Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2010: Difference between revisions
promote 1 |
promote 2 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Colorado Buffaloes head football coaches/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Kansas Jayhawks head football coaches/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Phi Kappa Psi brothers/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Phi Kappa Psi brothers/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Olympic medalists in softball/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Olympic medalists in softball/archive1}} |
Revision as of 02:02, 7 May 2010
- 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 02:02, 7 May 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 16:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Big 12 coach list #10. Hopefully this list is now up to FLC standards. Any comments would be appreciated.—NMajdan•talk 16:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support — KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as long as you explain "which was renamed the Big Eight Conference in 1958" because presumably this meant another team joined the conference. It wasn't just as simple as a rename...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
"Comments
Otherwise, looks pretty good. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support My issues resolved. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Everything looks good to go. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:29, 6 May 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 promoted by Dabomb87 02:02, 7 May 2010 [2].
- Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 20:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Big 12 coach list #9. I believe all necessary requirements have been meant.—NMajdan•talk 20:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support gets my picky vote. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport – Looks good.Only thing I saw wrong was a typo in reference 14 ("George Munger Aware").Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy enough. Fixed.—NMajdan•talk 21:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Good list, take care of a couple things- or tell me I'm wrong- and I'll be happy to support.Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Not a productive use of either of our time quibbling over a comma, and I'm prone to overusing them anyway. Everything that mattered is resolved. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - can't find anything wrong. Good work! NThomas (talk) 00:54, 7 May 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 promoted by Dabomb87 01:49, 7 May 2010 [3].
- Nominator(s): NYCRuss ☎ 00:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because after going through a peer review, I believe that this list is either ready for featured list status, or is just a few tweaks away from getting there. NYCRuss ☎ 00:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Forgot to add CoI disclosure. I'm a member of Phi Kappa Psi. NYCRuss ☎ 14:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GrapedApe (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Initial review of the lead
--GrapedApe (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support (for the things I looked at) - The things that I checked looked good, like the lead, the construction of the list, the sources, and the images. I did not check the notability text or whether the sources actually said what they were supposed to, so I can't speak to those things. Overall, it feels like a winner, with just the caveats for things I didn't check. Good work! --GrapedApe (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ImGz (t/c) 01:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support --ImGz (t/c) 19:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Quick comment – Lead looks okay to me, with the exception of this one sentence: "In academia, Phi Psis are among over a dozen university presidents...". I would hope that all of them are/were Phi Psis, or they wouldn't be relevant to this list. Some restructuring of the sentence is all that will be required to fix this.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That sentence has been changed to this: "Academian Phi Psis include over a dozen university presidents (
includingamong these are Priestley Medal recipient Edgar Fahs Smith, and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient Detlev Bronk), Rhodes scholars, and Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Frederick Jackson Turner." How is that? NYCRuss ☎ 23:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That sentence has been changed to this: "Academian Phi Psis include over a dozen university presidents (
- Comment I would move Judge Advocate Generals in the lead to either the front or back of that sentence. As it stands currently the sentence reads "dozens of generals and admirals (general titles, not people) including [specific person], JAGs, [specific person], [specific person]." That order seems a bit confusing to me as JAGs don't really fit with the "dozens of generals... including" sentence order." Maybe put it in it's own sentence entirely. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed it. How does it read now? NYCRuss ☎ 17:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better. Support Staxringold talkcontribs 17:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 17:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support Nice looking list, good work. Jujutacular T · C 17:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I can not find any problem that could prevent promotion of this list to the Featured status. Ruslik_Zero 19:02, 6 May 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 promoted by Dabomb87 02:21, 6 May 2010 [4].
- Nominator(s): Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am opening my first featured content nomination because after another editor gave it a copy-edit, I think it meets all the criteria. This list owes a lot to Staxringold's excellent List of Olympic medalists in baseball, on which this list is modelled. Though the two sports took vastly different routes to the Olympic program, they suffered identical fates. I look forward to any and all comments. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks very good to me. The only thing is I somewhat like my language "after which the IOC removed it" in the first paragraph of the lead as opposed to your ", the IOC having removed it from", but that's quite minor. You're quite lucky, you have a picture of the most successful athlete. I dug around for Pedro Luis Lazo, but even what I could find on Flickr was licensed (and the owners couldn't release them). Staxringold talkcontribs 20:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review- given both of you commented on that phrasing, I replaced it with a somewhat modified version of your text. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments. Mostly minor issues, so once you fix them you have my support:
— Parutakupiu (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Good job! Parutakupiu (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, my comments all addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Otherwise well done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport Please top-align the team members within the table, similar to the baseball list. Thanks, Reywas92Talk 18:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Everything looks great! Reywas92Talk 19:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I did this, let me know if that did it- table syntax is not a strength of mine. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Strong list. Only found one little picky issue: the publisher for reference 10 (NBC Sports) shouldn't be in italics as it is not a printed publication. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review- fixed. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:39, 2 May 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 promoted by Dabomb87 02:21, 6 May 2010 [5].
- Nominator(s): Jafeluv (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second part in a series of lists of jazz standards. A well-referenced list on an interesting topic, and as far as I can tell it now meets all the criteria. Two peer reviews have been made: The first one before List of pre-1920 jazz standards was split from this article, and a second one after the split. Jafeluv (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 22:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Initial comment Is the definition of a standard clear enough that this is a completely finished list of them all? If it's not clear this is 100% of them I would say this needs {{Dynamic list}}. However, definitely complete enough for me to support eventually (as opposed to some other dynamic lists I've commented on). Staxringold talkcontribs 14:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comments from KV5
I agree with Stax on the use of the dynamic list template. The other major concern I have here is that the entry for nearly every song starts with a sentence fragment. These should be removed, expanded, or otherwise altered to get rid of this grammatical error. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you prefer replacing "Song". Song composed by Composer. with "Song" is a song composed by Composer. or similar? Jafeluv (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be just fine. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I'll update the pre-1920 list as well later. It has the same problem, although it didn't come up in the FLC. Jafeluv (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be just fine. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – upon a second review, I find that I have no other qualms with this list. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments very interesting!
|
- Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Well written and well referenced list. Ruslik_Zero 18:29, 4 May 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 promoted by Dabomb87 02:21, 6 May 2010 [6].
- Nominator(s): Reywas92Talk 21:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a list of America's 58 National Parks complete with dates, areas, and descriptions. Some of the description lengths are different, so tell me if you want more for certain ones. There are some statistics and history in the lead, but I am happy to research something else. Completely my own work, it's based on my previous FL List of National Monuments of the United States, though my record is a little better, having been to 8 of them. (Wikicup) Reywas92Talk 21:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
|
- No alt text. I believe this is no longer an FL requirement, but I just wanted to point it out just in case.
- I believe that is correct.
- Several more instances of measurements needing the parenthetical conversion (beyond the ones above) per WP:UNITS.
- The reference for American Samoa doesn't make any mention of it being the southernmost national park.
- The reference for Biscayne doesn't mention any of the threatened animals.
- The reference for Bryce Canyon doesn't back up the settlement sentence nor does it mention hoodoos.
- Going through the references for the first several entries showed a lot of inconsistencies between the descriptions and what is actually verified by the source. I suggest you go back through and verify all of what you say in the descriptions is correctly sourced. I will continue my review after this is done.
This has the potential to be a good list and a meaningful one for the project. However, I am going to have to withhold my support for now until the sourcing issues are resolved.—NMajdan•talk 14:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All references are to the main NPS page for the park. Information is sourced either from that homepage or in its subpages (History & Culture and Science & Nature). All of your examples are also in those subpages but the identical link is not repeated. Reywas92Talk 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm.... I really don't know what the policy is in that situation. I would assume every statement needs an accurate citation so all of those sub-pages would need to be cited. However, I'd like to get input from other reviewers before asking you to do that.—NMajdan•talk 13:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did the same thing in my previous FL. I just don't think it makes any sense to have one link for some parks to the main park page but many repetitive links for others even though it's all to the same small set of subpages. In this case the source link to the park home represents the History and Science subpages as well. Reywas92Talk 19:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm.... I really don't know what the policy is in that situation. I would assume every statement needs an accurate citation so all of those sub-pages would need to be cited. However, I'd like to get input from other reviewers before asking you to do that.—NMajdan•talk 13:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I still have a bit of a problem with the references, but since I can't find this method to be in violation of any MoS guideline, I have no other reason not to support.—NMajdan•talk 13:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Reywas92Talk 18:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Why is 'National Park' capitalized? 'National park' is a common noun, although each individual national park is undoubtedly a proper noun.
- Changed
- The title of the list still uses caps. Arsenikk (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case it's proper like United States National Park. It's consistent with FL List of National Parks of Canada.Reywas92Talk 13:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are confusing me. You agree that 'national park' is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized in the prose, but insist that it should be in the title. As you pointed out, it is inconsistent with the FL List of national parks of Sweden. Please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What do you mean by "it's proper like United States National Park"? Is that an institution? Of course every individual national park is a proper noun, and the United States National Park Service (an organization) is a proper noun, but when referred to as a collective group, 'national park' becomes a common noun. Arsenikk (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherstuffexists is for deletion arguments, not consistency comparisons. In the US, all 392 areas of the National Park System are considered national parks, as they are federally-owned parks run by the National Park Service. While that would be just a common noun, each of these 58 is a United States National Park, capitalized to indicate that these are the official National Parks, not just national parks. For this reason I think parts of the lead should be re-capitalized. Reywas92Talk 22:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not follow your reasoning here. As I see it now, I feel the article should not be promoted, but you insist on your view. Perhaps other reviewers have an opinion on the matter? If not, I will tend towards an oppose. Arsenikk (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Opposing based solely on this minor point seems a bit harsh. That's just my opinion, of course. Anyway, I think it is very difficult to decide in this case. The park system is called United States National Park, so based on that, the current name seems fine to me. But Arsenikk did have a point, too. So, I don't really know what to do in this case.—Chris!c/t 01:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not really know who is right here, but I want to note that all other lists of national parks in US are capitalized. On the other hand, in the category's title "national parks" are not capitalized. Probably there is some reason why they named such. Renaming this list would mean making titles of the lists inconsistent. This issue should be discussed separately from this review, because it is beyond its scope. Either all lists should be renamed or none. Ruslik_Zero 08:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The U.S. Department of the Interior, on its website, capitalizes terms like "National Park Service" and names like "Yellowstone National Park", but when referring to the parks as a whole or a group, the term "national park" is not capitalized. See here for an example. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the link provided by KV5, looks like Arsenikk was right. So, I think this article should be renamed.—Chris!c/t 17:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The U.S. Department of the Interior, on its website, capitalizes terms like "National Park Service" and names like "Yellowstone National Park", but when referring to the parks as a whole or a group, the term "national park" is not capitalized. See here for an example. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not follow your reasoning here. As I see it now, I feel the article should not be promoted, but you insist on your view. Perhaps other reviewers have an opinion on the matter? If not, I will tend towards an oppose. Arsenikk (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherstuffexists is for deletion arguments, not consistency comparisons. In the US, all 392 areas of the National Park System are considered national parks, as they are federally-owned parks run by the National Park Service. While that would be just a common noun, each of these 58 is a United States National Park, capitalized to indicate that these are the official National Parks, not just national parks. For this reason I think parts of the lead should be re-capitalized. Reywas92Talk 22:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are confusing me. You agree that 'national park' is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized in the prose, but insist that it should be in the title. As you pointed out, it is inconsistent with the FL List of national parks of Sweden. Please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What do you mean by "it's proper like United States National Park"? Is that an institution? Of course every individual national park is a proper noun, and the United States National Park Service (an organization) is a proper noun, but when referred to as a collective group, 'national park' becomes a common noun. Arsenikk (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because that link refers to national parks in general, not the just the 58 National Parks. The new quarters program has National Parks, National Historical Parks, and other designations, including some that are not even NPS. I have seen both usages elsewhere, but in my opinion, with the ambiguity of park terminology this should be capitalized to distinguish this type. Anyway, I can't move the page because there's a redirect in the way, so if everyone else wants it lowercase someone else will have to move the article. Reywas92Talk 18:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case it's proper like United States National Park. It's consistent with FL List of National Parks of Canada.Reywas92Talk 13:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The title of the list still uses caps. Arsenikk (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed
- Early in the lead, there is a section of a few sentences where the term 'National Park' is repeated almost endlessly: "...National Parks. All National Parks are operated by the National Park Service, an agency of the Department of the Interior. National Parks must be established by an act of the United States Congress. The first National Park...".
- I'm not really sure what to say; I think "national" must be there to distinguish from any generic park.
- Try using terms like "it", "they" etc, or try restructuring the information. It's okay, just not featured-standard prose. Arsenikk (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to work on it. Reywas92Talk 13:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Try using terms like "it", "they" etc, or try restructuring the information. It's okay, just not featured-standard prose. Arsenikk (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really sure what to say; I think "national" must be there to distinguish from any generic park.
- The sentence "Alaska and California, each with eight, have the largest number of National Parks, followed by Utah with five and Colorado with four." provides first a number and then explains the number. This forces the reader to guess the end of the fragment.
- Changed
- Once one reaches the millions, is it not common to use square miles instead of acres?
- My source had it in acres though I can convert it if you really want.
- Why is the metric area provided at a different significance than the imperial?
- The acreage is exactly what my source says. I do not think the km2 needs to be drawn to four decimal places.
- If the source uses it, it must be okay, I guess. I'm just concerned about the poor people who have to convert from acres to sq mi (us metric users have it easy converting from ha to km2. Arsenikk (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The acreage is exactly what my source says. I do not think the km2 needs to be drawn to four decimal places.
- I would have said all the claims in the descriptions need to be referenced, although I think a bulk referencing (all at the end) for each entry would suffice. (per NMajden above)
- Some animals are listed in singular, others in plural.
- I have made them more consistent; some sets refer to the animals in general and others to the species
- 'Tributaries' is an uncommon enough word that it should be wikilink.
- Changes
- 'Chihuahuan Desert' and 'Rattlesnake Springs' should be wikilinked.
- Relinked former, latter does not have article
- 'Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park' should probably have an endash, since it is a disjunction between two parks.
- Changed
- In Grand Canyon, be consequent in using digits or words within a sentence.
- Changed, though "a mile" is only an approximation and isn't quite "1 mile".
- Values in Great Sand Dunes description need to be converted
- Changed
- "The only area accessible by road is Exit Glacier, while the rest is viewed by boat tours." sounds a bit awkward. Perhaps "while" is the wrong word?
- Changed
- In the Mammoth Cave description, there is a missing { or }.
- Changed
Arsenikk (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Sorry about the delay, I was on vacation last week. Reywas92Talk 21:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oppose for the following reasons:
A few national monuments are no longer designated as such, having been redesignated or disbanded. I find this sentence strange. Why does it talk about monuments? The article is about parks, not monuments. Can it be a typo (monuments -> parks)?- Fixed.
In a desert climate millions of years of erosion have led to these structures, while the ground has life-sustaining soil crust and potholes. Sorry, I do not understand the last clause in this sentence. Please, clarify.- Clarified
- I still do not understand, what is "life-sustaining soil crust and potholes, natural water-collecting basins". How are potholes in the ground connected to arcs? Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed. They are just other features the park has.
- I still do not understand, what is "life-sustaining soil crust and potholes, natural water-collecting basins". How are potholes in the ground connected to arcs? Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified
It has the world's richest fossil beds from the Oligocene epoch and wildlife including bison, bighorn sheep, black-footed ferrets, and swift foxes why some animals are plural and some single? The sentence should also be split in two.- They are all plural. The plural of bison is bison. Fixed
Named for the Bend of the Rio Grande along the US–Mexico border, this park has part of the Chihuahuan Desert, ancient fossils, and cultural artifacts of Native Americans. I suggest a split: "Named for the Bend of the Rio Grande along the US–Mexico border, this park includes a part of the Chihuahuan Desert. A wide variety of Cretaceous and Tertiary fossils as well as cultural artifacts of Native Americans exist within its borders."- Changed.
The park is divided into four districts by the rivers. I suggest: ", which divide the park into four districts."- Changed.
monocline protruding from the earth that shows its geologic layers. It is not clear what shows geological layers: monocline or Earth?- Changed.
This northernmost park protects part of the Brooks Range and has no park development. What does this mean "no development"?- Clarified.
- What is "human development"? The land seems to be inhabited. Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no roads, park buildings, etc. That's why I had park developments before. Reworded.
- What is "human development"? The land seems to be inhabited. Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified.
Ecosystems vary on the north and south rims and elevation within the Sonoran Desert. Quite a meaningless sentence, in my opinion.- Clarified.
- It is still adds no new information (ecosystems always vary widely) and should be removed. Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed.
- It is still adds no new information (ecosystems always vary widely) and should be removed. Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified.
It has some of the country's darkest skies What does it mean Darkest skies"? The skies are everywhere about the same (not counting other planets, of course) Probably, it should be cleanest skies?- Clarified; No, it means there is less light pollutions which is not based on cleanliness.
- It has some of the country's darkest night skies and animal species including Townsend's big-eared bat, Pronghorn, and Bonneville cutthroat trout. Skies and animals are not logically connected to each other. If I am not mistaken this called a run on sentence. (should be split in two sentences) Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that is not a run-on. The park has dark skies and the park has animals. They are in one sentence to avoid having two short and choppy sentences. Changed though.
- It has some of the country's darkest night skies and animal species including Townsend's big-eared bat, Pronghorn, and Bonneville cutthroat trout. Skies and animals are not logically connected to each other. If I am not mistaken this called a run on sentence. (should be split in two sentences) Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified; No, it means there is less light pollutions which is not based on cleanliness.
They were formed by sand deposits of the Rio Grande on the San Luis Valley, and the park also has alpine lakes, six 13,000-foot mountains, and ancient forests. This sentence should be split in two sentences.- Changed.
Hosmer's Grove of alien trees, and native Hawaiian Geese. You should decide what form you use: plural or singular.- What do you mean? There is one Grove and there are many geese.
- I mean that in this context it should refer to the species, in other words it should be Hawaiian Goose. Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed.
- I mean that in this context it should refer to the species, in other words it should be Hawaiian Goose. Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean? There is one Grove and there are many geese.
This is the least-visited National Park (Kobuk Valley). How about Gates of the Arctic?- What do you mean? Kobuk Valley is the least visited.
Formed by glaciers, there are tall bluffs, rock gardens, islands and bays, and historic buildings. Were historic buildings also formed by glaciers?- Changed
My general impression is that the text requires polishing at places. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Reywas92Talk 19:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I just took a quick look at the lead paragraphs and my first impression was that it was really choppy. The first few sentences in particular are really short and could be reasonably combined. Additionally, the descriptions for each National Park has no standard. Gates of the Arctic, for example, talks about human development while Glacier Bay describes its wildlife and landscape. I think that each park should have a paragraph that incorporates all of three things: wildlife, landscape, and a short history (such as the Sand Dunes). --haha169 (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I wrote the descriptions incorporating the most important aspects of the parks. Every park is different and must not have the same repetitive elements. It is notable that Gates has an untouched environment, and it is notable that Glacier Bay has these wildlife and glaciers. Many parks do not have noteworthy wildlife but are known for their geologic features and landscapes, or vice-versa. I combined a couple sentences in the lead. Reywas92Talk 20:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this is ready to be promoted. The prose and the table look great. Everything is referenced.—Chris!c/t 20:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to make a map of country labeling all the parks? I thought I saw one somewhere. Or can you make one of those maps using Google Earth? Sorry if you have no idea what I talking about- There is a link at the bottom of the page that will make a map on Google Maps or Bing.
I don't like "and the first national park" in the first paragraph. I would expect "and" after a comma to expand on the idea previously stated, not give a separate idea- Changed.
"in 1890. In 1916" the repetition of "in <year>" sounds odd. Perhaps you can make the second part read "The 1916 Organic Act" or "The Organic Act, passed in 1916, ..."- Changed.
The sentence beginning "National parks usually have a variety of" doesn't make any sense to me: the natural resources protect the resources? Huh? Also, "large areas of land or water" should just be "large areas"- Changed. That's what my source has.
Ref 2 has a different date style: "Month date, year" versus "Date month year"- Changed.
6/27/2005 in ref 5 should be written normally- Changed. Reywas92Talk 00:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More to come later. Mm40 (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm busier that I thought. I'll probably post comments on the talk page if this is promoted before I get a chance to review it properly. Mm40 (talk) 11:34, 3 May 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 16:47, 4 May 2010 [7].
- Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list: thoroughly sourced, pretty pictures and engaging lead. Another Barcelona list for your consideration. Sandman888 (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
That's midway through paragraph two of the lead... There are far too many grammatical issues here. Please consider peer review before bringing the list here. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
OpposeA lot of confusion between plural and singular, especially in the first paragraph. As noted above, there are numerous spelling and grammar errors. Also, the images need positioning better; I'm getting tons of awful white space on my monitor. BigDom 08:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- All of the above should be fixed by now, editor has been invited to revisit the FLC....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck my previous oppose seeing as the prose has been greatly improved. BigDom 16:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have given the lead a complete overhaul for language (hope the nom doesn't mind), see if you think I've improved it. I haven't looked at any other part of the article as yet...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a bunch, don't mind help at all. Sandman888 (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments – Few source-related queries with this one:
Haven't reviewed the rest of the list yet. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Took a look at the lead, and most of it looks okay. The one place in the lead I was bothered was "becoming known as 'Barca of the Five Cups' and went on to win...". Judging by the sentence as a whole, it feels like a comma should be after the nickname. Alternatively, you could change "went on" to "going on". Also, I noticed that the end of note 3 is missing a period. Otherwise, it seems that a lot of fine work has been done here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose still too many outstanding issues for me"
|
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments Few matters arising from the peer review, and some more bits.
Struway2 (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Couple more things, about the cup rounds.
Once those are sorted, I'd expect to support this nomination. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Follows an established format, and seems to meet the criteria now. Well done both to the nominator, and also to ChrisTheDude, who put in an awful lot of work during the FLC process to bring this list up to scratch. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- RE MOS:NUM changes - this is obviously to avoid confusion/ambiguity which is not the case here and it looks silly. There's no precedent for all of the 1999-2000 seasons to be named so. I'd say ignore all shd be applied in this case. Sandman888 (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Think you'll find previous featured seasons lists have it this way, certainly all the recent ones. As of course do the season articles you're linking to: 1998–99 La Liga, but 1999–2000 La Liga. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- RE MOS:NUM changes - this is obviously to avoid confusion/ambiguity which is not the case here and it looks silly. There's no precedent for all of the 1999-2000 seasons to be named so. I'd say ignore all shd be applied in this case. Sandman888 (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments much, much improved since nomination, good work to Chris and Struway for great editing/reviews respectively.
|
- Support a lot of excellent work done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Fantastic work. Gage (talk) 21:12, 30 April 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 16:47, 4 May 2010 [8].
- Nominator(s): Gage (talk), Pedro J. the rookie
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it was perfectly ready the last time around, and the only reason it, to my understanding, did not pass was because of the lack of reviewers either stating their support or opposition to the nomination. I hope you will consider it again, and I hope to address your concerns as best as possible. Gage (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 19:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support As far as I can tell, all previous concerns have been rectified, as well as my concerns. Thanks for being so prompt! Jujutacular T · C 19:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This artical should have passed a time ago i support it. --Pedro J. the rookie 19:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as a co-nominator, your support is taken as read. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This list is very comprehensive and there doesn't seem to be any major problems with it. Good work! --haha169 (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments this is very good, I've reviewed it in detail before so, not surprisingly, very few things stood out, however:
|
OpposeThis was a quick glance, and I am concerned at the misleading referencing. Ref 49 does not reference the production code in any way, neither does Ref 51 or 53 I guess this is a trend. As an aside, ref 11 and 12 are also the same.Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Comment Fixed. Not sure why a vote of opposition was neccessary, when I could've just as easilly fixed it had it been brought to my attention. And I'm not sure how refs 11 and 12 are misleading simply because it is not linked to a web article. Both are quotes from the Family Guy Volume 5 DVD commentary. Gage (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How do I know it is easily fixed? Production codes have been problematic in the past (trust me I was on the receiving end). They are not always easy to verify which is a key criteria (hence the oppose). Aditionally, I recall the directors prefering opposes to comments as it is difficult to assess the importance of a see of comment if they haven't been struck/capped. For the second bit, I actually misread 11 and 12 thinking they were identical refs duplicated unnecessarily. Is it worth adding the
|quote=
field for these perhaps. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Okay, thank you. As for the quotes, I think what is currently present on the article is sufficient. Gage (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How do I know it is easily fixed? Production codes have been problematic in the past (trust me I was on the receiving end). They are not always easy to verify which is a key criteria (hence the oppose). Aditionally, I recall the directors prefering opposes to comments as it is difficult to assess the importance of a see of comment if they haven't been struck/capped. For the second bit, I actually misread 11 and 12 thinking they were identical refs duplicated unnecessarily. Is it worth adding the
- Comment Fixed. Not sure why a vote of opposition was neccessary, when I could've just as easilly fixed it had it been brought to my attention. And I'm not sure how refs 11 and 12 are misleading simply because it is not linked to a web article. Both are quotes from the Family Guy Volume 5 DVD commentary. Gage (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- There is absolutely no mention of any type of viewer figures/ratings. In my experience this is exceeding rare for a season list. Personally, I would be in favour of viewing figures for each episode like some other featured seasons lists [9][10]. This information is available (e.g. http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=112106_06 9.3 million for Prick Up Your Ears] and the complete lack of viewership figures is the basis for this oppose.
- Attempting to locate viewership ratings as far back as September 10, 2006, I was unable to locate any information from a reliable source. Viewership ratings as far back as that, which was the premiere episode for the season in that instance, are very difficult to locate, and would mostly rely upon possibly unreliable sources. Also, I'm not sure how the ABC Media source you provided would be for the episode that aired on that date, as it aired on Fox in its original airing, not on ABC. Maybe it was a syndicated episode, but why ABC would show Fox's ratings would be beyond me. Gage (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Medianet just gives the weeks ratings for all primetime programs. It is reliable, goes back enough, and has been used for FOX shows before. I know because I've used it in a FOX season FL. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I have added viewership ratings information to the article. Thank you for providing me with that source, as I was able to also add that information to each of the season's episode articles. Gage (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Medianet just gives the weeks ratings for all primetime programs. It is reliable, goes back enough, and has been used for FOX shows before. I know because I've used it in a FOX season FL. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Attempting to locate viewership ratings as far back as September 10, 2006, I was unable to locate any information from a reliable source. Viewership ratings as far back as that, which was the premiere episode for the season in that instance, are very difficult to locate, and would mostly rely upon possibly unreliable sources. Also, I'm not sure how the ABC Media source you provided would be for the episode that aired on that date, as it aired on Fox in its original airing, not on ABC. Maybe it was a syndicated episode, but why ABC would show Fox's ratings would be beyond me. Gage (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rest looks good. Only other comment is on consistency: "Volume Five" (lead), "Volume 5" (caption), "volume 5" (reception). Can we have some consistency througout the article and the DVD release section please.
- Done. Gage (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose The referencing is underdeveloped.
Check all the referencing, and I'll re-evaluate. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support My concerns handled. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from DragonZero (talk · contribs) 23:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
**Comments
|
- Support Not much left to say. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 23:26, 3 May 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.