The list was kept by Dabomb87 17:49, 16 January 2010 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it seems to be far less user friendly, lacks in-line citations, and lacks illustrations in comparison to some other featured lists which I have visited. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from WFCforLife
There's quite a lot of basketball participation on FLC, so I believe that this can and will be saved. Feel free to drop me a note if you're stuck on anything though. Regards, WFCforLife ( talk) 00:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Lean keep – The reference is showing up as dead because .html hasn't been typed in. Otherwise, I see no major issues that would cause a failure to meet FL criteria. I'm not in love with the United States and Canada links (really common subjects that aren't closely related to the topic), but the rest of the lead seems reasonable. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 03:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep - Sorry for the late reply.
WFCforLife (
talk)
16:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
Lean keep
Barkeep49 (
talk)
17:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
The list was kept by Dabomb87 17:49, 16 January 2010 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not meet the current FL criteria. In particular, it lacks an introduction or lead, with random facts mixed with table information where there should be a lead (criterion 2). The tables are not sortable (criterion 4). It has several non-compliances with the MOS, including the use of italics for general text, hyphens instead of endashes (criteria 5). The referencing is substandard—they are merely non-formated external links at the end, without any inline citation, even where particular claims are being made in the lead. Arsenikk (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Remove – Many factors cause this list to not meet modern standards:
I agree with all of the above. I'm about to nominate a list myself, and I'm determined to get cracking on my sandbox today, but I'll see what I can do over the next few days. Could we keep this open until about Monday? WFCforLife ( talk) 11:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Following on from my earlier comments, here is what I plan to do.
However, I'm not totally sold on the sorting. Criteria 4 does only mandates sorting where it is helpful. I'd question whether removing the alphabetical headings in favour of a huge, consolidated, extremely slow to sort table would "help". WFCforLife ( talk) 14:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
With regards to the sorting, I've edited the Z section to demonstrate what I believe would be necessary for a sortable table. A sort function of some sort would help, and for that reason I will continue working on it (although I'm going to keep them divided by surname for now). But I'm yet to be convinced that a giant table is the way to go. If a compelling case is made that the benefit of a giant sortable table outweighs the signficant problems that a 150KB sortable table poses to readers I may change my opinion.
I know this is somewhat irrelevant, but I would like to make the point that my alternative proposal (divide by nationality) would actually involve more work. Turning 26 sortable tables into one bigger one isn't difficult, whereas going from alphabetical order to nationality would take ages. But I believe for accessibility reasons its an alternative we should consider. WFCforLife ( talk) 10:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments: While I am satisfied with the progress of the list, and the table itself is mostly up to standards, I still do not feel that the articles as such meets the FL criteria:
Arsenikk (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply
|
Keep Arsenikk (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Reywas92 Talk 22:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 04:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply |
---|
Return comments –
|
Keep – Excellent work on salvaging this one. Looks like an FL-standard list once again. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 04:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by The Rambling Man 14:06, 29 January 2010 [3].
Notified: Drewcifer3000, WikiProject Discographies, WikiProject Alternative music
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is a 3b violation. There are only nine entries, and (unless the group is resurrected), no more will come about. This should be merged into The Nation of Ulysses, which currently has five of the nine items. A good article, the band's main page will also provide a better introduction than a separate discography can. Mm40 ( talk) 00:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Dabomb87 18:44, 2 January 2010 [4].
This February 2006 promotion shows its age in a couple of key ways. First, more inline references are required for the text and footnotes, and I'm not knowledgeable on whether or not a couple of the provided general references are from reliable sources, not being up on my Swedish. The lead consists of exactly one sentence, before a longer History section; I see no reason that the two couldn't be merged to produce an appropriately sized lead. In addition, the image needs alt text and the tables could easily be made sortable. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 21:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
In summary, once the lead is cited and the visibly striking yet very easily dealt-with sorting problem resolved, I do not see a problem with this list. A few more pictures would be desirable, but I'm sure that can also be fairly easily resolved. In the interests of countering systemic bias, I've left a couple of carefully targetted notes on the Swedish wikipedia, in the hope that an English-speaking Swedish football fan will consider stepping in. I would ask that the directors consider waiting for another week before delisting this, as while the deficiencies are important, I think they are solveable (with the right linguistic skills) and that we should not give up through apathy. WFCforLife ( talk) 00:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by Dabomb87 17:49, 16 January 2010 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it seems to be far less user friendly, lacks in-line citations, and lacks illustrations in comparison to some other featured lists which I have visited. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from WFCforLife
There's quite a lot of basketball participation on FLC, so I believe that this can and will be saved. Feel free to drop me a note if you're stuck on anything though. Regards, WFCforLife ( talk) 00:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Lean keep – The reference is showing up as dead because .html hasn't been typed in. Otherwise, I see no major issues that would cause a failure to meet FL criteria. I'm not in love with the United States and Canada links (really common subjects that aren't closely related to the topic), but the rest of the lead seems reasonable. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 03:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep - Sorry for the late reply.
WFCforLife (
talk)
16:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
Lean keep
Barkeep49 (
talk)
17:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
The list was kept by Dabomb87 17:49, 16 January 2010 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not meet the current FL criteria. In particular, it lacks an introduction or lead, with random facts mixed with table information where there should be a lead (criterion 2). The tables are not sortable (criterion 4). It has several non-compliances with the MOS, including the use of italics for general text, hyphens instead of endashes (criteria 5). The referencing is substandard—they are merely non-formated external links at the end, without any inline citation, even where particular claims are being made in the lead. Arsenikk (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Remove – Many factors cause this list to not meet modern standards:
I agree with all of the above. I'm about to nominate a list myself, and I'm determined to get cracking on my sandbox today, but I'll see what I can do over the next few days. Could we keep this open until about Monday? WFCforLife ( talk) 11:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Following on from my earlier comments, here is what I plan to do.
However, I'm not totally sold on the sorting. Criteria 4 does only mandates sorting where it is helpful. I'd question whether removing the alphabetical headings in favour of a huge, consolidated, extremely slow to sort table would "help". WFCforLife ( talk) 14:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
With regards to the sorting, I've edited the Z section to demonstrate what I believe would be necessary for a sortable table. A sort function of some sort would help, and for that reason I will continue working on it (although I'm going to keep them divided by surname for now). But I'm yet to be convinced that a giant table is the way to go. If a compelling case is made that the benefit of a giant sortable table outweighs the signficant problems that a 150KB sortable table poses to readers I may change my opinion.
I know this is somewhat irrelevant, but I would like to make the point that my alternative proposal (divide by nationality) would actually involve more work. Turning 26 sortable tables into one bigger one isn't difficult, whereas going from alphabetical order to nationality would take ages. But I believe for accessibility reasons its an alternative we should consider. WFCforLife ( talk) 10:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments: While I am satisfied with the progress of the list, and the table itself is mostly up to standards, I still do not feel that the articles as such meets the FL criteria:
Arsenikk (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply
|
Keep Arsenikk (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Reywas92 Talk 22:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 04:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply |
---|
Return comments –
|
Keep – Excellent work on salvaging this one. Looks like an FL-standard list once again. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 04:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by The Rambling Man 14:06, 29 January 2010 [3].
Notified: Drewcifer3000, WikiProject Discographies, WikiProject Alternative music
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is a 3b violation. There are only nine entries, and (unless the group is resurrected), no more will come about. This should be merged into The Nation of Ulysses, which currently has five of the nine items. A good article, the band's main page will also provide a better introduction than a separate discography can. Mm40 ( talk) 00:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Dabomb87 18:44, 2 January 2010 [4].
This February 2006 promotion shows its age in a couple of key ways. First, more inline references are required for the text and footnotes, and I'm not knowledgeable on whether or not a couple of the provided general references are from reliable sources, not being up on my Swedish. The lead consists of exactly one sentence, before a longer History section; I see no reason that the two couldn't be merged to produce an appropriately sized lead. In addition, the image needs alt text and the tables could easily be made sortable. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 21:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
In summary, once the lead is cited and the visibly striking yet very easily dealt-with sorting problem resolved, I do not see a problem with this list. A few more pictures would be desirable, but I'm sure that can also be fairly easily resolved. In the interests of countering systemic bias, I've left a couple of carefully targetted notes on the Swedish wikipedia, in the hope that an English-speaking Swedish football fan will consider stepping in. I would ask that the directors consider waiting for another week before delisting this, as while the deficiencies are important, I think they are solveable (with the right linguistic skills) and that we should not give up through apathy. WFCforLife ( talk) 00:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply