Wikipedia:Featured list candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m →‎Nominations: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of San Diego Padres first-round draft picks/archive1
Rlevse (talk | contribs)
→‎Nominations: i have better things to do
Line 7: Line 7:
Please check that the list meets the NEW FEATURED LIST CRITERIA before nominating it.-->
Please check that the list meets the NEW FEATURED LIST CRITERIA before nominating it.-->
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of San Diego Padres first-round draft picks/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of San Diego Padres first-round draft picks/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (World War I)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Jewish Nobel laureates/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Jewish Nobel laureates/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball wins champions/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball wins champions/archive1}}
Line 16: Line 15:
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2010 Winter Olympics medal table/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2010 Winter Olympics medal table/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nebraska Cornhuskers head football coaches/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nebraska Cornhuskers head football coaches/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (Union Army)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sri Lankan Test cricket records/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sri Lankan Test cricket records/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Vladimir Horowitz discography/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Vladimir Horowitz discography/archive2}}

Revision as of 18:29, 28 March 2010

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria.

Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and at peer review at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split featured list candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegate, PresN, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will last at least ten days (though most last a month or longer) and may be lengthened where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

After a reasonable time has passed, the director or delegates will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list.
  3. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please leave a post on the FLC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. When adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.

Supporting and objecting

Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page).
  • To support a nomination, write * '''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this.
  • To oppose a nomination, write * '''Object''' or * '''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used only when necessary, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature, rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write * '''Comment''' followed by your advice.
Nominations urgently needing reviews

The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:



The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:

Nominations

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one albums of 2009 (México)/archive1

Nominations for removal

List of Indian Premier League seasons and results

Notified: WikiProject Cricket, WikiProject IPL (note: the original FL nominator is blocked, so I haven't notified them)

I am nominating this for featured list removal because the version of the article right now is not as good as the 2017 version, and lots of the text is outdated and not supported by sources. In the FL version [50], all the tables had sources for every team, but these have been removed, in violation of WP:VERIFY. This is enough to automatically fail this review in my opinion, as it isn't easily fixable. There are also multiple issues with the lead, including:

  1. Text on the formats isn't supported by the source [51], as the source says there were different formats from 2020-2022, whereas the text says there was a pre-2021 and 2022 onwards formats
  2. Mumbai Indians have won five titles.[31] Chennai Super Kings have won five titles and Kolkata Knight Riders have won two titles, Gujarat Titans, Sunrisers Hyderabad and Rajasthan Royals, apart from former team Deccan Chargers, are the other teams to have won the tournament title as of May 2023. Not supported by the sources, which are mostly from 2016. People have updated the number of wins but not the source itself.
  3. Altogether, thirteen teams have played in the past ten seasons of the IPL tournament. Out-of-date, as there have been 16 completed seasons (and this would need source update too). That whole paragraph is also way too overdetailed about team histories- the lead is meant to summarise the content of the lists, whereas this provides too much information.
  4. The entire lead is too long as per MOS:LEAD. This would require a complete re-write to have a lead that summarises the article, followed by a text summary in another section, followed by the tables themselves

The tables themselves have multiple problems too:

  1. The row headings have been removed from all tables, compared to the FL version. This is a MOS:ACCESS issue
  2. The "Overall team results" table has been changed so it's now using ridiculous amounts of MOS:COLOUR violations, and has the host countries added, which is unnecessary trivia (since there's only been 4 seasons not hosted entirely in India, and that information isn't pertinent to understanding team results)
  3. "Additional team statistics" table is newer than the FL version, and this is unsourced and doesn't actually give useful additional information

As such, this doesn't currently meet the FL criteria, and so should be considered for de-listing unless significant corrections are made. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph2302, as a reminder, please complete the required notifications and note them here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gonzo_fan2007 as I noted, the user who nominated it for FL is indefinitely blocked, so makes no sense to notify them. And I've notified relevant WikiProjects, so I don't believe anyone else is required. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And no other active editors have made substantial edits to this according to [52]. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Joseph2302, when I commented the WikiProjects hadn't been notified (or at least the notices weren't added to the top of this page). Everything looks good, appreciate it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons

Notified: Buc, WP:NFL, WP:WPLISTS

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails a number of criteria:

  • 1. Prose: the prose is choppy and could probably use a full rewrite.
  • 2. Lead: Tom McCloskey should be linked. The lead is pointlessly self-referencing in the last sentence of the first paragraph.
  • 3b. Comprehensiveness: primary issue here, the list lacks necessary inline citations in the lead and within the table (the awards especially). There is too much of a reliance on "general references". Some sources appear to either be dead, out of date or unreliable.
  • 3c. Accessibility: the list lacks all accessibility features expected of WP:FL today, both in the table, the key and no alt text on the photo.
  • 4. Structure: the structure of the table is a bit off. The last section needs the darker gray formatting of the cells. The awards need some sort of acronym definition.

The list was nominated over 15 years ago when standards were quite different. These issues either need to be addressed or the article delisted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cleveland Browns seasons

Notified: Omg its will run, WP:NFL, WP:CLEVELAND, WP:USA & WP:WPLIST

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails a number of criteria:

  • 1. Prose: the prose is choppy (While the National Football League (NFL) does not recognize the Browns’ AAFC championships, the Pro Football Hall of Fame does recognize the team’s championships, which is reflected in this list.)
  • 2. Lead: the lead appears a little short considering other season lists. There are also some links that need to be added (like Detroit Lions, Pittsburgh Steelers and wild-card round. Just generally needs some clean-up. Could also use a photo in the lead.
  • 3b. Comprehensiveness: primary issue here, the list lacks any inline citations in the lead and within the table. Sources lack consistent formatting (dates especially) and there is reliance on "general references". Some sources appear to either be dead, out of date or unreliable.
  • 4. Structure: the notes and inline cites need to be split into separate sections.
  • Accessibility: the list lacks all accessibility features expected of WP:FL today, both in the table and the legend.

The list was nominated over 15 years ago when standards were quite different. These issues either need to be addressed or the article delisted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Washington Commanders seasons

Notified: Jwalte04, WP:NFL, Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Washington Commanders subproject, WP:USA & WP:WPLIST

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails a number of criteria:

  • 1. Prose: the prose is choppy (the opening sentence is self-referencing), the first paragraph especially could use a good rewrite
  • 2. Lead: there are also a ton of duplicate links in the lead. Some clarifications are needed (was their worst record based on total losses or winning percentage?)
  • 3b. Comprehensiveness: primary issue here, the list lacks necessary inline citations in the lead and within the table (the awards especially). Sources lack consistent formatting (dates especially) and there is too much of a reliance on "general references". Some sources appear to either be dead, out of date or unreliable.
  • 4. Structure: the notes and inline cites need to be split into separate sections.
  • Accessibility: the list lacks all accessibility features expected of WP:FL today, both in the table, the key and no alt text on the photo.

The list was nominated over 15 years ago when standards were quite different. These issues either need to be addressed or the article delisted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! I am currently working on it. Hopefully, I can fix the issues mentioned above. Jwalte04 (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! I have made a bunch of improvements to the article. Hopefully I did all that was required. But please let me know if you have any other suggestions to make this article better! Jwalte04 (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jwalte04, amazing job. This looks so much better. I have some specific comments below:
  • Super Bowl XXVI is linked twice in the lead
  • Recommend that the hasktag symbol (#) be superscript (#) to avoid things like NFC# where it doesn't look like a symbol and looks like part of the acronym.
  • Unless it is a purely explanatory note (as an example Does not include postseason victories would be a purely explanatory note), it should have an inline citation.
  • There are sentences in the lead that don't have an inline citation. Each sentence(s)/paragraph should end with an inline citation.
  • The totals in the last row of the table don't line up with their respective columns.
Thanks for taking this on, you've done a great job! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think we are all set! Jwalte04 (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jwalte04, I have no more comments. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current members of the Maryland House of Delegates

Notified: Marylandstater, Y2hyaXM, WikiProject Maryland

2007 FL which, unfortunately, has not stood the test of time. Concerns on the talk page have been met with silence. Firstly, the last paragraph of the lead is unsourced. The list is also tagged {{no footnotes}} and, indeed, uses general references. Overall, this shouldn't be very hard to rectify, but as it stands, this fails 3b and is not exemplar. (I'm also concerned about the very-near-total reliance on a single source, but that isn't any criterion I know of and it's perfectly reliable.) QueenofHearts 09:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]