Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Project Runway contestants/archive1

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 The Rambling Man 19:35, 21 September 2009 [1].

List of Project Runway contestants edit

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 01:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria. I recently got List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests to FL status, and this Project Runway list is very similar. Do please look at the talk page to offer a suggestion about how to deal with the age discrepancy for Daniel Franco. Hoping to see this list here soon. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5

As a closet fan, I would hate myself if I didn't comment on this list. Hope these comments help.

~~Lead seems very short; it seems like the three paragraphs should have more information in them.~~

Any suggestions for expansion? I didn't want to go into too much detail about the format of the show itself, as that can be read on the Project Runway article itself. I'll try to think of other ways to display information about the contestants. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly reasons why there were different numbers of contestants in certain seasons. You don't say anything about who the champions were, which is a must. You could also probably insert maybe one or two more sentences about the format without going into excessive detail. Those items would really help the length of this lead. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the show logo is necessary, especially at such a small resolution. Since this is a list of contestants, a contestant's picture would be much more appropriate for the lead. Lead images can be up to 300px in size.

Removed logo, as requested. Left contestant pictures along the right-hand side of the page to correspond to the table.

In the key: the asterisk should be inside the blue box, not outside.

How do I do this? --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be done with the legend template; current usual use is a single-row table. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an example of this somewhere I can look at? Not familiar enough with table construction to do this off the top of my head. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the format from List of Philadelphia Phillies managers, an FL I've worked on. You'll have to delete the excess rows, though; that key is about 7 rows deep if I recall. Let me know if you have problems and I will take care of it for you. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the help. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Blank cells should contain em-dashes rather than en-dashes.~~

Done.

~~Linking to the footnote for state abbreviations isn't enough. They should all be spelled out.~~

I certainly don't mind spelling them out, but I used the same method for List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests, which was very recently promoted to FL status. It was decided this would be appropriate. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the width of the table makes it more appropriate; however, this table is quite a bit narrower. According to MOS:ABBR, "Current and former postal codes and abbreviations—such as TX for Texas, Calif. for California, Yorks for Yorkshire—should not be used to stand in for the full names in normal text." I understand that consideration was given for the other list, but we shouldn't break rules unless it absolutely keeps us from improving the encyclopedia. I don't think this qualifies. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. I appreciate the explanation! Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to get the sorting back to the original order of the table once you've changed it. I would suggest a hidden sortkey on the "season" column that would allow the sorter to click on that column and restore the original order of the list.

There is a way to get back to original order. From any configuration, just have to click on Finish column twice to put in descending order, then click on Season column twice to put in ascending order. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't work for me; it's still mixed up. There are some random ones stuck at the bottom of the list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is due to the emdashes. Would work fine if not for those. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to add hidden sortkeys to that column. {{sort|16|16th}}, {{sort|00|—}}, and so forth. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like so? --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~The navbox needs a direct link (not a redirect) to this article, or it should be removed.~~

Done.

I'll check back again after these are completed, but it looks good! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comments have been resolved; my current support is conditional based on other reviewers' impressions of the lead of the list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

I quickly ran through the lead; check to make sure my changes were good.

I think all looks good at this point. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People should be sorted by last name; use {{sortname}}.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you just reorganized the names. I meant that you need to use Template:sortname to make the names sortable. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I apologize for the confusion. ~~Will try to figure the template out now...~~ --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but now it gets hairy. In the default order (i.e., without pressing a sort button), the contestants for a given season should be arranged alphabetically. For example, starting with Season 1, the first contestant would be Mario Cadenas, and you would list the rest of the Season 1 contestants in alpha order until you reached Alexandra Vidal, the last contestant (alphabetically) in Season 1. Then, you would start Season 2 with Raymundo Baltazar, etc... Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similar lists have the default order sorted by Finish placement, giving some sort of chronology to the list. I think sorting based on last name would be confusing, not only because contestants are typically known only by their first name, but because there wouldn't be any sense of how the contestants placed (at a quick glance). Users can always sort the Name column, then the Season column, if they were interested in seeing the list in that manner. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I forgot the finish column. In that case, wouldn't it make more sense to sort from 1st to last instead of vice versa? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, descending order illustrates the progression of the show itself. As you read down the list, you see who the finalists are. Plus, it would look like a large gap in the table for the current season if default sorting was ascending as opposed to descending. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The alt texts are basically carbon copies of the image captions. Alt text is only for information gained by looking at the picture; therefore, proper nouns are not suitable in alt text. Look at recently promoted FLs for examples of good alt text.

I understand that alt text is for "describ[ing] the image to someone who cannot see the image", but I don't see how to describe someone without using their name. I included the contestants names, describing their wardrobe, but no other proper nouns are used. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use "man" or "woman". You use the names in the captions, anyway; visually impaired readers can see both alt text and caption. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fair-use image is not vital to the article, and should be removed.

Done. Removed image and replaced with one of Kara Saun. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies in capitalization of "season" ("season 1" or "Season 1", pick one and stick to it—references too). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization is consistent throughout article, except "season" is lowercased in the references section as this is how the 'cite episode' template works. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I noticed you changed "89" to "eighty-nine"--I thought numbers above 10 were to be written numerically. Makes no difference to me, though! I appreciate your suggestions and contributions to the list. Much appreciated! --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a picky style issue; we don't start sentences with numerals. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know--thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Dabomb. Have all issues been addressed? --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24_[c]

Daniel Franco should have the blue background on both of his entries, so that readers can find both more easily. Also, how did Daniel be aged 28 the first season, and then 33 the next, when the two seasons are only one year apart?

Done. Seeing as Franco was born in November 1971, I think it would be correct to say he was 33 at the start of the first season, and 34 at the start of the second. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dabomb. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way you can find website references for the ages, hometowns, and finish?

Most of the information for Seasons 4 and 5 are cited via web sources, since the premiere episodes did not provide this information to viewers. For the other seasons, I thought the premiere episodes would be the best and most appropriate sources for the information. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

General

Alt text, dabs, and external links all check out fine.

Lead

Project Runway is an American reality show in which contestants compete to be the best fashion designer, as determined by the show's judges. -- +"television" in is an American reality show

Done. Went ahead and linked "reality television show". --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season 6 began airing on Lifetime on August 20, 2009. -- Stating that it began airing on Lifetime makes it seem as if it was broadcast on a different network before. If it did, that should be mentioned. If it hasn't it should be stated earlier that the series has always aired on Lifetime.

Done. Indicated the first five seasons were on Bravo. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each season, selected competitors are progressively eliminated based on the judges' scores until only a few contestants remain; these finalists prepare a complete fashion collection for New York Fashion Week, in which a winner is determined. -- A)Each season --> "During each season," B) in which a winner is determined, I think from which a winner is determined would sound better here.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should state something about the Hometowns.

Nothing terribly interesting as far as the Hometowns goes. Only observation I can make is that a majority of the contestants live in NYC or Los Angeles, understandably. Any other thoughts or suggestions? --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tables, references

Check out fine.--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly with coloring Daniel Franco's cells differently. He is the only one to appear twice, while the asterisk makes sense, I see no reason at all to use color. It gives him way too much emphasis. He, in the great scheme of things, was not that special. --Golbez (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to address. Personally, I like the coloring for emphasis. However, I think others would have to comment as well, as none of them had a problem with the coloring before they offered their support. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you're emphasizing something that isn't important. That's over-emphasis. --Golbez (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Being the only contestant to appear on the show twice is something unique and important. The network could have easily barred him from competing a second time, especially in consecutive seasons, but they didn't. I don't think the color needs to be in the entire row, though; it should just be on his name. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More important than winning? --Golbez (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but that was never highlighted to begin with, and shouldn't be as far as I'm concerned. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but... if winning is more important, and winning isn't highlighted, then why should Franco be highlighted? :) --Golbez (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then highlight winning. Whatev. The fact of the matter remains that it's referenced, it's notable, it's unique, and it should be highlighted. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's referenced, it's notable, it's unique, but it should not be highlighted, it should be footnoted. --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided any evidence that would convince me that this is the proper course of action, which is why I continue to oppose the change. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter to me. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel strong enough about this to oppose. Right now you're making Daniel Franco appear more important than everyone else - including the winners. An asterisk is sufficient, color has no place here. Heck, I propose changing it from the asterisk to a simple footnote; if another contestant comes on the show again then we can make something more formal, but as it is, this is a fluke, not something that needs this much attention on the list. --Golbez (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no grounds for opposition. MOS:COLOR and WP:ACCESS, the two guiding points of style that oversee this matter, say nothing about color used in this fashion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's undue emphasis of a list entry, which must be a ground for opposing the promotion of a list. --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then reduce the emphasis, as I mentioned above. It shouldn't be on the entire row anyway. The color assists users who cannot see the asterisk easily. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it shouldn't be an asterisk, it should be a footnote. If this happens again then make it more formal. I would reduce the emphasis to where I feel it belongs but I think I would be reverted. --Golbez (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You would indeed, because there is no consensus. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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