Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2015

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 12:52, 23 February 2015 [1].

List of songs recorded by Jessie J[edit]

Nominator(s): — Tomíca(T2ME) 11:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I worked on it for three days constantly, added all the songs that Jessie J has recorded in her career and wrote a decent lead. I really think that this list satisfies the FL criteria, cause it's simple, easy to navigate and well organised. — Tomíca(T2ME) 11:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick drive-by comment: "Rapper Nicki Minaj wrote and sang a rap verse on "Bang Bang"" - by definition a rap verse isn't sung, you need to find a different word there..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Since it is not a fashion article, avoid talking about subjects' clothes, appearances etc in ALT. Per WP:ALT#Importance of context. And why is it that you don't have a full stop (.) at the end of ALT.
  • I removed the fashion details from the alts and added fullstops.
  • "international hit singles": Wherein, I mean commercially or critically? If both, use another word as the word "hit" does not sound encyclopedic to me.
  • I changed with other term.

--FrankBoy (Buzz) 19:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the quick comments. I think I addressed them. — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomica: I have made some changes in the list with an explanation in the summary. Feel free to revert if you are not okay with it. Anyways it looks good. I support. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 20:15, 18 February 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 SchroCat 12:52, 23 February 2015 [2].

Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discography covers Jimi Hendrix's recordings that have been released posthumously and is in addition to the Jimi Hendrix discography, which is limited to those released during his lifetime. Since the previous FLC, it has been thoroughly revised and follows the same layout, format, and extensive use of references and inline citations as the recently promoted FL Jimi Hendrix discography. Recent PR suggestions have been incorporated. Tendentious editing and ownership of Hendrix articles appear to be a problem of the past; Jimi Hendrix and Are You Experienced are Featured Articles and recent Hendrix GAs include "Purple Haze", "Hear My Train A Comin'", "Little Wing", and Band of Gypsys. Looking forward to constructive comments/suggestions. Ojorojo (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • Wow, this FLC sank like a rock through the list. Review time:
Many good points here; I'll check them off as I go. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was working on enough material..." - This sentence wanders a bit. Try splitting it in half.
I started to rewrite this paragraph, but will come back to it. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've simplified it. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Released as The Cry of Love in 1971..." - this sentence isn't clear until halfway through that First Rays has been completed three times and The Cry was the first release. Maybe an intro sentence saying that it has been completed and released three times by different artists.
I'll work on this paragraph. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote this to clarify (hopefully). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At first, his record..." - At first implies a short period of time, not 22 years. Try a different intro, even just "from 1970 to 1992"
Changed. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2010, Sony..." - "became", "distributes", "produced" - tense swings. Try "Since 2010, Sony... has been the distributing label for the releases produced by..."
Yes, used yours. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some purporting to feature..." - this clause doesn't link with the first half of the sentence, and should be it's own sentence. Try "Some bootleg releases have purported to feature Hendrix as a sideman, but have been shown to be fake"
Changed (actually, most are gray market releases – just used "Some"). —Ojorojo (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When was Dagger Records established?
Added year. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh, this list is so long
Published discographies can run into many pages. I'm not sure how to trim this (although the same should be applied to Jimi Hendrix discography). Some WP discographies have a separate "Videography" article. Any suggestions? —Ojorojo (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the table in "Extended plays" so narrow? a lot of song names are getting squished - this is a big factor in why this list is so long, actually
I've adjusted the width to correct (hopefully). —Ojorojo (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Star Spangled Banner is redirecting to "The" S-SB, but should also point to the "Adaptations" section since that's where it talks about his version
The releases are not consistent and some use "The" and/or a hyphen, while others don't. However, this might be perceived as a mistake in the article, so changed all to "The S-S B". Also, I've linked to Performances and adaptations of The Star-Spangled Banner, which discusses his version. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed, as above. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added, although the album title doesn't. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like that the "Experience Hendrix website" section tells you what you could stream in October; why not all the possible ones? Why not what is there now? Why not all that's been listed to date?
Updated and reworded. I'm not sure why they add/drop certain concerts. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed, now consistently "The WCM" (also now all "Foxy Lady"). —Ojorojo (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed as above. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references to "JimiHendrix.com (official website)" should just be JimiHendrix.com - given that the publisher is Experience Hendrix, it can be assumed to be official
I dropped the extra designation. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All references that have the publisher as "X, L.L.C" or "X Corp" or "X Inc." should just be "X"; we don't typically include the firm's corporate status in their name
Changed. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think this take care of it. I went through the links again and eliminated some redirects and clarified others. Thanks for your review. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I made a couple more tweaks myself, but now Support. --PresN 23:43, 5 February 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 Crisco 1492 00:59, 16 February 2015 [3].

List of Stanford University people[edit]

Nominator(s):  - The Herald (here I am) 14:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the article is stable in itself and broad in the coverage (though no list of alumni is complete) and thus meets the FL criteria. Though I am not a major contributor, I have pinged them who done the most, but in vain as I had no replies. I hence expanded it a little (about 8 kB) and tried best to bring it to meet FL criteria. It gets about 150 hits daily with the 'parent article' about 3000. It had a peer review which I myself have closed so as to nominate the article here.  - The Herald (here I am) 14:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and suggest withdrawal. A quick look shows the following:
    • "This page lists the members of Stanford University" - not an appropriate opening to a featured list. "This is a list of..." introductions haven't been acceptable at FLC for years.
    • The bold wording shouldn't contain links
    • Woefully unreferenced. Every name needs a reference. There are scores of entries without any references at all.
    • Some sections (judges) use tables; others are just plain lists. Be consistent. Tables are best. Sortable tables would be even better.
    • Fictional alumni section needs to be cleared of trivia e.g. "Ray Stantz in Ghostbusters mentions that Stanford won't touch them 'with a ten-meter cattle-prod.'" How does this makes Stantz a fictional alumnus?
    • WP:DATERANGE - only year ranges for birth/death are in the form 1900–1950, and terms of office need to be in the format 1900–50
    • Make sure that all your horizontal lines in ranges are n-dashes not hyphens e.g. "Chancellors".
  • Realistically given the size of Stanford and its history this will need to be broken down into sub-lists. The 600-odd notable alumni of Jesus College, Oxford needed four featured lists (see {{Jesus College, Oxford}}. Stanford has articles on over 2,300 alumni (see Category:Stanford University alumni) let alone its academics - there is no way that can be covered on one page. I suggest you spin out some sections (e.g. sport, law) and bring those to featured list standard one at a time. BencherliteTalk 15:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A massive undertaking, eh?  - The Herald (here I am) 16:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That doesn't mean it can't be done, or that FLC standards should be lowered to make it easier. BencherliteTalk 17:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, The Herald, given the comments above, do you want to withdraw this nom to work on it further? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 13 February 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 Crisco 1492 00:50, 16 February 2015 [4].

List of songs recorded by Linkin Park[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 07:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American rock band Linkin Park has recorded material for six studio albums, with best known albums Hybrid Theory, Meteora and The Hunting Party. This list covers all the songs recorded by the band throughout their ongoing career.

As always I welcome comments on how to improve the article. Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 07:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FA review (see here for what the criteria are)
  • Quick drive-by comment: I think the article is nicely done. It's referable. The concern about me is the sorting, I think sorting the songs alphabetically would be good. Soldier qwerty (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this makes the article different from other articles. The sorting according to year can also help. Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 14:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The I guess the article is okay! Soldier qwerty (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comment from Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 14:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I think this makes the article different from other articles. The sorting according to year can also help. Mike:Golu

Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 14:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Oppose

  • There is too much focus on the sngles, needs discussion on the writing for the non-singles
  • Sales figures are irrelevant here and belong instead in Linkin Park discography
  • Band members and names shouldn't be in quotation marks
  • "featured the return of the rock sound in the Linkin Park music"..... awkward phrasing, and I'm not sure genres are really relevant
  • Three images in one spot is overkill, and they shouldn't leak into the song list table
  • Facebook is discouraged as a reference when high-quality secondary sources are available
  • Names of works/publishers shouldn't end in things like ".com" or ".org" unless it is part of the title (such as Amazon.com)
  • Wayback is NOT the publisher
  • AskMen isn't really a good source to use
  • Ultimate Guitar Archive is unreliable per WP:ALBUM/SOURCES
  • Yahoo! Music shouldn't be italicized while Billboard refs should always have italics
  • What makes "Eegs.com" reliable?
  • There should be no dead links or "missing parameters" shown in red

I suggest withdrawal as this is going to need considerable work before it is FL-worthy Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

User:SNUGGUMS, I appreciate your approach towards the article or no one cared about it. I would like to work on your Oppose options. I'll try my best. But I am a student, so actually I would not be able to do for a week or more. But I promise that I would work on your concerns. Till then I want your patience. I'm sorry. Thank You.Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 16:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, and I personally think the work is best done outside of this FLC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:26, 14 February 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 Crisco 1492 00:50, 16 February 2015 [5].

List of centuries in Twenty20 International cricket[edit]

Nominator(s): Ianblair23 (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the newest form of the centuries old game, this feat has only been achieved 12 times by 11 cricketers. Based on the existing FL List of centuries in women's Test cricket, I present this list for nomination. Ianblair23 (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment
  • Factual error: although Levi's entire innings was 51 balls, his century came off 45 balls. This fact (along with the fact it was the fastest by time) should be referenced in the lead. Harrias talk 11:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • The lead reads like a collection of bullet points, it would benefit from a rewrite to make it more flow better. It could also do with a bit more depth, perhaps mentioning that because it is such a short format, centuries are rare in Twenty20 cricket.
  • Some of the language used in the lead isn't very encyclopaedic: "Levi's knock" is a prime example of this.
  • "..and is arranged chronologically." As this is a sortable list, change this to "..and is initially arranged chronologically."
  • With regards to the discussion below, I'm happy with the columns used: I'm not particularly in favour of the addition of either H/A/N or Innings, although I similarly wouldn't oppose the latter.
  • I would favour the "No." column being sortable.
  • The format for ESPNcricinfo references is inconsistent, Refs 3–11 use "ESPNcricinfo. ESPN.", while 12 onwards simply has "ESPNcricinfo." I prefer the latter personally, but either way, remain consistent.
  • You should remove the publisher's name (ESPNcricinfo) from the title of references 12 onwards. Harrias talk 22:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)
Comments from —Vensatry (ping) (Mild oppose)
  • First two sentences of the opening para are unsourced.
  • Ref #1 doesn't actually support the claim. It only lists the matches played during that season. So are the next two refs. (of succeeding sentences).
  • Richard Levi stayed unbeaten in the innings. This makes it statistically better than Gayle's 117.
  • The current world record -> As of December 2014 ...
  • "Levi's knock is also the fastest ton, achieving the milestone off just 45 balls.[8]" is just a jump. There is no sequential flow here.
  • There is absolutely no need of "Statistic was not recorded" in the key.
  • I don't think mins. are really needed in lists like this. Some might argue that it's an essential parameter in T20s though.
  • A column should be there for "Result" and H/A/N in the table.
  • Rose Bowl, Hampshire-> Rose Bowl, Southampton
  • Runs column doesn't sort right.
  • The list does't follow the format of similar lists that we have. Please have a look at those to get an idea. There is a serious problem with sourcing. You only use scorecards for facts in lead, which doesn't fully support the claim. —Vensatry (ping) 19:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review Vensatry. I have used the format used other lists which has meant the minutes and innings columns have been removed and the results and ref column added. I have resolved the issues which the references and the addressed the other items which you have raised above. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you to initiate a discussion here if you want. —Vensatry (ping) 19:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vensatry: I have started the thread as you suggested to get so more eyes on this. Yesterday Faf du Plessis scored 119 against the West Indies in Johannesburg so I have added this to the list. It was also the second fastest century off just 46, so this has been updated as well. As for the outstanding issues, the runs column now sorts correctly but I have still haven't added the H/A/N column. As a said above, I used the format used on the other three FLs. It would be great to get some consistency across these lists. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the H/A/N thing. In the runs column, the scores 100 and 116 doesn't sort correctly. —Vensatry (ping) 19:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vensatry: The 100 and 116 scores should sort correctly now. If you could have a look at the above comments from Harrias and my responses that would be appreciated. If there is anything else before you are willing to give your support, please let me know. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

  • Ref #1 needs author
  • Lead image needs an alt text
  • Why is ESPNcricinfo is linked in ref #4 and not in ref #1?
  • New Zealand, Australia and South Africa are linked twice in the lede
  • "Due to shorten format, it is rare that centuries are scored" is probably WP:OR unless sourced.

—Vensatry (ping) 08:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: I've sorted the above points on behalf of the nominator. Cowlibob (talk) 14:14, 31 January 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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Failed_log/February_2015&oldid=648470789"