Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/July 2008

< Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates‎ | log

Kept

edit
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by User:Alaskan assassin 17:05, 8 July 2008 [1].

List of tallest buildings and structures in London

edit
Note: Notified are Seaserpent85‎, WikiProject Skyscrapers, WikiProject Architecture, and WikiProject London. -- Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This list currently has only six references, and about 50 buildings listed. On the list, it lacks a catagory for notes, and a timeline of tallest buildings. which is standerd on United States building list. It also has, MoS violations, and lacks a few meters to feet conversions. There is an unclear divide between buildings and structures. In the case of the BT Tower, even though it is listed by emporis and skyscraperpage as a non-building tower, it is listed here as a regular building. The Croydon transmitting station is listed, envn though there is already a List of tallest buildings and structures in Croydon. Also what does "Helter Skelter", "Cheesegrater", and "Walkie Talkie" mean? Alaskan assassin (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think these matters are better raised on the talk page of the article. Most of the problems noted are relatively easily fixable; it has probably drifted since its first listing. Croydon is a small part of Greater London - and should probably be subsumed into this list (ie there doesn't seem to be a reason for a separate list for Croydon). Kbthompson (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt - I just hope you haven't left it too late. As I noted, I think many of the issues raised can be fixed. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. I don't have a problem on waiting on this. While issues are being resolved, more people can comment here. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I believe that I am done with the list. The lead still needs some work, but I think I will be able to work on it in the next 24 hours. If there are any issues that still need to be addressed (other than in the lead), please let me know. Thanks. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 01:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Still a little ways to go until it matches current skyscraper FL standards for me. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have not worked on the lead very much. If you are referring to the lists, can you please explain so I can improve it. Thanks. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 22:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. At List of tallest buildings in Atlanta and every other building list this year, the first table has the following columns:
Rank, name, Height (ft / m), Floors, Year, Notes. This one should do the same, except keeping height (m / ft). The usage could be shifted to Notes or left out completely.
I have changed the table so that it follows this format. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 22:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
==Under construction==, ==Approved== and ==Proposed== in the Atlanta list has Name, Height, Floors, Year, Notes
I have changed these tables so that they follow this format. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 22:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
==Timeline of tallest building== in the Atlanta list has Name, Street address, Years as tallest, Height, Floors, reference
I have changed the table so that it follows this format, with one exception. Instead of using "street address", I am using "location." Some structures do not have addresses listed and (as an American) I do not understand the UK address system. If "location" is too broad/vague, please let me know and I will see what else I can do. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 22:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, none of the table headings are shaded #BDBBD7, #000080 font colours, or striped rows for the entries. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do not see anything wrong with having a colored table. It adds aesthetics to the list and simply makes it look nicer. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 22:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But looking pretty is rather subjective. No other FLC for tallest buildings has ever said "Make the rows stripey because it looks nicer", and I would have thought that current consensus is to not do this, otherwise there'd be plenty of people asking for it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, WikiProject Skyscrapers has only worked on lists for the tallest buildings in the United States. It is common for UK lists to have coloring. See List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester, List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford and List of tallest buildings and structures in Croydon. Also several European lists use this format: List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region and List of tallest buildings in Europe. As for consensus, there is none to include colors and there is no consensus to exclude the colors as it has never been discussed. Raime, whom I consider to be the head of WikiProject Skyscrapers, even commented on the coloring during the FLC for the Manchester list. See this. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. You made a convincing argument for it. I'd still like to see a reference for "award-winning 30 St Mary Axe." Perhaps it could mention what award it won? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, I assume that the lists themselves are okay. Right? Now I will begin to work more on the lead. Please let me know if I am taking too long to bring this back to featured quality. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the lists are fine now. I shouldn't imagine there is that much more to be done to the article, so hopefully this FLRC can be closed soon, although I won't do it because I've commented too much here. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for all your help! Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:47, 7 July 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.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by User:Dweller 10:20, 2 July 2008 [2].

FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives

edit
Note: Notified are WikiProject FBI and WikiProject Law Enforcement. The original nominator of the list has left Wikipedia.

I am submitting this list because I think it fails as a Featured List:

  • A number of references are in the wrong place, either with a space between the punctuation and ref, or at the end of the wrong sentence.
  • Two parastubs in the Lede
  • Reference 8 should be formatted as a footnote
  • References aren't formatted using WP:CIT which makes it hard to update them, those that do all state format=HTML, even though {{cite web}} says not to as that is the presumed format
  • Table doesn't need a heading as the section heading would suffice
  • The fugitives' names are bold and linked in the description part, yet it would make more sense to bold the names in the line above
  • The list is numbered 1 to 10, even though the Lede says the FBI don't number the list. Here it seems to be in the order they were added to the list.
  • the list is out of date. One of the fugitives has been captured, so he should be removed. At the talk page a contributor says to leave it in until a new one is officially named...
  • The list should include more secondary sources for the descriptions of the fugitives, rather than relying on a primary source such as the FBI.
  • The list seems like little more than advertising (propaganda) for the FBI, than anything encyclopaedic. To quote propaganda: "Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented." which goes back to my previous point.
  • The Lede is missing references, such as the second paragraph, the last sentence of the first paragraph

I know it's not the norm, but I've bullet-listed my concerns so they're easier to address. -- Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed some of your points. I will work on the referencing later on. One thing though, can you be more precise when you talk about "propaganda?" Some examples would really help. Also, I did strike your comments when I felt I had fixed them, feel free to un-strike them if you have farther issues or I did not completely fix your comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it may not be relevant for FL status, but I think by using the FBI's info in the description parts, it is producing an emotion that the FBI would like the reader to feel. The FBI has selected the facts it wants the public to know, to generate a specific emotion. If it used secondary sources, it wouldn't be as bad. Nice work on the edits so far, though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so that just goes along with getting some secondary sources for each description? I'll see what I can do with getting some sources and maybe tweaking some of the wording. Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have addressed your concerns so far. If you could review the list once again, that would be great. Any other comments would be welcome. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave as featured list A few of these complaints make so sense to me. The list is not out of date. Check the FBI's list. They leave captured suspects on It's list until they are replaced with somebody else. In the past this has taken up to six months. Currently, Jon Schillaci is still on the list on the FBI's website. He should remain in the Wikipedia's page until a new fugitive is named. Also, please elaborate on why this is advertising propaganda. It shows all information we have available. It does not imply guilt or innocence. Only that these people are running from the law and have a warrant for there arrest. At any time they can step forward and prove innocense. I believe the rest of the issues in question have been fixed. --Npnunda (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing that may improve the page. This page used to have pictures of the suspects. I don't know if it is considered fair use or not but is that somthing that could be added again? --Npnunda (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the complaints were solid complaints. I can see how if someone is caught, then they probably shouldn't be on the list. All that was needed was an explanation of why he should remain for now. Matthew did elaborate about the propaganda, stating that not having secondary sources sort of made this a carbon copy of what the FBI may want us to hear, their wording is probably written to elicit emotions out of its readers. Now that their are secondary sources that can back up the info on each person, one can objectively see that the descriptions are neutral. I believe that I have addressed all the concerns, so we shall see.
As an aside, I have added photos for each person. Tell me what you think! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. When I look again he did elaborate. Somtimes my comments seem harsh even though I mean good faith. Thanks for adding the photos. One of the good things about people nominating articles for deletion or demotion is that it almost always improves the articles. --Npnunda (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and I am sure Matthew does too. And your welcome! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do, don't worry about it. Nice work, Gonzo fan. I was worried when I saw that pictures had been added, thinking that it would have ten Fair Use Images. I'd forgotten that as they are from the FBI they're in the public domain! Article looks good now, if I knew it would have been that easy I would have commented on the article's talk page Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I still don't get how a captured person can still be "Wanted" though. The FBI ought to pick a new crook already! :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, this is an American Government Agency...do I need to say more? (yes I am American so it is ok for me to make fun of America) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Featured As original author it met all criteria and still meets it today. Shane (talk/contrib) 15:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

TONY (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs fresh eyes to run through and fix the glitches throughout. TONY (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it would be good for someone who is a better copyeditor then I to give it a good run-through. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks OK now. TONY (talk) 03:06, 27 June 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.

Delisted

edit
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by User:Matthewedwards 22:02, 13 July 2008 [3].

List of English Twenty20 International cricketers

edit
Note: Notifed are Jguk and WikiProject Cricket. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This list currently fails Cr. 2(insufficient lead), Cr.4(no section headings), and Cr.6(empty cells in the table) of WP:WIAFL. On top of that, this list relies solely on one source and was last updated in September of 2007.--Crzycheetah 02:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist per nom. -- Scorpion0422 03:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding Criteria 6. There are empty cells in the tables because players who have never scored a run cannot have high scores or an average, and likewise players who have never bowled cannot have bowling averages or best bowling figures. I'll put dashes in the box to make it better, would that suffice? SGGH speak! 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment CricInfo is probably the most reliable source for cricket information in the world, so there are worse sources to have only one of. SGGH speak! 06:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a further comment I've also expanded the lead. SGGH speak! 06:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Dashes are fine. A Key section is needed for all statistical abbreviations and an explanation of "*" in the "HS" column. As for the references, where did the info in the lead come from? In that Cricinfo page, all I see is a table with 11 columns of stats while in this article, there are 14 columns. My question is where did the additional 3 columns come from?--Crzycheetah 08:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Information from the lead is from the other articles, but I shall shortly cite it for you. I'll add a section explaining the abbreviations. I'll try to write it in prose but would it be better in a list? I'll check the coloumns too. SGGH speak! 10:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would do if my university connection is messing up my attempts to get into CricInfo at the moment. SGGH speak! 10:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I much rather see abbr. in the table and a Key section where those abbr. are explained. For example, see List of Philadelphia Eagles first-round draft picks. Right now, the table is too widened.--Crzycheetah 20:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added all of the abbr. into the table and written the key.Wt is this (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • More concerns
    • What is Maiden(s)? Why are they listed when everyone has 0 of them?
    • Where did you find how many innings one played? No sources available.
    • What is the difference between batting runs and bowling runs? Where did you find how many bowling runs one had?
    • References are missing for the "Balls" column as well.
    • Images are also needed.

--Crzycheetah 01:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply to concerns:
    • I have put what a maiden is.
    • On CricInfo it says how many innings someone has played.
    • I have tried to explain fully in the columns what the runs are. It also says on CricInfo how many runs conceded.
    • On CricInfo it says how many balls someone has bolwed.
    • I have added a picture, but what other pictures could i put on?.

Wt is this (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(→)As I already stated, there is no such info in the link provided in this page. Links with such info should be provided in this page.--Crzycheetah 09:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to leave it open for another week, considering the article has been edited in response to this FLRC. I'll poke the Wikiproject and leave a message on the talk page. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Let's give it a week or so. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has been suggested on WT:CRIC that the article as of now still needs "a lot of work" to bring it up to featured quality. However, looking at the article and the featured list criteria, apart from the table not being sortable I can't really see where it falls down:
  • The standard of prose seems fine.
  • The lead section does introduce the subject and define the scope and inclusion criteria of the list.
  • The list is comprehensive (ie lists all major statistics of all English T20I cricketers).
  • It is easy to navigate.
  • I think (but haven't studied this extensively) it complies with the MOS.
  • It seems (to me) to be visually appealing enough.
  • It is not the subject of edit warring.
The page is not that long, but I don't see why it should be. After all, it has links to all the relevant terms, such as cricket, England cricket team, Twenty20 and Twenty20 International, and if people want to know more about these things they can just follow the links. Maybe I have simply not thought of certain deficiencies which exist, in which case I would be grateful if these areas were pointed out. On the other hand, maybe my assessment is accurate and the article is essentially up to featured quality standard. Could some other people please give a comment on this? Juwe (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The table's appearance might be improved if the figures were right-aligned, as they are in the Cricinfo tables. This is the natural alignment for all numeric lists. It would be a pain in the bum to do, but it might be worth trying (first, experiment a bit with, say, the Runs Scored column). Brianboulton (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • Something about the cricketers should be mentioned in the lead. Something like who is the most popular among them and why, or mention something unique they have done during their careers.
    • The explanations in the Key section should be footnoted from the appropriate places.
    • The references should be cited from the appropriate columns, as well.

--Crzycheetah 07:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify Crzycheetah, are you saying that the explanations in the Key section should be moved from there to the References section (via appropriately positioned <ref> tags)? Juwe (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those explanations are not in their place right now. They should prefereably be moved to a new Footnotes section using {{ref label}} and {{note label}} templates.--Crzycheetah 23:01, 10 July 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.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by User:Matthewedwards 06:28, 1 July 2008 [4].

IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship

edit
Note: Notified are MarcK, WikiProject Professional wrestling , and WikiProject Japan. -- Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this page because of the reliable sourcing criteria. Most of the sources the page relies on, "Strong Style Spirit", "Wrestling Information Archive" and "TitleHistories.com" seem to be rather questionable. Some of these sources have been deemed unuseable on FAs, so why should it be any different here? This is largely a test case because there are several other similar lists with questionable sourcing. -- Scorpion0422 02:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove (De-list)-It's funny how you Scorpion supported the promotion of the article to FL, and now you want to remove it ;). I hate to do this as a member of the project, but I checked out where the sources get their information from, "SSS" gets it from the promotion websites, but also fan sites, which is unreliable. Titlehistories.com also does that, as does "WIA". Since there are new standards to meet for FLC's sourcing wise, the article does not meet that.--SRX--LatinoHeat 02:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove unless the lead and citations can be zipped up.

  • In defence of Scorpion, WP's standards of citations, referencing and prose for featured content have risen significantly over the past years. That is a large generator of business for this process, and rightly so. The lead is quite inadequate, and heck, when it's a sea of bright blue at the start, please ration the linking to the useful links (see MOS on that). Autoformatting is not mandatory. Space after <, please (MOS). TONY (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS Cr 6, please manage the column widths better: dates look bad and notes have wasted room. TONY (talk) 03:35, 26 June 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.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by User:Matthewedwards 06:28, 1 July 2008 [5].

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes

edit
Note: Notified are The Placebo Effect, WikiProject Nickelodeon, WikiProject Television, and WikiProject American Animation. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start...First off, the lead is ridiculously short for such a long article. It does not mention anything about the shorts of DVDs located near the end of the article. The prose is a little bit short, though not the main problem the article has. For the table itself, it is not very appealing. Every part of the table is a different shade of gray. Even the place where summary text is placed is gray, which is not a good contrast of colors. In addition to all of this, the article has no sourcing for pretty much anything in the article, with particular concern toward the DVD section. Also, the article seems to have mini-trivia sections at the top of each section. — Parent5446 ☯ (message email) 11:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist per short lead, which does not even give the premise of the series; however, this list is very easy to save. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Certainly not beyond help, but based on all of the above, as well as a broken citation and no External links section, this doesn't seem up to FL quality at the moment. Drewcifer (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, lead is to short, summaries too short, DVD section is extremely excessive, list has trivia sprinkled throughout, and several references are to a fansite rather than an reliable sources. Some stuff unreferenced all together. Also, prodcodes should be double checked if they are coming from TV.com, which is not always accurate for that info. Also, the headings don't seem to match the names of their subpages (this page has Book 1 while the season page is season 1). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Delist

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_removal_candidates/log/July_2008&oldid=225628322"