Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/June 2008

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 removed by User:Gimmetrow 01:07, 13 June 2008 [1].

[edit] List of The Sopranos episodes

This list fails criteria 1c of the FL criteria in that it can not be claimed to be factually accurate when it is lacking in references. The two general references cover the episode list itself, but the entire lead is unreferenced. It has been tagged for this issue since February, but it has remained unaddressed. At this point, I feel it should be delisted. Collectonian (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• For hour long episodes, the summaries are rather short too.
• TV.com isn't a reliable source, as it is user-edited, just like IMDB
• What does need referencing? I would say the Directors, Writers and airdates. The writers and directors are covered by the HBO website.
• The TVWoP gives airdates, but is it a reliable source? Who are the recappers? Is it a user-edited site, or are they Bravo employees? Perhaps TV Guide's website would be better?
• The lead does need citing; I don't mind doing that. I've found a few relevant references already, though I haven't seen a single episode, so if it needs expanding, I'm not the best person for that job.
  • Y Done -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I know parts of TV.com are user edited, but are the actual airdates/episode lists? Good question on TVWoP. The recappers are a set group of people who are paid for their work, and new recappers apparently have to go through an interview process just like any other job (I never knew that until I just looked them up, wow). So that would seem to make them professional reviewers and so I'd say they meet the reliable source requirements. Collectonian (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I tried searching the site for an "About Us" or similar section, but didn't see it. I'm not sure about the airdates and episode lists at TV.com. The recaps and everything else in the "white space" are user-edited. I'm not sure about headers and stuff, but to be safe I think it should be replaced with something solidly reliable. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How does this List stand now? Does it meet the criteria yet? For me, I'd still like to see lengthier episode summaries, but is that a FL requirement. Unfortunately, I can't do them as I haven't seen the show and after today I won't be able to access the internet for a few days anyway. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead is looking better (though 86 needs to be unbolded :P). Proper episode summaries are an FL requirement for an episode list. Unfortunately, I've never watched it either, so I can't tell if they are including relevant plot points and resolutions, or if they are teasers. Guess they can be checked against the excessive episode articles, though, to see. Collectonian (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I left it bold because most of the American drama episode lists have the number bolded. It doesn't bother me which was is correct, as long as there is consistency across the board. I'll leave it for someone else to do the summary checks. I'm moving out of my apartment today and tomorrow, but my new one won't be ready until the 9th because the previous tenants trashed it. I do get new appliances, paint and carpet though! :) Anyway, it means I won't have internet access until about the 12th. :( -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No major changes have been made to this article in the last two weeks. It was brought here based on the fact that it failed the old WP:WIAFL criteria 1c ("Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge.). I think this has been addressed, and now meets the revised criteria.

I am still concerned with the summaries. Are they teasers or summaries? I haven't seen a single episode so I don't know. Are the of an adequate length for an hour long show? Looking at the summaries of Lost (season 3), another hour long show (although it's actually 45 minutes because of commercials), I would say they're too short. But that isn't why it was brought here. The newly revised criteria 3 says "It comprehensively covers the defined scope". It does cover the scope, but does it do it comprehensively? -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal due to a lack of citations. GreenJoe 00:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, I still support its removal. It has improved quite a bit, but I'd have to agree that the summaries are still too short, with several reading like a TV guide teaser summary. I'd recommend the primary editors start discussions on merging back most of the episode pages, which fail WP:EPISODE, WP:FICT, and WP:N for the most part. Their plot summaries are too long, but can be used to fill out the ones here. For the length of the series, though, it would also be good go give the show seasonal pages, ala Lost (with the two part season 6 kept on one page together). There are also a few formatting issues remaining, with the season/series columns being rather big because of their headers, and causing some of the date cells to wrap. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:46, 12 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.