Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2013: Difference between revisions
add 6 |
Razr Nation (talk | contribs) Promoted 4 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Citra Award for Best Director/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Pink Martini/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Call the Midwife episodes/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of colleges and universities in Michigan/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Satyajit Ray filmography/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Satyajit Ray filmography/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Fiona Apple/archive2}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Fiona Apple/archive2}} |
Revision as of 18:43, 19 April 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 10:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Nominator(s): — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is a thorough look at one of the most important film awards in Indonesia. This layout is based on the featured list Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick look – Too many redlinks, can you reduce them? I'll have my comments when you sort out this one, ping me as you resolve this. Zia Khan 13:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See, this is why I just had black links for List of films of the Dutch East Indies; WP:REDLINK is a damned if you do, damned if you don't policy, since nobody can agree just how to apply it. I don't mind cutting the redlinks down to just the winners (in the morning, it's 2 am here), but technically under policy they are all notable and thus should all be linked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All red links are now black except for winners (directors with one win and several nominations are also red outside of that one win) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – on prose, but 'm still not convinced with the redlinks. Zia Khan 15:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support Looks quite good. I am pretty sure that soon there will only be blue links on that page :). Regards. --Tomcat (7) 09:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
—Bloom6132 (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:24, 18 April 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 10:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 22:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets criteria and closely resembles the similar list of songs recorded by Fiona Apple, which I recently co-promoted to FL status. I appreciate those who take time to review this list and I am happy to address concerns as they arise. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments Looks good to me, I just have a few comments:
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I'm only just getting back to you. Just a couple more comments from me:
|
- Support Just had a final look over, and there are no other issues that I can see (aside from "Martiniand" -> "Martini and"). Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice work and does what is needs to do. Nicely balanced lead covers the main points and the table works well. The only suggestion I would make is for you to consider using {{Tooltip|Ref.|Reference}} for the reference column, but that's entirely up to you (see List of works by H. C. McNeile for the result). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks! I was not familiar with the abbr/tooltip template. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I can't find any problem in this one. Good work! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great article; no issues! It's great to see song lists finally getting completion (for years, we've just had boring ugly ones that listed every song in bullet form.) Everytime I comment on one of these I always say the same thing, I need to finish mine. Zach 17:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Comment as I've come to expect, a very good list. I would only ask if you could crop the lead image to get rid of the distracting lower half of the crowd? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I am not familiar with uploading images taken by others, except if using the Flickr upload tool, so I replaced the image with a better one. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice choice! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 13 April 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 10:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably not the target demographic for this show, but I enjoy it nonetheless. Maybe it's just because I have quite a thing for Helen George ;-) Anyway, I am nominating this for featured list because after a couple of days of work I think it meets the criteria. I'm going to be going on Wikibreak on March 29th, so hopefully things can be resolved by then..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Some comments:
|
- Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bald Zebra (Talk) 15:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Always had you pegged as a Miranda Hart man myself :) Ah well, on with the show...
Cheers, ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 09:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - all comments resolved, can't see any other issues that would prevent this from being promoted to FL. Nice job! ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 15:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 02:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wanting to expand this one for a while and finally got around to it. This is my sixth colleges list, but there are inevitably things I usually overlook (hopefully nothing too major), so thanks in advance to FLC's sharp-eyed reviewers! Ruby 2010/2013 02:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bald Zebra (Talk) 12:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
A few comments to kick things off:
Cheers, ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 10:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - prose is good, everything that should be referenced is referenced, tables are clear and well-formatted with no accessibility problems that I can see. Nice job! ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 12:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
*Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine - Is this correct, or should it be Oakland University's William Beaumont School of Medicine
|
- Support on prose; sorry it took me so long to get back to you, this page somehow fell off my watchlist. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing and supporting! Ruby 2010/2013 05:29, 14 April 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 10:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]
- Nominator(s): - Vivvt • (Talk) 19:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Satyajit Ray is considered among greatest filmmakers of all time and I am planning to get this list to FL status on the centenary celebration of Indian cinema on 3rd May 2013. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe article satisfies FL criteria. It has gone thru a peer review with the comments from User:Tomcat7, User:Another Believer and User:Crisco 1492. - Vivvt • (Talk) 19:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per my comments at the PR. Image looks fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Tomcat (7) 11:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Appears to meet criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The references look a little odd, "general" and specific". I'd rather you use those general ones as citations and all in with the references and then the bibliography underneath.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed the references layout per your suggestion. - Vivvt • (Talk) 18:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent job.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed the references layout per your suggestion. - Vivvt • (Talk) 18:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- In the beginning, Satyajit Ray should be unbolded as this isn't the parent article
- Done
- The lead is not complete IMO. Apart from Pather Panchali, Apu Trilogy and Ashani Sanket I don't see other films being mentioned. The fact that three of his films submitted by India for Academy Awards (Best Foreign Language Film), the most by any director is not mentioned anywhere.
- Three films were just submitted and not even nominated. Again, academy award submission does not add any value to his portfolio. so I don't think it needs any mention here or anywhere else for him. - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah but still they are important from an Indian perspective. This has more significance than a film being named by a magazine such as TIME. When that fact is included this could well be accommodated. —Vensatry (Ping me) 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Three films were just submitted and not even nominated. Again, academy award submission does not add any value to his portfolio. so I don't think it needs any mention here or anywhere else for him. - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "His Apu Trilogy (1955–1959) appeared in Time's All-Time 100 Greatest Movies" -> His Apu Trilogy (1955–1959) appeared in Time's All-Time 100 Greatest Movies in 2005. A similar list was released just a few months ago. Also this fact should be come before the last para since the last one talks about awards won by himself.
- Done. Changed the flow. Also, can you guide to me to the link for recent listing? Content can be then changed accordingly. - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Recent listing I don't get what you actually mean —Vensatry (Ping me) 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You said "A similar list was released just a few months ago." I was considering that as a recent listing. Anyway, 2005 is added to the article for better clarity. - Vivvt • (Talk) 03:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a link —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. - Vivvt • (Talk) 14:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You said "A similar list was released just a few months ago." I was considering that as a recent listing. Anyway, 2005 is added to the article for better clarity. - Vivvt • (Talk) 03:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Changed the flow. Also, can you guide to me to the link for recent listing? Content can be then changed accordingly. - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Dadasaheb Phalke Award in 1984[23]"; Refs should come after punctuation
- I don't see it.
- References should come only after punctuation —Vensatry (Ping me) 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean the ref [23] should come at the end of the sentence like 1992.[23][24]? - Vivvt • (Talk) 03:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Mind you, last three FAs use that format. - Vivvt • (Talk) 14:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean the ref [23] should come at the end of the sentence like 1992.[23][24]? - Vivvt • (Talk) 03:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see it.
- The Atlantic Monthly -> The Atlantic or The Atlantic (Monthly)
- Done
- This being a magazine shouldn't it be in italics —Vensatry (Ping me) 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Missed that. My bad! Done now. - Vivvt • (Talk) 03:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- Ref #9 has no publisher
- Done
- publisher=''[[The Hindu]]'' is totally wrong. It should be either work=[[The Hindu]] or newspaper=[[The Hindu]]
- Done
- Ref #19 has no author
- Done
- Time is a magazine; using {{cite news}} for quoting a material from it seems inappropriate to me
—Vensatry (Ping me) 19:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
Resolved comments from indopug (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments by Indopug:
|
- Support all my concerns have been addressed.—indopug (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
My concerns were addressed in the peer review process. Again, I am not terribly familiar with filmography standards, nor am I familiar with the subject, but I see no major problems with this list in terms of style, formatting, spelling, etc. I am not sure the languages need to be linked each time, both because of repetition and because commons languages do not need to be linked. I would support the promotion of this list as long as concerns raised by all other reviews are addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support With all the concerns raised by other users have been resolved, I find no other imperfections in the list. The article meets all the criteria of a FL. Amartyabag TALK2ME 09:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great work! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:23, 11 April 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 10:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 23:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This list was previously promoted to FL status only to be demoted for failing to meet 3b. However, the list has since been expanded, and because I believe it still meets FL criteria I am happy to re-nominate. (Note: I currently have another list nominated for FL status, but since it has already received four support votes I believe my second nomination is acceptable.) I am happy to address any concerns that may arise during this nomination process. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How much weight should year-end lists be given? You'll notice that in the "Other recognitions" section, I have included some year-end list rankings for each of her albums. You'll also notice on the article for The Idler Wheel... that the album has actually been placed on many more year-end lists. Perhaps album-specific year-end rankings should be removed from this list of awards and nominations? This would leave other list rankings for select songs of Apple herself (Best Female Performer, etc.) Ideally, would these album-related rankings appear here or on the appropriate album articles? If removed, this would essentially leave the more generic list placements such as "Hottest Album Cover", Academy Award shortlist, etc.--Another Believer (Talk) 00:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed year-end "best of" list rankings for her albums. What remains are recognitions spanning longer time frames (best of the 2000s, etc.) and other list rankings associated with Apple herself. Pardon me for using this page for my own inner dialogue! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Ruby 2010/2013 20:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Firstly, well done with this list! Sorry it's taken me so long to look it over. You might think about asking some other editors to review it, as it's been sitting here for a while.
|
- Thanks, Ruby. I added some chart statistics to the lead, along with a genre (pop rock, according to Allmusic). Her albums have been placed on so many lists, that I think it would be almost arbitrary to select some listings but leave out others... and perhaps those details would be better off in the album articles themselves? Two paragraphs remain in the lead, but they are more evenly weighted, if that helps! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I support the promotion of this list. The content and prose are solid, and the citations are reliable and correctly formatted. Ruby 2010/2013 20:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments Support
Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All (talk)
|
---|
|
- Other than these small things, the article is well referenced and written. Great work! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Toa Nidhiki05 (talk)
|
---|
|
- Support because issues were fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 03:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from - Vivvt (Talk) 16:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments by Vivvt:
Thanks for taking time to review this list. Please let me know if you have other comments or remaining concerns. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support All of the above issues are fixed. All the best and Good Job! - Vivvt (Talk) 16:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Schrocat Billboard Music Video
California Music Awards
These are minor points only. The lead reads well and I get a good idea of what is to follow. The only other suggestion I would make is for you to consider using {{Tooltip|Ref.|Reference}} for the reference column (see List of works by H. C. McNeile for the result). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support. My very minor concerns all addressed. - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:18, 10 April 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 10:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Harrias talk 07:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since I've nominated a list related to the South Africa women's cricket team, so here we go! I have another nomination open Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of women's Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut/archive1, but it has two supports, and few remaining concerns. I hope that the community will trust in me to cope with the two nominations adequately. This list is based on similar lists from the football world, such as Sheffield United F.C. league record by opponent and Malmö FF league record by opponent. As always, all comments, thoughts and issues appreciated! Harrias talk 07:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – "Although the men's national team returned to international cricket in 1991, South Africa women did not compete again until 1997". "the" would be helpful before South Africa here. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I still see this in the lead. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I intended to reply, but forgot to. I don't think the suggestion would make grammatical sense, at least in (cricketing) British English. In internationals, the South African women's team is generally referred to simply as "South Africa women", in the same way as the men's team is generally referred to as "South Africa". If this jars too much grammatically as it is, I think it would need rewriting to something like "Although the men's national team returned to international cricket in 1991, the women's team did not compete again until 1997.." Which although slightly repetitive, should satisfy us both? Harrias talk 16:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That would satisfy me. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ideal. Done. Harrias talk 16:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That would satisfy me. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I intended to reply, but forgot to. I don't think the suggestion would make grammatical sense, at least in (cricketing) British English. In internationals, the South African women's team is generally referred to simply as "South Africa women", in the same way as the men's team is generally referred to as "South Africa". If this jars too much grammatically as it is, I think it would need rewriting to something like "Although the men's national team returned to international cricket in 1991, the women's team did not compete again until 1997.." Which although slightly repetitive, should satisfy us both? Harrias talk 16:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I still see this in the lead. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 00:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments–
Please take a look at Clarke's list if got some time. Zia Khan 04:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support – Meets the standards. Zia Khan 00:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support – Good work —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments picky as ever...
|
- 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 10:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [10].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) and Hurricanehink (talk · contribs)
I am nominating this for featured list because I think this list is very well-done. Twelve months and 25 days ago, my friend Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) wrote a comprehensive list on storms that affect a place when you think hurricane will not go, New Mexico. Shortly after its publication, the author told me on IRC that he was impressed with how much info he found (who IIRC thought about making this article as early as Fall 2011) and thus pressured me into making List of Nevada hurricanes. In April of last year, he offered me a collab of this fine list, which due to lack of interest I declined. Earlier this year, he made a similar proposal of such nomination, of which we nearly got to FLC. However, I got a bit busy in early February and the whole project died of until tonight when it occurred to me I never sent this list to FLC. So, here goes nothing, and yes Hurricanehink is co-noming and yes this is a WP:CUP nomination. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yerp. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 16:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Support as well.--Tomcat (7) 16:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
*Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose. Looks fairly solid, easy enough to follow. You might catch flack from not using a table, but I don't think that list = table. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Awesome, thanks! And it follows the format of other articles (like List of Texas hurricanes (1980–present)). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — all NCDC links are broken. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you think is the best way of sorting them. Replacing the url and switching the template? YE Pacific Hurricane 21:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find a replacement url for pre-2000. What should I do? Keep doing what I did for 1996 and 1998? YE Pacific Hurricane 16:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, that didn't work. You gotta replace it with the accompanying monthly report - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/sd/sd.html --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find a replacement url for pre-2000. What should I do? Keep doing what I did for 1996 and 1998? YE Pacific Hurricane 16:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you think is the best way of sorting them. Replacing the url and switching the template? YE Pacific Hurricane 21:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a good reason not to put the bullets into a sortable table with 3 columns (date, name, notes)? Nergaal (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it works best just as prose, considering how long the descriptions are for some storms. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What you could do, if you wanted a table, is do something similar to what I did for List of Arizona hurricanes#Storms. I would not encourage changing the existing list/prose into a table. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Quick comment – Minor point, but ref 6 should be showing up as pp. instead of p. since the citation is to multiple pages.Giants2008 (Talk) 14:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no issues found worth mentioning (some redirects that are benign). Consider archiving your online references via web.archive.org or webcitation.org, so that any future changes or removals of content at those websites do not affect your citations here. --PresN 18:40, 9 April 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 10:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [11].[reply]
- Nominator(s): —indopug (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly five years after my last FLC nom, I bring you a list that, just 30 hours ago, I found looking like this. Since it's a "current" list, sources were easy enough to find; it is in the vein of List of current Canadian first ministers.—indopug (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this article had a previous FLC. However, since I moved the article to a new name, the FLC doesn't should up on the talk-page's ArticleHistory template. Anybody know what's wrong and how to fix this?—indopug (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried doing something; what I have done may not be right thing to do (Was thinking that I was creating a subpage of the talk page). Would request an admin to review it and delete if needed.--GDibyendu (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This list by its very nature may become outdated at any time if one of those chief ministers resigns. It will require continues maintenance in the future, and I do not understand how its compliance with the FL criteria will continue to be maintained. Ruslik_Zero 16:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- if a CM resigns and a new one takes his place, the list will simply be updated. Since it will be a major news event, high-quality sources won't be difficult to find. At most it'll take a couple of days before it is done perfectly (ref formatting etc), but for the most part it should be a stable, non-controversial, easy-to-maintain list. Besides the Canadian featured list above is a precedent.—indopug (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Frankly I can not see any real issues. I fixed a dab link. What you may do is linking all the states in the image. "is the de jure head" – the article is probably redundant in such cases. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you!—indopug (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Note this nomination appears to have stalled. Suggest the nominator contacts relevant projects or editors who may be interested in reviewing this for FLC, or else we should archive the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport- "Given he has the confidence of the assembly, the chief minister's term is for five years; the office is subject to no term limits." I did not understand that "office is subject to no term limits" part. What does it mean? CM can change, but CM's office staffs cannot?
- Clarified.
- "At present, the office of Chief Minister of Jharkhand is vacant..." Instead of "at present, it should be "As of ..."
- Reworded slightly differently to prevent two dates in the sentence, "As of April 2013, . . . since January 2013".—indopug (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The list itself looks pretty good, and I am leaning to support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Diffs. Thanks for your comments and kind words.—indopug (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I... don't really have anything. Not sure why this nomination stalled out for so long. Consider archiving your online references using web.archive.org or webcitation.org, so that any changes or removal of content at those sites don't affect the citations in this article. --PresN 23:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you!—indopug (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
CommentPlease correct the colour coding of Sikkim Democratic Front, which is not matching with the Legend. All other seems perfect and match the criteria for a FLC. Amartyabag TALK2ME 08:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch! Fixed.—indopug (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On the FLC for National Film Award for Best Actress, images were asked to be removed as all entries did not have images. Won't that apply here as well? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see the merit in doing that, especially when we have so many of the CMs' images already (20 out of 30). Further, there's no reason that free images of the remaining ones won't turn up; they are highly visible public figures after all. For eg: I've been searching Flickr a lot lately, and have been moderately successful at getting photographers to release their works for free.
- FWIW, I think the article you linked didn't suffer for missing a few images and that they shouldn't have been removed during FLC.—indopug (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take my comments very casually. I was just pointing out the difference as i was under the wrong impression that completeness is something we require for FA/FLs. I understand that such points can be (intentionally/unintentionally) missed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Good job. Zia Khan 16:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you!—indopug (talk) 05:57, 11 April 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 10:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [12].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Astros4477 (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... it meets all the criteria and has already gone through a nomination.Astros4477 (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tallest and Longest wooden coasters sections are both missing record-holders for the 90's. Rmhermen (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are notes in the chart titles. Look here.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead says that the list shows the record holders - but apparently it only shows the still-standing record holders? What is the point of the list? The record holders - or the current standings? Rmhermen (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are notes in the chart titles. Look here.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well we can't put current per WP:RELTIME.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We could potentially put these cases in the tables and just have another colour similar to the way coasters under construction are handled. The rank column could then have *** or something. Themeparkgc Talk 23:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I really like that idea. I think the tables should just stay current, with notes about gaps in the years. If you include defunct roller coasters, the lists could get very long in some areas.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current format of the notes are small and easily missed (as evidenced by Rmhermen's comment). I propose having them listed more clearly similar to the layout found at the featured list, Grade I listed buildings in Bristol, and place them next to the name of the roller coaster where any gap in time begins or ends. In Tallest wooden roller coasters, for example, you could have note #2 next to Mean Streak and note #3 next to Colossos. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree they are small and easily missed but I don't know if that's the best place for them. I understand what you're saying but it doesn't seem right to have a note about The Rattler, connected to Mean Streak.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm not really following. The note is more about the record than anything else, and it does affect Mean Streak in the way that its record was taken away by The Rattler in March 1992. To me, it makes sense to place it there. However, if that spot really bothers you, it can alternatively be placed next to the date range in the "Record held" column in the same row. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried playing around with them but everywhere I put them, they don't look good. They might look better if we moved the image or created a gallery like Indopug suggested.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of quick comments
- I think listing "Park, city, state, country" under Location makes the tables far too wordy. I recommend listing the Park and the Country in separate columns. Further information about location can be obtained by going to the park article.—indopug (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be ok if we just had Park and Country in the same column?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommended splitting because readers might be interested in sorting by country. On that note, I think you should make the tables sortable, which is possible by deleting that ref column and moving the ref somewhere else (the "Tallest steel roller coasters" header? One of table headers like "Height"?)
- Would it be ok if we just had Park and Country in the same column?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If this isn't possible, what you suggested is fine.—indopug (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- After taking a long, hard look at the layout, I have to admit that splitting the location into two columns seems like a great idea. We can then move the ref to the table header as proposed and convert each list to a sortable one. Not only will this add clarity, but having the ability to sort by park or country would be very useful in my opinion.--GoneIn60 (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is possible to have both: a ref column and sortable tables. You just need to add !class="unsortable"|Ref(s) as the column header. I'd be fine with having location and country columns. If we leave the city and state information though, it will cause the tables to be quite wide forcing wrapping to occur (which I dislike; at the moment for me the first table contains wrapping and doesn't look as neat as the second which doesn't). Themeparkgc Talk 22:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So I'll remove the city and state and separate the park and country into two columns. I'll do it sometime this weekend.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If this isn't possible, what you suggested is fine.—indopug (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is having the bolded sentence in the middle of the lead acceptable by our Manual of Style? Does it allow self-referential wording like "This is a list..." I used to work on discographies, and it was prohibited there.—indopug (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "This is a list..." has been added and removed several times since I've worked on this article. Someone will come along and not like it then someone else says it should be there. We should probably decide and keep it that way.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the self-reference is fine. Per WP:SELF, "...while articles may refer to themselves, they should not refer to "Wikipedia" or to the Wikipedia project as a whole (e.g. "this website")". Also this featured list seems to reference itself more than once in the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "This is a list..." has been added and removed several times since I've worked on this article. Someone will come along and not like it then someone else says it should be there. We should probably decide and keep it that way.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But does it make for good prose? You could easily replace "This list of roller coaster rankings summarizes..." with "Roller coasters are ranked by height..." to avoid the self-ref and improve the language. Also, I feel the bold-text draws the eyes abruptly to the middle of the paragraph, instead of the beginning.—indopug (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Further
- There seems to be a lot of redundant code—what do scope="row" and scope="col" do?
- They are required in all Featured Lists per WP:ACCESS and MOS:DTT.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The no's under the Rank column should be centred, using align="center".
- I don't think so... They used to be centered but they were asked to be removed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think the Poll rankings section is appropriate for this article. The rest of it is based on objective stuff—heights, angles—but here we have subjective opinion polls. Further, the fact that you only list the latest ranking seems to be WP:RECENTISM.
- I don't think that applies because it's not changed on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If the tables continue to wrap even after removing state & city, I suggest moving the pics from the right and putting in galleries of four/five in the middle of page, in between successive tables.
Advice: if you are going to be moving lots of text around repetitively, I recommend using find-and-replace to get it done in a jiffy. For eg: this edit took me a couple of seconds as I did a replace-all for "Ref(s)" with "Ref".—indopug (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
CommentsThere is a lot of great information in this list. However, I went through table by table and found that the majority would not allow me to sort by column as suggested by the up/down arrows. Sometimes the reference numbers in the far left column would move.
- Tallest steel roller coasters – Does not work.
- Longest steel roller coaster drops – Does not work.
- Tallest wooden roller coasters – Does not work.
- Longest wooden roller coaster drops – Does not work.
- Fastest steel roller coasters – Does not work.
- Fastest wooden roller coasters – Does not work.
- Longest steel roller coasters – Does not work.
- Longest wooden roller coasters – Does not work.
- Steepest steel roller coasters – Works (but the Maximum vertical angle column is not sorting properly (probably requires a hidden key to sort).
Done --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Steepest wooden roller coasters – Works.
- Tallest roller coasters inversions – Works.
- Tallest vertical loops – Works.
- Most inversions on a steel roller coaster – Does not work.
- Most inversions on a wooden roller coaster – Works.
- Top 10 steel roller coasters of 2012 – Does not work.
- Top 10 wooden roller coasters of 2012 – Does not work.
- Best Steel Roller Coaster Poll 2010 – Does not work.
- Best Wooden Roller Coaster Poll 2012 - Does not work.
I haven't seen comments about most of the tables not sorting, so I wonder if it's something recent (or a problem with my browser)... Thanks - Godot13 (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is definitely something recent, as I know for a fact it was working fine in this revision. However, even in that revision I'm having trouble now, which is really strange to me. In testing, I can say that removing the rowspan setting in either the rank or reference columns resolves the issue. Apparently, since this issue started, you can't have more than one rowspan parameter nested in a sortable table (and actually, MOS:TABLES says you shouldn't use rowspan at all). --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well is there any solution? Could we take out the sortability?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only three options are to remove sorting (obviously), remove the rowspan parameter from all entries in the Rank column, or remove the rowspan parameter from all entries in the Ref column. Personally, I'd go the third option, but it doesn't really matter much to me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another possible option is using a Hidden Key --Godot13 (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably the main source for that issue is the fact that you use rowspan in the Ref columns. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll remove the rowspan in the refs column if everyone agrees that's the best option.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 04:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A side-by-side table format where the ref column is actually it's own table may be the ultimate workaround, but so far I haven't been able to get it to look right (though I know it's possible). For now, taking out rowspan in the Ref column gets my vote. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did it for the first table. Does that solve the problem? I don't want to do it to them all unless I know that's the solution.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have it fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorting issues appear resolved. --Godot13 (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So can you change it to support? :)-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A side-by-side table format where the ref column is actually it's own table may be the ultimate workaround, but so far I haven't been able to get it to look right (though I know it's possible). For now, taking out rowspan in the Ref column gets my vote. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll remove the rowspan in the refs column if everyone agrees that's the best option.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 04:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably the main source for that issue is the fact that you use rowspan in the Ref columns. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another possible option is using a Hidden Key --Godot13 (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only three options are to remove sorting (obviously), remove the rowspan parameter from all entries in the Rank column, or remove the rowspan parameter from all entries in the Ref column. Personally, I'd go the third option, but it doesn't really matter much to me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: First off, apologies for the long delay in revisiting. I'm glad that the list has improved since FLC. That said, I'm afraid I can't support because of the presence of the Poll rankings section. There are two reasons for my opposition to the section:
- 1. Why confuse an otherwise-objective article with a subjective section? (to provide an analogy—notice how a music-artist's discography and awards articles are separate; it's because their scopes are entirely different)
- Although I disagree because the list is about roller coaster rankings and those are rankings, I have removed it.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is mixing objective and subjective material discouraged? The acceptable format for media and technology, for example, uses a Reception section for subjective content in an otherwise objective article. Are lists treated differently? --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearly ever rollercoaster in this list has its own article; there, as you say, you would deal with the subject comprehensively—include both subjective objective info. On the other hand, a list of items has to have a defined scope (see WP:FL? 3a), and it's crucial that we don't confuse that scope.
- Besides having the opinion polls raises a number of questions: why only mention these particular polls? Were they conducted scientifically? Do the polls reflect a worldwide view or a US-only one? When the rest of the article is about "all-time" rankings (for eg, tallest-ever wooden rollercoaster), is it consistent for the opinion polls to be only from the latest year?—indopug (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. Why do only the latest year's ranking get mentioned? (why is one from 2010?)—indopug (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That particular poll was on a hiatus for two years. He conducted the poll again last month for the first time so the results should be out within a few weeks.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support All my concerns have been addressed.—indopug (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support My concerns have been addressed.--Godot13 (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments (sorry for the delay)
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment – Can this list be moved to ...records instead of rankings? Nergaal (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure can, probably a good idea too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have performed the move; I agree.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- I'd actually like to get more of a consensus before it is moved again.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since we are more likely to make references to the phrase "world record" as opposed to "world ranking" in the articles, I do not oppose the change. However, at the same time, it seems like a wash. Both terms seem to fit well. In addition, the current prose in the lead section already uses a form of ranking and should probably be modified if the page is moved. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally would like to see it stay as is because it's not about all the records. It kinda seems to be an unnecessary change.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note this nomination appears to have stalled. Suggest the nominator contacts relevant projects or editors who may be interested in reviewing this for FLC, or else we should archive the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How has it stalled? It's received reviews from 5 users.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs support, not just reviews. Otherwise it'll be archived as having no consensus to promote. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why didn't you or Giants give it a support? I resolved your comments so what else is there? I'd hate to nominate this a third time, especially when not one user has opposed it in both nominations.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 13:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because either of us may have to close the nomination and it's not great for conflicts of interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why didn't you or Giants give it a support? I resolved your comments so what else is there? I'd hate to nominate this a third time, especially when not one user has opposed it in both nominations.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 13:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs support, not just reviews. Otherwise it'll be archived as having no consensus to promote. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note – I'll be having a look at this FLC within the next day. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – other than a minor fix I made, everything looks good to go. Meets FLC criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your input Bloom6132, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 8 April 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 10:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC) [13].[reply]
- Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 18:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 18:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Link balls
Done
- That's it... seems the other nomination got much of it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose. Looks fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – per the previous nomination —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 00:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments—
|
- Support – Meets the standards. Zia Khan 00:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from - Vivvt • (Talk) 01:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments by Vivvt:
|
- Support All of the above issues are fixed. All the best and Good Job! - Vivvt • (Talk) 14:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- Wisden should be italicized in the first paragraph.
Done
- I would remove "national cricket team" from the last sentence of the lead, piping it to read only Bangladesh.
Done
- Ref 1 should probably have the ESPNcricinfo link instead of ref 3, as it is the first one that uses that site.
Done Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nice work. --Carioca (talk) 20:25, 5 April 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 10:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC) [14].[reply]
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it now meets the "minimum entries" unwritten rule (of ten) and complements all the other FLs within this existing featured topic. I'm nominating on behalf of User:Rambo's Revenge who is absent right now, in an attempt to stop the currently featured topic being demoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the lead variously makes reference to the six and seven winners to date - as you state, there have actually been ten........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh shucks. I suppose I should have read the list more thoroughly....!! Will look at shortly.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've dealt with that glaringly obvious issue, would you be kind enough to have a look at the rest of it now? Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Of the ten recipients to date, three were chosen for their contributions to football; the other recipients contributed towards boxing, swimming, and the Special Olympics could do with updating (only adds up to six), as could Three of the ten winners have been put forward from the BBC South region and two from the BBC East region. The other winners came from the BBC London, BBC West Midlands and BBC Wales regions" (only adds up to eight). Other than that I can't spot any issues...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tsk, must learn to read...! Thanks, fixed that. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first part's still not quite right........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, well as I said, reading isn't my specialist subject! Fixed, I hope, I didn't add "various" into the lead, but lead should cover it generally speaking!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first part's still not quite right........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tsk, must learn to read...! Thanks, fixed that. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Of the ten recipients to date, three were chosen for their contributions to football; the other recipients contributed towards boxing, swimming, and the Special Olympics could do with updating (only adds up to six), as could Three of the ten winners have been put forward from the BBC South region and two from the BBC East region. The other winners came from the BBC London, BBC West Midlands and BBC Wales regions" (only adds up to eight). Other than that I can't spot any issues...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The two other tables are redundant since the column sorting system does the job and there are no significant numbers that require more than a few seconds to be counted.--Tomcat (7) 11:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well they're consistent with all the other lists in the topic, and since they do no harm, I don't see the big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - can't see any issues now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Everything looks good to me. Miyagawa (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Athletics is a dab pagePerhaps find a way to explain that "Nat." means "Nationality"?- Otherwise that's it. I've copyedited. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed those, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose. No images to check. Looks peachy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Don't need two association football links in the lead.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Quite so, thanks, fixed now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 31 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 promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC) [15].[reply]
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), Zia Khan 21:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Australian cricketer played some memorable innings during 2011 and 2012, so Zia Khan created and worked on the list. He feels that the list is now ready to appear at FLC. Also, it'll be a great pleasure for him to work with The Rambling Man as a co-nominator. As always, look forward to your comments/suggestions. Zia Khan 21:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Commenting on lede alone
Which one references 15 grounds? What's the use of ref #14. You get to understand what am saying? —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
—Vensatry (Ping me) 11:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More comments (re-visit)
—Vensatry (Ping me) 02:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – No issues for me —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need to write ESPNcricinfo Staff in ref 20 since the field is only used when the author's name is specified. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. Zia Khan 20:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
*
|
- Support on prose and images. Looks fine, both images are free (FOP in Aus for the stadium) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything looks fine to me, but I have one tiny suggestion - consider replacing the 'current' dates in the first and second paragraphs with {{Today (dmy)}} and/or {{Monthyear}}; this should update the statements automatically, rather than having someone manually update them every so often. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 08:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good suggestion, but I look at it from the other point of view which is that the list will be accurate no matter what. If the template continually updates but the list isn't updated, the list will not be accurate. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I'm worried; I have no comments to make at all. Most disturbing. Good work! Harrias talk 13:41, 4 April 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 10:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC) [16].[reply]
- Nominator(s): —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another centuries list, this time about the former Indian captain. I remember watching Azhar as a senior person playing alongside Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid and Kumble—all of them seem to have overshadowed his achievements. If anyone comes across a free image of Azhar, it would be highly appreciated! Look forward to your constructive comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Howzat! Resolved comments from Bald Zebra (Talk) 14:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Here's a few comments to get the ball rolling. (see what I did there?)
[16]" (it also looks as though these two references should be swapped around - #15 is the list of fastest centuries and #16 is the match scorecard)
Cheers, ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 14:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Nice job. Just a couple more minor points:
Cheers, ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 12:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - all comments resolved, all criteria appear to have been met, this list is a good all-rounder! ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 14:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The first para should have a sentence about the life-ban imposed on him, and possibly the decision of the High Court to lift the ban. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that stuff really matter in these type of lists? —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A life-ban is a major thing in any cricketing career. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that stuff really matter in these type of lists? —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support– Meets the standards. Zia Khan 19:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole a good list, as I've come to expect.
- I agree with Zia Khan's comment about Bangladesh; a note would probably suit best, something like "Bangladesh, now a Test playing nation, did not begin playing Test cricket until seven months after Mohammad Azharuddin's final Test appearance."
- I think that given the ban was what finished Azharuddin's career, it is certainly worthy of mentioning in the first paragraph; without that ban, he might have gone on to score more centuries, after all. Indeed, I think the current use of "..until his retirement." is misleading; he did not retire, he was banned; unless the various articles have given me completely the wrong impression.
- "He scored a century in his last Test innings against South Africa in March 2000." Place "against South Africa" inside a pair of commas, otherwise the sentence gives the impression it was the last time he played Test cricket against South Africa, but that he could have played against other sides after that time.
- I think (I might have miscounted, but I did count twice) that he is joint twenty-fifth, not twenty-sixth.
- As Zia Khan alludes to above, although he mention his debut ODI century was two years after his debut, you don't specify in which year he made his debut.
- Just mentioned that his ODI debut was mentioned in the prior paragraph, sorry. Still might be best to making it a little clearer though! Harrias talk 13:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that Kolkata was officially named Calcutta until 2001, and his appearances all pre-date that, I think that Calcutta should be used in the list. Similarly for centuries made in Chennai/Madras prior to 1996. Not so sure about Bombay/Mumbai, which I think is a less clear-cut case.
- Test century #7, at Faisalabad, should presumably be listed as "Away". Harrias talk 13:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- BCCI should be spelled out in the lead. Non-cricket fans like myself aren't going to know what this stands for at first glance.
- "In a career that spanned for 15 years". Remove "for"?
- "during the England's 1984–85 tour of India." Remove "the".
- Period needed at the end of note 4. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All done —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:01, 7 April 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 10:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC) [17].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly over the past few months and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsCouple of questions. First, does fn 'a' really serve a purpose? It has cites, but nothing to do with the 18 strikeout line it's alluding to. Second, could you link to extra innings at some point in the extra innings section? Also, a more general note, but both fn 'a' and the explanation of why the extra innings list is separate feel slightly conversational. So happy to see this, I assume (given the 'in one game' title that you used List of Major League Baseball hitters with four home runs in one game at least in part as a model? Staxringold talkcontribs 14:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fn is meant to explain why 18 Ks was chosen as the number. I previously got comments on the article's talk page and my own talk page as to why the cutoff point is 18, as opposed to 17 or 19. It's basically to help people who aren't familiar with baseball to understand how 18 Ks equals ~2⁄3 of a game. Second point—linked extra innings in section. And your four HRs list wasn't only the model; it's the clear inspiration for this list and my recently promoted 2 grand slams FL as well. Someone had to start somewhere and get the ball rolling, so thank you for that! —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Last thing, the Bob Feller picture's alt text could use some work. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I tell a lie, another bit. Could you provide a text footnote for Randy Johnson's extra inning game? For an inexperienced reader it might be odd to see "9 IP" for a game listed under the extra-innings section. Just something brief like "Although the game went into extra innings, Johnson was relieved by another pitcher after just nine innings." Staxringold talkcontribs 14:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose and images. Looks pretty good! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I'm a bit concerned about the scope of this list, as I don't see any evidence provided that analysts consider the 18-strikeout mark to be significant. Why is this that much better than recording 16 or 17 strikeouts in a game? If we're doing it strictly on the basis of math, I wonder whether that is a strong enough reason. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 18 has been the benchmark since Feller reached the mark in 1938, setting an MLB record for the live-ball era. It stayed that way for 21 seasons before Koufax could tie it and 31 seasons before Carlton broke it [18]. I'm hypothesizing that's why there's all this lore behind 18. 18 is also mentioned in The Economist, though I didn't include this as a source since it's a "blog" (albeit from a reliable news source). —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm very concerned that this "18 strikeouts" is an artificial record. We do need independent sources that suggest this benchmark is more significant than, say, 20 strikeouts. The notes relating to the selection of 18 strikeouts simply point to rules of baseball, nothing to substantiate that anyone other the blogger and the nominator really considers 18 to be of any particularly significant note. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Found an ESPN source that uses 18 Ks as the benchmark (i.e. "Is 14 strikeouts in a playoff game against a great offensive team more dominating than 18 strikeouts against a crappy team in May"). Good enough? —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. That's a writer's personal opinion mixed in with lots of other personal opinion. I'm looking for something where multiple reliable sources have remarked that 18 strikeouts is a benchmark, definitively, rather than just the opinion of one journalist (who uses language like "crappy team"!)... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no non-paywall source that specifically mentions 18 Ks as a benchmark. History.com notes that 18 was the previous record ("Koufax’s total of 18 strikeouts in the game broke Dizzy Dean’s 26-year-old National League record, and tied the major league record held by Cleveland Indian ace Bob Feller."). I think that's the reason why 18 has been the unwritten and unofficial "benchmark". This paywall source indirectly mentions 18 Ks, in that Sheets was "just the 20th time in major league history a pitcher has fanned 18 or more in a nine-inning game" and that "[t]o throw just 116 pitches with 18 strikeouts is almost unheard of." —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I'm sorry to be a pain in the ass/butt/arse but I still can't really see a series of reliable sources noting this as a genuinely widely accepted benchmark. Does Baseball Almanack or similar list it? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need to be sorry. It's actually good that FLC has reviewers like you that scrutinize candidates extensively and carefully before passing them. That way, the FL standards are always held very high. And no, neither Baseball Almanac or Baseball Reference have a list. Only MLB.com and USA Today provide a list of 18 K pitchers, but they don't explain why it's significant. They simply present the list as if it were the widely accepted benchmark. Furthermore, precedent has been set where a simple list is enough to establish the benchmark. I actually attempted to AFD the List of Major League Baseball runs scored champions for exactly the same reason—that there weren't any sources specifically referring to the subject title. That was flatly rejected. So, as long as there are several sources (e.g. tables) covering the stats and there are no counter-examples available (i.e. a 16, 17 or 19 K table), then it is not an artificial record. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, well thank you for taking the time and effort to explain this, I very much appreciate it and understand that it's annoying when you've made such a decent effort at a FLC. I'm happy that this should run its normal course at FLC, but, if you don't mind, I'll leave my comments open for others to see just in case they have the same thoughts and thought processes we've had. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need to be sorry. It's actually good that FLC has reviewers like you that scrutinize candidates extensively and carefully before passing them. That way, the FL standards are always held very high. And no, neither Baseball Almanac or Baseball Reference have a list. Only MLB.com and USA Today provide a list of 18 K pitchers, but they don't explain why it's significant. They simply present the list as if it were the widely accepted benchmark. Furthermore, precedent has been set where a simple list is enough to establish the benchmark. I actually attempted to AFD the List of Major League Baseball runs scored champions for exactly the same reason—that there weren't any sources specifically referring to the subject title. That was flatly rejected. So, as long as there are several sources (e.g. tables) covering the stats and there are no counter-examples available (i.e. a 16, 17 or 19 K table), then it is not an artificial record. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I'm sorry to be a pain in the ass/butt/arse but I still can't really see a series of reliable sources noting this as a genuinely widely accepted benchmark. Does Baseball Almanack or similar list it? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no non-paywall source that specifically mentions 18 Ks as a benchmark. History.com notes that 18 was the previous record ("Koufax’s total of 18 strikeouts in the game broke Dizzy Dean’s 26-year-old National League record, and tied the major league record held by Cleveland Indian ace Bob Feller."). I think that's the reason why 18 has been the unwritten and unofficial "benchmark". This paywall source indirectly mentions 18 Ks, in that Sheets was "just the 20th time in major league history a pitcher has fanned 18 or more in a nine-inning game" and that "[t]o throw just 116 pitches with 18 strikeouts is almost unheard of." —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. That's a writer's personal opinion mixed in with lots of other personal opinion. I'm looking for something where multiple reliable sources have remarked that 18 strikeouts is a benchmark, definitively, rather than just the opinion of one journalist (who uses language like "crappy team"!)... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Everything looks good!-- Astros4477 (Talk) 15:17, 6 April 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 10:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC) [19].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Holiday56 (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because having worked on the discography and redeveloped it extensively, I feel that it may be promoted to featured list status. Holiday56 (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Note: Holiday, have you considered asking anyone for a review? I am sure that Calvin999, Till, Status, Michael Jester, Magiciandude, Tomica or Tomcat7 would be willing to help out here. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 05:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Sufur222
Not much to do:
That's about all that needs doing, as far as I can see. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Looks all fine to me. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No real issues that I can see. Toa Nidhiki05 02:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment – Reference 40 needs a publisher listed.Giants2008 (Talk) 23:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Done. Holiday56 (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It meets the criteria. Good job. — ΛΧΣ21 20:00, 24 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.
- ^ these things