The list was kept by Sephiroth BCR 00:52, 22 April 2009 [1].
Unless I am missing something, this article has three citations and no general refs. One is the Olympic medal database, which only covers the one statement about Kirsty Coventry (although it really doesn't because the IOC database is complex and people have to fiddle around with it). One is a link to a book which confirms that Ian Thorpe is the youngest male recipient. The third is supposedly an article called "Swimmers of the Year" when in reality it is about a single winner. The ref does not confirm most the statements that it is cited for.
So with those three citations, that means the rest of the article is completely unsourced and has no references. -- Scorpion 0422 21:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply
While we are here there are some more things that should be brought up to scratch. I have fixed up the references which were in a bit of a state, but the tables in this list should really be sortable, which will require all the names being converted into {{ sortname}}. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Okay I'm going to work on saving this. I have carefully added some more images (i.e. only obviously free ones so an image review shouldn't be necessary). I've fixed any DABs, I'm going to work on adding sortability to the page now. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 18:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep - Went to do a copy-editing pass a while back, but didn't find much. With the changes that have been made by everyone here, I think this should remain featured. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 02:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep I made whatever changes I needed to long back. Dabomb87 ( talk) 12:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by Gimmetrow 04:35, 19 April 2009 [2].
Review Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk · contribs)
Did you bring these concerns up on the talk page first? Most of these are issues that can be fixed without a formal review first. Dabomb87 ( talk) 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep Comments
My issues have been resolved. I suppose the primary source issue can't be helped, although I wish some reliable third party sources were added for back-up. I think this is in keep territory.
Dabomb87 (
talk)
03:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments
Hope you address these issues.-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 08:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Done this now. Sunderland06 ( talk) 23:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Image comment – File:BBC Young Musician of the Year logo.jpg needs to be made smaller. Dabomb87 ( talk) 20:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 23:11, 28 April 2009 [3].
Fails the infamous criterion 3b. The three tables could easily be merged into the main article without making it overwhelming. It has fewer awards than List of awards and nominations received by Bloc Party, which was delisted today. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Delist Since nothing in our (the editors') power can be done to make the list longer, the list cannot be modified to meet FL standards. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 23:11, 28 April 2009 [4].
Per 3b "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreation of material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." If I'm reading this correctly, then this could reasonably included in Premier of Saskatchewan, which is currently a very short stub. Cool3 ( talk) 03:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Quick background to prevent misunderstanding of other users: Criterion 3b was added as part of a series of changes made after a two-week period of discussion. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 23:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment I'm leading toward keeping this as a stand-alone list, but there are still issues. No time for a full review, but FLs no longer start out as "This is a list of..." The lead needs at least a couple inline citations, and the lead does not summarize the list at all. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Delist -- Not on the basis of 3b, the main article can be fairly expanded, and like President of the United States, it can warrant a new list. But I do suggest rewording the intro sentence, and expanding the list a bit more to give background on the premiers and a summary of the list itself. I also suggest expanding the width of the table and making a key to explain some of the things in the table like what the three dots means "...", what (Riding) means, the period entries should have emdashes. The list also needs more in-line citations and the references should be made into general and specific.-- Tru co 02:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 00:52, 22 April 2009 [5].
Fails criteria 2, and 5, as well as the mandate for verifiability.
Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Delist - As I've said elsewhere, I have numerous issues with this list in its current form. In addition to the reasons Dabomb gave above, the title is misleading as the list only gives champions before 1970, when the NFL and AFL completed their merger. Needs work to maintain its featured status. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 00:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep I have addressed all of the listed concerns except the symbols to accompany the colors:
I'll soon add symbols if no one else does but tonight I am tired.-- 2008Olympian chitchat 06:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment - items in the Records section needs refs— Chris! c t 21:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Delist There has been improvement, but issues remain. Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 16:30, 5 April 2009 [6].
Gimmetrow is probably going to hate me for doing the nomination this way, but I'll tell you what, if your bot can't do it, I'll do all of it manually.
Anyway, this is a procedural nom. A consensus for merge was established here and further discussion can be found here. -- Scorpion 0422 16:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 22:17, 18 April 2009 [7].
List fails criteria 3b. Could easily be merged with Akon discography. iMatthew : Chat 13:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 22:17, 18 April 2009 [8].
There are a lot of problems with this one.
-- Scorpion 0422 04:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Issues Just a general list for now.
Right now, the list for sure fails criteria 2, 5, and 6 as well as the lead of the criteria, which states that FLs should "[meet] the requirements for all Wikipedia content", which includes image use and citations. The list is by no means bad, but not quite at current standards. It's been nearly three years since promotion, so naturally there will be things to fix. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Issues I just found this today, after making some edits to the article. One issue I still have with the article is that suspension bridges is a fairly broad class that includes a particular type of suspension bridge, (for want of a better name) a suspended-deck suspension bridge. I think all the bridges on this list are of that type. But what about the other types? This list might be more interesting (and certainly more complete) if it included the other types of suspension bridge, perhaps in a chronological order. That would bring in many of the important historical bridges. Or perhaps this article should be renamed? -- Una Smith ( talk) 04:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment I have now fixed all the dead links, the bridges under construction or proposed are in table format. The external links, previously used are now all references. All the dead links are gone. Almost all of the reference formats have been fixed (I'll get the last of them soon). I don't agree with any of the other suggestions, and I don't think policy or guidelines require them. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Update Improvement has been made, but there are still a few issues. Some of these may not be desirable, but are needed to keep this as an FL.
These are the major things. If these are addressed, then this list will be pretty close to keep territory. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 22:52, 11 April 2009 [9].
I'd like to get this out of the way: Yes, I know that the FLR process is not a subsitute for the afd or merge processes.
Let me start that I believe that I have failed in one of my most important duties as FL director: maintaining high standards for the Featured List process. For too long I have watched FLs like this go through the process and I usually never commented and I myself promoted them. I think it is time to start examining where the process has gone. Let's face it, FLs these days take less effort than GAs. People see this and they decide to try to get as much featured content as possible by working on easy cookie cutter lists. These award and nomination lists are a prime example of this. Whether or not some of them should even exist is never called into question. So I am going try to start a discussion on some of these FLs and I am using this one as a test case. Such small lists with such a small, limited scope hurt the process because people look at them and say "that's all it takes?"
I've always seen off-shoot lists as a chance to add things that you wouldn't be able to add in the normal article, either due to length, or undue weight concerns. The main Bloc Party article (which is a GA) is 33 KB. This page is 24 kb, but most of it is references (many of which are used in the BP article). These lists should be used for artists who have received many accolades for many different works that would be too difficult to put in one place, like The Beatles or Quincy Jones.
Sure, this page is referenced and nicely formatted, but the question that needs to be asked is this: Does a page that could easily be merged into another with 376 words of readable prose size and small tables really qualify as wikipedia's best work? It is important to note that I am not saying all small lists should be delisted. For example, NHL Foundation Player Award is a FL and I do wish it was longer, but it's mostly original non-duplicated content and no practical place to merge. However, I think you could argue that this one could easily be merged. -- Scorpion 0422 02:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC) reply
I suggest we change the criteria first, then come here. Many FLs could be potentially delisted and merged if we set a new precedent; please let's discuss it first. Dabomb87 ( talk) 15:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The core of this is: what do we want FL to be--anything or only things notable? I agree with Dabomb87. For this particular list, the question is "Is this group notable enough?" It's a minor band and I see why it may be delisted. Just like some articles will never in reality be FAs, though theoretically any could, the same is true of lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Hold this FLRC until the criteria concerns are sorted out.
Dabomb87 (
talk)
01:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
Delist per criterion 3b, this list does not warrant being separate. Nothing can be done to address this (other than get the band to win a lot of awards in the next two weeks or so), so might as well delist now. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 22:52, 11 April 2009 [10].
Review OboeCrack ( talk · contribs)
This one looks saveable if we get the right editors; are there any WikiProjects that can be notified? Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Delist Unfortunate, but the list has not improved. I wish I could help, but we need expert attention here. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Scorpion0422 16:30, 5 April 2009 [11].
1. Prose. The writting style suggests that it is based on cut and paste factoids, and does not give context. 2. Lead. Does not match WP:MOS (no bold title). Inclusion criteria not explained. Why group as Prairie region? This region exists in one once place in Canadian law, the Senate, which has nothing to do with Universities. Why only universiries and not colleges or other post-secondary? Why mix the universities of three provinces when they each have distinct legal regimes covering who is a university and who is not? 3. Comprehensiveness. A government source I have recently pointed out contradicts Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, which is used as almost the only source. The fact that this is wrong suggest that the AUCC is not a WP:RELIABLE source. Therefore all the content is suspect and needs to be resourced with more official references.
The list was kept by Sephiroth BCR 00:52, 22 April 2009 [1].
Unless I am missing something, this article has three citations and no general refs. One is the Olympic medal database, which only covers the one statement about Kirsty Coventry (although it really doesn't because the IOC database is complex and people have to fiddle around with it). One is a link to a book which confirms that Ian Thorpe is the youngest male recipient. The third is supposedly an article called "Swimmers of the Year" when in reality it is about a single winner. The ref does not confirm most the statements that it is cited for.
So with those three citations, that means the rest of the article is completely unsourced and has no references. -- Scorpion 0422 21:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply
While we are here there are some more things that should be brought up to scratch. I have fixed up the references which were in a bit of a state, but the tables in this list should really be sortable, which will require all the names being converted into {{ sortname}}. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Okay I'm going to work on saving this. I have carefully added some more images (i.e. only obviously free ones so an image review shouldn't be necessary). I've fixed any DABs, I'm going to work on adding sortability to the page now. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 18:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep - Went to do a copy-editing pass a while back, but didn't find much. With the changes that have been made by everyone here, I think this should remain featured. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 02:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep I made whatever changes I needed to long back. Dabomb87 ( talk) 12:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by Gimmetrow 04:35, 19 April 2009 [2].
Review Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk · contribs)
Did you bring these concerns up on the talk page first? Most of these are issues that can be fixed without a formal review first. Dabomb87 ( talk) 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep Comments
My issues have been resolved. I suppose the primary source issue can't be helped, although I wish some reliable third party sources were added for back-up. I think this is in keep territory.
Dabomb87 (
talk)
03:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments
Hope you address these issues.-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 08:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Done this now. Sunderland06 ( talk) 23:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Image comment – File:BBC Young Musician of the Year logo.jpg needs to be made smaller. Dabomb87 ( talk) 20:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 23:11, 28 April 2009 [3].
Fails the infamous criterion 3b. The three tables could easily be merged into the main article without making it overwhelming. It has fewer awards than List of awards and nominations received by Bloc Party, which was delisted today. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Delist Since nothing in our (the editors') power can be done to make the list longer, the list cannot be modified to meet FL standards. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 23:11, 28 April 2009 [4].
Per 3b "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreation of material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." If I'm reading this correctly, then this could reasonably included in Premier of Saskatchewan, which is currently a very short stub. Cool3 ( talk) 03:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Quick background to prevent misunderstanding of other users: Criterion 3b was added as part of a series of changes made after a two-week period of discussion. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 23:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment I'm leading toward keeping this as a stand-alone list, but there are still issues. No time for a full review, but FLs no longer start out as "This is a list of..." The lead needs at least a couple inline citations, and the lead does not summarize the list at all. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Delist -- Not on the basis of 3b, the main article can be fairly expanded, and like President of the United States, it can warrant a new list. But I do suggest rewording the intro sentence, and expanding the list a bit more to give background on the premiers and a summary of the list itself. I also suggest expanding the width of the table and making a key to explain some of the things in the table like what the three dots means "...", what (Riding) means, the period entries should have emdashes. The list also needs more in-line citations and the references should be made into general and specific.-- Tru co 02:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 00:52, 22 April 2009 [5].
Fails criteria 2, and 5, as well as the mandate for verifiability.
Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Delist - As I've said elsewhere, I have numerous issues with this list in its current form. In addition to the reasons Dabomb gave above, the title is misleading as the list only gives champions before 1970, when the NFL and AFL completed their merger. Needs work to maintain its featured status. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 00:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep I have addressed all of the listed concerns except the symbols to accompany the colors:
I'll soon add symbols if no one else does but tonight I am tired.-- 2008Olympian chitchat 06:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment - items in the Records section needs refs— Chris! c t 21:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Delist There has been improvement, but issues remain. Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 16:30, 5 April 2009 [6].
Gimmetrow is probably going to hate me for doing the nomination this way, but I'll tell you what, if your bot can't do it, I'll do all of it manually.
Anyway, this is a procedural nom. A consensus for merge was established here and further discussion can be found here. -- Scorpion 0422 16:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 22:17, 18 April 2009 [7].
List fails criteria 3b. Could easily be merged with Akon discography. iMatthew : Chat 13:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 22:17, 18 April 2009 [8].
There are a lot of problems with this one.
-- Scorpion 0422 04:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Issues Just a general list for now.
Right now, the list for sure fails criteria 2, 5, and 6 as well as the lead of the criteria, which states that FLs should "[meet] the requirements for all Wikipedia content", which includes image use and citations. The list is by no means bad, but not quite at current standards. It's been nearly three years since promotion, so naturally there will be things to fix. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Issues I just found this today, after making some edits to the article. One issue I still have with the article is that suspension bridges is a fairly broad class that includes a particular type of suspension bridge, (for want of a better name) a suspended-deck suspension bridge. I think all the bridges on this list are of that type. But what about the other types? This list might be more interesting (and certainly more complete) if it included the other types of suspension bridge, perhaps in a chronological order. That would bring in many of the important historical bridges. Or perhaps this article should be renamed? -- Una Smith ( talk) 04:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment I have now fixed all the dead links, the bridges under construction or proposed are in table format. The external links, previously used are now all references. All the dead links are gone. Almost all of the reference formats have been fixed (I'll get the last of them soon). I don't agree with any of the other suggestions, and I don't think policy or guidelines require them. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Update Improvement has been made, but there are still a few issues. Some of these may not be desirable, but are needed to keep this as an FL.
These are the major things. If these are addressed, then this list will be pretty close to keep territory. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 22:52, 11 April 2009 [9].
I'd like to get this out of the way: Yes, I know that the FLR process is not a subsitute for the afd or merge processes.
Let me start that I believe that I have failed in one of my most important duties as FL director: maintaining high standards for the Featured List process. For too long I have watched FLs like this go through the process and I usually never commented and I myself promoted them. I think it is time to start examining where the process has gone. Let's face it, FLs these days take less effort than GAs. People see this and they decide to try to get as much featured content as possible by working on easy cookie cutter lists. These award and nomination lists are a prime example of this. Whether or not some of them should even exist is never called into question. So I am going try to start a discussion on some of these FLs and I am using this one as a test case. Such small lists with such a small, limited scope hurt the process because people look at them and say "that's all it takes?"
I've always seen off-shoot lists as a chance to add things that you wouldn't be able to add in the normal article, either due to length, or undue weight concerns. The main Bloc Party article (which is a GA) is 33 KB. This page is 24 kb, but most of it is references (many of which are used in the BP article). These lists should be used for artists who have received many accolades for many different works that would be too difficult to put in one place, like The Beatles or Quincy Jones.
Sure, this page is referenced and nicely formatted, but the question that needs to be asked is this: Does a page that could easily be merged into another with 376 words of readable prose size and small tables really qualify as wikipedia's best work? It is important to note that I am not saying all small lists should be delisted. For example, NHL Foundation Player Award is a FL and I do wish it was longer, but it's mostly original non-duplicated content and no practical place to merge. However, I think you could argue that this one could easily be merged. -- Scorpion 0422 02:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC) reply
I suggest we change the criteria first, then come here. Many FLs could be potentially delisted and merged if we set a new precedent; please let's discuss it first. Dabomb87 ( talk) 15:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The core of this is: what do we want FL to be--anything or only things notable? I agree with Dabomb87. For this particular list, the question is "Is this group notable enough?" It's a minor band and I see why it may be delisted. Just like some articles will never in reality be FAs, though theoretically any could, the same is true of lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Hold this FLRC until the criteria concerns are sorted out.
Dabomb87 (
talk)
01:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
Delist per criterion 3b, this list does not warrant being separate. Nothing can be done to address this (other than get the band to win a lot of awards in the next two weeks or so), so might as well delist now. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 22:52, 11 April 2009 [10].
Review OboeCrack ( talk · contribs)
This one looks saveable if we get the right editors; are there any WikiProjects that can be notified? Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Delist Unfortunate, but the list has not improved. I wish I could help, but we need expert attention here. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Scorpion0422 16:30, 5 April 2009 [11].
1. Prose. The writting style suggests that it is based on cut and paste factoids, and does not give context. 2. Lead. Does not match WP:MOS (no bold title). Inclusion criteria not explained. Why group as Prairie region? This region exists in one once place in Canadian law, the Senate, which has nothing to do with Universities. Why only universiries and not colleges or other post-secondary? Why mix the universities of three provinces when they each have distinct legal regimes covering who is a university and who is not? 3. Comprehensiveness. A government source I have recently pointed out contradicts Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, which is used as almost the only source. The fact that this is wrong suggest that the AUCC is not a WP:RELIABLE source. Therefore all the content is suspect and needs to be resourced with more official references.