Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Evaluation of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics/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 not promoted by Matthewedwards 06:02, 31 July 2009.

Evaluation of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics

 * Nominator(s): Felipe Menegaz 03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has a complete content and is an unprecedented list. Felipe Menegaz 03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is this a list? There are several tables, but there are not sets of listed items. I think this is an article. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are not sets of listed items? Felipe Menegaz 14:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what DB87 means is that the focus of the information presented in this piece is in the prose, not in the tables. The tables are summaries, but they are not the main/sole method of information presentation. I gave the article a quick look, and I concur. This is an article with embedded lists, not a list in itself. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 01:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now I understand. Well, it was to be a list. The paragraphs were added to complement the tables and provide, to the reader, information about the reason for low or high evaluation. Should I remove the prose to form an Stand-alone list? Regards; Felipe Menegaz 01:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I say no, because, as you said, the prose provides information to readers.— Chris!  c t 19:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this should be at GAN or even FAC. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose even for a FAC. The article digresses waaay too much into the other bids, and imo fails to emphasize the points of the actual bid. Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not know if this article is good enough to become a FAC. I think that the prose should be removed, and all tables must be merged into one major and complete table. Focusing only on the application of Rio de Janeiro. Information provided before by the prose can be found in the articles Infrastructure of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics, Finance of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics and Politics of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics, which will be elaborated later. This will make a list... Regards; Felipe Menegaz 17:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Felipe Menegaz 18:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- I don't know but I see this more of an "article" than a "list".-- T ru  c o   503 19:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How? This "article" just display a list of scores. Felipe Menegaz 19:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Mainly because this type of list does not fall under the definition of a "list"-- T ru  c o   503 16:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If 2008 Summer Olympics medal table is a Featured list, Evaluation of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics should be a Featured list also; is the same type of list. Felipe Menegaz</b> 16:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. Thats about the medal count, a summary (stand alone) type of list.-- T ru  c o   503 17:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment I asked the good people at GAN about whether this is a list or an article. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment The way information should be organized in Wikipedia is to maximize value for the reader and certainly not in order to jump through hoops in content review/recognition processes. This same article could be copied and pasted with virtually identical content in order to serve as "Evaluation of SomeOtherPlace bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics" ... we'd end up with many articles that basically convey exactly the same information. This would be a nightmare for readers to navigate. Please stop and think about all of the information Wikipedia provides on 2016 bid evaluations, and how that content should be organized across articles. Don't think about "which content evaluation process will give us the nicest result, and therefore how should we target this article at reviewers", think about where readers will expect to go in order to find certain information, what information they would like to see presented at each location, and how it would most usefully be presented (too many tables makes for poor reading, but some information is best presented in tables, for instance). Bear in mind the need to avoid redundancy between articles. Readers will certainly benefit from editors thinking holistically rather than focussing purely on getting one specific article through a content recognition process. TheGrappler (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * After comments by User:TheGrappler, I propose move the name from Evaluation of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics to Evaluation of the bids for the 2016 Summer Olympics, making it available for all bids. <b style="font-size:small; font-family:vivaldi; color:black;">Felipe Menegaz</b> 01:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose – To begin with, I don't understand why pertinent background information was removed to force this page into a list format. The table is going to confuse anyone unfamiliar with the IOC bid process; items such as IBC/MPC and Sports concept & legacy beg for further explanation. If it works better as a regular article, present it that way and go for GA in the future, not FLC. The writing needs work before that point, however. In the lead, I see "to assist the IOC Executive Board in determine which of the seven Applicant cities". (use "determined") and "where these refer to Summer Olympics' planning" (add "the" before Summer), to name a couple examples.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 00:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Closing note: This candidate has been closed as a failed nomination, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close.  Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the FLC template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.