Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 2013: Difference between revisions
add one |
Razr Nation (talk | contribs) +1 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2012 in spaceflight/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Gnarls Barkley discography/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Gnarls Barkley discography/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Maya Angelou/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Maya Angelou/archive1}} |
Revision as of 00:09, 15 March 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 not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Nominator(s): — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I have recently finished a major cleanup and sourcing effort, adding reliable references for every orbital and suborbital launch in 2012. As far as I can tell, the list is complete – no major launches are missing – and it meets the FL criteria. As well as listing all of 2012's launches, it includes useful and properly-sourced information on EVAs and deep-space exploration. — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 14:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*General comments
|
I am not sure about the accessibility of the first table, mainly because of the "sections" within table (eg January, February). I think they are used as column headers, which are disregarded. The table is complicated and I must confess I am not an expert in accessibility. I will ping User:RexxS. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- The months, January, February, ... are not marked up as headers and won't cause any problems for screen readers in this case, although the nature of the organisation of the table (where the 11 pieces of data for each launch are wrapped onto 3 lines) rather precludes making the table navigable by a screen reader, other than by left-to-right, one row at a time. I'd prefer to consider the table as a layout table that is designed merely to present the information in a convenient form for a sighted reader. We are probably aiming too high if we try to fit 11 pieces of data into each row - as we would need to make a more accessible table:
Date and time (UTC) | Rocket | Launch site | LSP | Payload | Operator | Orbit | Function | Decay (UTC) | Outcome | Remarks |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9 January 03:17:09 | Long March 4B | Taiyuan LA-9 | SAST | Ziyuan 3 | MLR | Low Earth | Earth imaging | In orbit | Operational | – |
9 January 03:17:09 | Long March 4B | Taiyuan LA-9 | SAST | VesselSat-2 | Luxspace | Low Earth | Earth imaging | In orbit | Operational | – |
- As you can see, one launch would require being 'unpicked' into a row for each payload - and even that won't allow us to create useful row headers because of the duplication of key information. So, in brief, we could improve accessibility of these tables, but it would be a small gain for a large effort - particularly as the templates seem to be used in about 70 pages and we'd need to check each of them if changes were made. My recommendation is to accept that it's not perfect, but probably about the best we can manage under the circumstances. I wouldn't oppose this list on the grounds of accessibility of that table. --RexxS (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am actually impressed by this list. It still needs an expansion of the intro, and perhaps a bit more detail under the Europe entry in the top summary table. Nergaal (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, high quality, incredibly well sourced, meticulous in citations. Also, SCIENCE! — Cirt (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 11:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Quick comment still see reference issues, eg some questionable sources (FlightGlobal, etc), [2] does not show the content. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support nitpicks were resolved. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question - did the accessibility of the table get resolved? I find it hard to work out as a sighted reader, so I'm not sure how this comes across to a screen-reader user. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick answer - it's usable, if not optimal. --RexxS (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- RexxS, as always, thank you so much for spending so much time helping us to decipher our way through some the accessibility hurdles. I can honestly say that, as a visually able reader, I find the current table to be too complex. I hope we can simplify it for everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose really sorry but I find the table virtually impossible to navigate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain why that is the case? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The rows don't seem to follow the key, either in content or colour, there seem to be multiple rows while the key indicates singles rows, it's very hard to know what's what. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with TRM. I am not happy with Level 3 headers inside a big table that only have row headers at the beginning. Are we supposed to scroll back to the beginning each time we want to know which thing is which? My recommendation is to break the table into 12 tables, each for each month, with their correspondent row headers to identify the content. In my opinion, as it is, it doesn't meet accessibility. — ΛΧΣ21 17:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The dates are already noted in the Date and time cells, so there should no problems. --Tomcat (7) 18:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say that my oppose is still here, stronger than ever, the list is far too difficult for me to interpret. It seems my esteemed colleagues think otherwise but I cannot support this list in its current format, it's far too confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your concern, but I'm afraid that I'm limited to improving the list's sources and content - I don't really know my way around these complex wikimarkup templates. If a more skilled editor could do some work on the table's layout, that would be a great help. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say that my oppose is still here, stronger than ever, the list is far too difficult for me to interpret. It seems my esteemed colleagues think otherwise but I cannot support this list in its current format, it's far too confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The dates are already noted in the Date and time cells, so there should no problems. --Tomcat (7) 18:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with TRM. I am not happy with Level 3 headers inside a big table that only have row headers at the beginning. Are we supposed to scroll back to the beginning each time we want to know which thing is which? My recommendation is to break the table into 12 tables, each for each month, with their correspondent row headers to identify the content. In my opinion, as it is, it doesn't meet accessibility. — ΛΧΣ21 17:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The rows don't seem to follow the key, either in content or colour, there seem to be multiple rows while the key indicates singles rows, it's very hard to know what's what. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What is the FL policy on redlinks? To me it looks messy and I'd prefer them simply removed rather than red. This is the only thing holding me back from a full support !vote just now. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 09:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Red links are allowed. — ΛΧΣ21 17:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To the best of my knowledge, FL doesn't have any policy that differs from the guidance at Wikipedia:Red link where the summary is "Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it." If there are any redlinks to topics that have no prospect of being created as articles, I'd encourage you to remove them; otherwise they remain a good source of inspiration for editors looking for new articles to create. --RexxS (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Hahc21 and RexxS for clearing that up. In that case I move to Support - Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 11:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick note: I've been checking some of the red links, so far at least two actually have articles under slightly different names. I've only really checked down to March so far and will continue to do so later if I get a chance. I would suggest the nom maybe go through and check that all red links are, in fact, red because an article doesn't exist and not just point at the wrong target. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 11:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm delighted that you've done that checking, Cabe, and I'm sure Michaelmas1957 will want to take on board your suggestion. This is yet another example of how the FLC process gets multiple editors involved in collaborating for the benefit of the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for bringing that to my attention - I'll do some redlink cleanup now. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done – I've resolved redlinks that already have related articles. Most of the remaining redlinks would need a specific new article created for them (which, as RexxS noted, is why redlinks are allowed). – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for bringing that to my attention - I'll do some redlink cleanup now. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm delighted that you've done that checking, Cabe, and I'm sure Michaelmas1957 will want to take on board your suggestion. This is yet another example of how the FLC process gets multiple editors involved in collaborating for the benefit of the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick note: I've been checking some of the red links, so far at least two actually have articles under slightly different names. I've only really checked down to March so far and will continue to do so later if I get a chance. I would suggest the nom maybe go through and check that all red links are, in fact, red because an article doesn't exist and not just point at the wrong target. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 11:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Hahc21 and RexxS for clearing that up. In that case I move to Support - Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 11:48, 8 March 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]
- Nominator(s): I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 10:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe, after significant revisions of prose and the tables, that it meets the criteria. As always, any comments are appreciated if they help me to improve the page. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 10:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Literally a third of the lead is about one song. (just sayin')
- Trimmed it a little, but I don't think this is that unreasonable – the digital downloads in the UK fact is a rather notable chart feat, so I feel that should stay as well. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Similarly, the "Crazy" row looks comically large compared to the rest of the Singles table. I suggest removing the Gold certs; the song article can cover it.—indopug (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point, but we can't just remove valid certifications for the reason of a song being massively more successful than the others in the table. This seems somewhat unnecessary, and I've never seen it done at any similar discography. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support, as my comments have been addressed. Holiday56 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Ruslik_Zero 16:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Three further singles – "Smiley Faces", which reached the top ten of the UK and Irish singles charts,[8][9] "Who Cares?" and a cover of the Violent Femmes song "Gone Daddy Gone" were released from St. Elsewhere, although none of them appeared on the Billboard Hot 100.[10]
Add another hyphen after "Gone Daddy Gone".- Everything else seems good to me. Good job! Toa Nidhiki05 02:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS explicitly states that positions on the Bubbling Under chart should not be shown as a Hot 100 position of x+100..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Editorial opinion is widely divided on this topic, and it has been allowed in multiple FLCs before, but if you're still determined that I should do this to make it a FL then I'll make the change. Personally, I'm fine with this listing as long as a note is added explaining that it is not a direct extension, as Billboard themselves and Joel Whitburn's books have used this method. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very concerned about the 3b issue here. Oddly, the main article on Gnarls Barkley actually goes into more detail about the releases than the discography article, and I don't think that can be right. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I acknowledge that it's not as long as other discographies, I don't think it's quite short enough to violate 3b - it has a similar number of releases and similarly detailed lead to Gotye discography, which you recently supported (sorry if that probably violates WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). As some of their releases are not very notable, it isn't really content forking to list them here, Also, the prose in the Gnarls Barkley article isn't that great: lots of it is unreferenced, and mostly concerns "Crazy", and the most significant aspects of its chart performance have already been mentioned in the lead. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but all I'm saying is that you could easily merge the tables back to the main article right now. To answer you query about the Gotye discog, it was 26KB in length and the main article is 34KB. This discog is 22KB in length and the main article is 13KB, in total about half the size of the Gotye effort. So, combining the leads and removing repetition for the Gnarls Barkely stuff, you'd end up with a reasonable length article. I don't think it's a good idea to fork out a discog which is twice the size of the main article but still repeats a lot of the content of the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article on the bandleader Cee Lo has 19kb prose text. And since Green is the main force behind the band, his article should not be fully ignored. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As this is clearly a significant issue that will require great effort on someone's (probably me) part to expand the Gnarls Barkley and Cee Lo Green pages, I would (with great sadness - sigh) like to withdraw this nomination. I am currently unaware of how to do this, so any assistance would be well appreciated. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 20:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article on the bandleader Cee Lo has 19kb prose text. And since Green is the main force behind the band, his article should not be fully ignored. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but all I'm saying is that you could easily merge the tables back to the main article right now. To answer you query about the Gotye discog, it was 26KB in length and the main article is 34KB. This discog is 22KB in length and the main article is 13KB, in total about half the size of the Gotye effort. So, combining the leads and removing repetition for the Gnarls Barkely stuff, you'd end up with a reasonable length article. I don't think it's a good idea to fork out a discog which is twice the size of the main article but still repeats a lot of the content of the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I acknowledge that it's not as long as other discographies, I don't think it's quite short enough to violate 3b - it has a similar number of releases and similarly detailed lead to Gotye discography, which you recently supported (sorry if that probably violates WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). As some of their releases are not very notable, it isn't really content forking to list them here, Also, the prose in the Gnarls Barkley article isn't that great: lots of it is unreferenced, and mostly concerns "Crazy", and the most significant aspects of its chart performance have already been mentioned in the lead. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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 not promoted by Hahc21 10:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it's one of the last steps in the long process of the establishment of a Maya Angelou featured topic. It's very ready to be declared a FL. The sources are strictly accurate. Please enjoy. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Weak oppose based on a quick run-through....
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment what would you like to do Christine? If you're going to overhaul it, I'd suggest a withdrawal. If you're going for GA, then obviously this nomination is no longer relevant. Let me know what you think. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have started to overhaul it, see here [6]. It's my intention to continue, and to perhaps finish in a few days. All it's required is reformatting the information in a list and writing up a short blurb about each honor. The sticking point I can see here is the honorary degrees. It's never going to be a definite list, not without some primary research. If the reviewers think that's in the way of this being a FL, then I'll withdraw, work on the formatting, and submit it to GAC. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, well let's give it a few days and see where we go from there. No stress. Oh, and we have {{incomplete list}} for a reason! No problem with that being used.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude thanks! Appreciate it. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: so I've finally completed formatting/expanding the table. Please tell me if the formatting's off or can be improved. For those who have a better grasp at tables than I have, could you please tell me what we can do about the image of MA with Pres. Obama, and how we can increase the size of the table? Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude thanks! Appreciate it. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, well let's give it a few days and see where we go from there. No stress. Oh, and we have {{incomplete list}} for a reason! No problem with that being used.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would convert the table into a wikitable. Some notes are not referenced as far as I can see.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikitable done. The references in the far-right column ("References") correspond to everything in its row. If I have to cite every cell, I'll just remove that column. That seems like over-citing to me, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as references for the claims in the second columns likely exist, I see no reason to view the content as original research. I think everything is in order. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "African American" normally hyphenated or en-dash, can't recall which.
- Hyphenated when modifying a noun or verb, as in "African-American writers". I re-checked, and the only error was the lead, which I fixed. Thanks for the catch.
- "Maya Angelou, reciting..." no need to repeat her first name.
- Got it.
- "the longest-running record (two years) on" sorry, was it a record or a book?
- A book; I changed the phrasing so that it's clearer.
- When I sort by year, the first sort shouldn't make any difference as the table should be originally in chronological order, but things move....
- No need for the References column to be sortable.
- Similarly, since the Notes column is free text, no need for it to be sortable.
- Fixed.
- Be consistent with your use of periods at the end of the notes.
- Pretty sure I got 'em all.
- Avoid using acronyms when you haven't explained them (e.g. NAACP).
- "1975.[49]" no need for those periods, any of them, in that section.
- Finished addressing all the above.
- Worth checking the refs still work....
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All done; thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:38, 3 March 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 not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Sycamore (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I took it to GAN and the editor who closed the Good Article nomination believed that it was more of a list and would be suited for FLC. A peer review was just recently closed after I had addressed all comments by the reviewer. While this article uses two primary sources, these are only to establish the exact wording of the description of the award and the complete list of recipients; other important information is sourced by third-party secondary sources. I believe that this list is now ready for FLC. Sycamore (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, are you able to make a table for the recipients, the years they recieved it etc etc? Otherwise, nice dataCoal town guy (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly could. I currently have it as a three-column list because I thought at first that it was more attractive to have a shorter list than a long table, but if other commenters feel like a table would be better, it would be a simple change. Sycamore (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. With table or without it is a nice list. However, it can benefit from being decorated by a couple of photos of its recipients. Ruslik_Zero 16:46, 19 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 not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]
- Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When this page was nominated in 2009, it was quick failed, and it's clear to see why. Now, even though there are only eight "items" for this list, I believe that the additional sources discussing the topic and the quality of the page merits featured list status, once I address any concerns. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The opinion I expressed in the previous FLC still stands, and I do not believe 3b is met. I see no reason why this page cannot be merged into African Americans in the United States Congress, especially when looking at the similar and replaceable table at African Americans in the United States Congress#United States Senate. While the prose in that article needs working on, it is still somewhat redundant with this article's lead as well. Reywas92Talk 19:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the argument that it doesn't meet 3b. I disagree, however. There are sources that discuss the fact that only 8 African Americans have been seated in the US Senate, enough so that I believe this meets 3b. I think the Senate and House are different issues, as pointed out by the gerrymandering of House districts to make majority minority districts. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose under 3b, the majority of this is covered elsewhere, as noted above. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 28 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 not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]
- Nominator(s): ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 12:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list status because I've been working on this for a few years (on and off) and taken it through a couple of peer reviews, and I feel it is now ready for a full review. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 12:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the list is very nice, but I am opposed to the inclusion of the 'Other active teams'. First, I don't think youth teams in general are notable enough to be listed. [10] lists five teams in passing, but I see no reason why they deserve to be mentioned here. [11] mentions the first game for a local club, but I see no evidence that the team still exists. I am astonished that the Sheffield Vipers are included, as they are souced just to a Facebook page. This news article also mentions the creation of a team, without proof it is still active or why it's notable. Think about football/soccer teams in the UK, or American football teams (and even soccer) in America: there are way, way too many at all levels without notability to list every one. Although there are few UK Am. football teams altogether, that does not lower the bar for notability for inclusion. The rest of the list looks terrific and I support its nomination. Reywas92Talk 16:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean restricting the list to teams that are actually affiliated with a league? I certainly don't have an issue with that - consider that section gone. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 19:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the list and, as you suggested, there were a few stray hyphens lurking about. I believe I've dealt with all of them so the list should now comply with WP:DASH. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 16:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
I've decided to remove the Touchdown UK references until I can get hold of those page numbers - thankfully, all the statement which used this book are also backed up by other references. I can re-add them as soon as I can get hold of another copy. I believe this addresses all of the comments now. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 09:37, 19 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.