Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/December 2005

In the process of answering a question, I came across this list, which appears to be complete and well sourced. Is it feature worthy? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it is pretty good, but (i) the lead is rather short. For example, it would be worth briefly discussing details such as length of term, timing of elections and taking office, etc; (ii) there are no references (are the external links references?); (iii) the "races" table is incomplete in that it does not contain the numbers of votes for all races. Perhaps it should be reordered by place in the vote and headings added ("First", "Second", "Third", etc)? The boxes could also be coloured by party (although hard for Earl Warren in 1946!) as in the first table; (iv) the first table is in chronological order, but the second is in in reverse chronological order - I would prefer the second to be in the same order as the first; (v) it is not clear what the notes in the second table ("x of y districts") means. What happened to the other districts? These notes also make the first column wider than it needs to be - perhaps a "notes" column at the end, or a footnote? (vi) Is there a template for the "List of Governors" of the other 49 states? (I know the category does this, but a template eliminates one click). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nice list. Did anybody know that Upton Sinclair ran for governor of California? Fascinating stuff. Anyway, I second the comments of ALoan above. I assume the external links are the references. If so, they should be listed under a reference section. Also, a few pictures would be nice. --Sophitus 19:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm, apparently it wasn't as good as I thought it was. I'll copy these comments to the talk page of the list. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't take my comments the wrong way - it really is a good list, but it needs a bit of polishing. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No prob. I just thought this might have been a slam dunk case. Obviously, I was wrong. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This nomination has now been up for 10 days, and no work has been done on this list since 18 December. Therefore I'm delisting it. It can always be renominated once the comments noted above have been dealt with, jguk 21:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another complete cricket list, with no redlinks, jguk 14:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose -- the table causes a hscroll in lower resolutions. You could remove the column "career" =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, jguk 12:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in Firefox the Pollock image caption gets mixed up with the top rhs of the table -- Ian ≡ talk 14:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not using Firefox makes it difficult for me to fix this. Can you see how to do this yourself, or is it a simple case of adding a wee bit more prose? jguk 11:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Sam Vimes and ALoan have kindly fixed that. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - does the <br clear="all/"> just before the table cure the Firefox problem? A few comments: isn't "ct" the usual abbreviation of "caught"? Shouldn't maiden over be linked? Some more pixels could be saved by abbreviating "Nation". -- ALoan (Talk) 12:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes to your first question, after Sam changed it to <br clear="all">. I am no expert but I think the alternative tag is <br clear="all" />. One of the two are W3C compliant and the other is not (unsure which), but both appear to do the same thing -- Ian ≡ talk 14:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry - I meant to add "<br clear="all" />" but unaccountably put the slash inside the quotation marks and Sam corrected my typo. My one is clearly wrong ;) I think both of the other versions (with or without the slash) are meant to work, but is is good form for an html tag to be closed, and if it is not closed by a separate tag (like a "nowiki" would be by a "/nowiki") then it should close itself with a slash at the end. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Left for a few extra days for Nichalp to revisit his comments - see User talk:Jguk and User talk:Nichalp -- ALoan (Talk) 13:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There haven't been any comments since this notice and Nichalp was somewhat unequivocal in his comment that he would remove his "oppose" on my talk page. I think this nomination needs to be re-run, jguk 08:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although it might be worh poking Nichalp again to see if he changes his mind. Note that your nomination counts as the third/fourth support. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that (and as you can see in the nomination history, I first considered promoting it anyway), but decided on balance that it would be better to re-run the nomination. If it means it takes three weeks or a month longer to get promoted, that's not really a great problem, jguk 12:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A complete list with notes, references and a short introduction. Nicely format and a good sample for category:Lists of mayors. -- User:Docu [15:44, 3 December 2005]

• Oppose -- the list should contain a majority of blue links. Very few of the mayors have articles of their own. You'd need to create the mayor stubs. Please mention the country in which Kentucky is a state of. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point about the country, but Wikipedia notoriously doesn't state in which country US states are located in. BTW how did you calculate the red links/blue links ratio? There is a majority of blue links and, IMHO, there shouldn't be a stub for each mayor. -- User:Docu

    True, we have many articles without mentioning the country, and places in the US are notorious for the lack of such. Generally exceptions to this rule are global cities such as Washington DC, NY, LA, Chicago. Regarding the mayors, they are notable, and deserve an article. Additionally if you could go throughprevious featured lists, all have populated links. Generally 80% blue links are considered acceptable. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree with Nicholas. Also note that there is a requirement for a list to be "useful". Absent articles with at least basic biographical information on the overwhelming majority of the mayors, I don't see the list as being useful. Some piccis of some of the mayors would also help - certainly some portraits of the earlier mayors will now be out of copyright - and shouldn't "mayors" in the title come absent the capital "M"? jguk 12:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on absence of blue links issue. IMO it's not enough to have an unlinked name to avoid a redlink. A list of people in Wikipedia should generally have all of those people linked which effectively means that each person is at least stubworthy. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of the 79 provinces of the Philippines in tabular form, with other information like provincial capital, region, population, area, etc. I think it meets the criteria. Coffee 03:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A references section, perhaps? Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation of the region-code letters wouldn't hurt either. Those tell me nothing specially because they link to articles under different names. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 13:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nice, but given the two footnotes, also query the history of the provinces - when were the boundaries set? Have they ever changed? (A link to a relevant article would do: I can see some discussion on changes to the regions in Regions of the Philippines, but I can't see anything on the provinces themselves). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object -- Please list the references used under the ==Reference== section. Otherwise great. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Nichalp. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]