Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/November 2009
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Dabomb87 17:02, 22 November 2009 [1].
- Notified WikiProject Cricket. Main contributor and nominator are inactive.
This June 2007 promotion has numerous issues that cause it to fail modern FL criteria:
Referencing is insufficient. It's unclear what, if anything, it citing many of the tables. Much of the text in the list is also uncited. This is worth a delisting by itself.- Doing this one. It is, as you say, inadequate now, hopefully you can already see a difference in the referencing, at least... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, all the facts in the tables now have separate references, all {{cite web}} formatted. Obviously if there are further refs needed for associated prose, they have been (or will shortly be) added, once the OR is cut down a bit. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing this one. It is, as you say, inadequate now, hopefully you can already see a difference in the referencing, at least... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is two whole sentences, which is way too small for an FL now. Two or three paragraphs are typical for a 2009 FL.- Ditto, that will be worked on, but perhaps not immediately. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead has been expanded considerably and hopefully meets with a mild snort of approval. It probably needs copyediting etc but it's much more comprehensive than before. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto, that will be worked on, but perhaps not immediately. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Notation section has a couple of headers with words that should be de-capitalized as they are not proper nouns. The current players could be noted with a dagger, as is done in List of Test cricket records.- That should now be fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some odd structuring at the end. See also should go before references, and external links should be its own section, not a sub-section.- Ditto, fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't taken a close look at the writing yet, but this is an original research red flag, in addition to being ungrammatical: "The record for lowest scores are considered infamous and are mainly acheived by weaker sides against stronger teams. This trend continues in many records, including that of highest scores and highest winning margins."- I'll go over the prose and kill any OR. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two disambiguation links that need to be fixed to go to the intended article.- Dabs gone.
This is not an FL requirement, but an image for the lead would be nice, if an appropriate one can be found.- Image(s) added (and hopefully fixed following comments below)... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are merely a starting point, since I'm no cricket expert; the first two are of the greatest importance. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, a lot of work needs to be done on this one. I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. There is a lot wrong with it, including all your above points, but most noticeably the large chunk of whitespace where the images haven't been aligned properly. My main comment would be that it doesn't appear to be a "list". Like the 2007 Cricket World Cup (an infamous fiasco), it seems to have gone all wrong and has turned into a start-class article about the competition!----Jack | talk page 04:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problems I noticed have been resolved by The Rambling Man. It seems okay to me now. ----Jack | talk page 13:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I've only just added the images and will be working on the above points. I will also work on whitespace. And we've had precedents for FLs which have a similar layout (such as List of Ipswich Town F.C. records and statistics) so I'm not sure that's a big issue. I'll continue trying, but it seems I'm fighting a losing battle already! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, what problem are you experiencing with "images [that] haven't been aligned properly"? In Safari and Firefox I've got no whitespace problem at all... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The last two images create whitespace. I'd remove them.--Cheetah (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think forcing the widths of some of those tables caused issues - how do the images look for you guys now? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, that's fixed, thanks to Jack & Cheetah for getting back to me... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The last two images create whitespace. I'd remove them.--Cheetah (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - any of the above reviewers care to pop back to have a look and see if this is heading in the right direction as far as they're concerned? Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all images now have alt text. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no dab links, all external links are currently "live". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck all of my initial comments above. Have a few quick comments on the writing to offer:
Team overall: "with India scoring 413 runs against Bermuda." This is one of those noun+-ing sentence structures that the FAC prose people don't like. See if it can be reworded.- Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The prose after One tournament and Streaks has no cites; is the table cite supposed to cover it?- Cited. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first is cited. but not the second.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- More trouble than it's worth, removed now. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cited. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Batting overall: "He also has most Man of the Year awards." Add "the" in the middle?Age: "with 2 being from the Netherlands." Another awkwardly structured sentence to be zapped and improved.In the references, make a consistent choice between Cricinfo and Cricinfo.com.- Done that. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great job again so far. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, thanks for further comments, anything else? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "The title of most consecutive defeats are mostly held by ICC Associate Members (the second tier of international cricket)." I don't follow; how can a record be "mostly" held? Also, shouldn't it be "is", not "are"? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, there is a bigger problem now. All of the cricinfo links have gone dead. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it now fixed? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Looks to meet FL standard once again after the many needed fixes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 20 November 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.
- 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 Dabomb87 17:02, 22 November 2009 [2].
Notified: WikiProject NFL, Jayron32, and Pats1
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it doesn't meet the current criteria.
- The lead should be larger, referenced and without any redundant info.
- The key section is really needed, especially for the awards.
- The colors should not be the only indicators. Symbols need to be added.
- The boldface should be removed from the table. The headings only should have boldface text.
- The awards need to be referenced.
- The footnotes should be referenced, as well.
- As for the general references, how reliable are "Sports E-cyclopedia" and "Football @ JT-SW.com. John Troan"?
It's been two years since this list is at WP:FL, are there still not a single image that can be used in this page?--Cheetah (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, this could use a "refresh". I don't think it would be that hard though.... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking forward to helping improve this article. Just some questions for the nominator so that I can help bring this up to standard:
- What additional information do you feel the lead needs, but which is not currently there?
- I'd like to see more about the history of the franchise.--Cheetah (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise, for the information you feel needs additional referencing, especially the footnotes and the lead: What specific pieces of information do you feel are inadequately covered by the general references in the article? I don't just want to litter random references just to "keep up appearances", so I would like to know what facts in the lead and footnotes you question or doubt the veracity of, and which cannot be readily found in the 4 references already in the article. I can probably dig up references for the awards pretty easily, but I would like to know which facts are being doubted so that I can add the proper references.
- All footnotes need individual citing. I have doubts about reliability of the two aforementioned references. The other two that is listed on this page provide info on stats only. There are several statements in the lead that needs citing, as well. The statements about AFL merger, team relocation, and Dallas Cowboys.--Cheetah (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to be combattive here, but you seriously doubt that the AFL and NFL merged? That is a disputed fact that needs citation? It seems like the sort of common knowledge thing that doesn't usually demand a direct citation. It sounds like your just picking random facts so we can have some random number of citations in the text, rather than asking for doubtful material which need support. I can understand where the footnotes need a cite, I can provide some of those, but common historical knowledge, which is unsurprising and non-controversial needs direct proof? Serious? --Jayron32 03:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I am serious. You probably are a football fan all your life and it's "common knowledge" to you, but for a non-football fan, like me, a proof is needed. Also, as a Wikipedian and a FLC regular, I've seen some football-related pages where it was stated that the merger happened in 1966, some pages even stated that it happened in 1967, so I always ask for a reference to back up that information.--Cheetah (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The other, cosmetic changes can be made relatively easily, so I can get on those.
- Again, thanks for the tips on improving this article, and I look forward to your responses so I can work on making this even better! --Jayron32 00:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note from FLRC director I am something of a fan of the Patriots. If anyone thinks that my neutrality is compromised because of this, I will gladly recuse from closing the FLRC. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll only recuse you if you help save it! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Minnesota Vikings seasons is an example of an FL that meets current standards (it was revamped at an FLRC in August). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove – Not enough has been done to resolve the initial concerns. In addition, FLC has been moving away from "This is a list of" openings, the table could be made sortable (as is done in List of New York Giants seasons), and the new image needs alt text. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - As Giants2008 said above, the initial concerns still have not been resolved; the only edits since his comment are an update of the result for the next week of play. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:09, 20 November 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.
- 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 The Rambling Man 10:08, 6 November 2009 [3].
- Notified: WikiProject Anime and manga, WikiProject Comedy, Juhachi
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it contains newly merged material from another article whose prose and content have not yet been checked for prose or its references verified. Demotion from featured list status will allow for new improvements to the list so that the content can be brought up to current standards, which have likely increased since promotion in 2007. Arsonal (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is too short.
- There seems to be no reference for any of the airdates.
- Several of the newly covered episodes are missing plot summaries.
Delist: These are just the issues I see on first glance. I'm sure there's a lot more to be done. Goodraise 07:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I must say, I strongly object to this nomination, the reasons given for failing are mostly the addition of content from another article that was merged. I feel the nomination Is heavily flawed because 1) The merge of sub-par prose was made by the nominator, who clearly knew it was below par. This is one reason the list was originally maintained seperately in order to not damage the FL article. 2)The nomination was made less then 15minutes after the start ofthe merge. I have difficulty accepting this is a acceptable amount of time betweeen merge and nomination, as no time has been allowed for Improvements to the article before nomination. Essentially, the nominator has made the nomination based on his own edits, not notified people to give them a reasonable amount of time to try and fix the article before nomination (say a week) then left this important information out. I have difficulty in taking this in Good faith as it's clear it could have been handled much better. Dandy Sephy (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (This comment should not be read as an endorsement of the nominator's actions. I simply preferre to stick to discussing article content rather than editor behavior.) Pages should not be maintained seperately simply for the merrit of one of them remaining an FL. If there is consensus that the content of two lists should be covered in the same page, then, until they do, they both fail criterion 3b, which can in itself be reason enough for an FLRC. Goodraise 09:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I wasn't very clear. At the time, there was debate over the actual status of thenew episodes, and the original split was meant to be a temporary one. I Agree a merge is appropriate, just that there were better ways to do it.Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Keeping them separate just to maintain FL status is not ideal. We are holding back the proper development of the list even after the new version has aired. We can put it back up for FLC later. BlazerKnight (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Despite my objection to the way this has been handled, it seems unlikely the article will be fixed in time. Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment well hold on! Nominations run for at least 14 days and if someone is prepared to do the work, even longer if need be. We don't need to rush around removing featured status if we can actively improve the list back to the standard required... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This FLRC has been closed as delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.