The list was kept by The Rambling Man 18:07, 29 December 2011 [1].
Note: I'm helping Waitak go through and check all the sources. Please do not close until things either get on top of us, or the fixes can be evaluated. =) 86.** IP ( talk) 06:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it uses marketing material, self-published sources (everything2.com, at least, not sure about some of the others) and sources that do not back its claims. For example, the description of wheat germ oil contains very little that I could find in the source, and one of the major references is bulkoil.com, a manufacturer. This is NOT up to featured standards in sourcing.
I haven't checked every source, nor have I verified all content against the sources. But I'm worried that, in just a few spot checks I found something that was not at all validated by the source, and think this whole article would need its sourcing checked before it could be considered again. 86.** IP ( talk) 02:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I'll start replacing the sources today. I expect it to take less than a week. Waitak ( talk) 19:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC) reply
As 86.** IP mentioned, this has turned into a bit of a project. Please see the article talk page for ongoing details of ref cleanup, which is very much in progress. The article is already vastly improved, but the plan is for every source in the article to be absolutely unimpeachable. As always, please feel free to help out. Waitak ( talk) 17:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The overhaul of the article is basically finished. I've gone over all of the sources, with help from 86.** IP, and replaced perhaps 60% of them (with an additional 20% in the process). Many entries have been either rewritten (to conform to the new sources) or otherwise edited. The article has gone from 64,317 bytes when we started to 78,704 bytes at present. I've also asked for feedback at WP:RSN for the small number of references that were seen as questionable. Thus far, there has been no negative response to any. There was a separate concern about mentioning medical uses, which I've addressed, and (thus far, at least) heard nothing more about. If there are any late-arriving comments on the subject, they will also be addressed.
The bottom line is that the article if is much, much stronger than it's ever been, and that likely wouldn't have happened without this review. If there are any other concerns that we've managed to miss, please feel free to raise them, and we'll address them. Thanks.
Waitak (
talk)
18:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
reply
Pine nut oil is listed twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.115.189 ( talk) 23:32, 1 November 2011
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 12:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC) reply |
---|
*Delist – As a rule, I don't like to see tagged articles maintain FL status after an FLRC. It signifies that there are issues that haven't been fixed during the process. At the moment, I see four tags: a cite tag after the rose hip seed oil entry, a dated info tag in ref 17, a see talk page tag in ref 49, and a tag in ref 166 indicating that the source is marketing material. In addition, a cursory look at the list reveals MoS and other deficiencies (a faulty spaced em dash in the first paragraph, a space before ref 1, en dashes needed in page ranges, a formatting issue in ref 157). I have no doubt that the list is in better shape than it was before FLRC, but I think some more work is needed before I can be confident that this meets the 2011 criteria.
Giants2008 (
27 and counting)
16:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
reply
Okay, I'm back with more thoughts on this list.
It looks like a lot of comments, but most of them will require little work to resolve. More later. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 02:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Few final things from me and I'll finally be done.
Giants2008 ( Talk) 00:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
|
I am thorougly impressed by how much this article has improved. I have a question about the title. Why is this article called List of vegetable oils while the parent article is called Vegetable fats and oils? Are vegetable fats listed on List of vegetable oils or could they be listed on a separate article? Are vegetable fats ever called "vegetable oils," or do the words "fat" and "oil" most commonly distinguish between two distinct categories of substances (ie. solids and liquids)? As far as I can tell, one of three things should happen: 1) List of vegetable oils should be renamed List of vegetable fats and oils, 2) Vegetable fats and oils should be renamed Vegetable oil, or 3) a List of vegetable fats should be created. Neelix ( talk) 00:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Based on the lede of List of vegetable oils, the term "vegetable oil" is semi-specific to those substances that are liquid at room temperature, but the term "vegetable fat" applies broadly whether the substance is liquid or solid at room temperature. Given that "vegetable fat" is the more inclusive term, should this article be renamed List of vegetable fats and the parent article be renamed Vegetable fat? Neelix ( talk) 01:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep - Per Giants2008. This list is back up to scratch with respect to the featured list criteria. Neelix ( talk) 22:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep - agree.
–
HonorTheKing (
talk)
00:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
reply
The list was removed by Giants2008 19:06, 4 December 2011 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because of its failure of reliable sources. Four of the links are from Mobygames, which is considered unreliable on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. As well, six of the references are dead, though they may be unreliable as well. GamerPro64 23:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Remove -
Clay Clay Clay 07:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Is any progress being made here? If not, I don't think this can be kept with all of the issues that have been brought up, particularly the source-related ones. Giants2008 ( Talk) 19:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by The Rambling Man 18:07, 29 December 2011 [1].
Note: I'm helping Waitak go through and check all the sources. Please do not close until things either get on top of us, or the fixes can be evaluated. =) 86.** IP ( talk) 06:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it uses marketing material, self-published sources (everything2.com, at least, not sure about some of the others) and sources that do not back its claims. For example, the description of wheat germ oil contains very little that I could find in the source, and one of the major references is bulkoil.com, a manufacturer. This is NOT up to featured standards in sourcing.
I haven't checked every source, nor have I verified all content against the sources. But I'm worried that, in just a few spot checks I found something that was not at all validated by the source, and think this whole article would need its sourcing checked before it could be considered again. 86.** IP ( talk) 02:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I'll start replacing the sources today. I expect it to take less than a week. Waitak ( talk) 19:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC) reply
As 86.** IP mentioned, this has turned into a bit of a project. Please see the article talk page for ongoing details of ref cleanup, which is very much in progress. The article is already vastly improved, but the plan is for every source in the article to be absolutely unimpeachable. As always, please feel free to help out. Waitak ( talk) 17:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The overhaul of the article is basically finished. I've gone over all of the sources, with help from 86.** IP, and replaced perhaps 60% of them (with an additional 20% in the process). Many entries have been either rewritten (to conform to the new sources) or otherwise edited. The article has gone from 64,317 bytes when we started to 78,704 bytes at present. I've also asked for feedback at WP:RSN for the small number of references that were seen as questionable. Thus far, there has been no negative response to any. There was a separate concern about mentioning medical uses, which I've addressed, and (thus far, at least) heard nothing more about. If there are any late-arriving comments on the subject, they will also be addressed.
The bottom line is that the article if is much, much stronger than it's ever been, and that likely wouldn't have happened without this review. If there are any other concerns that we've managed to miss, please feel free to raise them, and we'll address them. Thanks.
Waitak (
talk)
18:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
reply
Pine nut oil is listed twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.115.189 ( talk) 23:32, 1 November 2011
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 12:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC) reply |
---|
*Delist – As a rule, I don't like to see tagged articles maintain FL status after an FLRC. It signifies that there are issues that haven't been fixed during the process. At the moment, I see four tags: a cite tag after the rose hip seed oil entry, a dated info tag in ref 17, a see talk page tag in ref 49, and a tag in ref 166 indicating that the source is marketing material. In addition, a cursory look at the list reveals MoS and other deficiencies (a faulty spaced em dash in the first paragraph, a space before ref 1, en dashes needed in page ranges, a formatting issue in ref 157). I have no doubt that the list is in better shape than it was before FLRC, but I think some more work is needed before I can be confident that this meets the 2011 criteria.
Giants2008 (
27 and counting)
16:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
reply
Okay, I'm back with more thoughts on this list.
It looks like a lot of comments, but most of them will require little work to resolve. More later. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 02:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Few final things from me and I'll finally be done.
Giants2008 ( Talk) 00:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
|
I am thorougly impressed by how much this article has improved. I have a question about the title. Why is this article called List of vegetable oils while the parent article is called Vegetable fats and oils? Are vegetable fats listed on List of vegetable oils or could they be listed on a separate article? Are vegetable fats ever called "vegetable oils," or do the words "fat" and "oil" most commonly distinguish between two distinct categories of substances (ie. solids and liquids)? As far as I can tell, one of three things should happen: 1) List of vegetable oils should be renamed List of vegetable fats and oils, 2) Vegetable fats and oils should be renamed Vegetable oil, or 3) a List of vegetable fats should be created. Neelix ( talk) 00:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Based on the lede of List of vegetable oils, the term "vegetable oil" is semi-specific to those substances that are liquid at room temperature, but the term "vegetable fat" applies broadly whether the substance is liquid or solid at room temperature. Given that "vegetable fat" is the more inclusive term, should this article be renamed List of vegetable fats and the parent article be renamed Vegetable fat? Neelix ( talk) 01:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep - Per Giants2008. This list is back up to scratch with respect to the featured list criteria. Neelix ( talk) 22:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep - agree.
–
HonorTheKing (
talk)
00:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
reply
The list was removed by Giants2008 19:06, 4 December 2011 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because of its failure of reliable sources. Four of the links are from Mobygames, which is considered unreliable on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. As well, six of the references are dead, though they may be unreliable as well. GamerPro64 23:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Remove -
Clay Clay Clay 07:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Is any progress being made here? If not, I don't think this can be kept with all of the issues that have been brought up, particularly the source-related ones. Giants2008 ( Talk) 19:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply