Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Alabama state symbols/archive1

Add links
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 06:44, 16 February 2008.

List of Alabama state symbols[edit]

This is modeled after List of Indiana state symbols. It's comprehensive, and sourced to the Alabama archives. Also, it has pictures wherever Wikipedia has them. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Check through your redlinks to see if there are alternately titled articles that exist for them, as is the case with Longleaf Pine. Geraldk (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I got all of them, thanks. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - well done. My only remining comment would be that the lead could be a little more comprehensive, but it's on par with the other FL state symbols lists. Geraldk (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I think at least some of the redlinks should be changed to bluelinks (e.g. Alabama State Bible) or retargeted in the absence of any relevant article (e.g. List of U.S. state quilts --> Quilt, perhaps). A little too much red towards the end of the list for my liking, but otherwise looks good. BencherliteTalk 09:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the lists, I have changed the redlinks to bluelinks. However, with regards to a lack of articles on such things as Johnstone's Junonia, there is no alternative to creating them, in my opinion. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, you could always turn them to black text if you conclude that there's no valid encyclopaedic article to be written on Conecuh Ridge Alabama Fine Whiskey, for example. I've written a stub on the Alabama State Bible to help, as that was the one that was annoying me the most (and added a couple of categories) and will change to a neutral. This is not because of the quality of the list or the amount of work that has gone into preparing and presenting this list - praise is due for both - but because I think there needs to be a decision whether this is an (a)(1) list ("group of existing articles") or an (a)(3) list ("complete set of items not sufficiently notable for individual articles"). The amount of redlinks looks like a compromise!
      • One other thing (to be boring): some of the references have "update" dates (e.g. the State Bible's page says "Updated: November 15, 2007") and this information should be added to the citation using the "date=" parameter. BencherliteTalk 23:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although I am also wary of the redlinks under "Culture", I suspect half of them will eventually go black anyway. I'd have considered just using the main page instead of having a separate source for all but that's more of personal taste. Circeus (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Whilst it adheres to WIAFL, I think it could do with a little jazzing up. An image by the lead, or expanding the lead, perhaps. At the moment it just seems to lack that special something, that sparkle. Ya know? One easily fixable issue – works, such as plays, should be in italics. I can see a couple. Seegoon (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing yet again to support. A few of the redlinks have been retargeted or switch to black text, and I have added the dates to the {{cite web}} myself as this hadn't been done. Agree that the lead could be longer, or an image could be used up there (the state quarter, perhaps?) but won't oppose further. BencherliteTalk 01:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose as I came here I was reminded that "Featured content" should be Wikipedia's "finest work". This just doesn't cut it for me I'm afraid. I know the list is comprehensive but the lead is really weak. And before someone directs me to another List of X state symbols which is already a FLC, I know they do but it doesn't make it right. Six red links in such a brief list isn't good either. If this was an article rather than a list, it'd just about make GA, so perhaps this is a candidate for the currently non-existent Good Lists? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose My main issue with the currently is that it's very "bare bones"... I reall feel lists like these should include information about why a particular item is significant in Alabama. (i.e. it's not annotated with aufficient additional information, as required by WP:WIAFL 1f). Tompw (talk) (review) 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI agree that we need more information in "state symbols" lists. Most of the editors take similar FLs and model after it, so maybe we should nominate other FLs, such as List of Indiana state symbols, for removal. At the same time, there is a problem of finding the necessary references to explain why each symbol is important.--Crzycheetah 21:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per Tompw. Rudget. 15:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Alabama_state_symbols/archive1&oldid=1143873645"