Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the far future/archive2

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 Giants2008 19:27, 15 January 2012 [1].

Timeline of the far future

Timeline of the far future (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): User:Spacepotato, User: Joe Kress, User:Arthur Rubin, Serendi^podous 12:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has undergone massive improvement since failing its previous FLC. Serendi^podous 12:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so what happens now? The last time this happened the FLC was closed summarily. What can I do to keep it open? Serendi^podous 10:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, it was closed after being open for 32 days and having insufficient community consensus for promotion (actually zero support). That is not being "closed summarily". Read the instructions. Suggest you request relevant Wikiproject input to review and comment here. We are currently running very low of reviewers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A comment. The list has strange currency symbols after the references that may be equivalent to daggers†‡¶ but do not explain what they mean at the foot of the list. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a key at the end of the lead, is that what you were looking for? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the key! any way I was looking for it at the bottom.
• Next issue Where it says: 10 ^{10 26} "Low estimate for the time until all matter collapses" prior to this all the blackholes have evaporated due to Hawking radiation, so is this inconsistent? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are alternate timelines included in this list, assuming different outcomes based on as yet-unresolved issues; in that case, proton decay. Serendi^podous 09:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The navbox does not include this list, so do we need a different navbox for far future articles?
  • The navbox at the bottom?
    11th millennium and beyond was merged into this article. Serendi^podous 09:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• A graphical time line could be useful for some of the dates. Perhaps it needs to be logarithmic to cover most events. I am concerned over lack of images, but perhaps lists do not need them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even a logorithmic timeline would be impractical for this time range. Serendi^podous 09:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A logarithmic timeline would cover most of the dates, so the page would be better with such a diagram. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are three graphical timelines linked at the bottom of the page. Serendi^podous 17:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reference 1 is missing authors and dates which are available from the page.
• Reference 2 does not make sense: "Second Law of Thermodynamics". Georgia State University.
• Reference 3 could have a date: 06-03-2011 (I guess this is June but its ambiguous). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reference 5 fails to state journal name Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, or number:. 1, or page: 1
• Reference 19 has lost a ")".
• Reference 11, 19, 21, 28, 30, 31, 35, 36, 42, 54 not in title case for the article title.
  • title case is having capital letters on the more important words, eg "Particle emission rates from a black hole" is not in title case but "Particle Emission Rates from a Black Hole" is in title case. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reference 64 may be original research
• So I am finding a lot of deficiencies in references so that there is no way it could pass the featured standard if they are all like this. I suggest going through each reference to attach missing bibliographic information that is readily available. Bibcodes and DOI's are not an excuse to leave this information off. Another question is whether these are the best references. For example the NASA reference confirms the statement, but we cannot tell where NASA got that information from, so that means it is not of the highest standard.
• The hatnotes are still excessive. (brough up in nomination 1 as well) Some of these could be turned into prose with links instead in the lead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hatnote regarding the length of the list could be moved down to just before the start of the first table, as is suggested in that template's documentation. RJH (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't just apply to that table, but to all of them. I've reduced the hatnotes from 3 to 2. Serendi^podous 22:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does not apply to the lead. "Place this template tag in an article, immediately before the applicable list." If there are n lists, then it needs n copies. Or you could remove it altogether as "noise", which would be my preference. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to include the note in the first place, but it was requested at the last FLC. Serendi^podous 22:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hat noting quantity looks good to me now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The color scheme is horrible. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • A possibility would be to color code the table rows in a manner similar to how the Wikipedia warning templates are formatted. I.e. with a narrow color bar along the left edge, rather than colorizing the entire row. RJH (talk)
• I am going through and filling in missing parts of references including volumes, issues and dates. The layout of references is inconsistent, some in tables, some packed tight in a line and some spaced out. I am guessing this too is enough to fail F.L. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at fixing some of the issues. I don't really understand why you assume that NASA is not a reliable source. Serendi^podous 22:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue is not that NASA is unreliable, it is that for Feature List or article we need to have the best references. Rather than just stating the fact that is used, the best reference should also include how the fact was established, and how the date was calculated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you want. Surely you're not expecting me to track down the original papers for every scientific discovery on this list? Serendi^podous 03:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have to do anything here as I assume you can exercise the right to not edit as a volunteer. The discovery paper would count as a primary source and a secondary source would be better. So it would be good to check out a few more references if the existing ones do not look the best. I assume that featured list should be top quality.

talk) 06:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I've swapped some of the references. Serendi^podous 19:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Timeline: "A timeline is a way of displaying a list of events in chronological order". This list includes also values measured in time units (for example: "The smallest possible value for proton half-life consistent with experiment.[52]€") Bulwersator (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed one of them, but some of them are marks for certain events, such as the beginning of the Dark Era. Serendi^podous 19:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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