ready for FLC. I've transformed it from its old condition to its current state and added citations and the like. I honestly believe it now meets the Featured list criteria. I will address any concerns raised as quickly as possible. Please note that this article is currently undergoing a peer review, and I will also keep an eye on that, but I have seeked extensive feedback on IRC to improve the article as well, so hopefully everything is in order. Thank you for your time, ~ Qst (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed issues by Scorpion0422 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • A few comments:
    • The list isn't that long, so I'd like to see the text doubled in length if that's possible.
      • I've included as much as possible, hopefully this is to your satisfaction. Qst (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be nice if there were some external links like an official site.
    • Have any of the runners-up/finalists done anything notable? If so, should they be mentioned somewhere? -- Scorpion0422 04:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will address these issues within the next few hours. I must note, however, that I believe the finalists are only listed for the 2006 competition, and there is no other information about them (apart from the name) - so I'll probably include them in the lead. Thanks, Qst (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing the list for 2006 finalists now, it will take me probably about half an hour. Qst (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've just found a massive directory on the BBC website which lists finalists for each year of the competition. Despite looking extensively before, I never found this list - so issue #03 by Scorpion0422 may take longer than expected to address than I had first believed. Qst (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow is quite a busy day for me, but Sunderland06 and I will finish the tables off within the next few days. Qst (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Qst (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Done Comment I don't think it's necessary to have a "reference" column in a table when every row uses the same ref. -- Scorpion0422 05:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What other format could be put into place.  Sunderland06  05:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just put them at the bottom under the references column as a general ref, like what is done here. -- Scorpion0422 05:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a different idea, how about this User:Sunderland06/Sandbox.  Sunderland06  06:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would work too I suppose. -- Scorpion0422 06:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Implementing now.  Sunderland06  06:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed issues from Matthewedwards (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments

  • Done removed Is "(deceased)" necessary?
  • Done "which this year, will be hosted at..." → "which will be hosted in 2008 at..."
  • Done Please wikilink each instrument
    • I don't think its necessary to link to the instruments/instrumental categories more than once on the finalists table. Matthew, you suggested this above, but linking more than once makes a list untidy. Personally, I don't think they need to be linked at all. I'd like some input on this matter from you, if you please. Qst (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the wikilinking is necessary, per WP:Context. If it wasn't for the instruments they played, they wouldn't have won. Anyways, I'm only one of a number of reviewers, and just because I think it should be one way, doesn't mean the majority does. You can wait and see what others think if you want. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also wikilink each and every Place of Study, as the table is sortable
  • I would prefer to see the article's title changed to "BBC Young Musician of the Year contestants" or "List of BBC Young Musician of the Year contestants" (or a different word instead of "contestants", "competitors" perhaps) because that's really what this is. That way, an article can be properly developed all about the BBC Young Musician of the Year.
    • All the information about the competition is included in the lead and other prose, so there would be little point in doing this, but I'm open to discussion. Qst (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you okay for the article to stay under its current name...? If so, please ignore this comment, but if not, please note below. Thanks, Qst (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there is very little information that could be of use to create an article about the competition, and have this as a separate list, then it's probably better to leave it as it is. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 17:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Paul Richardson's name is messed up in the 1982 table
  • Done Why is 1980's finalists table excluded?
  • Done Per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Chronological ordering, the past finalists should be listed earliest to latest.

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues raised by Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk). All have either been addressed, or explained and an agreement reached.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments - prose needs work first of all

  • "is a televised competition, broadcast on BBC Two and BBC Four every two years and hosted by the British Broadcasting Corporation" - what kind of competition? Also needs commas for flow
  • The image isn't appropriate. Use an image that's directly related to the contest, if you have one.
    • Removed. I'll see what I can do about other free images/fair use, although its likely that it will have to be fair use, as I searched extensively for a free image and the one I just removed was the only one with the most relevance to the list. Qst (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "former members of the BBC Television's Music Department" --> "former members of the BBC Television Music Department"
  • Is that all the information there is on the history of the competition?
    • Yes, I was hoping for more originally, but having searched through the official website, Google and their book search, that is all I can find. So, unfortunately, I can't do anything about this concern. Qst (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence of lead is a parastub. Expand or merge into another paragraph.
Now for the list itself...
  • TOC should be enabled
  • Is this a similar programme to things like Australian Idol? If so, I think you'd have more information for each person...how they went in the comp, dramaz, etc.
    • Its not even near such a large scale of that. Its quite a low-key competition held every two years, it doesn't have bug televised auditions or anything. Hence, not much information is available about it, but I've included as much as possible. Qst (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make the 5th column a bit wider so the header is on one line
  • I don't see what benefit comes from making the tables sortable
  • I'm thinking it'd be better to merge all the past finalists into some bigger tables. Not sure how though...any ideas? Also, Scorpion's referencing format (suggested above) is a lot better than the current one.
    • Regarding the table, I think the format of the table here could be useful. Using the first column for the year, second for the recipient and the third for the instrument/category. Is that to your liking? Qst (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Referencing: Done. Table - Well, seeing as you said you didn't mind either way, I'll leave it; but if it is brought up again, then I'll reformat it. Qst (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm willing to do this, but it would mean inserting ~200 surnames in to Microsoft Excel for it to sort them, then basically redoing the full list. Like I said, I'm willing to this if necessary, but is it very important? Qst (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How come there's more info on 2006 than on other years?
    • That would be because this BBC webpage lists the most recent competition finalists in a lot more detail than the main directory lists ranging back to the late 1970s. Qst (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aaah, OK. You might want to make a permaversion of that page, using webcitations.org etc. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the refs section, all refs say "BBC" for publisher. Be consistent.
    • Well, the first reference has says British Broadcasting Corporation, so I felt it would be okay to abbreviate it to BBC for the following references. Can you comment on this matter? Thanks. Qst (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should make it clear (somewhere) that British Broadcasting Corporation == BBC. If you have already, than ignore this. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd EL isn't necessary; that's the purpose of the list!
  • Any relevant navboxes?

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work steadily on addressing these issues, as today is rather a busy day for me. Qst (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed or agreed issues raised by EdgeNavidad (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments
  • Up to 2004, there were around 20-25 finalists. In 2006, there were 5. Change of format? Some explanation is required.
    • There is nothing really to be explained. 2006 had fewer finalists than previous years. It wouldn't be a wise thing to insert in to the list, as it would have no reference and it just wouldn't look right. Qst (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, but it still looks strange to me. Because in 2006 the number of finalist is different, the performance is given, and notes are given, I get the impression that the 2006 final was different. (By the way: before yesterday I never even heard of this award, so I am no expert at all...) Maybe in the introduction, you can mention that "the number of finalists has varied from 5 in 2006 to ... in ...". If you have any idea about the number of persons in the regional auditions and all other stages, it would be nice to include them as well, to show the size of the competition. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. 17:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In the lists with finalists per year, consider making the winners boldfaced.
    • Done, but instead of embolding them, I've added a light blue background colour, similar to other lists. Qst (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even better! I see on the BBC page of the finalists, that each year also lists "class winners" for the different categories Brass, Strings, Keyboard, Woodwind and Percussion. This information can also be given in the list here with a different colour. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references to the winners all come from the same page (although from different places on that page), and the same with the references to the finalists. You can make things more clear by making them two references.
    • Well, its clearer and more convenient to the reader if the reference for a certain year leads directly to that webpage. Qst (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it's clearer. It looks silly to me. And it is not really that much more convenient here, because the webpage is not that large. But if you honestly think it's more clear and convenient like this, keep it this way. One small thing though, try how the use of {{refbegin|2}} works out for you in this case, this makes the list two columns.
          • I'll keep it as it is, as you said you don't mind. For those learning English as a second language or those who are not good with the internet, having just one link maybe confusing to them. But as you said it was okay, I'll leave it as it is. Cheers. Qst (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC) --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As there is an ongoing FLC discussion, the ongoing peer review should be archived. Also, I think that this list would look better with the TOC enabled, as opposed to disabled. Other than that it looks really good. Cirt (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as with at FAC and PR, please avoid using {{done}} at FLCs. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion with Vergency (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

, an agreement has now been reached. There is hardly anything on the upcoming competition, due to be held in May [1]. There's lots of stuff about it on the web ([2], [3] etc) but this article seems to stop at 2006 - despite 2008 preparations being well under-way. I'll help work on it if you like - this is a topic of interest to me :) --Vergency (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I added some info on 2008, but I've now noticed there's a level of detail on 2006 that isn't on any of the others (such as what they performed, where the final took place, and other general notes). I'd like a balance of the detail across all the years shown. --Vergency (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And shouldn't all those people have linked articles? They are surely notable? --Vergency (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They should not be linked, because they're red linked, and red links are almost always left unlinked if they're red on lists. The reason their is more info for 2006 is explained above in the issues by Dihydrogen monoxide. Sunderland2006 has kindly done the 2008 list, I'll make any necessary adjustments, then your issue will be fully addressed. Qst (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there not a version of that page in the Internet Archive that you could use for older years (at least back to 1998 is a possibility). I may have a look myself. --Vergency (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also why did you change "finalists" to capitalised? And see the comment on the article talk page please. --Vergency (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the future, please do not strike, or box other users comments. Let them decide for themselves if their comments have been addressed. -- Scorpion0422 13:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, OK. I left a comment on the talk page of most of the users whom I archived their comments, but it seems quite a common thing for the nominator to do for addressed concerns. Qst (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Huge improvement from this, meets the standards expected, overall good read. Impressive work! AGK § 22:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Address
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose until my concerns are fully addressed. --Vergency (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of your concerns have now been addressed. I just need to add a little more about the 2008 competition. I'm relucant to add information about the time it begins and the like, as that is irrelevant for an encyclopedia articles; but I'll see what other information I can find. Qst (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, your issues have now been addressed. I've expanded the 2008 section. Qst (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • They haven't been addressed. There is still no info on any of the other years. --Vergency (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've already explained this to you. If you had taken the time to check above comments and webpages, you'd see their is no information available except for the mere list of finalists for years earlier than 2006. This is out of my hands. Qst (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • See [4] for an example of an archived page. Lots of info on the 2004 competition. Just because you can't find it on the web doesn't mean it's non-existent. Without these details on older years, this article is incomplete and unbalanced, and should not represent Wikipedia's best work. --Vergency (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, I've added some of the non-trivial information about the 2004 competition, and had a look around for info on other years, and I can find nothing. I don't know, maybe its because I'm not too good with these web archives, either way - I hope you're satisfied with my additions. Thanks, and sorry for the late reply. Qst (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Okay, I now support! --Vergency (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Permission obtained here to archive these comments and move the support to the bottom of the page where the other supports are. Qst (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. per WP:WIAFL, the image in the article infobox should have alt text (see #3 on the noted policy page). Not a showstopper, but should be addressed ffm 23:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Thanks for your input. Qst (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now that my concern turns out to be undoable (alt text + infobox != a nonzero number), it is a great work. ffm 23:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. --Vergency (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/BBC_Young_Musician_of_the_Year&oldid=1138479115"