Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Nicknames of Houston


 * 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 promoted 18:52, 29 January 2008.

Nicknames of Houston
I ran across this article while working on another project, and I was very favorably impressed. I believe it meets all FLC criteria. It is inherently a list, but the content is presented in an article-like format. It includes abundant related detail and good illustrations. Most impressively, I think that a reader of this article would come away impressed with the encyclopedic value of a list of city nicknames (notably, not all readers of List of city nicknames in the United States have had that kind of positive impression). --Orlady (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that the article is short, but I was not aware that featured lists need to be long. Rather, they need to be comprehensive. This article is longer than several featured lists, including List of Canadian provinces and territories by population, List of counties in Connecticut, List of counties in Hawaii, List of counties in Nevada, List of counties in Rhode Island, List of counties in Wyoming, List of colleges and universities in Vermont, and List of Encyclicals of Pope John Paul II. --Orlady (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It's kind of small, and it's not really a list is it? Plus the lead is way too short. -- Scorpion0422 02:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it doesn't look like a typical list. However, its subject is a collection of discrete items (isn't that what a list is?). Also, if you start at List of city nicknames in the United States (clearly a list) and drill down through List of city nicknames in Texas (another obvious list) to Nicknames of Houston, you will recognize that this article is fundamentally a list, but one that has been so effectively embellished with annotations that it does not look like a typical list.
 * Comments The lead is much to short. Also, an external links section of some type would be helpful. Drewcifer (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Response The lead has been expanded.--Orlady (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good. I'd still recommend an external links section, though. Drewcifer (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What sort of links did you have in mind? Geraldk (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno, maybe an official city website, or an official tourism site or something? Drewcifer (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Evb-wiki added them in. Geraldk (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking good! Drewcifer (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Whilst I agree that comprehensiveness and not length is the aim, we do need a big enough WP:LEAD that provides an adequate summary of the contents. I would say that two paragraphs should be enough. So oppose for now. Woody (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Response The lead has been expanded.--Orlady (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It now consists of three sentences. Read WP:LEAD and then look at some good examples, such as List of counties in Vermont. It needs a substantial couple of paragraphs. Woody (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the lead somewhat, and dropped the last sentence of the lead (...nicknames include...) because I didn't think it was necessary. Hope you don't mind, Orlady. Geraldk (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Far be it from me to object! This list is mainly the work of Evb-wiki. --Orlady (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not so. The article arose out of a debate about the inclusion of nicknames in the main Houston article and was proposed and engineered by User:Postoak. I merely helped. I did hold the line on the necessity of encyclopedic context, so as not to create a bare list, but I am certainly not the primary editor. Postoak put in a lot of effort finding both sources and context. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ps - It has been much improved, since this proposal, and mainly by the work of others. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good, though perhaps have an image in the lead; Image:Houston Skyline.jpg looks good. Either way, has been improved enough for me to support. Woody (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Image added. Geraldk (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Serious citation issues - I've added fact tags where I think they're appropriate. In some cases, I think the tagged statements might be able to be covered by existing references, even references earlier in the paragraph, but a reference covering multiple consecutive sentences in a paragraph should come at the end of the last sentence it covers. Geraldk (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Response Citations have been added. All statements in article now appear to be sourced. --Orlady (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Summary of current status: 3 support (Orlady as nominator, Drewcifer and Woody). No opposition. --Orlady (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks quite impressive. I'd suggest formatting the sources into two columns, though. In fact, I'll be WP:BOLD and do it myself. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 03:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.