Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Jump to: navigation, search

Purge server cache

Shortcut:
WP:FLC

This is a page for nominating lists for Wikipedia:Featured lists.

[edit]

How this page works

[edit]

To nominate a list:

  1. Check the featured list criteria and make sure the article meets all of them before nominating.
  2. Place {{FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated article.
  3. From there, click on the "leave comments" link to create a new sub-page for the nomination.
  4. (If you are resubmitting an article) Use the Move button to rename the previous nomination sub-page to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations → Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations/archive1
  5. Place ===[[name of nominated list]]=== at the top of the new sub-page, write your reason for nominating the article below the heading, and save the sub-page.
  6. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated article. While adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.
[edit]

Supporting and objecting

Please review the nominated lists fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • If you approve of a list, write "Support" followed by your reasons and sign.
  • If you oppose a nomination, write "Object" followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored.
    • To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s> ) rather than removing it.

Featured list candidates will remain on this page for a minimum period of 10 days. Consensus must be reached in order to be promoted to featured list status, and a list must also garner a minimum of 4 "Support" votes (counting the original nomination as a "Support" vote, provided it is not withdrawn). Featured list candidates that are not promoted after 10 days will be removed from the candidates list and failed log unless (1) objections are being actively addressed; or (2) although there are no objections, the list has not garnered 4 "Support" votes. In these cases a short additional period of time will be given to the list to see whether it can attract more support.

[edit]

To archive a nomination:

  1. Remove the transcluded discussion from this page. While removing it, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.
  2. Transclude the discussion to this month's log of promoted lists or log of failed candidacies, as appropriate.
  3. Update the log tallies in {{Featured list log}}.
  4. On the article's talk page, change {{FLC}} to {{FL}} or {{FLCfailed}}, as appropriate.
  5. For promotions, update Wikipedia:Featured lists.
  6. For promotions, add a notice to Wikipedia:Goings-on.


Contents


[edit]

Nominations

[edit]

List of U.S. states by elevation

This nomination was originally proposed in the Talk:List of U.S. states by elevation:

This article is excellent. I trust that the authors are thinking of nominating it on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

... so I thought I would give it a try. -- hike395 14:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Support though I thought the title was a bit strange - when I saw it, I immediately thought of this being a list of what years different states were elevated to the United States. Might be that I'm misunderstanding things as a second-language speaker, though. Sam Vimes 16:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The idiom is that states are "admitted" to the Union (the United States), rather than "elevated" [1]. hike395
Support good looking tables, nice complimentary images, certainly something that lends itself to a list format, and certainly comprehensively covers the topic - i was expecting 1 table, i got four (i'm not sure the one i expected, likely the listed by highest point). well done. (also, the idiom could be states by ratification, if we're talking constitution, because i do believe that a state must ratify to be admitted).jfg284 21:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment can't you expand the lead a litte more? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 22:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Expanded with coordinate system (NVGD29), from a suggestion of User:Finlay McWalter. Not sure what else to add, open to suggestions (it's hard to rhapsodize about lists of elevation!) -- hike395 01:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object:
    1. The image Image:USA topo en.jpg purports to be a topo map of the United States, but only covers 48 states.
Fixed caption to wikilink to Continental United States hike395
Asked contributor for source. In the meanwhile, substituted NASA satellite photo (from Commons, with known source) in article. hike395
  • --Carnildo 07:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Do you withdraw your objection? -- hike395
Looks good. Support. --Carnildo 20:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Support. -- Mwalcoff 01:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

List of NFL champions

It seems like it fits the criteria to me. Its been on peer review here for close to a week, and only two comments have been posted. One said it looked good to be nominated, and the other said to maybe cut down on the images. Personally, I like the images as they are, so I haven't changed them at all, but if a consensus says to change them it's obviously an easy fix. In any case, I think it meets the criteria and should be nominated.jfg284 14:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: usually the peer review of an article runs for a month before it is delisted. As I understand it this guideline is not written in stone, but just over a week is not enough time to give the article sufficient exposure. So maybe you should have been a little more patient before nominating.
That said, I have to agree with the comment in PR about the images in that they tend to clutter the page a bit. Also, you have not addressed the suppossed bias of the pictures by either removing them or explaining in a convincing way why they should remain in the article ("I like them" is not convincing). Finally, it would be nice if all the tables in the "NFL championships" section were of the same width. Hope this helps. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I removed the offending images. And all the other ones except the NFL logo.jfg284 12:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support now. I'd still like to see those tables at the same width though. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 17:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Which is now done, thanks to Demcdevit.
  • Support, not only because I created the list on which this one is based, but all issues above have been addressed. Phoenix2 22:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment from peer review: An excellent page. I would separate out the last four championships and indicate that the winners played in the Super Bowl. Also, since the 1939 game was not played in Green Bay, I'd put the city in parentheses after the name of the stadium. Finally, some of the games have articles on them, so there should be links to them. -- Mwalcoff 05:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The 1939 game was fixed on 6 November, and there has been a note about the last four games since then as well. However, I have just seperated the last four games into their own table and am beginning the process of adding game wikilinks.jfg284
Edits performed as requested.jfg284 15:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

List of songs by "Weird Al" Yankovic

This page was created by SuperDude115 on 2:58, 10 June 2005 (UTC). Since that time it has expanded to list every song that "Weird Al" Yankovic has released commercially on his 11 studio albums, 5 compilation albums and Peter and the Wolf. It also lists "Spy Hard", the theme of the film of the same name that was included on the Spy Hard soundtrack.

The list is in tabular form where it lists the name of the song, the album/s of which it appears and whether it is an original, a parody of a song, or a parody in the style of a particular band or artist.

Originally this listed all songs and albums in "Title Caps". I have since changed this to conform to the current naming convention, as set out at Wikipedia:Naming convention#Album titles and band names, where states that "the standard rule in the English language is to capitalize words that are the first word in the title and those that are not conjunctions (and, but, or, nor, for), prepositions (to, over, through) or articles (an, a, the, that)."

The list also conforms to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) where it states that italics should be used for titles of musical albums and that titles of shorter works, such as songs, should be enclosed in "double quotation marks".

With regard to links, only those songs that have their own article are linked and only those artists or bands, whose works that were parodied, that have their own article are linked. Whilst on other Wikipedia articles sometimes the song is linked to the album on which it appears, it is not the case with this list.

With regard to the presentation of the table, the songs are listed in alphabetical order and both the song and the double quotation marks are bolded. (As a side note, there is currently no policy or guideline on whether when placing a song in bold, or anything else for that matter, that the double quotation marks should bolded or not. That is, whether it should be "song" or "song". I personally think that the first option looks neater and that's how it is throughout this list.) Where the song appears on more than one album, the albums are listed in the order of their release, from the earliest to the latest.

All of the information that is presented can be verified by the references that are listed.

In summary, this list complies with all the criteria as set out at Wikipedia:What is a featured list, it complies with the Manual of Style and the appropriate naming conventions. It is a useful, comprehensive, accurate list, well presented in tabular form that deserved to class to one of Wikipedia's finest. May I strongly encourage you to support this nomination. Thank you -- Ianblair23 (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. It would be useful if the lead could have a brief explanation of who "Weird Al" Yankovic is. Also, are the external links really references or are references absent? jguk 13:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. As a hard core Al fan, I think this list should attempt to also incluid songs not released comercially such as "Belevdere Cruisin'" and "Take me to The Liver" for the title to be accurate. --The_stuart 17:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the introduction should be longer; for instance, you could elaborate on why some parodies are wrongly attributed to "Weird Al" instead of just providing a link. The list would also be served by a picture of "Weird Al" or some other relevant image. You could make the table a bit more visually appealing by adding class="wikitable" to the syntax; I won't do it myself since it really is your call to decide and it really isn't that important. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 22:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

List of World XI ODI cricketers

Partial self-nom, though Stephen Turner and Sam Vimes deserves most <red> the</red> credit. Complete and up-to-date, jguk 18:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC) (Having looked at it again, my contribution is minimal - Stephen and Haakon did all the real work!)

  • Thanks, jguk. Support if it's acceptable to support my own work. Stephen Turner 19:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A great list of some great cricketers. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Can see no fault here - except a date thing I just noticed and have corrected now. (I'd say Stephen did all the real work, so it's not a self-vote ;)) Sam Vimes 19:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - do we need a list of cricketers who played in only four one-day internationals? Yes, I suppose it satisfies the FL criteria (comprehensive, images, reference, links to articles, etc) but it seems to me quite cricket crufty. Given the number of cricket-related featured lists, on more and more obscure topics, I am concerned that there could be a perception that FLC is mainly for cricket afficianados. Next time, please would you brush up a deserving list in another subject area - there are lots of candidates around. </moan> On this list, it would be nice if the contents of cells of the table where there is no information were a bit more consistent - at present, there are blank cells, ones with "0" and othere with "-". Standardising on "-" or "n/a" would good. It would also be nice to add some visual interest (or clutter, YMMV) by adding the flagicons to the countries (see List of Test cricket triple centuries for an example). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "0", "-" and space are all different. If the player didn't bat or didn't bowl, he gets a 0 in the number of innings or balls, and the rest of the batting or bowling stats are blank. "-", on the other hand, means an average of something divided by zero. I agree about the flags. Stephen Turner 13:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You have sensibly ignored my moan :) If "0", "-" and " " are used in a technical manner (for example, " " being used where someone has no innings or balls, and "-" standing for "something is divided by zero") then it would be helpful for there to be a note saying so. Also, the link to Howstat is not all that helpful - would this be better? Are there any other places (Cricinfo? WIsden?) that would be useful links/reference? With only four matches, you could link the scorecards. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It is a very good list. Carioca 19:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

List of highest mountains

Informative, referenced, stable, large majority of blue links, and with good introductory material. Doesn't have a picture, but that's not a requirement. Not really a self-nomination as I've only made one minor change. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks! Sorry it took me so long to discover that the list was nominated. Didn't know about nominations, or featured lists for that matter. I've now registered (67.161.117.149 and 209.124.189.39 are me; I tend to get logged out while I'm pondering the edits) and made some edits following below suggestions. It's nice to get feedback! - Afasmit 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: A couple of possibilities for an image would be a map of the area, or a picture of Mount Everest. --Carnildo 20:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Satellite image with the location of some of the peaks now added.- Afasmit 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Looks good. A map would indeed be very nice. More importantly, where is the information coming from? Is it all from the "High Asia" book mentioned at the end? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Also a lot of links cited - RachelBrown 21:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, you're right, but this is not what I meant (sorry for being unclear). As the page says, determining the heights is a tricky business, and different sources state different heights. As an example, Annapurna I is listed with a height of 8091m. Which source did this fact come from? Or do in this case, most sources agree? For some mountains, it is noted explicitly that the heights are taken from "High Asia"; can we have more of these notes? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
        • A complete list of references would be rather long, but I will try to add links for some disputed heights in the near future. I've currently copped out by adding a few more general references. For picking the heights, things are easy where there is a consensus without any otherwise reliable sources disagreeing. This actually happens. Otherwise, here's roughly the order in which I would believe a height: (1) Recent articles or sites discussing a mountain's height, in which the author clearly is aware of the next sources () > (2) High quality, recent (mostly post-"High Asia" publication) topographical maps. (Danish survey of Nepal > Snowy Mountains of China > Alpenvereins maps & Russian 1:100,000 maps) > (3) the High Asia book > (4) The Alpine club library > (5) The list of high prominence mountains being prepared by Jonathan de Ferranti and friends. They haven't gotten around to High Asia yet, but these people are serious about this kind of stuff and their data will soon be the most reliable. (6) Anything else. Prominences are generally not mentioned, so they come from maps only and from the prominence-list people of course. Is there any need for me to spell my methods out like this. I haven't seen quite so much detail in other wikipedia articles. - Afasmit 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object – 1) no lead, text needs a copyedit. 2) table looks ugly in 800x600, reduce the font size. 3) map + images needed 4) The status of Kashmir should be clarified. Without it, it may be a POV. Why 70 highest, why not 100? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • (1) I've extended the lead a bit. (2) How do you change the font size in a table? I've not been able to find instructions for it. (3) Done (4) See Poetlist's reply to that. I hope Tibet and Sinkiang are not considered POV either; they narrow the location a bit more than just China. (5) Why 70? The real reason is that Rachel Brown had started this page by copying a top 70 list from Ari's basecamp. However, a cut-off around 7300m is prudent, as many mountains reach that hight in areas for which no good maps are located. I've added this reason to the considerations text. - Afasmit 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support – a substantial and useful article. I suggest that the point about Kashmir is trivial; anyone who clicks on the link can find out about it, and it's peripheral to the list. Of course, you can always say why shouldn't the list be longer - why not 150 0r 200? You must stop somewhere! Poetlister 22:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I will change my vote to support after a map is added. It can be just a dot map, like for the cities. Renata3 02:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Map added, but I would like to make it fancier. Is it possible to add a graph with clickable links to the entries in the table? Probably not. - Afasmit 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Don't think it's possible. However, the red numbers are extremely hard to see. And it is not complete clear what are the map shows (ie the scale). But the beginning is nice. Renata3 16:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - another fundamentally fine list, but (i) the lead needs to be longer than 11 words in one sentence; (ii) it needs some images (e.g. from Mount Everest and, ideally, a map showing where they are; (iii) there is no "References" section. Does all of the information come from the single listed "Source"? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I am baffled by some of this. There are two sections of text after the contents; what would be the point of having them before the contents? There is also a list of external links in addition to the hard copy source. - RachelBrown 12:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry you find this baffling. Please look at the requirements in Wikipedia:What is a featured list?, particularly the referneces to Wikipedia:Lead section and Wikipedia:Cite sources. In short, the lead section (the section before the contents) needs to give a succinct summary of the whole article, setting the scene for the casual reader; and a "References" section should capture in one place all of the sources used to create and verify the information in the article. HTH. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
That's exactly what the lead section does; in accordance with Wikipedia philosophy, if you're not happy with it, please feel free to edit it. Would you be happier if the hard copy reference and the external links were in the same section, rather than adjacent to each other? - RachelBrown 22:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • (i) Made the lead a bit longer (though I think Rachel was right ;-), (ii) done (iii) Much of the data were found on the linked sites, but I've added some general sources. - Afasmit 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think there is a very nice NASA sat. picture of the Himalayas somewhere in WP or Commons (I think it may even be featured) that would really enhance this article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 22:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the suggestion. I took the one that covered the region just right. - Afasmit 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates"
Personal tools