Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/April 2014

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates | Failed log
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list 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 not promoted by Giants2008 21:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of toothpaste brands

edit
Nominator(s): NorthAmerica1000 21:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the article passes the various Featured list criteria. NorthAmerica1000 21:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, list is very English speaking-centric and does not include many brands I'm personally familiar with in New Zealand and Japan (Macleans, Pearl Drops, Steradent, White Glo, Red Seal, Paradontax in New Zealand, and Clinica, Xylident, Sunstar's G.U.M. and other toothpaste brands, Kao's Pyuora toothpaste, etc in Japan). I assume many Korean, African, Chinese South American and other brands have been left off as well. If the list isn't meant to be exhaustive, maybe you could break it down into List of North American toothpaste brands, List of European toothpaste brands to make the project a bit more manageable. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator - (ping User:Prosperosity): This list is limited in scope to notable toothpaste brands that have Wikipedia articles. Entries can be added that are verified but without Wikipedia articles. However, adding new entries that are not verified would likely violate point #3 of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. How does this article fail the Featured list criteria? User:The Rambling Man: what specific parts of your treatise should this article comply to? NorthAmerica1000 11:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of it. Read it and find out. Let's start with an easy one, "Don't start with "This is a list of"... It isn't engaging writing and it's been discouraged for months now." And no, red links are allowed, as are unlinked items. Finally, there are dozens of brands I can buy on Amazon today, why are they not notable? I see you've linked one item to the German Wikipedia (Chlorodont), so presumably you're checking the other Wikipedias for similarly locally notable toothpastes? I also see items listed that aren't actually toothpaste, e.g. Lion Corporation, what's the deal there? Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list makes no point of defining why a toothpaste would make the list, and why it wouldn't. Obviously there would be ones that shouldn't make the list (e.g. a small company that sells 500 tubes in a year), but there should be some sort of parameter defining the list. Purely having a Wikipedia page is not a great measure, as a type of toothpaste may be notable enough to receive a page, just nobody has written it yet. Although it's good to add brands with pages on other international Wiki projects (as they're apparently notable enough in those regions), using the existence or non-existence of a brand just because it has a page is an issue. There might be an extremely important Lithuanian toothpaste, but not necessarily a Wikipedia page about it on the Lithuanian language Wiki. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although if having a Wikipedia page is what your definition of the list is, when I check the Japanese wiki oral healthcare category, there are pages for Clearclean, Clinica, Pyuora, Concool Repario, Deepclean, the Sunstar company, Dentor, Denthealth and Platius. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2014 (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 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 not promoted by Giants2008 21:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC) [2].[reply]

List of fish of the North Sea

edit
Nominator(s): Yuriy Kvach (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list presents full ichthyofauna of the North Sea. The list includes illustrartions, indicate the conservation status of species by IUCN's criteria, also classified fishes by their origin. It might be very useful for specialists, also for all persons who interest on fish fauna. Yuriy Kvach (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - quite a few problems here I'm afraid:
Lead is effectively two sentences and essentially provides no context, check out some existing FLs for the kind of lead which is expected
Lead image has no caption
Not explained why some values in the "taxa authority" column are in brackets and others not
"Sources" heading is spelt wrong
Fishbase link (seemingly being used as a source, although it's not specified what it is sourcing) doesn't work
It really isn't clear what is actually referencing anything in the table
Lots of work to do here, I'm afraid........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note, the brackets are correct and are convention that actually contain information. They mean that the person(s) that originally described the species placed it in a different taxonomic group. It would be odd to have to explain that in the thousands upon thousands of species pages, genus pages, family pages, list of species pages, list of genera pages... etc. I do agree the other issues. Mattximus (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, basically agree with everything ChrisTheDude said, none of which has been rectified in the almost two weeks since his comment. The lead and referencing are the two biggest issues, in my mind, and typos in the headers simply show that care was not taken to buff the article to meet FL criteria before bringing it to FLC. Overall, I don't think it would take more than a couple hours of work to buff up the article (assuming that all of the relevant fish species are indeed listed and listed properly), but that work is obviously not being done. Dana boomer (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2014 (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 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 not promoted by Crisco 1492 07:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC) [3].[reply]

List of Major League Baseball players with 300 career stolen bases

edit
Nominator(s): Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked really hard to expand the article to this status. It meets all criteria described in WP:WIAFL. The only things that may be of concern is a) the recent content dispute (now resolved through consensus) and b) the statistics may change during the season, but only for the few players on this list who are active and for this type of list, it does not majorly affect the status of the list (see for example List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples). Thanks for your consideration of this FLC. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments / Suggestions
  • The caption in the lead image doesn't need a period, as it isn't a full sentence
  • Why is "stolen bases" italicized? I don't think it needs to be.
  • "delivering the ball" - this sounds a little funny.. "throwing the ball" would probably sound better.. or anything else that doesn't make it sound like he's dropping it off like a pizza at someone's front door
  • "than on the home run." --> "than on home runs"
  • "Rickey Henderson holds the MLB career stolen base record with 1,406, and is the only player in MLB history with more than 1,000 stolen bases." - a few repetitive phrases.. MLB and stolen bases are repeated twice and if that could be avoided, it would read a little nicer. Perhaps, "Rickey Henderson holds the MLB career stolen base record with 1,406, and is the only player in the league's history with more than 1,000."
  • "Juan Pierre is the current active leader with 614 stolen bases. Pierre is also the only currently active player to have more than 500 stolen bases." --> "Juan Pierre is the current active leader with 614 stolen bases; he is also the only currently active player to have more than 500 stolen bases."
  • The table needs a caption (see MOS:DTT)
  • For the members of the hall of fame, perhaps you could add a color in addition to the symbol, to make it stand out and not blend in with the other text.*
  • The image caption "Ty Cobb steals third base during a game on July 23, 1910." - this is a very awkward sentence.. perhaps change "steals" to "stealing" and remove the period at the end
  • See also section in alphabetical order would be nice
  • The alt text on the images (not including the lead image) should be more descriptive. Instead of repeating the image caption in a shorter version, it should describe what the reader would see in the image. So instead of "Person X doing Y" it should say something along the lines of "Person X wearing a baseball uniform standing in the outfield looking towards centerfield."
  • My biggest issue with the list is that all four columns are right next to each other. I believe this is a good way to save space, but I think having the entire list in one long column would look better and be less confusing. Though I'd be interest to know if this has already been discussed... and if not, what other editors think about it. In English, we tend to leave from top to bottom and left to right. So my eyes went straight from #1 to #41 to #81 and so on.
  • Regardless of if this change is made, the players names should be in a highlighted cell. The change would be made by changing "| Rickey Henderson" to "! Rickey Henderson"
  • Scope cols and rows should be added to the formatting per MOS:ACCESS, I believe.

Some of these comments are suggestions, and if you feel the suggested change isn't necessary or beneficial, feel free to skip past it but please just let me know why. :) Gloss • talk 04:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, it's usually best to have the statistics updated through the previous season. And at the end of this season, the numbers could be updated again. So I think it'd be best if you removed the "2014 SBs" - it's best to not have information on the page that needs to be updated daily. It's like how we generally don't add players stats to their biographies until the end of the season. Gloss • talk 13:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • More images would help. And to go off of Bagumba's comment about the bolded names... you didn't get to the scope cols and rows. This is what needs to be added to every row. Gloss • talk 02:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still haven't gotten to the two comments above? I crossed out everything you did do, and there are still things not done. The table caption... scope cols and rows.. Gloss • talk 18:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a few issues remain from my comments and I do share some of the concerns from the comments below. I also have concerns over a featured list being one that is updated daily as statistics from 2014 are added throughout the season. Gloss • talk 22:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments: In the # column, instead of having blank cells when multiple players share a spot, add rowspans. Gloss • talk 18:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if you're going to have the table sortable, the names in the table will all have to be put into a sortname template: For example {{sortname|First|Last}} and if the name of their article is something other than simply their first and last name, do {{sortname|First|Last|Article name}}
  • The numbers will all need to be put into a sort template: See Template:Sort. Gloss • talk 18:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Bagumba
  1. The lead notes players in the dead-ball era had more stolen bases, but the list doesn't show the years a player was active, like in 3,000 hit club.
  2. Unlike existing Baseball FL's, this cutoff here of 300 SBs seems a bit arbitrary. While there was an improvement to pare it from top-500 players to players with 300 SBs, I'm not comfortable with making this an FL yet. I'm sure a SB leader list is notable, just not convinced it's 300 SBs. Tangible improvements can be made in the lead of the article. The text is cited with sources that do not even discuss players with 300 SBs. I'd be more convinced this grouping was notable and meets WP:LISTN if the lead had more information about the group from prose in WP:SECONDARY sources, not from stats sites which are more like WP:PRIMARY sources.
  3. The current version unnecessarily bolds the name of each player, even though it says only active players are in bold.

—Bagumba (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Number 3 has been fixed. Number 2, well is complicated. Then you have to question other featured lists like 100 triples. Why not 250 or 300? Arguments could be made in too many directions about that. With number 1, not all FL's have that and it would certainly be a lot of work (it's why individual refs may have helped) to add all of the years, etc. Other than that, this FLC should be FL material, I think. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 16:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For No. 2, We are not reviewing the 100 triples article here. In any event, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not the strongest of arguments. I would expect the cutoff in any stats listing to be notable, especially for an FL, and enough significant coverage in sources about that cutoff to use directly to write a paragraph or a few sentences about the group. For No. 1, there is WP:NODEADLINE, so the fact that "a lot of work" is required is not a reason to not include it. Other career baseball FLs like 300 win club, 500 home run club, 3,000 strikeout club, etc. also include the span of players' careers.—Bagumba (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I found a few additional external sources and what not that again re-emphasizes its notability. Another example is the 300-300 club on Baseball Reference. I will get to the years stuff in the next week or so. Otherwise, if any concerns remain beyond that, let me know. Thanks. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    B-R bullpen is another wiki, so wouldnt be a reliable source.—Bagumba (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not seeing progress. 300 is an arbitrary cutoff. WP:LISTN should be demonstrated with prose from WP:SECONDARY sources, not from stats sites which are more like WP:PRIMARY sources.—Bagumba (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am making progress; slowly, but I am. RL has kept me busy, but I am making improvements. I can go find more secondary sources, but a lot of sources/leaderboards (primary and secondary) use 300 stolen bases as a board, so saying it's arbitrary is debatable. And with sources, again, I'll go find some. Thanks. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:44, 23 March 2014 (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 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 not promoted by Crisco 1492 10:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC) [4]].[reply]

List of Bolivian cities by population

edit
Nominator(s): —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 20:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it complies with the FL criteria. I modeled the article after another FL (List of US cities by population), and I feel this article is even a bit more in depth that the one mentioned. It is a short article with few references, but I believe it still shows great work. I appreciate all in advance who take the time to review the article. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 20:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Hwy43
*Comments This one is going to need some work. It is light on prose in my opinion, particularly in comparison to the modelled List of US cities by population. A few preliminary comments and questions to start until I have some more time:
  • Needs a map showing the locations of the subject cities.
  • La Guardia is not Bolivia's largest city as the lead asserts, inadvertently albeit. This needs fixing.
    • Reworded it
  • The special characters for department capitals and largest cities in departments are sufficient. The pink shading is redundant for the latter and detracts from the city of La Paz, which is only subject to the former unlike the other department capitals that are subject to both.
    • Removed the color
  • The values in the Change column are too precise. Round them to a tenth rather than the hundredth. Same applies to instances in the lead.
  • The Code column is not encyclopedic and is not meaningful to the reader. It is only meaningful to the INE.
    • Fair enough, removed.
  • Separate the inline citations from the Notes section into their own References section.
    • Completed
  • Are these communities "incorporated" as cities or are they cities in the colloquial sense that may actually incorporated as different municipal statuses?
  • Why is the threshold 10,000? How many cities are there in Bolivia with less than 10,000?
  • Are areas of each city available? If so, can areas be added as another column? If so, another column to calculate density would also be informative.
    • Sadly, this information is not available.
Be back with more comments when time allows. Hwy43 (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments
Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments
  • The lead has been beefed up. Its flow is a little all over the place however. I suggest beginning with the definition of a city, followed by the total amount of cities in the country, the amount at 10,000 or greater, the total population of the 53 compared with the country and then all the particulars (largest, highest increase, the summary of those with negative population growth, the comparison of the county's increase with the increases of the cities) and then close with the two sentences regarding departments (capitals being largest and those with the most and least cities). Hwy43 (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One final thing. If El Palmar KM 23 had an adjusted 2001 population of 16,572 per the note, reflecting the combined population of the 19 consolidated cities, there is no harm placing this figure in the table in place of the current "0" figure. Hwy43 (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of this nomination? The 1992 census was not added as promised about one month ago. Why are you creating articles consisting of one sentence and a small table? Could you not merge it to this list? Regards. --Tomcat (7) 15:42, 10 April 2014 (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 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 not promoted by Crisco 1492 10:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC) [5]].[reply]

Christina Aguilera videography

edit
Nominator(s): Simon (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previously it was a part of Christina Aguilera discography, then I re-created it as a separate list. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that this list meets the criteria for a FL. Simon (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor
  • Can you make the "Video albums" section sortable by title like the other sections?
  • I see some instances of inconsistent use of Prometheus Global Media or Nielsen Business Media as the publisher for Billboard. I recommend that you pick one to stick with, preferably Prometheus Global Media.
  • I'd also recommend organizing the references in columns of three instead of two as they currently are.
  • Does Aguilera have an IMDb profile? Is that worth including under the "External links" section?

WikiRedactor (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Status

edit
  • I don't love the lead, but I'm gonna focus my comments on the tables.
  • Names need to be sorted by last name using {{sortname}}.
  • As it is a sortable table, each director, album, etc. need to be linked.
  • Christina Aguilera is an other performer on "Say Something"?
  • Is There Anybody Out There? needs to be linked.
  • Should add some type of note that "Genio Atrapado" is Spanish version of "Genie in a Bottle" (same with the other translations).
  • The sorting of the video albums table is not appropriate. For example, I can't properly sort the US peak positions.
  • Remove Christina Aguilera discography as a see also per WP:SEEALSO.

— Status (talk · contribs) 15:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Adabow

edit
  • "33 music videos, four video albums, and four film appearances." - be consistent with ordinal numbers (WP:ORDINAL)
  • "In 1999, Aguilera rose to fame with her self-titled debut album with four hits: "Genie in a Bottle", "What a Girl Wants", "I Turn to You" and "Come On Over Baby (All I Want Is You)", all of them have their music videos." - waffly and poorly written
  • "In 2001, Aguilera was featured on the music clip for "Lady Marmalade" with Mýa, Lil' Kim and Pink, garnering two MTV Video Music Awards at the 2001 ceremony, Video of the Year[2] and Best Video from a Film.[3]" - it's not apparent that the two parts of this sentence are related. Try 'garnering'→'which received'.
  • Please reread the lead for flow. It is quite awkward and certainly doesn't meet the "professional standards" required by WP:WIAFL.
  • In sortable tables, people should be listed so that when sorted, they will be sorted by surname (using {{sortname}}). A similar case is "The Voice Within" (should sort be 'V', not 'T').

Some reasonably significant work needed, so I will oppose for now. Adabow (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will address your comments within a week. Honestly I am currently extremely busy with my homework so please bear with me — Simon (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Failed_log/April_2014&oldid=605066012"