Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2013: Difference between revisions
Giants2008 (talk | contribs) Promote 3 |
Razr Nation (talk | contribs) Promoted 5 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2013 Women's Cricket World Cup squads/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by B. S. Chandrasekhar/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/India national cricket team record by opponent/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Atonement (film)/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dannii Minogue discography/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Leuchtenberg Gallery/archive2}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Leuchtenberg Gallery/archive2}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Latin Grammy Award for Best Salsa Album/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Latin Grammy Award for Best Salsa Album/archive1}} |
Revision as of 02:42, 15 May 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, 15 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Harrias talk 09:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This list is more closely based on the 2010 and 2011 IIHF World Championship rosters than on the 2007 Cricket World Cup squads or 2006 ICC Champions Trophy squads as I feel that the hockey lists are more informative and certainly adhere more closely to the modern FL requirements. As usual, all comments and suggestions are welcome! Harrias talk 09:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. There are a bunch of redlinks that would be nice if they were turned to bluelinks at least as stubs with a few sourced references each, but other than that, I'm liking the tabulation and legend as well. — Cirt (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Comment Not usually a commenter on candidates, but just pointing out that this page is currently an orphan with no content pages linking to it. I'm not 100% but it would seem to me that this isn't a good thing. --Lightlowemon (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out; it should now be remedied. Harrias talk 12:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support What a great effort. Well done! (Or should I say: Howzat!) Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:51, 2 May 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, 15 May 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]
- Nominator(s): —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This will probably be the only list among the spin quartet that could find a place in the FL category (keeping the min. criteria in mind). Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article on the player, B. S. Chandrasekhar is of a poor quality and tagged at the top as needing additional citations for improvement. It looks like that'd be easy for a minor quality improvement side project to accompany this one. — Cirt (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree will try to improve the main article too —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 13:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
'Comments—
|
- Support – Meets the standard! Zia Khan 13:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – "Chandrasekhar's bowling figures of six wickets for 38 runs in 1971 was instrumental in setting up India's first victory in England." "was" → "were"?Giants2008 (Talk) 22:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chamal T•C 12:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
I've been meaning to look at this for a while but couldn't find the time. Sorry about that.
Chamal's sock SockMaster•C 05:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chamal T•C 13:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Chamal T•C 06:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 9 May 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, 15 May 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]
- Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think that it meets the criteria. It is based on South Africa national women's cricket team record by opponent. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from - Vivvt (Talk) |
---|
Comments by Vivvt
|
- Support All my comments have been resolved. Good job and All the best! - Vivvt (Talk) 11:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 00:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments—
|
- Support – Much improved since my last visit! Zia Khan 00:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Additional comments
|
- Support —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 9 May 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 10:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]
- Nominator(s): JuneGloom Talk 01:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here we have a list of accolades recieved by the 2007 film Atonement. I started working on this list back in August 2011 and I'm confident I've managed to find and source all the awards and nominations the film received. I'm also confident that this list passes 3b, since there are 130 nominations and the main article is currently over 32k in size (with User:Ruby2010 planning to expand it further in the future). The only thing I'm not so confident about is the flow of prose in the lead. I look forward to your reviews/comments. - JuneGloom Talk 01:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments Looks very good to me, I just have a couple of comments:
- Is the disambiguator in the title entirely necessary? Similar lists (e.g. for Avatar, Precious, Ratatouille and Up) omit having "(film)" in the title.
- "Best Depiction Of Nudity" -> "Best Depiction of Nudity"
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I added the disambiguator after noticing that the book has a few awards of it own and believing that someone might come along and create a separate list for them. Although I suppose that might have happened by now. I have no problem omitting the disambiguator from the title, but might need to wait until the nomination has closed. I don't want to mess anything up by moving the article to a new name. - JuneGloom Talk 03:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The disambiguator is used only if there is a reason to disambiguate. As long as List of accolades received by Atonement (novel) doesn't exist (and considering they are very few to split the page), the page should be moved to List of accolades received by Atonement, per WP:PRECISION. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem moving the page. I just wanted to know if it was going to mess anything up and whether I should wait until the FLC process was over. - JuneGloom Talk 00:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The disambiguator is used only if there is a reason to disambiguate. As long as List of accolades received by Atonement (novel) doesn't exist (and considering they are very few to split the page), the page should be moved to List of accolades received by Atonement, per WP:PRECISION. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments:
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support: Looks good and it is well referenced. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! - JuneGloom Talk 23:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only one issue I've spotted: File:JOE WRIGHT 07.jpg is focused mainly on the ad and as such is a non-free derivative work. Any other images available? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the image. - JuneGloom Talk 21:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose and images. Looks good! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! - JuneGloom Talk 23:04, 5 May 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 10:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this discography for featured list because I believe it qualifies. Furthermore, I have recently completely updated and improved the article by adding reliable references, a new lead and tables. Thanks! - Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose
|
Resolved comments from Idiotchalk (t@lk) 22:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Support
- Looks good, seems to meet the criteria, glad to support! Idiotchalk (t@lk) 22:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:15, 26 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) 18:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I have the following concerns:
- Prose/MoS:
- and five video albums > and five [[Home video|video albums]] While there add in tally and link for music videos.
- Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- number one UK dance hit > number-one UK dance hit
- Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify: "the release of "Who Do You Love Now?",". This seems to imply a solo hit by Minogue, there's no indication here that its by Riva or that it also peaked at number one on the same chart.
- Done. Added a note. — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Verify by reliable source(s):
- "achieved thirteen consecutive number one dance singles, becoming the best performing artist" The closest the source, which is pretty weak for this claim, gets is "confirming Dannii's title as 'Queen of the Clubs', having reached pole position 13 times since 1997 - a feat no other female artist even comes close to". Nothing about consecutive, leaves possibility of a male artist or a band achieving more 'pole positions'. Furthermore, the Singles table in the FLC contradicts the claim: there are only 12 number-ones by Minogue, a 13th number-one is by Riva featuring Minogue; and the 12 are interrupted by two non-number-one singles, so they are not consecutive.
- Done. I removed the word "consecutive" and added a note that one was with Riva. — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fix number one > number-one. Hint: for adjective e.g. number-one hit, for noun e.g. peaked at number one (the latter also has a hard space).
- "her first number one UK dance hit", "As of March 2013, she has sold over seven million albums worldwide". The profiletalent.com.au article is written by Melissa LeGear (not acknowledged), who is Minogue's talent manager and consequently not reliable for these facts.
- I have removed the album sales claim because I cannot find another source. — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Add |+ List of studio albums, with selected chart positions and certifications to second line of relevant wikitables, but adjust 'studio albums' to suit.
- Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Adjust Hung ref:cite web|url=http://australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Dannii+Minogue|title=Discography Dannii Minogue|publisher=australian-charts.com. Hung Medien|accessdate=19 March 2013 > cite web|url=http://australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Dannii+Minogue|title=Discography Dannii Minogue|publisher=Australian Charts Portal. Hung Medien (Steffen Hung)|last=Hung|first=Steffen|accessdate=19 March 2013 Adjust similar refs in this style.
- Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For ref[6]. Add authorlink to David Kent (historian) While there check usage: only up to 1992; e.g. Girl (1997) at No. 69, not verifiable by either source. You'll need his later book at ref[30] for most of her 50+ singles/albums.
- Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For ref[15], and other similar. MoS album title.
- Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You've missed a few. e.g. ref[17]: title should be Love and Kisses by Dannii Minogue not Love and Kisses by Dannii Minogueshaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For ref[20], and similar. MoS program title.
- Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fix ref[22], url currently ends with .pdfe should be just .pdf Also add: format, archivedate, date, and publisher's acronym i.e. (ARIA).
- Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- UK Dance Chart refs: except ref[32], you need better sources for charting. Ref[3] is a record label, ref[31] is a tabloid, neither is reliable for such claims.
- Done. I have used the book written by Minogue and Terry Ronald to verify chart positions. I only own the kindle version (so no page numbers, but it's noted) — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My Story is an autobiography co-written with a long-term session musician/business associate and can be used for various details of her personal life, however it is hardly unbiased or reliable for charting information. You need a better source for all those number-ones. Does the Music Week source provide further information? (see here) If you use a number of these at Highbeam consider using a ref cluster to group them.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I have used the book written by Minogue and Terry Ronald to verify chart positions. I only own the kindle version (so no page numbers, but it's noted) — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Format refs[36],[37], single titles are not italicised. Alternately: the two could be combined into one if citing the album rather than its tracks.
- Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikilink Young Talent Time in Other appearances.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of (ARIA) for refs[33],[35]
- Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Other appearances section now has a note claiming they're guest appearances, some of them are but some are not, fix this.
- Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Page no. for ref[40]?
- Changed the ref. This was added by another user and I can verify it — Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Above the infobox, add templates: {{Use dmy dates|date=April 2013}}
{{Use Australian English|date=April 2013}}
- Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- At ref[2], add authorlink for each author; wikilink Kindle edition by pipe to Amazon Kindle and use template's edition= parameter, viz: {{Cite book| last = Minogue | first = Dannii | authorlink = Dannii Minogue | first2 = Terry| last2 = Ronald | authorlink2 = Terry Ronald | title = [[My Story (Dannii Minogue book)|My Story]] | year = 2010 | publisher = [[Simon & Schuster]] | edition=[[Amazon Kindle|Kindle]]| isbn = 978-0-85720-052-5}}
- Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref[41], MoS title, including Of > of
- Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref[55], full last name; add & wikilink publisher.
- Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Check ref tab order: some are no longer numerically correct.
- Done — Underneath-it-All (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stability: handling possible edit wars
- Consider article history from about 2 to 30 March 2013, here: it shows considerable reversion of edits by anonymous IPs, a single purpose account, and others. Does this constitute edit warring? Consider the FLC criterion: "content does not change significantly from day to day". I support the attitude and activity of the nominator (and some other helpful editors) in ensuring that the content is appropriately verified by reliable sources and MoS standard is maintained. The article was correctly semi-protected on 5 March (to 19 March) but by 22 March another round of deletions/reversions started. All this disruptive activity may well be in response to the FLC process. I believe that greater communication on the article's talkpage – not just adding a comment to the reverting editors' pages or in edit summaries – about the issues would also help. This should have occurred from earliest opportunity, certainly by the time of 4 March when large blocks were being deleted and reverted. It can still be done as a historical reference. It shows your rationale to other editors, provides a record of the activity by disruptor(s) in a more visible place and should provide wider collegiate support for your efforts.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much for all your comments. They have definitely made the discography much better and reliable :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still two outstanding comments: Nos. 8 (check all refs for MoS titles of albums or singles) and 11 (still not happy with My Story as ref for Charting).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the UK Dance Charts because I cannot find reliable sources. They can always be re added at a later date. Also, all done Nos. 8 – Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stability: possible edit wars?
- Consider article history, since about 2 March 2013, here: it shows considerable reversion of edits by anonymous IPs, a single purpose account, and others. Does this constitute edit warring? I support the attitude and activity of the nominator in ensuring content is appropriately verified by reliable sources and MoS is maintained. However I believe that greater communication on the article's talkpage (not just any disruptive editors' talkpages or in edit summaries) about the issues would also help.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Keep an eye on those reversions, and I hope you find a reliable source for her UK Dance Charts.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from IndianBio
Thesea re all for now, biggest qualm is the lead section. Pretty much everything Shaiyadar has covered. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Support Good job on bringing the Minogue sister to FLC. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:17, 14 May 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, 6 May 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Fram (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Leuchtenberg Gallery/archive1 was closed at the request of a reviewer because it had taken too long and there had been too many changes between the start and the finish. At the time of closing, the FLC had received one support, no opposes, and many constructive comments, so this restart of the FLC is not a way to dismiss opposes or something similar. Fram (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I'm sure more images of the works can be found and added meanwhile, but I'm not waiting for that to give my thumbs up. The only thing that bugs me (though not impeditive of my general approval) is that extra image of "The Three Graces" at the top, which adds nothing that the one in the list does not... but that could be just me. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support it was and is a featured list. --Tomcat (7) 09:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Agree with Parutakupiu comment about the image at the top. I just have one concern: Why is the column "Current location" empty for most works, while it says unknown for some? P. S. Burton (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unknown is where I have a source that states it is unknown (similar with "lost"). Empty is "I couldn't find any information on it". Fram (talk) 07:35, 24 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, 6 May 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... well, go check it out, and you'll see why ;) Okay, seriously now. This is my first FLC nomination since I became a delegate and well, things have happened. This list is about the winners and nominees of the Latin Grammy Award for Best Salsa Album. It contains the data from the last thirteen years, which are all the years the award has been given, and well, Venezuela has the most noms without a win >.< — ΛΧΣ21 and — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
;Oppose
- Citations should be added to the second paragraph in the lead.
- Not common practice for content covered on the table. — ΛΧΣ21 01:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Citations should also be added to support the captions under the photographs.
- Same as above. — ΛΧΣ21 01:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The references used (citations #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #10, #13, #14) are just a list of nominees or just the winners. You need to find sources that support both.
- I might want this, but this is a no. We already use this referencing style in the other Latin Gramy FLs recently promoted. No need to change here. — ΛΧΣ21 01:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation #3 → the article is missing when you click on the link.
– Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the only issue with the article, and that is the dead link. The rest made me chuckle, to be honest. You don't use citations in the lead unless they are quotes or not supported in the body of the article. The photographs need no citation, all citations for them are already present. And finally, you are asking for a reference that doesn't exist. There's no citation that shows both the nominations and winners. This oppose is quite outrageous. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
*File:RubenBladesCT2002b.jpg: not sure this is actually free. I've nominated it for deletion at Commons.
|
- Support on prose and images as of this datestamp. Good read. Looks like y'all are on the way to getting a featured topic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Crisco! Yeah, we're working on it, but it's gonna take a lil while... Haha. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- I think nominees should be listed alphabetically by last name (or group/stage name) for each cell
- Did my best.
- "Son by Son" per capitalization Manual of style preferences
- "Son by Son"? where is dat? Did you mean Son by Four? If so, fixed.
- I think the "A" in "Le Preguntaba A La Luna" can be lowercase as well
- Done
- I think the "En" in "Contraste En Salsa" should be lowercase as well
- Done
- and "A" and "El" in "Salsa: Un Homenaje A El Gran Combo" as well?
- Done for "A"; "El" is part of their name: El Gran Combo.
If these changes are made, and no other reviewers question my requests, then I would support the promotion of this list. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did my best! and thanks! :) — ΛΧΣ21 23:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
Hello. I was checking the list and realized that there is a lot of articles in the nominees section without link, I think you should take another look about it. Jaespinoza (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but the opening sentence doesn't need to include the title bolded. It might read better if it was something like "The Latin Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences annually awards an artist or artists for the best salsa album." IDK, I've had some FLC's before where that's suggested, and usually lists start with the bolded title, even though it's not always necessary.
- Yes, it has to be bolded. We have never been asked to unbold it on previous FLCs. — ΛΧΣ21 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "vocal or instrumental tropical salsa albums containing at least 51% playing time of newly recorded material" - could you expand on that a bit? The "tropical" bit is only in the infobox, which, while interesting and sounds festive, isn't mentioned elsewhere. This wording - "containing at least 51 percent playing time" - is slightly awkward.
- I assume that "tropical" means that the music is from the tropical part of the world. But I don't know. The Academy doesn't specify :/ I refactored the 51% sentence. — ΛΧΣ21 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But I'm saying, you mention tropical there but nowhere else. How come? The infobox should have the content that appears elsewhere. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The infobox does say tropical too, just like the lead. — ΛΧΣ21 17:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, "tropical" is only mentioned in the infobox, so it should be mentioned at least once in the article (or removed from the Infobox). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see. I removed it from the infobox :) — ΛΧΣ21 19:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, "tropical" is only mentioned in the infobox, so it should be mentioned at least once in the article (or removed from the Infobox). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The infobox does say tropical too, just like the lead. — ΛΧΣ21 17:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But I'm saying, you mention tropical there but nowhere else. How come? The infobox should have the content that appears elsewhere. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume that "tropical" means that the music is from the tropical part of the world. But I don't know. The Academy doesn't specify :/ I refactored the 51% sentence. — ΛΧΣ21 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When you mention "Salsa" in the lede, should it be capitalized or not? Also, it could use a definition somewhere.
- Salsa is a music genre. The deffinition is given on the link :) — ΛΧΣ21 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstand. You switch between using "Salsa" and "salsa". I think there should be consistency. And I think it'd help the article if it was a definition in the article itself, such as wording that the Latin Grammy people use to classify it as salsa. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The capitalized version refers to the award, while the rest refers to the genre. I can't write "Best salsa Album" because the awards have to be written like the academy puts it. — ΛΧΣ21 17:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I got it now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The capitalized version refers to the award, while the rest refers to the genre. I can't write "Best salsa Album" because the awards have to be written like the academy puts it. — ΛΧΣ21 17:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstand. You switch between using "Salsa" and "salsa". I think there should be consistency. And I think it'd help the article if it was a definition in the article itself, such as wording that the Latin Grammy people use to classify it as salsa. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Salsa is a music genre. The deffinition is given on the link :) — ΛΧΣ21 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I mentioned "Latin Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences" earlier, but that should be somewhere in the lede. I think it's important that they're the ones actually presenting the awards. Right?
- I think that this is not necessary. It hasn't been considered so on previous Grammy FLCs. — ΛΧΣ21 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But if it's an award, I think it's valuable content of who actually presented the award. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that it is a bit obvious, and it's not something we're used to do on Grammy lists. Anyways I won't fight over it. — ΛΧΣ21 17:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But if it's an award, I think it's valuable content of who actually presented the award. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that this is not necessary. It hasn't been considered so on previous Grammy FLCs. — ΛΧΣ21 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "for her album Celia Cruz and Friends: A Night of Salsa (1999)" - instead of parenthesis, why not - "for her 1999 album 'Celia Cruz'..."?
- because the whole sentence reads: "in 2000 for her album Celia Cruz and Friends: A Night of Salsa (1999).", and having "in 2000 for her 1999 album" reads awkward. — ΛΧΣ21 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, I think it works better than having the parenthesis at the end, IMO. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- because the whole sentence reads: "in 2000 for her album Celia Cruz and Friends: A Night of Salsa (1999).", and having "in 2000 for her 1999 album" reads awkward. — ΛΧΣ21 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2nd image on the right says - "Two-time winners El Gran Combo de Puerto Rico" - but there are more than two people. Could you say which ones are those artists?
- We only specify important records on the lead, such as the artist with more nominations and most wins. — ΛΧΣ21 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? I'm talking about the image :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why shall I mention all the two-time winnes on the image? The image is about one of them, and I should mention only them, no? — ΛΧΣ21 17:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This image has four people. Your image caption doesn't say which person it's referring to. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They are all members of the group :) — ΛΧΣ21 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This image has four people. Your image caption doesn't say which person it's referring to. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why shall I mention all the two-time winnes on the image? The image is about one of them, and I should mention only them, no? — ΛΧΣ21 17:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? I'm talking about the image :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We only specify important records on the lead, such as the artist with more nominations and most wins. — ΛΧΣ21 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How come some album titles aren't linked and some are red links?
- We only link, mandatorily, the winning albums, even if they are redlinks. — ΛΧΣ21 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But you don't link 2001, 2003, 2006, or 2011's albums. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We only link, mandatorily, the winning albums, even if they are redlinks. — ΛΧΣ21 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All in all looks pretty good! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for addressing my comments. Looks good now! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments! And your support!
— Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments! And your support!
- Support — Well formatted and referenced, no visible problems stick out. FL standard. — DivaKnockouts 18:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I was actually going to work on the list one point, but you got it covered already! :) Erick (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 3 May 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, 6 May 2013 (UTC) [10].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Idiotchalk (t@lk) 07:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it seems to meet FLCR and is similar to other FL discographies of individual musicians. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 07:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You should choose either mdash or spaced ndash and use it consistently throughout the article. Ruslik_Zero 18:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All dashes used in prose are unspaced mdashes. When you say consistently do you mean use them in references aswell? Idiotchalk (t@lk) 20:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Ruslik_Zero 19:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 20:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mdash should be unspaced. Ruslik_Zero 14:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Right you are. Fixed. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 14:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mdash should be unspaced. Ruslik_Zero 14:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 20:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Ruslik_Zero 19:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All dashes used in prose are unspaced mdashes. When you say consistently do you mean use them in references aswell? Idiotchalk (t@lk) 20:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Ruslik_Zero 16:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose - Looks good. As a side note, I've nominated The Complex for DYK here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments Support
- Album release dates: where are they sourced and which territory are they relevant to?
- The earliest release dates are used and are mostly relevant to Ireland/United Kingdom. There's no source documenting all three MBV release dates together, however About.com, Stereogum and Allmusic are just some of several sources in print media/around the web confirming the dates. The Coral Sea date is sourced from Amazon. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 21:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Those sources should be used to verify the release dates (See MGMT discography as an example). – Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 00:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Those sources should be used to verify the release dates (See MGMT discography as an example). – Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The earliest release dates are used and are mostly relevant to Ireland/United Kingdom. There's no source documenting all three MBV release dates together, however About.com, Stereogum and Allmusic are just some of several sources in print media/around the web confirming the dates. The Coral Sea date is sourced from Amazon. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 21:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Add a reference to the singles section.
- Provide a direct link to the "credits" section for the Allmusic references
- Done. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 21:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
– Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Comment there's no need to duplicate the MBV discog at all here. Also listing only the MBV studio albums raises the question—why not list all the MBV EPs, singles and live albums as well? See how John Lennon discography doesn't have any Beatles stuff.—indopug (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Other similiar FLs—musicians who are in bands and have released solo material—list the artist's band's albums (John Frusciante discography and Josh Homme discography, for example) so I don't see why listing MBV's albums would be a problem here. Plus, seeing as Loveless and m b v were practically Shields by himself, it seems practical to list them. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 01:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – About.com (ref 18) isn't considered a reliable source for much of anything, even a release date. Can we find another, better source for this fact?Giants2008 (Talk) 14:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure thing. Replaced reference with a Sony Music Ireland press release. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 16:02, 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.