Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates

Please note that this talk page is for discussion related to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Off-topic discussions, including asking for peer reviews or asking someone to promote an FLC you are involved in, are not appropriate and may be removed without warning. Thank you for your cooperation.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

@FLC director and delegates: How long does it takes to complete nomination. I made a nomination about one and a half month ago-it has received three reviews now, but still pending...Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Women's Premier League (cricket) captains/archive1 Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 14:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio: Typically we expect at least three reviews with supports, one of which would needs to be a source review. When PresN leaves the accessibility review message, it's not typically counted in this figure, as they're typically just evaluating whether the list meets accessibility criteria at a glance. It's more or less a reminder/explanation of a requirement that we have in place, as opposed to a regular review. For what it's worth, the key in your list still does not meet accessibility criteria (it needs the accessibility formatting as well). If you want to get more reviews on your nomination I encourage you to review nominations of other users. Even if you're not confident enough to do source or image reviews, prose reviews of other nominations can still be helpful. Lastly, this wasn't necessarily urgent enough to ping the coordinators, as I believe we all have this talk page watchlisted already. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was just curious as its my first nom; I'm not exactly familiar with the review process but, I will get to it. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair @Vestrian24Bio, we all start out somewhere. That's why I typically suggest prose reviews for those new to the process. Most people can read through and call out when something sounds strange or a sentence just makes no sense. If that's all you can contribute while still learning the ropes, that's totally fine! Every bit helps. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking about bringing IFSC Climbing World Championships to FL status. It is a biennial event with 3-4 disciplines in male/female categories running since 1991. I would love to get suggestions of existing Featured Lists whose format/layout/standard would be a good example for me to aim for? thanks in advance. Aszx5000 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts seem to resemble the just-promoted World Figure Skating Championships cumulative medal count, so I would suggest that for those sections. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That looks interesting - thanks for that. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I noticed that List of cities in Donetsk Oblast does not have a source review but also isn't in the list for those needing a source review. Is it possible to add it so everyone can see? Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Josh seems to have done this. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure when the list of those needing one is typically updated, but it looks like List of Line of Duty episodes may have been missed out on being listed as well? Several other nominations both above and below it on the nominations page have been listed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the nomination Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Women's 400 metres hurdles world record progression/archive1, coordinator @User:PresN posted a suggestion, ignored my argument that his suggestion was not in line with WP:ACCESS, posted a personal attack, ignored my note about this attack, didn't come with any alternatives even though I kept looking for ways to resolve this including giving in to his suggestion, and closed the nomination appealing to tradition and saying there was no resolution possible. I find this incomprehensible. – Editør (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks were made. Additionally, all Wikipedia tables are required to conform to the MOS per MOS:ACCESS. Your refusal to incorporate column and row headers is downright baffling. Reading through that nomination, I found your behavior toward numerous reviewers argumentative and hostile. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that it's all documented, so people can read it for themselves. – Editør (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, since there's a lot of text on the nomination page, what Editør considers a personal attack is "Row scopes on the "primary" column for each row in combination with column scopes let screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Purposely not including them is the same as saying "I don't think readers with limited vision need as good an experience when reading this article as fully-sighted readers", which isn't okay." --PresN 16:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you wrote is in the same hemisphere as a "personal attack". Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examining that table, the date column should be moved to the first position and made the dates be made the row headers. Then the athlete, followed by the nation, then the time, then the location, and finally the reference. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have adjusted the table so that it now conforms to MOS:ACCESS. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't review the article, but it's duplicative of 400 metres hurdles#Milestones. It seems like a WP:CFORK that doesn't need to be a standalone page (criterion 3c) and should be merged there. Reywas92^Talk 16:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have NLIST quibbles here as well -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of different things I wanted to address based on this post and your comments at your nominations, such as you stating that PresN's mention of the requirements was merely a suggestion, but I'm going to keep it short. I (as one of the other two coordinators at FLC) support and endorse PresN's close, and, as I mentioned at the nomination, I also had intentions of closing that and your other nomination for the same reasons. PresN was very patient, thorough, and clearly did not make a personal attack directed at you. Accessibility is not a suggestion, it's a requirement. If you do not intend to meet the featured list criteria, specifically 5(c) in this case, then the list(s) will not get promoted. Let's not waste the time of reviewers and coordinators if you do not intend to meet the criteria. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list or not, WP:ACCESS is not a suggestion and all Wikipedia tables are expected to be in compliance, period. I am confident Hey man im josh is in agreement with that. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editør, please stop beating a dead horse. Seriously though, your behavior has been bizarre, and as was noted, outright argumentative at times, in these nominations. I'm not sure how many different editors need to state something for you to grasp the possibility you may be wrong. And hiding behind an accusation of a "personal attack" appears as either disingenuous or is some breakdown, maybe in language, in what truly constitutes a personal attack.

On a related note, I would strongly encourage our coordinators to police the rule on multiple nominations. The regulars at FLC all observe this rule (I have like 7 more lists ready to be nominated) and the only way for a new nominator to learn it is to have their nom auto-archived when a reviewer brings the issue up.

Lastly, I want to clearly state my support for our coordinators in both this issue and in general. It is a thankless job and both PresN and Josh were clear, polite and patient in this case. Your service is truly appreciated by the community. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm approaching things cautiously as I learn the ropes of helping out here, but I'll work to keep an eye out moving forward. For what it's worth though, you can absolutely throw a second nomination up if you want @Gonzo fan2007. You have a good history of addressing concerns and you have two supports at your current nomination. I see no reason you can't put a second one up and basically always have two up like I do. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if anyone would oppose encouraging nominators to link to a couple of (recent) FLs that are similar to their current nomination. That way, a reviewer would find it easier to compare and contrast. In the cases, where there is no other similar FL, then the reviewer knows to pay greater attention to the structure of the list and whether information needs to be added/eliminated, since that FLC might be used as a template for future FLCs. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine to encourage, but I by no means want folks to think of it as a requirement. It is, however, often helpful to see how a recently promoted list and one up for nomination compare to each other. I've found it often leads to improvements of the entire series because people find something that can be improved in one article that gets implemented across all of them. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of featured lists tend to be in series drawing from the same set of sources. Nominators, having interest in a broad subject area, often try to fill out this entire series into FLs. These also tend to have identical or near-identical formatting and structures.

List of New Orleans Saints seasons, List of Detroit Lions seasons, List of Washington Commanders seasons, and List of Jacksonville Jaguars seasons are mainly sourced to Pro-Football-Reference.com, with nearly identical formatting and list 'design'. Where their sources differ, it's minor distinctions about the context of each team. Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season, Timeline of the 2001 Atlantic hurricane season, Timeline of the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season, etc. are similar; all are mainly sourced to NHC reports, all within the same database.

To me, it seems like we're unnecessarily stifling the rate at which we can promote deserving articles to FL status by only allowing a single list within a single nomination. It is not significantly more work to check the sourcing on a dozen articles drawing from the same database than it is to check one. Many of these sorts of lists are so prose-light that they're easy to check through; and that leaves formatting, which again, tends to be identical.

I think folks should be allowed to nominate a batch of lists simultaneously, so long as they are reasonably identical in their format and sourcing; in general, series of lists that would require significantly less effort to review in a batch as opposed to each one individually. I think it's important to note this wouldn't just mean similar subject matter; lists on the individual Academy Awards tend to have wildly varying sources and formats, because the main sourcing here isn't a big database of academy award winners; it's contemporary news coverage, and reviewing one of these doesn't really tell you anything about the others. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've (or at least I've) considered this before, and rejected it for a few reasons:

1. While in the best case scenario it would work as described, more likely it results in less rigorous reviewing. What it seems like you're saying is "more formulaic lists in a series take less time to review, so it would be more efficient to nominate them in blocks of 4, which then would take as much time to review as a single non-formulaic list." But, just to pick an example, ChrisTheDude has done over 150 lists of music charts. Each list is a table with a lede, and certainly follows a formula. But even on their latest nomination people find small points to comment on. So, even our most prolific series-of-lists isn't getting and shouldn't get just a rubber-stamp review on each entry. If they nominated them in blocks of 5, would they get the same level of review, or would it become a rubber stamp? I think the latter.
2. There's no objective way to determine what list series should count. Does the Billboard series count? Probably. Does the World Heritage Sites series? Maybe, but there's a lot of in-table prose that's always unique. What about my animal lists? They're all similar, but often super-long with a lot of little details to check. What about accolade lists- they're all very similar, but by different nominators. Does that count?
3. If "some types" of lists get the right to have block nominations, then we incentivize formulaic lists over non-formulaic. I don't think formulaic lists are bad at all, but I don't want to disincentivize the more unique or difficult lists.
4. If "some types" of lists get the right to have block nominations and there's no objective criteria, then we give the impression that their nominators are first-class citizens and everyone else has to stay in the slow lane for not being as prolific.
5. We already have a mechanism for formulaic lists to go faster: they get reviewed quicker. There's a reason ChrisTheDude has so many FLs: his nominations get closed after 3 weeks pretty much on the dot.

I know that we all want good lists to get promoted as fast as possible, but I'm not sure this is the way to do it. --PresN 21:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with PresN, it seems like a good idea, but in practice likely wouldn't improve the project. Although featured content exists to incentivize, reward and acknowledge excellent articles, it shouldn't be the (only) goal. A good list exists for the benefit of the reader, regardless of whether it has the star in the corner or not. The star doesn't even show up on mobile view! There's no rush to getting the star or any other formal recognition. I currently have 16 active WP:GANs and 2 active WP:FLCs. Do I wish they got reviewed quicker? Sure! But I would prefer a more thorough and thoughtful review over pure speed of promotion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would LOVE to nominate a batch of lists and get it completed faster, but, I think it would result in the batch being of worse quality than if the nominations were more spread out. The last series I worked on and completed, first-round NFL draft picks, I ended up learning from almost every one that I nominated. The things I learned, and the improvements that were suggested, I went back and applied to all of the other lists I did and kept it in mind for the future. I think had I nominated them together I wouldn't have gotten the quality reviews I did because people would get worn out reviewing the batch. Does that then become part of the gaming of the system? A large batch which would be difficult to properly review in depth all at once?

I agree with PresN on the points they made. It's a good idea in theory, and I (and I think the rest of the team) appreciate, welcome, and encourage any and all suggestions and criticisms, but I don't think this one plays out well in actuality.

Thank you for your suggestion and thank you for caring enough about promoting content (because I know you very genuinely do) to make this post. I want to hear your pitches for how we can be doing better or improve things, so please don't be shy if you have any other thoughts and time. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded - I know my post was "I don't think so", but I'm also genuinely interested in making the process better. To pull out an example, other people pushed for us to close nominations more aggressively a few months back, and I was hesitant, but while it's hard to say that it was causation vs. correlation we've had way more promotions this summer than ever before. (Could also be our endless shilling on Discord.) If people have ideas to improve things- (promote after 2 weeks instead of 3? Allow more simultaneous nominations? Have another 3 delegates?) We would love to hear them. The delegates were chosen for many reasons, but "best opinion havers" wasn't one of them. --PresN 22:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something along the lines of "if you have at least two supports and no outstanding concerns, then you can nominate another FLC, regardless of how many you have open"? I feel like that could increase the flow rate of promotions while still making sure that each individual list receives proper scrutiny, though it might not hurt to cap successive nominations to a point. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As PresN mentioned above, the most quickly nominated ones are the most formulaic, and so I think the increased "flow rate" would be unproblematic, as most of the new workload would be easy reviews.

To keep things orderly with higher volume, maybe we could have a separate "bucket" to put ones that are ready for promotion and just need to wait out the clock? Checking people's work seems like a distinct task from reviewing it from scratch, and I'd worry about nominations that really need the review getting lost in a sea of the more formulaic stuff. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to consider something like that I think it would make sense to have a minimum time between nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that sounds like a good idea. Maybe a week, or ten days? Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A week seems reasonable. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we expand the number of simultaneous nominations, I think we should consider some form of quid pro quo, whether it's the explicitly defined requirements used at DYK, a system of sorting by reviews like at GAN, or something else. If we do add more simultaneous nominations (which I would push against – there is WP:NORUSH to collect accolades), my personal pitch would be to require 2 reviews for every additional simultaneous nomination after the first two, with FLC delegates allowed to block nominations if it seems like the required reviews are too cursory and are gaming the system. I think this is reasonable for people who are engaged at FLC without being too onerous. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's really necessary - we already have a de facto quid pro quo; if you don't review, you don't get reviews very quickly, and if you review a bunch, you hardly have to wait at all. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]