Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of notable people under FVEY surveillance/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 User:Giants2008 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

List of notable people under FVEY surveillance

 * Nominator(s): A1candidate (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list in conjunction with Surveillance awareness day to educate and inform Wikipedia's readers. A1candidate (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose – I would advise the nominator to read the Featured list criteria, and make some attempt to meet those conditions in this article. For a few brief points; the tables do not meet accessibility requirements, as set out in WP:DTT. It has not been acceptable to start a featured list with a bold this is a list of... for a long, long time. The list itself has no set inclusion criteria: who says that these are notable people, and more to the point that those not included are not? For example, there are multiple sources that support the fact that Osama bin Laden was under surveillance by the US for months before his death. He is most certainly notable.  Harrias  talk 18:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Great topic for a list page. Highly encyclopedic. Educational. Meticulously sourced throughout. Good tabulation and structure. Excellent efforts. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support this? What were you thinking, Cirt? Strong oppose / quick fail for the reasons given by Harrias and SchroCat and a few other reasons - poor proze, violations of MOS (title / use of bold), incomplete, sorting by first name rather than surname, inadequate categories... I could go on. It looks exactly like I would expect a list knocked up in a couple of hours to make a political point to look. Peer view is premature - too many basic things to sort out. BencherliteTalk 20:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your hesitation,, but posted to my user talk page stating his willingness to work on all these issues. Perhaps we should give him a chance. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Cirt, sorry, but this cannot be sorted out "in a few seconds". The failure to meet criteria 3a is a fundamental one that needs a lot of work to be done to overcome. - SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But I just don't understand your lack of hesitation before endorsing this as meeting the FL standards, without reservation or any attempt to find anything to improve. Poor show, Cirt. The Day We Fight Back is no reason to suspend your cognitive abilities and is no reason to rush things. BencherliteTalk 21:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood guys, thanks. But I don't understand why there is a need to rush things in this FLC, itself. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Delegate comment. I'm tempted to quick fail this, as it's a long way from where we would expect articles at FLC should be. It certainly fails criteria 3(a) of the FL criteria, not to mention falling short of WP:ACCESS requirements. In terms of the rest, the text formatting is poor, table sortability is wrong, some columns which shouldn't be sortable are, and some that should be sortable aren't. There's a disambig link in the text, and one of the images fails NFCC criteria. The referencing has inconsistent dates, shouting text, inconsistent formatting of publications etc. I could go on with more, but there doesn't seem to be much point. I really do advise you withdraw and spend some time putting it right before you go through the nomination process. - SchroCat (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it might be prudent at this point for to agree with this idea proposed by  and move instead to a List Peer Review? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Harrias - Thanks for your comments. It's a pity that the FL criteria at WP:FLCR does not explicitly state that a featured list must not start with such a line, because as an editor who is nominating my first list, such a requirement does not appear to be obvious to me. Could you tell me what's the rationale behind this? The inclusion criteria of my list is defined in the lead section, and Osama does not meet them.

@SchroCat - Thanks for your comments. I believe most of the points you brought up could be sorted out:


 * 1) Inconsistent dates - They're now changed to a date/month/year format
 * 2) Shouting text - Removed unnecessary capitalization
 * 3) Table sortability - You have to be more specific about what needs to be changed
 * 4) Disambig link - Fixed
 * 5) One of the images fails NFCC criteria - Replaced with free image

It's hard for me to make guesses when you simply say "text formatting is poor", could you be more specific about what needs to be changed? I understand that I should have asked for a Peer Review first, but it did not occur to me that such formatting errors are so serious. I believe that these errors have been fixed now, but if that is not the case, I hope you would be more specific about what exactly needs to be changed. I don't see anything wrong with the prose, lead, or structure, but I would be happy to fix it if you tell me directly.

@Cirt - I've responded on your talk page.

-A1candidate (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * With the exception of the image, the errors are still present. You may have cleared up some instances, others still exist. You really need to sort this out in PR, not at FLC: it's just not close enough to the standard to be entered. As a first time nominee you need to spend more time on this—FLs are not created in a day, despite the desire to have them ready for a specific day. - SchroCat (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Update: has placed the List up for Peer Review, at Peer review/List of notable people under FVEY surveillance/archive1. I'm pretty sure FLC and Peer Review discussions shouldn't go on simultaneously, so at this point it'd be best to close this FLC discussion, and allow  to focus on the Peer Review. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

- SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.