Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log

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 The Rambling Man 16:44, 11 July 2009 [1].

List of defense of marriage amendments to U.S. state constitutions by type

Notified: WP LGBT, Interwebs

I am nominating this for featured list removal because the article fails to properly use "civil unions", which are legal arrangements between same-sex partners with benefits equal to marriage, but instead uses it as a term to refer to all same-sex unions with legal benefits, including those with less benefits (some domestic partnerships) or substantially less benefits (few enough to not be effected by a constitutional amendment banning "a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals", as in Wisconsin). This leads to confusion. It's difficult to come up with a legal term that is usable and encompasses what the article means with civil unions, which are legal unions between to people of the same sex with benefits that are not private contracts, especially since the degree of benefits granted impacts whether the amendment restricts it, even if it is a same-sex union (again, see Wisconsin), thus making the language inconsistent. I propose delisting until a solution is found. Hekerui (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep - this is an issue of editing and should be worked out on the article's talk page rather than in FLRC. Geraldk (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep per Geraldk - I don't see how the incorrect use of the term "civil unions" affects the FL status of this list.—Chris! _ct 22:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I should have been more to the point: the failure to correctly apply a word necessary for a basic understanding makes its featured status unwarranted. The article is misleading. My long explanation is about how I don't think this can be easily fixed. Hekerui (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Seeing Wisconsin - arguments about Wisconsin seem rather hard to reconcile with the issues raised in the nomination, since Wisconsin's DP bill hasn't even gone into effect yet (slated to take effect July 1), let alone having been the subject of any legal action regarding its allowability under the state's amendment (itself the subject of a current WI supreme court case). Since as has been noted this appears to be an issue which can be reconciled within the normal editing process I can't see any reason why this should be de-listed. Otto4711 (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Shouldn't material lifted directly from consitutions be in quotes?

• I think so. Hekerui (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• To the FLRC nominator: what exactly is wrong here? Is it an issue of factual inaccuracy? If so, was it brought up with relevant WikiProjects first?

• The page has great graphics and generally looks good, but the basic terminology is so wrongly applied in that civil union has a specific meaning since 2000 and yet is used differently here - I wonder how this even passed in the first place. It didn't occur to me to drag this out, especially since the main contributor is retired. Hekerui (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this in excellent shape and I see no reason why it should be delisted. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:56, 2 July 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 kept by The Rambling Man 16:44, 11 July 2009 [2].

List of New Jersey Devils players

Notified: WikiProject Ice Hockey and Bsroiaadn.

I am nominating this for featured list removal because like the Columbus Blue Jackets list, it has a very small lead, and a very small amount of references (which are listed in a bad format). The lead needs expansion and sources, the tables need to be smaller, or the images need to be removed (at least for the goalies). Few other problems that should be easy fixes. – (iMatthew • talk) at 17:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned on the other two you nominated, I believe the references are fine as they cover everything that might be questioned on the article. Remember its not the quantity that matters but the quality. The lead does need some expansion, and I fixed the table. It was missing some line breaks. -Djsasso (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead mentions the stats are after 2006-07, which is wrong I assume? Same for the statement about players playing in the 07-08 season. Alaney2k (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have overhauled the page, including stat updates, roster updates, and a lead expansion. Hopefully this will be sufficient to bring it back to the quality that it was when it was originally made FL status. Any questions, comments, please don't hesitate to reach out to me about any of my edits. Anthony Hit me up... 16:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Looks much better. A couple things:

• We don't start lists off with "This is a list of..." anymore. See List of Detroit Red Wings players of a good example of an FL lead.

Done.

• You need to use symbols to accompany the colors (again see Red Wings list).

Will work on it later.Done.

• You need to make a key for abbreviations and phrases such as SC, HHOF, Conn Smythe, etc.

in progressDone.

• "1994-95 NHL season" Should be an en dash: "1994–95 NHL season"

Done

• "282 different players have played on the team" "different" is unnecessary.

Done

• "Only five players (Martin Brodeur, Sergei Brylin, Ken Daneyko, Scott Niedermayer, and Scott Stevens) have been a part of all three Cup wins, and eleven more have won two." Remove "only".

I left the only in there because 5 out of 282 is a small percentage, and provides emphasis.

It is, and readers can see that for themselves. See Wikipedia:Writing better articles, which says "[a]void subjective qualifiers". Let the stats and facts speak for themselves. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Done.

• "On the other end of the spectrum, 9 players have played just one regular season game on the team" "9"-->nine

Done

• "Martin Brodeur holds virtually every team " "nearly" is more encyclopedic, I think.

Done

• "The Devils have had eight captains, with Jamie Langenbrunner holding the captaincy since December 5, 2007."-->The Devils have had eight captains; Jamie Langenbrunner has held the captaincy since December 5, 2007.

Done

• In the last paragraph, the third and fourth sentences are redundant to the legend below. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Done

I will get around to the other two parts of the changes later today or tomorrow, or someone else could tackle that portion of it. If there's anything else to be required, let me know. Anthony Hit me up... 16:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed all relevant issues as per discussion. Anthony Hit me up... 03:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Still need a key to explain "Calder", "Selke", "Captain", etc. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Isn't that what wiki-linking them is for? I was under the impression that if something was wiki-linked it didn't need to have a key? -Djsasso (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • We shouldn't make readers click away from the article more than necessary. If you take a look at recently promoted FLs, they have keys. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I removed all the trophies & awards since the Devils was the only hockey FL to have them (although I think they all should, but that's a wikiproject issue). As for the key, I added Ret. since it was an abbreviation. Captain is self-explanatory, it's referenced in the lead, and if they STILL don't know, it's wikilinked. It's our job to explain things to readers, not hold their hand through every little thing. I think, however, as the list stands now, it's sufficient to pass all the requirements, and we should close this FLRC. Anthony Hit me up... 17:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Agree. Great job. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Provisional keep – The lead is longer than the other two NHL player lists at FLRC right now. If Dabomb's suggestions are implemented, I would say this should retain FL status. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Was about to switch to keep, but I noticed that an NHL.com link is dead. Nice work to bring the list's quality up, but this minor issue should be addressed before this FLRC ends. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose this would be a good replacement, would it? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That would do nicely. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Once that link is fixed, consider the nomination withdrawn. The list is much better. iMatthew ^talk at 00:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• One more thing before the FLRC is closed: the images need alternative text. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Anthony Hit me up... 13:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep as per relevant changes. Anthony Hit me up... 13:09, 11 July 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 kept by The Rambling Man 16:02, 11 July 2009 [3].

List of Columbus Blue Jackets players

Notified: WikiProject Ice Hockey and Kaiser matias .

I am nominating this for featured list removal because there are many problems with it, including a short and sloppy lead paragraph and a harsh lack of references. The table could probably be improved a little bit as well. – (iMatthew • talk) at 17:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As with the others you nominated I don't think the references are an issue because everything currently in the article that needs a reference has one. Numbers of references are not important, its the quality of the references and the fact that they cover all the information that could be disputed that is important. In that this page is mainly just a list of players and statistics I would only expect it to have one reference for 90% of the article and then the lead would have the remaining references. And I do agree that the lead needs a bit of expanding. -Djsasso (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Remove – Criterion 2. The lead is simply too short for FL status now. Also, the lead states the number of players was correct as of early March; that needs to be checked and updated. The Red Wings and Blackhawks player lists are good models for anyone interested in improving the lead. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Comment The lead needs to be expanded, the table updated and symbols added to accompany color. If these three things are done, then I think this can be kept. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The two-week period has nearly passed and nobody is working on this, so I am switching to "delist". I asked Resolute to look at this article back in January of this year, and he upgraded the lead a little. However, standards have improved since then, and there are still several issues that keep this from being our "best work". Dabomb87 (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please withdraw this FLRC. I'll get around to fixing it when I have a chance. iMatthew ^talk at 14:35, 11 July 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 kept by The Rambling Man 16:02, 11 July 2009 [4].

List of San Jose Sharks players

Notified: WikiProject Ice Hockey and Kaiser matias.

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is not up to current standards, like the NJD and CBJ lists. It's got a small lead, few references, and multiple other problems. – (iMatthew • talk) at 17:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree the lead needs to be fixed up, references however are fine as there doesn't need to be a huge number of references, the reference that are there just have to cover all the information which I think the references there do since they all list the players and the stats which is all this list is really about. -Djsasso (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Concerns
  • The first sentence in the lead...is obsolete. No bolded links, no word "complete"...
  • There should be at least two paragraphs in the lead.
  • Definitely needs updating. What is it, a month since the 2008-09 season ended?
  • The Key section needs tidying up a little. Those 3 tables are randomly placed. example
  • The note about "seasons column" is missing here, see the example above.
  • None of the references mention captaincy and award winners; citations are needed.
  • Boldface should be avoided in tables; the only exception is the heading.
  • A little info about "rotating captaincy" would be a plus.
  • There should be links to the 2008-09 media guide pages.

--Crzycheetah 04:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment See List of Detroit Red Wings players and List of Chicago Blackhawks players for examples of FL NHL players lists that are up to standard. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead a bit. Hopefully someone else can help finished the job since I am not interested (and don't know much about it) in hockey at all.—Chris! _ct 23:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Remove – The lead still needs some expansion, and a cite should be provided for the end of the first paragraph. Several of Crzycheetah's comments remain unresolved as well, notably the one about the list being a year out-of-date. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Lead looks a little better, but much more needs to be done to bring this up to FL standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Dabomb or Giant: Are you guys willing to help me save this? I need some more helps. I already started with the lead.—Chris! _ct 17:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can do later today. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll be around tomorrow to beef up the lead. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I will also work on this tomorrow.—Chris! _ct 01:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I did quite a bit to the list tonight. As far as I can see, the only things need doing now are the expansion of the lead and the stats need updating through 2008—09. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I went ahead and updated the stats myself. Lead still needs expansion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment The pictures need alternative text. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Done for all images. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Gave the lead a few more sentences. It still could use more expansion, but it's a good start. I'll be on vacation the next two days, but will try to do more after this weekend. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My lack of knowledge on the team or hockey prevented me from adding more. But, I will try.—Chris! _ct 01:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please withdraw this FLRC. I'll get around to fixing it when I have a chance. iMatthew ^talk at 14:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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