Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2020
- 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [12].
- Nominator(s): – Rhain ☔ 12:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
| Participation Guide | |
|---|---|
| Support | |
| Aoba47, ChrisTheDude, Spy-cicle, zmbro | |
| Comments/No vote yet | |
| Eurohunter, The Rambling Man | |
| Oppose | |
| David Fuchs | |
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all aspects of the FL criteria, comprehensively covering the characters featured in Red Dead Redemption 2 and providing insight within the game and in a real context. The article provides a detailed overview of the characters' roles within the game, as well as the development process that was undertaken for the characters. I believe that the article is good to go all the way, and would appreciate your thoughts. – Rhain ☔ 12:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Comments from ChrisTheDude
[edit]| Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
*Almost every character's description starts off with "....is a major/supporting character in Red Dead Redemption 2". Any chance the language could be varied a bit? It seem particularly redundant to keep stating the name of the game, given that the scope of the article is characters in that exact game, so what else would they be characters in? Does that make sense?
|
- Support - as mentioned, fantastic work, and very enjoyable to read -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Support Comments from Aoba47
[edit]- I would recommend adding ALT text to the images.
- For this part "native-American hunter Charles Smith", I believe "native" should be capitalized. Also, is the dash necessary? I have more commonly seen the phrase as "Native American", but that could just be from my own personal experiences. It is already done this way for this part "as well as Native American tribe members" in the lead.
- I am a little confused by this descriptive phrase "widow-turned-gunslinger". Widow is not a job title so she is still a widow when she becomes a gunslinger. Just something about it is off to me.
- I do not think that this image caption, "Some of the main cast members of the game: Roger Clark, Alex McKenna, and Rob Wiethoff.", should have a period as it is not a full/complete sentence.
- For the "Creation and conception" section, I would use a character's full name whenever you mention them for the first time as this would be the first time they are mentioned in the body of the article. Examples are: "and each character's relationship with Arthur" and "in which Dutch is described as an equitable leader".
- For this part "The actors sometimes improvised some additional lines, but mostly remained faithful to the script.", I do not think "sometimes" is necessary as it is already clear from the context of the overall sentence.
- Since "Western" is wikilinked in the lead, I would do the same for this part "felt more appropriate for the narrative structure of a Western." in the body of the article for consistency.
- I would clarify that the "first game" in this part "Some lines of dialogue from the first game" is Red Dead Redemption and wikilink it.
- I noticed that the sections for individual characters have large uncited portions about their storylines. Is the game being used as a primary source/reference for this? I am pretty sure that it is okay, but I just wanted to make sure.
- For this part "despite watching the Dollars Trilogy (1964–1966) he did not take much inspiration from", I believe there should be a comma before "he".
- The lead says that Arthur Morgan is the lead character of the game. Is there a reason why he is second on the list instead of first?
- I was a little confused by this sentence "John Marston (Rob Wiethoff) is the secondary protagonist and playable character of Red Dead Redemption 2.". The last paragraph of the "Creation and conception" section mentions how "the team decided that the player would control one character in Red Dead Redemption 2," so the mention of a secondary protagonist/playable character here took me by surprise as someone who has never played any of these games before.
- I also agree with ChrisTheDude's comments above.
Great work with the list. I will do another read-through tomorrow to make sure that I caught everything, but this is everything that I noticed when reading it for the first time. I hope my comments are helpful and that you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Aoba47! I've made some edits based on your suggestions. Dutch is the leader of the gang and Davis is listed first in the credits, so I felt that listing him first was more suitable (despite Arthur being the lead playable character). As for the unsourced plot paragraphs, you're right in that the game is the primary reference for this. I've asked Chris above as well, but if you'd like sources for the in-game missions, let me know. – Rhain ☔ 23:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response! Your explanation for the listing order makes sense to me. I think that the sourcing should be okay as it currently stands since it is pretty consistent throughout the list as a whole. I will review the article momentarily and put up my second (and hopefully last) round of comments. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- What is a "face camera"? It i used referenced in the part about motion capture in the "Creation and conception" section, but I am not sure how a "face camera" is different from other cameras.
- For this sentence, "During the events of Red Dead Redemption, in 1911, John tracks down Bill, Javier, and Dutch, before being killed.", I do not think the comma between "Redemption" and "in" is necessary.
- This may be a silly question, but would it be helpful to wikilink "reservation" to the Indian reservation article to help any unfamiliar readers?
Thank you for your patience with the review. I only have three relatively minor comments, and once those are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. I will definitely have to check out these games sometime in the future. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC. No worries if you do not have time or interest. Hope you are having a great day and/or night so far! Aoba47 (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, Aoba47! I've made some changes based on your suggestions. Let me know if you have any more concerns. I'll try to find time to check out your FAC sometime soon! – Rhain ☔ 23:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Eurohunter
[edit]- It doesn't looks like list and could be rather moved to "Red Dead Redemption 2 characters". Eurohunter (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Eurohunter: Check out other featured lists for video game characters. This is a common format. – Rhain ☔ 01:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose from The Rambling Man
[edit]Opposewhile the huge mass of white space as a result of the TOC remains in place. It looks terrible and undermines what is essentially a reasonable piece of work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: I have addressed this on the talk page. – Rhain ☔ 01:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man Can you see my comments at the talk page as well? Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- TOC is better now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man Can you see my comments at the talk page as well? Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: I have addressed this on the talk page. – Rhain ☔ 01:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose by David Fuchs
[edit]After having read through this list, I am inclined to argue that it fails criterion 3 of WP:WIAFL. This is 63KB article—10,000+ words—about the characters of a single video game. It's bigger than the article about the actual video game. There's no third-party sourcing that demonstrates that the characters of Red Dead are notable outside reception of the game's story in general, and it's stuffed full of plot that definition runs afoul of our fiction guidelines. It's an improper spinout from the main article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- @David Fuchs: The list is larger (in word count) than the main game article because the latter has been split into several other articles due to its size. Would you be able to point me to the fiction guidelines to which you're referring? The plot descriptions here seem no different to what I have seen in the past. Similarly, the third-party sourcing here seems no different to that of other video game FLs, made up of mostly interviews with the developers/cast and reviews of the game/s, both of which demonstrate notability in this context. – Rhain ☔ 22:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'd have similar issues with excessive detail about those other subarticles, to be honest. I'm mostly referring to the Manual of Style's entries on fiction. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- @David Fuchs: Any suggestions on how to stick to the MoS a little better? For example, would changing the in-universe perspective ("Arthur retrieves Jack...") to a real-world format ("In the game's third chapter, Arthur retrieves Jack...") work better? – Rhain ☔ 23:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- @David Fuchs: Anything? – Rhain ☔ 14:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- @David Fuchs: Figured I'd try to get you one more time. Yours is the only oppose vote at present, so I'd like to hear your thoughts. – Rhain ☔ 03:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies for the delay. Realistically I think the changes you describe don't substantially address my core issues with the list meeting featured criteria or notability per WP:SAL on its own. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- @David Fuchs: Do you have any suggestions at all? – Rhain ☔ 04:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think this list should exist at all, so not really. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- @David Fuchs: Do you have any suggestions at all? – Rhain ☔ 04:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies for the delay. Realistically I think the changes you describe don't substantially address my core issues with the list meeting featured criteria or notability per WP:SAL on its own. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- @David Fuchs: Interested to hear your thoughts on the changes made to the article over the last month. – Rhain ☔ 01:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think the changes change my fundamental issues with the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'd have similar issues with excessive detail about those other subarticles, to be honest. I'm mostly referring to the Manual of Style's entries on fiction. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Spy-cicle
[edit]Superb list it is well referenced and uses a good range of media. The only thing I found that needs improving is the ciation to the book. It should really use the "cite book" template with something along these lines: Price, James, ed. (October 26, 2018). Red Dead Redemption 2: The Complete Official Guide — Collector's Edition. United States of America: Piggyback. ISBN 978-1911015567.. I will happily support this nomination once that is done. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 20:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind words, Spy-cicle. I've replaced the book citation. Let me know if you have any other concerns. – Rhain ☔ 23:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- The only other thing I noticed was: "The secretive nature of Rockstar's development processes meant that the actors and the director were unsure of the future of the characters during production" Does this refer to one specific director or should it refer to multiple directors. If so I think some clarity may be needed and is also repeated under Creation and conception Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 20:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Spy-cicle: Good catch. I've clarified that Rod Edge was the director for the majority of production (though I don't feel as though that's important enough to include in the lead). Let me know if there's anything else! – Rhain ☔ 23:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I could not spot anything else, Great job. I now Support this nomination. (Not required but I currently have a FLC on an accolades table for Marvel's Spider-Man your feedback would be appreciated especially in regards to how WP:SIZERULE is applied to video accolade tables). Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 18:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Spy-cicle: Good catch. I've clarified that Rod Edge was the director for the majority of production (though I don't feel as though that's important enough to include in the lead). Let me know if there's anything else! – Rhain ☔ 23:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- The only other thing I noticed was: "The secretive nature of Rockstar's development processes meant that the actors and the director were unsure of the future of the characters during production" Does this refer to one specific director or should it refer to multiple directors. If so I think some clarity may be needed and is also repeated under Creation and conception Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 20:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Comments from zmbro
[edit]Great list! Loved this game. Very well-written and should be an FL in no time. Few comments:
- "Several characters reprise their roles from the 2010 game Red Dead Redemption, to which Red Dead Redemption 2 is a prequel." Idk why but this sentence reads weird to me. I'm not really sure how it'd be reworded though :\
- Normally see bibliography below refs and not above them
- I'd rename "notes" to something like "sources", as refs aren't really "notes"
- I see a few refs that aren't archived.
That's it for me. Great job on this! – zmbro (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, zmbro! I've moved the bibliography and renamed "notes". All of the unarchived references are to YouTube interviews, which cannot be effectively archived. Let me know if you have any more thoughts. – Rhain ☔ 23:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Good for me :-) – zmbro (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Comments from PresN
[edit]Flipping through this list, I see that a full 15(!) characters don't have a single reference, and another 8 have one from a guidebook in the middle of their text; many of the others are that plus a sourced one-liner. This seems to be because their sections are solely composed of plot summary. While not as vehement as Fuchs about it, this is emblematic of a structural problem with the list: the main purpose of a character list (or article) is to hold a description of the character along with as much real-world information (development/reception) as possible. To see 23 out of 42 characters in a list essentially have none of that is disquieting. A list like this needs to be based on reliable sources for the purpose of notability, not just verifiability- that is to say, it should contain only major characters, as shown by 3rd-party sources writing about them, not instead including every single named character that you could find a bit of backstory for. I'm inclined to oppose, but I'm going to open a discussion at WPVG for other opinions. --PresN 22:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, this is certainly not "every single named character"—such a list would end up in the hundreds—but a selection of the game's primary characters, including the 24 main gang members and the several supporting characters and antagonists. That's not to say that it couldn't be trimmed, though, and I'm not opposed to cutting some characters down to a table or prose if necessary. – Rhain ☔ 22:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Are you seriously suggesting that there are 24 "main" characters in this game? I've never played it but that and 9(!) main antagonists seems like a stretch. PresN's point stands that many many sections are completely devoid of references establishing notability. I hope this page isn't being used as an island of lost plot sections. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. The game's narrative revolves around the characters in the gang and their relationships. At a stretch, though, I'd argue that at least half of the gang could be defined as "main" characters (which is discouraged). The game is about 60 hours in length with six main chapters, so nine antagonists is accurate: chapter 2 is primarily Leviticus Cornwall; chapter 3 is Catherine Braithwaite and Leigh Gray; chapter 4 is Angelo Bronte; chapter 5 is Alberto Fussar; chapter 6 is Henry Favours; and throughout the whole narrative is Andrew Milton, Edgar Ross, and Colm O'Driscoll. They are each important to the game, though I wouldn't be opposed to shortening their sections to a table. – Rhain ☔ 03:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- If each chapter has its own antagonist, does that make all of them noteworthy antagonists or just temporary obstacles in the story? Summary style demands that you balance the desire to document every beat in the story with the requirement for a high level overview for a reader to understand. I'd start with going through and identifying which characters you can eliminate entirely without diminishing the reader's understanding of the story. Then trim back the ones that are necessary but consist too much of WP:JUSTPLOT. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. The game's narrative revolves around the characters in the gang and their relationships. At a stretch, though, I'd argue that at least half of the gang could be defined as "main" characters (which is discouraged). The game is about 60 hours in length with six main chapters, so nine antagonists is accurate: chapter 2 is primarily Leviticus Cornwall; chapter 3 is Catherine Braithwaite and Leigh Gray; chapter 4 is Angelo Bronte; chapter 5 is Alberto Fussar; chapter 6 is Henry Favours; and throughout the whole narrative is Andrew Milton, Edgar Ross, and Colm O'Driscoll. They are each important to the game, though I wouldn't be opposed to shortening their sections to a table. – Rhain ☔ 03:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Are you seriously suggesting that there are 24 "main" characters in this game? I've never played it but that and 9(!) main antagonists seems like a stretch. PresN's point stands that many many sections are completely devoid of references establishing notability. I hope this page isn't being used as an island of lost plot sections. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Question and comments from czar
[edit]- Arrived via that WT:VG thread
- Is there a reason why this article doesn't have a Reception section (like The Last of Us's and Uncharted's)? If the set of characters is independently notable from the game itself to warrant a summary style, ostensibly there would be enough coverage for such a section, right? czar 03:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- The article reads very heavy on plot compared to other character FLCs. Converting the minor characters to a table, as in other articles, would be a forcing function to greatly reduce their length and focus their descriptions to that which can be referenced in reliable, secondary sources. While it isn't necessary to source plot information, adding a ref when available makes it clear that secondary sources considered the character's info significant enough to cover. czar 03:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Right now, I'm on the fence on the case of merging the article back into the parent. It's clear that there has been a fair amount of coverage on the game's cast, though much of it looks like primary source interviews, especially from interviews and otherwise unreliable sources. The summary style split should be predicated on whether the characters, as a set, have received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Greatly reducing the plot summary to focus on the cast's real-world impact, via its sourcing, would make the case for why this set's added detail is too noteworthy to reduce and merge back into the parent article. czar 03:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, czar. I've added a Reception section, cut down on some characters and plot information, added some more sources, and trimmed all supporting characters and antagonists to tables. Please let me know your thoughts when you can. – Rhain ☔ 03:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Much improved! Are the table rows without citations not mentioned in other sources, or is it just your preference to use uncited plot summary for those? And how are the voice actors sourced—to the credits or a secondary source? With this Reception section, the summary style appears warranted and I'd err on the side of not merging back to the parent article. czar 03:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Czar: Thanks! They are sometimes mentioned in other sources, but the specific plot information is not discussed in those sources, so I've opted not to use them—if you think it might be best to source the missions within the game for some of these characters (as in The Last of Us's characters table), let me know. The actors are sourced to the credits, as no secondary source seems to list more than a few actors' names. – Rhain ☔ 03:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Unless I'm mistaken, it does not appear that you've done any prose trimming in converting the Supporting characters and Antagonists sections into tables, like Czar asked. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Axem Titanium: You are mistaken; I trimmed back a few of the characters—most notably Eagle Flies, Rains Fall, and Leviticus Cornwall—and cut out two characters entirely. – Rhain ☔ 23:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough; the diff display made it hard to notice the change. RE: Greatly reducing the plot summary to focus on the cast's real-world impact As for the "main" cast, a character list should primarily describe who the characters are, not what they do. I'm worried that this list is still too focused on giving a play by play of the plot. See also MOS:WAF for what I'm seeing as a continued problem. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Axem Titanium: You are mistaken; I trimmed back a few of the characters—most notably Eagle Flies, Rains Fall, and Leviticus Cornwall—and cut out two characters entirely. – Rhain ☔ 23:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Unless I'm mistaken, it does not appear that you've done any prose trimming in converting the Supporting characters and Antagonists sections into tables, like Czar asked. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Czar: Thanks! They are sometimes mentioned in other sources, but the specific plot information is not discussed in those sources, so I've opted not to use them—if you think it might be best to source the missions within the game for some of these characters (as in The Last of Us's characters table), let me know. The actors are sourced to the credits, as no secondary source seems to list more than a few actors' names. – Rhain ☔ 03:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Much improved! Are the table rows without citations not mentioned in other sources, or is it just your preference to use uncited plot summary for those? And how are the voice actors sourced—to the credits or a secondary source? With this Reception section, the summary style appears warranted and I'd err on the side of not merging back to the parent article. czar 03:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, czar. I've added a Reception section, cut down on some characters and plot information, added some more sources, and trimmed all supporting characters and antagonists to tables. Please let me know your thoughts when you can. – Rhain ☔ 03:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium: Do you have any suggestions for describing "who the characters are, not what they do"? I will look into trimming the plot even further, but other suggestions would be useful. – Rhain ☔ 03:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- A useful way of thinking about it is why characters take the actions they do. Characters in a (good) story rarely do things for no reason; they usually do them because the writer(s) want to illustrate something about their character (a character trait) or help them achieve their goals. One way to trim would be to focus in only on the events that reveal something about the character's traits or goals and omit the events that they are only ancillarily involved in. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Axem Titanium: I've done some more trimming per your suggestion. – Rhain ☔ 05:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's a good change but I'm also not familiar with the source material so it's hard for me to evaluate. I think it's overall a lot tighter. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Axem Titanium: I've done some more trimming per your suggestion. – Rhain ☔ 05:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Delegate note: this FLC has stalled out, and it's because I (and I think the other 2) are waiting on another review on the content of the article. I still don't like that it's a list of character-focused plot summaries; the majority of the characters have no individual development or reception, but do have a (now more tightly-written) character arc summary. It feels like too much, but I'd like to see more reviews before I make a call one way or another as this is going to set a precedent, even though that means it's sitting here for quite a while. --PresN 22:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- @PresN: I have no idea where to even start with reviewing this article --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- I've recently expanded the development and reception of some characters, and cut out some characters entirely. As it stands, 18 of the 24 main characters now have background information, and the tables are far more succinct. Let me know if you have any specific concerns or suggestions. – Rhain ☔ 01:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not really comfortable with how many sources are panels at cons or interviews on podcasts (all on YouTube) --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Guerillero: Neither panels nor podcasts actually require URLs for referencing; these are only present as a courtesy for those seeking to watch/hear the original source. If your main concern is linking to YouTube, then the URLs can be removed without impacting the references. – Rhain ☔ 05:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I've just removed the Supporting characters and Antagonists tables, replacing them with sections for those characters with commentary, and added brief paragraphs in each section outlining other relevant characters. You can see the new version here. I would love to hear your thoughts. Please let me know if you have any other changes to suggest. – Rhain ☔ 06:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @PresN, Czar, and Axem Titanium:. – Rhain ☔ 01:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- At this point with the changes and several months of reviews, this is far too muddy to even try to review. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Guerillero: How so? Shouldn't the article just be reviewed in its existing state? If you'd like to track the changes: the article looked like this before the nomination, and now it looks like this. – Rhain ☔ 16:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I think I need to just pull the trigger. This list has come a long way since it was nominated; at this point the outstanding issue is still "should this list exist". It appears to me that this is a minority opinion- with most of the minor characters culled, we're left with an oddball list because the game has an ensemble cast, unlike most. I think it qualifies as a valid list. As such, with no more reviews coming (and a source review: passed)... promoting. --PresN 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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.
- 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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [13].
- Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC) and Hwy43 (talk)
After a several year hiatus, we return with our 11th (out of 13) municipalities nomination with the goal of bringing the list of municipalities for every province and territory of Canada to featured status and eventual featured topic. We have created a standardized format and so far promoted Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. We have also taken suggestions from the previous 10 nominations into account for this nomination. All suggestions welcome and thanks for your input. Mattximus (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from Reywas92Talk 19:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
;Comments
Reywas92Talk 20:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
|
- The last change works fine, just felt weird reading the same facts twice in three sentences. Nice work, support! Reywas92Talk 19:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Reywas92. Hwy43 (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I can't find anything to pick up at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Great list, well cited and comprehensive. Couldn't find anything wrong, even the alt text is there. TryKid (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Support passes all of my checks --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, ChrisTheDude, TryKid, and Guerillero! Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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.
- 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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [18].
- Nominator(s): buidhe 19:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
This is a comprehensive list of all transports that deported from Slovakia between 1942 and 1945, carrying most of the Slovak Jews to their deaths. It is a pair with The Holocaust in Slovakia, headed to FAC soon, and I believe it meets the FLC criteria. Copyediting was recently done by Twofingered Typist of GOCE. This is my first FLC nomination. buidhe 19:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- The first sentence feels a little weird since you're trying to have that first link; I'd suggest "During the Holocaust, most of Slovakia's Jewish population..." and link The Holocaust in Slovakia another way
- Done
- The lead has "In 1944" but doesn't mention the rest of "and 1944–1945". Does that 13,500 include the 1945 transports?
- Yes it does—fixed
- The 1942 destinations all repeat "concentration camp" but the 1944 ones do not; see if there's a better way to word for conciseness.
- I'm not sure there is. In 1942 it's needed for clarification because destinations were concentration camps, ghettos, or extermination camps, but in 1944 all the destinations were concentration camps so it's not needed. I'll have to think about it.
- I know sources can't all be perfectly accurate and consistent, but here it says around 67,000 died, but The_Holocaust_in_Slovakia#Aftermath has 68,000 to 71,000.
- That's because a few thousand Jews were killed in Slovakia itself without being deported—see The Holocaust in Slovakia#Roundups and massacres in eastern Slovakia.
- "The logical solution"???
- Reworded
- Wikilinks for the source cities like Trnava
- Done, on first mention.
- Is there reason some have the citation in the date column and others in the Source column
- Yes, sources differ on the dates because some sources are giving the departure date, others the date of crossing the border, and more the arrival date. So where sources differ I cite that in the date column. For the third table, the source location is cited inline because it isn't mentioned in the main source (Büchler).
- HSĽS is not defined
- Fixed
Great job, thanks for your work on this important topic. Reywas92Talk 00:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Reywas92, thanks so much for your comments. I think I have addressed most of them and the others I'm not sure how to fix. buidhe 01:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Excellent, I support! It wouldn't hurt to expand the lead a bit but overall it's great. Reywas92Talk 01:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Reywas92, thanks so much for your comments. I think I have addressed most of them and the others I'm not sure how to fix. buidhe 01:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Minor point: The Auschwitz list could have one or two columns sortable and I guess the notes columns in all the tables could be set to be "unsortable".Chidgk1 (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Done both. Thanks for your review. buidhe 18:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- I wonder if it should have an article description.Chidgk1 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
_(20332897078).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Comments by Dudley
[edit]- "which resulted in large numbers of them becoming impoverished. Manufactured Jewish impoverishment was a pressing social problem for the Slovak government". "Manufactured" is an odd word to use here and I do not think you need to repeat "impoverish". How about "This became a pressing social problem""?
Done
- "In 1939, the Lublin Reservation". I would add "in Poland".
- Done
- "Judenberater (Jewish adviser)". This translation implies that he was Jewish, but you mean the opposite. Can you find a different translation?
- Done
- "Transports were timed to reach the Slovak border at Čadca at 04:28;[21] they left Patrónka,[22] Poprad,[23] and Nováky in the evening,[20] and Žilina at 03:20.[24] In Zwardon" This will mean little to readers no familiar with the geography. Also were the timings so the local population would not know what was going on? If so you should say so, and if not there is no point in mentioning them.
- I believe you're right, but none of the sources say so. I've simplified this and put some of the detail in a note, because some readers may want to know this information.
- Many of the figures are obviously estimates, but you do not say so unless I have missed it. This should be clarified.
- This is a bit complicated, because most of the sources do not discuss their methodology much if at all. If it's not stated to be an estimate, I shouldn't assume it is. Furthermore, round numbers are not necessarily
- Putting an image about 1944 in the section on 1942 is confusing.
- I know, but the few images that exist of the ramp as it appeared in 1942 are under dubious licensing. (This image is unlikely to be free so I nominated it for deletion.) Would a different image be better?
- I do not think you need an image in every section. I would delete the map about the uprising as less relevant and move the 1944 image to to its correct place. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- In the 1942 section, it would be helpful to repeat the year when giving dates at the start of the Lublin and Auschwitz sub-sections.
- Done
- "Between 25 March and 20 October 1942, about 57,000[91][92] or 58,000[93][94] Jews (two-thirds of the population) were deported.[91][92] (According to records, the number was exactly 57,628[20] or 57,752.)" "According to records" is too vague, and in any case you do not need to go into such detail about minor differences in the figures. I would delete the discussion and just say approximately 57,700.
- Done
- "been deported or had fled to Hungary" I assume that they fled to Hungary because at that stage Jews were safe there, but it would be helpful to clarify.
- Done
- "Attempts by Germany and Slovak People's Party radicals to resume the transports in 1943 were unsuccessful" Why?
- This is explained more fully in the linked article, but I've added a brief explanation.
- An interesting but very harrowing article. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review! buidhe 02:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Looks fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Source review – pass
[edit]- In "Browning, Christopher R. (2007)", the date range needs an endash, rather than a hyphen.
- The same in "Czech, Danuta (1997)".
- In "Fatran, Gila (2007)", the hyphen in "SNM - Múzeum Židovskej" need to be an endash.
- In "Friling, Tuvia (2006)", the year range needs an endash, rathern than a hyphen.
- Same in "Hutzelmann, Barbara (2018)".
- In "Farkash, Talia (2014)", Dęblin-Irena should have an endash, per out article.
- Done all of these.
- Can you sort out the title of "Johnson, Owen V. (2005)", which should finish with "kontexte". If possible, can an English translation be given, as you've done for the other sources.
- This is the correct title according to the source (it is an English-language review of a Slovak language book). Adding translation would be confusing because it might lead readers to assume that it is a non-English source.
- Sorry, I see that now. Ignore me. Harrias talk 12:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is the correct title according to the source (it is an English-language review of a Slovak language book). Adding translation would be confusing because it might lead readers to assume that it is a non-English source.
- "Seznam všech transportů do Terezína", the last web source, needs publisher details.
- I just got rid of it because it duplicates other sources.
- All references are to apparently reliable sources.
- A consistent and appropriate formatting style is used.
- Spotchecks on the open access sources reveal no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing. Harrias talk 09:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! I believe that I've addressed all the points. buidhe 11:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Harrias talk 12:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: I made a few tweaks to the tables to meet MOS:ACCESS. They could also do with row scopes, per MOS:DTT, but I didn't want to make this change myself, as it isn't necessarily clear what it should be.
- I am also taking part in the WikiCup, and will claim points for this review. Harrias talk 12:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! I believe that I've addressed all the points. buidhe 11:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Promoted. --PresN 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.