Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured Lists in 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 a 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: WP:FLC Featured content: Featured articles Featured pictures Featured lists ← Featured portals Featured list tools: What is a featured list? Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list log Former featured lists
Nomination procedure Check the featured list criteria and make sure the article meets all of them before nominating. Place {{FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated article. From there, click on the "leave comments" link to create a new sub-page for the nomination. (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 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. 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 Remove the transcluded discussion from this page. While removing it, mention the name of the list in the edit summary. Transclude the discussion to this month's log of promoted lists or log of failed candidacies, as appropriate. Update the log tallies in {{Featured list log}}. On the article's talk page, change {{FLC}} to {{FL}} or {{FLCfailed}}, as appropriate. For promotions, update Wikipedia:Featured lists. For promotions, add a notice to Template:Announcements/New featured pages. For promotions, add a notice to Wikipedia:Goings-on.

Contents 1 Nominations 1.1 List of Saskatchewan general elections 1.2 2003 NFL Draft 1.3 Australian Olympic medalists in Swimming 1.4 List of major opera composers 1.5 List of Indian ODI cricketers 1.6 Narnian timeline 1.7 Chicago Bears seasons 1.8 List of songs featured on The Office (US TV series) 1.9 List of fictional books

[edit] Nominations

[edit] List of Saskatchewan general elections

1. Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
2. Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
   • Useful: Summarises information from 25 seperate aritcles, and allows visitors to easily compare results from successive general elections
   • Comprehensive: Covers every general election
   • Factually accurate: can be verified via Elections Saskatchewan
   • Stable: Will be only be updated every four years or so
   • Well-organised: Easy to find any required information
3. Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes of any kind, ever
4. Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
5. Images: Sole image has approriate copyright status

This is the second time this list has been submitted for featured list status (first time) It failed due to lack of support, rather than opposition. The suggestions amde last time round ave been incorprated. The list was put up for peer review (read), anmd the few comments made have been acted on. Tompw 14:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2003 NFL Draft

This has been brought to the quality level that the 2004-2006 NFL Drafts, all featured lists, have been brought up to. It is detailed with plenty of references, and the intro is also about as good as I can make it. --Wizardman 18:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Olympic medalists in Swimming

• Self nomination - Yes, it's referenced properly now. I am going to add have added photos, a few are available. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
  • Update - photos have been added, and more information has been provided about the first gold medal winners, first female competitors, the events in which Australia are strong, who has won the most medals, most golds, most at one Olympics etc. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to Support. --Wizardman 12:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Top job Blnguyen. Many hours have gone into that I bet. And what also amazes me is that the vast majority of those articles are substantial - there's no substubs that I could see and most are well beyond stub-dom. The list is referenced, well laid out and most importantly, useful. — Moondyne 01:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support, maybe a "See also" section might be appropriate, however I'm not one to judge. By the way, can we do a crop-job on Image:David Theile.jpg? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. You've done a great job, Blnguyen! You've really taken previous comments to heart. Wholehearted support. → JARED ^(t)  00:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] List of major opera composers

Clear, carefully constructed list, utterly transparent in its NPOV criteria. A few objections of possible bias have, I think, been dealt with. I suppose the FLCandidacy might show up a few short biographies that could use tweaking, but otherwise, I think we're pretty good. Partial self-nom. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't feel qualified to vote at the moment as I'm not familiar with FL process and criteria - I don't know my way around here as well as I do FA - and anyway I contributed very heavily to this list - but it does strike me that whatever objections are raised this list cannot be far off. The referencing is exhaustive and the criteria used for selection are absolutely NPOV. I've just added a few pretty pictures per WP:WIAFL. Moreschi 21:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: A number of operas listed are not linked and at least a couple are not italicized. Rmhermen 03:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't spot any unitalicised ones, but I think they're all linked now. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I caught one more and linked it. And another editor already got the italics. Rmhermen 05:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment - several sound clips have been added. IMO it looks good. Moreschi 21:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I'm a bit embarrassed about how I came across this article. I'm normally not a big fan of lists and articles that say things like "major" or "notable". I was in a dispute over an unrelated list that was to the same extent, and someone mentioned this article. In a huff I went over and placed the {{OR}} tag on it, and when it got removed I listed the article for deletion. I don't normally make such a WP:POINT violation.. and it was pretty clear that's what I had done when I started to read people's comments to be about the deletion. I retracted my nomination and got some much needed sleep and break away from editing. That little story aside, the article is actually very excellent, and upon further reflection, the inclusion criteria is helps to make this article neutral and stable. No new statements were being made, so OR wasn't an issue as I had originally thought. Keep in mind, I'm not supporting this to "make up" for my mistake, but rather because I really do feel this is a feature worthy list. I only felt it necessary to explain that situation incase someone thought "hey, why is he supporting? didn't he try to delete that article?". -- Ned Scott 05:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support attractive, NPOV, well referenced, useful to someone new to opera, encyclopedic. Mak (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Rmhermen 02:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Indian ODI cricketers

This list is based on List of Australian ODI cricketers which is an FL (nomination). The stats have recently been updated from Cricinfo and Howstat. Also the notes and refs have been placed in order. Thanks --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 12:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I think some from of alphabetical order might be better. See how List of Australian Test cricketers is organized, for instance. Rmhermen 14:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Australian Test cricketers is a chronological list. I think it will be difficult to divide this list into eras because it spans only about 30 years while a prominent cricketer has a career span typically of 5-15 years. Tintin (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Nice work. However, the list inherently cannot be "Stable"! It would require regular updating. As there is a precedence of a similar list getting featured status, I hope the editors would take care of this aspect. How about adding a national flag on the right upper corner?--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Stats of some of the players need to be updated. For eg, Tendulkar's tally is 300 runs short. Tintin (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Narnian timeline

I wrote this solid article on the timeline of the Narnia series a couple months' back and feel it's pretty strong. I sent it through peer review where it received few comments: one was automated and the other said it looked in good shape; I took this to mean there were not too many objections from usual peer reviewers. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Talk page shows some serious concerns which I don't think are fully resolved. Rmhermen 06:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reread the entire discussion on the source of the material, and I've added a section to the bottom of the article. If it needs to be made more prominent, i.e. higher up in the page, in the lead, let me know. Thanks for the comment. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Bears seasons

I believe that this is a useful list of all the seasons that have been played by the Chicago Bears American football franchise. It seems well prepared. --Happyman22 19:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, very well organized and informative. Unlike the other NFL Seasons Lists, the Chicago Bears seasons features a lot more details, which add extra depth, (ex: the coloring used to distinguish championship titles). If the 2006 NFL Draft was eligible for featured list status, then this deserves some consideration :) --ShadowJester07 19:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Lead should be expanded a bit, it's a little short right now IMO. The legend at the top could have a "Legend" header above it, and most legends I have seen are located at the bottom of the page. You wikilink to "NFL" and other things multiple times in the article, only the first instance needs wikilinking (advice given to me on peer review for a list I am working on). Otherwise looks good, leaning to support pending lead expansion. VegaDark 20:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The lead is almost nonexistant right now. As VegaDark says, fix that up a bit, maybe give a short history of their seasons or mention any championships. Plus, there are too many wikilinks in the list itself, though I can help you out with that. (which i just did, that's done) I'll re-look at this list in a couple days to see how it looks then, as it definitely looks in-depth. Leaning towards support. --Wizardman 18:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs featured on The Office (US TV series)

I think that this list is very accurate and is supporting a highly rated show. It is an list that is perfectly crafted, and easy to find the information that is offering. CJMylentz 08:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - references? Episodes not listed did not have any songs? "these songs are sometimes difficult to identify due to the fact that the snippets used are instrumental or include only generic lyrics. Songs that have been identified are as follows" → WP:OR. Lead is too short. I would work on better formating. In short, far far away from featured status. Renata 14:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - How do you reference something that has appeared on television. You watch the episode and hear the song. I don't get how you would reference that. CJMylentz 04:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Your nomination is already counted as a support. Punkmorten 11:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - There are many websites listing episode information for TV shows. Particularly for a show as current and popular as The Office there must be information on the soundtracks featured as well as other information related to the episodes. Once you find that information, referencing it is a simple matter of using the {{cite web}} template. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 00:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Perhaps some of the songs may be listed in the DVD's? Rmhermen 14:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The TV Show itself is the reference. You watch and listen to the show and you hear the songs. I still don't understand referencing it? CJMylentz 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose because I feel the list itself is fancruft and not notable. It's not an example of "the best of the best". -- Ned Scott 19:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: Needs more work, primarily on first season stuff. That and it's not as visually appealing as I'd like. Perhaps make a table per season? That may also turn out bad even though it sounds good. It really just needs to be complete before it can be even considered here. --Wizardman 02:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just so everyone knows, this is a complete . I've gone through every episode and have made sure that this is complete. When an episode is premiered on Thursday, all the music is up on this page by Friday night at the latest. So non-completion is not a reason to oppose this article. CJMylentz 06:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional books

I believe this list meets all the criteria and deserves inclusion. It's useful, comprehensive, well-written, accurate, has a nice intro, and is on a topic of interest to readers and bibliophiles. (Please note that the talk page for this list redirects to Talk:Fictional book, I'm not sure why, so the Featured List nomination has been placed on that page.) fixed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bookgrrl (talk • contribs) 04:32, 11 November 2006.

There was a redirect from Talk:List of fictional books to Talk:Fictional book. I've removed it but I haven't moved any text between the talk pages. Perhaps you are best placed to work out which discussions go where. Colin Harkness°^Talk 08:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Doesn't have a single reference, has a very bad structure, and has a single image (without a fair use rationale). Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - no references, no inclusion criteria, authors are only American or English, ugly ugly format... Renata 14:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What sort of references are needed? Both authors and books are provided; does it need page numbers or something more specific? --Bookgrrl 16:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - poor layout, inconsistent linking, unclear inclusion criteria but I note that the list is not only American or English authors as Renata claimed (Borges, Lem, Eco, Nabokov, Rabelais, etc.). Rmhermen 18:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: Certainly useful, but terrible formatting, no references, and not even that good of a list. I mean, when ou list "fictional books" and only list a few authors, you don't even mention the criteria of being on the list or anything. Tough to say if this kind of list could EVER reach featured quality. --Wizardman 18:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)