Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Congress of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party/archive1


 * 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) 23:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC).

Congress of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party

 * Nominator(s): TIAYN (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I know this is not a sexy topic, but come on, give little Laos a chance... TIAYN (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley
 * Lao People's Revolutionary Party should be linked.
 * I linked the first use of LPRP instead done
 * "The LPRP has convened 10 congresses since its founding" I would say foundation rather than founding and give the date.
 * Done
 * "The 4th Congress, which is the last congress that has been postponed" I am not sure what this means.
 * Done
 * The lead is thin, especially as the topic is so obscure. It would be helpful to give more information about the ideology of the party and the system of government.
 * I'll work on it.
 * The referencing is unsatisfactory. You need to supply specific references for each statement, not just a general list of sources. This would mean merging the general references into the reflist and following it with the bibliography.
 * Disagree, see Central Committee elected by the 16th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) (which is an FL-graded list). I nominated it, and people accepted it. The table looks more tidy, and structured that way. Discuss? ... I'd assume we should exisiting FL as the base...--TIAYN (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Some editors may support articles which are not fully referenced. I never would as there is no way of telling whether some statements are unsupported by citations. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? It is fully referenced. See "General", the subsection in "References". --TIAYN (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That is just a general bibliography. You need to provide specific citations with page numbers for each statement, as in the Wikipedia instruction when you click 'edit': "Cite your sources: " As these are not supplied, I have to oppose. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Page numbers? What are you talking about? They are URL links... I'm talking about "General" and NOT "Bibliography". "General". --TIAYN (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you are right that the sources do not have page numbers but you still need to provide specific citations for all statements. You got an article passed without full specific citations, but I have never seen an article passed without them and they are required under Wikipedia rules. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Entirely wrong, I got an article passed which wasn't referenced to you're liking. And now you're forcing me to reference the way you like it. Rules changed. If the rules aren't pragmatically applied, then they're bad rules--TIAYN (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The Thayer citations are showing harv errors
 * Not on my computer?! :P
 * You need to install the tool at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to see harv errors. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done --TIAYN (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing something different forward, but it is some way off FLC standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) The next one will be either National Congress of the Communist Party of China or National meetings of the Workers' Party of Korea --TIAYN (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 17:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I'm inclined to agree with Dudley Miles – four citations really isn't enough for a featured list. Additionally, having the entire list of references coming from, by my count, just three publishers can open up questions about neutrality. A Google Books search for Congress of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party returns 9,820 results – could any of these be used?
 * Also agree about the prose being rather light.
 * "Sturt-Fox" -> "Stuart-Fox"
 * "this suggest" -> "this suggests"
 * "it's leadership" -> "its leadership"
 * Avoid contractions, i.e. it's -> it is
 * The full stops in the key can be removed, as those aren't complete sentences.
 * 5.(a) of the featured list criteria says that "a minimal proportion of items" should be redlinked, yet 60% of the items in this list are. I would suggest creating stubs for these articles if nothing else.
 * Similarly, redlinks needs to be avoided in navboxes.
 * Per MOS:NUMERAL, I would suggest replacing "1 day"/"4 days"/"3 days/etc. with "one day"/"four days"/"three days"/etc.
 * "69" -> "69 FM"?

are you going to continue with this? If I receive no response I'll archive the nomination in a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC) { Yes, but real life. As chairman of two organisations, as an ordinary student who works part-time, and an athlete, time is an issue. I will, but real life. I'll try to look at it on Saturday. --TIAYN (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We are all busy but we can't have nominations lingering for weeks with comments unaddressed. Look forward to seeing you work on them. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Close it, I've got math exams coming up. I won't be able to fix it until after the 27 feb. --TIAYN (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 22:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.