Wikipedia:Featured list candidates: Difference between revisions
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Olympic medalists in equestrian/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Olympic medalists in equestrian/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New York Yankees first-round draft picks/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oklahoma Sooners head basketball coaches/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oklahoma Sooners head basketball coaches/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Gwen Stefani discography/archive3}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Gwen Stefani discography/archive3}} |
Revision as of 23:51, 18 November 2009
Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia ![]() Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria. Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and another review process at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and Hey man im josh, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the process focuses on finding and resolving problems in relation to the criteria, rather than asserting the positives. Declarations of support are not as important as finding and resolving issues, and the process is not simply vote-counting. Once the director or delegate has decided to close a nomination, they will do so on the nominations page. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived, typically within the day, and the Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions |
Featured list tools: | ||||||
|
Nominations urgently needing reviews
The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:
Source reviews needed
The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago: |
Nominations
- 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 by Dabomb87 17:31, 16 January 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I am getting familiar with the FL process and I got List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft passed FL, I feel comfortable that this list also meets all the criteria for FL. However, I do expect some comments on the number of red links so let me address that in the nomination. I feel that this article passes critera 5a because there is a minimal proportion of red links for articles that I feel are notable. I feel that some of these players may not be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia because while they were drafted to the NBA, many never played a game and would probably violate WP:ATHLETE. I also feel that this part of the criteria is flexible due to the fact that on several occassions, it was proposed it should be removed but no consenses was ever reached. I'm sure if the situation were reversed and someone was trying to add the criteria, no consensus would be reached on its addition and it would not be added.—NMajdan•talk 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment
—Chris!c/t 18:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - Redlinks or not, it doesn't bother me. And the rule "a minimal proportion of red links" is really open to different interpretations. Anyway, I am comfortable supporting now. —Chris!c/t 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Happy to see that red links are no longer an issue, and am ready to take a closer look at the list as a whole.
|
Support – After many comments from myself and other editors, this meets FL standards. The table alignment really doesn't bother me at all, and I commented on the unlinked players below. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]
- "From 1967 until the ABA–NBA merger in 1976, the American Basketball Association (ABA) held it own draft." - How is this relevant to the article? --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was added to answer the "What's ABA?" question in the review above.—NMajdan•talk
- You replied "Done" to that question. That doesn't answer my question. Laugh out loud. I think including the ABA Drafts could be possisle. No point in not. --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was added to answer the "What's ABA?" question in the review above.—NMajdan•talk
- Could mention the first drafted Sooner from the NBA and WNBA Drafts in the lead.
- "# - Inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame" Remove, as the symbol is not used in any of the tables.
- Could mention who is currently active in their respective leagues.
--[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman 19:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment: In the NBA Draft you have Round/Pick. In the WNBA draft you have Round/Pick/Overall. Make the two consistent. Wizardman 18:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Wizardman 19:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
- The University of Oklahoma men's basketball team has had 42 players drafted in the National Basketball Association (NBA). The women's basketball team has also had nine players drafted in the Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA). - These two sentences need to be reworded, the second sentence implies that men had 9 players drafted, which contradictory to the facts.
- I don't see how the second sentence implies what you say at all. Seems very straight forward to me. Can you be more specific?—NMajdan•talk
- The word "also" is used as a synomym of "same"; thus implying what I said. The word "while" is more precise IMO. Something like ...men had 42 players while women had 9...--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally had it structured this way, but another reviewer suggested I split it into two which is how it stands now.—NMajdan•talk
- It may be easiest if you removed any kind of interjectory phrase, or replace "also" and "while" with just "and". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you suggesting I remove the "also" from the second sentence? If so, then the sentence sounds very odd.—NMajdan•talk
- Not that odd, just two plain old sentences. Perhaps for the sake of just getting on with this FLC, it'd be better to revert to "...while..."..... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you suggesting I remove the "also" from the second sentence? If so, then the sentence sounds very odd.—NMajdan•talk
- It may be easiest if you removed any kind of interjectory phrase, or replace "also" and "while" with just "and". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally had it structured this way, but another reviewer suggested I split it into two which is how it stands now.—NMajdan•talk
- The word "also" is used as a synomym of "same"; thus implying what I said. The word "while" is more precise IMO. Something like ...men had 42 players while women had 9...--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how the second sentence implies what you say at all. Seems very straight forward to me. Can you be more specific?—NMajdan•talk
Oklahoma had two players selected in both the latest NBA draft and latest WNBA draft. - Two players in total OR two players in each draft? Be specific....must be at least one year removed from the graduation of his high school class. - This is not applied to international players. Be more specific.- Right, that rule doesn't apply to international players but this is a list about an American university's draftees, so the international rule doesn't apply. Now, it does belong in the main yearly NBA Draft article.—NMajdan•talk
- The lead should explain the draft process and by omitting the "international" part, it gives false explanation. You can add the "only Americans" part in the end.--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, that rule doesn't apply to international players but this is a list about an American university's draftees, so the international rule doesn't apply. Now, it does belong in the main yearly NBA Draft article.—NMajdan•talk
Also, all five non-playoff teams that participate in the draft lottery pick in the order of the lottery outcome with the remainder of the league selecting in reverse order of their win–loss record. - where are the commas? or some other punctuation marks? It's just hard to read.- Where would a comma go? The only place where one might go is after outcome but I don't think it is necessary.—NMajdan•talk
- I'd suggest after "lottery" before "pick".--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that a comma is needed there. Maybe someone else has an opinion on it.—NMajdan•talk
- Only place I can read it as possibly useful is after "outcome". I think we're a bit comma-crazy sometimes. There's not a single rule of grammar I've come across which would mandate a comma between lottery and pick, but I'm a Brit so what would I know... ?! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that a comma is needed there. Maybe someone else has an opinion on it.—NMajdan•talk
- I'd suggest after "lottery" before "pick".--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where would a comma go? The only place where one might go is after outcome but I don't think it is necessary.—NMajdan•talk
...have completed her intercollegiate... - her or their? we're talking about "players", right?Can the image captions "draw attention to something in the image that is not obvious"? per WP:CAPTION- Why are the player names and teams centered? The text should be left-aligned in the tables.
- I've seen many other articles have center-aligned text. Can you link to the MOS guideline on this?—NMajdan•talk
- You may find one or two lists with centered text, but the majority is left-aligned. Besides, you have both left-aligned and centered text in the table, you need to be consistent.--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to hear from other editors on this change. I have several FLs that are like this so I don't see a problem.—NMajdan•talk
- Unless the MOS mandates something specific, this is personal choice. As NMajdan says, there are many FLs with either center aligned or a mixture of left and center aligned text. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS mandates consistency; this list does not follow consistency.--Cheetah (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point me to that? We have had a number of tables in the past where this inconsistency has occurred, so it'd be useful to be able to point to the specific section of MOS which prohibits it. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's section 1.1 of WP:MOS.--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your intepretation of internal consistency equalling all columns should be aligned the same is extreme. The list is consistent with itself. If you are sticking to this (and would oppose because of it), we may need to revisit many, many of our current FLs. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list uses two styles (both left-aligned and centered text) in the table in the same page (i.e. internally), how is it extreme? Every part of the MoS should be followed, especially the very first part. Let's revisit those FLs if you think they fail the first "rule".--Cheetah (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think they fail the first rule, you do. And it's not the rule, it's your interpretation of the rule. And last time I looked it was a guideline. You'll need to add several hundred FLs to FLRC if this is going to be your approach from now on. In extremis, you could argue that paragraphs should be the same length (internal consistency) or that sentences should be the same length (internal consistency). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and I just browsed a random sample of current FLs, and I'd say at least 800 have a variation of alignments within them and many hundred have central alignment, not "one or two lists with centered text" as you suggested. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list uses two styles (both left-aligned and centered text) in the table in the same page (i.e. internally), how is it extreme? Every part of the MoS should be followed, especially the very first part. Let's revisit those FLs if you think they fail the first "rule".--Cheetah (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your intepretation of internal consistency equalling all columns should be aligned the same is extreme. The list is consistent with itself. If you are sticking to this (and would oppose because of it), we may need to revisit many, many of our current FLs. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's section 1.1 of WP:MOS.--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point me to that? We have had a number of tables in the past where this inconsistency has occurred, so it'd be useful to be able to point to the specific section of MOS which prohibits it. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS mandates consistency; this list does not follow consistency.--Cheetah (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless the MOS mandates something specific, this is personal choice. As NMajdan says, there are many FLs with either center aligned or a mixture of left and center aligned text. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to hear from other editors on this change. I have several FLs that are like this so I don't see a problem.—NMajdan•talk
- You may find one or two lists with centered text, but the majority is left-aligned. Besides, you have both left-aligned and centered text in the table, you need to be consistent.--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen many other articles have center-aligned text. Can you link to the MOS guideline on this?—NMajdan•talk
- The University of Oklahoma men's basketball team has had 42 players drafted in the National Basketball Association (NBA). The women's basketball team has also had nine players drafted in the Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA). - These two sentences need to be reworded, the second sentence implies that men had 9 players drafted, which contradictory to the facts.
(→) Don't mock the MoS, please. I just went through around 20 FLs and didn't find any, but I'll take another look later. As for this page, it just needs its "notes" columns to be centered and that's it. I really didn't think this will be discussed as much.--Cheetah (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Don't mock the MoS"! Funny... The reason this is being discussed so much is that it affects a huge number of existing FLs and a number of current FLCs. If you're going to oppose all lists based on this interpretation of MoS then it needs discussion. As for finding some examples 1, 2, 3 (note the Key table here), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8... I clicked on about 16 to find 8, hence my estimate of how many lists have your interpretation of "internal inconsistency". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The #4 is the only one that really violates. #5 can easily be fixed, I don't see any problem with others. Keep in mind that numbers have their own style.--Cheetah (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, now I'm really confused. List of Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best short fiction for instance (number 8 above), has a mixture of left (author, title) and centrally (year, result) aligned columns. List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East Sussex (number 7) has left (site name), central (reason, grid reference, year) and right (Area) aligned columns. The key table in number 3 (List of Houston Rockets seasons) has a mixture of central and left aligned text columns. Isn't that the thing you're objecting to here, or have I misinterpreted your comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am only talking about all text should have same style/format. By saying text, I mean a word, a phrase, or a sentence. Numbers and abbreviations can have their own style/format. In your #8 example, all columns that have text are let-aligned. The result column looks like it has abbr. Your #7 example has only one column with text and it's the "site name" column. Now, afer taking a second look, I see that numbers have inconsistent style(area and year). That's worrisome to me. As for the example #3, I see the first column has abbr. and the second column has text, it looks OK. --Cheetah (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, my #8 has text both left and centrally aligned. Look again. (Won isn't abbreviated). And shouldn't those em-dashes be left-aligned in the blank cells? Are you saying abbreviations can be centrally aligned while non-abbreviations can be left-aligned? And numerical text can be right-aligned? I think you need to clearly define the rules you're applying here so we can make an assessment on the many 100s of lists this clearly affects. Where does MOS say "numbers and abbreviations can have their own style/format"? I think this is confusing. And I don't think it's a valid oppose. I think you can see that, say, aligned numbers both centrally and right (e.g. years centrally and physical values right [so they line up per 1,000]) makes a lot of sense, despite your interpretation of "internal consistency". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And just quickly heading back to the few examples of the many hundreds, #1 which was List of Washington Metro stations has left (code, station, opened) and central (jurisdiction) columns, all text, #2 has left-aligned text but the colspan text is centrally-aligned (is this an exception to the "internal consistency" rule?), #6 has a mix of abbreviations and non-abbreviations in the left-hand (centrally-aligned) column (are mixtures covered somewhere?) and #7 seems to centrally align references (which are, after all, numbers), while right-aligning capacity... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like the original issue was resolved. What more is left that needs discussing, with regard to alignment of tables? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the original issue was resolved. The comment was "Why are the player names and teams centered? The text should be left-aligned in the tables." The names and teams are still centred while the awards are left-aligned... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have much time to keep up with this discussion. I'll add the last comment. Scroll through all the players' names. After doing that, click on 2006 NBA Draft and scroll through those names. If you don't notice a difference, then just close this discussion and move on. If you do notice a difference, you'll know what to do.--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That rather misses the point. Just because one other FL happens to have your approved version of alignment, it doesn't mean this list has to be the same. One other interesting point is that the headings of a wikitable are all centrally-aligned, while the text under them can be left, middle or right aligned. The only reason I want you to explain your overall strategy using the above examples is so that we understand future oppositions based on "internal inconsistency". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. That list isn't even a featured list. Why would you suggest it as an example? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have much time to keep up with this discussion. I'll add the last comment. Scroll through all the players' names. After doing that, click on 2006 NBA Draft and scroll through those names. If you don't notice a difference, then just close this discussion and move on. If you do notice a difference, you'll know what to do.--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the original issue was resolved. The comment was "Why are the player names and teams centered? The text should be left-aligned in the tables." The names and teams are still centred while the awards are left-aligned... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like the original issue was resolved. What more is left that needs discussing, with regard to alignment of tables? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am only talking about all text should have same style/format. By saying text, I mean a word, a phrase, or a sentence. Numbers and abbreviations can have their own style/format. In your #8 example, all columns that have text are let-aligned. The result column looks like it has abbr. Your #7 example has only one column with text and it's the "site name" column. Now, afer taking a second look, I see that numbers have inconsistent style(area and year). That's worrisome to me. As for the example #3, I see the first column has abbr. and the second column has text, it looks OK. --Cheetah (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, now I'm really confused. List of Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best short fiction for instance (number 8 above), has a mixture of left (author, title) and centrally (year, result) aligned columns. List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East Sussex (number 7) has left (site name), central (reason, grid reference, year) and right (Area) aligned columns. The key table in number 3 (List of Houston Rockets seasons) has a mixture of central and left aligned text columns. Isn't that the thing you're objecting to here, or have I misinterpreted your comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The #4 is the only one that really violates. #5 can easily be fixed, I don't see any problem with others. Keep in mind that numbers have their own style.--Cheetah (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "key" section mentions that † marks NBA or WNBA champions, but it also marks the ABA champion, Don Sidle. This confusion needs to be avoided.- Why are some names not linked? I believe they're professional athletes and are notable enough to have a page here on Wikipedia some day. Do you feel they're not notable or afraid of the red links?
- I covered this is my nomination intro.—NMajdan•talk
- It needs to be mentioned what players did not play a single game in the pro league. Some indicator along with color may be used for this.--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I think having to indicate which players actually played in the NBA is a bit beyond the scope of this list and hard to verify. I don't think it is needed.—NMajdan•talk
- I'd agree with NMajdan here. This a list of who was drafted, not who didn't go on to play in the NBA/WNBA. It's interesting if it can be clearly cited, but it'd be an exercise in trying to prove a negative and certainly is borderline within the scope. This is about those drafted into the NBA/WNBA, not necessarily if they went on to make appearances. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There needs to be some explanation why those players are not linked at all.--Cheetah (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe so. Not linked inherently means not notable enough for an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these players are in the same scope, right? They all went to Oklahoma and they all were drafted. So, why some are notable while others not? If all players were unlinked, then we wouldn't be discussing this.--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, once again, this is a new point out of the blue! We have hundreds of FLs with unlinked items, without note, because it is widely understood that unlinked terms fail notability criteria. Proving this is attempting to prove a negative. One was promoted only three days ago - List of members of the Council of Keble College, Oxford. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATHLETE, the standard for athletes' notability on Wikipedia, states "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" are considered notable. If draftees never played in a game, they technically don't meet this standard, and have to meet a much tougher standard to be considered notable. Considering how popular college athletics are in the U.S., it strikes me as a hole in the system, but it is an accepted standard and should be respected as long as it is considered so. With that in mind, I see nothing wrong with not linking the players here. We can't complain about the amount of red links in lists and then disagree with someone who removes them when articles can't be created. Why tempt an editor to create an article that will likely be deleted anyway, barring multiple sources on the player that establish notability? The one area I can see your point on is the female players. If they played in the WNBA (not sure if that's the case), they should be linked since they are decidedly professional players. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, once again, this is a new point out of the blue! We have hundreds of FLs with unlinked items, without note, because it is widely understood that unlinked terms fail notability criteria. Proving this is attempting to prove a negative. One was promoted only three days ago - List of members of the Council of Keble College, Oxford. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these players are in the same scope, right? They all went to Oklahoma and they all were drafted. So, why some are notable while others not? If all players were unlinked, then we wouldn't be discussing this.--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe so. Not linked inherently means not notable enough for an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There needs to be some explanation why those players are not linked at all.--Cheetah (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree with NMajdan here. This a list of who was drafted, not who didn't go on to play in the NBA/WNBA. It's interesting if it can be clearly cited, but it'd be an exercise in trying to prove a negative and certainly is borderline within the scope. This is about those drafted into the NBA/WNBA, not necessarily if they went on to make appearances. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I think having to indicate which players actually played in the NBA is a bit beyond the scope of this list and hard to verify. I don't think it is needed.—NMajdan•talk
- It needs to be mentioned what players did not play a single game in the pro league. Some indicator along with color may be used for this.--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I covered this is my nomination intro.—NMajdan•talk
(→)These draftees have competed at the highest amateur level in basketball; therefore, they meet WP:ATHLETE. College basketball is the highest amateur basketball competition. In today's basketball world, Olympics and World Championships can't be considered amateur tourneys because professionals play there. Since they meet WP:ATHLETE, I believe they should be linked.--Cheetah (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC) --Cheetah (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If they meet ATHLETE, redlink them and then we can move on. If they don't, don't link them and then we can move on. Nothing more needs to be said. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, at least with college football, I'm pretty sure it's an established fact that college football players (who are similarly situated athletes to college bball players in terms of the stature of their amateur status) are not inherently notable. See 2009 Oklahoma Sooners football team#Roster for example, many of the players have no articles. Occasionally a player like Sam Bradford or Tim Tebow is notable enough through other coverage (Heisman race, for example), but for the most part not. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, keep in mind that the level of media exposure afforded to collegiate athletes has exploded in recent years. Its a lot easier for a lot of athletes to meet WP:ATHLETE since there is a lot more written about them these days. There's a lot of sports coverage given ESPN, local newspapers, websites and magazines dedicated to that particular school (I know Oklahoma has at least two magazines dedicated to Sooner athletics: Sooners Illustrated & Sooner Spectator). Before the 1980s and maybe even the 1990s, not nearly as much was written about collegiate athletes and thus it is harder for them to meet the BIO guidelines.—NMajdan•talk 14:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You bring in a couple of nice points. College basketball wasn't as big of an event before 1980s as it is now. Just explain to me why Tim McCalister has an article while David Johnson and Darryl Kennedy are not even linked? Also why none of those women are linked? They were drafted after 2000, they should be notable enough.--Cheetah (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, keep in mind that the level of media exposure afforded to collegiate athletes has exploded in recent years. Its a lot easier for a lot of athletes to meet WP:ATHLETE since there is a lot more written about them these days. There's a lot of sports coverage given ESPN, local newspapers, websites and magazines dedicated to that particular school (I know Oklahoma has at least two magazines dedicated to Sooner athletics: Sooners Illustrated & Sooner Spectator). Before the 1980s and maybe even the 1990s, not nearly as much was written about collegiate athletes and thus it is harder for them to meet the BIO guidelines.—NMajdan•talk 14:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, at least with college football, I'm pretty sure it's an established fact that college football players (who are similarly situated athletes to college bball players in terms of the stature of their amateur status) are not inherently notable. See 2009 Oklahoma Sooners football team#Roster for example, many of the players have no articles. Occasionally a player like Sam Bradford or Tim Tebow is notable enough through other coverage (Heisman race, for example), but for the most part not. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review. Obviously, I still have several questions regarding your suggestions, so I hope we can clear them up.—NMajdan•talk 15:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with cheetah's athlete interpretation. If they didn't play professionally, then just keep them unlinked as they are now. Just "being drafted after 2000" doesn't make someone notable. McCalister had a 4 year professional career, while the other two did not play professionally based on what i could find, hence no link. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you share with your evidence that states "McCalister had a 4 year professional career"?--Cheetah (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I misread the article. I thought it said he played in the nba for four years, but he never played professionally. Nevermind then, his article as it stands does not establish notability. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has it now got to the point where, instead of dissecting each individual's worthiness of a redlink, we should just redlink everyone in this list? NMajdan did a good job of trying to explain why he didn't take the easy option of just linking everyone, but it appears to have blown up in his face. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Another WP:ATH question. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has it now got to the point where, instead of dissecting each individual's worthiness of a redlink, we should just redlink everyone in this list? NMajdan did a good job of trying to explain why he didn't take the easy option of just linking everyone, but it appears to have blown up in his face. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I misread the article. I thought it said he played in the nba for four years, but he never played professionally. Nevermind then, his article as it stands does not establish notability. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you share with your evidence that states "McCalister had a 4 year professional career"?--Cheetah (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, per the notability issue, I have no problem with him keeping them delinked. The list still seems fine to me. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see a difference between McCalister and Kennedy, for example. Both were drafted in 1987 and none of them played in NBA...yet one is linked while the other is not. Why?--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Simple, because McCalister currently has an article. It'd be pretty stupid to not link it when the article exists. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see a difference between McCalister and Kennedy, for example. Both were drafted in 1987 and none of them played in NBA...yet one is linked while the other is not. Why?--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with cheetah's athlete interpretation. If they didn't play professionally, then just keep them unlinked as they are now. Just "being drafted after 2000" doesn't make someone notable. McCalister had a 4 year professional career, while the other two did not play professionally based on what i could find, hence no link. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Was asked to comment on the alignments so I'll do that quickly: I'm fine with the way they are now, the center alignments look fine. If consensus lies elsewhere in the end then that's also fine, I really don't consider it much of an issue. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, the center alignment is fine.—Chris!c/t 19:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Because of the length and complexity of this FLC, I am writing my closing rationale for this on the talk page of this FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Dabomb87 23:17, 1 December 2009 [2].
- Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel I have fixed every (real) problem that was brought up at the last nomination and over two peer reviews. The article is not perfect and I'm sure some cool things could still be done to it, but they would only be navigational aids and not anything new content wise. Let me know if the images need adjusting, as I can fix those pretty quickly. I feel the redlinks to county roads without articles should be left, as they encourage the creation of those articles. However, if the choice between pass or fail comes down to redlinks, then I will remove some of them. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion with no votes placed
| ||
---|---|---|
Alright, I believe I've addressed all of the above. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Restarted Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to reviewers Please revisit this FLC and a) clearly restate the remaining issues, if necessary, and b) if possible, make a succinct declaration (i.e., support, oppose, or neutral). Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, The list, as it is, has too many redlinks. --Fredddie™ 06:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would lean more towards support if the current list format is scrapped for a format similar to List of highways in Hamilton County, New York. --Fredddie™ 04:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Golbez
|
---|
Try this: {{Roadlink/KL|8}}. It's shorthand for a superimpose template. The only other parameter which can be changed is the left-right justification {{{x}}}. --Fredddie™ 05:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Still not ready to support. Too many unresolved comments.—Chris!c/t 06:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of those comments are personally keeping you from supporting? So far the only unresolved comment seems to be the redlinks, and perhaps the image size (though I made the requested adjustments). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 07:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I support if the comments are resolved as you said.—Chris!c/t 20:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not certain they are, but I believe they are. You'll have to use your judgement or see what the posters say. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I support if the comments are resolved as you said.—Chris!c/t 20:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - This list has too many major issues:
- There are not supposed to be citations in the lead unless that information is unique.
- There are large areas of uncited information in the prose portion of the list.
- The article has too many redlinks.
- Reference #4 appears to be a personal website and is probably not reliable.
- The article relies too heavily on Google Maps as a source. ---Dough4872 00:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) That is a choice, not a policy. Refs shouldn't be in the lead, but can be.
- I haven't actually checked this article, but note that according to WP:LEADCITE, the lead can either be uncited or cited, as long as the convention is consistent (i.e. do not cite half the lead and leave the other half uncited). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No citation in the lead was unique, so I've removed them. This lack of desire for citations in the lead directly contradicts the requirement for a sourced statement in the lead for DYK. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't actually checked this article, but note that according to WP:LEADCITE, the lead can either be uncited or cited, as long as the convention is consistent (i.e. do not cite half the lead and leave the other half uncited). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2) What is in the prose that you find controversial and in need of a source?
- 3) Not part of the criteria, should be forbidden as a reason for opposition, but I am fixing this atm.
- 4) Looks can be deceiving. That website is run by a member of the MTO and is the only reliable source on the subject. They will be releasing a book within the next several months which I will source upon its release.
- 5) As stated before, google maps is for user convenience. Official MTO roadmaps are used for highways, and local maps used for county roads. I had an idea for fixing this which I will implement later tonight. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The main sticking point for my oppose is the lack of citations in the prose. Every piece of information needs to contain a citation. For example, "Although they are generally one lane in either direction, several short sections with two lanes in one direction as a passing lane exist along the highways. The municipality's lone freeway, Highway 115, is two lanes in either direction for its entire length." needs to have a reliable source stating the number of lanes on the road and this statement can easily be challenged without a citation. ---Dough4872 03:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Wikipedia:When_to_cite, not everything needs sources. Only information that is controversial or that may be challenged needs sourcing. Unlike the US, Canada does not have straight-line diagrams describing highways mile for mile, nor do many counties provide more than a simple diagram or list of their county roads. However, information such as how many lanes a highway has can be discovered on a variety of maps and by looking at satellite imagery. It may be slightly outdated at times, but that does not mean it can't verify the validity of the information. I feel I have sourced all of the information that could incur a genuine challenge, so if you'd like to point out specifics that you don't believe to be true, or information that you'd contest the validity of (without being a beaurocrat and contesting each and every sentence without a citation at the end), I'll try and find the most reliable source available on the information, otherwise you are effectively prohibiting all Canadian (or at least Ontario) roads from ever having the possibility of being a featured article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The main sticking point for my oppose is the lack of citations in the prose. Every piece of information needs to contain a citation. For example, "Although they are generally one lane in either direction, several short sections with two lanes in one direction as a passing lane exist along the highways. The municipality's lone freeway, Highway 115, is two lanes in either direction for its entire length." needs to have a reliable source stating the number of lanes on the road and this statement can easily be challenged without a citation. ---Dough4872 03:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) That is a choice, not a policy. Refs shouldn't be in the lead, but can be.
Could all reviewers please note the new set-up for referencing. All the Google Maps references are separated, and are exclusively used for the 1/10th of a kilometre accuracy for route lengths (whilst being supplemented by a reliable up-to-date 2010 paper atlas that I've measured using the scale and a digital caliper ruler). I have also updated many other refs (Such as the continuations into other regions) to the 2010 atlas. I also expect to make at least another 4 roads (4, 7, 9, 18) into articles within the next day or so. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have collapsed my earlier comments; I am going on a trip soon so may not be able to address responses, so I didn't want my oppose to weigh upon the deliberations. Switching to neutral for now. I still think the tables need smaller shields, but the work on fleshing out the redlinks is moving along. Also, at current, one of the refs is broken, giving a big red error at the bottom. --Golbez (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I have now changed the way the shields are displayed in the left column. This should take care of the whitespace issue. Where once I could see a max of 8 at a time, I can now see up to 14. In addition, I've added {{nths}} to the two terminus columns, so that they now sort the highways and roads with numbered designations into order. The redlinks are also several magnitudes better than before. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Looks okay, but needs substantial work.
- Title is purely descriptive, and thus the boldfont in the first sentence should be killed.
- The shortest numbered road is Kawartha Lakes Road 3, Hartley Road, a causeway just less than a kilometre long crossing Mitchell Lake. - Why link to Road 3 if it redirects to the same page...?
- The city of Kawartha Lakes was formed on January 1, 2001, and was known as Victoria County before that. - Out of place and quite off-topic for this article.
- The shields in the Secondary highways segment are so small that they contribute no additional value to the text; I suggest removing them, to be honest.
- Almost all of the citations are inconsistently formatted/need more info.
- The "Route Maps" thing is bizarre. Just cite Google Maps collectively and remove the dozens of ugly footnotes.
- Misplaced punctuation all over.
–Juliancolton | Talk 04:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the first two. The part regarding the Victoria County bit is important (on top of the fact of it being historical), as the article makes many references to the past roads, or to Victoria County roads that were replaced. As for the shields in the secondary highway section, they are the same size as in a junction list, and were mostly there to show the difference in their appearance, but I have removed them. I will not replacing the end footnotes to Google Maps, as each one is a link to a map of that route, and I hardly see that as an inconvenience or detrimental aspect. The punctuation and inconsistent citations I shall take a look at, but are there any places in particular that you feel need attention? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it necessary to cite an almost identical Google Maps source dozens of different times when you could simply list one neat and concise general source? As it is, the large block of Google Maps links isn't really visually appealing. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Every entry is unique, and shows the route of the road in question. Citations are never visually appealing, so I don't understand why its detrimental to have them. Yes I could list google maps and say "This is a source... Except its not sourcing anything... But you can use it to see the various routes and the directions they take... oh, but you'll have to find them yourself because Google just removed an information source and is 15 years out of date", but it would be absolutely and completely useless and unhelpful to readers. Information always trumps appearance in my books.
- My point is that by condensing all 50 Google Maps footnotes into a single general citation, you don't lose any additional information. And visual appeal is indeed a valid objection per FL criteria #5a; "Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and it has a minimal proportion of red links." –Juliancolton | Talk 19:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Into a single reference to maps.google.ca? How absolutely useless would that be (its ok to go over 100% for this one)? I'd lose all of the information! Point noted, but disregarded. Those references will all be remaining, because I absolutely refuse to remove hordes of valuable information on the grounds that one editor finds it visually displeasing, probably based on dissimilar articles. They provide a visual accompaniment to what is otherwise a distance. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that by condensing all 50 Google Maps footnotes into a single general citation, you don't lose any additional information. And visual appeal is indeed a valid objection per FL criteria #5a; "Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and it has a minimal proportion of red links." –Juliancolton | Talk 19:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Every entry is unique, and shows the route of the road in question. Citations are never visually appealing, so I don't understand why its detrimental to have them. Yes I could list google maps and say "This is a source... Except its not sourcing anything... But you can use it to see the various routes and the directions they take... oh, but you'll have to find them yourself because Google just removed an information source and is 15 years out of date", but it would be absolutely and completely useless and unhelpful to readers. Information always trumps appearance in my books.
To be quite honest, I'm going to restart this candidacy when it expires. Two of the opposes were from editors involved in a quarrel with me elsewhere on the project, and they have made a point of not returning to counter those votes despite me making the improvements they requested. Not to mention that the point of FLC's is back and forth communication. I'm aware the pending holidays play a role in this. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your frustration, but as an FLC director, I respectfully ask you not to re-nominate, at least not immediately. The disagreements that have surfaced here don't seem to be resolving themselves. I will be archiving this FLC tomorrow, as there is clearly not a consensus to promote. Re-submitting will not be helpful or fair to the other FLCs (this one has been up for about six weeks). FLC is not the place for dispute resolution, nor is it where articles should be overhauled (that's why we have peer review). I suggest that you and the other involved take a break from the article for a few days to cool down and have time to regain focus. Then, start a centralized discussion somewhere (article talk page, WikiProject talk page, or peer review) and try to work out your disagreements. When significant progress has been made in that front, please consult me or another FL director, and we will be glad to let you re-nominate the list. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not planning to until after new years. There are no disputes on this article right now, they were regarding a completely separate issue. I simply feel their anger towards that brought them here to oppose this. Dough and JC have made legitimate comments that I can improve the article with in the mean time. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by Dabomb87 15:25, 9 January 2010 [3].
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's of a comparable standard to existing featured discogs, and I think it would be nice to see one from the world of folk music. There's probably loads of things still wrong with it, but if you point 'em out, I'll fix 'em if I can :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS Before it is asked, I have looked hard and can find no evidence that she has charted anywhere except in the UK. Allmusic says that one of her albums charted on a minor Billboard chart, but this is not supported by Billboard themselves, who state "This album has never charted" against all her albums on their website. If people feel that the Allmusic info should be included anyway, I'll be happy to add it in, I'm not "up" on how accurate the info on Billboard's own site may or may not be..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I am aware, Allmusic copies the chart information directly from Billboard, so you should include it. Dt128 let's talk 16:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now included -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I am aware, Allmusic copies the chart information directly from Billboard, so you should include it. Dt128 let's talk 16:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Now. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
:*The All-Music cite for the sentence "In 1997 Rusby released her first solo album, Hourglass, and also joined the all-female folk group The Poozies, with whom she recorded one EP and one full-length album." cites the album and mentions The Poozies, but does not say when she joined.
|
- All addressed. Precise release dates for the EPs don't seem to be recorded anywhere so I've just had to reiterate the year. The WebCite thing didn't work. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Too bad, seems like a cool tool. Never used it myself. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Drewcifer |
---|
Comments Looks good. Here's a few suggestions/comments:
That's it for now. Drewcifer (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support Sorry for the delay on this. I made one little edit myself to the sub-header thing; feel free to revert if you like. Also, hopefully you can figure out what that last unknown track contribution is, but I'll won't hold it against you for now. Drewcifer (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. It looks like a staggeringly obscure album, I think the only way to find out would be to buy it. Maybe if I see it really cheap on Amazon marketplace ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Just a few comments:
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 The Rambling Man 18:27, 26 December 2009 [4].
- Nominator(s): MASEM (t) 06:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating this list, now that the main game article has reached Featured status, this list can also easily meet this. There is some possibility of more DLC, but the format used in that table given is likely not going to change should that happen: the only change may be if there is a lot of non-album, single content, in which case it makes sense to add the album column as the first table. Note that this follows similar formatting and content approach (outside tables) as the various Guitar Hero song lists that are featured. MASEM (t) 06:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "The gameplay mechanics of The Beatles: Rock Band are similar to those found in other Rock Band games." Could you perhaps elaborate on this a little, so the reader doesn't have to navigate away from the page?
- "However, compared to other music video games..." However should follow a semi colon, that than starting a new sentence. If you can WP:AVOID using it altogether, though, that would be better
- "number of tracks was considered small [4][5]," refs are misplaced
- "the inclusion of certain songs over the exclusion of others was considered confusing." by whom? And are there any reasons why?
- "The game disc features 45 songs chosen from twelve" comparable quantities should be in the same format (ie all numerals or all words)
- "I Am The Walrus" see WP:NCM for correct letter case in song titles
- "Abbey Road Studios '67-68" follow MOS:DATE and use "1967-68"
- "Oct. 20, 2009" MOS:DATE again says only to abbreviate months when space is limited, but that's not the case here
That's all for now. Matthewedwards : Chat 00:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've adjusted all the above, except the "'67-68" bit, as in the game, these venues are labeled exactly like that. It's not that these can be changed, but it is staying accurate to how the game presents the information. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
Just two quick comments:
- Date ranges need to use en-dashes, not hyphens, regardless of the punctuation used in-game.
- An image of the Beatles in the lead would be great, since the game doesn't have anything free use and no fair-use rationale could likely be provided. This file from the lead of the Beatles article would be ideal.
Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 04:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the ndashs. As for the picture, there is also File:RockBandBeatlesPAX.jpg this free image of people actually playing the game. Either could work here. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's a dead link; check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed (link had moved elsewhere on the site) --MASEM (t) 16:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Quick comments –
- In the first table, the Venue column is sorting incorrectly, at least if alpabetical sorting is the goal (varies depending on the situation).
- In the lead-in to the second table, DLC is given as an initial without being defined anywhere. The initials in parentheses should be added after its first use in the article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The venues are sorted by their in-game order (which is roughly historical). I've noted this in the prose. DLC spelled out. --MASEM (t) 04:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by Giants2008 20:24, 29 December 2009 [5].
- Nominator(s): Salavat (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very loosely based on two other featured lists about books (List of Lambda Literary Awards winners and nominees for science fiction, fantasy and horror, List of Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best novel) and using the style as seen on BAFTA Award for Best Film, i believe this list covers the subject to the full. I opted for the BAFTA style list because i feel it identifies the seperate years more clearly, however i am open to changing the format to the Gaylactic and Lambda styles if table sorting is an issue. Salavat (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment
—Chris!c/t 19:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support —Chris!c/t 06:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Quick comments –
- In reference 3, The Courier-Mail should be presented in italics. The work parameter of the cite templates is the easiest way to accomplish this.
- Ok i changed the publisher parameter to work. Would i need to list News.com.au as the publisher or is it good as it is? Salavat (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually didn't notice before that the link came from that site. Yes, it should be mentioned in the citation. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Salavat (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually didn't notice before that the link came from that site. Yes, it should be mentioned in the citation. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference 4 is to an mp3 of a radio show. To maximize ease of fact-checking, would it be possible to note the time at which the cited part is said during the show? This is a common arrangement for when videos/TV shows are cited. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Salavat (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk · contribs)
After these issues are fixed, I'll be happy to support. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments Support
- Would "creation" be more widely understood by readers than "inception"? Just a thought, I wouldn't object if "inception" was kept.
- Changed. Salavat (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Categories currently include science fiction, fantasy, horror, young-adult fiction, children's literature, with separate awards for novels and short fiction, collections and anthologies, and illustrative works or graphic novels": do separate awards for novels, short fiction, etc apply to every category?
- No not for collections and anthologies, and illustrative works or graphic novels. It reads right for me but if im missing a comma to make it more clear please tell. Ive also added some more information, does it read alright? Salavat (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Multi-time winners of the award include Sara Douglass (three wins), Juliet Marillier (three wins), Garth Nix (two wins), Jane Routley (two wins), and Sean Williams (two wins)": there's a bit of repetition there, how about something like "Of the [x number of winners], two people have won the award three time – Sara Douglass and Juliet Marillier – and three have won it twice – Garth Nix, Jane Routley, and Sean Williams."
- Done. Salavat (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead should mention that it's possible for more than one winner per year.
- I added a sentence in the second paragraph, not sure of the positioning and if it disrupts anything else though.
- For the 1998 row, should Jane Routley have an asterisk next to her name as she won?
- Fixed. Salavat (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Honourable mention and highly commended novels" needs some explanation. When was it introduced and (if possible) why?
- well i found a document stating that they can be awarded in "no award" and "Unable to Reach Agreement" situations however they dont state why they are listed in addition to years which have winners, instead just saying that they are submitted by the judges, so i opted to leave it out because those options arent relavent for these awards, but can be added if needed. Sentences have been added to the bottom of the second paragraph. Salavat (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I'm fine with leaving it as it is rather than confusing the situation.
I like the lead, it reads well and the sources are appropriate (ie: the awards website for the technicalities, outside sources for praise). The tables are straightforward and user friendly. Once these issues are addressed, I'll be happy to support. Nev1 (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by The Rambling Man 17:48, 19 December 2009 [6].
- Nominator(s): Marcus Bowen (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because, after the last nomination I feel I have made the page a vast improvement since then.Marcus Bowen (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and I've replied to a few comments. Mm40 (talk) Mm40 (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
Pretty good overall, after these are fixed, I'll be happy to support. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- Below the Singles table, what does "|*" mean? Done
- "2x" Use the character "×" instead of the letter. Done
- Delink Italy in the lead; see WP:OVERLINK on linking commonly known geographical terms. Done
- "2009 saw the band return" Not sure what this means. Done Dabomb87 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
- Ref 1, the publisher link redirects to Sun. Done
- What makes http://www.skinmusic.net/content/bio/skunk.html a reliable source? Done removed for the time being, but is an official source Dabomb87 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I didn't know it was an official source. Feel free to reinstate it. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/Support from Dt128 (talk · contribs) Hi!
Resolved comments from Dt128
|
---|
|
- Just to let you know, the Dutch-Charts.nl site shows the chart positions for the Dutch Single Top 100, rather than the Dutch Top 40. Maybe you could change the column header to something like "NLD 100" to avoid confusion?
- Comment Have Dt's concerns been addressed? If so, has he been asked to revisit this FLC? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Supported Dt128 let's talk 20:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Support Looks solid to me. Only one complaint: some general references would be helpful, a la The Prodigy discography. Drewcifer (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by The Rambling Man 17:48, 19 December 2009 [7].
- Nominator(s): Arsenikk (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new flavor of list that shows the ten lines of the Oslo Metro in chronological order. It includes the service numbers and lengths and opening dates of all expansions. I believe it meets the FL criteria, and hope the vultures agree. I am more than happy to improve the article further if need be, and will respond to any feedback. Arsenikk (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What is the difference between the lines and the service numbers? Are the service number lines, too? I am sure that there is a difference, but at the moment I am a little confused about this.—Chris!c/t 20:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of historic reasons, there are ten lines, that are the physical infrastructure, and six services, that are the operating numbers. The latter has changed several times in the course of history, while the former has been constant. A (physical) line may have one or more service numbers, while each service operates two lines, plus the Common Tunnel. I have made a slight rewording in the first paragraph that might make this clearer, but perhaps more is needed. Perhaps a new map (as I discuss below) could make it clearer. Although the system is logical as such, it breaches with the way metros are normally lined (with the service and physical infrastructure bearing the same name), so the Oslo-method seems to be confusing to people. Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so the service and the physical lines are separated. This is a bit odd, but ok I understand now.—Chris!c/t 20:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks good, but some questions:
Support, all questions have been addressed. bamse (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
#Looking at the table it appears that the article is rather about the history of Oslo Metro lines. Did you consider to move it to History of Oslo Metro lines?
bamse (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
This is a good list which I have given a very light copy edit to tidy some of the (very few) language oddities. There are a few further things which I wasn't quite sure about.
- The caption to the network map talks about the T-bane but you haven't mentioned anywhere else that this is the local name of the metro.
- "The Østensjø and Lambertseter Lines were converted with the opening in 1966." Not sure what opening this is referring to.
- I think that Bamse has already touched upon this but I think that the merged cells to the right of some of the 'Metro Standard' cells are not what is intended.
Boissière (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the copyedit and feedback. I've fixed up the text per point one and two. Regarding the last, I cannot see anything wrong with the numbers, since no metro standard upgrade has changed the length of any line, although they sometimes have reduced the number of stations. I can of course merge the cells to the right, but in my opinion this visualizes that the length, and if applicable, the number of stations, has not changed. But I do see that this style "breaks" the blue rows, so perhaps what you suggest is not so bad. The numerical values are all correct. Arsenikk (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On closer inspection I think that there are two discrepencies. For the Common Tunnel it shows the length of the Stortinget-Nationaltheatret section and the metro conversion of the whole Stortinget-Majorstuen section to both be 4.8km. That can't be correct. In fact in comparing the lengths in the table with the diagram in the Common Tunnel article it looks as though the table has the length of this section incorrectly stated as 2.1km. The article has it as 0.5km. The Songsvann line also shows two different sections to have the same length of 6.0km. The two other parts where you use a merged distance cell are fine as the left hand cells are for the same sections of line. Boissière (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the distance column shows the total length of the line with the upgrade. For instance, for each new section, the length value increases. Regarding the calculation of the common tunnel, this may be so complicated it need a footnote or a remark in the key or something. What has happened, is that the tunnel has been built from both ends. The station distances are (in km) Majorstuen–Nationaltheatret: 2.0, Nationaltheatret–Stortinget: 0.7 km, Stortinget–Jernbanetorget: 0.5, and Jernbanetorget–Tøyen: 1.6. That sums up to 4.8. For the three first entries, the two then-separate tunnels have km-counter independently. Arsenikk (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I had totally missed the statement that said that the lengths were the total lengths after the opening of each section though I put it to you that this is an unusual way of presenting information about sections of line. I am not totally against things being presented this way but I wonder if other people may also be confused. Boissière (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This idea not struck me as an issue when I though out the article. Perhaps two columns would be suitable, one for the extension length and one for the total length? Arsenikk (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list now has an additional column with the length of each extension. Arsenikk (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This idea not struck me as an issue when I though out the article. Perhaps two columns would be suitable, one for the extension length and one for the total length? Arsenikk (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I had totally missed the statement that said that the lengths were the total lengths after the opening of each section though I put it to you that this is an unusual way of presenting information about sections of line. I am not totally against things being presented this way but I wonder if other people may also be confused. Boissière (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the distance column shows the total length of the line with the upgrade. For instance, for each new section, the length value increases. Regarding the calculation of the common tunnel, this may be so complicated it need a footnote or a remark in the key or something. What has happened, is that the tunnel has been built from both ends. The station distances are (in km) Majorstuen–Nationaltheatret: 2.0, Nationaltheatret–Stortinget: 0.7 km, Stortinget–Jernbanetorget: 0.5, and Jernbanetorget–Tøyen: 1.6. That sums up to 4.8. For the three first entries, the two then-separate tunnels have km-counter independently. Arsenikk (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On closer inspection I think that there are two discrepencies. For the Common Tunnel it shows the length of the Stortinget-Nationaltheatret section and the metro conversion of the whole Stortinget-Majorstuen section to both be 4.8km. That can't be correct. In fact in comparing the lengths in the table with the diagram in the Common Tunnel article it looks as though the table has the length of this section incorrectly stated as 2.1km. The article has it as 0.5km. The Songsvann line also shows two different sections to have the same length of 6.0km. The two other parts where you use a merged distance cell are fine as the left hand cells are for the same sections of line. Boissière (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WFCforLife
Original lists. That's what I like to see. Apologies for my lack of understanding of rail systems in general, but hopefully these will be of some use.
- The lead states that there are 90 stations. In the list, I added up the number of stations on each line as of the most recent upgrade. So I added the 20 for Holmenkoll, the 10 for Røa, and so on for all ten lines, reaching a total of 92. Does this mean that only two stations are on more than one line? Or have I done something silly? If there indeed are only two stations served by multiple lines, maybe it would be worth naming them?
- On a related note, am I right in believing that the bottom column of each line is the one that gives the information about the current situation of the line?
- Ref 8 should be marked as (in Norwegian).
- References 9 and 27 are exactly the same.
- Inline citation needed for "highest ridership" claim in the last paragraph of the lead.
- "The last two lines are in the process of upgrade, with the Holmenkoll and Kolsås Lines planned to open in 2011 and 2014, respectively." Are the lines closed until 2011 and 2014 respectively, or are they open but using light rail?
- "Services are omitted from lines where they serve only one or two stations." This is a strange question to ask, but am I right to take this sentence literally (i.e. that any service that serves three or more stations is included?). If so that's fine and no amendment is needed, I just want to be sure that the statement is accurate.
Hope those help for now. I have a few other ideas, but I'd rather make sure I understand what I can currently see first. WFCforLife (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the feedback. I have made some adjustments to the text to adress the language, duplicated ref, inline citation issue (it was cited, but I added another that is probably a lot more accurate). As for your questions, the reason that there are 92 stations is that the Lamberseter Line was incorrectly stated (it said 9 instead of 8); the more problematic station is Majorstuen, that was built as the terminus of the Holmenkoll Line in 1898, and still was that at the last time of the line extension. Since then, the station became the western-most line of the Common Tunnel (and thereby not any more on the Holmenkoll Line). When the table is updated after the upgrades, the station will as such not be listed. Your assumption in the second point (about the bottom line) is correct. However, the Holmenkoll Line and parts of the Kolsås Line exist, but are closed. Regarding your last question, the reason for this is that for instance service six runs from the Common Tunnel, then serves two stations on the Røa Line before running along the Kolsås Line. Similarly, service 4 and 6 serve one station on the Grorud Line before branching off to the Ring Line. This is just an arbitrary choice to avoid giving the impression that services 6 serves the Grorud Line and the Røa Line, etc. Arsenikk (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WFCforLife (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not coming back to this sooner but I now support this list. Boissière (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Dabomb87 18:28, 5 December 2009 [8].
- Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First ever CFL head coach list FLC nomination, and hopefully my 29th head coaches/managers FL. I'll try to find some secondary sources, rather than the primary sources currently used like CFL, BC Lions, and CHOF websites. Grammar/copy-edit mistakes can be boldly fixed by you, the reviewers. Everything else should be fine.-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I saw that an additional row for Adam Rita is added for sorting purpose. I don't think this is a good idea because it confuses readers. I wonder if there is FL precedent for this.—Chris!c/t 04:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's confusing and odd. We should not be confusing the text just to make the software work. I suggest choosing one of the two methods and deleting the other: list each term separately or combine the two stints into a total stats for his time with the Lions. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the readers wouldn't be confused, as there is a note that indicates that the column is for their own sorting purposes. There is no FL precedent for this, but how about color the column light gray, to indicate that the column is for sorting purposes? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with the note or the color, it is still extremely odd to have another row showing the sum of the numbers of 2 other rows. I'd say remove it as people can easy add the numbers up themselves.—Chris!c/t 03:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Made another section. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not sure if this is a good idea, but I will wait for others to comment first.—Chris!c/t 20:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is precedent for the separate table, though I don't like it. I think that readers can do math, so I don't think it's necessary. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Rlendog also used a section of managers with multiple tenures on his MLB managers FLs (ie. List of New York Yankees managers), but ehh...Removed section. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is precedent for the separate table, though I don't like it. I think that readers can do math, so I don't think it's necessary. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not sure if this is a good idea, but I will wait for others to comment first.—Chris!c/t 20:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Made another section. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with the note or the color, it is still extremely odd to have another row showing the sum of the numbers of 2 other rows. I'd say remove it as people can easy add the numbers up themselves.—Chris!c/t 03:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the readers wouldn't be confused, as there is a note that indicates that the column is for their own sorting purposes. There is no FL precedent for this, but how about color the column light gray, to indicate that the column is for sorting purposes? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's confusing and odd. We should not be confusing the text just to make the software work. I suggest choosing one of the two methods and deleting the other: list each term separately or combine the two stints into a total stats for his time with the Lions. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - On a sentence level the prose is acceptable, but overall it doesn't flow well.
- The opening sentence is a bit boring, and doesn't indicate at all what the article is about. If I didn't know better, I'd assume this was some duplicate of another page.
- The name “Lions” was based on a two similar mountain peaks that can be seen north of Vancouver. - Seems really out-of-place and irrelevant to the article.
- The first paragraph seems like a few random facts were organized into a block of text.
- To answer the first four comments, the first paragraph is an introduction to the BC Lions, in case people don't know who are the BC Lions. I kind of agree with your fourth comment, though is there any way of having a better introduction? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Lions' first head coach and general manager was Annis Stukus, who coached the team for two WIFU seasons; the Annis Stukus Trophy is named after him. - Last part is off-topic.
- Annis Stukus Trophy is for the best CFL head coach of the season. Now explained on article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dave Skrien, who coached the Lions for seven seasons in the 1960s, has coached the Lions to two... - "Coached the Lions" twice in a row.
- Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excluding the previous mentioned, no other coach has won the Annis Stukus Trophy with the Lions, and Dave Ritchie and Steve Buratto are the only other head coaches to have coached the Lions to a Grey Cup championship, in 1994 and 2000 respectively. - Previous what mentioned? Doesn't seem like good grammar.
- Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this isn't ready yet.
- It is ready, but just has a few minors that need to be fixed, that's all. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
–Juliancolton | Talk 03:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
|
Support. My issues have been addressed and I feel the editor has made a substantial effort in resolving the issues of other editors.—NMajdan•talk 20:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments – To start, I feel that I must say something about the nomination statement. You may feel that it saves time for reviewers to make copy-editing changes, but they should feel no obligation to fix a page that they haven't worked on. The nominator should be the fixer, unless a reviewer graciously offers copy-editing services. Look at it this way: it will help you avoid similar errors in the future, saving time for everyone involved.
- I tell reviewers to copy-edit the article for me, as I barely have any time to do anything these days, plus I copy-edited myself twice already.
"In their 56-year history, the team have appeared in nine Grey Cup finals, and have won five Grey Cup championships." Second use of Grey Cup is a redundancy and those words can be safely chopped.
- Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "who coached until the Lions first CFL season". Apostrophe missing at the end of Lions. Also, it's pretty obvious from this that he was their first CFL coach; not sure the next bit is needed.
- Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now reads "who coached three games into Lions first CFL season." Think this should be "the Lions' first season", as I suggested before. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't the Lions first season, it was their first CFL season. If the current revision still doesn't satisfy you, then just DIY. --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now reads "who coached three games into Lions first CFL season." Think this should be "the Lions' first season", as I suggested before. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"led the team to two consecutive Grey Cup finals in the 1963 and 1964". Faulty grammar.
- Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Vic Rapp was then hired in the 1977 season, coaching for 96 games until the end of the 1982 season, winning...". Don't like this structure, which has an -ing on top of an -ing. Try "Vic Rapp was then hired in the 1977 season and coached for 96 games until the end of the 1982 season, winning...".
- Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason why people are criticizing the flow may lie with the third paragraph, which is long compared to the rest of the lead. Try siphoning a couple of sentences to other paragraphs, which may help this feel more flowing.
- I'll try my best to do that if I have time. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - normally I don't criticize the prose because I am not a good writer myself. But paragraph 3 is just poorly written. There are so much repetitions. Instead of cramping every facts into the sentence, please be clear on what you want to say. Also, you shouldn't just tell reviewers to copyedit for you, you just learn to do it yourself. Because in the end, it is going to help you improve.—Chris!c/t 01:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Look above. I'll try to fix the third paragraph sometime this week. Hope I have time for Wikipedia... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I kind of fixed the lead, and the flow of the lead, though more improvement on grammar could be possible. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some tweaks and believe that the prose have improved. Though before I support, I want others who are better equipped to locate and fix prose problems review this first.—Chris!c/t 23:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I kind of fixed the lead, and the flow of the lead, though more improvement on grammar could be possible. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please ask opposers to revisit the FLC and check whether their concerns have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do that sometime later, if possible on Friday. --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Archiving this FLC as unsuccessful. Although the list was improving, there were still outstanding opposes and concerns over the prose, and on a brief runthrough I still easily found errors. I think if the nominator can work with one or two editors over the prose during the next week, the next FLC will be much smoother. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by Dabomb87 18:33, 5 December 2009 [9].
- Nominator(s): —Chris!c/t 05:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's ready. This is my first award list in a while. —Chris!c/t 05:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Geraldk
|
---|
Comments: Did a quick c/e for spelling and grammar issues hope you don't mind, but also had these:
Geraldk (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - well done list. Geraldk (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jan Kameníček
|
---|
Comments. Generally, I like the list, and have just a few comments:
I was thinking about the article a little more and have a few more questions:
|
- Suppport. I like the list and at the moment have no more questions. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Bencherlite
|
---|
Otherwise, looks in good shape. BencherliteTalk 23:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support, issues resolved (I reworded prize 1 and prize 2 as "one of the prizes" and "the other"). BencherliteTalk 08:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 The Rambling Man 18:27, 26 December 2009 [10].
- Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it satisfies all criteria of a featured list and presents a valuable contribution to wikipedia. The list is modeled after the featured List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures). bamse (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Diaa
|
---|
1.The lead needs a thorough copy edit. Try to read it carefully again and fix any stylistic problems...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2.Two sentences behind each other have the same beginning: "With the rise of" and "With the evolution" try to avoid that.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3.I think an introduction to the lead would be better instead of just going into the history of painting in Japan. Try describing in general the inclusion criteria and the paintings found in this list.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4.For the headers: "Author" should be changed to "Artist" and "Pictures" should be changed to "Image"--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5.No need for "A picture of " in the Name.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6.Why do some paintings miss their images? Like "Mandala of the Two Realms " which can be imported from here and here? Images of paintings who's author died are in the public domain even if you didn't take the image yourself. Please try to fill the missing images.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1.In the references you have sometimes multiple external links of the same subject like in " "National Treasure: Wind and Rain Landscape Painting; Attributed to Ma Yuan (国宝 風雨山水図 伝馬遠筆?)" (in Japanese). Seikado Bunko Art Museum, Introduction to Items in the Collection. http://www.seikado.or.jp/sub030102.htm. Retrieved 2009-05-18." --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2.Wikilink publishers with articles like " Tokyo National Museum" and Washington State University.
|
- Support the list is of high quality and shows great effort.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info: I added "Snowclad houses in the night" which was designated very recently to the list. The list is now complete again. bamse (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
". Fixed. bamse (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Quick comments –
- "the paintings of the Momoyama period was characterised" should be "were characterised" for proper grammar.
- Fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For me, the maps to the right of the Statistics table are cutting off the list on the right (I'm on Internet Explorer, in case that helps diagnose the problem).
- Fixed. At least on my Internet Explorer it does not cover the maps anymore. Please let me know if you still experience the problem and if yes, which of the tables is interfering with the map and on what resolution you are.
- Change header in Usage table from Present Location to Present location, because the second word is not a proper noun.
- Done.bamse (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually, bibliographies are in alphabetical order. What system are you using here? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I used random order :-). Fixed now. bamse (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I think I addressed all of them.bamse (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by Dabomb87 23:27, 8 December 2009 [11].
- Nominator(s): Felipe Menegaz 19:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very detailed medal table that can be compared to the Featured Olympic similars. Felipe Menegaz 19:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Just participated in the Peer Review and I think this list is featured quality. My only remaining concern is the lack of images of athletes from countries other than Brazil, but if that is all we have to work with then I am comfortable with the list as is. Geraldk (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However, if we expand the type of images beyond simply those showing medal awards, there are images available of athletes from other countries, or at least of other athletes in addition to Brazilian athletes. Some standouts from commons include: table tennis, volleyball, Badminton, basketball, Soccer, and Swimming. I'm curious what other reviewers think - keep the images to medal awards or expand the scope to allow for some diversity of nationalities. Geraldk (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
Just one quick comment I noticed in a drive-by: the legend is ambiguous. Does "First medal in the Pan American Games" mean that the country earned its first medal in the Games (ever?), or does it mean that the country earned the first medal in these particular games? Likewise for the "First medal in the Pan American Games". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it means that those countries earned their first ever medals. Added ever in the sentences. Felipe Menegaz 22:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Joey80
The legend for the table (i.e. host nation, first ever medal, etc.) seems to contain two legends per subject--the numerical superscript/note, and the color coding. Maybe this can be simplified by removing one or the other. Personally, I prefer removing the numerical superscript, since that gives the idea that there is are notes at the bottom of the table/page worth considering, which is not the case. Joey80 (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The numerical superscript must be there to meet the needs of readers who have trouble seeing colors, as per Wikipedia:Colours#Using colours in articles. If your concern is simply that symbols may work better than numbers, than I'm sure Felipe can find alternatives to the numbers. Geraldk (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If such is the case, then the numerical/text legend is ok, but the color coding can be removed? Joey80 (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think is better to keep both. As you said, numerical legend only gives the idea that there are notes. The featured list 1998 Winter Olympics medal table already use this template. Felipe Menegaz 23:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If such is the case, then the numerical/text legend is ok, but the color coding can be removed? Joey80 (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to support Geraldk's comments, it might be better to also include images of athletes of varying nationalities other than Brazilian. Joey80 (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we should only use images related to the medals. Felipe Menegaz 15:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So this includes images of non-Brazilian athletes who won medals. Joey80 (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no free pictures of non-Brazilian athletes during those awards ceremonies. Felipe Menegaz 14:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So this includes images of non-Brazilian athletes who won medals. Joey80 (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of my comments have been resolved. Thanks. Joey80 (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Mm40
The ALT text needs work. For the pictures of athletes, you shouldn't mention their name in the ALT text because a non-expert can't see that just be looking at the picture. Instead, describe what the athletes look like, what they're wearing, etc. See Wikipedia:ALT#Verifiability. Also, for the map at top, there's no need to describe the colors, just describe what you would take from it. Maybe something like: "The United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, etc. received at least one gold medal" and continue that going over most countries (see Wikipedia:ALT#Maps). Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After a huge blackout here in Brazil, I am back. Alternative texts improved. Felipe Menegaz 15:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments from Giants2008
Mostly of the picky variety, since the list is very good overall. Regarding the images, I would like to see one or two that represent a country other than Brazil. Having four Brazilian photos and none with athletes from other countries could be seen by some as introducing bias. I also have a hard time believing no alternatives are avaliable, because the Brazilian agency where the existing photos come from has such friendly policies for our purposes; surely they didn't photograph just Brazilian athletes. Any of the team-sport finals photos in particular would make an ideal addition to the list, and are still strongly related to the medal count. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – After the resolution of these and the other comments, I'm confident that this meets the standards. Saw a grammar glitch in the alt text of a photo before coming here, but fixed it myself to expedite matters. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Everything looks great and seems to have already been taken care of. Reywas92Talk 22:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Comment
What does the "..." mean in the "Changes in medal standings" table? Also, why do you use pictures of the medals in that table but use words in the main table?Dabomb87 (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are just aesthetical reasons. Medal pictures removed. Felipe Menegaz 20:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant for you to clarify in the article what the three dots meant. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They mean nothing, zero, unchanged. I saw the 2004 Host City Election — ballot results table in Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics with the dots and I liked. Well, dots removed. Felipe Menegaz 15:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just made the blank spaces dashes (since they mean the same thing). Problem solved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They mean nothing, zero, unchanged. I saw the 2004 Host City Election — ballot results table in Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics with the dots and I liked. Well, dots removed. Felipe Menegaz 15:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant for you to clarify in the article what the three dots meant. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of 2010 Winter Olympics venues/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 promoted by Dabomb87 16:54, 28 November 2009 [12].
- Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This list, describing the medalists in equestrian sports at the Olympics, is my first FLC and really the first list I've worked on seriously. It has recently undergone a peer review, which garnered comments from one other editor. I believe this article meets all of the criteria for a featured list, but, since this is my first nomination, I may have missed something completely! Thanks in advance for you time and opinions. Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Geraldk
|
---|
Comments quick ones, starting more in-depth review now, but...
Geraldk (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments - there's lots of stuff here, but I do want to say I'm impressed at all the work on the list - it's coming a long way.
Geraldk (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the redlink for in note 2? Geraldk (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - all my issues have been addressed promptly and thoroughly. Geraldk (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is an error - 2008 Hong Kong should say 2008 Beijing - even though the event was held in Hong Kong, it is still considered as part of the Beijing Olympics. As far as I know, this is different from the 1956 Summer Olympics situation.—Chris!c/t 23:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—Chris!c/t 19:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the fact that the names of the horses were included here, similar to the official IOC website medallists database (and unlike in other wikipedia articles about the Olympic sport, like List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners). There is this entry for the 1980 winner though, where the Italian gold medal winner has the flag of the IOC affixed to the name instead of the Italian flag. I know that some countries then decided to carry the IOC flag instead of their national flags during the opening ceremony as a form of protest. But I'm not sure if the usage of IOC flag has been carried over to the medalist/s' affiliation or the official medal tally. Also, is there a way to make the column width uniform or at least visually "smooth" throughout the article? I am specifically referring to the discontinued events, wherein due to the pictures, the width of the tables are zigzagging throughout the section. Joey80 (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure if this is a standard format but looking at the other featured list related to Olympic medallists, like List of Olympic medalists in table tennis, there is a link underneath every Olympic edition, labeled as details. Maybe this can also be included here. Thanks. Joey80 (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not really a requirement and a priority but a matter of personal taste, but the table of content can also be tweaked a bit to have a look of brevity and compactness. Again, please refer to the TOC of List of Olympic medalists in table tennis. I think this will be applicable to the events currently included in the Olympic program, but the discontinued events will likely have a similar format in the table of content. Joey80 (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The flags of the Italian team have been brought up recently at the Olympics wikiproject. Across wikipedia articles, athletes are listed with the flags they marched under in the opening ceremony. The consensus on that has not changed, though if you wish to participate in the discussion about it, the link is here. The only way to make the table widths uniform is to eliminate pictures, to string a long row of picture such that no section is without them, or to set a standard width for columns. The former is obviously not a good idea and the latter messes up the page when viewed by some browsers. And the middle option requires more pictures than are usually available on any one topic. So, as annoying as it is, until someone finds a solution, the zigzagging is pretty common with featured lists. Geraldk (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, fine. For the widths of the table, apparently, the Long Jump event is the one that has a different width when compared to other discontinued events, so a pic can be added or a longer pic can be found to replace the pic above it. Joey80 (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not familiar with the rules/scoring systems for Equestrian. But will it be possible to include a note on why there was this edition in which the gold medal was won by two competitors (e.g. in other sports like gymnastics and athletics track events, an asterisk/cross is placed beside the names of competitors to indicate that their time/scores are the same), and why there was an edition in which there was no bronze medal winner? Joey80 (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, fine. For the widths of the table, apparently, the Long Jump event is the one that has a different width when compared to other discontinued events, so a pic can be added or a longer pic can be found to replace the pic above it. Joey80 (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The flags of the Italian team have been brought up recently at the Olympics wikiproject. Across wikipedia articles, athletes are listed with the flags they marched under in the opening ceremony. The consensus on that has not changed, though if you wish to participate in the discussion about it, the link is here. The only way to make the table widths uniform is to eliminate pictures, to string a long row of picture such that no section is without them, or to set a standard width for columns. The former is obviously not a good idea and the latter messes up the page when viewed by some browsers. And the middle option requires more pictures than are usually available on any one topic. So, as annoying as it is, until someone finds a solution, the zigzagging is pretty common with featured lists. Geraldk (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) Joey80, thank you for your comments. I have included notes that explained the two differences in medaling. The details links have been added (Gerald also asked for them above!). The IOC flag thing has hopefully been explained above (thankfully, because I wasn't really sure what the answer was!). The main reason that the tables zig-zag in the discontinued events section is that some competitors' names are longer than others, and the short tables make this more obvious. I hope these explanations help, and if you have more questions, please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. All of my comments have been resolved too. Joey80 (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Andrwsc
|
---|
|
- All of my previous comments have been addressed, but on a final run-through, I have two more:
- All images need proper alt text per WP:ALT.
- The team events need
valign=top
in the table cell formatting to align the flags. That is the common style on all other list articles in this series.
- Getting very close!! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What images can you see that need alt text? As far as I can tell, they all do already. I think I've added the valign tags correctly, although I'm not that familiar with table formatting, so I may have done it wrong. Dana boomer (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about the alt text; my browser setting had changed.. As for the valign you need it for each table cell. For example, change every instance of
|{{flagIOCteam|...
to|valign=top|{{flagIOCteam|...
. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dana, I can do that automatically for you if you don't know how. Reywas92Talk 22:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you could do that automatically it would be awesome! I don't know how to set up a script to do it... Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The script has now been run and the valigns correctly added (thank you Reywas!). Dana boomer (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about the alt text; my browser setting had changed.. As for the valign you need it for each table cell. For example, change every instance of
Comment Back when I was working on the List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing, it originally had a "medals by nation" table similar to the one here. However, I was told to move it back to the main article because they are sibling articles and it's more appropriate at the main one. I think that should be done here too for consistancy, because most of the medalists lists I've seen (although admittedly I haven't checked all of them) lack the table. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 14:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to see what some of the other reviewers have to say about this. Some of the other Olympic lists have no by-country information, while many have country medals per year tables. There doesn't seem to be any guideline calling for the table to exist or not exist (unless I've missed one). I'm willing to change the table, either by moving it back to the main article or changing it to a medals per year table. However, this list already has two supports with the current table in place, and so I don't want to seriously change a main table in the article without at least giving the other reviewers the chance to chime in. Dana boomer (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to see consistency across all these articles, so if that means keeping the medal table only in the main article, then it should be removed here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am substituting the current medals by country table with a medals by country by year template, to keep it consistent with most other FLs of this type. Please see the discussion with Reywas below for further details. Dana boomer (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to see consistency across all these articles, so if that means keeping the medal table only in the main article, then it should be removed here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments – TRM caught a couple of the sentences that I thought were awkward, and the sorting difficulties, so I won't repeat those comments here. Don't believe anything below is a duplicate from before, but I could be wrong.
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support – With my comments taken care of earlier, I was waiting on the resolution of the other comments, particularly those of TRM. Now that that's done, I'm happy to back this list, Great first effort! Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Reywas92Talk
*What is the total number of medals awarded?
- Added.
- What is the total number of people who have won at least one medal?
- I haven't been able to find this information in my sources. Do you know of anyplace that gives this information?
- Counting them with AWB, there are 564 medal winners.
- I haven't been able to find this information in my sources. Do you know of anyplace that gives this information?
- Do you mind making a custom TOC like in other Medalist FLs?
- I played around with doing this (in response to a comment above), but couldn't find a shortened table format that I was happy with. The fact that there are so many different events makes the custom TOC not much shorter or nicer than the current one, and something to do with the different lengths of the events' names make some of the other events and sub-sections off-set weirdly, looking very unprofessional. If you can come up with a custom TOC that looks good, I would have no problem with it in the article, but with my (admittedly limited) formatting skills, I haven't been able to.
- That's fine, it's not required.
- I played around with doing this (in response to a comment above), but couldn't find a shortened table format that I was happy with. The fact that there are so many different events makes the custom TOC not much shorter or nicer than the current one, and something to do with the different lengths of the events' names make some of the other events and sub-sections off-set weirdly, looking very unprofessional. If you can come up with a custom TOC that looks good, I would have no problem with it in the article, but with my (admittedly limited) formatting skills, I haven't been able to.
- I would prefer the Medals by country table be replaced by Medals per year. It is redundant to Equestrian at the Summer Olympics#Medal table and should be consistent with other Medalist lists.
- I am working on this replacement table in a sandbox, but gathering and entering the information into the table is taking me some time. I hope to spend some time working on this tonight and maybe even finish it. I will let you know when the new table has been imported into the list.
Everything else looks fantastic and I love how you included the horses' names. Reywas92Talk 22:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reywas, thank you for your comments. I apologize for being slow to answer them - real life has been busy for the past two days and I haven't had much online time. I've interspersed my replies so far above, and will continue to work on the issues as time permits. Dana boomer (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're fine. One more thing is to check multiple spellings. In many cases where the athlete has foreign symbols in his/her name, it is spelled with them in one place and without in another. At least one redlink is actually a bluelink but has the wrong spelling: Pierre Durand Jr. should link to Pierre Durand, Jr.. Michel Robert should be corrected to Michel Robert (equestrian). Reywas92Talk 22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The table has now been finished and substituted, please take a look and see what you think. I've fixed the above two examples of links, plus another one that I found. Please let me know if you see any others - I've combed through and don't see any more, but it may just be because I've looked at it too often. I'm not completely sure I trust the AWB count - for example, does it count a person more than once if their name is spelled more than one way? Also, this information
doesdoesn't seem to be necessary to include in Olympic lists, I've looked through other FLs of this sort, and it's included in some, but not in several others. Thanks for your thoughts. Dana boomer (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- It does count both links, but there weren't very many and I'm sure I got them all unless the name was completely different. The medals per year table looks great, but please add dark backgrounds to years when a country didn't exist, like in List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing#Medals per year. Reywas92Talk 21:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dark backgrounds have been added to years where the NOC didn't exist/didn't compete. Also, I made a mistake in my statement above which changed the meaning, please review the struck and rewritten word and let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The table is fantastic! I think it is necessary and should be added to the rest of the lists as well. If I'm looking at a list of people who won medals, I want to know how many there are. I went through it again and I'm sure there are 564 people with an equestrian medal. Reywas92Talk 04:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will add the information then. However, just one more question before I do - does your count include the competitors in the last two "unofficial" events? It should not, because these are not considered official events, and are not included in the table. Dana boomer (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support then; all issues resolved. Nope, I removed them. Reywas92Talk 16:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will add the information then. However, just one more question before I do - does your count include the competitors in the last two "unofficial" events? It should not, because these are not considered official events, and are not included in the table. Dana boomer (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The table is fantastic! I think it is necessary and should be added to the rest of the lists as well. If I'm looking at a list of people who won medals, I want to know how many there are. I went through it again and I'm sure there are 564 people with an equestrian medal. Reywas92Talk 04:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dark backgrounds have been added to years where the NOC didn't exist/didn't compete. Also, I made a mistake in my statement above which changed the meaning, please review the struck and rewritten word and let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It does count both links, but there weren't very many and I'm sure I got them all unless the name was completely different. The medals per year table looks great, but please add dark backgrounds to years when a country didn't exist, like in List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing#Medals per year. Reywas92Talk 21:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The table has now been finished and substituted, please take a look and see what you think. I've fixed the above two examples of links, plus another one that I found. Please let me know if you see any others - I've combed through and don't see any more, but it may just be because I've looked at it too often. I'm not completely sure I trust the AWB count - for example, does it count a person more than once if their name is spelled more than one way? Also, this information
- You're fine. One more thing is to check multiple spellings. In many cases where the athlete has foreign symbols in his/her name, it is spelled with them in one place and without in another. At least one redlink is actually a bluelink but has the wrong spelling: Pierre Durand Jr. should link to Pierre Durand, Jr.. Michel Robert should be corrected to Michel Robert (equestrian). Reywas92Talk 22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by Dabomb87 16:54, 28 November 2009 [14].
- Nominator(s): – PeeJay 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that there is a lack of featured content covering the Minnesota Vikings and I have worked fairly hard to get this list to a standard comparable to that of List of Kansas City Chiefs starting quarterbacks. All of the content of the list and the prose extracted thereof is suitably references, and I believe that the lead section introduces the content of the list effectively. Since the list is based on the list of Kansas City Chiefs starting quarterbacks, there should be no issue with the style or structure, and there are also images showing both a former starting QB and the current one. Information does not change from day to day, except to update the number of games started by the team's current starting QB, which only happens once a week during the football season. – PeeJay 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. – PeeJay 07:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: main reference missing publisher info & access date—Chris!c/t 01:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. – PeeJay 07:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Conditional Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) – contingent on the resolution of the sorting issue below.
- Comment from KV5 (yes, again)
- Now that there is a statistical table, I think there should be some discussion of those statistics in the lead, and/or in the section containing that table, because the lead should be a summary of the list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a couple of paragraphs of discussion to the statistics table. Let me know if what I've added isn't what you were looking for. – PeeJay 01:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work. You make me proud to be a Vikings fan. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aw, thanks man :) Not bad for a Brit, eh? Now I just need someone to teach me the tune to Skol, Vikings! – PeeJay 01:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work. You make me proud to be a Vikings fan. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a couple of paragraphs of discussion to the statistics table. Let me know if what I've added isn't what you were looking for. – PeeJay 01:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - 1) In the lead, it says "The club was founded by Minneapolis businessmen Bill Boyer, H. P. Skoglund and Max Winter in 1959..." - Only one of these is linked, yet I would assume that co-founding a pro football team is probably notable enough to have their own article. These two should probably be wikilinked. 2) "Starting" could be ambiguous to someone not familiar with football. There's no real explanation of what a "starting" quarterback is. Those of us familiar with the game know it means starting a game, but others may think it means starting a season, starting a half/quarter, or something else. A brief explanation might be nice. 3) I don't like how the list is set up. I scrolled down expecting to see a list of 28 players in chronological order of first appearance (with a section explaining exact seasons played, etc.) and instead there's a list of seasons with the QBs that played next to it. As is, I wouldn't call this article "List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks" so much as I would call it "List of Minnesota Vikings seasons by starting quarterback". I took a look through the other "starting quarterbacks" pages and see they all follow this format (including at least one FL), and I have to say I strongly disagree with the format that these pages are in. I think my solution rather than changing the whole thing around would be to keep that section, but before it add a list of each of the 28 quarterbacks by order of first appearance, along with appropriate notes. My philosophy is that you shouldn't have to work to figure out the actual 28 different QBs, they should just be right there in a chronological list rather than having to sift through every season and determine which ones are duplicates, etc. VegaDark (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies
- I don't see how this has anything to do with the quality of the list. I could link those names, but they would just be redlinks, and I don't know enough about those individuals to create decent articles about them at this time.
- I've added a note and moved all three notes in the article to a single section between "See also" and "References".
- I would rather not act on this until more people have commented. I have added a statistics section to the article, which lists every starting quarterback in his own row. It is currently in alphabetical order, but I could re-order it chronologically. The only problem with this would be that the players who had two spells with the franchise would only be listed at the point of their first spell. I'm also not too happy about the amount of statistical data in the table, but I added the stats that seemed most pertinent to a quarterback. Comments on this new table would be appreciated.
- You may also notice that User:Gilliganfanatic has added a table with a season-by-season account of the Vikings' postseason starting quarterbacks. I'm not sure how this could be integrated with the other table(s), but I am certainly of the opinion that it should be. Again, more comments would be welcomed. – PeeJay 23:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) While it may not affect the quality of the list portion itself, it does effect the quality of the page as a whole, which we are to consider in FLC nominations. I would rather have them redlinks than unlinked. 2) Looks good 3) I would welcome more comments on this as well, although the new "statistics" table looks like it could satisfy this by simply adding a sortable column with 1-28 next to each QB in order of first appearance. VegaDark (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) OK, I've linked them. 2) Thanks. 3) I think that adding a column with 1-28 in it would be a bit confusing as readers might think that the numbers refer to the players' jersey numbers. I would much rather default sort the table by the date of the player's first appearance and then let readers sort by any other column should they so wish. – PeeJay 08:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That works for me. Like Killervogel5, I like to wait a while for more comments before supporting (or opposing, for that matter). VegaDark (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) OK, I've linked them. 2) Thanks. 3) I think that adding a column with 1-28 in it would be a bit confusing as readers might think that the numbers refer to the players' jersey numbers. I would much rather default sort the table by the date of the player's first appearance and then let readers sort by any other column should they so wish. – PeeJay 08:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) While it may not affect the quality of the list portion itself, it does effect the quality of the page as a whole, which we are to consider in FLC nominations. I would rather have them redlinks than unlinked. 2) Looks good 3) I would welcome more comments on this as well, although the new "statistics" table looks like it could satisfy this by simply adding a sortable column with 1-28 next to each QB in order of first appearance. VegaDark (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies
- Quick comments' - I didn't go through the article in depth, but the statistics table doesn't seem to have a key. Also the "Record" column of that table doesn't seem to sort correctly. I am also curious about why the list should be limited to just starting quarterbacks. The statistics table shows the record of each quarterback including games started and not started, so just a little piece of the team's QB story seems to be missing with the quarterbacks who played but never started a game. An alternate approach, but maybe over complicated, would be to show the stats for each (starting) quarterback in for each season, and the current statistics table would serve as the totals. Rlendog (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The statistics table uses tooltips (see Template:tooltip) as a key. If you hover your cursor over the column header, an explanation of the abbreviation will appear.
- I'm not sure how to fix the sorting of the "Record" column. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
- It looks like the record column has been removed, which is fine, but to sort you could use the [[{{{1}}}]] template, and sort based on a 4 digit number with one or more leading zeros and the number of wins. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the sort template really necessary now? The content of the "W", "L" and "T" columns is now purely numerical with no positive or negative symbols, so the sorting should work perfectly without the need for an extra template. – PeeJay 17:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like the record column has been removed, which is fine, but to sort you could use the [[{{{1}}}]] template, and sort based on a 4 digit number with one or more leading zeros and the number of wins. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could be wrong here, but in my experience, teams rarely substitute their quarterback during a game. It does happen, hence why we need to refer to "the starting quarterback" and not just "the quarterback", but changes would only occur if the player is injured or the team is so far ahead that they can afford to bring on their second-string QB. Either way, it is only really the starting QB who matters, which is why only the stats for the starting QBs have been included (although those stats include times when the player was brought on during the game).
- The starting QB usually finishes the game, but not always. For example, the backup will enter the game in case of injury or a blowout. So Fran Tarkenton played 177 games but only started 170. Or Brooks Bollinger played 7 games but only started 1. But if he didn't start that one game, he would have played 6 but started none, and wouldn't have made the list. So I am suggesting that the QBs who only came in as substitutes should be included, at least in the master list. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this. If the article was "List of Minnesota Vikings quarterbacks", then perhaps including all of the players who played at QB for the team would be appropriate, but this list and all others like it focus only on starting quarterbacks. The fact that the statistics cover all appearances is a bit of a peeve, but it's not worth breaking the custom over. – PeeJay 17:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just one more small point: how would you define a QB? If we're talking about anyone on this list, then that seems to include anyone who has ever made a pass for the Vikings whether they are a recognised QB or not. How would you suggest we filter the QBs from the FSs? – PeeJay 18:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a good point. I am not sure whether or not there is a reliable source for who actually played QB. I thought pro-football-reference would have that, but they only list who was a QB on the roster and who threw passes. I still think the chart seems incomplete without including the players who played QB but didn't start. And I realize the the list is titled "Starting QBs" and not just "QBs", which is the basic issue - why have a list that limits to just a subset of the Vikings' QB, rather than have a list that includes everyone. But the answer may be that there are no RSes for everyone who played QB, just those that started there. So I can support. Rlendog (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The starting QB usually finishes the game, but not always. For example, the backup will enter the game in case of injury or a blowout. So Fran Tarkenton played 177 games but only started 170. Or Brooks Bollinger played 7 games but only started 1. But if he didn't start that one game, he would have played 6 but started none, and wouldn't have made the list. So I am suggesting that the QBs who only came in as substitutes should be included, at least in the master list. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the approach you suggest would be too complicated, but please feel free to create an example list in your userspace so that we can see what your suggestion would look like. – PeeJay 11:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are probably right. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Support – The hyphen work-around for the sorting is not ideal, but it is the best solution possible given the situation. Everything else looks fine. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comment
- "The Vikings are (plural) a member (singular)" - maybe it's just an ENGVAR issue (I'm in the UK), but this seems completely grammatically nonsensical to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. – PeeJay 11:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
—NMajdan•talk 19:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Despite the lingering issues with the sorting of the rushing yards column, I feel this meets the criteria for FL. Let's hope somebody out there knows how to resolve this ongoing sort issue or Favre finishes the season with positive rushing yards.—NMajdan•talk 17:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've asked Tcncv (talk · contribs) to take a look at the table to see if he can get the negative number to sort properly. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK; so it seems there is no way to sort correctly with a minus sign. The question is now this: do we want the table to be typographically correct, and allow a slight sorting error; or do we want to the table to sort correctly, disregarding a slight typographical error? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I would prefer to have the table sort correctly. Most people wouldn't give two shits whether we use a hyphen or a minus sign (and to be honest, I find WP:DASH to be a bit restrictive anyway), so a hyphen should be fine IMO. – PeeJay 08:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I am a WP:DASH fanatic, I agree with that assessment. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also a stickler for WP:DASH, and I suppose I can live with it for the sake of sorting, and we'll just hope that Favre breaks a 4-yard run sometime later this season. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Y'all will be happy to know that I've fixed the sort issue. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also a stickler for WP:DASH, and I suppose I can live with it for the sake of sorting, and we'll just hope that Favre breaks a 4-yard run sometime later this season. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I am a WP:DASH fanatic, I agree with that assessment. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I would prefer to have the table sort correctly. Most people wouldn't give two shits whether we use a hyphen or a minus sign (and to be honest, I find WP:DASH to be a bit restrictive anyway), so a hyphen should be fine IMO. – PeeJay 08:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK; so it seems there is no way to sort correctly with a minus sign. The question is now this: do we want the table to be typographically correct, and allow a slight sorting error; or do we want to the table to sort correctly, disregarding a slight typographical error? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Dabomb87 22:41, 3 December 2009 [15].
- Nominator(s): Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried nominating this last month, but had to close it down due to the backlog and other active nominations. Please feel free to resume the conversation now. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody watching this? --Muboshgu (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transcluded. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid me, I forgot to properly list this FLC. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- "with the team possessing the worst record receiving the first pick." The structure of this sentence needs revision. The noun+-ing structure is awkward enough, but this sentence has multiple -ings after the noun.
- Hyphen for "World Series winning".
- The lead is outdated in multiple places after the Yankees' 2009 World Series title. It states that Jeter has four titles, instead of the five he now has, and Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain have now joined him and Thurman Munson as first-round picks who won a championship with the Yanks.
- The part about the Yankees not gaining a compensatory pick for Mark Prior needs a cite somewhere, either in the lead or a note. A simple link to the draft rules should do.
- What makes http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/ a reliable source? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been almost a week since I commented. Is a response forthcoming? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I've been real busy. I'll try to get to this. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to do this, especially since I am a Yankees fan, but I'm moving to oppose now. It's been almost two weeks since I originally commented and five days since the nominator last responded here, and the list has seen no changes. We can't leave lists at FLC indefinitely without response to comments, and the outdated parts and shaky source concern me too much to consider supporting this now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I agree. Unless someone else can step in and make the changes, please close this down. I've gotten swamped and it's going to be this way for a decent amount of time. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to do this, especially since I am a Yankees fan, but I'm moving to oppose now. It's been almost two weeks since I originally commented and five days since the nominator last responded here, and the list has seen no changes. We can't leave lists at FLC indefinitely without response to comments, and the outdated parts and shaky source concern me too much to consider supporting this now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I've been real busy. I'll try to get to this. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Didn't even see this baby had made it's way to FLC. Nice!
- The image captions could use some alteration, in my opinion, particularly the lead image. Something like "Derek Jeter, the Yankees first-round pick in 1992, has won five World Series with the franchise." The rest work, I suppose, but the simple [Name] ([draft year]) is very dull looking.
- Needs serious updating per 2009 World Series. Jeter needs another WS added to his name, and as I write this I see Giants already mentioned this. :p
- Agreed that MLB Trade Rumors is a very so-so source. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Is calling it "The Bronx, New York" accurate? I honestly don't know. I would think something like "The Bronx burrough/county of New York City, New York" would be more accurate.
- The While in the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph is not needed.
- I second Gaints2008 issues with the reliable source and Mark Prior fact.
- Should Schools be sorted with the "University of"? Meaning should, say, University of Texas be sorted as "Texas" instead of "University of Texas"? I may have to go dig around the MoS to find out.
Outside of these issues, the rest of the sources look good and the images look good.—NMajdan•talk 16:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by Dabomb87 16:54, 28 November 2009 [16].
- Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 17:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After getting List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches promoted to FL, I began tackling this list. I originally had the men's and women's coaches separated into two lists but after reading a discussion on the FLC talk page, I began questioning whether the women's list could stand on its own so I made the decision to combine the two. I believe the list meets all the criteria for FL. —NMajdan•talk 17:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - Too many redlinks for my liking. Also, the "†" and "*" symbols in the women's conference championships column aren't explained in the legend. Do you need both a color change and a "†" symbol to represent a coach in the hall of fame? It would seem one of the two is enough (I'd prefer the color). Finally, I am concerned about combining both the men's and women's teams to one list. There are separate categories and articles for men's and women's teams, I don't see why the head coaching lists should be combined. Would the women's list be able to stand on its own? I'm not sure, but I don't necessarily think the solution is to combine it with the men's list. VegaDark (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 13 of the 20 coaches have links. I don't know what the established threshold was but I figured 2/3rds had to be enough. I can add a couple more if that gets it past FLC. I am also confused on your question regarding colors and the dagger. Per WP:COLORS, you can't just use a color to indicate something. I removed the extra astericks and daggers in the Women's table although I may readd them tomorrow but I will indicate their meaning in the legend. Regarding having both in one article, I am not too concerned about the effect of categorization. I would think articles come first and then you figure out how best to categorize them. There was a discussion recently at FLC regarding the minimum length for a list (here) and after reading that discussion, I began to question whether the women's list with eight coaches could stand on its own as a separate list. If you don't like them combined, but also agree the women's couldn't stand on its own, what is the other option?—NMajdan•talk 01:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The other option, of course, would be to simply not make a list out of the women's coaches until there were enough entries to justify one. Perhaps leaving them combined until that occurs would be the better option, perhaps not. I don't particularly like the idea of making a list (and promoting one to featured status in particular) where it is almost guaranteed to eventually split off into two different lists. I'll also note that the discussion you cite only pertains to a minimum number for a featured list, not a list in general, so the small number of entries would only prevent it from becoming featured (if the participants agreed with that discussion, of course), which is something I can live with. As for WP:COLORS, I was unaware of this, although it now makes sense when thinking about disabled users. I was going to cite past NCAA football season pages as an example of featured lists with this, although I see now that they have a tag at the top identifying this issue with the pages. As for redlinks, I know a list I created (and nominated for FLC by someone else) was opposed for too many redlinks, and at the time over 65% of the links were blue. If you created an article on the coach who is linked in the lead, that would be 2 redlinks down right there; I think 75% of the list members would probably be fine. VegaDark (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is guaranteed to split off. I think the men's and women's basketball programs at a university are closely related enough to justify combining them in one article. In addition, there are featured lists that contained hundreds of rows, so I don't think this article will ever reach the point where it needs to be split due to length issues. Regarding red links, I need to create two articles to get 75% so I will work on that tomorrow or Friday. I'll probably create the articles for the two coaches with the most games coached.—NMajdan•talk 03:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to throw my two cents in: I would prefer to have two separate lists for coaches (one mens, one womens), but if others like the combined list better than I am okay with it. Remember (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is guaranteed to split off. I think the men's and women's basketball programs at a university are closely related enough to justify combining them in one article. In addition, there are featured lists that contained hundreds of rows, so I don't think this article will ever reach the point where it needs to be split due to length issues. Regarding red links, I need to create two articles to get 75% so I will work on that tomorrow or Friday. I'll probably create the articles for the two coaches with the most games coached.—NMajdan•talk 03:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The other option, of course, would be to simply not make a list out of the women's coaches until there were enough entries to justify one. Perhaps leaving them combined until that occurs would be the better option, perhaps not. I don't particularly like the idea of making a list (and promoting one to featured status in particular) where it is almost guaranteed to eventually split off into two different lists. I'll also note that the discussion you cite only pertains to a minimum number for a featured list, not a list in general, so the small number of entries would only prevent it from becoming featured (if the participants agreed with that discussion, of course), which is something I can live with. As for WP:COLORS, I was unaware of this, although it now makes sense when thinking about disabled users. I was going to cite past NCAA football season pages as an example of featured lists with this, although I see now that they have a tag at the top identifying this issue with the pages. As for redlinks, I know a list I created (and nominated for FLC by someone else) was opposed for too many redlinks, and at the time over 65% of the links were blue. If you created an article on the coach who is linked in the lead, that would be 2 redlinks down right there; I think 75% of the list members would probably be fine. VegaDark (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 13 of the 20 coaches have links. I don't know what the established threshold was but I figured 2/3rds had to be enough. I can add a couple more if that gets it past FLC. I am also confused on your question regarding colors and the dagger. Per WP:COLORS, you can't just use a color to indicate something. I removed the extra astericks and daggers in the Women's table although I may readd them tomorrow but I will indicate their meaning in the legend. Regarding having both in one article, I am not too concerned about the effect of categorization. I would think articles come first and then you figure out how best to categorize them. There was a discussion recently at FLC regarding the minimum length for a list (here) and after reading that discussion, I began to question whether the women's list with eight coaches could stand on its own as a separate list. If you don't like them combined, but also agree the women's couldn't stand on its own, what is the other option?—NMajdan•talk 01:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
One more thing I saw just now: reference 4 shouldn't have the title in all caps. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support – The list is down to a pair of red links, and I have no issue with the mix of men's and women's coaches; I see it as akin to having managers and general managers in a baseball managers list, and the lists would be short on their own. The rest of the various comments have been addressed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Should you mention that both teams play in Division I of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)?
- I'll see if I can help make some of the articles for the red-linked coaches in return for all of the help you have given me. Remember (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One last comment - who is the coach "died before ever coaching a game". Can you add a footnote explaining who this was because it is sort of a mystery with the way the article currently is. Remember (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Remember (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks good—Chris!c/t 18:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Consider adding Category:Oklahoma Sooners men's basketball head coaches and Category:Oklahoma Sooners women's basketball head coaches to the list (also, make sure that they are fully populated). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by Giants2008 21:30, 15 December 2009 [17].
- Nominator(s): EA Swyer Talk Contributions 21:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because the only objection from the last FLC has been fixed. The problem was that one of the sites I used went down so reviewers couldn't confirm the data or that the site was a reliable source. I only use alphacharts as a source to show the general performance of a song; raw data is taken from the hung median charts. The list is complete and well-sourced. EA Swyer Talk Contributions 21:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would the FL director look at the previous FLC, here, when reviewing this nomination because it contains most of the issues resolved. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 01:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Don't see any problems. Tezero (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - can't see any issues. Certainly a huge improvement over the version that was delisted a while back -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Dt128
|
---|
|
- Have none of Stefani's singles been certified?
- Has this been addressed? Dt128 let's talk 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
In progressDone[reply]
- Has this been addressed? Dt128 let's talk 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Have Stefani's albums not received more certifications?
- Has this been addressed? Dt128 let's talk 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Done[reply]
- All found? I give my support now. Dt128 let's talk 15:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Has this been addressed? Dt128 let's talk 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Done[reply]
- Support.—NMajdan•talk 19:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still maintaining my neutrality on the list. I still do not like that aCharts is used (not a high-quality source), but understand that it may the only available source for important information. Therefore, I will sink this FLC by opposing, and will allow the closing director (I will recuse from closing this, obviously) to weigh my comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All the information taken from aCharts is backed up by the Hung Medien charts. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 18:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a prospective closer of this FLC, I've looked at what is being cited by the aCharts references, and have grown doubtful that most of them are necessary at all. Most are simply repeating information found in the tables; in those cases, no cite is required on top of the ones in the tables. There are only a few facts that seem uncited in the tables. First, there's the bit about "Rich Girl" performing well on different formats; I'm not sure this is even necessary to say, since a top-ten single figures to do well in multiple formats. Second is "Cool" "replicating the popularity of its predecessor", which is called into question by the figures themselves. Third, there's "Now That You Got It" charting in Norway; I don't suppose there's a good site with Norwegian charts? Also, if you're concerned about the sentences that say "released in all countries" or similar, you could re-phrase to indicate that it covers all countries with major charts. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All the information taken from aCharts is backed up by the Hung Medien charts. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 18:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- sorry to butt in! the hung medien norway ref from the albums table confirms that "now that you got it" charted in norway. :) Mister sparky (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed aChart references. They weren't needed - I just wanted references that showed how well a particular song charted across several countries, rather than many songs charting in one country (i.e. the Hung Medien charts). -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 13:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- yea acharts are useful because then you only have to use 1 ref instead of lots of them but ah well. Mister sparky (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That still leaves a couple issues I'd like to see sorted out. As I said above, I don't see how "Cool" can be described as similar in popularity to her previous single when it did worse on the charts. Also, the Norway part can apparently be cited by Hung Median, which I recommend doing since it is uncited now (it's only being used to cite the albums' performance now, not any singles). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cited the Norway part. Reworded the sentence about "Cool". Any other outstanding issues? -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 01:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That still leaves a couple issues I'd like to see sorted out. As I said above, I don't see how "Cool" can be described as similar in popularity to her previous single when it did worse on the charts. Also, the Norway part can apparently be cited by Hung Median, which I recommend doing since it is uncited now (it's only being used to cite the albums' performance now, not any singles). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- yea acharts are useful because then you only have to use 1 ref instead of lots of them but ah well. Mister sparky (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed aChart references. They weren't needed - I just wanted references that showed how well a particular song charted across several countries, rather than many songs charting in one country (i.e. the Hung Medien charts). -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 13:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by Dabomb87 16:03, 22 November 2009 [18].
- Nominator(s): Ophois (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been brought up to FL standards. Ophois (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment - FL no longer starts with "The following is a list of episodes ..." anymore. For examples of a more engaging opening sentence, see recently promoted FLs. Also are there any images you can add?—Chris!c/t 01:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
—Chris!c/t 03:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support —Chris!c/t 05:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - I was initially asked about which images should be used on the page, and in the process I provided additional commentary (personal opinions) about possible improvements to the article on Ophois's talk page. I'm placing them here, per their request (and rightfully so), so that others can see what I'm suggesting and either cross it off their lists or disagree.
- Well, first off the second image is a non-free image so deciding between a non-free and a free should be easy. :D But, at the same time neither image is really necessary. The page doesn't talk about the actors really. I've never understood why some people feel like they have to have an image there (which, I know wasn't your initial doing, but what someone basically requested at the FAC). That's my onion. FLC doesn't say you have to have an image there to be featured.
- On some other minor notes, glancing at the page: I'd probably move the viewership numbers behind the airdates. In theory, it's a chronological thing. It gets made (which dictates ep number, writer, director), then it gets aired, and then we get viewership. That's just my thoughts on that. You could also simply the Ep # and Series # columns into a single "Ep #" column that sports two numbers (e.g., 25(3)) as the "series #" is still an "episode number" and the average reader can probably look at two columns and easily understand that you're continue to count the overall number of the episode with its place within that respective seasons. IDK, just a way to be more efficient.
- Done. Ophois (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm gonna have to undo it. Combining the episode numbers like that screws up the formatting for some reason. Ophois (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On some other minor notes, glancing at the page: I'd probably move the viewership numbers behind the airdates. In theory, it's a chronological thing. It gets made (which dictates ep number, writer, director), then it gets aired, and then we get viewership. That's just my thoughts on that. You could also simply the Ep # and Series # columns into a single "Ep #" column that sports two numbers (e.g., 25(3)) as the "series #" is still an "episode number" and the average reader can probably look at two columns and easily understand that you're continue to count the overall number of the episode with its place within that respective seasons. IDK, just a way to be more efficient.
- In the Nielsen rating stuff, "TV season" can be cut. I recently cut that from Smallville's pages because I realized it's redundant to "Season premiere" and "Season finale". We basically tell the reader when the show premieres and ends, and then follow it up with a column that tells them the same thing again. The same with "Originally aired" in the DVD box. Since it's directly below the other, we don't need to repeat that information, because we literally just stated it. Personally, I would also drop "Ratings". The main problem with that figure is that it's a percentage to a number we don't have. 3.14 million is something the reader can understand, but trying to understand 1.4% of households without knowing how many households were watching TV is kind of hard. If you don't know that number, you might assume that it means 1.4% of ALL households in the US, which isn't true. It's largely irrelevant when trying to understand how well the show did. The viewership is really all you need, and the rankings so we know how it compared to other shows on TV.
- Done. Ophois (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Nielsen rating stuff, "TV season" can be cut. I recently cut that from Smallville's pages because I realized it's redundant to "Season premiere" and "Season finale". We basically tell the reader when the show premieres and ends, and then follow it up with a column that tells them the same thing again. The same with "Originally aired" in the DVD box. Since it's directly below the other, we don't need to repeat that information, because we literally just stated it. Personally, I would also drop "Ratings". The main problem with that figure is that it's a percentage to a number we don't have. 3.14 million is something the reader can understand, but trying to understand 1.4% of households without knowing how many households were watching TV is kind of hard. If you don't know that number, you might assume that it means 1.4% of ALL households in the US, which isn't true. It's largely irrelevant when trying to understand how well the show did. The viewership is really all you need, and the rankings so we know how it compared to other shows on TV.
- Other than what I list above, that's pretty much all I see. I'll take a look again later, but the page generally looks pretty good. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work. I looked over it some more. I tweaked the lead a bit, and the only other things I saw was the season finale (for the current season) listed at the bottom and linking names. Unless there is a source that says it's going to be May 2010, we cannot assume that because of previous trends that it will be. Anything can happen to change that. It's probably best to leave it as TBD. The linking issue is one of WP:OVERLINK. Some people think you should link once per section. Personally, I think with a page like this, it's so close together the first instance is all that is needed. If you choose once a section, or just the first instance, it doesn't really matter but I saw Kripke's name linked like 5 times in one season's section. The same with other names. I'd go through and see who's been linked too often. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The tables are part of the list/sublist template. The only way to do unlink Kripke and others is to do so on the season pages. Ophois (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see what you mean. I've fix the season 4 table. Ophois (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even realize that they were like that...and they really shouldn't be. One page should never dictate another page like that. Should there be an error on season 2's table, or just a minor correction, you're basically restricting the access to the page. It's like a semi-protection without the formality. The reason I say that is because, Wikipedia is designed so that the average reader can read a page and should they find something that needs correcting all they have to do is click "edit" and go and correct it. By hiding the actual code on another page you restrict access to the page to only those people that understand the transclusion you've created. I understand the "easierness" of doing it that way, but it's basically discriminating against general editors that don't understand why when they click "edit" the text they were looking at doesn't actually show up. It kind of goes against the basic principle of Wikipedia. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can just add hidden text explaining to edit the main season page. Ophois (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but one of the other main problems with these setups is that any vandalism or inaccuracies on one page affects this page as well. I think that there have been a few discussions about transcluding large chunks of prose from multiple articles into a single article, and the general consensus has been that it shouldn't be done. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I fixed it. I also combined the episode numbers into one column. Ophois (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but one of the other main problems with these setups is that any vandalism or inaccuracies on one page affects this page as well. I think that there have been a few discussions about transcluding large chunks of prose from multiple articles into a single article, and the general consensus has been that it shouldn't be done. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can just add hidden text explaining to edit the main season page. Ophois (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even realize that they were like that...and they really shouldn't be. One page should never dictate another page like that. Should there be an error on season 2's table, or just a minor correction, you're basically restricting the access to the page. It's like a semi-protection without the formality. The reason I say that is because, Wikipedia is designed so that the average reader can read a page and should they find something that needs correcting all they have to do is click "edit" and go and correct it. By hiding the actual code on another page you restrict access to the page to only those people that understand the transclusion you've created. I understand the "easierness" of doing it that way, but it's basically discriminating against general editors that don't understand why when they click "edit" the text they were looking at doesn't actually show up. It kind of goes against the basic principle of Wikipedia. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work. I looked over it some more. I tweaked the lead a bit, and the only other things I saw was the season finale (for the current season) listed at the bottom and linking names. Unless there is a source that says it's going to be May 2010, we cannot assume that because of previous trends that it will be. Anything can happen to change that. It's probably best to leave it as TBD. The linking issue is one of WP:OVERLINK. Some people think you should link once per section. Personally, I think with a page like this, it's so close together the first instance is all that is needed. If you choose once a section, or just the first instance, it doesn't really matter but I saw Kripke's name linked like 5 times in one season's section. The same with other names. I'd go through and see who's been linked too often. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than what I list above, that's pretty much all I see. I'll take a look again later, but the page generally looks pretty good. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On quick glance, it looks great, but there should be some note that the seasonal average ratings are Live + 7 averages of all broadcasts of the series from that year including repeats. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are they? I am unable to find any information about the ratings info from ABC Medianet. Do you know where to find that? Ophois (talk) 05:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is something that I have come to realize over the years (and checked with a calculator). –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that isn't the number the ranking is based on, and if the individual numbers we have are the overnight estimates and not the official numbers then you're going to be wrong. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, okay, allow me to explain. I am going to be speaking in terms of total viewers, i.e. ignoring 18-49. These days, the most common numbers that are being tracked are "Live + SD" and "Live + 7". Live + S(ame) D(ay) counts the number of viewers who watched a given program live or recorded it and watched it before 3 a.m. on the same "night". Live + 7 tracks those who watched a program live or recorded it and watched it within a week. The morning after primetime shows air, at close to 9 a.m. Pacific time, preliminary Live + SD ratings become available. A few hours later, at around 2 p.m. on the day after a show airs, its final Live + SD ratings are released. These account for overruns (sometimes you get networks bleeding shows over the hour mark, so these finals adjust for that), some areas not airing the program (occasianally, stations opt for local programming instead of what is being broadcast in the rest of the country), etc. These finals show up again in the weekly rankings, which come out on Tuesdays. On the Monday two weeks after the week of broadcast, the Live + 7 ratings are released (but these are not as publicly available as Live + SD). Also on Tuesdays, seasonal average rankings are released. These use numbers called "Most Current" ratings, which are a mix of "Live + SD" and "Live + 7", i.e. where Live + 7 numbers are available, they are factored in; otherwise, Live + SD are used, further i.e. this average contains Live + 7 numbers except for the last two episodes, for which Live + SD are used. Seasonal averages cound great, right? Yes, they do, except for one thing: they include ratings for repeats that are broadcast throughout the season. As some shows play several repeats, their averages fall, while other shows that do not play repeats seem better by comparison, skewing all ranking systems and making the term "seasonal average" a bit misleading, especially on Wikipedia. Wikipedia mostly uses Live + SD numbers for individual episodes, but Most Current or Live + 7 including repeats for season averages. Even without plugging all of the numbers into their calculator, someone might look at the season 1 average (3.81 million) and then look at the individual ratings for season 1 and see that only four of the numbers fall below the average. Plugging the available numbers in, you find that the average for new episodes that season was actually 4.52 million. Add the fact that DVR ratings were not even tracked until 2007 because they were not a big deal before then and everything gets more confusing. So, I suggest either a brief note that averages include reruns or simply calculate new averages. They are easily verifiable, as anyone can plug them into their calculators. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a note. Ophois (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what LIVE+SD and LIVE+7 means Demon. The fact remains is that not every overnight figure reflects that. It reflects what they've managed to acquire in data when they publish the article. Sometimes that's Live+SD, and sometimes that isn't. If you have Live+SD numbers for each individual episode, but the season average that you have a source for is really Live+7, then averaging the individual numbers will not be reflective of the actual average. Even if you take into account that the season averages include repeats (and that depends on what source your using, because I've seen season averages differ greatly because of the source reporting them), it's still not an accurate representation of how the show compares to others, because you'd have to find a source that does everything you want perfectly. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ophois has done a great job with this "article". All individual episode numbers on the page are final Live + SD, with the exception of the current season. You say that not every seasonal average includes repeats, but all of the ones that ABC Medianet uses include repeats and that is the source that we are using. I agree that whatever we use is "still not an accurate representation of how the show compares to others, because you'd have to find a source that does everything you want perfectly", but I have no problem dropping the ranking column or adding a note. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a note to that top of the episode section about viewers. Is it okay? I added a note to the seasonal ratings about reruns. Do you want me to do the same for ranking? Ophois (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it comes from the same source, let's up the reader can understand that the same note applies. As for the "not every source", I'm referring to when places like the Hollywood Reporter, and other news organizations report these figures. I've seen discrepancies in them compared to the original ABC Medianet reportings (which apparently don't find their way to the internet archive all that much, so when the link dies you have find a new source). I think that the news orgs. tend to go straight to Neilsen if they can (and I've seen rankings different because of that...I think it was either season 6 or 7 of Smallville that jumped 4 or 5 rankings up because of the numbers the new source was using after the Medianet link died). I think it's best to just do the note, because you're comparing it to other shows, and in fairness those other shows also have their repeats included as well. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a note to that top of the episode section about viewers. Is it okay? I added a note to the seasonal ratings about reruns. Do you want me to do the same for ranking? Ophois (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ophois has done a great job with this "article". All individual episode numbers on the page are final Live + SD, with the exception of the current season. You say that not every seasonal average includes repeats, but all of the ones that ABC Medianet uses include repeats and that is the source that we are using. I agree that whatever we use is "still not an accurate representation of how the show compares to others, because you'd have to find a source that does everything you want perfectly", but I have no problem dropping the ranking column or adding a note. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what LIVE+SD and LIVE+7 means Demon. The fact remains is that not every overnight figure reflects that. It reflects what they've managed to acquire in data when they publish the article. Sometimes that's Live+SD, and sometimes that isn't. If you have Live+SD numbers for each individual episode, but the season average that you have a source for is really Live+7, then averaging the individual numbers will not be reflective of the actual average. Even if you take into account that the season averages include repeats (and that depends on what source your using, because I've seen season averages differ greatly because of the source reporting them), it's still not an accurate representation of how the show compares to others, because you'd have to find a source that does everything you want perfectly. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a note. Ophois (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, okay, allow me to explain. I am going to be speaking in terms of total viewers, i.e. ignoring 18-49. These days, the most common numbers that are being tracked are "Live + SD" and "Live + 7". Live + S(ame) D(ay) counts the number of viewers who watched a given program live or recorded it and watched it before 3 a.m. on the same "night". Live + 7 tracks those who watched a program live or recorded it and watched it within a week. The morning after primetime shows air, at close to 9 a.m. Pacific time, preliminary Live + SD ratings become available. A few hours later, at around 2 p.m. on the day after a show airs, its final Live + SD ratings are released. These account for overruns (sometimes you get networks bleeding shows over the hour mark, so these finals adjust for that), some areas not airing the program (occasianally, stations opt for local programming instead of what is being broadcast in the rest of the country), etc. These finals show up again in the weekly rankings, which come out on Tuesdays. On the Monday two weeks after the week of broadcast, the Live + 7 ratings are released (but these are not as publicly available as Live + SD). Also on Tuesdays, seasonal average rankings are released. These use numbers called "Most Current" ratings, which are a mix of "Live + SD" and "Live + 7", i.e. where Live + 7 numbers are available, they are factored in; otherwise, Live + SD are used, further i.e. this average contains Live + 7 numbers except for the last two episodes, for which Live + SD are used. Seasonal averages cound great, right? Yes, they do, except for one thing: they include ratings for repeats that are broadcast throughout the season. As some shows play several repeats, their averages fall, while other shows that do not play repeats seem better by comparison, skewing all ranking systems and making the term "seasonal average" a bit misleading, especially on Wikipedia. Wikipedia mostly uses Live + SD numbers for individual episodes, but Most Current or Live + 7 including repeats for season averages. Even without plugging all of the numbers into their calculator, someone might look at the season 1 average (3.81 million) and then look at the individual ratings for season 1 and see that only four of the numbers fall below the average. Plugging the available numbers in, you find that the average for new episodes that season was actually 4.52 million. Add the fact that DVR ratings were not even tracked until 2007 because they were not a big deal before then and everything gets more confusing. So, I suggest either a brief note that averages include reruns or simply calculate new averages. They are easily verifiable, as anyone can plug them into their calculators. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that isn't the number the ranking is based on, and if the individual numbers we have are the overnight estimates and not the official numbers then you're going to be wrong. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is something that I have come to realize over the years (and checked with a calculator). –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Anyway, all of my original issues were resolved, so I support this page for FLC. BIGNOLE (Contact me)
- I had to do some digging with the Wayback Machine, but I managed to find more info on the Region 4 releases, and added them to the table. Does it look okay? Ωphois 23:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also updated the Blu-ray section, as I just learned that Blu-ray regions are completely different than DVD's. Ωphois 23:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Flash
|
---|
|
- Support: Comments and issues resolved now, I believe this list meets FL criteria. The Flash {talk} 14:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a dead link; check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Ωphois 07:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Just one thing: in the sentence, "The brothers first attempt to hunt down Azazel—the demon responsible for their mother's death—and then Lilith—who holds the contract for Dean's soul and attempts to free Lucifer.", should there not be am em dash between "soul" and "and"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedemonhog (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lilith is the one trying to free Lucifer, not the Winchesters. She holds Dean's contract in season 3 and frees Lucifer in season 4. Ωphois 19:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by Dabomb87 15:21, 21 November 2009 [19].
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may now feel as if WP:FLC has been overtaken by WP:CRICKET lists, but hopefully you all appreciate the statistical nature of the game, just as us Brits have got used to with "baseball" (new-fangled invention...!) So, this is built on the current Murali FLC and hopefully has taken into account comments made thusfar. Please make as many comments as you need, and if anything isn't completely obvious, particularly to our non-cricketing types, please let me know. Thanks for your time, in advance, happy reviewing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, missed that. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Nice article, meets the criteria as far as I can see. Why is everyone staying away from these two though? ;P ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 07:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Why the Australian bias, TRM?! Why create such a list on a flash-in-the-pan cricketer such as McGrath when List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Derek Pringle and List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Richard Ellison, giants of the cricket world, (to name but two) are still redlinks?Err, looks fine to me; see what you think of my minor copy-edits. Support BencherliteTalk 12:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I would wholeheartedly approve, if only you had learned to spell.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – A full reading of the list revealed nothing that would cause me to withhold a straight support. Why can't all reviews take this little time? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Haven't checked the links, however, the prose it good. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Fixed a few links for you, Old Trafford was linking to the football stadium, Headingley to the suburb and National Stadium to what in essence was a dab page. Also, any reason that Chris Martin is written as such, and not CS Martin, like the rest?? Harrias (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the bad link fixes, much appreciated. As for CS Martin, I just blew it as it needed disambiguating and I wasn't thinking. It's now consistently formatted. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but could you double check with default sorting, either under I or most likely G or M, because at the moment it is under L whereas a lot of other List articles are sorted under different letters. SGGH ping! 09:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 17:17, 22 December 2009 [20].
- Nominator(s): The Flash {talk} 19:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria. All sources are reliable, every award is referenced, it doesn't come off as a skittlepedia, the prose is sufficient, and it covers all aspects of the topic in a neutral and clear manner. Any concerns will be taken care of as swiftly as I can. Thanks, The Flash {talk} 19:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
Support Seems good to me, no dealbreakers I can see. treelo radda 09:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
—NMajdan•talk 16:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. I am still a bit concerned about the red links (delinking them would have no effect on this concern). This article is listing awards and nominations (nominees) that this show and various cast and crew have received so those awards and nominees should have minimal red links. However, this is not a big enough concern for me not to support this list for FL. Ideally, in the near future, some additional articles/stubs can be created for these red links.—NMajdan•talk 16:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
- "it was nominated for 33 television and animation industry awards and has won 16 of them" - verbs don't agree. Either it was nominated for 33 television and animation industry awards and won 16 of them or it has been nominated for 33 television and animation industry awards and has won 16 of them. The former would be best because it agrees with the rest of the paragraph.
- "It received 20 Annie Award nominations, including Best Animated Television Production in 2006, of which it won five" - 20 and five are comparable quantities, so twenty... five or 20... 5.
- "one of the imaginary friend main characters from the series" - this wording seems confusing to me.
- Sortability would benefit this list per criterion 4. Once you add sortability, note that all occurrences of a term or name should be linked, because table rows need to be able to stand independently per WP:LINK.
- What? The Flash {talk} 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Somebody put in sortability, but the "nominee" column doesn't sort correctly. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How can I fix it? The Flash {talk} 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominee columns are not worth sorting since there are cells with multiple animators, so I just made them unsortable. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How can I fix it? The Flash {talk} 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Somebody put in sortability, but the "nominee" column doesn't sort correctly. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What? The Flash {talk} 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a kludge until I figured how to prevent the name column being sortable, nice of you to fix it. treelo radda 01:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The table uses colors without accompanying symbols. This needs to be changed per WP:COLOR and WP:ACCESS.
- No clue what you're talking about. Nor do I see the need to add unneeded symbols/legends to a simple table because it has colors. The Flash {talk} 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KV5, the color is accompanied by words ("won" and "nominated"), so blind readers are not missing anything here, I think. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, so that is what KV5 was referring to. The Flash {talk} 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is indeed what I was referring to, but the text itself was never enough on any prior list I nominated, Dabomb. Has something changed? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see how the text isn't enough. treelo radda 01:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) (to KV5) Not quite. The circumstances under which color is used are different from other lists. For example, 2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings needs symbols because blind readers cannot determine, say, which teams were selected for BCS National Championship Game (only the blue color indicates that information), whereas the green and red in this list complement existing information; in fact, blind readers are not affected by the presence of the color at all. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still put off by the use of red and green. MOS:COLOR says "try to choose colors that are unambiguous (such as maroon and teal) when viewed by a person with red-green color blindness". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That might be a good topic of discussion on WT:FLC, since a whole lot of our Featured lists use those colors. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, though I don't think it's nearly as big of an issue when there are symbols. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a template, colors can not be changed for them. And, again, "symbols" would be utterly useless and complicated. What more needs to be said then "Nominated" means "Nominated" and "Won" means "Won"? The Flash {talk} 20:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not refer to attempts to help visually impaired readers of Wikipedia as "useless". WP:ACCESS has an important purpose. As for the colors, just because it's a template doesn't mean anything. What that template does can easily be replicated by simply typing "Won" or "Nominated" and changing the background color of the cell. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the intent which is pointless, it's the rationale for the change itself which is pointless. The cell colours are for making pretty only, even if someone with deuteranopia happens upon it it'll still read "won" and "nominated". I know that if the cell colours are differed slightly so there is a marked difference to colour blind readers it won't improve readability for them anymore than if they were still green and pink. Anyway, the intent is noble, just not required as it doesn't affect meaning directly if the colours can't be interpreted as it's only a visual aid in essence. treelo radda 21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KV5, I am not suggesting that something to help visually impaired readers of Wikipedia; I am simply saying that "Won" and "Nominated" are completely sufficient and adding a table to say that "Won" means "Won" is, essentially, useless, and would not help their understanding. The Flash {talk} 22:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the intent which is pointless, it's the rationale for the change itself which is pointless. The cell colours are for making pretty only, even if someone with deuteranopia happens upon it it'll still read "won" and "nominated". I know that if the cell colours are differed slightly so there is a marked difference to colour blind readers it won't improve readability for them anymore than if they were still green and pink. Anyway, the intent is noble, just not required as it doesn't affect meaning directly if the colours can't be interpreted as it's only a visual aid in essence. treelo radda 21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not refer to attempts to help visually impaired readers of Wikipedia as "useless". WP:ACCESS has an important purpose. As for the colors, just because it's a template doesn't mean anything. What that template does can easily be replicated by simply typing "Won" or "Nominated" and changing the background color of the cell. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a template, colors can not be changed for them. And, again, "symbols" would be utterly useless and complicated. What more needs to be said then "Nominated" means "Nominated" and "Won" means "Won"? The Flash {talk} 20:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, though I don't think it's nearly as big of an issue when there are symbols. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That might be a good topic of discussion on WT:FLC, since a whole lot of our Featured lists use those colors. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still put off by the use of red and green. MOS:COLOR says "try to choose colors that are unambiguous (such as maroon and teal) when viewed by a person with red-green color blindness". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) (to KV5) Not quite. The circumstances under which color is used are different from other lists. For example, 2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings needs symbols because blind readers cannot determine, say, which teams were selected for BCS National Championship Game (only the blue color indicates that information), whereas the green and red in this list complement existing information; in fact, blind readers are not affected by the presence of the color at all. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see how the text isn't enough. treelo radda 01:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is indeed what I was referring to, but the text itself was never enough on any prior list I nominated, Dabomb. Has something changed? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, so that is what KV5 was referring to. The Flash {talk} 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KV5, the color is accompanied by words ("won" and "nominated"), so blind readers are not missing anything here, I think. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No clue what you're talking about. Nor do I see the need to add unneeded symbols/legends to a simple table because it has colors. The Flash {talk} 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also see where Nmajdan is coming from on the redlinks and would like to see some more of them become blue (even if it's just simple stubs) before I support.
- I do not see the need to do so at all, because there is no information on these people, despite the fact that they were nominated for an award (WP:NOTABLE anybody?) The Flash {talk} 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If they aren't notable, then perhaps they shouldn't be linked? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A previous reviewer asked for it, but I still do not see the point in them. Shall I remove them? The Flash {talk} 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would prefer to see nominees who are not notable enough to have an article de-linked. Also, please check to make sure all of your blue links go to the right locations – Mike Moon and Ed Baker link to unrelated articles. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If they go somewhere else, it's highly probable the persons referred to in the list aren't notable enough for an article which brings us back to the redlink issue some FLC reviewers are really picky about. I'd go without if it helps the article look better. treelo radda 01:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think being a nominee (and especially a winner) for a major industry award would make one notable. A lot of the red links share a cell with people who do have articles. So its hard to say that one is notable while the other isn't.—NMajdan•talk 13:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nmajdan, keep in mind that, as I mentioned above, a lot of those blue links are pointing at the wrong people. However, I do agree with you on this, which is why I mentioned it, but in a source search for some cherry-picked names, I didn't find anything. Not to say that nothing is out there, just that I can't find it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delinked false links. Also, I agree that most do not meet notability, which is why I'm smitten on not creating and them and leaning on removing them, if nominators agree. The Flash {talk} 20:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the thing. I do think these individuals are notable. One of the criteria under WP:CREATIVE is "The person's work has won significant critical attention." I believe being nominated for your industry's highest achievement satisfies this criteria.—NMajdan•talk 21:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kind of what I was hinting at earlier, but didn't know where the guideline was... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try and get to creating a few of them soon, but, seriously, there's nothing known about them besides they won/were nominated for an award. The Flash {talk} 22:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've created Shannon Tindle, will try and create more soon. The Flash {talk} 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
An inconsistency in episode titles exists. In the lead, "Good Wilt Hunting" is ended by a question mark, but is not in the tables. Don't know which one is correct, but it should be made consistent one way or the other.
Reference 15 requires an access date.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by Dabomb87 00:50, 12 December 2009 [21].
- Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 17:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. I welcome any comments and suggestions. Pyrrhus16 17:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments; I'm new to the voting process, so I may be incorrect, but I have some comments:
- The colour of the yellow, pink and purple used in the table is very harsh, and the purple especially is difficult to distinguish from the black text, making it difficult to read.
- Changed the purple to orange. I'll wait for further opinions on whether others share the view that the colours are harsh; as I had thought they were ok. :)
- Maybe the table should also list who holds the patents, unless of course this is unavailable or unable to be referenced, after all, they are mentioned in the lead, then (almost) never again.
- There is no detail on whom owns the patents, though it is usually the songwriter(s).
- Were any reasons given as to why some of the songs were not listed on their original albums?
- Information is given where possible, because reasons have not been given to the majority of the songs.
- Which songs were the ones brought up in the court case, or were they already previously released songs and thus not on the list?
- The unreleased songs mentioned in the court case are highlighted in blue with an accompanying asterisk (*).
--Lightlowemon (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. :) Pyrrhus16 18:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your welcome, I thought you had listed the court case ones, but after a couple of read throughs I couldn't find where it was, *wipes egg off face*. I stand by my statements on the colours, but the orange is much better. Thanks for answering the other questions too, if you don't mind, I think I'll wait for some other comments before a final decision. But I'm happy right now.--Lightlowemon (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, all comments by other editors addressed, and I have no other qualms. --Lightlowemon (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your welcome, I thought you had listed the court case ones, but after a couple of read throughs I couldn't find where it was, *wipes egg off face*. I stand by my statements on the colours, but the orange is much better. Thanks for answering the other questions too, if you don't mind, I think I'll wait for some other comments before a final decision. But I'm happy right now.--Lightlowemon (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* I don't like the third paragraph in the lead. It's very vague and seems more a token attempt to list his discography. I think there is scope for talking about his albums, but I don't like the way it's been done.
Hope those help! WFCforLife (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WFCforLife:
At this point I would consider myself neutral. Of my two remaining comments, one is a small thing that I'm not really too bothered about, and have left it on the off chance that someone else has an opinion. But the clarification about Jackson 5 songs is what is keeping me from supporting. IMO they should either be removed, or the lead should explicitly state that released Jackson 5 material is included, with an explanation as to why they are considered unreleased for the purposes of this list. Covers are a slightly different kettle of fish, but with Jackson 5 strictly speaking Jackson has released the material. WFCforLife (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support. WFCforLife (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments: I am not familiar with the subject (apart from having heard of Michael Jackson), so please ignore if my comments don't make sense.
|
Support. bamse (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Thanks. Pyrrhus16 18:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments –
- Not a big deal, but could the out of order references in the second paragraph ([4][1]) be changed to numerical order?
- Done.
- Should internet be capitalized in the fourth paragraph? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is in the Internet article, so I guess it should be. I never knew that... Thanks for your comments. Pyrrhus16 13:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Complete sentences in the notes need to have periods at the end, example: "Jackson worked on the song with Temperton and Quincy Jones during the Thriller recording sessions" Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added periods to the ones I think are sentences. Hopefully, I got them all... Pyrrhus16 23:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 December 2009 [22].
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles List of Indiana state symbols, List of Kentucky state symbols, and List of Maryland state symbols, all of which have FL status. Currently, the list has no disambiguation links, all external links are functional, and all images contain alt text. Thanks! Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to make aware one issue that has been raised. In working on this list, I essentially followed the formats used in List of Indiana state symbols, List of Kentucky state symbols, and List of Maryland state symbols (all of which have FL status) for the sake of uniformity. In some ways, I feel the Oregon list is even better in that the description actually indicates why the symbol is significant in relation to the state itself; the other lists mentioned either lack descriptions or do not offer specific significance. Over at WikiProject Oregon, Esprqii and Katr67 commented on the list; I feel I addressed Esprqii's request for the Description column, but Katr67's preference for a single sortable column has not been accommodated (nor has Katr67 edited the list to be a single table). I have no problem with Katr67's request, but I was not sure if having sections (Insignia, Flora, etc.) was preferable to FL reviewers. I will leave it up to review to decide whether a single table is preferable; it makes no difference to me, as I care more about the symbols and descriptions themselves, not necessarily how they are displayed. To all reviewers, thanks for taking the time to offer suggestions and comments. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - lead is a bit short—Chris!c/t 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can certainly work on expanding the lead.
Doing...--Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done. If additional suggestions are made for expanding the lead, I will be happy to try to accommodate. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ok, I am satisfied.—Chris!c/t 02:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. If additional suggestions are made for expanding the lead, I will be happy to try to accommodate. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that Esprqii also mentioned that he would prefer a single sortable table (it's not a !vote, but might be leaning towards a consensus) and that I'm not going to arbitrarily change it to that format while someone is working on it, without discussion. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Until it is decided whether one table would be better or not, I went ahead and made the tables sortable by Type, Symbol or Year (apart from the first one, which does not need the sort function). --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Confirming my preference for a sortable table. I just think people might want to sort by date of adoption or name of the item. Really nice job on the descriptions. --Esprqii (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Again, until it is decided whether one list would be better or not, I went ahead and made the tables sortable by Type, Symbol or Year. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was initially skeptical of this article's nomination, but I'm really pleased with how it turned out and impressed with the nominator's willingness to work hard and extremely courteously for consensus. (Disclosure: I did a small amount of work on the article prior to its nomination, and somewhat more after the FL nomination.) --Esprqii (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Esprqii. Your support is much appreciated, as are your contributions. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Geraldk
|
---|
|
Support - Rey makes a decent argument, but I'm ok supporting whether or not they are combined. Geraldk (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather the tables not be combined. Really, I don't think a state's symbols are the kind of thing one would want to sort. I believe the current layout is great as it is. You just need a longer lead. Reywas92Talk 22:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Working on the lead now. Any other suggestions as far as expansion goes? I wanted to indicate which symbol types were unique to Oregon (for instance, if Oregon was the only state to have an official Statehood Pageant or Team), but I cannot find sources to cite these claims. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I strongly support having the information in a single table. The current multiple table format is great so far as a presentation by category, but it would also be useful to view the list by year of adoption. To accomodate both presentations requires either two lists or a single sortable table; of these two possibilities, the single sortable table is much preferable. The loss of horizontal real estate could be made up by putting the image directly under the symbol name and putting the notes directly under the year of adoption. I'd be glad to do the heavy lifting on this, but don't wish to do it unilaterally. YBG (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For comparison's sake, I created a single-table version in my user space here. I like being able to sort by year and type in one table rather than individually. See what you all think. --Esprqii (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it. Thank you for taking the time to make the single list. It appears there is a preference for a single, sortable table, so feel free to copy the table over (being sure to adjust for the corrections you made to the list since then). I had the symbols sorted chronologically by default, but it does make more sense to go alphabetically by symbol, as you have it. Then, if interested, the table can sort by date. Once you have copied the table over, I will be sure to add the flag and seal, as discussed on the list's talk page. Thanks again! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Esprqii's single table looks great -- though it does not include a column for the 'category' or whatever the section headings should be called. Is there any interest in trying to combine columns for better presentation and better usage of horizontal real estate? I tried briefly, but wasn't satisfied. Also, the Portland State Office building includes some artwork for some of these state emblems. The Public Health Division page in the Oregon Bluebook has photo that gives you some idea of what is there, but close-up pictures might make a nice addition here. YBG (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it looks good as is--I doubt there is a need to indicate that a flower is "Flora" and milk is a "Culture" symbol. I went ahead and used Esprqii's single table form to edit the list, incorporating the wording changes made since then. I added the Flag, so all that remains is the seal (which has quite a bit of history). The list looks great! Thanks so much for collaborating. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Esprqii's single table looks great -- though it does not include a column for the 'category' or whatever the section headings should be called. Is there any interest in trying to combine columns for better presentation and better usage of horizontal real estate? I tried briefly, but wasn't satisfied. Also, the Portland State Office building includes some artwork for some of these state emblems. The Public Health Division page in the Oregon Bluebook has photo that gives you some idea of what is there, but close-up pictures might make a nice addition here. YBG (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it. Thank you for taking the time to make the single list. It appears there is a preference for a single, sortable table, so feel free to copy the table over (being sure to adjust for the corrections you made to the list since then). I had the symbols sorted chronologically by default, but it does make more sense to go alphabetically by symbol, as you have it. Then, if interested, the table can sort by date. Once you have copied the table over, I will be sure to add the flag and seal, as discussed on the list's talk page. Thanks again! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For comparison's sake, I created a single-table version in my user space here. I like being able to sort by year and type in one table rather than individually. See what you all think. --Esprqii (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I strongly support having the information in a single table. The current multiple table format is great so far as a presentation by category, but it would also be useful to view the list by year of adoption. To accomodate both presentations requires either two lists or a single sortable table; of these two possibilities, the single sortable table is much preferable. The loss of horizontal real estate could be made up by putting the image directly under the symbol name and putting the notes directly under the year of adoption. I'd be glad to do the heavy lifting on this, but don't wish to do it unilaterally. YBG (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: Should 1854 be displayed in the Year column for the motto, as opposed to 1987? 1854 was when the motto was originally used, as mentioned in the lead, though 1987 is when the most current motto (which happens to be the same as the original) was adopted. The same question applies to the seal, which has a somewhat complicated history. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (Edit: Issues addressed) --Another Believer (Talk) 20:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - fails criterion 5. (b) File:Blazers original.png has no fair use rationale for use in article. Dubious as to whether it would meet the criteria for non-free content. Guest9999 (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Image removed and replaced with free alternative. Guest9999 (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I am not terribly familiar with which images can be used and which ones cannot. Am I right in assuming that all Portland Trail Blazers logos are unsuitable for use on this list? Surely there must be an image we can use to illustrate the Trail Blazers. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a free team photo if one can be found or a photo of their stadium (like this one? In order to be included in the article the current image would have to meet all 10 criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Currently it fails 10c but the real question is whether it could ever pass criterion 8, does having it really "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" - probably not. Guest9999 (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Replaced image, along with the caption and alt text. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the 'state team' designation given to the 1990-91 Trailblazers, it seems a picture of that year's team would be more appropriate. In any event, ground was not broken on the Rose Garden until 1993, so a picture of the Memorial Coliseum would be better. YBG (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. While I am not familiar with uploading images, apart from album covers for infoboxes, I went ahead and changed the Rose Garden image to one of the Memorial Coliseum. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the 'state team' designation given to the 1990-91 Trailblazers, it seems a picture of that year's team would be more appropriate. In any event, ground was not broken on the Rose Garden until 1993, so a picture of the Memorial Coliseum would be better. YBG (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Replaced image, along with the caption and alt text. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a free team photo if one can be found or a photo of their stadium (like this one? In order to be included in the article the current image would have to meet all 10 criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Currently it fails 10c but the real question is whether it could ever pass criterion 8, does having it really "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" - probably not. Guest9999 (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great job by the nominator to implement all the right suggestions by the reviewers. This is the best list among these state symbol lists and should be used as a model by the editors who work on these lists.--Cheetah (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.enature.com/fieldguides/detail.asp?shapeID=1095&curGroupID=9&lgfromWhere=&curPageNum=1 reliable?Dabomb87 (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All I can say is that, according to the site, the information on eNature is the "same data set used to create the printed Audubon Field Guides", and "all the data has been carefully reviewed and vetted by leading biologists, zoologists and other natural history specialists." If the site is not considered reliable, I'd be happy to track down another source to provide a physical description of the Oregon hairy triton. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be appreciated, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doing...--Another Believer (Talk) 03:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be appreciated, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retracted idea about combining columns from YBG
|
---|
(Outdent) I've boldly reduced the number of columns by two -- first merging 'Notes' into 'Year adopted' and then 'Image' into 'Symbol', resulting, I believe, in a better appearing table. Please feel free to object to and/or revert one or both of these changes! Cheers. YBG (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
(Outdent) Here's a few additional ideas to mull over:
- √ Consider using a horizontal rule to separate the obverse and reverse of the State Flag. I made this minor change in the version mentioned above and thought it looked nice.
- √ Consider using 1987<br>1854-1957 for the state motto dates.
Consider putting 'State<br>Animal' and the like in the first column.Retracted YBG (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]Consider grouping topically like section titles in the non-tabular version.Retracted YBG (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]Consider left-justifying the contents of description column; centered prose seems a bit odd.Retracted now that column widths are better, no appreciable difference YBG (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- √ What about the State Seal? Should it have an entry like the flag?
Discussion of the above now retracted or resolved ideas from YBG
|
---|
Though I could implement these ideas unilaterally, they are much easier to visualize than the changes I did with the columns, where I thought a picture was worth 1000 words. So I offer these ideas for your consideration and possible implementation. By the way, I really do like the tabular format with descriptions much better than the previous bulleted list with section headings. Great collaboration, folks! YBG (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Note: I've changed the lists above and below from bullets to numbers for ease in cross-referencing YBG (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
OK, here's a couple more ideas:
(a) √ Change column header from 'Year adopted' to 'Adopted'
(b) Combine 'Note' into 'Symbol' column -- eliminates a column, but still evident that the note applies to the entire row. (Retracted YBG (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC))
What do you think? YBG (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of these retracted/resolved ideas from YBG and column width
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Outdent) I can readily appreciate your frustration with excess white space. That was one of my problems with the previous version -- the way the table was laid out, on my browser, the description column was unnecessarily narrow, creating an excess of white space in the other columns, with the result that you couldn't see very many of the symbols simultaneously. I have put back in some percentages that seem to work on my browser, but you'll have to let me know how it appears on yours.
As you can see, the previous percentages added up to 122%, but the ones I used add up to 100%. I intentionally made some of the percentages too small in order to avoid putting any extra white space into those columns. My browser at least expands them. Is this any improvement? Any comments about left-justifying the description column or changing the column order? YBG (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment I'm happy with the rejected symbols being discussed in prose rather than a bullet point list. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by Dabomb87 23:27, 8 December 2009 [23].
- Nominator(s): —Chris!c/t 22:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC) & User:Hydrogen Iodide[reply]
I am nominating my first tallest buildings list and I think it fulfills the FL criteria. —Chris!c/t 22:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I am aware of the criteria regarding red links. I am reluctant to create extremely short stubs for shorter, less notable buildings, but I will do so if requested.—Chris!c/t 00:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looking over the history of the article, User:Hydrogen Iodide should also get credit for this nomination, as he was also a primary contributor to the article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added.—Chris!c/t 23:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
Comments
—NMajdan•talk 15:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support.—NMajdan•talk 12:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments from WFCforLife
Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* "Tallest building in the 1900s" could do with a footnote to disambiguate between the decade and the century. I know it's a bit picky, but sort by year and you will see why this could potentially cause confusion.
I'll leave it there for now. As an aside I absolutely love the panoramic shot. WFCforLife (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I'm not asking for the redlinked articles to be created. Indeed, the creation of articles for the sake of an FLC is a bad thing in my opinion. But I'm wondering if some of them should be linked at all? Oakland is a city of around 500,000 people, and it strikes me as somewhat surprising that it would have that many notable buildings (and that's ignoring the fact that there are several notable buildings that aren't skyscrapers).
- I have tried finding an articles to link the building to,but I don't see anything.—Chris!c/t 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a speific guideline that relates to buildings? I just find it difficult to believe that every high-rise in the world warrants an article. WFCforLife (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you, so I can remove the red links. I don't know of any guideline specifically—Chris!c/t 02:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a speific guideline that relates to buildings? I just find it difficult to believe that every high-rise in the world warrants an article. WFCforLife (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried finding an articles to link the building to,but I don't see anything.—Chris!c/t 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Drive-by from KV5
- I like the panorama too, I think it's a great idea, but it's even wider than my widescreen monitor. It may need to be made scrollable in consideration of WP:ACCESS. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Resize—Chris!c/t 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments: Good article, but some questions.
bamse (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] two more questions:
|
Support. bamse (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "feet (m)" should be "feet (meters)" or "ft (m)". --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done—Chris!c/t 00:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, per WP:MOSNUM the conversion is always abbreviated, so I undid this edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I didn't know that.—Chris!c/t 02:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, per WP:MOSNUM the conversion is always abbreviated, so I undid this edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done—Chris!c/t 00:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 December 2009 [24].
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 18:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets criteria. I made similar lists for Big Brother and Project Runway, so I feel I know most of the issues that need to be addressed. Another Believer (Talk) 18:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can already predict two issues that might need to be addressed. As much as I would love to include the ages of all the contestants that have participated, I have had trouble trying to track down the ages of all the contestants in reliable news sources, especially for some of the earlier seasons. However, I was still able to find sources to provide the ages of the youngest and oldest contestants. Also, I considered adding an "Occupation" column to display how the celebrity became famous, but I didn't know if that would be redundant information, as users could simply click on any celebrity name or even the season number to learn more information about the celebrities participating and how they became famous. To me, a list should be a single source that branches off to other sources of information, as opposed to a single source that includes as much information as possible (and therefore can be somewhat overwhelming). However, I am willing to add this column if reviewers find it necessary. Thanks so much! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that would be a good idea to include why they are celebrities. Reywas92Talk 18:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Doing...--Another Believer (Talk) 18:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! Another concern is that Status and Finish are redundant. 2nd runner-up=3rd, Runner-up=2nd, Winner=1st, and Eliminated=4th and below. Keep just the Finish. Also, the lead needs to talk about the professional dance partners, many of which were in multiple seasons. Reywas92Talk 23:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will definitely add something to the lead to include the dance partners... I will have to think of something.What I like about the Status column is that it displays which contestants withdrew from the competition. In that sense, I thought the column was relevant. Perhaps I could combine them to just say "Withdrew: 3rd" or "Eliminated: 5th" or something similar, still sorting by final placement.Doing...-Another Believer (Talk) 06:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Actually, before I spend the time to make a change that might not be kept, could I get some feedback about how you think the Finish column should look? I like how now it shows the Status and Finish placement, but I can see how it is possible they could be combined. Maybe something like "{sort|05|5th (Eliminated)}" or "{sort|08|8th: Eliminated}"? --Another Believer (Talk) 17:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still a given that anyone 4th and below was eliminated. The three who withdrew are already in the lead and could be denoted with a symbol or footnote. I think just the placement is sufficient. Reywas92Talk 18:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Removed Status column. If you think an asterisk should be placed in the Finish cells of the three contestants that withdrew, just let me know and I will add it. Such as "14th*", with a note at the bottom indicating that contestants with an asterisk withdrew from the competition.
Also, I realize I still need to add something to the lead about the professional partners, though I am still trying to think of something that is relevant.--Another Believer (Talk) 18:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Although I am not sure if the wording is correct (grammatically speaking), I added information about the professional partners to the lead. Let me know if any edits need to be made. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I added a little more about the professional partners, and everything looks great. You can add the star if you want, but I don't care. Reywas92Talk 19:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support. Hope you don't mind that I re-arranged the professional dancers that won at the end of the lead so that they are in roughly chronological order. Figured that would be best since the celebrity winners are listed in chronological order. I appreciate your time, assistance, and suggestions! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Removed Status column. If you think an asterisk should be placed in the Finish cells of the three contestants that withdrew, just let me know and I will add it. Such as "14th*", with a note at the bottom indicating that contestants with an asterisk withdrew from the competition.
- It's still a given that anyone 4th and below was eliminated. The three who withdrew are already in the lead and could be denoted with a symbol or footnote. I think just the placement is sufficient. Reywas92Talk 18:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! Another concern is that Status and Finish are redundant. 2nd runner-up=3rd, Runner-up=2nd, Winner=1st, and Eliminated=4th and below. Keep just the Finish. Also, the lead needs to talk about the professional dance partners, many of which were in multiple seasons. Reywas92Talk 23:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comment I would mark some things on the list with colors the way that baseball lists like Major League Baseball Rookie of the Year Award. At the very least mark winners and the contestants who withdrew from competition. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought about both of these, but I thought it might be overkill, as that information is already conveyed in the lead and within the table (in the case of the winners). I'd be more than happy to add coloring if additional reviewers feel it is necessary, though past nominations for other lists I have created seem to indicate that 'less is more'. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do any other reviewers have a preference for or against adding coloring for the winners and competitors that withdrew from the show? --Another Believer (Talk) 00:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I could see what the list would look like with color, I might be able to decide. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would look similar to this list, with three cells colored blue (to reflect the three competitors that withdrew), and nine red cells (to reflect the winners of each season). --Another Believer (Talk) 04:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I could see what the list would look like with color, I might be able to decide. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do any other reviewers have a preference for or against adding coloring for the winners and competitors that withdrew from the show? --Another Believer (Talk) 00:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks good.—NMajdan•talk 14:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by The Rambling Man 17:57, 23 November 2009 [25].
- Nominator(s): Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this complete list of all Czechoslovak Sportsperson of the Year awardees for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Thanks for all comments in advance. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment
—Chris!c/t 18:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - thanks for your patience, the list looks good. —Chris!c/t 19:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments and ideas. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have checked it and found one dab link, which I have fixed. May I ask, what toolbox you mean? Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still two remaining, which you can see here. The toolbox is at the top right corner of this page. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see, thank you. Fixed. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still two remaining, which you can see here. The toolbox is at the top right corner of this page. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have checked it and found one dab link, which I have fixed. May I ask, what toolbox you mean? Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 21:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
One more comment after looking at the list again: reference 2 needs an access date. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support – Looks like a nice list. I can only assume the non-English sources are reliable, since it's hard for us English speakers to check the ones in Czeck or Slovak. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the sources: The online reference, which is in Czech, is an official web page of the Club of Sports Journalists of the Czech Republic (Klub sportovních novinářů ČR), which is a successor organization of the Club of Czechoslovak Sports Journalists, which awarded the trophy. The Slovak source is SME, one of the most widely read serious newspaper in Slovakia. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment Looks good. Only one issue that I could see—the "team" column in the team doesn't sort properly (you probably should have it sort alphabetically by sort by men, and then by women). When this is resolved I will support. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed it. Did you mean it this way? Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just noticed you did some copyediting in the text. Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, and yes, the sorting fix was good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. I didn't evaluate the foreign-lanugage sources for reliability, but I'll assume good faith based on Jan's explanation above. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There were some issues with the article lacking non-breaking spaces, but due to the longevity of this FLC, I took the liberty of fixing those myself so I could support.—NMajdan•talk 15:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by Dabomb87 16:54, 28 November 2009 [26].
- Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that Charlie Chaplin is a highly important figure in the development of cinema. The list has been peer reviewed and I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Jimknut (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They look okay to me. Jimknut (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that they shouldn't be there. Delink those links or fix them to go directly to the intended article (why is charity linked, anyway?). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm at a loss here. I've never messed with that section on any page, so I don't what to do. Can you help? Jimknut (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the dabs in this edit. Hopefully you now understand what I meant. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the dabs in this edit. Hopefully you now understand what I meant. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm at a loss here. I've never messed with that section on any page, so I don't what to do. Can you help? Jimknut (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that they shouldn't be there. Delink those links or fix them to go directly to the intended article (why is charity linked, anyway?). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They look okay to me. Jimknut (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire lead is a mini-biography. Does all this information belong in a filmography? LargoLarry (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured lists usually give a brief overview of the subject of the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a mini-bio is acceptable in a filmography. Hence the reason I did it. Jimknut (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured lists usually give a brief overview of the subject of the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Wildhartlivie
- The image needs to have alt text added.
- Added.
- I'm not clear about the style used in the reference section. It seems that some of the links really belong under an "External links" subtitle and not the general references since the "Websites" links are not used in referencing. I don't see that the Chaplin autobiography is used in referencing, so that should be listed in a further reading section. I do think the specific references should come before the general ones.
- The web pages have been moved into section entitled "External links". The order of the specific and general references has been changed and renamed as (respectively) "footnotes" and "bibliography". Chaplin's autobiography was used as the basis for arranging the order of his films, which is clearly stated at the top of the section entitled "Official films". Therefore, I think it does indeed belong in the bibliography section and not a "further reading" section.
- Shouldn't the
{{reflist}}
have two columns once the number of cites exceeds 12?- It should now, as I changed {{reflist}} to {{reflist|2}}. However, I'm using Internet Explorer so I can't see any change on my computer.
- This is mostly a question. There are quite a few direct cites in the "Notes" columns, but in others, there is a blurb of information without cites. Shouldn't there be cites for that information as well?
- Stated at the top of the "Official films" section is: "Except where otherwise referenced, the release dates, character names, and annotations presented here are derived from Chaplin's autobiography, Robinson's book, and The Films of Charlie Chaplin (1965) by Gerald D. McDonald, Michael Conway, and Mark Ricci." Is that enough or do you need specific page numbers from these books?
- I'm not clear on the rationale for the color selection in the credits column. Does this color meet the guidelines for WP:ACCESS?
- The {{Yes}} template automatically puts the word "Yes" into a moss green (#addfad) background. I did not create this template, so I don't know exactly what the green background is supposed to represent, but I think I can safely assume that it's purely a decoration. People that are color blind may not be able to see the green color, but they should able to read the word "Yes" and thus able to decifer what it means. Four of the seven filmographies that have received "Featured list" status use the {{Yes}} template. If it's okay for them then why not here as well? Jimknut (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow up - I think all of my comments and questions are satisfied, except for the ALT text. Keeping in mind that ALT text may be used by vision impaired people who may not know what Chaplin's "tramp" persona looks like, perhaps a small, more generic description of that would be helpful. (Unless others disagree, that is. My experience with ALT text in GA/FA has been to be more descriptive and explain how something would appear, rather than assume that someone already knows.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Geraldk
|
---|
|
Support: I don't think I mentioned before, but I think this is a core filmography, and you've done great work with it. Geraldk (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed - excellent work, Jim. Is it at featured standard yet? Lugnuts (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is waiting on more reviewers. Jim, I would suggest you leave a note for DaBomb and Wildhartlivie asking them to weigh in on whether their concerns have been addressed. Geraldk (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I've past the word around asking for reviews.Jimknut (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is waiting on more reviewers. Jim, I would suggest you leave a note for DaBomb and Wildhartlivie asking them to weigh in on whether their concerns have been addressed. Geraldk (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Nehrams2020
I haven't reviewed the above comments, so if any of these conflict with issues raised above let me know.
- The single sentence at the conclusion of the lead should be merged with one of other paragraphs. It also seems to me that there is a lot of detail in the lead about his background. Perhaps a few sentences could be removed/trimmed (since his main article probably covers the same details).
- I took the final sentence and placed it at the end of the preceding paragraph. I shorted part of the biographical segment. I think that overall the lead section fits Wikipedia's standards.
- Periods aren't needed for all of the notes in the tables.
- They've been removed from brief notes such as "two reels" and "Co-writer: Mabel Normand".
- Looking to other FLs, the other notes don't seem to need periods as well. The majority are not actual sentences, so they shouldn't be included. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any update on this? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I took out the periods. Jimknut (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any update on this? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking to other FLs, the other notes don't seem to need periods as well. The majority are not actual sentences, so they shouldn't be included. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They've been removed from brief notes such as "two reels" and "Co-writer: Mabel Normand".
- The note for Her Friend the Bandit should be formatted the same as Caught in a Cabaret and Dough and Dynamite with "a lost film" mentioned first.
- Reformated.
- United States doesn't need to be linked in the "British productions" table.
- Unlinked.
- I would recommend rewording "oeuvre" as readers may not know what this means (or provide a brief explanation).
- Gee, I always thought that if you don't know what a word means you look it up in a dictionary, thereby increasing your knowledge and vocabulary. Nevertheless I changed "oeuvre" to "body of work".
- Yeah, but readers can be lazy. If you wish, you can link the word to Wiktionary. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gee, I always thought that if you don't know what a word means you look it up in a dictionary, thereby increasing your knowledge and vocabulary. Nevertheless I changed "oeuvre" to "body of work".
- Remove "These are listed below." Also remove "Listed here are three that..."
- Removed.
- Consider changing "(untitled film)" to "Untitled Charity Film".
- No, I'm leaving that the way it is. The film never had an official title, so I think "untitled film" should remain in lower case with no italics.
- Capitalization of the external links should be consistent.
- If you mean the very last section then, yes, it's changed.
The list is very informative and does well covering his films. I've only seen a few of his films, so it looks like I need to add some more of his films to my queue. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or when you have addressed the above issues. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend the five films listed in the National Film Registry. See them with friends if you can. Also see Easy Street (1916), in which Chaplin deals with street crime, spouse abuse, poverty, drug addiction, welfare, and religion ... all in two reels!
- When I was working on the National Film Registry list, I added multiple films to my queue so I watched The Great Dictator, City Lights, and Modern Times. Definitely could catch some more of his work. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: It seems that a fragment of a hitherto unknown Chaplin film called Zepped has been found. It's now added into the compilation section. See: [27] Jimknut (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I believe the above issues I have raised have been addressed and don't see any other pressing issues that would prevent passing. Good job on bringing the list up to FL status. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
|
- Support.—NMajdan•talk 17:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose - a few minor issues but issues nonetheless...
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support good work, especially with those tricky tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 December 2009 [28].
- Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 10:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this list after working on it for a long time, both the copyedit and the red link criteria. I've created articles for Jack O'Brien (wrestler), Alberto Muñoz, Kung Fu (wrestler), Américo Rocca, Franco Columbo, El Supremo (wrestler), Mocho Cota, Chamaco Valaguez, Águila Solitaria, Ciclón Ramírez, Fantasma de la Quebrada, El Salsero, Nygma (wrestler), El Torero, Karloff Lagarde, Jr., Tigre Blanco, Doctor X (wrestler), Valiente (wrestler) and I now believe it fulfils all FL criterias.
The remaining names on the list are not linked, I could not find much information on them in general, the only notable thing seems to be winning this title and no other titles. I left them unliked as I don't think it's realistic that anyone could find enough information to establish much in the way of notability. It follows the pattern and format of all the other wrestling championship lists I've brought to FL status.
Any and all comments are welcome. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 10:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Meets to me.--WillC 06:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wrestlinglover
|
---|
Give review tomorrow hopefully. At the moment, it seems fine from just skiming it, but never know.--WillC 06:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Fixed and yes I think it should be. MPJ-DK (36,6% Done) Talk 01:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Two more things I found during a second look:
|
Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3, what does "pp. all" mean?Dabomb87 (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It means the entire book is the source. The claim is that it's one of the oldest still existing titles, the book is the collective title history going back to the turn of the last century and it proves that there are only 2 or 3 titles as old as this one still around (and they're all "Mexican National" titles) I changed the "All" to the page range of the actual title history in the book. MPJ-DK (40,4% Done) Talk 11:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the input. MPJ-DK (40,4% Done) Talk 11:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.—NMajdan•talk 14:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by Dabomb87 00:50, 12 December 2009 [29].
- Nominator(s): Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because, after much work (with major help from User:Georgejdorner), I believe it qualifies. I have checked the FL criteria and it seems to hold up. A recent peer review offered some comment, which I used to improve the list, but such little comment that it may have not needed much improvement. Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Citations should be formatted properly. Some miss publishers and accessed dates.
- Legends should be at the top, not the bottom
- Is "If All is selected, expect the page to load very slowly, or even crash." necessary?
—Chris!c/t 21:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cleanup up the refs, moved the legend to the top, and removed the "if All..." statement, which is no longer applicable anyways. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—Chris!c/t 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If there is a sortable list with all the aces, with the same level of detail, why do the sublists exist? Either the "all" list should be deleted/merged as being too long and redundant, or the sublists fail 3b and should not exist. It currently fail this: "...does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article".
- Can the KIA/MIA/DOW asterix be changed to a dagger or other symbol, to avoid any chance of confusion with the awards asterix. I would make them clickable too, as the list is so long and there is so much footnote info (scrolling continuously back and forth is annoying for readers).YobMod 13:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list of all aces was once at List of World War I flying aces, but it was deemed too long, and at 300k+bytes, too big. It was split into the current lists, which are all trancluded into the "All" list at List of World War I flying aces-All. Therefore the all list (at 600bytes) does not technically exists as a list, per se. I'll change the KIA asterix to a dagger. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 13:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But transcluding cannot be used to simply bypass the 3b criterion, otherwise all lists that should not be seperate articles could become FL. Transcluding the lists still means it largely recreate material from another article. As long as the "all" list exists, this list is redundant, and according to the criteria cannot become a FL. I could cut up a FL discography into "albums", "singles" and "eps", and tranclude them all into the parent, but that likewise should be opposed for failing 3b, rather than giving 4 FLs. Another example is our TV series FLs. For the main list and the season specific lists to become featred, they have to do more than just recreate the info and transclude it back to the parent list. If a parent article is desired to link all the lists together or for a topic, it should be written as an article using summary style - i'm certain a GA could be written on this topic.YobMod 13:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think I understand. But I wonder, would it be better to delete the all list, or replace it with some sort of summary text? I'm thinking along the lines of List of Medal of Honor recipients/List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 16:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think summary text. Even if only a stub with links or short paragraphs for each sub-list, it gives a starting point for expansion and links all the similar articles for interested readers.YobMod 16:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've deleted the "All" page, since without the actual lists it would just be a rehash of the base page List of World War I flying aces. Any attempts at summaries of each list can be made there. I've changed the killed * to a dagger. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as my concerns were met.YobMod 13:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've deleted the "All" page, since without the actual lists it would just be a rehash of the base page List of World War I flying aces. Any attempts at summaries of each list can be made there. I've changed the killed * to a dagger. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think summary text. Even if only a stub with links or short paragraphs for each sub-list, it gives a starting point for expansion and links all the similar articles for interested readers.YobMod 16:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think I understand. But I wonder, would it be better to delete the all list, or replace it with some sort of summary text? I'm thinking along the lines of List of Medal of Honor recipients/List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 16:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But transcluding cannot be used to simply bypass the 3b criterion, otherwise all lists that should not be seperate articles could become FL. Transcluding the lists still means it largely recreate material from another article. As long as the "all" list exists, this list is redundant, and according to the criteria cannot become a FL. I could cut up a FL discography into "albums", "singles" and "eps", and tranclude them all into the parent, but that likewise should be opposed for failing 3b, rather than giving 4 FLs. Another example is our TV series FLs. For the main list and the season specific lists to become featred, they have to do more than just recreate the info and transclude it back to the parent list. If a parent article is desired to link all the lists together or for a topic, it should be written as an article using summary style - i'm certain a GA could be written on this topic.YobMod 13:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment very nice list. I think the Template:Wwi-air should be taken out of the table and put at the end of the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, if accidenlty deleted the table close bracket. Should be fixed now. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- question would it be possible to separate the notes from the citations? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a line break, and removed notes that weren't strictly applicable. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 14:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article page of Fulco Ruffo di Calabria indicates that he received 1 gold, 2 silver and 4 bronze Medals of Military Valor. The legend explains that an * denotes a second presentation (a bar is added) of the same award. In the table Fulco Ruffo di Calabria is listed with MMV(Gold), MMV**(Silver), MMV****(Bronze) which would mean that he received 1 gold, 3 silver and 5 bronze. I think something is wrong here or not? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad, it happened with this award for a few aces. I've fixed them all. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 14:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One more issue: for every FLC I created citations for every item I listed under the "Notes" column was required. If this is a rule than it should be applicable here too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All three are only linked to in the Legend. I use the same code for each use, regardless of use. For example for the first one, Medal of Military Valor, which is a disambig linking to the three levels of a specific award, I use the same code MMV for all three (e.g. "MMV(Gold), MMV**(Silver), MMV****(Bronze)" ). For the second, Military Merit Cross, and the third, Order of the Star, I again use the same codes, MMC and OS throughout the pages. I think the disambig links work in these cases, but if you disagree, I can try to fix it. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 04:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I rewrote Medal of Military Valor so it is no longer a disambig page. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 14:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the link to Military Merit Cross, dividing the awards by Country. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 15:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why the hopelessly small text for the key? I had trouble reading it, and I have perfect vision. Try using this code in the first line of the table instead of all the superscript tags: style="font-size: 90%" (make the number smaller if need be).
- Isn't MOH is the more common abbreviation for the US Medal of Honor? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the key from List of RAF aircrew in the Battle of Britain. I'm not sure why "sup" was chosen. I'll replace it with style="font-size: 90%". You're right, MOH is the generally accepted abbreviation. I'll fix it. I don't think there is an official abbreviation for most of the awards, including MOH, so I had to make them up. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Bump) Have I addressed all the problems above, or have i missed anything? - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments - very interesting subject, especially as we head towards 11/11...
Interjectory note: This site lists its link to references in the left hand sidebar on the home page. Georgejdorner (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interjectory note: The World War I aviation historians who run the site have listed their sources under the misleading heading of "Links". The Aerodrome Links can be found at http://www.theaerodrome.com/links/. The link to references is found on that page; it is http://www.theaerodrome.com/links/index.php?ax=list&cat_id=9. Georgejdorner (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Neutral – while the majority of the issues I raised have been addressed, I do not quite feel I can support this article. The reason for my hesitancy is predominantly based on the concerns raised by Ian Rose, several of which I have considered myself to be an issue when previously reviewing this article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mention in Despatches is present in the key, but not a single ace has this in their note section.
- The key is used across several lists, it is used in at least 1 of them. Should I create a separate key for each?
- No, it would probably be best to keep the lists consistent. However, it is highly likely that a number of these top British/Commonwealth aces were Mentioned in Despatches (for example, prior to 1943, one had to be MID before they could be awarded the DSO), just that it may be a little harder to find out exactly which ones were. It might be an idea to drop the MiD from the lists althgether. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The key is used across several lists, it is used in at least 1 of them. Should I create a separate key for each?
Interjected note: I was not aware of the significance of Mentioned in Dispatches when I was doing the data entry on this list. In the future, I will keep this in mind. Thank you for the information. As the saying goes, "It's a good day when you learn something."
Georgejdorner (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started to fix the above. More (mostly reference issues) to come. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 03:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from WFCforLife:
Overall, looking very good. WFCforLife (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
I'm happy to support. WFCforLife (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Given this nom is for Featured status I have concerns about the presentation and, more importantly, about the verifiability of the information here, but will refrain from opposing outright until I've had a response just in case I've missed anything.
- Presentation/style-wise, there's still tidying up to be done:
- Inconsistency in citation formatting, e.g. "pg." (which equates to "p.") and "pp." - I think the most common way of denoting page references is "p." and "pp.", and these should be used here.
- Capitalising citations #7 and #15; even if the titles are all upper case in the references, simply capitalising each word is sufficient for here.
- Since there are a fair few footnotes mixed with the citations, I think you'd be better off separating them into Footnotes and Notes (or Citations), though I won't oppose outright on that point.
- In Bibliography, the title of Kennett's book needs all words capitalised, likewise Toliver in Further Reading.
- Referencing-wise, I have three main issues:
- I can't see where the total for each ace is cited or, alternatively, where a blanket statement is made along the lines of "All figures are based on such-and-such source, unless otherwise noted". For data which is so often disputed, you need to spell out who or what you're relying on for your figures. Further, citations #20 and #21 both say the figure in the table is disputed, but give no source of the original number, nor of the alternative.
- I don't generally push particular sources but I would have liked to see Shores/Franks' Above the Trenches (British/Empire WWI aces), Above the Lines (German aces), and Over the Front (US/French aces) utilised. I know you've employed the Osprey books by the same authors, which is helpful, but the aforementioned titles would certainly add still greater weight to the referencing - plus I see no book in the Bibliography for sources of German and French aces, only British/Empire and US. Also, including the Nieuport book makes things look like they were employed for convenience not comprehensiveness; this was just one of the relevant aeroplanes involved.
- I can't really accept TheAerodrome as a reliable source at Featured level. Despite its sober tone and excellent presentation, it's still not an official source nor does it generally cite where it gets its figures. In any case, with so many printed works to choose from, I can't see the need to reference it anyway. By all means include it as an External Link for convenience, but it shouldn't be relied upon like the book sources.
- Generally this is good work, but I'd like the above comments addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've fixed the reference style issues. I'm
notnow working on adding sources for each score. I don't have any of the books you mentioned (although if I can find a copy to buy online, I plan to), so I have to use others. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 07:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I found a copy of Above the Lines, and have been using the other Osprey books I have to source each score. I should soon be able to have a source for each one. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Trevor. Let me know if you can't find anything you need; though I don't own any of the titles mentioned, I have access to a number of them. Also, aside from the hard copies, I find GoogleBooks and Amazon have a number of Ospreys available for online preview. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a copy of Above the Lines, and have been using the other Osprey books I have to source each score. I should soon be able to have a source for each one. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've fixed the reference style issues. I'm
In answer to Ian Rose's concerns: The Aerodrome is run by the same aviation historians we also rely on in print. So why are they unacceptable online, and acceptable in print (I ask for the zillionth time)? If online information cannot be deemed to be accurate, then what are we doing building Wikipedia?
Nor do I understand Ian's preference for older books as being better sources than newer ones. Especially if they are being written by the same authors. Don't you think that the authors may have learned a bit more in the intervening years? The Aerodrome forums reflect the fact that the research continues.
Lastly, I do not believe there is any other listing as complete as The Aerodrome's listing of aces. Except for ours. Certainly, without The Aerodrome, we would be bereft of most or all of the Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Belgian, Russian, and Australian aces. Now I realize some of these nationalities do not show on this particular list, but there are eight more lists on this subject.
Georgejdorner (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Self-correction: All nationalities of aces do show on this table. However, without the aerodrome, I do not know how we would gather lists of the Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Belgian, Russian, and Australian aces.
Georgejdorner (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trevor/George, first off, the above responses don't address my question of why the individual claims are not directly cited in some fashion, either one-by-one or by using an overarching source with exceptions noted. WP requires citations for information that is contentious or may be challenged, and aces' claims certainly fit those categories. One of WP's pillars is verifiability, not truth, and at the moment I can't even verify the presumed sources of truth employed for the numbers presented. Again, if I've missed something, then pls let me know.
George, to take your responses in order:
- As I've said, TheAerodrome is a great site. I use it myself, even relying on it where it clearly cites its sources. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the majority of its pages. I also don't see that expressing concerns about relying on this particular site in an FA candidate article casts doubts on all online sources. There are a number of official online sites and online copies of books that are acceptable as sources for WP articles, I've used them myself. I also don't see that my comments cast doubt on an online encyclopedia like WP, for the very reason we're having this discussion: WP demands inline citations to reliable sources and effectively has a transparent peer reviewing system for its more highly rated articles, i.e. what we're doing right now - I don't see the evidence that TheAerodrome does. I'm also not sure where the evidence is that TheAerodrome is run by the same people we rely on in print; I saw your reply to an earlier query on the reliability of the site but the Links page appears to go to a number of government sites and some private ones but I didn't see key books or authors mentioned - as usual, happy to be pointed in the right direction if I've missed something.
- I don't recall expressing a preference for older books as references, I would always look to recent books or even online sources that are reliable according to WP guidelines. Of course authors learn more as time goes on, hence Above the Trenches having a supplement printed 6 years after the original book. Not using particular books isn't the major stumbling block for me, more not using a decent range of sources. As I said, the Osprey books used are worthwhile and certainly satisfy the reliability criteria, but they only explicitly cover British, Empire and US aces, not French or German.
- This last response leads to your final point, George, about where one sources figures for Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Belgian, Russian, and Australian aces. Well, Osprey has titles for the first two, and Australian aces should be covered under the British and Empire book, and I'd be surprised if Belgian aces aren't in a French aces title. Admittedly I can't help with a Russian one at the moment but therein lies the problem with such list articles, one does have a broad amount of data to source and verify. Be that as it may, I still have to treat this as I would any FA candidate when it comes to referencing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the status on Ian Rose's concerns? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They should almost completely addressed. The style issues have been fixed, and I am in the process of referencing each score, and re-sourcing any currently using TheAerodrome.com. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've sourced every score that I could find in my books. There are a few still missing, and they all seem to be observers who became aces while flying with various pilots. I should probably be able to cobble together sources to get a score foe them, but it will take time.- Trevor MacInnis contribs 02:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They should almost completely addressed. The style issues have been fixed, and I am in the process of referencing each score, and re-sourcing any currently using TheAerodrome.com. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, old cobber,
Thank you for answering questions I have been asking for many a moon. And I must confess, when I look at what I thought was the sources for the Aerodrome, I find I have been deceived.
I made the remark about the books you mentioned because they are all older than the Osprey releases. I do believe you are the one who mentioned they were by the same authors; I must confess, I did not check for myself.
When I started populating this list 14 months ago, as a brand new contributor to Wikipedia, I worked off the Aerodrome master list because I could find no other. I thought I had cited it at that time. Of course, that was many many iterations ago, before it was divided in nine because of its size.
I've hung around the Aerodrome long enough to have a pretty good idea of whom to trust. The guy who writes the forum asking, What color was the Red Baron's plane? is obviously unreliable. However, I have learned that Greg Van Wyngarten and Adrian Hellwig are both contributors, under the screen names Greg Wyn and Breguet. Dan-San Abbot has written extensively for "Cross and Cockade, and has interviewed more aces than anyone alive. There are many more contributors whose screen names I have not penetrated, but seem reliable, such as rammjaeger.
And, Ian, I don't expect anything of mine to get preferential treatment. I do what I can, and it gets rated however it gets rated. I've become rather unconcerned about that end of Wikipedia. I am only concerned about doing the best, most objective research and writing that I can.
Georgejdorner (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, a great deal of work has been done citing individual entries per my request so I am close to supporting, there are just a few items I'd still liked actioned:
- The final paragraph of the introduction needs one or more citations.
- Just waiting on this still, but also noticed Footnote A needs a citation... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see these are now taken care of. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just waiting on this still, but also noticed Footnote A needs a citation... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We're missing citations for the scores of Gass, Fletcher, Hayward, Cubbon and Edwards.
- I've taken care of this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still some reliance for citations on TheAerodrome that I believe should be removed per my earlier points, specifically:
- 19 - the figure currently listed in TheAerodrome differs slightly from what we have in the article anyway and, given continuing research, the article may always be out of sync with TheAerodrome so much simpler to drop this citation and find one from a book that says "approximately 1,800" or some such; failing that, drop the whole sentence, since we're concerned with a minority of aces here anyway, namely those scoring 20 or more
- Removed the statement completely. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 02:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 89 - Roderic Dallas' undisputed score of 32 and his possible tally of over 50 doesn't need to be cited from TheAerodrome; both Above the Trenches and Dennis Newton's Australian Aces tabulate the 32 which are beyond question and can be used as sourcing for that figure; Newton is also a source for the "official" score of 39 and the figure of possibly over 50 - I'm happy to provide relevant publication/page details for both Above the Trenches and Australian Aces
- Aerodrome "source" removed. That would be great if you could add those sources, and I'll look again in my books. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 02:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aerodrome "source" removed. That would be great if you could add those sources, and I'll look again in my books. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 02:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 19 - the figure currently listed in TheAerodrome differs slightly from what we have in the article anyway and, given continuing research, the article may always be out of sync with TheAerodrome so much simpler to drop this citation and find one from a book that says "approximately 1,800" or some such; failing that, drop the whole sentence, since we're concerned with a minority of aces here anyway, namely those scoring 20 or more
- Just formatting, there's some rubbish immediately below the table of aces that needs to go.
- Fixed, was a problem with the footer template. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 02:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the hard work, if you can just take care of the above, I'll be happy to throw in my support. This'll be a great source of concise info not just for the general public but for those of us working on WP bios of the individual aces. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with alacrity - all issues I raised have been taken care of - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments –
- Table: Air Service(s) column should be made so that the second word isn't capitalized.
- This was mentioned previously, but I countered that because early air forces were usually called Air Services, and the words were part of the name and capitalized, e.g. United States Army Air Service. I'll change it, but I reserve the right to change it back if somemone else confirms my view. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the notes column, the quotation mark in "The Red Baron" (first entry) is throwing off the sorting. Not sure if this one can be fixed or not, but it's at least worth an effort.
- Removed the quotes. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The References column looks shrunken, as do the cites themselves. Is the column width setting causing this? It's not the most aesthetically pleasing setup I've ever seen, that's for sure.
- Oops, that was caused by the notes template being a mistaken ly removed. It's now fixed. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Page ranges in references require en dashes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by Dabomb87 16:03, 22 November 2009 [32].
- Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the standards required. Ironholds (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bencherlite
|
---|
Hope these brief comments help. Perhaps more later. BencherliteTalk 21:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's looking a bit better now. Further suggestions:
|
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still one dab link showing up in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still one dab link showing up in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The images need alt text per WP:ALT. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Otherwise, good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support assuming the points noted below are addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments from Bencherlite
Sorry not to revisit the list after your improvements. I think that the photographs and the notes column are useful improvements; two minor points are that I think you need to confirm that your references verify the additional notes, for completeness, and as it's a sortable list, the offices e.g. LCJ need to be wikilinked each time. I think I mentioned on your talk page that I've got Denning's biography, which has some comments about the role of the MR (or at least the way Denning treated the office), which might interest you.
You may have missed it, but there was a big kerfuffle about red-linked items in lists recently, which ended up with the existing wording "a minimal proportion of red links" being kept. As I agitated against the removal of that criterion there, I suppose I ought to raise the issue here lest I be accused of favouritism! As Masters of the Rolls, all of the names would pass the notability threshold in principle, I would have thought. I know that the missing names don't have biographies in the ODNB, but do you know whether the missing names are completely unknown biographically, or could something be written from somewhere else? BencherliteTalk 16:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the names are so unknown that the ODNB doesn't have entries (their failure, hah; I could write some with the sourcing I've got, easily), some I just haven't had any time to write, what with other projects occupying much of my attention. I'll link in the notes section tomorrow morning; feel free to email me the work at thedarkthird@hotmail.co.uk. On a slightly unrelated note, getting Denning to FA would be absolutely magnificent. If you've got bios and I've got bios, feel like working on it together at some point? Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikilinked, and added the new references. Ironholds (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot that's good about this list, but I don't think that it's of Featured standard without the missing articles; where articles can be written for such notable people, as you say they can, they really ought to be to represent WP's best work (as per the recent redlinks discussion). So, for me, it currently fails 5(a) since it does not have "a minimal proportion of red links". Other people's views seem to vary, however, so I won't put anything in "bold type" and I'll leave it to the closing director to assess. BencherliteTalk 15:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will other reviewers comment on how the red links affect their stance? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot that's good about this list, but I don't think that it's of Featured standard without the missing articles; where articles can be written for such notable people, as you say they can, they really ought to be to represent WP's best work (as per the recent redlinks discussion). So, for me, it currently fails 5(a) since it does not have "a minimal proportion of red links". Other people's views seem to vary, however, so I won't put anything in "bold type" and I'll leave it to the closing director to assess. BencherliteTalk 15:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikilinked, and added the new references. Ironholds (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Goodraise 05:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)
Goodraise 22:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have thoroughly reviewed the nominated list and can now weakly support its promotion. (Will fully support once the above two issues are resolved.) Goodraise 01:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Supporting after all my issues have been resolved. I'd like to note that I've thoroughly reviewed the list, in particular for prose quality, source formating, source reliability, image copyright status, image alt text, and general compliance with MOS pages. Right now, the only way I see to further improve the article is by adding more images and removing the red links. Good work! Goodraise 05:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Elaborating on the red links as requested above: I will not oppose a list with less than 50% red links. The criterion is simply worded too vaguely for me to demand fewer. Goodraise 16:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
*In File:LordLindley cropp.jpg, the link to a source is broken.
- The first sentence in Lindley's caption is a fragment. Mm40 (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the link to here, but will let Ironholds write his own caption! BencherliteTalk 12:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The link is still broken for me; it may be a problem on my part, but i doubt it. Mm40 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to let it pass, since I now assume it's an issue on my part if everyone else can access it. Mm40 (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't access it either, but I did a manual search through the VIA and picked up a copy of the new link. I've updated the commons page; it's http://via.lib.harvard.edu/via/deliver/fullRecordDisplay?_collection=via&inoID=243911&recordNumber=4&fullgridwidth=5&method=view&recordViewFormat=grid if you want to check. Ironholds (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to let it pass, since I now assume it's an issue on my part if everyone else can access it. Mm40 (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The link is still broken for me; it may be a problem on my part, but i doubt it. Mm40 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the link to here, but will let Ironholds write his own caption! BencherliteTalk 12:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a nice list, Ironh. Shame I was too lazy to work on it. Majorly talk 20:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, tis fine. Took me a couple of months to get around to it! Ironholds (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by The Rambling Man 14:30, 4 December 2009 [35].
- Nominator(s): —Chris!c/t 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC) & User:Dabomb87[reply]
Second list for the Basketball Hall of Fame FT.—Chris!c/t 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringold |
---|
|
- Support per discussion and expansion. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabomb asked me to stop by, as I'm the major contributor to the group of Jesus College lists. Initially, there was only one list – "List of people associated with Jesus College, Oxford" – and that got the FL star. As more articles were written and added, the list had to be split into various sub-lists: at one point, the template limit had been reached on the page, breaking the citations, and the page regularly exceeded 200kb in total; it's still 190kb+ even with four offspring lists. I hope that it's a good way of doing things where the length of sub-lists means that combining all the names on one page would result in a list that was very difficult to load and edit; looking at the HoF lists, I think that would be the case here too. Another perhaps more relevant precedent, approved by FLC rather than edited this way later, is List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign / Wikipedia:Featured topics/Lists of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign - a FL (and lead list of the FT), which links to 8 sub-lists (all FLs) in simple fashion. So I don't agree that this list has to contain all the names in each sub-list in order to be comprehensive, with further details being given at the sub-list. That seems unnecessary duplication. Personally, I wouldn't even have a table for the most recent recipients - it looks odd to me to have such a short table (which hardly need to be sortable), as on first glance it makes it look as though these are the only recipients, and it would help to distinguish between the sections which are complete (e.g. referees) and the summaries if only the complete sections had tables. Far better, I would think, to summarise the sub-list, and mention the most recent recipients in the text. In the Jesus lists, the summaries follow the leads of the sublists, but I think that the summaries here need to be longer and mention more names, as the leads of the sub-lists are quite thin. So, at present, I think the "coaches" section summary needs to be expanded somewhat, and the "contributors" and "players" have no summary at all. Hope this helps. BencherliteTalk 13:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started to revamp those sections according to your advice. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Criterion 3. I have the utmost respect for both nominators, but can't believe in my own mind that this list "comprehensively covers the defined scope" of this topic. There have been nearly 300 inductions into the Hall of Fame, and the list has tables for exactly 19 of them. List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame, the closest related FL, has a similar number of inductees, yet does have a table with every inductee that is of manageable size. Why couldn't there be a full table with basic information in the main list, with full achievements notes in the sub-lists so that they could still meet 3b? Giants2008 (17–14) 20:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, 3a doesn't require a list to have all items. It says a list need to have "useful and appropriate information about the items," which in this case is provided by the section summary. Having a full list w/ content forking sublists violates 3b, in my opinion.—Chris!c/t 23:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with Chris on this one. Creating sublists just for the sake of the achievements column is overkill, while a list with all of the inductees on one page would be too long, unless somebody will draft such a list in their sandbox and prove me wrong. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a link to the version before it was split. The list wasn't complete at that time, but was already long and took a while to load.—Chris!c/t 01:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been exactly one more induction in the Basketball Hall of Fame than the Baseball Hall of Fame, and the size of the Baseball Hall of Fame list (more bytes than the old Basketball Hall of Fame format) wasn't an issue in the recent FLRC. Regarding usefulness, if I wanted to know everybody who was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1985, this list is not useful to me at all in its present form. I'm remaining in the oppose column, but have no fear. I'm sure that if enough reviewers support, it will wind up promoted anyway, as you know. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well yes, the numbers of Basketball Hall of Fame induction and Baseball Hall of Fame induction are almost equivalent. But the reason why Basketball Hall of Fame get split up in the first place is because it is too long. No disrespect to the editors who worked hard on the Baseball list, but I think it is too bare bone compared to this list. It merely lists all inductees without providing much description about them. I have absolutely no problem with you opposing, but I feel that the oppose is based more on preferences than a specific criteria in WP:FL?. And I am not sure what I can do to satisfy your request.—Chris!c/t 23:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been exactly one more induction in the Basketball Hall of Fame than the Baseball Hall of Fame, and the size of the Baseball Hall of Fame list (more bytes than the old Basketball Hall of Fame format) wasn't an issue in the recent FLRC. Regarding usefulness, if I wanted to know everybody who was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1985, this list is not useful to me at all in its present form. I'm remaining in the oppose column, but have no fear. I'm sure that if enough reviewers support, it will wind up promoted anyway, as you know. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a link to the version before it was split. The list wasn't complete at that time, but was already long and took a while to load.—Chris!c/t 01:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with Chris on this one. Creating sublists just for the sake of the achievements column is overkill, while a list with all of the inductees on one page would be too long, unless somebody will draft such a list in their sandbox and prove me wrong. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, 3a doesn't require a list to have all items. It says a list need to have "useful and appropriate information about the items," which in this case is provided by the section summary. Having a full list w/ content forking sublists violates 3b, in my opinion.—Chris!c/t 23:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Disagree with both Staxringold and Giants. I think this list (and the alumni of Jesus College list before it) is a decent compromise between splintering into too many sub-pages and having a very long list that's largely inaccessible. The mixing of the player and non-player inductees in the baseball version drives me nuts. This style is much more useful to readers. Plus, there's plenty of precedent for both lists of lists and partial lists of lists. However, I do believe that the lead, and the leads of the individual sections, could do with expansion. In that area, I think the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame is a decent example. Geraldk (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can definitely try to expand the lead, but don't think I can make it as long as the one on Baseball Hall of Fame. It seems to me that the long length is due to the complexity of the induction and selection criteria. The criteria for induction here is much simpler.—Chris!c/t 18:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Splitting players and non-players is one thing, I'm fine with that. My issue is with no information on the individual Hall of Famers for several of these groups on the list page. As I say below, Rawlings Gold Glove Award lists every 1st baseman who has won the award even though List of Gold Glove Award winners at first base exists. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment I understand and on balance agree with the splitting of players and coaches from the main article, but contributors seems like an odd split to me. WFCforLife (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Seperate to the discussion above, my only queries are:
I'm unsure whether List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (contributors) is a content fork or a necessary and logical split, and can't support without further discussion for that reason. I think it passes all of the other FL criteria. WFCforLife (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Merged now, although I don't agree with it.—Chris!c/t 23:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per previous comment regarding contributors being in this article. I have two questions for the opposers, assuming they are still opposed:
- 1. Are List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (coaches) and List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (players) worthy of articles?
- 2a. If yes to 1, what information about players and coaches would you expect to see here, while still making those articles meaningful and useful additions?
- 2b. If no to 1, are you saying that the length of a merged list would not prevent you from supporting the list, if other concerns were met (for instance the player achievements column was completed)?
Hope those questions help the discussion. WFCforLife (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Re WFCforLife: I appreciate your attempt to help restart the discussion. There seems to be a deadlock about this issue.—Chris!c/t 06:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To opposers: I echo WFCforLife's comment. Please respond below to keep discussion unfragmented, thanks.—Chris!c/t 06:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To the first question, I would say that, in their present format, they could be seen as meeting 3b; in fact, I believe I supported the coaches list when it was at FLC.
- I would expect a very basic table, without the extensive achievements notes since those are a critical factor in the seperate lists meeting 3b. If the seperate list needed to be beefed up further, perhaps a team column could be considered as well.
- One more note: I feel better about this list now that the contributors have been merged in. To me, it now feels more like a list in its own right, rather than something that primarily redirects the reader to other lists. Even in Bencherlite's example, the main list has plenty of content on its own without the split-off sections. The merge that happened brings this list closer to that standard. Giants2008 (17–14) 17:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've asked User:Staxringold to revisit. Hopefully he will response soon.—Chris!c/t 18:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The format of the list is still not my cup of tea, but the work during FLC has improved it a bit, so I'm switching to neutral. Fair enough? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I guess neutral is better than oppose. :) Thanks.—Chris!c/t 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The format of the list is still not my cup of tea, but the work during FLC has improved it a bit, so I'm switching to neutral. Fair enough? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've asked User:Staxringold to revisit. Hopefully he will response soon.—Chris!c/t 18:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comments from KV5
I like the format of this list; it reminds me a lot of List of Major League Baseball awards, in that a lot of subsections have their own articles but some others are just part of this list. That said, just a few minor comments:
- I see some undefined abbreviations; AAU jumps out at me right from the start. Further down in the list, I see this: "National Association of Intercollegiate Basketball (NAIB)/National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA)". Maybe it would make sense to key all abbreviations at the top of the list and then remove the written-out names from the tables. This especially makes sense because sortability could easily cause a single written-out name to occur after an abbreviation.
- Not sure if a key is a good idea. There are 20 or more abbreviations used, done AAU.—Chris!c/t 22:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other shortened names that aren't explicit are "Trotters" and "Rens".
- Done, after edit conflict 3 times. :(—Chris!c/t 22:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Big 8" - the name of the article is Big Eight Conference, and MOSNUM would agree that it should be written out.
- Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "7 Big Ten titles during late 19th century and early 20th century (Chicago)" - what school is this? A link may be helpful.
- Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "having coached the Kansas Jayhawks (college) and the Detroit Pistons (NBA) to championships" - should be consistent: either (college) ... (professional) or (NCAA) ... (NBA)
- "As of induction of the Class of 2009" - date?
Due to the length of this list, I may come back with more later. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm comfortable supporting at this time. Good work. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 by Juliancolton 04:35, 29 November 2009 [36].
- Nominator(s): Pedro J. the rookie 15:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because i think that it can be an FL. Pedro J. the rookie 15:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, just real quick:
- WP:AVOID using "However". If not, you shouldn't use it to start a sentence.
- I don't think this list is complete. Mila Kunis was nominated for an award for her work in this show
- Do not now, will find out--Pedro J. the rookie 20:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kunis was nominated for an Annie Award for her voice work on the episode "Barely Legal". Gage (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- done
- And that's the only one I know of. Obviously the subject hasn't been researched well enough because the nominator himself admitted he did not know. I am very reticent to support something that may not be complete, but we can't be sure because nobody knows. Matthewedwards : Chat 02:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked for the info of thease artical and i think it is very much done.--Pedro J. the rookie 02:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After reviewing the article, I added one more award to the section, and was not able to find any others to add to the list. It should be complete now. Gage (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What does the grey boxes mean? It needs to comply with WP:COLOR, and at the moment I don't think it does.
- the grey boxes sepertate the voice characters.--Pedro J. the rookie 20:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- done
Cheers, Matthewedwards : Chat 04:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment
- Your edit links are bunched up. Matthewedwards : Chat 02:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for that.--Pedro J. the rookie 02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but they're still WP:BUNCHed. Matthewedwards : Chat 03:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it better now.--Pedro J. the rookie 14:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Geraldk
|
---|
into 2 sentences or fix the punctuation and transition
done i put refrences on most of the cast exept the normal which has already refrenced.--Pedro J. the rookie 03:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
will be working on that.--Pedro J. the rookie 18:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Is that better.--Pedro J. the rookie 21:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - After a thorough copyedit by User:Scapler, article seems to meet the FL criteria. Gage (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll support, but for the long-term benefit of the list, it would probably be good to fill out the character list so every character has an entry, and may be linked to. Geraldk (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll put it in the todo list and on the WP:FG things you can do, thanks for the review.--Pedro J. the rookie 00:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- A few sourcing issues:
- Several unsourced statements in the "Casting changes" section. For example: "It is mentioned in the DVD commentary track that Alazraqui was reluctant to leave the Family Guy series", which commentary?
- done--Pedro J. the rookie 18:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The citations seem to be rather random. In some cases they are after the actor, in others after the characters ir statements. Other rows do not have any citations.
- In the row for Butch Hartman, why not give a few examples of characters he has voiced. Also, I'm assuming the first word in "Started in many episodes as various characters" is a typo.
- Done and no there are no examples--Pedro J. the rookie 19:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Regular Cast": "Family Guy has five main cast members, most of whom play several roles on the show." That is a little confusing, because six people are listed below. Why not change it to "At any point in its history, Family Guy has had five main cast members ... "
- What is with the italicized names in the tables?
- Those are names that do not have links in the character list(it is quite a mess), discused with previous editor.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you should add a note that explains it then.
- A note?, how?--Pedro J. the rookie 00:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed to many trobule.--Pedro J. the rookie 18:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are names that do not have links in the character list(it is quite a mess), discused with previous editor.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not change the first section to "current cast", and remove everything about Lacey Chabert to the casting changes section?
- Also, perhaps the voice credits for the main cast should be listed to regular characters, and exclude one-timers and impressions.
- can you be a bit spesific, and there are no onetimers in the list made sure of that.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about Mickey McFinnigan or OBrian? It might also be best to exclude characters from other sources (ie. the Kool Aid Man) or impressions (ie. Dick Cheney) and keep it to Family Guy characters.
- Done--Pedro J. the rookie 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- can you be a bit spesific, and there are no onetimers in the list made sure of that.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In "Casting changes", if Norm MacDonald voiced Death in one episode, wouldn't that make him a guest star rather than a cast member?
- no he was going to continue but could not the one who plays death now is a recurring cast member.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In "Recurring cast", isn't it confusing to mention names in prose that are in other sections.
- Can you explain?.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that section, people like Lori Alan are mentioned in the prose, but not in the table. At first, I was confused as to why they were not mentioned, then I saw they were in the next section. It might be best to only mention people in their relevant section.
- Done--Pedro J. the rookie 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain?.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If memory serves (and I might be completely wrong), but doesn't Family Guy not make any distinction between regular and guest cast in the credits? If so, how did you decide who goes where.
- I did that in the way that the recurring is the one who apperes but not so offten, the guest is the one who apperes many times but in diffrent episodes of seasons, did you you understand or iam i confusing you?.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it makes sense. Perhaps you should add a note in the article?
- Done note in posicion.--Pedro J. the rookie 18:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did that in the way that the recurring is the one who apperes but not so offten, the guest is the one who apperes many times but in diffrent episodes of seasons, did you you understand or iam i confusing you?.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the list needs a much better definition of what qualifies someone as a "recurring guest star". For example, Drew Barrymore guest starred in a number of episodes but is not listed.
- Done and will expand.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In "recurring voices", a lot of notes could use copyediting, ie. "Guest starred in some episodes from 2001 to 2008" seems rather (for lack of a better term) lazy. Also in that section, some notes have periods while others do not.
- A few sourcing issues:
- It's a pretty good start, but I think the list still has a ways to go. -- Scorpion0422 02:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and looks like you do now a bit FG.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I did like the show until the post-cancellation seasons started, now I could care less about it. I still catch the occasional new episode. -- Scorpion0422 23:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Flash
|
---|
|
- Support: My issues have been taken care of and I believe this passes FL criteria. The Flash {talk} 01:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose - some basic issues I'm afraid....
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] More comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comment I won't oppose, the work done has been excellent so far, but I'm finding it difficult to agree this is our "finest work". Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TRM makeing the artical better is the important thing, hit me with some improveing comments.--Pedro J. the rookie 18:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
–Juliancolton | Talk 04:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Dabomb87 22:30, 17 November 2009 [37].
- Nominator(s): Gage (talk), Pedro J. the rookie and Qst (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. As a part of a project to improve Family Guy articles related to each season, I am nominating the season five list. I will try my best to make any improvements as they are brought up. Gage (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox.Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done. Gage (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
|
- Support.—NMajdan•talk 22:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Goodraise 00:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)
Goodraise 16:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Regretfully, I've not found the time to do a complete review of this list. The concerns I've found during my first review pass have all been addressed to my satisfaction. Image usage and alt text is within guidelines. The sources are mostly fine. (Didn't look too deep into them and there also have been several changes since I first reviewed, so I can't really say that they're OK. The general ref needs to be formated like a reference by the way.) My apologies, I've simply been too busy these past weeks. I'll have to remain neutral. Goodraise 02:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Comments from Ophois (talk · contribs)
There are no citations for the DVD release dates.Ophois (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done. Gage (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You just used the Region 1 citation for all regions. You need sources for all the dates. Also, the region 1 box just says "Region" instead of "Region 1".Ophois (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. I removed the Region 2 and 4 dates because I was unable to locate any sources for any of those release dates, as I had simply taken the information from List of Family Guy DVDs, not knowing it was the only source of the information. Gage (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can try Amazon.co.uk for region 2, and EzyDVD.com.au for region 4. Ophois (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I readded Region 2, as I was able to locate both DVD release dates on Amazon.co.uk, but I was unable to find a reference for the release dates for Region 4. Gage (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weird. The Australian seasons seem to be split up different. Anyways, here is one. The release date is at the top. I guess you can search for the seasons that match up and make a note that the seasons are different. Ophois (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see a date, other than a day marking the end of a sale. Gage (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Price Reduction! Pre-Order Now - Available Wednesday, 25 November 2009". The DVD has not been released yet. Ophois (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, my apologies. I was under the impression it had already been released. Added to the article. Gage (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The volume 6 equivalent. Ophois (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. Gage (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made an edit to the section for clarity. Check to see if it is okay. Ophois (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me, thank you. Gage (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made an edit to the section for clarity. Check to see if it is okay. Ophois (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. Gage (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weird. The Australian seasons seem to be split up different. Anyways, here is one. The release date is at the top. I guess you can search for the seasons that match up and make a note that the seasons are different. Ophois (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I readded Region 2, as I was able to locate both DVD release dates on Amazon.co.uk, but I was unable to find a reference for the release dates for Region 4. Gage (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can try Amazon.co.uk for region 2, and EzyDVD.com.au for region 4. Ophois (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. I removed the Region 2 and 4 dates because I was unable to locate any sources for any of those release dates, as I had simply taken the information from List of Family Guy DVDs, not knowing it was the only source of the information. Gage (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You just used the Region 1 citation for all regions. You need sources for all the dates. Also, the region 1 box just says "Region" instead of "Region 1".Ophois (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Gage (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment: the critical review section needs to be beefed up. It currently only has two reviewers. Speaking of which, I don't think Movie Web can be used as a reliable source for the review. From what I can tell, the "critic" is just a user of the website. Ophois (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly i have not found any more receptionb of the rntire seson.--Pedro J. the rookie 18:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you tried DVD reviews for the two volumes? If it is to be a featured list, it needs more reviews. Also, where do the production codes come from? Ophois (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You would have to ask Gage about that, but why would there be a review on a 2 dvd?.--Pedro J. the rookie 21:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no Season 5 DVD set. The episodes are split up weird. Ωphois 22:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they are, i do not now why they where taken of.--Pedro J. the rookie 11:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the SmartHouse review was a good addition, but again, the MovieWeb one is a user review and not one by an official person of the website. Try and find a couple more ones like SmartHouse or IGN. Ωphois 11:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done on the movieweb thing.--Pedro J. the rookie 15:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will search for reviews on DVD Talk. Phil Fry (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Has anyone addressed Ophois' comments? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will search for reviews on DVD Talk. Phil Fry (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NO i am not sure how gage should but he has no comented--Pedro J. the rookie 14:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Put some reviws on there not much but theres not much more, what other concern s you have ophios.--Pedro J. the rookie 15:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reception section is my only remaining concern. As I said before, if this is to a featured list, IMO it needs to have more than just two reviews. I don't really know what is to be done in a situation like this. Ωphois 15:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theres more than 3 reviews like about.com, IGN, PTC, Smart house but i do not haave DVDs but i do not think there is more.--Pedro J. the rookie 15:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the added reviews just say "such and such episode were great", but did not explain why. I will speak to Dabomb87 about it. Ωphois 16:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it apparently can't be addressed, I'll leave it up to the director. Ωphois 16:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay--Pedro J. the rookie 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Dabomb87 23:15, 12 March 2010 [38].
- Nominator(s): BLUEDOGTN 06:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is up to the same standards the other three articles are that are FL List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions, List of US Open Men's Singles champions, and List of Australian Open Men's Singles champions, which I was the one who got the last two up to FL status. I know that I cannot get some scores because they were not official slam tournaments, and are unsourced anywhere on the web, which means I would have to do original research for Pre-1925 tournaments. This is not allowed on wikipedia. I know their is disputed champions, which are the 1941-1945, and are only listed here as historical figures, but the slam does not recognize them as champions. The scores and runners-up for this time period are unknown!BLUEDOGTN 06:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you site grammer as your oppose tell me how to fix it, or what needs to be fixed, which if you don't do that fix it yourself.
- Note that it's not the reviewers' responsibility to "fix" the entire article. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that, but the last time some just kept on saying grammer for their oppose, which how am I suppose to know what grammer they are speaking about,! I will fix it if they point it out, but if they don't point it out what exactly it is I cannot fix a mystery.BLUEDOGTN 00:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is often helpful if reviewers provide examples. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that, but the last time some just kept on saying grammer for their oppose, which how am I suppose to know what grammer they are speaking about,! I will fix it if they point it out, but if they don't point it out what exactly it is I cannot fix a mystery.BLUEDOGTN 00:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that it's not the reviewers' responsibility to "fix" the entire article. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments
Ilie Năstase and Robin Söderling should sort as Na... and So... repectively.
- I fixed this.BLUEDOGTN 14:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah but don't remove the diacratics, it's part of the name. Instead keep them and read about and use the sortkey parameter in {{Sortname}} and use that. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Made the appropriate corrections to include the diacratics and sortable in the right places.BLUEDOGTN 21:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah but don't remove the diacratics, it's part of the name. Instead keep them and read about and use the sortkey parameter in {{Sortname}} and use that. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there is some serious double about the Lendl photo, otherimages are okay.
- I removed it.BLUEDOGTN 14:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note f needs a source that doesn't list them. You give sources that do list them but as they are disputed, you need evidence of them not being included as well.
- I addressed this.BLUEDOGTN 14:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I realise this is actually in the general references. You can leave it as is if you want, but it might be useful to point the reader there in this case.
- Sourcing. What is your source for the set scores. Ref 5 doesn't give them. Ref 10 gives a few but ones such as 1891-1895 and 1904 are completely unsourced.
- Can't find them, so tell me if you want me to delete them because they were here by someone else before I got here.BLUEDOGTN 14:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". That said I suspect with some digging you might find them. Books, is there a winners board at Roland Garros? This seems to cover 1904. Additionally, this seesm to suggest the first final was 6-3 6-2 (not 6-4). Regardless, it should be reliably sourced. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will have to go to the library to check and see if I can find some sources on the score late next week, until then, I will just fix grammer errors in this article!BLUEDOGTN 01:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the status on these comments? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The information is still not verified as yet. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've refrained from getting too involved in this review, but I'm pretty much on the same page as Rambo. I would be able to support if this were dealt with. WFCforLife (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The information is still not verified as yet. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the status on these comments? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will have to go to the library to check and see if I can find some sources on the score late next week, until then, I will just fix grammer errors in this article!BLUEDOGTN 01:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Note f: Few things I noticed here. A space is needed after references 4 and 5, the bold italicized DISPUTED should be toned down,
and "souces" is a typo.
- Fixed, I hopeBLUEDOGTN 01:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References 14 and 15 need publishers.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, I think, soBLUEDOGTN 01:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominations for removal
- Notified: Jamie jca, WikiProject Television
Unfortunately I feel that several older 30 Rock items are failing modern standards. I am beginning here as I feel it is a clear cut example. I am nominating this for featured list removal because I feel that it fails criterias 3 and 5. It lacks a development section as detailed in MOS:TVPRODUCTION. The awards section features no prose and points to a separate list which covers other content in addition to season one. Adtionally neither a caption nor alt text is provided when needed. Lastly a possible style problem with the relevent episodes not being linked in the cast section. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove I've said a time or two that most season articles should actually be a process for WP:FAC and not FLC. I do understand that a large majority of these are were promoted quite a while ago, and that in recent times, they gone through the proper channels, but I also wouldn't be against a mass exodus of these articles as FL's. They tend to follow the format of a standard article more that of a list. Anyhow, within this "list" specifically: as the initial commenter stated, I'm largely noticing a lack of compliance with MOS:TV in the case of article layout, listing the number of episodes characters appeared in, and poorly written episode summaries that feel more like promotional taglines than they do summaries. There's also just a few general MOS failures, such as WP:BLUESEA violations and the use of {{Quote box}}. I'd be more inclined to leave a full review if I see progress being made here. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified: Ericleb01 Arsenikk, WikiProject Africa
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it has been tagged for update (for over a year), some descriptions are empty, some are straight up copied from the unesco website with no attribution, some images need alt text and is straight up missing some world heritage sites. 48JCL public (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll remain neutral in the voting and get to work fixing/updating the article. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagging Tone for awareness, as they've been working on World Heritage Sites lists for quite a while now. --PresN 20:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. As mentioned, I've been working on those lists for a while and somehow the continent-wide lists are out of date and of bad style, compared to what the current FLs use. Also, due to its sheer size, the list is really difficult to maintain properly, as new sites get added every year, endangered list is getting updated occasionally etc. Having coordinates in the table is rather pointless since these sites are often not limited to a single location. Area is also not very informative, and sometimes even missing. Pictures are formatted randomly, sometimes centred, sometimes not. And technically, tentative sites should be mentioned, which probably more than doubles the list. I'd suggest trimming this list down to only a list of sites per country, without descriptions or images, and links to country articles. Speaking of, lists for Peru and Madagascar are not in a good shape and the list in danger is so-so (mostly excessive info in the table, as mentioned above), although better than this one. The three I mentioned are fixable, but this one probably requires too much work to be taken care during the FLRC process. --Tone 22:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello! Do you have a model to recommend that I base edits to this list off of, formatting-wise? Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several FLs on WHS. For example, List of World Heritage Sites in the United States. Have a look ;) Tone 19:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello @Pliny the Elderberry, it's fine if not, but do you intend to try to address all of the issues in this article within the next little bit? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello. Unfortunately not. As per Tone's response, the work to be done has ballooned substantially and wouldn't be likely to save the list in time anyway. More to the point, it seems like there isn't much interest in this list compared to the individual country lists so I've moved back to working on the Mfecane article overhaul. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello! Do you have a model to recommend that I base edits to this list off of, formatting-wise? Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified:
There are significant citation issues here, including one section that's been tagged for citations since 2018. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The tagged "historical background" section wasn't in the original promoted FL. Nothing it says looks that controversial, but I think I'd be fine with expecting people to read the main Berlin Wall article first if they need background. I've chopped it down and added a basic ref (although not one that covers some of the minor details, but eh, it's probably in one of the longer works exclusively on the Berlin Wall). That said, as a procedural side note. Tastes differ and there will always be borderline tough calls... but... honestly this seems more like an article than a list anyway? Page size reports ~5,700 prose words ignoring the list itself, which is pretty significant and probably longer than the "main" list. This seems more like an article with an attached list than a list with some prose explanation, so possible it should be demoted on those grounds and moved to Deaths at the Berlin Wall or the like. SnowFire (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove seeing no other edits. Not convinced the prose / referencing of the larger article is up to FA snuff. Also, the URLs have moved to the memorial website (e.g. https://www.stiftung-berliner-mauer.de/de/gedenkstaette-berliner-mauer/historischer-ort/bernauer-strasse ), so it'd be cool if rather than relying on Wayback copies, they were updated, but more of a nice-to-have. (Also, some parts of the table are questionable IMO... why is the person's birthdate & age relevant? But I'm a "less is more" type.) SnowFire (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thebiguglyalien, did you notify the relevant editors and WikiProjects? If so, please add that to the nomination. If not, please do so. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thebiguglyalien, did you happen to notify any WikiProjects about this? If not, we should do so before moving forward with delisting. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not. I wanted to bring attention to this, I'm not particularly sure how you guys like to go about it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thebiguglyalien, did you happen to notify any WikiProjects about this? If not, we should do so before moving forward with delisting. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified: WP Cricket, WP IPL, Vensatry & Sahara4u (both involved in FL promotion comments), Razr Nation (promoted this to FL in 2013). Note, the nominator of this to FL is indef blocked, so not notified them.
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails many of the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, particularly criteria 1, 2 and 3. The lead text has not been significantly updated since it became a FL in 2013, apart from the addition of mostly unsourced text that also includes random stats and trivia. In addition, the lead and table list captains by titles won, but the main stats source [39] does not have the titles mentioned. In the table, apart from the titles being unsourced, the use of unexplained blue background text, I presume to list current IPL captains as of 2024, violates MOS:COLOUR as it is the sole way of identifying these. It is also not needed, but if colour is kept, it needs to be added to the key section and also use a symbol as per the MOS. Sourcing of this article is also pretty weak in general, since most of the lead text is sourced just to the database stats table. All in all, nowhere near the current FL criteria. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for removal. I noticed that most of the information is unsourced and needed to be updated with reliable and independent sources. If It get improved in due date than at that time, I will change my comment. Best Regards! Fade258 (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Joseph2302, @Fade258, I've realized now that the list has been updated by @Magentic Manifestations (who I wish would have commented as such here). Please let me know if your concerns have been addressed or you'd still like the article to be delisted. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]