Article has been tagged for insufficient citations, while the lead is only two sentences long. This list could probably be merged into Scripps National Spelling Bee, really. — RAVENPVFF·talk· 11:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – Without substantial work, the list shouldn't have the star any longer. It has multiple deficiencies, as pointed out by the nominator. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - In addition, there is a subheading with nothing in it. Mattximus (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, the "See also" section does include a portal box to the right, but it probably isn't worth including there anyway. — RAVENPVFF·talk· 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section is gone now, but for some reason the notes start at letter C? Mattximus (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's because I have eliminated some notes which I didn't think were necessary and haven't yet get round to re-lettering the remaining ones...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattximus:, might you be able to check back in here? Everyone else who had !voted "delist" has now struck their !vote, just wondering if you had any comments on the current state of the article....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep my concerns have been addressed. Mattximus (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – should've been demoted in 2012 once that tag got there. – zmbro(talk) 03:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The background and media coverage sections don't belong on this list, they belong on the main article. There are multiple citations missing from the table. The lead introduces the spelling bee and not the champions, which is what the list is about. No images despite there being photos of some winners on Commons. Absolutely not an example of the best Wikipedia has to offer. DanielleTH(Say hi!) 22:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if it's not too late after four delist !votes, I'm happy to have a crack at salvaging this one..........? Let me know if it's worth bothering......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Great changes. Four somewhat minor things — are all three sources needed for Clara Mohler's win? It seems like a bit much, and I think the third source is a dead URL. The references column is titled "notes". The images are missing alt text, and the first two captions need periods since they're full sentences. DanielleTH(Say hi!) 14:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielleTH: - TBH most of the refs in the last column aren't needed, as the ref in the column headers covers everything. I'm still working on fixing the article's issues, hopefully I can get everything ship-shape by the W-E-E-K-E-N-D weekend ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: The only other things were quite minor so I went ahead and did them: the full-sentence captions needed periods per WP:CAPFRAG and one caption needed a minor change to keep tenses consistent, and some locations weren't linked. I've struck my delist, keep. DanielleTH(Say hi!) 19:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Much better now. Here are a few things I noticed from looking at the list, all minor:
Bolded links in the intro are discouraged by the MoS, so that bolding at the start should probably go.
The 2008-2018 range needs an en dash for style.
In the List of champions section heading, the first two words aren't needed since it's obviously a table. Just using Champions is cleaner.
In the references, I see New York Times and The New York Times. Pick one and stick with it for both cites.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Not gonna lie I'm actually very impressed with what you've done with this. Honestly didn't think this was salvageable, fantastic job! Here are a couple of things I'd add:
Table still needs scope rows
I'd archive every ref
Why only 14 refs? – zmbro(talk) 00:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why only 14 refs? - why not? Everything in the article is sourced, there's no real need to add more refs just for the sake of it........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you're right. On top of my first two points, ref 8 still needs an access date. – zmbro(talk) 00:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Scopes and missing accessdate added. I don't know how to archive refs...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only ref 11 was missing an archival version, so I archived it for you. DanielleTH(Say hi!) 18:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I'm good with this keeping the star. Great job improving it. – zmbro(talk) 01:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I just checked on the list, and I can say that there have been a lot of improvements to the lead and prose. So I believe that it is finally deserving of the star in the top right corner KingSkyLord (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list removal because I don't feel as if it meets the current criteria, having been promoted back in 2008. In particular, it has a failed verification tag, thus failing criterion 3b (Compherensiveness - citation). It also fails criterion 2 (Lead), bringing up stuff about the reign of Henry VIII that is not mentioned in the article. The lead also fails to mention the partisanship study in the body, which might (although this is speculation on my part) be in any case WP:UNDUE weight. It also fails criterion 3 outright by neglecting information between Henry VII's reign and 1929, and has a current recentism tag that is still reasonable. The topic is fun and it gives me no great joy to say this, but overall I feel this article is closer to C-class and would require a fundamental rewrite to reach any sort of Featured status. I'd like to change my !vote to Keep following the recent improvements. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I disagree that neglecting information between Henry VII's reign and 1929 is an issue—as far as I can see the article makes it reasonably clear that it was only after 1929 that people started considering the name of the local cat significant—but other than that all your points appear to be spot-on. ‑ Iridescent 08:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC) Switching to keep following rewriting. ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist with regret. I think if the history section was expanded to incorporate more about the earlier mousers, we'd be in much better shape, other issues should be relatively easy to solve. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please give me a chance to fix the various issues before possibly removing this List from Featured status. I'll give it a good editing run this week (hoping to be done by July 8th). I'll come back and update this page when I do finish. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the lead, dug into sourcing for specific dates & added some refs, adjusted some of the main text. I'm sure there are more improvements to be made but wanted to mention that I've started in on the work that needed to be done. Shearonink (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a lot better already. I'm still confused on who "Treasury Bill" was and when he served, but it's shaping up rather nicely so far. Keep up the good work! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! "Treasury Bill" & "Rufus of England" are one and the same. Rufus was nick-named "Treasury Bill" because of stories that circulated about Ramsay MacDonald & the budget...it's all there in Refs 21 & 22 but especially in the Sunday Mail of Australia's July 5th 1930 story about the cat & how he got his nick-name... I've adjusted the wording a bit so hopefully that will now be a bit clearer. Shearonink (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shearonink has done some work on this article. There is still an uncited statement that prevents me from quite yet switching to keep, but I think such concerns are fairly minor and can reasonably be fixed in the time of an FLRC. I can now vote to keep this article. Iridescent and The Rambling Man, what are your opinions on the list now that it has been improved? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TRM, greatly appreciated. I'm rather fond of this FL and hated to see it possibly get de-listed. It's been a pleasure to work on it. Shearonink (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it correct to actually call this a "list article"? The MoS defines a list article as: encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list (which may or may not be divided by headings) This article has two sections of prose after the intro, then an embedded list. The list represents a pretty small fraction of the article. Also, semantically, I'd say the thing this article is about is a position. It happens to also include a list of holders of that position. Colin M (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The history section is moderately sized, the other section is small, and the lead is short at one paragraph. The list appears to be just under half the size of the body (on my screen). It's a borderline case, but I wouldn't have a problem considering this a list for our purposes. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it no longer represents out best work. The addition of new sections since it became an FL are unsourced, as is much of the other new material added. SchroCat (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Could you please be more specific about the problems you perceive, as I am not seeing them. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brad, I'm referring to the added "List of short stories" section, which is woefully under referenced (only one ref for part of the text and absolutely none for the story listings themselves. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that clarification. I don't perceive that as a serious deficiency in the list, however. Ultimately, the source for the contents of any readily available book is the book itself. While a citation to a secondary work listing all the stories might be worthwhile to add if it can be found, the citations and links to the books themselves should be sufficient, and as the bottom line, I think the page is more useful and more comprehensive with the additional information than without it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I agree that it’s a possibly/probably better page with the additional information (which is why I didn’t just revert to a prior version). For a featured article we can’t take the book itself: it has to be cited. Without it, it may pass as a normal article, but it just can’t be featured. - SchroCat (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Where is that stated, that a book isn’t an RS for its own table of contents? (As it happens, I once edited a collection of stories by another author, whose contents are widely available but haven’t been indexed elsewhere yet; does that mean that author’s bibliography could never be an FL if the contents of my collection are mentioned?) In any event, if a rule says that a better version of a page cannot be featured but a worse one can, then it is not a sensible rule. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Focusing on "better" v "worse" is a false dichotomy. The previous version of the page had less information on it, but that information was on a separate page. The project as a whole contained all the same information, so we had two pages with specific purposes. This page contained books and scripts, not short stories. That doesn't make it "worse", it means that the perameters of the page were changed when two 'specialist' pages were combined to one larger page. We now have a section that is inconsistent in the way it deals with the sourcing of the new information. The use of the secondary source is needed to show that there were no previous versions published elsewhere, and (as is often a problem with short story collections) that the actual first edition claimed contained those actual stories, not that a new edition by a secondary publisher has been mistakenly added with changed contents.
As to the sourcing, using an addition to make the claim it's a "first edition", etc, fails as No original research and Verifiability. The book is a primary not secondary source, and we should be using those instead. That's for the information in the tables concerned, and the block of unsupported text obviously needs to have some supporting info. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns as a theoretical matter, and appreciate the level of thought you've devoted to these issues. But in the context of this specific list I think the sourcing is reasonable, and I don't see much risk of imparting inaccurate information, so my !vote is to retain the page as an FL. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We shall have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid: "I don't see much risk of imparting inaccurate information" is not the right standard to have for what is supposed to be our best work (in my opinion), particularly when it makes the level of sourcing for the rest of the article inconsistent. Thanks for your comments either way. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Actually, hang on, as I may have found a published bibliography we can use to add the sourcing you are looking for. I’m in transit this weekend but should be able to work on it tomorrow night or Monday. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's great news. FLRC is a relatively slow process (for just this very reason), so the co-ords will, I'm sure, hold off for a while. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It took me far longer than I'd anticipated for the book I need to arrive, but it is now here, so I expect to get to this in the next day or so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. If there is anything you'd like my input from or assistance with, please let me know - I'd be happy to chip in, as and when. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat any update on your feelings here, now we're around two and a half weeks down the road? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RM, I'm happy to leave this open a little while longer as Brad has the info needed. I wouldn't want to see this delisted then have to go back through FLC a week or so later once the info is added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okeydokes. We'll leave it another week or so. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies ... I've been dealing with some other projects and this fell off my radar. I will take care of it this weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man and SchroCat: I've started in on adding the citations, will finish up over the next couple of days. It turns out that on checking, there are some adjustments to be made to the listings (mostly reflecting differences between the U.K. and U.S. versions of the collections)—which, I will admit, completely validates the point that the two of you were making all along. I'll take care of it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to take a bit longer than I'd anticipated to verify and source some of the variations between the U.K. and U.S. editions, and I'm going to be mostly offline for a few days for a holiday trip. I absolutely intend to finish this, but if you want to de-star the article at this point, or alternatively remove the section at issue until I can finish with it, I won't say not to. I'll be able to resume work on Tuesday. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, there's no deadline and as long as I'm still seeing some commitment to address the issues, the nomination can remain open. Have a good break. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be finishing up this week. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man and SchroCat: I've now provided cites for the works in the "UK collections" section (including the "US" column in that section). The same cites would apply in the "US Collections" section so I haven't repeated them all, but if you think it would be better to go ahead and repeat them I can do so. I'll give it a further read for additions and clean-up next week, but in the meantime, if there's anything else you think needs citing please let me know. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Brad. I think it' pretty much there. TRM? - SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally the "Collections" tables would have a row scope parameter included (like the other tables) for the purposes of WP:ACCESS, should be quite easy. Then I'd recommend this list is a surefire keeper. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm away this weekend but will take care of it next week. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Actually, I'm struggling a bit with that piece of formatting syntax, which I haven't used before ... can you point me to the best help page so I can familiarize myself with it? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Newyorkbrad, not to worry, it's intricate stuff, quite unfriendly. I've made a start here. The plainrowheaders in the wikitable class definition stops the main element of each row (defined by the "scope" tag) from being bold. In each row, start with a "!" rather than a "|" and keep the definition that single element on one line of the markup, simply adding scope="row". Bingo. Do that for each of the entries and you have a marked up table which screen readers can access too. Other details are available at MOS:ACCESS, I think. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad, The Rambling Man, I've done these - as TRM says, they're a fiddly pain in the neck, so I've finished them off. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the help. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think we're ready to close this as keep, unless anyone has any objections? The Rambling Man? --PresN 10:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy now it's all cited. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Delist I informed the project years ago of this and not to do it. It was done anyway. Should have never been split off. So just downgrade it now.--WillC 19:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – this shouldn't be a debate, star should be removed ASAP – zmbro(talk) 00:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, just to confirm, you are nominating both of the above lists? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, yes. I just want to bring both of them into attention. THE NEWImmortalWizard(chat) 09:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Not a list and not Feature quality. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been removed, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Delist – same reason as the other – zmbro(talk) 15:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been removed, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.