Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dan Savage bibliography/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 promoted by Crisco 1492 03:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Dan Savage bibliography

Featured list candidates/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1

Nominator(s): Cirt and The Rambling Man. — Cirt (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was inspired to create this page after seeing George Orwell bibliography which was brought to FL quality by koavf. Prior to this nomination, the most recent quality improvement step for this page was a Peer Review with helpful participation from Joe Decker and koavf. Before that, it had survived an attempt at deletion with unanimous "Keep" participation aside from the nominator, and a prior peer review.

My thanks to The Rambling Man who helped mentor me through the quality improvement process for Dan Savage bibliography. — Cirt (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User talk:Cirt, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bibliographies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Talk:Dan Savage bibliography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books. — Cirt (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: I've listed The Rambling Man as co-nominator with me, as he helped mentor me through this particular quality improvement process for Dan Savage bibliography. Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Cirt's involvement with this article does not violate his topic ban (assuming that hasn't been lifted wholesale... I don't really keep up to date with Arbcom's dealings) as he has received a dispensation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, Crisco 1492, ArbCom passed that motion linked above, which specifically allows me to perform a quality improvement project to attempt to bring this page to WP:FL quality. Thanks Crisco 1492 for that link, — Cirt (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DragonZero

Resolved comments from DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*~~Uncertain about this but "The Washington Post reported that according to Nielsen BookScan approximately ", there should be a comma between BookScan and approximately.~~

~~Ref 2 redirects, needs an updated link (http://www.altweeklies.com/aan/dan-savage-takes-editorial-reins-at-the-stranger/Article?oid=1151 is the current one)~~

Still not updated.

My mistake. It was actually bib 3. They used the same link so that confused me. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ref 7 needs an updated link~~
~~Ref 29 is dead?~~
~~Ref 40 needs an updated link~~
~~Ref 83 needs an updated link~~
~~Ref 86 needs an updated link~~
~~Ref 88 is dead~~
~~Ref 101 needs an updated link~~
~~Ref 102 needs an updated link~~
~~Ref 104 needs an updated link~~
~~Ref 105 needs an updated link~~
~~Third to last bibliography needs an updated link~~

Tentative support Refs are completely fine now. I don't have any remaining issues, but I agree with Bencherlite's judgement. When he supports the list, consider my support there too. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the Support. Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bencherlite

Lead

Not a great fan of the opening line: "The bibliography of Dan Savage includes six books and an edited compilation book, chapter contributions to eleven books, op-ed pieces in The New York Times, and an advice column on sexual issues in The Stranger written by the American author Dan Savage (b. 1964)." Which basically boils down to "The bibliography of Dan Savage includes stuff written by Dan Savage", which is circular and doesn't tell us what The Stranger is. Don't worry about having to have something there in bold. How about this as the first paragraph: "The American author Dan Savage (born 1964) has written six books, op-ed pieces in the New York Times, and an advice column on sexual issues in The Stranger (an alternative newspaper from Seattle, Washington). He began contributing a column, Savage Love, to The Stranger [etc]..."
- Comment - Agree with Bencherlite here. My own bibliographies (Kwee Tek Hoay, Chairil Anwar, and Amir Hamzah) use the style he suggests. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, thank you, Crisco 1492, I've already modified this with the helpful suggestion, as recommended by Bencherlite, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Third paragraph of the lead: "Savage's 2005 book The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family recounting his personal experience deciding to marry his partner Terry Miller and analyzing same-sex marriage, reached The New York Times Best Seller list." needs a comma before "recounting".

Background:

overlinking (Catholic, bachelor's degree, theater)
Perhaps mention where The Stranger is based here
The Kid: What Happened after [etc]" does not use the same capitals as our article about it (I think you need a capital "A" in "After" to avoid the redirect"

Works

The Kid - as before, check capitals
Overlinking galore throughout the rest of the lists(s). The NYT and The NYT Company are each linked over 15 times; repeated links for Dutton; Seattle; MTV; YouTube; Savage Love; etc etc etc etc. Useful links are just drowned in a sea of blue. If the lists were sortable, then there would be a reason for repeating the links, but I can't see why every article he's written for the NYT, for example, needs repeated bluelinks. Nor do I think we need "Savage, Dan" at the front of every one. Other featured bibliographies manage without this.
Low value links e.g. three different links in the six words "Master of Communications in Digital Media", none of which are very useful.
Watch for unnecessary repetition - in the "books edited" section, for instance, we read a lot of stuff for the third time (lead; background; books edited). That's one too many, I think - either in the background, or the books edited section, but not both.
Television - what's referencing these appearances? Is there anything to be said about them?
Plays - you sometimes link the original work, sometimes not.
"was credited as: Keenan Hollahan" - why the colon?

Comments from Prism

Support: after a thorough read of the lead section and analysis of references and list itself, I think this is suitable for FL as it is well referenced and structured. Keep up the good work. Prism △ 12:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Prism, for the Support and the kind words about the quality of the list page, most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HĐ

Support Wow this list looks brilliant! Well sourced and well structured overall. I am very pleased to give my support. Great work! — Simon (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your Support, HĐ, and your nice thoughts on the list, I really appreciate it. — Cirt (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PresN

Comments from PresN (addressed)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments

"was published in 1998 by Plume" - maybe link to Plume (publisher), since it's not obvious that it's a company rather than a person, due to the name. You're also not consistent about mentioning the publisher in the lead (You only do so for 2 of 5 books), so either mention it all the time, or none of the time. I'd say none of the time, since you turn around and mention them in the next section
You mention 4 of his written books in the lead, and the one he edited, but not the two newest ones?
"The book features contributors including Barack Obama" - if you just look at the main phrase, all you say is "The book features contributors". You need an adjective- numerous? notable?
If it was worth linking Uni of Ill and The Stranger in the lead, it's worth doing it the first time you mention them in the body.
Link the publishers in the tables the first time they're used; I see above that you were asked not to do it every time since the tables aren't sortable, but now they're not linked at all
You have the headings "author", "contributor"... and "books edited". Why not "editor"?
The "Advice Column" section has a floating "Savage Love" above the actual savage love entry
The formatting on the Internet section is just strange- you flip Savage's name (but not Miller's) and put in a retrieval date, as if it were a citation. I'd rather see, instead of

Savage, Dan; Terry Miller (September 21, 2010). "It Gets Better". It Gets Better Project (YouTube). Retrieved December 13, 2012.

have

"It Gets Better", part of the It Gets Better Project (YouTube), with Terry Miller (September 21, 2010)

It just makes more sense to have it as a list item, rather than a pseudo-citation. If you want citations, then have a citation.

Same thing with the This American Life Live! line under Television - flipped names, citation styling, ugh.
"including Lily Tomlin, and LeAnn Rimes" - no need for a comma
In Articles, I think you mean those to be subsection headers, but they're just floating bits a text, since there's not a lot of separation between them and the line above. And again, I don't see the point of retrieval dates.
If you're going to specify the second column of Awards as the main column, why not just put it as the first column?
Saint Joan and The Best Man are both links to disambiguation pages
The media portal link way at the bottom is just a redirect to the Journalism portal, which you already have linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PresN (talk • contribs)

Thanks very much, PresN, for these detailed and helpful comments, I shall get to addressing them now, and then note back here when done. — Cirt (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments from PresN

Done. Removed mention of publishers from lead.
Done. Added two newest books to lead.
Done. Added word "notable", as suggested, thank you, looks better this way!
Done. Linked these two terms in first instance of appearance in body.
Done. Linked first instance of publishers in the tables.
Done. Changed heading to "Editor".
Done. Removed floating term above entry in this section.
Done. Adjusted formatting in Internet section, as suggested.
Done. Modified formatting of This American Life! entry in Television section, as recommended.
Done. Removed comma.
Done. Changed to subsection headers.
Done. Switched "Awards" to be first column.
Done. Fixed links to disambiguation pages to more specific links.
Done. Removed link to Media portal.

Thank you, PresN, for these helpful recommendations -- I agreed with all of them so I've implemented the changes directly to the list page. The list looks much better for them! Thank you for your comments, — Cirt (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks good now, made a few tweaks, but I'm willing to support. --Pres N 21:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no problems with the tweaks, and thank you for the Support ! — Cirt (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor

This list looks to be in very good shape! My only suggestions would be to organize the references in three columns instead of two as they currently are, and also to make the pictures a little bit large to see more of their detail. But these are just small ideas, of course, and I have no problem giving my Support to the nomination! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've changed the references sect to three columns, and adjusted the size of the images, per above suggestions. Thanks very much for your Support, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

Question - What is the point of the background section? It doesn't have much, if any, information that is not in the lede. Other bibliographies / lists of works that I am familiar with do not have such a section. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the interest, Crisco 1492, per WP:LEAD, lede intro sects should be summaries of information presented later in the page, and should be able to function as a standalone summary of the entire page's contents. That's how I constructed the lede intro sect, in order to conform to WP:LEAD. Hope that's helpful, — Cirt (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also similar to how I structured the sourced info and lede intro sect for a prior successful WP:FL I worked on, at 29th Golden Raspberry Awards. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For an article at FAC, that would generally be correct. However, lists are generally treated as the main content of an article, particularly in a bibliography, with the lede simply providing context. That's how all FLs on works by a single author have been presented so far (including my own List of works by Amir Hamzah, List of works by Chairil Anwar, List of works by Kwee Tek Hoay, and SchroCat's List of works by E.W. Hornung and List of works by H. C. McNeile. Christine's List of Maya Angelou works has a different list format, but the lede functions the same. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for Golden Raspberries: yes, film award ceremonies generally have a bit more information than what's presented in the lede. Our articles on Oscar ceremonies, for instance, both list the winners and nominations, and also serve as articles on the ceremonies themselves. But it's not really the same type of list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reasoning but I followed the prior experience I had at 29th Golden Raspberry Awards and the approved guideline page at WP:LEAD. This FLC page currently has five (5) Supports for the current format for the Background section. I'd rather not make such a drastic change to the page at this point in time after this amount of unanimous Support for the current format. Thank you for your understanding, — Cirt (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. In that case, I'll ask that another delegate take a look-see and comment as to whether or not they agree with my position. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure I understand, Crisco 1492. I've addressed all issues from above comments, leading to multiple users to change their prior positions to Support. This FLC currently has five (5) Support comments. Is it not yet ready for promotion? — Cirt (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, Crisco 1492, the Background sect has more info than in the lede, as the lede per WP:LEAD is a summary of more detailed info that follows later in the page. I'd rather not have to gut sourced info from the page, and the lede/intro sect is already sufficiently sized and I'd rather not add more info to the lede in order to then remove the entire Background sect. — Cirt (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It is, more or less. However, I am not comfortable with promoting the article as it stands owing to its marked difference from similar articles. As I may be (perhaps even likely am being) overly cautious, I think it best if either SchroCat, Giants2008, or Hahc21 to seek a third opinion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492, this FLC has been open for one month. It has five (5) Supports. I don't want to have to remove sourced info, and I don't know how to change the page to satisfy your complaints. What would you have me do? What do you suggest? — Cirt (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am just asking for a second opinion from another delegate. I am not saying this is a bad list, or that it does not deserve to pass (the lede is solid, and it looks reasonably complete). I am just saying that I am uncomfortable with the background section, and asking that another delegate provide further input. If the delegate who responds agrees with you, I certainly have no issue with this article being promoted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Please bear with me. I am now in the process of transitioning the lead to function as the Background info to help ground the reader and introduce the reader to the topic, as per the list pages you cited, above. Hopefully this will be helpful. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would work too, but don't force yourself to do something you disagree with. Consensus may be against me, and there's no deadline; Schro or Giants or Hahc could have a very different opinion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. :) I'll update back here when done. I want to be collaborative and follow the model from the prior lists you cited that are approved as Featured Quality. — Cirt (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've transitioned info to the lede section, per above recommendations by Crisco 1492. I think the page looks quite good this way, actually. And if it's the standard of prior FLs for Bibliographies, perhaps that's okay that it doesn't conform with WP:LEAD, as maybe that's intended more for articles. Hopefully this is now satisfactory, Crisco 1492 ? — Cirt (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That looks peachy. Will promote now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! :) — Cirt (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Status

The colouring of the row headings in the tables are somehow conflicting with the arrows (I'm not exactly sure how to call them), causing one to believe that the tables are not sortable. I was going to comment to advise you to add sorbability, and then saw that they already were.
When there's multiple references referencing the same thing, such as an award in the awards table, I think it would be best to combine them into one reference, instead of having a big line of different references.

— Status (talk · contribs) 18:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Status, for these comments, I will look to addressing them to help further improve the page, but this particular page has already been promoted to Featured List quality status. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad! For what it's worth, I would have supported.

— Status (talk · contribs) 18:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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