Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/June 2015
Keep
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by PresN 19:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Notified: Harshhussey, Mattinbgn, The Rambling Man, WikiProject Cricket
This is Wikipedia's oldest remaining Featured list, but unfortunately it has a number of issues, though admittedly ones that can probably be resolved without excessive effort. To assess it against the criteria, I would say it primarily suffers against criteria 3a and 4, but it has problems with a number of them.
- The lead is mostly unreferenced.
- The article is out of date; Zimbabwe are playing Test cricket again, and the statistics in the tables are out of date.
- The tables lack row and column scopes, and I wonder if the Test table would benefit from being sortable.
- Which bring me onto the format of the Test table; although it is the normal format for these lists, I don't know how useful it is as a format, it seems clunky to me.
Hopefully we can work on this to bring it back to the standard needed, but I fear that without interest, it would fall out of date again soon even so. Harrias talk 09:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the Test matches table looks bad IMO, there must be a neater format.
- Most of the article is out of date, lead is out of date, and needs actual sourcing.
- It could all be made sortable.
- Unless someone want to continually maintain and update it, it seems like it's eventually going to lose FA status- in it's current state I think it should be delisted. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nominator; no progress made since the list was nominated for demotion. Seattle (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as Delist --PresN 19:17, 12 June 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 removal 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 removed by PresN 19:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC) [2].[reply]
- Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject
Unsourced English release dates. Summaries no longer adequate, complete, or completely missing. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The English dates can be sourced, as for the summaries I haven't read the series so it would have to be from someone who has knowledge of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @DragonZero: English dates are now sourced, know of someone who is familiar with the series? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- None at all. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- some of the summaries are clearly promo material by the publishers and are used by retailers. I assume they were added after the FL status was given.SephyTheThird (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @SephyTheThird: Such summaries would very likely be in violation of copyright and should be removed at sight even if that means leaving nothing behind but empty cells. Goodraise 02:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree completely.SephyTheThird (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well unless there is someone out there who has read the series and can source the summary better, at this time sadly I vote to Delist. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The lead doesn't look too bad... dead links bring the quality below featured list requirements... Titles in references shouldn't be in all-caps... I couldn't find evidence of direct copy and paste copyright violations... Summaries need a copyedit... The last seven chapters need summaries... if anyone can address these concerns, I'm happy to change my position. Seattle (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as Delist --PresN 19:17, 12 June 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 removal 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 removed by PresN 19:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC) [3].[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list removal because of a complete lack of citations. Recently we demoted all the individual provinces featured list as they all had the same issue, being nominated in 2006. On those pages I informed Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums but no one had the time or interest to update the citations. It is also written in a style no longer used. For example "This article provides a summary of...", "For federal by-elections... see List of federal by-elections in Canada. For the eight general elections of the Province of Canada held in 1843 to 1864 before confederation in 1867, see List of elections in the Province of Canada." All found in the lead which seems to end by 1993. Mattximus (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Unfortunately, this like the other Canadian election lists needs a serious overhaul. The lead needs additional references as well as a rewrite to confirm with current standards of prose. There should also be information on more recent elections. The tables also need to be updated so that there is in line citations of election results to show that they are all referenced which is not the case presently. Cowlibob (talk) 06:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Table needs a major reformat to meet accessibility standards; color shouldn't be used as a primary indicator in tables; the table really should be sortable; violations of MOS:BOLDTITLE in table; notes need references. Seattle (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as Delist --PresN 19:17, 12 June 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 removal 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 removed by PresN 19:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC) [4].[reply]
- Notified: WikiProject Birds, WikiProject California
Promoted in 2007, this has very similar issues to the other "List of birds of.." FLRCs below. Some of the primary issues are:
- We don't start FLs with "This list of birds of... any more.
- The whole article is supported by just two references provided at the end of the list, with no inline citations at all.
- The lead explains what information is going to be presented in the list, but doesn't actually summarise that information.
- This article would be better served with tables under the headings and additional information added about each species.
Unfortunately, no lists have been promoted to FL status in the last couple of years that I can point to as an example of how to model this article, but I personally feel that it is clear that this is a long way from our current FL criteria. Harrias talk 09:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment many other List of birds of... FLs have similar issues, but I think in order to offer any interested users and WikiProjects a chance to address concerns, it would be fairer to leave any others for the moment. If the currently listed FLs are brought up to standard, then time can be given for the others to be similarly improved, but if this is not possible, then a mass listing of the other similar FLs that don't meet the current criteria might in order. Harrias talk 09:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- see my comment Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of birds of Belize/archive1. I agree with your strategy, most of these lists simply don't come close to our current standards Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jimfbleak: I think that your List of birds of Thailand is certainly a better model, though one that could still do with additional inline citations for clarity. It definitely gives a direction for these current lists to head in, if someone is willing to take on the work. Harrias talk 10:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Harrias: I plan to upgrade the style of the refs (book page numbers etc.) What do you think needs citing that isn't already? I don't want to individually references every species to Robson (2004) and Lekagul and Round (1991), since that would add 2,000 pointless references!! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as delist - between the discussion here and at List of birds of Belize over the past four weeks, it seems clear that these lists are not up to snuff and aren't being fixed. --PresN 19:36, 2 June 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 removal 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 removed by PresN 19:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC) [5].[reply]
- Notified: Dsmdgold, WikiProject Birds, WikiProject Oklahoma
Promoted in 2005, this list shows its age. "This list of birds of Oklahoma includes.." gives you an idea of the problems to come.
- The whole article is supported by three references provided at the end of the list, with no inline citations at all.
- The lead explains what information is going to be presented in the list, but doesn't actually summarise that information.
- This article would be better served with tables under the headings and additional information added about each species.
Unfortunately, no lists have been promoted to FL status in the last couple of years that I can point to as an example of how to model this article, but I personally feel that it is clear that this is a long way from our current FL criteria. Harrias talk 09:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: several of these old lists are deficient by current standards with vague and inadequate referencing and poor introductions. I hesitate to suggest my own List of birds of Thailand as a model, but it's better than the article at issue. I'd defeature if it's not fixed (I won't do it) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as delist - between the discussion here and at List of birds of Belize over the past four weeks, it seems clear that these lists are not up to snuff and aren't being fixed. --PresN 19:37, 2 June 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 removal 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 removed by PresN 19:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC) [6].[reply]
- Notified: Yomangani, WikiProject Birds, WikiProject Belize, WikiProject Central America, WikiProject Caribbean
I am nominating this for featured list removal for failing points one two, four, and 5(a) of the featured list criteria:
- This is a list of the bird species recorded in Belize. we haven't started lists like this in a while
- The following tags have been used to highlight several categories. these would be better placed as notes
- The lead doesn't talk about the contents of the article, just notes and the reference from which this list was derived.
- This article would be better served with tables under the headings and additional information added about each species
- No in-line citations for text blurbs under headings. Seattle (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Seattle: Thanks for your notes above. I'm not sure I'm up to rescuing this, but I'm thinking about it. Is there a similar list you could point me to which meets the criteria well and could be used as an example? Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Seattle:, @SchreiberBike: several of these old lists are deficient by current standards with vague and inadequate referencing and poor introductions. I hesitate to suggest my own List of birds of Thailand as a model, but it's better than the article at issue. I'd defeature if it's not fixed (I won't do it) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @SchreiberBike:, @Jimfbleak: Do you think you could combine the different headers into two tables, one for "Non-passerines" and one for "Passerines"? You could span the rows for the column that would represent "Tinamous", "Grebes", etc. and add the information currently below the "Family" and "Order" as notes. I think that would look better and comply with criterion four of the featured list criteria, and bring this list up to standards. It's certainly doable. Seattle (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not experienced with the featured list process, so I'm mostly just thinking aloud here. I'm not sure how that would help with structure and navigation; I find it clear and relatively compact now. The images there now are pretty much only decorations, so maybe they shouldn't be there. In a table, the images would have to be smaller to fit into the row for that bird, though we could probably find an image for most of them. As I understand it, which is poorly, column span and row span would interfere with making the table sortable. I recognize that the descriptive text for each subdivision took a lot of work to write, but since we have links to each order, family and species for the reader to get more information, I'm not sure it is appropriate for a list. When you say to have them as "notes", do you mean like footnotes at the bottom? Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 21:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @SchreiberBike: I formatted an example here; the sortability isn't lost with rowspans. I think that the (unreferenced) descriptive text should be lost. We can keep the photos outside of the table for decoration. The emphasis for change here is that we don't have sortability with the current list, and the current list, with its headings, is stilted in terms of readability and transition from one species to another... if nothing else, it's certainly cleaner than the list's current state. Seattle (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching this page now. I'm not wedded to the family introductory text, although it does no harm. I don't think that it's likely that such basic info will be referenced, so if it's being challenged it might as well go. I can't see the point of abandoning the current form and losing content, when all that is gained is dubious sortability. The only logical order for a country list is taxonomic, and if you are looking for a particular specie, well that's why the ToC's there. The IUCN is less relevant than the status within the country; for example Pied-billed Grebe may well be least concern globally, but your mock-up gives no idea of its status in Belize. In the UK it's a very rare vagrant, and just to have the IUCN tag would be highly misleading.
- To be honest, the list looks godawful now. The TOC is an eyesore; and if the "description" is lost by a transition to a cleaner table, find a way to re-add it. If the IUCN status is too broad, cut it and find a list specific to Belize. Until then, I support delisting this from featured status. Seattle (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The original version gives the status in Belize, admittedly only as accidental or introduced or a blank cell if it's resident or regular. At least that's more helpful than giving the world status. Nevertheless, I'd concur with delisting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Godawful" and "eyesore" don't seem appropriate, but I agree, delist. I'm trying to imagine the purpose of all these bird lists and how they might be used by readers. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 07:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as delist - between the discussion here and at the other bird FLRCs over the past four weeks, it seems clear that these lists are not up to snuff and aren't being fixed. --PresN 19:37, 2 June 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.