Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2013: Difference between revisions
Razr Nation (talk | contribs) Promoted List of NFL champions (1920-1969) |
Razr Nation (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of film producers of the Dutch East Indies/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of NFL champions (1920-1969)/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of NFL champions (1920-1969)/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed churches in Cumbria/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed churches in Cumbria/archive1}} |
Revision as of 04:34, 15 February 2013
- 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 Hahc21 04:34, 15 February 2013 [1].
List of film producers of the Dutch East Indies
- Nominator(s): — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it's a good look at film producers from the Indies, a topic I'm trying to make featured. No images because I haven't found any free ones of those involved. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why limit the article to 1926 to 1949? I understand that Indonesia is not exactly the same as Dutch East Indies, but I wouldn't think producers must be segregated by pre- or post-independece. The names in Category:Indonesian film producers would be a good addition to this list. Reywas92Talk 19:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because a) it was not the same political body, b) as noted at Darah dan Doa, Indonesians have generally not considered films from the Indies truly "Indonesian" films, and c) we already have List of films of the Dutch East Indies and List of film directors of the Dutch East Indies; this is meant as a complement to them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nice list. Here are some comments you may disagree with.
- "Twenty-two people are recorded as having produced fictional films in the Dutch East Indies between 1926," I would write "Twenty-two people are believed to have produced fictional films in the Dutch East Indies between 1926," although I know that weasel words are not permitted, still I prefer such wordings in this case
- "All were men; the first female film producer in Indonesia, Ratna Asmara, produced her first film in 1953.[3]" - suggest "Among identified film producers from the Dutch Indies, all were men except at least one woman, Ratna Asmara, who has produced her first film in 1953"--Tomcat (7) 18:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments and support. "Believed" sounds less encyclopedic than "recorded" (especially since they are on record) and 1953 was after the Dutch East Indies was dissolved, so Ratna should not be counted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support in principle with some comments. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You mention G. Kruger as one of the first producers, but his debut film is 1930, which is later than a number of other producers. Is this assertion based on the approximate date when he started working on Karnadi Anemer Bangkong?
- Hmm... Good point. He was likely the producer of Eulis Atjih in 1927, but I don't have a source to confirm this. Good catch, reworded until I can confirm that he was the producer of Eulis Atjih. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Altogether they produced some 93 films in this period..." Is it a valid corollary to say then that a total of 93 fictional films were produced in the Indies between 1926 and 1949? If not, perhaps this requires rewording.
- The recorded producers did, although (as visible at List of films of the Dutch East Indies) some 112 fictional films were produced altogether. Any suggestions for alternatives? The already-featured list of film directors of the Dutch East Indies uses the above wording. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A possible alternative is "Altogether they are credited for 93 of all known films produced in the Indies..." This should also provide some connectivity between the producer/director lists and the film list, which seems to be missing at the moment. Out of curiosity, do we know the original terms (in Dutch, etc.) used to describe these people's roles? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cameraman seems to have been "operator", but none of the sources have any more. Good wording, changing... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A possible alternative is "Altogether they are credited for 93 of all known films produced in the Indies..." This should also provide some connectivity between the producer/director lists and the film list, which seems to be missing at the moment. Out of curiosity, do we know the original terms (in Dutch, etc.) used to describe these people's roles? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The recorded producers did, although (as visible at List of films of the Dutch East Indies) some 112 fictional films were produced altogether. Any suggestions for alternatives? The already-featured list of film directors of the Dutch East Indies uses the above wording. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You mention G. Kruger as one of the first producers, but his debut film is 1930, which is later than a number of other producers. Is this assertion based on the approximate date when he started working on Karnadi Anemer Bangkong?
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
—Bloom6132 (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – List meets all 6 criteria. Good work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2013 (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 Hahc21 18:11, 14 February 2013 [2].
List of NFL champions (1920–69)
I have improved this article considerably and I think it meets all FA-criteria. The list includes all NFL champions and runner-ups prior to the league's merger with the American Football League in 1970. I think this will be an excellent compliment to the companion List of Super Bowl champions article, also an FA. Toa Nidhiki05 02:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments a few basic things, not sure this is ready quite yet....:
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support, assuming red and blue meets WP:ACCESS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:ACCESS:
Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers.
Resolved comments from Resolute 03:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Resolute
That's about all I got. Cheers! Resolute 00:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Also, I am offering this up only for your consideration: List of Stanley Cup champions uses parentheticals for such denotions. i.e.: (WC) That may be easier for a reader to note what conference/division the teams were members of than six obscure symbols. Feel free to disregard this suggestion if you dislike that format.
- I would not mind switching to that, but the NFL only has one article for the divisions/conferences, not two, so there would not be a unique. I used the symbols mainly because that is what is used on the Super Bowl champions article, or something similar. Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine. You could link the relevant article in the key, leaving the (ED), (AC), etc. notes unlinked in the table itself. However, I do agree that this list should be relatively consistent with the Super Bowl article, therefore this may be something worth discussing internally to the NFL project, if you feel it valuable. Resolute 03:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments by Arsenikk
|
- 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 pomoted by Hahc21 02:54, 14 February 2013 [3].
Grade I listed churches in Cumbria
- Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because this is a list of all the Grade I listed churches in the country of Cumbria. Its style and format follow the recently promoted Grade I listed churches in Lancashire and the previous similar lists. The text has been copyedited. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Excellent list, the usual great work by Peter! NapHit (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Another excellent list from Dr Vardy! I do have a few comments.- I think the lead might be improved with a little more detail on the churches. The second paragraph feels a little slight. Is there any more that can be added about the architecture of the non-Anglo-Saxon churches? Is there an unusually large amount of Norman architecture for the NW? St Martin's Brampton could perhaps be discussed as an unusually late grade I church. Also the Viking material could be discussed.
- Fair comment. I have expanded the second paragraph (not too much I hope), addressing these points, and added a little about the Viking material in the last paragraph. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, thanks. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the national park and the current industry of tourism affect the grade-I-listed churches? Are any of them significant tourist attractions? How many fall within the park?
- Only 10 out of about 50 churches are actually within the National Park, and most of these are located around the periphery. Considering the antiquity of almost all the churches, and the fact that tourism only started with the Romantic movement in the 18th century, I am not sure that this is particularly relevant to the architecture. So why do I include this in the lead: mainly to give a snapshot of what the county is like to the reader unfamiliar with it, and to give consistency with the other related FLs. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I suppose international readers won't have any clue that the Lake District is in Cumbria, and are more likely to have heard of the former. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reason the date column was removed? I've always found it very useful, even if the date for such churches can be hard to determine.
- Not only can the date be difficult to determine, I consider that a date column can be confusing. What date do you choose? The date of foundation, the date of earliest surviving material, the date of the major part of the fabric, the date of a major rebuilding or restoration? The relevant dates are included in the Notes column, with a discussion about their importance where necessary. IMO this is a better way to deal with dates than to have a potentially misleading extra column. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd tend to prefer it using probably date of earliest surviving material, with a footnote perhaps -- I generally sort these types of list into date order before reading -- but I understand the reasoning for exclusion. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- St Martin's, Bowness-on-Windermere: 'Painted on the internal walls are tests dating from the 16th century' -- what are tests, in this context? Should it be texts?
- St Mungo's, Bromfield: How does the chantry chapel of St George relate to the main church?
- St Ninian's, Brougham: What is the original date?
- St Oswald's, Grasmere: 'Battered' is obviously a technical term; can any article that explains it be linked? Otherwise it might be simpler just to write inward-sloping walls.
- St Mary's, Lanercost: What is the date of the original priory?
- St Andrew's Church, Sedbergh: This description is shorter than most of the others; can anything else be added?
- I have dealt with the above in the relevant Notes sections. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still doing some minor copy edits on the remainder of the table so I might have some more queries once I've finished.Espresso Addict (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments and advice. I think I have addressed all the points you raised. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to support. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments very good indeed, a couple of minor things from me....
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support another excellent list from Peter, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything (including File: pages) looks good. Will probably support after I've found time to examine the prose a bit closer.Goodraise 23:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Image review. No concerns. Goodraise 03:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "all major architectural styles except Modernism can be found in the county's Grade I listed churches." - Would like to see a citation here.
- This is a summary drawn from the items in the list, which I think is valid in the lead. I have no source for this to provide a citation. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Research???? OK it's gone. A pity because I thought it added value and interest to the lead. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could word it differently, in a way that doesn't go beyond what the sources say? By simply removing it, you've broken the connection to the next sentence. Goodraise 07:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot think of a way of saying what I said without a similar objection being raised. Connection between the sentences altered. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"A large number of churches" - Could be less vague and would benefit from a citation.
- Changed to "Many of the churches", although I am not sure that this is an improvement. Once again I have no source for a citation. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm having trouble figuring out the pattern behind your comma usage. Sometimes you appear to be using serial commas, sometimes not. Sometimes you appear to be placing commas after disambiguating locations, sometimes not. You're not placing the commas to accommodate the citations, are you?
"The most modern church in the list is St Martin, Brampton," - Suggest using listed instead."was built in 1874–78" - "was built from 1874 to 1878" - See MOS:YEAR. Multiple occurrences.- It may be that you need to refresh your understanding of MOS:YEAR. In addition, to say that something was "built from" implies that those are its constituent parts. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, in isn't actually part of the date range, so MOS:YEAR#5 doesn't apply. I don't see any danger with "built from" though. Who would come to believe a church was made of years? Still, point taken, "between 1874 and 1878" would probably be better. I'm uncomfortable with the "in 1874–78" construct because I'd read it as "in 1874 to 78", which sounds awkward to me. I'd be fine with it, if it was "in 1874–75". In any case, I won't insist on the change if I'm the only one seeing merit in it. Goodraise 01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept that "between 1874 and 1878" is better and have made the change. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, in isn't actually part of the date range, so MOS:YEAR#5 doesn't apply. I don't see any danger with "built from" though. Who would come to believe a church was made of years? Still, point taken, "between 1874 and 1878" would probably be better. I'm uncomfortable with the "in 1874–78" construct because I'd read it as "in 1874 to 78", which sounds awkward to me. I'd be fine with it, if it was "in 1874–75". In any case, I won't insist on the change if I'm the only one seeing merit in it. Goodraise 01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be that you need to refresh your understanding of MOS:YEAR. In addition, to say that something was "built from" implies that those are its constituent parts. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"designed by Philip Webb, who used a variety of architectural styles." - "... Webb, using a variety ..." would make it clear that Webb used multiple styles on this church.- Done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see the lead as adequately summarizing the article, as long as it doesn't mention how many items it has.
- Total number of items added, with some amendment to the text. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The tower fell in 1600, destroying the choir and the north transept, which was followed by a fire in 1604." - Awkward. Please reword.- Reworded as "... an event that was followed by a fire in 1604". George Ponderevo (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Norman west doorway, and a Perpendicular east window." - Remove comma for consistency.- Comma removed. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More to come. Goodraise 03:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The nave dates from the same century, the south aisle was added ..." - Comma splice.- Slightly rewritten, but bear in mind that once again this is a comma-separated list, not a comma splice. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Perpendicular-style windows were inserted in the 16th century, the south porch was added ..." - Comma splice.
- "The south aisle was added in about 1200, the chancel was extended ..." - Comma splice.
- Again it's a list, not a comma splice. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The nave dates from the same century" would appear to be an independent clause to me, just as much as "the south aisle was added in the following century, a north aisle and a south chapel in about 1300, and the chancel in the early 14th century." If they are independent clauses and a comma splice is the joining of two independent clauses by means of a comma, then I don't see how this can not be a comma splice. I'm not seeing one list here, but two, one list, containing one item, "dating to the same century", and one list, containing four items, which were "added". If you could point out where my misunderstanding lies, that would be great. I'm always happy to learn something new. Goodraise 01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I don't understand all this. I hope the nomination does not fail because of a comma or two! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not qute sure now what it is you're objecting to Goodraise. The text now reads:
- "St Michael's has a central tower dating from the 12th century; the nave dates from the same century. The south aisle was added in the following century, a north aisle and a south chapel in about 1300, and the chancel in the early 14th century."
- That looks fine to me. Has there perhaps been some rewriting since your original posting? George Ponderevo (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, I would have picked another sentence as an example had I refreshed the page before replying. The current version of this is fine, but the other two remain comma splices to the best of my understanding. I don't claim to be a guru of English grammar, but until someone explains to me how I'm mistaken here, assuming I actually am mistaken, I'll have to continue to object. In "I came. He left. And she stayed", I can replace the second period with a comma without problem, because there's a coordinating conjunction in the form of an and, but if I replace the first period with a comma, I'll have created a comma splice by connecting two independent clauses with a comma. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The nave dates from the same century" would appear to be an independent clause to me, just as much as "the south aisle was added in the following century, a north aisle and a south chapel in about 1300, and the chancel in the early 14th century." If they are independent clauses and a comma splice is the joining of two independent clauses by means of a comma, then I don't see how this can not be a comma splice. I'm not seeing one list here, but two, one list, containing one item, "dating to the same century", and one list, containing four items, which were "added". If you could point out where my misunderstanding lies, that would be great. I'm always happy to learn something new. Goodraise 01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again it's a list, not a comma splice. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"This is aA long narrow church built in the 12th and 13th centuries,"
- This makes it into a phrase rather than a sentence. I know that the notes in some lists are in phrases rather than in sentences, but I have tried to use sentences throughout. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, but it still seems clumsy to me to start an item's description with "This is a". How about "This long narrow church was built in the 12th and 13th centuries, with later alterations"? Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't really see the need, but done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"and a south doorway. A. above whichthe doorway is a carved stone from the early 12th century depictings two knights on horseback." - A suggestion.- That doesn't really work, as it would make it seem that the carved stone is above the doorway and the windows. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, how about "A carved stone from the early 12th century above the doorway depicts two knights on horseback"? Just to move the two occurrences of doorway further apart. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't really work either, as it's saying that the early 12th century is above the doorway. Changed to "An early 12th-century carved stone above the doorway depicts two knights on horseback". George Ponderevo (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, how about "A carved stone from the early 12th century above the doorway depicts two knights on horseback"? Just to move the two occurrences of doorway further apart. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't really work, as it would make it seem that the carved stone is above the doorway and the windows. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The northeast vestry was built in 1911 by W. L. Dolman, whoandconverted it into a chapelby the same architectin 1922." - Another suggestion.- Seems reasonable, done. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"and was executed by George Jack to Webb's design" - Not sure what this means. Who designed the top stage, Jack or Webb?- "to" changed to "following". Does that clarify? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More to come. Goodraise 19:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for the delay in responding, but I have been away. Thanks for the comments, and to George Ponderevo for the help provided. I think that all the points raised have been addressed, and await any further comments. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The top stage of the tower, featuring a saddleback roof with a lead spirelet, was added in 1906 by George Jack, following Webb's design." - Another suggestion."It was suppressed at the time of the dissolution of the monasteries, andwasrestored in 1925.""The church is now redundant andisin the care of the Churches Conservation Trust."
- Above fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not strictly required, but I'd like to see the list comply with WP:NOPIPEDLINK (e.g.[[English Gothic architecture#Decorated Gothic]]
).
- Amended. Did not know this is "allowed" - thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "and the roofs
arein green slate." "The churchIt is constructed in roughcast stone with a slate roof." - Avoid repetition."Inside the church is a three-sided altar rail, and a three-decker pulpit." - Remove comma."south Norman doorway" - Awkward. Please reword."In the porch are part of a 10th-century cross-shaft decorated with carvings of beasts, and a grave-cover, possibly from the 11th century; outside the church is a 10th-century hogback stone." - Why use a semi-colon here instead of a period?"One of the monuments is by Francis Leggatt Chantrey." - What monuments?
- Above dealt with. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not having completed this review yet. Reviewing prose is a very time consuming activity for me. I'll try to get through the remaining items quickly. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"This has been a Christian site since the 8th century..." - Considering that this is a list of churches and not a list of sites, I'm sure this can be said differently."The church was remodelled and extended in 1896–99 by C. J. Ferguson." - "between 1896 and 1899"?Not quite sure what a "blocked south Norman doorway" is. Could you put that differently?"consists of two naves,beingwhich were doubled in size between 1490 and 1500"
- Above fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Sandys Chapel" - Might there be an apostrophe missing?
- No, the surname was Sandys. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"andithas a green slate roof.""four bay nave"/"four-bay nave" - Consistency please."Norman features include three doorways, and the north arcade." - Why's there a comma here?
- All the above dealt with, other than the Sandys chapel. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost through. Goodraise 23:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the building of which started in about 1175–80" - This again. Reading it aloud, I stumble over the date format."It was restored in 1847–49" - "between 1847 and 1849"?"Stained glass in the north aisle windows" - "The stained glass in the north aisle windows"?"The nave and chancel of Holy Trinity date from the late 12th century; there is a Norman north doorway." - Not seeing the connection here.- "it was restored and extended by Sarah Losh, including adding an extension to the north." - Double exten-, double -ing. Would like to see this worded differently.
- No improvement here. How about "In 1844 Sarah Losh restored the church and extended it to the north"? Or if you want to keep the new bit: "In 1844 Sarah Losh conducted a restoration and extension, which included the building of a chancel at right angles to the north of the nave." Goodraise 07:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Inside the church are galleries on three sides carried on Tuscan columns, and paintings on the walls." - I'd put a comma before carried for easier understanding."a north doorway is said to be Norman." - Is there some sort of disagreement about it?"St Michael's ... contains Norman features, including a south doorway, the arcades, and the chancel arch. The font is also Norman." - Why make this two sentences?"In 1720 the body of the church"/"In 1689, the nave ceiling" - Consistent comma placement would be nice."in 1880–82 by John A. Cory, who also added the south porch." - Strong suggestion."was restored in 1880–82 by John A. Cory" - "between 1880 and 1882"?"Later alterations and additionshaveresulted in the presence of Early English and Perpendicular features.""The church has a cruciform plan, with a piscina in each transept." - Remove comma for consistency."Built in 1752–73, this church" - "between 1752 and 1773"?"In 1655–66, Lady Anne Clifford" - "Between 1655 and 1666"?
- All the above dealt with. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 1655–66, Lady Anne Clifford paid for the building of the northeast chapel and the rebuilding of the chancel." - "When she arrived in 1667 to see what she had paid for, she found nothing had actually been done and nobody knew where her money had gone." Can we reword this?
- I don't understand this. Where did that second quote come from?
- The second quote was my apparently failed attempt at humorously pointing out that the first quote doesn't say that these works were actually undertaken. Not a big deal, but why not make things as clear as possible? Goodraise 04:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh! Reworded. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. I'm finally through. Goodraise 00:57, 9 February 2013 (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 Hahc21 20:18, 12 February 2013 [4].
HMV's Poll of Polls
- Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 04:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is of sufficient quality. I believe that this article meets the necessary FL criteria, and I welcome any comments about ways in which it could be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 04:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
A couple of minor copy edits made - please feel free to revert if you disagree with them.
Very minor points indeed and good work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support All good: nice work! - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few minor comments
- I would remove the redirect (HMV -> [[HMV Group|HMV]])
- Okay. But why?
- The redirect might get turned into a dab page somewhere down the road. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough then. Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so I understand it, currently the list is compiled from 30 sources, but in the past this number has included 60? This might be made a little clear in the lead. Ruby 2010/2013 01:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it's a little confusing. From what I can tell, the poll has only ever been compiled each year using about 30-35 sources, but obviously over the years the sources have changed. As of last year, more than 60 different listings have, at some point, contributed towards the Poll of Polls. Which part of the lead do you think needs to be changed to make this clearer?
- Thank you very much for the review, Ruby! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
*Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose and images, looks like a good list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2013 (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 00:08, 2 February 2013 [5].
List of songs recorded by Fiona Apple
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) and User:Ruby2010 02:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ruby2010 and I are nominating this list of recordings by Fiona Apple for featured list because we believe it meets criteria and closely resembles similar lists of this standard: Adele, Rihanna, etc. We believe the list is complete and we are happy to address any concerns that may arise during the course of this FLC process. Thanks so much for your time. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Aaron |
---|
Resolved comments by Aaron
— AARON • TALK 19:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - I don't see why this shouldn't be promoted. — AARON • TALK 22:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments Looks pretty good to me, I just have a few points:.
Good work, in all. Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: HMV's Poll of Polls. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- My main concern is the number of links, particularly in the third paragraph. Certain terms (like single, lead single, cover version, studio album, compilation album and soundtrack) are probably familiar to a reader that they needn't be linked to.
- I disagree. I think these links are important and it should be assumed people know the meaning of these terms. Also, neither reviewer above mentioned this concern. Please let me know if you feel strongly enough that you would not support the promotion of this list without specifically addressing this concern. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably not something I'd oppose over, it just seems like an awful lot of blue in paragraph three. It looks to me like about a third of the words in that paragraph are links. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there are an inordinate amount of links there. The first paragraph contains 17 links, the second para has 15, and the third has 18. I think we've maintained a good blue consistency. Also, I can't think which links we would trim out (all seem necessary to readers). Ruby 2010/2013 21:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure that the number of links is consistent, I'm just concerned that there are a few too many of them – it looks like nearly a third of the words in the lead are links. But, as I've said, this isn't necessarily something that I'd oppose over. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there are an inordinate amount of links there. The first paragraph contains 17 links, the second para has 15, and the third has 18. I think we've maintained a good blue consistency. Also, I can't think which links we would trim out (all seem necessary to readers). Ruby 2010/2013 21:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably not something I'd oppose over, it just seems like an awful lot of blue in paragraph three. It looks to me like about a third of the words in that paragraph are links. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead originally said "Sony released" rather than "Sony produced". I can see that you changed it to avoid repetition of "released", but, when referring to a single, "produced" would suggest that Sony actually had a hand in its music production, which presumably wasn't the case. Is there another less ambiguous word that could be used instead? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed back to "released". I am not particularly bothered by the word redundancy, but also would not be opposed to a more generic term. Distributed? --Another Believer (Talk) 03:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Status:
— Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. Great work! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, great use of citations, good structure, nice background info and introduction material, appreciate the usage of free-use media files. — Cirt (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments –
- What makes TwentyFourBit (refs 28, 38, and 42) a reliable source?
- This sounds good to me, but perhaps others would disagree. Also, I don't think the information taken from these sources is particularly controversial or questionable. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes The Round Table (ref 44) reliable? Giants2008 (Talk) 15:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know nothing about The Round Table except that, in this case, the two sources used to verify "Still I" are the only two I can find. Here is the site's "About Us" section with editor profiles. I assumed a less-than-ideal source was better than none at all. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's no truly reliable source for a fact, it's better to not include it at all. I'm sure reviewers will understand if a fact with reliable sourcing issues is removed, and will not hold it against the list on comprehensiveness grounds. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the source in question. The myspace reference remains at the moment, so I will keep the song in the table accordingly. If we believe myspace is not reliable, I can remove the song altogether. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's the performer's official page, I suppose it can be considered somewhat reliable like someone's Twitter account would be, although I don't like the use of such sources myself. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The song appears on the artist's official myspace page, which is why I could consider it reliable. I will leave the song in the table unless consensus says the source is considered unreliable. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's the performer's official page, I suppose it can be considered somewhat reliable like someone's Twitter account would be, although I don't like the use of such sources myself. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the source in question. The myspace reference remains at the moment, so I will keep the song in the table accordingly. If we believe myspace is not reliable, I can remove the song altogether. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's no truly reliable source for a fact, it's better to not include it at all. I'm sure reviewers will understand if a fact with reliable sourcing issues is removed, and will not hold it against the list on comprehensiveness grounds. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:16, 6 February 2013 (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 21:11, 10 February 2013 [6].
List of Hong Kong ODI cricketers
- Nominator(s): Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because because I feel it meets the FL criteria and follows a similar design to current FLs such as List of Bermuda ODI cricketers. The list is also complete and as Hong Kong don't play at this level anymore, it is unlikely to change in the near future. It was previously a featured list just over four years ago and was on my radar early in 2012 to promote to FL, but time never permitted me to complete the nomination. Feedback most welcome! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "A ODI differs" should be An ODI - Done
- "Hong Kong have never gained ODI status in their own right, but have been accorded ODI status twice on a temporary basis for participation in the Asia Cup, in which the matches played held ODI status." Think this could do with a reference. Comment: - If only I could find one! Looked long and hard, with no luck thus far.
- Is the name sorting correctly? It appears to be a cross between first and last name Comment: Pakistani players are generally sorted by first name, see here and per a discussion here. Nine of Hong Kong's squad alone in the 2008 Asian Cup were born in Pakistan.
NapHit (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 15:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Zia Khan 23:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment
- For the request for a reference for the part saying they were afforded temporary ODI status, as big as the internet is, I can find no source for that. I don't have either the 2007 or 2009 Wisden Almanack, so perhaps it is mentioned in there somewhere. For now I have included a note explaining why they were given temporary ODI status. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Comments –
"playing two matches against Pakistan and India. , though struggling...". Period should be gone, and the comma should be moved to before the reference. How did three supporters miss something like this?Done - Yes, how did we miss that! That's what this process is for :)"but have qualified for the 2014 World Cup Qualifier, where qualification...". Too much qualifying in this sentence.Done - Lost one
Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 24 January 2013 (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 21:11, 10 February 2013 [7].
List of Birmingham City F.C. players (25–99 appearances)
As the reviewers were so kind to my last attempt, I thought I'd submit this third and final section of the complete list while my luck still holds (hopefully). It has the same structure as the previous one, and comments made at that FLC have been actioned at this list as well. And there's a few more pictures on this one. All constructive comments welcome... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by NapHit (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- The position column should really sort by position, e.g. GK to FW, instead of the current alphabetic method NapHit (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could explain why it needs sorting in that order? I can't think of any particular reason why the reader sorting that column would expect the contents to appear in back-to-front order. Wouldn't they just be wanting all the players with each position to sort together? I'm not being awkward, and am quite happy to make the change if there's a good and generally accepted reason for it, but am reluctant to introduce 350+ extra template calls to an already large article if it's just personal taste.
- Well I thought it was the done thing, as the equivalent lists for Man Utd and Liverpool use this method. Also as the positions key list the positions in relation to their position on the pitch, so to me it would make sense to reflect this in the column. I think a few more opinions are needed on this, before, as you say, you introduce 350+ sort templates. NapHit (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could explain why it needs sorting in that order? I can't think of any particular reason why the reader sorting that column would expect the contents to appear in back-to-front order. Wouldn't they just be wanting all the players with each position to sort together? I'm not being awkward, and am quite happy to make the change if there's a good and generally accepted reason for it, but am reluctant to introduce 350+ extra template calls to an already large article if it's just personal taste.
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support a typically high quality nomination and my comments (where actually helpful) addressed nicely. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks good to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments from Arsenikk
Excellent list and I'll be happy to support once the two issues are resolved. Arsenikk (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2013 (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 21:11, 10 February 2013 [8].
MGMT discography
- Nominator(s): I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because having extensively redeveloped the tables and prose, I feel that it meets the FLC criteria. Any criticism would be helpful if it improves the page. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Holiday56 (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support - Looks solid. Image could be better, but if its all we've got it's all we've got. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Hopefully, I've addressed all of your comments satisfactorily. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments –
"The critical success of the EP and extensive touring brought the group to the attention of Columbia Records, which signed the group in 2006." Don't care for the redundant use of "group" here; try revising this to have only one usage.
- Done Removed the second "group". I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Similar issue in "The album reached number 38 on the US Billboard 200, and reached...". The second "reached" isn't needed at all in this sentence.Giants2008 (Talk) 19:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Removed the second "reached". I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:47, 15 January 2013 (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 08:30, 7 February 2013 [9].
List of North Carolina Tar Heels in the NFL Draft
- Nominator(s): Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 01:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I have done all that I have seen in the other "(School name) in the NFL Draft" pages, but with the North Carolina data. I've referenced all of the awards and super bowls, along with most of the points of contention I believe. Go Heels! Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 01:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by Ravendrop |
---|
*A Few Random Comments:
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose many comments despite the above early friendly supports, this is just a quick sample of comments in a five minute review...
That's a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments by NapHit (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
'Comments
NapHit (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Images look okay (no action required)
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
*
|
- Neutral until a third opinion is given about names. Also, I do not appreciate being called "kid". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Third opinion: Taken literally, WP:REPEATLINK presently allows each target to be linked only once from within a table. However, the main argument against linking everything possible is to not take away the readers' attention from less numerous but equally or even more relevant links. I'm not seeing that problem in this article. So in my opinion, the convenience provided by these additional links slightly outweighs the aesthetic displeasure their presence causes. An unorthodox solution would be to color all but the first links black without actually delinking the teams. Or you could simply make the table sortable. Goodraise 06:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well okay so keep the linking it is then? Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 03:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Third opinion: Taken literally, WP:REPEATLINK presently allows each target to be linked only once from within a table. However, the main argument against linking everything possible is to not take away the readers' attention from less numerous but equally or even more relevant links. I'm not seeing that problem in this article. So in my opinion, the convenience provided by these additional links slightly outweighs the aesthetic displeasure their presence causes. An unorthodox solution would be to color all but the first links black without actually delinking the teams. Or you could simply make the table sortable. Goodraise 06:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the list on prose and images. Still not wild about the linking, but the MOS doesn't proscribe any particular method for lists — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Are all the players who have played in the NFL/AFL linked, or just the ones that currently have articles? Wizardman 18:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just the players that have articles are linked.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NGRIDIRON they are almost certainly notable if they played at least one game and thus could be linked — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't have to be linked and personally a ton of red links are annoying to see on the page, so I'm going to pass on linking those without pages that have played games.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 12:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd much prefer the links added but it's no big deal. By the way Eric Blount needs to be linked, since he's not. That's basically why I'm pushing for the links, since they'll be filled in one day. Wizardman 03:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Linked.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One more comment, actually, then I can finally support: Refs 3 and 4 are exactly the same: combine them. Wizardman 17:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Doneski. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 18:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One more comment, actually, then I can finally support: Refs 3 and 4 are exactly the same: combine them. Wizardman 17:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just the players that have articles are linked.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- 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 00:08, 2 February 2013 [10].
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Sydney Barnes
Another cricket nomination to clog things up! This one is a bit further back in time than most of those coming through recently. Sydney Barnes is almost certainly the best "pace" bowler to have played Test cricket. He completed bamboozled Australian batsmen who otherwise dominated the English bowlers, and had he been a bit more courteous to the amateurs who ran the game, he would surely have played more Test cricket, and hold even more records. As it is, he took 24 five-wicket hauls in just 27 Test matches, and this list is long overdue. It's a while since I've nominated one of these lists, so there might be a few foibles, but as always, I invite all comments and advice. Harrias talk 18:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 22:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support Although the lead is very long, but well-written by Harrias. Zia Khan 22:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
—Vensatry (Ping me) 05:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Additional comments
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support as picky as I could be, all comments addressed with a modicum of actual enjoyment! This is what FLC should be about. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looked through it a couple of times and can see no glaring issues! Perhaps the mention of playing Minor Counties cricket could name the county he played for, but once again another fantastic list from Harrias! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"his average places him amongst the top-ten bowlers in Test cricket." "amongst" → "among"? There's also another similar usage later in the lead."After his recall to the England side, he played regularly until the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, as was named by the Wisden Cricketers' Almanack as one of their Cricketers of the Year in 1910." "as" → "and".Giants2008 (Talk) 00:19, 23 January 2013 (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 00:08, 2 February 2013 [11].
Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album
The Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album is an honor presented annually at the Latin Grammy Awards, a ceremony that recognizes excellence and promotes a wider awareness of cultural diversity and contributions of Latin recording artists in the United States and internationally. According to the category description guide for the 13th Latin Grammy Awards, the award is for vocal or instrumental merengue house, R&B, reggaeton, rap or and hip hop music albums containing at least 51% playing time of newly recorded material. The award was first presented as the Best Rap/Hip-Hop Album until it received its current name, Best Urban Music Album, at the 5th Latin Grammy Awards ceremony in 2004. — Statυs (talk, contribs), — ΛΧΣ21 21:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Erick (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from DivaKnockouts (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
— DivaKnockouts (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Great job! — DivaKnockouts (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
*Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose. Looks solid, table is nice too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, a solid work, but I think you could still add another image to ilustrate the winners. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Quick comment – All caps in reference 6 need fixing.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 29 January 2013 (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 00:08, 2 February 2013 [12].
List of international cricket centuries by Allan Border
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. This one closely follows format of similar lists. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by NapHit (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 15:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Good work with the list! Zia Khan 05:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments –
Second "the" in "He holds the record for the consecutive appearances as a player in Tests."I see a couple of "till"s in the prose. Not sure whether this is considered formal enough in Australian/British English; if not, there's always "until".No need to capitalize "Tie" in the one note."There have been only two occasions where a Test match ending in a tie." "ending" → "ended".Giants2008 (Talk) 23:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Tintin 18:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
For a cricket-aware reader it is misleading usage, because it came three months later in the same season.
This is also unconventional usage. Australia chased and won while the line gives the impression that he batted through the 50 overs
Redundant. See the previous line
He was the MoM
May not be a bad idea to add a note. The match did not have a MoM but Border was a 'player of the final' Tintin 17:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Looks good. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.