Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/September 2015

< 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 archived by SchroCat 12:19, 28 September 2015 [1].

Carl Nielsen works

edit
Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's a comprehensive and practical list of an important composer's. If you don't agree please tell me gently because it's my first nom for FL. The list is was created based on template {{Classical works row}} which Alakzi helped to imake work, and was filled mostly by Ipigott who knows the composer's work. Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I realize - looking at the other nominations - that it might be a good idea to move the article to a clumsy List of compositions by Carl Nielsen. Please discuss but don't move today while the article is still on the Main page as I write this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cowlibob

I'm a complete layman when it comes to classical music so feel free to correct me.

  • The lead is very short and is just a description of how the table is set out which is better just before the table where a similar paragraph already exists. I wonder if it would be better to simply bring up the history section and make it the lead.
  • This new "history" lead could be expanded to highlight important compositions and perhaps show a chronological transition of how his compositions changed over time. Did he start of doing certain genres and move into others? That sort of thing would make the lead engaging.
  • I find the table hard to follow in what order is it set out?
  • Some of the table entries don't seem to be referenced.
  • Simpson 1952, Lawson don't seem to be used to cite anything in the list.
  • Translation column is not complete.

Cowlibob (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few replies:
  • If a knowledgable person could write about his development, great, but isn't that covered in the composer's article?
  • It's set out by listing his most famous compositions first, then by genre, but you can arrange it by all other keys, - how is it hard?
  • The whole tabe - without saying it every time to avoid clutter - is referenced to the CNW site, for most rows the specific link to a work is in the last column.
  • Simpson ref covers the FS numbers, - should that be explained?
  • Translation is given only when the common name or part of it are Danish, again to avoid clutter, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarifications. Since we have to my knowledge no FLs of works by composers, this would be the first of its kind. I thought bibliographies would be a good list type to compare to such as Arthur Conan Doyle bibliography, List of works by Georgette Heyer which do feature biographical elements which tell a story (introducing the person and then taking us through the important works).
  • If it is all cited to CNW, it would be good if the last column is full then the reader could read across from each composition and see a citation to it in the same row.
  • So the order is by most famous compositions first. I have not seen a table ordered that way, usually it is chronological, alphabetical or split by genre. I would like others input on it. Cowlibob (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last first: it is by genre, just that - on request by Ipigott - two genres in which he excelled come first, then the normal order (which has stage works first which he did but not so successfully. If you sort by genre, you get the normal order, I probably said that already). The links of the genres take a reader to the section in question. The table was made because so far we had three - one by genre, one by date, one by opus number, - and each time you changed an item you had possibly to change it three times. No more time right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay so it is by genre, just with a bit of tweaking. Thanks again for clarification. Cowlibob (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Firstly, welcome to FLC, it's nice to see you here. I think that this article still has quite a lot of work to do to get up to FL standard. Here are some of my thoughts:

  • We no longer normally begin FLs with "This is a list of..." or "This table is a...". Instead, the opening needs to tell the reader about who Carl Nielsen was, and what kind of works he produced. While this information may be available at Carl Nielsen, Wikipedia:Summary style says that each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit – for that reason, I would expect this article to go into a bit more detail about the composer himself.
  • To honest, I'd recommend getting rid of the first paragraph entirely, and having what's in the History section as the lead instead. I don't remember ever seeing a FL where the sortability of the table was noted, and it would be confusing if one was reading this article on a screen reader, for example, or if it had been copied into a Wikipedia-Book, where the table would obviously not be sortable at all.
  • The History section needs to flow better than it currently does. At the moment it's just four short disjointed paragraphs, two of which are only one sentence long each. This is an article that's covering nearly six decades' of a man's work – I would expect there to be more than just 200 words on the subject. At the very least, it need to be two or three times longer. What sort of things do other reliable source say about Nielsen's compositions? What sort of things do Lawson and Simpson say about Nielsen's works in their books?
  • I don't know much about Neilsen, and I was still left with questions after reading this article, which makes me suspect that comprehensiveness is not as high as it needs to be. Who or what influenced him? Which of his works were best received? Were there any works where he tried something different? Although we don't have any FLs specifically about classical music compositions, you may want to seek inspiration from FLs on similar subjects, such as (for example) List of works by Dorothy L. Sayers, List of works by Sharpe and Paley, List of literary works published in Asia Raja or List of works by E. W. Hornung. On that subject...
  • "Carl Nielsen works" suggests to me that this is going to be a prose-heavy article specifically about Carl Nielsen's work. As it stands, however, it's actually a list of Carl Nielsen's work. For that reason, I'd recommend moving this article to something like, say, List of works by Carl Nielsen.
  • "Table of Compositions" -> "Compositions"
  • Again, it's not necessary to discuss how the table is sortable.
  • As Cowlibob says, the initial sorting of table is not very intuitive. Having them first sort chronologically seems most logical.
  • It might be worth using the {{Abbr}} template for some of the abbreviations in this article, e.g. {{Abbr|Op.|Opus number}} and {{Abbr|FS|whatever FS stands for}}
  • "Time" -> "Year(s)"
  • Ved en ung Kunstners Baare is listed twice.
  • Several works don't have CNW numbers. Any reason why not?
  • Viser og Vers af J. P. Jacobsen doesn't have a year.
  • Four citations is far, far fewer than I would expect to see in a FL.

I think this article still needs a lot of work doing to it, and I wish all participating editors the best of luck in improving it. It might be work running it through WP:Peer review first. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:04, 1 September 2015 (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 archived by Giants2008 21:10, 27 September 2015 [2].

List of The Open Championship venues

edit
Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after extensively renovating the list I now feel it is ready to be submitted to the scrutiny of the community. I already have a nomination running, but it has two supports and no unresolved comments. Thanks in advance for your comments.NapHit (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this looks similar, but perhaps less comprehensive than the list on the The Open Championship#Host courses section, is the intention to keep both? I also like the maps in the main article... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the intention is at this point. I guess if the main article was to be expanded then the prose would remain and the table would go, as this list can provide that info. Would you recommend moving the maps into this article alongside the table @The Rambling Man:. NapHit (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with regret, per 3(b) concerns above. This list is short enough to incorporate in the main The Open Championship article and the text largely parallels what is already in that article. I don't think it would be undue weight to include this list in the main article, especially if you remove or truncate the list of all the previous events from the main article that largely duplicates the List of The Open Championship champions FL. On a side note, List of The Open Championship champions is a really awkward article title (championship champions?). –Grondemar 00:38, 27 September 2015 (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 archived by Giants2008 21:10, 27 September 2015 [3].

List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy

edit
Nominator: Kharkiv07 (T)

A topic that I'm interested in and have quite a bit of knowledge in, so I thought I'd give it a go. Suggestions for improvement are always welcomed, and I'll try to fix anything that comes up in a timely fashion. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems some of the referencing needs polishing, for example #14 is just a bare link. Mattximus (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd invite comment from Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy on this list. My main issue is that it is a completely different format to the other lists of ships I've seen, such as List of battlecruisers of the United States and List of heavy cruisers of Germany for example. Harrias talk 10:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Frequent mention of singleton ships as "classes", which just grates on me. But more importantly, there's no context, just a minimal lede that basically just puts things in sequence. There's no information on the ships themselves and thus no way for a reader to follow the growth and evolution of the carriers. And there's no information on why certain design decisions were made, like in reaction to war experience, or for the nuclear-bomber role, etc. There's certainly no requirement that ship lists use the same format that Parsecboy and I do, but it does convey a lot of information in a reasonably compact layout. This is just an enumeration of American carriers, with pretty pictures, nothing more. This can certainly be rewritten in a more informative manner, but that will require a lot of work that should happen elsewhere before a renomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my thoughts are basically the same as Sturmvogel's above - there's no need to follow the same pattern that we have established, but there is certainly a lot of information missing that I'd think is necessary. One thing I'd point out is the List of battlecruisers, which is fairly similar to this list, in that I dispensed with blurbs when I wrote it, though it still includes much more information than this list currently does. Parsecboy (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose but there might be work that can be done here. My main suggestions would be to trim the Class column greatly; we know it's the class column, you don't need to say, for example, "Essex-class". "Essex" is sufficient, with a link to the Essex class for the first one. Also, remove the sudden appearance of "supercarrier" in the class column. The refs column is also haphazard; why do some ships warrant specific references but others do not? Is there a general reference that we should accept in lieu of the specifics? --Golbez (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I think a column with displacement and/or size would be appropriate. Something to give it a feeling of how large it is/was. Could be runway length, or humber of hosted airplanes, but that might not be a 1:1 comparison.
  • the intro should mention the fate of the carriers. i.e. how many got sunk? should probably mention the pivotal role carriers got in WW2
  • some cv-30 and cv-40 lack citations

Nergaal (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brief comment I remember seeing an earlier version of this list that indicated what happened with all of the skipped numbers in the CV series. I think it would be helpful to add this information back into the article, especially for notable aircraft carriers that were cancelled prior to commissioning (I'm thinking of primarily USS United States (CVA-58)). I also noticed that the majority of the sources in the article are from the Navy; I'd recommend looking for and adding third-party reliable sources as well. –Grondemar 00:47, 27 September 2015 (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 PresN 20:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC) [4].[reply]

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series

edit
Nominator(s): Favre1fan93 (talk) and Adamstom.97 (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

This list meets all of the criteria, is similar to its "sister" article List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films (which is a featured list), and is a worthy candidate to add to the ever expanding good and featured articles under the Marvel Cinematic Universe banner. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • "One-Shot", capitalised and blue-linked as part of something that doesn't explain what it means (although it can be inferred) is probably worth avoiding. Perhaps "pilot film", or a link to Marvel One-Shots would be better.
  •  Done. Broke up the link.
  • "because S.H.I.E.L.D. is so strong on the moment" -> If this is how the source words it, we could do with a [sic] after "on" since it really should be "at the moment".
  •  Done. This is how the source words it, so added sic.
  • Your descriptions of the shows should probably begin with an introduction of some sort to signify they're "in universe", since there's no heading to indicate a difference between describing plot and describing production. Something like changing "Agent Phil Coulson puts together a small team of S.H.I.E.L.D. agents to handle strange new cases" to "Agents of SHIELD sees agent Phil Coulson putting together a small team of S.H.I.E.L.D. agents to handle strange new cases" would suffice.
  • This is following a similar format from the sister films list, and I don't believe there has been an issue distinguishing the in-universe from the real world info. I'll ping the other creator to see what they feel. @Adamstom.97:
  • Similarly, there's a fair bit of assumption that the reader knows plot information already--a quick aside at the first in-universe mention of things like SHIELD, Hydra, etc to explain what they are would be useful.
  • These uses are meant to be quick overviews of each series and appearances in them. It is meant to push the reader to the actual articles for the show to gain more info on things read here.
  • I get that it's not wise to be bogged down in too much detail but it helps to be self-contained to a degree, or you do end up with the impression of jargon. It could be worth seeing if a reviewer unfamiliar with the concepts would struggle or be happy enough with it. GRAPPLE X 10:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • They seem manageable for now but I can see the recurring cast tables growing quite unwieldy with the addition of even one or two more series/seasons; while it is a good idea to show the cast/character crossovers, it might be worth considering how to handle this as it evolves.
  • That bridge will be crossed when we get there, but yes, it is something we have our eye on.
  • DVR could use a pipe link to explain it, as it's not a universal or international term.
  •  Done.
  • The "critical response" table is presented without any context. Throw in a quick sentence or two under the header, before the table, explaining the role of Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes.
  • I added a hat note under "reception". I don't feel Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes need a sentence explaining them, when they are wikilinked, and readers can follow that to see what each site is.
  • There's no alt text for any images, this is needed.
  •  Done.
  • On the subject of images, we have several free files used throughout the article, which lessens the justification for a non-free files in the lead (especially when the Marvel logo is apparently PD).
  • How so?
  • WP:NFCC #1 requires that there is "no free equivalent"; the file as it stands is just window dressing, it doesn't actually serve the purpose of demonstration, explanation or commentary--and in that role we do have free equivalents, as the logo of the company responsible, or portraits of several of the cast members, would serve the same purpose.GRAPPLE X 10:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just in the office for now so I haven't been able to do a source review or anything, but I can come back to this again at home to look into it further. GRAPPLE X 08:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added responses to your queries above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have some comments on the newer additions:
  • If the article is simply "Luke Cage (TV series)", why is it piped each time as "Marvel's Luke Cage"?
  • The Luke Cage heading has another one-line paragraph, as do many of the others. Expand these or merge them into the next paragraph--it's okay to have a one-paragraph heading if the heading break makes sense, as it does here.
  • There are a lot of duplicate links in prose--in tables that's fine, same with image captions or the like, but both the lead and the body feature multiple instances of some links. Try using User:Ucucha/duplinks to catch these.
  • GRAPPLE X 08:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the official title of each series, Marvel's X. For each series, it is noted in the lead, table and section as the "official" title. All other uses use the common name of the series title without Marvel's in front of it.
  • The one-line paragraphs are following the format established by the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films page, which I explain in more detail with reasoning below in my comments to The Rambling Man, fourth bullet point from the bottom.
  • I've taken care of the overlinks.
  • - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "While the broadcast series have not seen exemplary ratings, all MCU series have received strong critical reception." seems like a POV thing to say, as if we'd somehow expect them to be brilliant, but some just don't quite make it.
  • "began considering expanding" grim English.
  • "Marvel was once again developing" again, a little tabloidy for me, perhaps rephrase?
  • Bobbi Morse pipes to a dab.
  • "ABC series" table is selectively inline referenced, why?
  • Only upcoming elements are sourced. Everything else is covered by the series themselves, as the primary source, per WP:V. Since the episode count and start and end date are not material that will likely be challenged, because the series themselves support these, there is no need for the references. This is a standard practice among the TV (and frankly Film) project. - Favre1fan93 (talk)
  • Netflix series has "2015" as a streaming date, can we not get that more specific considering we're now nearly 3/4 of the way through 2015?
  • Nope. That's all we have for Jessica Jones. We only know that it will release in late 2015 (Q4), but general practice in situations like this is just to include the year until a specific month and date can be included as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC) I take back what I said. I forgot wording had been used for Agent Carter season 2 that was a bit more specific, so I have changed the JJ release info to reflect the known info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid single-sentence paragraphs, such as you have with each of the Netflix series synopses.
  • Paragraph breakdown for each of the series is as follows 1) The premise for each of the seasons. If only one season so far, it will only be one sentence. 2) Any production info relevant to the series. Showrunners, castings of leads, filming, and the title. 3/4) Connections the series makes to other MCU media, be it other TV series, films or One-Shots. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what "3.0/9 (20)" means.
  • Avoid SHOUTING in the ref titles, e.g. ref 84.
  • Zap2it doesn't have a capital I.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I have responded above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man and Grapple X: Any outstanding issues for either of you? (Do note, since you've both last commented, some more info has been added to the page, if you'd like to check that.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note - this nomination has been open for two months without any supports; before I close it let me do one last ping to see if the reviewers will return to support- @The Rambling Man and Grapple X: are you willing to support this list? --PresN 14:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning more to support than oppose; still not super keen on the one-line paragraphs (I see the explanation, I don't agree that it can't be reworked until being expanded in future) or the non-free decorative image, but if Rambler wants to support then count me as another support. GRAPPLE X 15:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm sorry, but this nomination has been here for 2 months without any supports, only one half-support, so I'm going to have to close it as not passed. Feel free to re-nominate it in the future. --PresN 20:46, 23 September 2015 (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/September_2015&oldid=683143058"