Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of winners of the William E. Harmon foundation award for distinguished achievement among Negroes/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 10:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC).

List of winners of the William E. Harmon foundation award for distinguished achievement among Negroes

 * Nominator(s): &bull; Serviceable&dagger;Villain 08:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I made this many moons ago. I'm Ling.Nut. I know it cannot be more complete, because the award no longer exists. I'm also reasonably sure it can't be any more fully verified, since everything comes from the NYT. The list covers an undeservedly obscure but key aspect of African American history with respect to the fine arts. Thanks for your time & trouble. &bull; Serviceable&dagger;Villain 08:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose this needs to be merged with the main article, there's not enough to enable both articles to exist (per our criterion 3b). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that FLIST, unlike FAC, has an arbitrary length cut-off? I'm interested in learning the nature of the formula that is applied to determine whether one list can stand alone while another cannot. From my perspective, if you cram this list into the relevant article, the latter becomes a list with a top-heavy lead... looking at "awards" FLISTS, we have List of Czech submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, which seems shorter than this one; and ummm.. List of submissions to the 74th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film ... and .. should I keep going? ...this one looks a bit small: The Ting Tings discography ... and.. I bet you probably already know which one is shortest, don't you? Anyhow, I fail to see this standard being applied consistently. Thank you for your time & trouble. &bull; Serviceable&dagger;Villain 05:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm saying our 3b criterion exists to prevent lists being forked out of main articles when the list could easily fit within the main article without make the main article unmanageably large. Thank you for the links to the other lists, but I'm not really interested in those, I'm commenting on this list right now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't let this FLC get you down. There's definitely been a lot of great work so far, and more potential to be had. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Sorry, I just don't see it anywhere close to the criteria. It is very well referenced, but in addition to failing criteria 3b and needing a merge into William E. Harmon Foundation award for distinguished achievement among Negroes, this list also has issues with criteria 4 and 5a.  Now, don't get me wrong here, I'm impressed with the work and the referencing, but there is some serious potential I can see here.
 * Of course, I'd recommend starting with the merge. This will give due weight to the subject and the list of winners both.
 * Given that the awards are repetitive each year, I'd recommend using a table (or tables, if you prefer) in place of the bulleted lists. These can be arranged by year, award category, who won, and what they won the award for; enough, I would say, to meet WP:WHENTABLE.  As it stands right now, the list feels very difficult to read.
 * You have a bare URL in your footnotes that needs to be properly cited, with at bare minimum a title and a retrieval date.
 * Please observe the wee tiny  TingTings article, whose discography I linked above. With a bit of searching, I'm fairly sure I can find similar inconsistencies...  De-flist the tingting list, and I'll agree that you are consistent. Otherwise, nope. &bull; Serviceable&dagger;Villain 04:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Ting Tings discography is considered large enough to standalone from the main article (which itself is large). The example here is way off the scale, the main article is almost entirely repeated at the top of this list article.  What's the point of two articles here?  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So if I delete 90% of the lede of the list, it's OK? DONE! Also, the TingTings is tiny. Look again. It's a lede and some lists. But never mind. I'm off to delete content from the list... OK, content deleted, as per your request. &bull; Serviceable&dagger;Villain 09:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No no no, what I'm saying is there is just one article here, the list content should be merged back into the main article. This is a 3b violation, it's nothing to do with the Tings Tings discog, which I've already explained was a reasonable fork from a long main article.  I'm not sure you're really getting this, perhaps someone else can explain it to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck with your editing. Thank you for your opinions. &bull; Serviceable&dagger;Villain 00:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.