Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by YellowMonkey (talk | contribs) at 08:51, 25 May 2006 (→Nominations: add Australian_Olympic_medalists_in_Swimming). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured Lists in Wikipedia

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.
This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.
Here we determine which lists are featured on Wikipedia:Featured lists. A featured list should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. See "what is a featured list?" for criteria.

If you nominate an list, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised. If you nominate something you have worked on, note it as a self-nomination. You may wish to receive feedback before nominating a list by listing it at Peer review.

Consensus must be reached for an article to be promoted to featured list status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived.

Purge the cache to refresh this page
Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

  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.

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.

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 Template:Announcements/New featured pages.
  7. For promotions, add a notice to Wikipedia:Goings-on.

Nominations

Australian Olympic medalists in Swimming

  • Comment: Wow, you referenced like every single one. Was that necessary? Maybe, I guess, I'm not one to judge on that. Doesn't look too bad, I'm leaning towards support but I'd like the lead to explain a little bit more about the list (such as which one was the first to win gold, the one with the most medals, etc.) --Wizardman 02:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I made the references section go into two columns so it looks a little better. There are a lot, but you well-researched and that's all that counts. Also, like above, a See also'd be nice. → JARED (t)  00:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added the following see also
{{portal|Swimming}}
Since I created the swimming portal, I may have a conflict of interest :) .Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The references needlessly gives the full citation for "Australia at the Olympics" for every single usage. Some other lists/articles separate the Notes (brief author(year):page) from the frequently consulted References (full citation) to avoid this. Colin°Talk 23:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Jersey hurricanes

Self nom, on behalf of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject. I wrote this one, and feel it is very thorough for such a topic. To my knowledge, no other such list exists. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That would be my bad, for some reason the {{Cite web|year= 2006}} year attribute doesn't work, which is why they didn't show up. I have fixed it now (I'll be going through and fixing the references also). AndyZ t 23:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely oppose until contradiction straightened out - as I put in a pair of meta:EasyTimelines to cover these storms, I noticed that there was an unpleasant contradiction between the main text and the "deadliest storms" table. Hurricane Doria killed three people in 1967 (this is mentioned in the table) but Tropical Storm Doria apparently also killed three in 1971 - and isn't mentioned in the table. Is this due to a mix-up between names? Was Tropical Storm Doria non-lethal? Or was it simply missed out of the table? If both should be in the table, can they be disambiguated in some way? Hurricane Edouard is missing from the table but is listed as causing two deaths. It ought to be noted (for Isabel and Donna, each having one indirect death) that only directly caused deaths are counted. The 1933 storm is listed as causing "many casualties" so ought to be one of the higher ones in the list (presumably), but the exact number isn't given and it isn't placed in the table. It's clearly not explained by the table excluding deaths offshore, since many of the casualties given for other storms were drownings. This all needs getting sorted out, preferably by someone with access to Buchholz and Savadore. This is probably my last remaining quibble but I can't see that this should be FL'd until it gets sorted... after that this will be an absolutely brilliant list! TheGrappler 03:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed most of that. Thanks! I'm only human, and people can make mistakes. I responded on the NJ talk page. Also, the list does include offshore deaths. Otherwise, it might get confusing. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fixing efforts are appreciated! It will be difficult to fix the page entirely, or to ensure it is 100% complete and consistent with all known records, because it seems to be the first attempt at a comprehensive list. I do not believe this should be penalised on FLC, especially since it shows Wikipedia at its best and most valuable. My solution to the problem of accuracy has been to append a "Recorded storms causing deaths in New Jersey include:" note infront of the table, following on from the note added by Hurricanehink that records the death toll in one of the storms as unknown. This acknowledges that the table is not necessarily 100% comprehensive. There may be a more elegant solution, but I'm not sure what. At any rate, I am satisfied that this list reaches the FL criteria, and change my position to support. The Cyclone Crew have done an outstanding job! TheGrappler 08:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The note you added works well. Thank you for all of your hard work. One thing, the old storms-by-month table is no longer needed, as the new one looks a lot nicer. Should I just remove it? Hurricanehink (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, I didn't have to do any research, just a little bit of tidying up and redecoration, which is why I am so thankful to the cyclone projecteers! I'd keep both the table and the graph: in general, it's better practice to display a table of data for a chart as simple as a bar chart. Having the two side by side is no big deal. In its current state this has got to be one of the strongest FLC candidates ever: the final thing I would love to see before it's (apparently inevitable) promotion page-by-page citations from the main printed source, which would make fact-checking easier and also get rid of the citation backlinks that currently list all the alphabet from "a" to "o"! TheGrappler 17:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Grr... that's going to take a while. School is taking away some of my time, and finding every citation from the 200+ page book is going to take some time. Does anyone even have the book for fact-checking? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • *It's okay, I'm not actually objecting! But that would be the icing on the cake if it happened :)I guess it's what would probably be expected on a featured article, but I can't foresee it not making featured list because of it. TheGrappler 19:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is a good article, but it has a lot of tables and charts, which are slow to load on some computers (i.e. mine) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WotGoPlunk (talk • contribs)
So should I remove the tablized version of the monthly thing be removed? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Puerto Rican birds

Similar to List of North American birds, List of Florida birds, etc. I have been working in this list for some time with the help of User:KimvdLinde and I believe this is ready for featured lists status. This list has a peer review which may be found here. Joelito (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - A couple of things. The Clements book referred to in the taxonomy section does not appear in references, I would have thought this is necessary. Secondly is there a specific order the bird species are listed within the different sections? If not, is there a suitable taxonomic order or should they be alphabetical? Finally it is not exceptionally clear (for people with no prior knowledge) that not all species fall into one of the groupings highlighted (Accidental, Endemic etc.) unless they add up the percentages. Could a sentence be added along the lines that birds not in one of the groups are resident of Puerto Rica for atleast some of the year etc. This last point may be nitpicking, people may understand it with no problem. - Suicidalhamster 18:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not use the Clements's book directly. I used a website (first reference) that followed Clements's taxonomy.
  • Birds are listed in the taxonomic order used by Clements.
  • I will consider adding either a note or a sentence regarding your last comment. Joelito (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ardenn if you had at least read the criteria for FLC and not opposed in bad faith to my recent oppose of your feature article candidate Ice Storm of 1998 you would have noticed that 2c is a terminology used in FAC. Criteria in feature lists do not have letters. :) Joelito (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So please explain where do you think references are needed? And what more do you think I can include in the lead? Also remeber that the criteria for Featured lists is different from featured articles.Take a look at the lead and refernces of other Featured Lists.Joelito (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Planetes episodes

previous FLC

Tri Nations Series champions

Hi, I recently starting working on these Tri Nations articles, and I feel this one is complete and is of FL standard. Thanks Cvene64 12:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the template is not needed, as it is only used in this article, I have pasted the text in the article, the template can now be deleted. I have merged format and lead, as format relates to the article and should have probably been at the top originally. I have expanded history a little ->a few details about NZ/back-to-back titles and so on. Thanks for your comments. Is there anything else that can be done to get this to FL standard? Cvene64 05:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I followed your example and merged the history to the intro. At least now intro is of decent length :) Renata 19:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{Tri Nations Aggregate}} IS used in another article — the All Blacks article — and potential could be included in the Wallabies and Springboks articles too.--GringoInChile 11:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That looks a lot better. Thanks. 00:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. The list doesn't mention how the points are awarded an table points calculated. If its too much for this article, just give wikilinks and you will get my support. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the second paragraph to explain the difference between For/Against points (the in-game score) and the table points (4 points for a win etc). I think I have fixed it up, but let me know if there is anything else that can be done to improve it. Cheers. 12:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Well then. Now it would be Support. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Cvene64 03:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support But dont delete the {{Tri Nations Aggregate}} template. --GringoInChile 11:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Pretty good, but: the table is rather wide - can some pixels be saved, for example in the headings, to make it a bit narrower? There is also a bit of repetition in the headings ("Games x" "Games y" "Games z") that could be removed with some colspans. Could some visual interest be added (e.g. competition logo; flagicons for the teams/ countries?)? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The headings/repetition has been fixed (with the help of Aloan). National flags have been used for the winners in the first table and the competition logo has been put in. Cvene64 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=55038443"