The following is an archived discussion of a featured list 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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): –Vami_IV✠ 00:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the page has grown to its ideal size, is reliably cited, undergone both a Peer Review and the copyediting of other editors, and have implemented all suggestions of all editors that have previously reviewed this article. –Vami_IV✠ 00:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the map, why are some battleships stars and others circles? Mattximus (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not entirely know (nor did I know those were there). They seem to denote major clusters of sinkings, such as at Tsushima, but then don't do that for Jutland. I had designs to redesign it for a time while I was working on the article. –Vami_IV✠ 01:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunk and later salvaged seems to be a redundant table, is it not? I think the ships should be moved to the other tables. A note can be added that it was salvaged, but the other tables are all reasons for the sinking, so this one stands out as a sore thumb. Mattximus (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am in this process. –Vami_IV✠ 03:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The map being unclear is a big sticking point. I can't find any reasoning for the stars. If it's multiple sinkings, then why not Pearl Harbor? If it's scuttlings, then what's the star off Japan?
• The note for the Arizona's condition should include it being part of a memorial; curiously, the memorial in Phoenix is mentioned but not the one on the ship itself.

 Done This is incorrect; the memorial at Pearl Harbor is mentioned, but it features more prominently now so no harm done. –Vami_IV✠ 13:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that... ok, so the first table is "sunk in combat." So we know what sunk them - combat. The "lost at sea" table, on the other hand, offers no clue as to why the ship sunk. I think a column here would be very useful. "Struck a rock," "collided with [other ship]," "ran aground," etc.

 Done –Vami_IV✠ 00:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The "sunk and later salvaged" table seems problematic to me. Presumably, many of these ships could also belong in the other tables, like "sunk in combat". Maybe its rows should be merged into the appropriate tables, with the salvage/scrapping data added to the notes column?
• The targets destroyed by specific bombs should include links to those nuclear tests.
• Links to the scuttling at Scapa Flow should be added to each ship scuttled there; it currently only exists in a footnote.

 Done –Vami_IV✠ 21:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Footnote c reads very strangely, like it was translated. I'm not sure it's even needed.

 Done Though, I added it as two supporting sentences where the footnote originally was. –Vami_IV✠ 12:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Likewise, I'm not sure what footnote d adds.

 Done Removed. –Vami_IV✠ 12:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Footnote g doesn't need the coordinates, they're already in the table.

 Done Removed footnote. –Vami_IV✠ 12:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Footnote h is good but the "Disputed" in the table should just give the range of deaths, so "950-1200" or something like that. Something that gives an idea of the scope.

 Done –Vami_IV✠ 05:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Footnote i mentions a second sinking for the Peresvet; the article mentions it was redesignated Sagami and sank as that, but there's no mention in the article at all of Sagami. Shouldn't there be? Or did the refit made after salvaging demote it from being a battleship?

 Done A brief service history now constitutes a note placed in the battleship's "Fate" cell. –Vami_IV✠ 20:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Footnote k, see notes for footnote h.

 Done –Vami_IV✠ 03:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Footnote l... the other entries in the table mention when someone was captured, so shouldn't this info be in the table? And wouldn't the people shot count as casualties?

 Done as of the Grand Recitation –Vami_IV✠ 03:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Much of Footnote m - like it maybe being Suwo - would work better in the notes column rather than as a footnote, I think.

 Done as of the Grand Recitation –Vami_IV✠ 03:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Golbez (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• several items in bib have no notes pointing to them (or I couldn't find them): Chesneau, Roger (2004) Preston, Antony (1982). Lyon, Hugh; Moore, John E. (also has no date). Allen, W.H (first one). Is incomplete citation.

• Citation bot fixed some of the problems, with Allen, but the problems still remain of citations pointing to them.

 Done as of the Grand Recitation. –Vami_IV✠ 03:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also a bit stuck on the map, and confused about the difference between those sunk at Scapa Flow and those scuttled there. Was there actually a difference? auntieruth (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• what is the difference between those sunk at Scapa Flow and those scuttled there? auntieruth (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am moving all of "Sunk and later salvaged" ships into their appropriate categories as per Golbez's comments. –Vami_IV✠ 23:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the problems with the map, but I'm going to make that the last item I fix. –Vami_IV✠ 03:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me.  :) auntieruth (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems odd to me to include ships that sank after striking mines in the "lost at sea" category, particularly Bouvet, since she was actively engaging Ottoman shore batteries at the time of her sinking. To add to the inconsistency, Petropavlovsk, the first entry in the "Sunk in combat" section, was sunk by mines. As was Hatsuse. And Yashima. And Regina Margherita.
  • I have moved the latter four ships into "Lost at sea" and will be looking at the pages for each and every battleship on the list for cause of sinking. –Vami_IV✠ 23:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Most of the German battleships listed in the scuttling section were later raised and scrapped, thus they should be in the "sunk and salvaged" section.
  • "Sunk and salvaged" is being liquidated. The German warships scuttled at Scapa Flow have been moved into "Scuttled" with accompanying notes and citations (as a result, Gröner, p. 26 is veeeeeeery overused). –Vami_IV✠ 23:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Presumably the Russian ships sunk at Port Arthur, raised, and commissioned into the Japanese fleet should be listed in the salvaged section also.
  • See above reply. The Russian vessels sunk at Port Arthur have already been moved to the appropriate sections, along with a brief service history as necessary. –Vami_IV✠ 23:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Lots of reference issues:
  • Citations should be formatted the same (i.e., either all short cites or long cites, all SFN templates or none, etc.)
  • Lots of harv errors with citations not linking to references
  • wrecksite is, I think, user generated
    • It is –Vami_IV✠ 21:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this a reliable source?
    •  Done Removed citation –Vami_IV✠ 18:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for worldwar1.com
    •  Done as part of Part Two –Vami_IV✠ 18:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for battleship-cruisers.co.uk
    • Also removed. There is now a worrying shortage of citation for HMS Formidable and I do not have the books to look this up. –Vami_IV✠ 22:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And forgottenwrecks.maritimearchaeologytrust.org
    • Removed –Vami_IV✠ 21:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And burtonbradstock.org.uk
    • Removed –Vami_IV✠ 21:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And worldnavalships.com
  •  Done Purged –Vami_IV✠ 11:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And naval-history.net. At this point, I should just ask for justification for any of the online references used in the list apart from DANFS and Combined Fleet. Parsecboy (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • scapaaflowwrecks at least seems legitimate to me. I'll look into the other ones and likely make an effort to replace them. –Vami_IV✠ 23:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Still lots of long cites mixed in with short cites - doesn't matter if it's a book or a journal or whatever, they all need to be the same format
  • I've moved all the journals too their own section and will be doing the same for the Combined Fleet citations. WIP. –Vami_IV✠ 11:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Still need to get rid of the citations to wrecksite - user-generated websites are inherently unreliable for our purposes.
  •  Done Purged all but one, which was a photograph of a newspaper clipping –Vami_IV✠ 11:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Navweaps needs to go too, it's not reliable, unfortunately
  •  Done Purged –Vami_IV✠ 11:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know enough about scapaflowwrecks.com, but they have an about page
  • I am going to leave scapaflowwrecks.com on the article as I feel that they are legitimate. –Vami_IV✠ 11:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto for [2], though the site is blocked on my office network (which isn't a great sign)
  •  Done Purged –Vami_IV✠ 11:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Several dead links
• Harv errors need to be fixed, see User:Ucucha/HarvErrors for a script to fix them. Parsecboy (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm using sfn not harv.
    • I know that - install the tool and you'll see what I'm talking about. Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoa, this is pretty handy. I'll get right on those harv errors and sort the bastards out once and for all! –Vami_IV✠ 07:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done thanks to your handy tool. –Vami_IV✠ 10:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of more things from me:

• There are a couple of places in the initial section where citations are needed - the bit about the time of battleships being the senior ship having run its course, the Toulon scuttling, and the traditional/legal status of ships as war graves.
• There's an WP:ENGVAR issue - I see "armor" and "harbor" but the conversion templates all use "metre". The initial version of the page appears to be using American spellings, so the templates should be brought into line with that (so just add "sp=us" to each template).
  •  Done
• This one is purely subjective, so feel free to ignore it, but I'd rather use a photo of Arizona now, rather than immediately after the attack - something like File:USS Arizona Memorial (aerial view).jpg.Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have, over the course of three to four days (I cannot recall, only that I pulled many all-nighters for this), completed a massive edit to address two things in finality: sfn cite errors and the defunct "sunk and later salvaged" section. Here is a laundry list of just about every single thing I did:

I eagerly await further comments. –Vami_IV✠ 03:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 23:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): De88 (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this list has clear and detailed information regarding the group's recorded songs and the collaborators who worked with them. The introduction is abundantly clear along with the list which has several images to provide readers with visuals on who exactly wrote or produced their songs and a key to highlight the group's single releases and the like. De88 (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "i and formerly Camila Cabello, whose departure was announced on December 19, 2016" I would split that off, it's not the most important thing about the band, and probably isn't worth including (along with precise date!) in the opening sentence of an article about the band's songs.
  • I removed everything after "Cabello".  Done
• Second sentence has too many clauses...  Done
• "was ultimately released in 2013" why "ultimately"?
  • That was a mistake.  Done
• "soaring hooks" sounds like a fan writing this.
  • Removed  Done
• "Their extended play had four subsequent releases" confused me, perhaps "Their EP was subsequently released four times..."  Done
• Abbreviate extended play.
  • This word is mentioned many times. Which one are you referring to? De88 (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Put (EP) after the first mention, and then use EP subsequently. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Their EP had four subsequently released four times" <-- I italicized this word and just wrote "extended play" any time it was required to mention it. Is that fine? I feel that saying EP every time is a bit informal. De88 (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you want me to replace every time the words "extended play" are mentioned with "EP"? De88 (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • I won't fight this. I think I fixed everything that was suggested on your comments. This is my first time nominating an article for a FL status. I am not sure what happens after the nominator fixes the article with the reviewer's comments.  Done De88 (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • We'd normally expect to see reviews from three or four people, so we'll have to see how those go. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• What's "trap" in this context?
  • "Trap" is a music genre that sounds like a mix of R&B and hip-hop. I piped the word.  Done
• "All in My Head (Flex)" small i for "in".  Done
• "Mikkel Eriksen" etc are piped to redirects, pipe to article directly, or don't pipe at all.  Done
• Make images consistent width.  Done
• Emily Warren doesn't need pipe linking.  Done
• Notes are unreferenced.
  • I cannot reference the notes, only put the reference next to it. Is that fine? De88 (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes can be referenced, please see other FLs for how to do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I used this article to guide myself as it is a featured list article and the notes are not referenced. De88 (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • That doesn't mean it's right. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Shouldn't this be noted on their talk page? It doesn't set a very good example for a "featured list" article then. De88 (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)  Done[reply]
            • There are thousands of featured lists, some of them aren't perfect. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • If that is the case, then it does not deserve to have a featured list tag. Some users work extremely hard to get an article at this status and it seems unfair that some are flawless and others have flaws but are still within the same caliber. If it was me, I'd put a notice threatening to revoke the tag unless those comments are fixed. De88 (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's what we have WP:FLRC for. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref titles should use spaced en-dashes, not spaced hyphens (see WP:DASH).  Done
• Online refs should have at least a publication date or an accessdate, or both.  Done
• Make publication and accessdates consistent in format, dmy or mdy.  Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Oppose from Aoba47

• Upon opening the list, I immediately notice the "This article needs additional citations for verification" tag. This will need to be addressed before this list can be promoted.
• For the caption for the infobox image, I would suggest changing it to inform the reader on where the group is performing and the date of the performance. The current caption does not provide much insight into the image, and appears to be a repetition of information already found in the lead. Here are two examples of featured lists that you use the caption style that I recommend: List of songs recorded by Kelly Clarkson and List of songs recorded by Lana Del Rey.
• Use the two featured lists that I have recommended above to rephrase the first sentence. The first sentence should not be an identification of the band members (save that for the group's main article), but something about the material they have recorded. See the introduction sentence to the List of songs recorded by Kelly Clarkson here: (American singer Kelly Clarkson has recorded material for her seven studio albums.).
• I would recommend spelling out the phrase extended play on its first use and then putting EP in parenthesis directly after it, and using EP throughout the rest of the lead. Spelling it out would be useful for readers unfamiliar with the concept and would save them a click out of the list to the related article.
• The second sentence seems rather short and abrupt and a little out of place. I would recommend combining it with the following sentence to read as follows to help with the flow (After placing third the second season of the American televised singing competition The X Factor, the group released their extended play (EP) Better Together (2013).)
• You will need a citation for their participation in X Factor.
• You will need a citation for all of the release dates of the albums and singles. You will also need citations for their guest vocals on other songs and any critical commentary on their songs and sound (i.e. which critics noted as a step away from the group's "teen" image in their previous EP and the synthpop and electronic dance song with new wave and 1980's music style influences are two examples of this). The lack of citations in the lead is a major issue for this list, and should be the first thing that you work on as every sentence should be cited.
• Make it clear in the lead when Camila left the group.
• In the phrase (The first single released from their debut EP, Better Together,), you should remove "their debut EP" as you informed the reader about what this is in a previous sentence so it is unnecessarily repetitive.
• Please include the years in which the singles and albums were released in parenthesis after the title or in the actually sentence itself.
• "Worth It" is missing a quotation mark.
• The lead should include information on the group's latest single "Down" and their upcoming, self-titled album.
• I am confused on why you would include three separate images of Beyonce, Michelle, and Kelly, when you could easily use the one in the infobox of the Destiny's Child article.
• Change Kelendria Rowland to Kelly Rowland as she is more known by that name.
• The caption on the Mariah Carey photo is worded awkwardly and needs to be revised. It should be apparent that she is listed as a co-writer for "All I Want for Christmas is You" as her role in that song's development does not change when someone covers it.
• The photos' captions need citation if you are talking about songs having interpolations of other works.
• I am a little confused the decisions in what songs are linked and not linked in the photos' captions. "Sledgehammer" is linked in the Meghan Trainer image, but the other singles in the other captions are not. Please be consistent either way.
• For the table, I would also mark the songs that were released as singles.

I can tell that a lot of work has been put into this list, but I believe that a lot of work is needed to bring this up to the status of a featured list, specifically the addition of references/citations in the lead. I am sorry, but I will have to oppose this for promotion as it still requires a lot of work. Aoba47 (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 23:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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