Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Russian Music Competition/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 18:12, 7 June 2008 [1].
[edit] Russian Music Competition
Well, here I am with another music competition at FLC. This is a music competition which takes place in California, and has pianists travelling from across the world to compete in it. I have been unable to discover why it is called the Russian Music Competition when its based in the United States, but I'm assuming this is because the founders where Russian, or at least part-Russian. I understand this has only been in the Mainspace for a few minutes, but after extensive work, I believe it meets the featured list criteria.
In order to save everyone's time, I feel I should point a couple of things out here. More than one person can indeed win the first, second or third place, and it appears that the competition may skip the first prize, and move straight on to the second prize. I took the decision to make the tables separately, as I believed they would look messy if all joined up. In conclusion, I think this list is ready, and I'm willing to address any issues and look forward to seeing any comments. Qst (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- International Russian Music Piano Competition needs creating
- "a piano competition, established by Irina Prilipko-Morgan and her husband, Dan Morgan" I'd remove both commas
- This is a list of winners, and the article title should reflect that, such as Russian Music Competition winners, that way a more informative article can be created at the existing one and can link to the winners page.
- I've had to explain this on several of my FLCs; the limited information avaialble about the competition would mean that if there were a separate article for the competition, the list of winners would basically just be copying the information from the article. I hope you can understand. Qst (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I suppose. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've had to explain this on several of my FLCs; the limited information avaialble about the competition would mean that if there were a separate article for the competition, the list of winners would basically just be copying the information from the article. I hope you can understand. Qst (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- "The final category, Advanced, is staged at the Le Petit Trianon theater or another within California," "Le" means "the", so remove the "the". Also, state what city the theater is in, and perhaps when and why it has been staged elsewhere (though if you do the page move and retitling this may not be necessary)
- What city is Foothill College in? Many will not know
- put references in numerical order
- I'd really like to see the columns be sortable, but because of the rowspans in the first column this can't be done :(
- Something's wrong with the bottom of the 2006 table. The first column has no line at the bottom
That's all I have I think. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Reply
Support Fully referenced, meets all the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. GreenJoe 00:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you mean the tables, there is no need to add the same footnote 100 times. Linking them as a "General reference" in the References section is perfectly acceptable. This oppose is not actionable. Daniel (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- So, GreenJoe, you're saying that if an article is completely referenced to reliable sources and has five citations, it does not have enough citations, even though its reliable? As that's basically what you're saying. This oppose, as Daniel said in other words, is superfluous. Qst (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you mean the tables, there is no need to add the same footnote 100 times. Linking them as a "General reference" in the References section is perfectly acceptable. This oppose is not actionable. Daniel (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps the source of the claims in the table needs to be more explicit, somewhere. I agree that we certainly don't want the same ref a hundred times. Joe, can you be more explicit?
- Comments
- Shouldn't the article be called "International Russian Music Piano Competition"?
- Do we need any of those flags and the countries linked each time? (WP:FLAG) The list isn't even sortable, so why is the overlinking needed? indopug (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose My main concern being the title/scope of the article. The current title does not fit with the list of winners contained within. A more appropriate title would be something like List of Russian Music Competition winners or something along those lines. As the title stands, it suggests an article about the history of the awards, the people behind it, etc, etc, not a bunch of tables listing the winners. Drewcifer (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- In all fairness, creating a separate article for the actual competition itself would be a duplicate of the info included in the lead, as I've included everything available in the lead of the list. Qst (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's part of the problem. Please see my comments made at this FLC (I'd rather not repeat myself unnecessarily). This article has the exact same problem (and possible solutions). Drewcifer (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, so would you like me to create a stub (unfortunately, even with all information available, it will still be stub) and work on the lead a little? Qst (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that's completely up to you. In my opinion, the best solution would be to move that stuff out of the lead and into the body, rewrite the lead, expand the new stuff in the body wherever possible, and then see where that takes us. I think it would be a mistake to split it up into two articles since, as you say, it's only enough for a stub. Unfortunately, by the time you've done all of this, the article may no longer qualify as a bona fide list, which might make this FLC a moot point. But I suppose we'll cross that bridge when/if we come to it. Drewcifer (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, so would you like me to create a stub (unfortunately, even with all information available, it will still be stub) and work on the lead a little? Qst (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's part of the problem. Please see my comments made at this FLC (I'd rather not repeat myself unnecessarily). This article has the exact same problem (and possible solutions). Drewcifer (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- I'm also concerned over the title of the list versus the content versus the real title of the award.
- No need to relink US $ twice in the lead.
- I'm yet to be convinced of the significance of this competition as a whole. In what sense is it notable? Forgive my ignorance but a competition where prize winners can walk away with $100 sounds little more than a school fete...
- "Best Performance " vs "Best performance " inconsistent.
- Asking a lot I know but all bar one of your references are from the competition itself. Are any reliable secondary sources which may help boost the verifiability of notability available?
- What happened between 2000 and 2002? And are the founders notable in some way or just a couple of Jon Does?
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
