Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/January 2009

Kept

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 kept by User:Sephiroth BCR 04:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC) [1].

---

List of Virtual Boy games

Notified: Remurmur, WP VG.

Fails Cr.2 and intro because the lead is insufficient and the article needs inline citations. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Short list = short lead. What more information do you want? And I'm highly against citation clutter. This link covers everything. There's no need to directly cite anything.--Remurmur (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delist - short prose/lead, fails Cr 1 and 2. In addition, more referencing is needed to verify the entire list.--SRX 03:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The prose needs to summarize the list more, stating what was the first release, the most recent, etc.--Truco 03:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep - The prose now meets featured standards and the article meets WP:WIAFL. Good work to the contributors.--TRUCO 01:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: Ok firstly whats with the red and pink, is that neccessary? Secondly is there much point in listing the title twice is it was released under the same name in both north america and japan, eg. Mario Clash. Salavat (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm just going to get frustrated if I try to deal with this, so I suggest that anyone that has an issue with the list just be bold and fix it themselves. All the information that's needed is already there, so anything left to do is just squabblings over formatting. If the community can't fix up a 22-entry list then I'm going to lose faith in Wikipedia being a team effort.--Remurmur (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is a review process on an item of featured content. The nominator or reviewers are not required to work on the article; those interested in the article retaining the article's featured status are the only ones obligated to. The lead is inadequate, the table is awful (not sortable, flags, bad coloring), the prose throughout the article needs touching, and inline citations are needed. Trying to trivialize what is needed for the list to retain its featured status as "squabblings over formatting" is insulting. Either work on addressing the issues brought up or don't bother commenting. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See the current Featured Lists—add background info on the Virtual Boy Games; what are some defining features of the Virtual Boy console? Write about the best-selling games, other notable games. Note that Featured Lists do not start "This is a list of..." anymore. If you don't add citations to the table, that is fine, but add them to the cancelled games section and the lead, when it is expanded. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I will try to help improve the article when I can, though I cannot promise anything. Signing off for today. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note — Colors now gone (It seems to be a common complaint even with the original FL-nomination.) as well as the flag icons, now replaced with simple country codes, which should make it easier as far as usability is concerned. Still working on adding references to every game in the list in my 2nd sandbox. It is acknowledged that the lead and the list of cancelled games still need work. MuZemike (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• I also made the table sortable if that helps any. (I would think not with a short list like this.) MuZemike (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Better. Have the titles in two columns, one for the English title and the other for the original Japanese title. Wikilink all the company names as the table is sortable. I would separate the dates into two columns also for NA and JP release dates. Lead still needs work, but this is a start. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note — added inline references to every released title on the list. MuZemike (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
• Question — the only source for the list of cancelled games are on Planet Virtual Boy, which is nothing more than a fansite. I am inclined to remove that entire section altogether as the site itself doesn't readily pass for verifiability. Suggestions/thoughts? MuZemike (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)1
  • Found this on someone's user space. It may have useful links, I didn't really check. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
    • They use the same fansite that I have just mentioned. We have to use some sort of reliable source, whether it be primary or secondary, to verify that these were in the making and cancelled. MuZemike (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Disregard. I get what you mean with regards to the magazine sourcing for only a couple of the games. They can be thrown into the main sortable list if verifiable. MuZemike (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comments – when we meant inline citations, we meant for the lead and the cancelled games section. Just split the references section using ";General" and ";Specific", with the PDF file for the games going in the general section and all inline citations in the specific section (see this for an example). This makes the current inline citations unnecessary (and I'm fairly sure using any part of GameFAQs is bad per WP:RS in any case). The lead still needs expanding. A brief history of the console and the games is all that's needed (see List of Sega 32X games for an example). As for the table, all the company names under the "publisher" column need to be wikilinked since the table is sortable. Good progress though. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 12:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• As far as GameFAQs are concerned, WP:VG/S#Situational sources allows it only for release data and if no other sources are available, which is the case here (at least I consider GameFAQs to be a bit more reliable than any old fansite, which was where the Japanese release information was coming from); that is, I have still yet to find reliable sources regarding Japanese release information for Virtual Boy, Famicom, etc.

I will make the necessary corrections and try to work on the lead. I am also planning to remove the cancelled games list until they can be backed with verifiable information. Any verifiable cancelled titles can be added onto the main list. MuZemike (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Reworked the lead and made it more like the lead in the List of Sega 32X games Featured List. References for verification are included when needed. MuZemike (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Very nice, will take a closer look later. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep Good job on expanding the lead and referencing. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Just as a final concern, you never got around to changing the references to "General" and "Specific" sections. For all the refs currently using ref #4 (the PDF), make that the general ref and excise all the inline refs in the table. Great work though. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• What do you mean? Like removing the citations from that column and placing one single citation on top of that column? MuZemike 19:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep Lead seems appropriate to me, given the list's content and its overall length. I'm not sure what else could be added to the introduction to expand it. Drewcifer (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the lead could easily be expanded. For example, how many games were released in total? What was the best seller? etc. --Torsodog^Talk 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Expanded the lead; split into two paragraphs and listing the reasons for the Virtual Boy's failure. There's not really any coverage of best-selling games that I can find, as any such coverage were likely overshadowed by coverage of the console's humongous failure. MuZemike 18:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. However, I am concerned about undue weight being given to the console itself rather than the games, which is the focus of this list. Not asking for a lot more, just a sentence or two about the games. For examples, you might mention that out of the total number of games released (whatever that may be), fourteen were released in North America. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, like Truco said above, the lead needs to summarize the list a little more; what was the first game released, the last, the best-selling (if info can be found)? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

MuZemike has been notified to revisit here. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, added two sentences regarding the final game released (3D Tetris) as well as the total number of games released, noting that only 14 were released in North America. I also added the top games released for the console, according to a "Top 5" list in an old 1996 issue of Nintendo Power. MuZemike 01:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice. All my concerns have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Delisted

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 Sephiroth BCR 22:42, 17 January 2009 [2].

---

Battles of the Mexican–American War

Notified: WP:MEXICO, WP:MILHIST

I warned WP:MEXICO two weeks ago that I would nominate this for FLRC if the prose and lead are not written properly. It has been two weeks now, and there has only been 6 edits or so. It currently fails, of course, criteria 1, 2, and some bit of 5, as the citations are not written properly. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 10:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Delist unless major referencing (inline citations) and lead expansion efforts are undertaken. I would imagine that an article about a fairly major war in U.S. history would contain more info, even a list of its battles. Provide a general overview of the war. What were its major battles? Who were some famous military leaders? Perhaps some statistics (most casualties, longest battle, records etc.)? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Delist Concur with Dabomb87 that there should be more info in this list. Mexican–American War actually has a lot of references and could potentially be used to improve this list.—Chris! _ct 20:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Delist - fails WP:WIAFL Cr 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. There is barely any prose, and the tables need to be improved to current FL standards.--Truco 17:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Delist Clearly a subject with many potential sources, so such a lack of referencing is inexcusable. And yeah, the lead is pretty weak as well. Drewcifer (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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 User:Sephiroth BCR 23:52, 10 January 2009 [3].

---

Flag flying days in Mexico

Notified: Zscout370, WP:MEXICO, WP:HERALD.

Fails featured list criteria: 1, 2, 3.

The article's lead is way too short and not even comprehensive, barely has any style, structure, and visual appeal, and the article haven't been edited only twice in the past year. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 21:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

How does it fail the "structure" part of the requirements. The list is structured in a way to show when the flag is flown at full staff and when the flag is flown at half-staff. As for the events, do you want us to have a brief statement on what each event is about? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it doesn't fail criteria #4. As for the rest, you could talk more about the flag flying days in Mexico, the Law on the National Arms, Flag, and Anthem, and any other additional information. Also, the prose has to be cited, and you have to tell the readers which references cite to which. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 22:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That can be arranged. I mentioned the article number in the lead section, so it gives some point of reference I can expand about the law. All I need is just time to work on it, since I got university finals this coming week. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't know, the FLRC nomination period is 14 days, which is plenty of time to fix the article up. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 23:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Consider it done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I expanded the lead a bit. I also fixed one of the dead links. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • Move "Overview" in the first table to the notes
  • The lead still has no references and is still too short
  • Maybe include a list of former flag days

—Chris! _ct 02:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• The lead is supposed to have references? Ok, consider it done. As for the length, how far it should go? I mentioned about the rules, half-staffing, etc. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, and almost 99% of featured lists have around 2 to 3 paragraphs, so yeah...2 to 3 paragraphs would be good. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 08:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I guess the standards have changed a lot since I last did these lists about 2 years ago. I'll try my hand at it, but I am not certain what I can say about this topic, in the lead section, that will span two paragraphs. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should talk about some notable flag days listed and why they are important.—Chris! _ct 06:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As a US National, I am not certain what days are notable or not. That is something, I think, someone from Mexico should answer. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delist - does not meet WP:WIAFL Cr 1-6. The lead needs to be expanded, the way in which the table organizes the content needs to be reformatted and a key for more comprehension.--SRX 15:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Delist from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I will change to "Delist" if action to address these comments are not taken within three days, we are already past the two-week threshold.

• The lead is better, but it is not quite there yet. Provide more background on the flag itself and its creation. Maybe explain its appearance?
• Web citations should have titles, URLs, publishers/works and last access dates.
• "One such case was that 1 November was declared a holiday to hoist the national flag in 1991"-->In one such case, 1 November was declared a holiday to hoist the national flag in 1991 So was the holiday solely meant for the raising of the national flag?
• There should be no spaces between text/punctuation and inline citations.
• The lead needs inline citations.
• In the main table, instead of having the "Overview" column and that horrible whitespace, can we turn those two items into footnotes?
• "The Mexican flag will be flown at full staff on the following days" Use the present tense, sounds like these flag-flying days haven't been enacted yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Go ahead and delist it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Changed to "Delist", no point of keeping this here if nobody works on it. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I can't work on this alone, almost everything needs some support/verification from someone down there and they are not helping me out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I understand, it is better to delist and work on it at your own pace than try to make hurried changes to meet the deadline. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

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 User:Sephiroth BCR 10:35, 7 January 2009 [4].

---

List of Sweden international footballers

Notified: Johan Elisson, ArtVandelay13, WP Footy, WP SWEDEN.

Fails Cr. 1, 2, 3 and maybe 6. Let's go down the failed criteria in more detail:

1. Prose Not much to say here as there is hardly any prose at all, but what is there is hardly professional; the first sentence is rather fragmented and doesn't flow, and last sentence is very vague and is not even a sentence.
2. Lead The most pressing issue, the lead doesn't provide any context or background at all. Compare to List of Germany international footballers, which is a recently promoted Featured list. It simple needs more expansion. In addition, FLs no longer start "This is a list of...".
3. Comprehensiveness Once again, compare to the German footballer list. There is no context or background at all. I think the table is rather underused in terms of useful information.

6. Visual appeal The key is not in a place that is helpful to readers. Color accompanied with symbols would help.

• Needs inline citations also, and has a bit of POV language (the caption: "Henrik Larsson, one of the most prominent goalscorers", "Fredrik Ljungberg, the current captain, is one of the most important players of the national team").

In sum, this list needs a lot of work to meet current standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delist fails the featured list criteria, need better lead—Chris! _ct 03:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I feel that the net needs widening on this list; the threshold of 50 caps or 25 goals is too high to be comprehensive. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I sort of agree. What would the list look like if it were lowered to, say, 40 caps or 20 goals? matt91486 (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not make it like the German list (20 or more caps, 10 or more goals)? Please note that there are other pressing problems to fix; the lead needs a major expansion and the table needs inline citations added. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss the scope of the issue of comprehensiveness as well. matt91486 (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I won't have the time to fix this until the winter break, can we freeze the closing of the FLRC until then (like a month from now)? I do have the necessary sources to make it as comprehensive as the German list, just not the time at the moment. – Elisson • T • C • 16:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as the progress is being made, or will be made in the near future, the FLRC directors will let this run for a while. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'll comment here again when I've started the rewrite. – Elisson • T • C • 00:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh, a month is a bit too much for my tastes. It be one thing if it was two weeks or so, but if you can't work on the list for a month, I'd rather delist it and have it go through FLC after the cleanup is done. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, alright then. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAR normally takes a good four to six weeks before delisting occurs, and that's if nothing is done at all. If the work is going to be done, then delisting and resubmitting strikes me as process for process' sake. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have the same feelings, but at the same time, bringing the list up to standards is easier to do when there is no deadline. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

FAR is tackling a completely different beast. It's much more difficult to bring a featured article back up to par than a featured list, hence why FAR (4-6 weeks minimum) goes on way longer than FLR (2 weeks minimum). Trying to compare the two when they're evaluating two very different types of content doesn't work. Honestly, if the FLR process was changed to a one week minimum, it wouldn't make a big difference in terms of the ratio to lists kept to lists removed. In any case, given that this list needs a complete rewrite to get back to FL quality, I'm more inclined to have it go through FLC to be fully evaluated by the FLC regulars than see it squeak by in a FLRC. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Johan Elisson/sandbox12. Now please give me a few more weeks. – Elisson • T • C • 18:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delist - does not fulfill the FL Criteria.--SRX 16:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment As Johan Elisson requested, this FLRC has been open "a few more weeks" than usual. If attempts to address the issues are not made within the next three days, I will vote to "delist" the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've contacted him here, so barring significant improvements, I'll likely delist this the following week (too busy Sunday for the Chargers-Colts game!). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.