Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Nominations: + Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Cricket World Cup centuries/archive1
fail 2
Line 39: Line 39:
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Fractional currency/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Fractional currency/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battleships of Italy/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battleships of Italy/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Golden Martín Fierro Award winners/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Whitney Houston/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Whitney Houston/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Latin Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Album/archive1}}
<!--New nominations go at the top of the "Nominations" list-->
<!--New nominations go at the top of the "Nominations" list-->


Revision as of 23:01, 31 October 2013

Thank you for participating in the 2013 FLC Elections. The new delegates have been selected.

Elected delegates: Crisco 1492 and SchroCat.

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria.

Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and another review process at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed.

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and Hey man im josh, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved in a timely manner; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached after significant time; or
  • reviewers are unable to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the process focuses on finding and resolving problems in relation to the criteria, rather than asserting the positives. Declarations of support are not as important as finding and resolving issues, and the process is not simply vote-counting.

Once the director or delegate has decided to close a nomination, they will do so on the nominations page. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived, typically within the day, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure
  1. Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list.
  3. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please leave a post on the FLC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. When adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.
Reviewing procedure

Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page).
  • To support a nomination, write * '''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this. Supports are weighted more strongly if they are given alongside justifications that indicate that the list was fully reviewed; a nomination is not just a straight vote.
  • To oppose a nomination, write * '''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. Please focus your attention on substantive issues or inconsistencies, rather than personal style preferences. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed, and nominators are encouraged to use {{reply to}} or other templates to notify reviewers when replying. To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it.
  • If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so, rather than striking out the reviewer's text. Nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page.
  • Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write * '''Comment''' followed by your advice.
Nominations urgently needing reviews

The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:

Source reviews needed

The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:

Nominations

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, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Cricket World Cup centuries

Nominator(s): —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've modeled this list based upon List of centuries in women's Test cricket. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Comments from Harrias talk
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 19:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –

Zia Khan 22:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments –

It has only 45 entries and the table we are dealing with is almost thrice the length. When we navigate through the list the top header goes out of picture on the screen. Sure 8-10 headers may be helpful for table with 1000 entries. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To add a little further, I've already said this was based upon List of centuries in women's Test cricket, an existing FL which uses three headers for 96 entries. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many things have changed since that FL. Anyways, I'll wait for a third persons opinion. Zia Khan 20:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many things? what exactly do you mean. —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for Harrias as well. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to comment on this issue by the nominator. If I'm reading this correctly, the question concerns the extra header at the bottom of the list. I've seen much longer lists without an extra heading, but have also seen shorter lists with one. I probably wouldn't put an extra heading there myself, but it's not something that stood out to me when I reviewed it. There aren't any guidelines, as has already been said, so I'm comfortable following the nominator's style. Others are free to disagree, of course. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Çomments
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, 17 December 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

List of Welsh Premier League clubs

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loosely modelled on existing FL List of former Football League clubs (except that it in this case it features every club to have played in the league), I feel this meets all the requirements.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Bold links like the one in the intro are discouraged by the MoS. I suggest simply dropping the bolding.
  • Redundant "league"s exist in "Since the league's formation, 38 clubs have competed in the league."
  • First two words of the List of clubs section heading are unneeded and could safely be dropped.
  • The Times champions column is currently sorting by fewest championships won, not most. Some sort templates would probably fix this. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All sorted now I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 10:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –

Zia Khan 22:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GRAPPLE X 16:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments
  • The New Saints should sort under "New" rather than "The", meaning it should slot between Neath and Newton. Use the {{sort}} template to keep it in place ({{sort|New Saints, The|[[The New Saints]]}})
    Mostly an aesthetic change—and an entirely optional one—but you'd save a lot of scrolling/white space if the reflist was set to two or three columns rather than one.
    I'm not sure you need "WPL" in the column headings; shorter headings tend to look better and between the article title and the overall table header there's certainly no ambiguity there.
    You may want to consider alt text for the lead image.
    Might just be me but I feel the lead is very comma-heavy, as you seem to be using commas for parenthetical statements quite often. For example, "Although it is the highest level of the Welsh football league system, the Welsh Premier League has never included the country's professional clubs, Cardiff City, Swansea City, Wrexham and Newport County, all of whom play within the English league system" might be better off using dashes or brackets between "clubs" and "Cardiff" and "County" and "all" to create that aside.
    Seems fine to me otherwise. GRAPPLE X 23:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 2 December 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, 25 November 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Laurel and Hardy filmography

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Laurel and Hardy are among the best loved movie comedians of all time. Therefore they deserve an outstanding filmography. The peer review for this list has now been archived. I put this one together using the previously available version and put the films into chronological order with cited notes and a significant introduction. Take a look and give me some advice if you can to bring it up to featured list standard. Jimknut (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick up on this shortly (very glad to see this here, but was also a bit disappointed, as I had plans to work on this list at some point!)
Wikimedia Commons does not have a decent picture of the duo. The one I used also appears on the main page and is therefore an appropriate picture. Actually, I don't see why it is listened as non-free when it is clearly a publicity portrait from the 1920s or 1930s and those are considered to be in the public domain. Jimknut (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments from SchroCat

  • Not sure we need two very short paras to open: these are related enough to be run together.
    • Now put together.
  • "hall tour of England, Ireland, and Scotland": could just be "hall tour of Great Britain"
    • Changed.
  • Is there something we could add that explains the difference between a "short" and a "feature"? Even as a footnote this would prove useful, especially as the text states "all short film are two reels in length", while there are entries in the table for shorts that are three or four reels long
    • The second opening sentences reads: "Together they appeared together in 34 silent shorts, 45 sound shorts, and 27 full-length sound feature films." Note that there are hyperlinks to "silent film", "short film", "sound film", and "feature film". I think this should be sufficient.
    • The opening text of the filmography section reads: "except where noted, all short film are two reels in length." "Reel" is hyperlinked.
      • It's OK for this, but I think a footnote explaining the difference between a short and a feature could be useful. Is there a definition of where the line is drawn between the two? - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why "20th Century Fox" is hyphenated in the table notes?
    • Fixed (hyphen removed).
  • "Foreign-language versions" section: "sound" and "lost" are both duplicate links from the earlier text
    • Hyperlinks removed.
  • FNs 2 and 78: shouldn't "The Laurel and Hardy Magazine" be italicised?
    • Fixed. Italicized and two identical footnotes merged into one.

Nice work - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All good - just a small point of possible improvement, but your call whether you decide to incorporate it or not. - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added some footnotes. Jimknut (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support; thanks for the final tweak - it's perfect: just enough information to cover the question without people having to go to different articles to find it out. I've tweaked slightly to show which Academy you are talking about. All good otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch comments - I became aware of this at peer review and think it is pretty close to FL quality. I have made some copyedits to the article, and the following are some questions / comments I have.

  • The fair use lead image needs to have a Fair Use rationale for its inclusion in this article (in addition to the rationale already there for its use in the main L&H article)?
  • Should the lead mention that 10 of the (early) films they appeared in together were made before they became a team?
    • The lead states: "Laurel and Hardy officially became a team the following year, in the silent short film The Second Hundred Years (1927)." In the actual list we can see that The Second Hundred Years is the 11th film. I think it's a safe bet that most people who use Wikipedia can count that high.
      • While I do not doubt that people can count to 20, 27, 34, 45, or 106 either, these numbers are given in the lead. This count still seems to me like information that would be useful in the lead, perhaps just add the word "eleventh" as in Laurel and Hardy officially became a team the following year, in the[ir eleventh] silent short film The Second Hundred Years (1927)." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the lead, could the word "silent" be added for clarification here? Stan Laurel (1890–1965) and Oliver Hardy (1892–1957) were established as film comedians prior to their teaming, with Laurel appearing in over 50 [silent] films and Hardy in over 250.
    • Fixed
  • Would it help to somehow clarify here that Hardy had died three years before In 1960, Laurel was presented with an Honorary Academy Award "for his creative pioneering in the field of cinema comedy."[12]
    • The years of Hardy's birth and death (1892-1957) were established earlier in the introduction. I'm sure people can figure out that by 1960 he had been dead for three years.
  • Since "Atoll K" is also known as "Utopia", should that be noted here??

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have switched to support, above. Nicely done. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)
*Comments from Crisco 1492:
Are you keeping track of alternative titles? Bonnie Scotland had at least one alternate title, and other films may as well.
Any thoughts on including a link to the full film of The Lucky Dog (on Commons as File:Laurel and Hardy - The Lucky Dog (1921).ogv)
Try to avoid redirects. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone for the support. Link to Lucky Dog video has now been added. I'll keep an eye out for alternate titles and redirects but I think I fixed all of the latter. Jimknut (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by SchroCat 20:22, 27 December 2013 [4].

List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan

Nominator(s):—FRANKY! 13:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the FL criteria. —FRANKY! 13:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Rejectwater
  • Image alts (see WP:ALT, especially the Queen Elizabeth and Bush/Blair examples)
  • In the infobox image, what she is wearing is irrelevant, however the trophy is very relevant. If it can be discerned from the image, the type of trophy should be specified.
  • Same deal with the other image. That they are actors is redundant and certainly cannot be inferred from looking at the picture, however the awards they are holding should be specified.
  • Done and the second image removed because one image is enough.
  • Only one image can also describe the list, adding or removing second (or more) image(s) add(s) or remove(s) nothing special. As I have seen the FLs, almost all of them consist of one image. —FRANKY! 21:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE states "Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals." That quote is from the Manual of Style. Featured List criteria number five is "complies with the Manual of Style". Also, it's a nice picture. You should put it back. Rejectwater (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC) checkY[reply]
  • Reference 13 Screen India is a dead link
  • Lead is missing references and has various other issues.
  • "Vidya earned wide critical acclaim" - "wide" should be deleted unless supported by at least one reference, claim needs a source regardless.
  • "She won every "Best Actress" award in India " needs a reference
  • "establishing herself as a leading contemporary actress in Hindi cinema" needs a reference
  • "She also earned a nomination in the same category (at Filmfare and other award ceremonies) for the political crime thriller No One Killed Jessica." This sentence does make sense. Same category as what?
  • Now it says "She also earned a nomination in the same category (Best actress) at Filmfare and other award ceremonies". Just say she received the Best Actress nomination (ie, lose the ellipses). Also, what are "other award ceremonies"? They should be specified or not mentioned at all. Rejectwater (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drop the comma after "is an Indian film actress"
  • Put a comma after "Bengali" in "in Hindi, Bengali and Malayalam cinema"
  • Done.

Additional Comments from Rejectwater

  • Is it Best Actress, Best actresss, or "Best Actress"? checkY
  • her Anandalok Puraskar Award for Best Actress. Shouldn't that be "the Andalok..." or "an Andalok..." and also the award should be wikilinked. checkY
  • at 8th IIFA Awards for the... should have a "the" before "8th". checkY
  • at 9th IIFA Awards... same as above. checkY
  • in the biographical film Guru and Bhool Bhulaiyaa. Guru and Bhool Bhulaiyaa is the name of a single biographical film? Or Guru is the biographical film and Bhool Bhulaiyaa is some other film? checkY
  • her Filmfare Award for Best Actress... missing "the" before "Filmfare" (noticing a disturbing trend here) checkY
  • won Critics Award for Best Actress... another missing "the" checkY
  • Filmfare—and won Best Actress awards... That dash does not belong there. checkY
  • Vidya earned critical acclaim for her portrayal in the 2011 biographical drama The Dirty Picture and won "Best Actress" awards at National and Filmfare Awards. She won the awards for that film? Or for something else? checkY
  • Following year, she won her third... should be "The following" checkY
  • are presented awarded by ... that's just brutal checkY
  • in the Bollywood. ' poor grammar checkY
  • The Lions Gold Award is an annual accolade presented to the Indian film industry. Balan has received one award. Yet there are clearly two awards listed in the table. Rejectwater (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) checkY[reply]
  • Why are Anandalok Puraskar Awards listed in the "Other" table? The article for these awards states they are "one of the most prominent film events given for Bengali Cinemas in India." Am I missing something? Rejectwater (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC) checkY —FRANKY! 12:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is inappropriate to cap someone else's comments as resolved. I have not yet reviewed the various comments to determine whether or not I consider them resolved. Rejectwater (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still don't like the way you have bundled citations and still believe it is a violation of WP:CITE and WP:INTEGRITY. Tables should have one or more reference per row, not one huge reference for the whole table. The way it is now is confusing and obscures which reference supports what information. Rejectwater (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question - Why do you refer to her as Vidya rather than Balan (compare List of awards and nominations received by Aishwarya Rai where she is referred to as Rai, List of awards and nominations received by Preity Zinta where she is referred to as Zinta etc...)? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Balan" is the name of her father and not a family name and I see a majority of sources calling her "Vidya" rather than "Balan" (Here are some examples [5] [6] [7]). Please also see read the first line of lead section of the actor's biography. —FRANKY! 00:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are inconsistencies in the repeated sentence "She has won XXX awards from XXX nominations." When I count the nominations and awards, they do not seem to match the tables. Is there an explanation for how the sentences are counting awards and nominations, or are the sentences wrong?

  • The awards table were according to 2013 but the sentences and infobox were according to 2012.

The award counts are also different in the Infobox. Now I'm thoroughly confused.

  • Done.

I think the Infobox award list should be in the same order as the article's list of awards, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • There can be placed only 14 awards list in the award template but if we give the specific name of the award which're saved in the template (like Academy, Filmfare, IIFA etc) there can be more than 14. As you know the section of awards are more than 14, it won't be possible.

Comment: I have completed a copy edit of this article under the auspices of the Guild of Copy Editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick oppose

  • Link Pradeep Sarkar in the lead
    • Done.
  • Avoid starting paras with pronouns
    • Done.
  • The following sentence is too lengthy and unclear.
    • Done.
  • Guru is only a semi-biographical film.
    • Done.
  • Majority of the lead talks only about the Filmfare Awards, as if she won only that award.
    • Done.
  • " As of July 2013, Vidya has won 53 awards out of 78 nominations.[2]" fails WP:V.
    • Done.
  • A majority of the award descriptions are one-just liners.
    • Done.
  • Refs. are either cluttered or poorly formatted.
    • Done.
  • Despite most of the tables having the same no. of columns their width is not uniform
    • Done.
  • You could add a separate column for references in the table and add them instead of placing them in the prose.
    • Done.
  • The urls of refs. #7, #26 and #45 are relocated to somewhere.
    • Done.
  • Multiple references are using the same name (awards)

Quick comments

  • "Reference" should at least be "Reference(s)".
  • Done.
  • Table column widths differ from section to section making the whole list look really messy.
  • Done.
  • Last sentence of first paragraph.... count the words.... too long.
  • I failed to do that, The Rambling Man, but I'd very much appreciate it if you could help me with your expertise in this area.
  • Done.
  • In the "National Film Awards" part of the info box, how can an award have been won without a nomination?
  • Because "National Film Awards" does not have any nominations, they do have consideration but are not declared publicly.
  • Why are five refs needed for one award?
  • Done.
  • Why is India suddenly wiki-linked midway through?
  • Well, I asked the article to be copyedited so in response to that the user, Jonesey95 wiki-linked that.
  • "Best Actress - Drama" etc, check for WP:DASH.
  • Done.
  • Is it "Best Thriller/Action Actress" or "Best Actress - Action/Thriller"? Be consistent. Check the others.
  • Done.
  • Check reference titles for WP:DASH.
  • Done.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please check to avoid over linking, e.g. television in India appears to be linked at least three times... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 01:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that infobox image is more closely cropped. (logged-out) User:Indopug 122.172.11.178 (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, regards.—FrankBoy (Buzz) 15:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by SchroCat 13:04, 19 January 2014 [8].

Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series Writing Team

Nominator(s):  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 11:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the every single criteria. Also, I believe it to be well sourced and clear. After much tweaking and further adjustments I feel that it is worthy of being a Featured List. I believe this list is worthy, considering I worked on it with the Featured lists, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series, Outstanding Younger Actor in a Drama Series, Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series, Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series, Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series, Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series, Outstanding Drama Series, Outstanding Drama Series Directing Team in mind. If you oppose, please address your issues here so they can be resolved. , in mind. If you oppose, please address your issues here so they can be resolved.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 11:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I know all the others have been promoted in the same state as this one, but I don't think a bare table of winners and nominees is really featured material. Sure, the daytime Emmys don't get much coverage, but a minimal amount of analysis of the award would be appreciated. Besides the top winners, you could also include statistics for the shows with the most nominations, streaks, and award history. I see sources include the actual names of the head writer and other people who are members of the writing teams; why are they not mentioned at all? The award goes to the people, not just the show, so this article is seriously lacking. Are there any people who have won several times? Why did 2003 have seven nominations, yet 1986 to 1990 had uncontested winners? As I said before, info about the statuette is not relevant here. This article is about the Writing Team award, not who the statue was modelled after or its dimensions. In the lead, it should say it wasn't given out from 1982 to 1985. Reywas92Talk 14:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92:, I am only going to add the names of the writers and the table of statics of the nominations. I am not going to remove the statuette information becuase I think it is needed and I won't remove it just because you don't like it. Plus, if more people did agreee with this, I would but it's only you. Finnally, you understand that daytime emmys do not get much coverage. If you don't agree with my doing, I suggest leaving the review and take the oppose with you like it never happen. I am dead serious.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 18:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, ″Why did 2003 have seven nominations, yet 1986 to 1990 had uncontested winners?″ I don't know, the sources says that happen however does not give the reasons. What am I suppose to do?  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source for 1986-1990 is just the list of all winners. Was there really only one nominee, or could you just not find the rest of them? If not that's a major omission and I will not retract my oppose. Reywas92Talk 01:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92:, I don't know, again there was no sources for the nominees with the exception of IMDB, but this is not really considered a reliable sources for awards. Therefore, that why there is no nominees beetween 1986 to 1990.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 10:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13th Daytime Emmy Awards through 17th Daytime Emmy Awards all show there were indeed multiple nominations for those years, though only with a general link to the IMBD listing. This version before you made the table included all the writers' names, as well as the nominees for these years. I agree that IMDB is not an RS, but if this information is just going to be left out, remind me again, why should this be a featured list? Reywas92Talk 11:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I just noticed from that old version that the award was indeed given out from 1982 to 1985, with Guiding Light, Ryan's Hope (x2) and All My Children winning! It seems that the Soapcentral source and the statement in the lead are wrong. Reywas92Talk 11:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92:, Are you telling me that version with no sources surpasses the ones with sources? That is wrong not soapcentral. Soapcentral is more reliable then IMDB therefore I am going with SC. I would of add the nominees if they were sources for them but there is not therefore we can infer that they were no nominees. You pratically telling me to add information that has no sources for them and remove the ones that do have sources. That wrong.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 18:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am. IMDB might not be preferred, but I highly doubt 1986-1990 [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13] are just totally making up the other nominees, and that 1982-1985 [14], [15], [16], and [17] completely fabricated the fact that an award for "Outstanding Writing for a Daytime Drama Series" was indeed given. Soapcentral as cited is wrong in its omission of those four years, and to quote you, I am dead serious. That page also incorrectly omits 1980 and 1981, but you managed to find other information about them, so why are you trusting it? Reywas92Talk 02:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92:, If you have not notice Wikipedia and IMDB both have users registered to edit, therefore neither would be reliable without sources. SC does not, its a reporter that went to the DAYTIME EMMYS since 1999 and I highly doubt he is just totally making up the other nominees and that they were an award for "Outstanding Writing for a Daytime Drama Series" was not indeed given for those years. I am not going to add any information that does not have sources. Therefore, I am sticking with SC.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 09:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that the information on IMDB about the writing award those years is just made up? I don't care that SC has sent a reporter since 1999, it's 1981-1985 that they clearly didn't. Just a couple minutes of Googling got me this newspaper article from 1985 that says All My Children won that year, while this article and this article from 1983 confirm that Ryan's Hope won for writing that year, so I'm pretty damn sure the award was given and SC's list is incomplete. These articles also provide all the nominees' names that Soapcentral overlooked: [18][19][20][21][22]. Therefore, I am sticking with Strong Oppose if you are going to fail to try to make a complete list, per criterion 3a. Reywas92Talk 14:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To directors and delegates, I withdraw this nomination. Also,@Reywas92: I do not want you anywhere near my nominations in the future even If I am in desperate need of them. Thanks!  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 18:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you found all those sources and facts you can go right ahead a work on this article with the new informations. Since you have proven, you're a better editor. (sarcasm)  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 18:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. The article is pretty close; it is that unreasonable to expect a complete list? Reywas92Talk 06:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC) [23].[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Prince Royce

'Nominator(s): DivaKnockouts (talk) and Magiciandude (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after several months of working on this list in the Sandbox, with Erick, we feel that is meets the criteria. The list follows the format of the featured articles List of awards and nominations received by Ivy Queen and List of awards and nominations received by Romeo Santos. DivaKnockouts 23:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref comments

 Done Erick (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • "both which he won" should be "both of which he won"
    • In the last line of the lead, Tropical Song of the Year has a stray " at the start
    • "Royce has received fifty-eight awards from 105 nominations" - either both should be in words or both should be in digits, not a mix of both
    • I don't really like "Royce has not won an award from one nomination" under MTV Video Music Awards. Maybe "Royce has received one nomination but not won an award"........?
  • Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done all, I fixed the last issue by changing to "has received one nomination" to be consisted with the American Music Awards. Erick (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third point isn't fixed. Also, why is "Tropical Song of the Year" in quote marks? None of the other award categories mentioned in the lead are shown like that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I wasn't paying attention. Now they're fixed. Erick (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Erick (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • What is "Acesco Total"?
  • No full stop in image captions if they're incomplete sentences.
  • "His second studio..." new para so I'd say "Prince Royce's second... " or "Royce's second..." if that's how he's referred to...
  • I count 57 wins in the info box, not 58.
  • "Premios Lo Nuestro" says "fourteen awards from seventeen nominations" yet there are 21 noms, as reflected in the info box.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the first comment, I clarified it's a promotion for Walmart. Everything else has been addressed. Erick (talk) 21:43, 15 December 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, 25 November 2013 (UTC) [24].[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Curtly Ambrose

Nominator(s): Zia Khan 21:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curtly Ambrose, one of the finest bowler in the history of cricket, took 26 five-wickets hauls for the West Indies. This list includes his Test and ODI fifers. I've worked on the list, and I think this is now ready to become one of the best wiki-list since this meets the FLC criteria. Look forward to comments/suggestions. Cheers, Zia Khan 21:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "represented his country" ---> "represented West Indies" (WI is not a country)
  • The first line of the third paragraph seems to be irrelevant.
  • The caption can be more informative.
  • Why is there no H/A/N column?
  • South Africa's flag was different in 1992.
  • Numbers less than 10 should be in words as per MOS.
  • "of the Wisden Cricketers of the Year, the cricket almanack Wisden noted his" ---> "of its cricketers of the year, the cricket almanack Wisden noted his"
  • Link yorker and bouncer.
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me)
Commenting on prose alone
  • Expand ICC in "ICC Cricket Hall of Fame"
  • "His first Test five-wicket haul came eight months later...." no need to repeat Test
  • "He accumulated 11 wickets for 84 runs in the match" seems unnecessary since that is understandable in the line above.
  • "Ambrose achieved his five-wicket hauls" here you ought to be more clear – 22
  • "venues outside the West Indies" need to link West Indies
  • Both the image captions should name the subject
  • You've linked ESPNcricinfo in ref #2 and not in ref #1.

—Vensatry (Ping me) 06:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on table

  • Date for #15 is incorrect
  • 21st fifer lists only five batsmen
  • At least one entry is wrong "Overs", "Runs" and "Inns" column. Check all the entries once again.

—Vensatry (Ping me) 11:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still not fully done —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look now! Zia Khan 20:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Curtly Ambrose took the most number of five-wicket hauls for the West Indies.[1]" -> "Curtly Ambrose took the most five-wicket hauls for the West Indies.[1]"
  • " cricketer, took 26 five-wicket hauls in international cricket.[2][3] In cricket" I count "cricket" three times in eleven words...
  • Consider linking "bouncer" and "yorker" as these terms mean next-to-nothing to a non-expert.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Image captions:
"Curtly Ambrose took the most five-wicket hauls for the West Indies." Better as: "Curtly Ambrose has taken the most five-wicket hauls for the West Indies." and there are 3 links that should be added to this text.
Reworded the statement. I don't prefer repeat linking in the captions (have a look at this). Zia Khan 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The Queen's Park Oval in the Port of Spain, where Ambrose took six Test five-wicket hauls, the most by any player at the ground." Link QPO and Port of Spain and remove "the" before the latter.
As above. Zia Khan 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions. Ben MacDui 20:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still I don't think this is necessary!? Zia Khan 21:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It may be helpful to get some additional input here. I very much doubt this would be acceptable at FAC, but I am less familiar with FLC. Ben MacDui 14:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked them, cheers! Zia Khan 14:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose:
"only 41 bowlers have taken at least 15 five-wicket hauls" - better as - only 41 bowlers have taken 15 or more five-wicket hauls
Done. Zia Khan 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"8 wickets for 45 runs against England at the Kensington Oval, Bridgetown, in April 1990;" - slightly clumsy use of a semi-colon - you could replace this with "where"
Done. Zia Khan 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"against the same team" - not really, in the sense that the members of the team were surely different. "against the same opponents" would be better.
Done. Zia Khan 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Ambrose achieved his 22 five-wicket hauls at 12 grounds, " - better as - " at 12 different grounds,"
Done. Zia Khan 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"His first ODI five-wicket haul came later that year" - the repetition of 'ODI" gets a bit wearing. Perhaps something like "His first five-wicket haul in this format came later that year" to break this up.
Changed the sentence as suggested. Zia Khan 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"17 runs in the match which is his best performance in ODIs." - use of the present tense suggests he is still playing; the use of "which" here is slightly problematic; and it's another "ODI". I suggest "He took 5 wickets for 17 runs in the match, his best performance in One Day Internationals."
Changed the sentence as suggested, ODI already expanded in the 1st para. Zia Khan 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is expanded but my concern here is that we have five short staccato sentences, three of which contain "ODI". I will take a look at this myself. Ben MacDui 20:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Zia Khan 21:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"As of 2013, he is tenth overall" - "ranked tenth overall" would convey the sense better I think.
I think, this will be excessive. Zia Khan 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Factual:
"Ambrose achieved his 22 five-wicket hauls at 12 grounds, including 11 at venues outside the West Indies." - could you check your arithmetic re this uncited assertion please? Ben MacDui 17:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the table, anyways I have provided inline ref. Zia Khan 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is helpful of course, but could you list the 11 Test "venues outside the WI" for me, here? Ben MacDui 20:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! fixed now. Zia Khan 21:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fixed the arithmetic, but the reference you have added (#16) does not seem to list only "venues outside the WI" despite the title you have given it. It may be that the title is wrong - I am not sure how the parameters of this site work. Ben MacDui 14:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed this one. Zia Khan 14:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with "Ambrose achieved his 22 five-wicket hauls at 12 different grounds, including 11 at venues outside the West Indies" is that it still implies that he only achieved the feat at a single venue in the Windies. This is not the case and I think you need to find a simple way to avoid this confusion. Ben MacDui 15:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Ambrose achieved his 22 five-wicket hauls at 12 different grounds, including 11 at 9 different venues outside the West Indies"? Zia Khan
It's not the most elegant of sentences but it clarifies the issue. Ben MacDui 18:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Above issues resolved - Support. Ben MacDui 18:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Zia Khan 03:33, 19 November 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, 11 November 2013 (UTC) [25].[reply]

61st Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1989 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I read the requirements and criteria. I also followed how the 1929, 1990, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2009, 2010, and 2012 Oscars were written.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heyman and Moonjean in the best Picture box can be linked.
  • I know you try to put related awards in adjacent boxes; should sound editing and mixing go next to each other?
  • -> 1950s movie musicals
  • In presenters list, I'm not sure why 'Set Direction' is included for Defoe and Hackman for the Art Direction award.
  • Why wasn't there a host?

Good work again, Reywas92Talk 08:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed: I fixed everything mentioned above. As for the "no host" thing, in one of the references its says...
"Carr said there will be no principal host on the show. ``No comedians, no Chevy Chase, no emcee. It`s going to be like a relay race from star to star to star-a true cavalcade of stars. We`re calling them star participants. Jane Fonda, for example, is going to introduce one of the five `best film` clips and then she`ll introduce her godfather, Jimmy Stewart, who will appear with Kim Novak after we show a clip of them together in Vertigo.
  • So I stated in the ceremony info that, "Instead of hiring a host for the proceedings, he heavily relied on presenters often grouped in pairs as either couples, compadres, co-stars, or companions."
--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reywas92Talk 04:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed: I added the reason for Richard Williams Special Achievement Oscar. The link provided indicates the award was given to honor Who Framed Roger Rabbit. AMPAS officially gives Roger Rabbit's awards tally at four.
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • "and" is needed before You Don't Have to Die in the lead.
  • Presenters (in order of appearance), Charlie O'Donnell: Not sure if "Annual should be capitalized in the role note.
  • Ceremony information "the" is needed between "being" and "final".
  • Ratings and aftermath: Another "the" would help before "American telecast on ABC". Giants2008 (Talk) 22:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed: I fixed everything you have suggested.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, i only found minor problems (listed below) that are not a reason to oppose. Spotcheck not done.
  • Fixed: I fixed everything mentioned above. I'm very grateful for your help!
--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)
Comments from Crisco 1492:
  • Images are fine (no action required)
  • The 61st Academy Awards ceremony, presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS), - ceremonies aren't presented (again)
  • Oscarcast?
  • couples, compadres, co-stars, or companions - do we really need the alliteration?
  • Snow White - the Disney princess or the character from folklore?
  • "Carr would be alive today" - Paraphrase this, as Carr was still alive in 1996 (at the time the source was written) and thus this is open to serious misinterpretation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed: I fixed everything mentioned above with some notes:
    • "couples, compadres, co-stars, or companions" changed to "pairs that had some connection either through family or the film industry."
    • Snow White is the Disney one. Clicking on it links to the Disney character. I also mentioned the film she's from
    • When Cates said "Carr would be alive today" I know he meant that Carr would had not received those terrible review of the show had the opening number dragged on. I paraphrased it as Carr would have not received such harsh criticism "if the number had been only 3 minutes.”
--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything else I still need to revise? Apparently, you fixed the Carr sentence yourself.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:10, 9 November 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, 31 December 2013 (UTC) [26].[reply]

List of songs recorded by Jason Newsted

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 02:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This one was progressing alright the first time around but then I had to go and disappear for a while (aliens). I think I've caught up to everything that had been mentioned the last time around, plus any relevant material from the intervening time has been added (along with a nice shiny picture). I promise I won't get abducted a second time around. GRAPPLE X 02:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Shouldn't " two-hundred and fifty " just be "250" or "two-hundred-and-fifty"?
  • "thrash band ... fellow thrash band..." not keen on the repetition and what's a "fellow" thrash band? It seems clear if they're both "thrash bands" then they'd be "fellows" of that genre.
  • "his inability to work on side projects" was this because he was actively prevented from doing so? Should be made clear.
  • Sad but True article has a small b for but, not necessarily part of this process but consider moving it appropriately.
  • I count only 12 Moss Brothers songs.
  • Ref 33 (for instance), avoid double periods.
  • Is it Nuclear Blast Records or just Nuclear Blast (per our article)?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for having a look at this. Got all of these bar the "Sad but True" thing—should I move the song page or fix the casing in the list? I get the feeling it's the latter but I'm not 100% on how conjunctions work with title case (this is from an english BA too...). GRAPPLE X 05:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, and no problem with the redirect, they're not disallowed. I just prefer the reliable source solution, so opt for the one which RS's use. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The albums themselves tend to use block capitals so I deferred to our article, which I'm pretty sure is how web and print sources parse it too. GRAPPLE X 23:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Lightlowemon

  • He played bass guitar with the group between 1987 and 2001. Any chance this sentence could be merged with the one before or after? It sounds like a fragment.
    Merged. GRAPPLE X 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his time with the band, Newsted was given writing credit for only three Metallica songs. I count six in the table.
    I guess that does look a bit off. There are three actual songs which he has credits for ("Blackened", "My Friend of Misery" and "Where the Wild Things Are"), but there's also a bass solo from a live album listed there, which is his own work (I don't own it but I'm 99% sure it's actually the bass intro to "My Friend of Misery"), another live bass solo which might or might not be the same work, and a medley of songs ("Justice Medley") which includes parts from "Blackened" (here's a breakdown of the parts). I'm at a loss for how to succinctly explain that only three studio-recorded songs featured original work credited to him though. :( GRAPPLE X 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, Newsted faced difficulty integrating with the group, and found little opportunity to add his music input. In his time with the band, Newsted was given writing credit for only three Metallica songs. to add his music input? The sentence sounds a little off, since this seems to be a cause and effect thing (as in the sentences are directly related), maybe merge these sentences somehow?
    How does it look now? GRAPPLE X 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newsted wrote and recorded three albums with the band: Voivod, Katorz and Infini. You just mentioned three different bands in the sentence before, so you need to specify which one you are talking about (even if it is obvious due to the album titles. Also you mention these three albums and yet I only see one listed in the table, why is this?
    Reworded it in the intro, but the three albums are definitely listed in the table (sort by "artist"; the first three Voivoid songs are each from a different album). GRAPPLE X 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do find it a little strange that you have 13 artists yet only mention 9 in the lead, missing The Moss Brothers, Unkle, IR8 and Sexoturica and Sepultura
    I couldn't find anything about his involvement with Moss Brothers beyond the raw credits in order to say anything about it, and I wasn't sure a one-song cameo for Sepultura was worth much of a mention. I could see about digging up some of the other stuff, though the IR8 and Sexoturica stuff is just one split demo that appears to have been a pair of self-released vanity projects. GRAPPLE X 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several songs and a few writers are redirects, you don't have to do anything with these just pointing them out:
Songs - ...And Justice for All (both occurrences), Battery (both), Blackened, Die, Die My Darling (listed with an extra comma after the second Die), Sad But True (all versions; in regards to the above comment, it should be spelt however it appears on the album), To Live Is to Die, The Unforgiven II (links to section) and Welcome Home (Sanitarium)
Writers - Chris Exall, Clive Blake
Looks good overall. --Lightlowemon (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • About to start working through these now, but about the last one—apparently AllRovi has once again split into the two sites that merged to form it in the first place (AllMovie and AllMusic, where "Rovi" comes from is a mystery). Looks like the content still exists but just elsewhere. I'm going to poke around and see if it's an easy fix or if I need to replace all the URLs manually. GRAPPLE X 19:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added in an extra line in the lead which should mean all acts are now covered, and have fixed the unnecessary redirects. I also managed to get the URLs fixed in the refs for AllMusic; as I had hoped it turned out to be a simple change that could be applied en masse to everything. GRAPPLE X 00:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by SchroCat 20:04, 1 December 2013 [27].

The Office (U.S. season 9)

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all the requirements that have been laid out by Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. I've had people mention that these articles should be FANs, so I'd like to point out that seasons 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 of the series were promoted to Featured Lists, and many television series' season pages have been promoted to FLs before; I just want to maintain consistency. The prose is of Good Article quality (which is passed a few months ago), it features alt text, images, pristine references, and MOS-complying tables. While any critiques would inevitably make this better, I feel it is ready for the next step.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Great job on prose and organization.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "The ninth season of the show is produced by Reveille Productions and Deedle-Dee Productions", past tense, so was.
  • "which was created by Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant for the BBC"
  • "In a conference call with reporters on August 21, 2012, Greg Daniels", Greg has been introduced in the previous paragraph, so it's fine to refer to him by his second name thereafter.
  • "On May 2, the petition amassed..." for consistency state the year.
    I have implemented your suggestions.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unhyphenate 'most watched'
  • "For the first sixteen episodes, the series was able to maintain roughly 4 million viewers per episode", tad repetitive? To get rid of the last bit, change to something like 'For each of the first 16 episodes...'
  • "This means that, on average, the season...", change to past tense
  • "Based on seven reviews, review aggregation website", repetition?
  • "Michael Tedder of Vulture wrote that he was", replace word with commented. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All have been changed, per your suggestions.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by SchroCat 10:08, 16 December 2013 [28].

List of Fairy Tail manga volumes

Nominator(s): Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because we need more FLCs on chapter lists and I have been working on this for months now, but had to leave for a two-month long Wikibreak back in August. I believe this chapter list meets the FLC criteria. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DragonZero
  • Ref names should not be in all caps
  • Refs should list the site's publisher? You have random house refs under Del Ray as the publisher.
  • You should reword the international release part. Is there a reliable source that says Fairy Tail is only published in those regions? Otherwise, it should be something like "released in regions such as..."
  • You can link the publishing companies in the lead, at least for star comics.
  • "40 tankōbonvolumes" needs space. Add nbsp; between the number and the unit
  • I find the third paragraph confusing overall.
  • The sources in the paragraph don't seem to back anything up there.
  • Later noted, some references contradict the release dates.

I'll take a closer look at the sources one by one later. Also, is it that easy to get FL for chapter lists? I'd be submitting them in hoards if it is. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the really late reply, but I am trying to help update the article as well by adding news about digital releases. I'll see what I can do about the rest. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one fix I think needs to be done. "The chapters are being collected in tankōbon format since December 15, 2006." - "Are being" is that really proper grammar? It just strikes me as really off. Rewording the whole sentence might be the only way around it though. Otherwise it looks good from a few spot checks, but I am totally new to this process. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see now. Some of the dates don't match the sourcing. Should be addressed. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weren't those the sources you were referring too? --Lightlowemon (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I forgot I mentioned that already. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Sorry, SJones, but I'm not really comfortable with this list. It's a summary of three other lists (List of Fairy Tail manga volumes (1–15), et al.), and adds no new information beyond what they have. Maybe if it was actually those three lists put together, with the chapter summaries, replacing the three, but if it's just going to be shortened forms of the same tables I don't see the purpose of the list. --PresN 00:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Crisco 1492 22:47, 26 November 2013 [29].

World's largest airlines

Nominator(s): FonEengIneeR7 (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because in my opinion this list offers the opportunity to compare large airlines by different categories, is easily comprehensible and does not an overload an average reader with content. I put a lot of effort into this article to bring it to its current state and I think it's about time for this article to get promoted. FonEengIneeR7 (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Arsenikk (talk)

As the article stands now it has substantial work before it meets the criteria.

  • The lead need to be substantially longer, perhaps five times the length. It should discuss the various definitions and why certain airlines are better at some criteria than others (for instance, long-haul airlines will perform relatively better than low-cost airlines on passenger-km and opposite in pax).
  • Please Do Not Capitalize Every Word In Section Headers.
  • Every table should have a brief introductory text, which among other mentions the unit which is being used (thus eliminating the need to have it in the section headers).
  • What is the criteria used to determine accumulated figures for airlines groups? It is airlines operated under the same main brand (e.g. Delta Air Lines / Delta Connection), or is it based on ownership groups (like International Airlines Group, which according to its article is the world's seventh-largest)? The article needs a clear definition of what it counts as a "airline". Alternatively it would make alternative listings for groups and airline brands.
  • To be honest, I was expecting more than top-ten lists. Perhaps top 25 would be more suitable? The structure (although it isn't particularly well-formated) of list of largest airlines in Europe is perhaps more well-suited, as it makes it easier to compare airlines and easier to include all.
  • From an accessibility point of view, the use of flags in this way is problematic, as only some viewing platforms are available and it requires a specialized knowledge of flags to identify countries. If you feel that country is a defining aspect of an airline and wish to include it, it should be listed in a separate column.
  • I would have included a table for airlines by revenue, as this is a frequently-cited size comparison (even though it does favor airlines in high-cost countries).
  • Fleet size needs to be dated.
  • Please ensure that images have a consistent size. It would be nice with one or two images in the lead section.
  • All the links in "see also" are listed in the navbox, so they are redundant to have in the "see also" section.
  • I don't see the relevance of including an external link to IATA.
  • Frankly, i would have preferred this article to be named "list of the largest airlines", although do not move the article until this FLC is concluded.

I will leave these comments for the time being and may have additional comments when these have been resolved. Arsenikk (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • Why do you continuously link air line articles? Other than in the lead, articles should only be linked once, per MOS:LINK
  • In "By Number of Destinations," "Delta air Lines" should be "Delta Air Lines".
  • The lead does not summarize the article very well. It should information on every section.
  • To be a featured list, the article must have Alternative text for images.
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, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [30].[reply]

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this a 2nd time for featured list because I still believe it meets the criteria. The first time around it was not promoted because the review timeframe expired and nobody seemed to have shown sufficient interest in the topic. Thanks to anyone willing to comment this time around. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsNot supported Support by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • the rank or date citations for several recipients are not cited for the date given in the table, only for Scherzer's alternative date, please check all the ones with a Note. The fact that this isn't seen in the Role and unit column indicates it may have been intentional, but I feel it is necessary for completeness. Examples include:
    • Botho von La Chevallerie
    • Dietrich von Choltitz

No changes made: It is a procedural question. I had built this list with the information from the AKCR/Fellgiebel. I cited this information in the Role and rank column only, one cite per row. In the second pass, I verified this with the information from Scherzer. Here I chose to cite every item of the table. This helps me keep an overview. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. I don't think a "one citation per line" approach is the answer to this query. Either all information on each recipient is clearly sourced, or it is not. My view (as described) is that it is not in its current form. I cannot support this nomination with that approach to sourcing, in my view a sortable tabularised list such as this is effectively incomplete without greater clarity of sourcing. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The citation style, citing every bit of info, follows the principles established during the reviews of List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1940–1941), 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945. All of which are featured lists today. Even if your comment warrants addressing, which I have, I feel that a final review comment "Not Supported", without first engaging in an open discussion, is not best practice. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the citation approach used is not adequate in its current form, regardless of the status of the other articles that might use it. The result of the citation approach you have used is that the source of some of the data (Fellgiebel) is not evident. I have changed my precipitate opposition to a tentative one, but I firmly believe this must be addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in my previous comment. I have implemented your suggestion! Have a look. The article lead already states that the list is based on Fellgiebel's book and deviations are derived from Scherzer's work. I don’t think that adding even more citations to this table helps clarity in any way. It would only impede load times. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where in the lead it says that "the list is based on Fellgiebel's book and deviations are derived from Scherzer's work". It states that the list (the assumption is the list of recipients) is drawn from Fellgiebel, but the point there is about the inclusion of a name on the list, not the details of the award itself in terms of rank or date of award. The addition of further citations from Fellgiebel is a significant improvement, but for example, Richard Czekay's rank of Hauptmann still needs to be cited, as does Erwin Clausen's date of award. When they are done I'll be happy to support. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It states "These recipients are listed in the 1986 edition of Walther-Peer Fellgiebel's book". Thanks for finding the other two citations. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the lead doesn't state that some of the data varies between the two sources, predominantly ranks and dates of award. A list of names is one thing, variances in data relating to the award between the two sources is another as far as I am concerned. Regardless, the additional citations from Fellgiebel resolve my issue, supporting. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there anything I can do to attract more reviewers? Help MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pop by in the next couple of days - ping me on Tues if I've forgotten by then. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 1 December 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, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [31].[reply]

List of chief ministers from Bharatiya Janata Party

Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the criteria. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As somebody who's spent a lot of time on chief-minister articles, I've come across a number of difficulties which has prevented me from nominating any (except the relatively simple List of current Indian chief ministers) at FLC. I see a number of those problems here:

  • the primary one is sourcing. WorldStatesmen.org seems to be a crowdsourced project, and I thus doubt it can be considered as a reliable source. You'll have go to individual state-govts' websites and hunt for CM-related info. In several cases these don't even exist.
  • What makes photius.com an RS?  Done
  • The Term (tenure length) column seems to be inspired by this. However that article was simpler in the sense that whoever was longest-serving was also the earliest occupant. In this BJP article, there's no way to use the sort function to rank by tenure lengths. There's also no mention of total length of tenures.  Done
  • You don't need to use ref [4] in the lead. It is backed up by the table.  Done
  • That map is extremely strange. It goes from lighter to darker shade of the same colour--giving the impression that a darker state has had more CMs than a lighter one. For eg.
  • IMO don't make any special indication for "regional party supported by the BJP". This article is about BJP's CMs, not BJP govts. Plus it's never really clear who is supporting who in Indian politics, so you'd need a source to back these claims.
  • On the whole: reconsider the purpose of the map. As a national party, obviously it will have a presence in nearly the whole country. Maybe just listing the four incumbent states is enough? Or maybe colour-code the states by no of CMs?
See below
I have opened a thread here about the source. I will fix all other issues once it gets clear whether the source is reliable or not. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is complete in itself with reliable sources. This article should be in Featured list.--Prateek MalviyaTalk 03:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me)
Comments
  • Any reasons for not including the No. column?
The CMs are initially sorted by their states. The No. column would had been appropriate if sorting would had been on the basis of name or something which is unique to each one.
  • Rowscopes can be for "Name" column rather than the "State" column, as the former is more significant in this list.
I have added "rowspan" to the "State" column and thus it automatically has row scope. I can add rowscope to Name column if you don't have any problems with two rowscopes.
Since this list is about the list of chief ministers, I thought the "chief minister" column is the most important. —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • Is "worldstatesmen.org" as RS? same for "jagranjosh.com"
Editors' views are not uniform when it comes to "worldstatesmen.org". I got only one response at WP:RSN regarding this, which suggested that this source can be used in this list. There is no alternative for this source. As for jagranjosh.com, it is a sister site of a well-known Hindi newspaper, and I am cent percent sure about its reliability.
Could you name the newspaper? —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dainik Jagran
  • Check whether all the images are free from cop-vio.
 Done However I am not sure in the case of File:Dhumal HP.jpg and File:DV Sadananda Gowda.jpg.
  • Remove the second template as it doesn't link to the list.  Done

—Vensatry (Ping me) 17:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to Vensatry's comment. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • Ensure publication/access dates are consistently formatted.  Done
  • Wouldn't a more suitable See also be "List of chief ministers from India National Congress" rather than the rather vague ones you currently have?  Done
  • Shouldn't the title of this list be "... from _the_ Bharatiya..."?  Done
  • "Serving since October 2001 (for 12 years, 51 days), Modi is the longest-serving" repetitive use of "serving".  Done
  • "Given he has ... he/she..." consistency required.  Done
  • I would put the key at the top of the table rather than wait for readers to scroll to the bottom of the table before discovering what the colour and asterisk relate to.  Done
  • "for the least time-period" this isn't grammatically correct English. "shortest period" would be better.  Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 27 November 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, 25 November 2013 (UTC) [32].[reply]

List of works by Kwee Tek Hoay

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is ready. Kwee was one of the most proficient Chinese Indonesian writers, and this bibliography (I believe) does his oeuvre justice.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 23:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on lede
  • "...and film reviews[2] as a magazine editor." Ref. should come after full-stop. Same for the rest of the refs.
  • Link Swastika.
  • translated to English → translated into English
  • During the 1920s he wrote ... comma after 1920s
  • ...first for Sin Po then for Sin Bin. → first for Sin Po and then for Sin Bin.
  • My grammar check programme is not having an issue with this. Could you point to any pages about grammar which require this?
  • "He established his first magazine, Panorama, in 1925; he went on to manage four further magazines, including the literary-oriented Moestika Romans and the religious Sam Kauw Gwat Po." Needs inline ref.
  • Images need alt text. Dunno why the captions are in this manner (Laozi... and ... Zhuangzi ...)?
  • ALT texts added. Caption is like that because they are three different images with one sentence holding them together (rather than repeat the same sentence three times). I've seen it in an FA before, though I forget which. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zia Khan 21:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – Usual solid stuff from Crisco. Just two questions, it maybe all or nothing, but I thought I'd ask anyway:
    • Are you using ref 1 and ref 4 to cover for the lack of citation at the end of the first para?
    • ISBN's in "Works cited" don't follow a consistently formatted order, should they? For instance, we have 3-3-3-3-1, 3-3-4-2-1, etc..
      • The ISBNs seem to all be 13 digit, so they are standardised. Nio's book was published in 1962, and I am unaware of any Indonesian books from the time which had ISBNs... the OCLC is given instead, which is necessarily of a different format. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--CassiantoTalk 21:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by SchroCat 19:30, 23 November 2013 [33].

List of currencies in Europe

Nominator(s): Matty.007 17:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have been working on this for some time in my sandbox, having felt that a FL would be an interesting place to aspire to, and thought that this article was as good a place as any to start. Thank you in advance for any constructive criticism. Matty.007 17:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Fixed lead size (I hope). Was that your only problem, Nergaal? Thanks, Matty.007 11:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Crisco 1492

  • Are any of these units of currency free to use image-wise?

checkY: Euro image moved to top

  • This list of currencies in Europe is a complete list of all de facto present currencies in Europe, but an incomplete list of the preceding currency, and the currency introduction dates. - We should not start with "this is a list". We know it's a list. Go straight to the subject. "There are (number) currencies currently used in Europe."

checkY: wording fixed

  • The UN is not an observer, the Vatican is. Check the grammar.

checkY: wording fixed

  • What's the point of having the information about the UN anyways?

Defining the terms of the list, and a bit of background information

I tried to fix the order a little. Is the article OK now, or is there something else? Thanks, Matty.007 10:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dudley Miles

  • To deal with the bare urls you could look at Template:Cite web. Alternatively, show them as [http://www.bankofalbania.org/ Bank of Albania] which shows as Bank of Albania.
    • checkYI wasn't sure whether to leave them, or format them as you said, but I have changed the format
  • It is not strictly correct that any country which enters the European Union (EU) is expected to join the Euro. A country which joins the EU is required to join eventually when it meets the critieria. It is worth mentioning that Sweden has not yet joined although it has not opted out.
    • I will look into this
      • Done
  • The dates for the pound sterling are wrong. The UK did not adopt the pound in 1971 - it just adopted a decimal division of the pound. The date of 1914 for the 'old' pound also looks odd. It is based on a commercial website and the date is not given in any other source I can find. The pound as a unit of account goes back to Anglo-Saxon times. According to my 1973 Encyclopedia Britannica, the main coin in the 18th century was the gold guinea, but in the nineteenth it was the sovereign and half-sovereign. I do not think there is any fixed date when the pound was introduced which can be cited, and perhaps other editors can suggest the best way to deal with this.
    • I will look into this
      • Fixed
  • The opinion of the Telegraph that it is "foolish" for Latvia to adopt the Euro is POV.
    • ☒NThat is also the view of the PM, but I gave the statistic that they based that on.
      • checkY: someone removed it
  • A picture of each coin would be more relevant than the ISO code. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Quick/Initial Comments from Godot13-

  • Currency sign column does not sort following an organizing principle. Perhaps it would be better to include the currency sign in the present currency column following the name of the currency.
    • checkY You have not done this. You have done part of this.
  • I don’t think ISO codes are necessary (or even helpful).
    • I think that they are used in trading of currencies, and are a useful inclusion
      • When three active reviewers (me,Crisco 1492, and Dudley Miles) question the relevance of the ISO codes for this list, you might want to take that into consideration...
        • Removed (against my best wishes, but it is three to one)
  • All the bank websites do exist in English, but are not linked to the English version (I fixed this, if the English version site provided a translation of the bank title it was used, otherwise the native-language title was used). All links should now be to English-language versions of the websites.
    • Thanks
  • Country bank column does not need to be sortable (it can rely on the Country sort to avoid using hidden key for each of the bank names).
    • checkY
  • Map colors are confusing: blue (traditionally representing water) is used to represent land.
    • I didn't make the map, so unfortunately have no idea how to change the colours
      • Also, most (if not all) of the 'Country and the euro' articles use the image
        • Not trying to be difficult, but I still find the color scheme confusing.
          • Not much I can do about this though
  • More to follow...-Godot13 (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous currency column – the following are missing currency and date (or date only): Albania, Azerbaijan (date only), Bulgaria, Denmark (date only), Kazakhstan (date only), Lichtenstein (date only), Monaco, Montenegro (date only), Norway, Poland, San Marino (date only), Sweden (date only), Turkey (date only), Ukraine (date only).
    • I left out things where there weren't reliable sources backing things up
      • This creates issue with consistency of data. Have you tried Google Books for World Paper Money Catalogs?
  • I like the idea of adding an image column to illustrate a specimen from either the introduction year, or of the previous currency (if the it would fill at least 75% of the cells in such a column). Just a personal opinion, not a requirement.-Godot13 (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The idea was raised above, but see Crisco's (and my) responses. I have tried to address your concerns. Did I do it adequately? Thanks, Matty.007 16:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have started to address the issues. With great respect for Crisco, I must disagree about loading time if images were included. I have a current FLC on Fractional Currency with images for each note and there is no issue with load time-Godot13 (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I never said anything about load times. Please do not put words in my mouth. I said a lot of the currencies will not be public domain or freely licensed, so there will be a lot of holes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I must have misinterpreted what was said a few lines above. I did not mean to put words in your mouth.-Godot13 (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was me who made that point. Matty.007 17:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will leave images out unless there is more opinion for the inclusion; it is two to one at present
  • I have started going through the references and realize there may be some issues with the quality and reliability of "Oanda". While I have only just started going through the table in detail (re: the missing data I referred to above), for example:
The Albanian Lek - It was first introduced in 1926 (not 1991). Granted there have been 3 issues, but the 3rd issue was introduced in 1995.
The Austrian Schilling - First schilling (1925-1938), then the German Reichsmark during WWII, then the Second schilling (1945-1999). I don't know if Austria printing anything other than the Schilling, but if you put 1945 for the introduction date of the schilling, you need to state it was the second schilling, and why.
Both Azerbaijan and Belarus has a First and Second Manat and Ruble (respectively)...
Bosnia and Herzegovina – Convertible Mark established by agreement in 1995 but did not replace the existing currency until 1998...
I removed dates, which is the only area in which Oanda weren't so good. Matty.007
This is where I'm stopping for now. I will go through the rest of the table. I'm very sorry, but for now, unfortunately, I have to Temporarily Oppose based on a lack of detail and possible factual inaccuracies, which I am willing to collaborate to resolve.-Godot13 (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having a look, I don't think that they do past currencies, so I have only five gaps (which personally I think is acceptable). Are you willing to review your !vote, or have I addressed the issues unsatisfactorily? Thanks, Matty.007 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will re-review this weekend.-Godot13 (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the temporary oppose based on the changes that have been made since I left that comment. The second reference I provided above covers currency from 1368 to 1960

Minor point

I have fixed some more issues, but Crisco 1492; I am not sure that you have seen my comment above? Thanks, Matty.007 17:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've seen. Why do you need a section on Euro all on its own? Wouldn't a map of the currencies used in Europe work better? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would that work? A colour code? I think that the current map adequately illustrates the point made in the above paragraphs. I moved the Euro section into the intro. Matty.007
  • I still do not think the dates for the UK are right. It is now given as 1849, but this was just when the florin was introduced. I have found an academic source at [34] which states that the pound coin was first struck in 1489, and this seems to me the best date. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great Britain paper 1694 and coin (shilling and sovereign) 1489.
I think the main coin before 1489 was the penny, but I cannot find a good source for this. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will change it if a source is found
I removed dates per suggestion below, so this is now not relevant. Matty.007

*Question - Hi, is the general consensus that this is not suitable for FL yet; and cannot be fixed quickly; or is it possible for me to get some support !votes as well? Thanks, Matty.007 16:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • First, I'm not entirely sure why there should be a separate article from the FL List of circulating currencies for this, but you've done a good job and that article could use some improvement (promoted back in 2006) so I'll let it slide for now.
    • I saw that it was a poor standard, and though about doing one for each continent. Matty.007
  • That list includes the names of fractional units, which should be included here as well.
    • Will I need to reference it? Thanks, Matty.007
      • Done, but unreferenced per your comment about the country banks backing up currencies
  • I know citations are good, but you don't really need one for the number of countries in Europe.
  • The first paragraph seems choppy, with the third sentence not connecting to the first two.
    • Attempted fix. Matty.007
      • Yeah, I like that better.
  • You can simply say that the Euro is used by 332 million people; the source doesn't need to be included in text, and "said to be used" is unnecessary.
  • The third paragrah isn't bad, but isn't about Europe's currencies in general. There should be more overview to balance it out.
  • Again I know shouldn't be complaining about too many sources, but I feel that they're cluttering up the table, and particularly in the Present currency column it shouldn't just link to Xe or a forex site. The link to the Bank site will have it covered, and this isn't material that will be challenged by anyone. The Euro symbol doesn't really need a [13] footnote next to it every time either.
    • Euro ref removed. So I should remove all referencing to present currency? Matty.007
    • OK. Does the same go for the introduction date? Matty.007
      • If you want. Dates are more challengeable material; just no need to use the same citation for both columns either. Maybe consider a separate source column. Reywas92Talk 16:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, given that Godot13 found that Oanda may not be a reliable source, I have removed the dates. Matty.007
  • Good work though! Reywas92Talk 15:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liechtenstein has the former currency in the symbol box.

Further comments I think you are nearly there - just a few points which still need fixing.

  • There is a limit of 4 paragraphs of introduction for FLs, but you have 6. You could fix this by merging 2 and 5, which are on the same subject, and deleting para 6, which is on a topical matter which does not really belong in the list. The comment on Sweden could be shortened to something like "Sweden has not joined the Euro, although it has not formally opted out, but it has not yet become a member of ERM II, which is one of the preconditions for joining the Euro."
  • Note 11 is mis-spelled and it is not really relevant as it is about Denmark, not Sweden.
    • Sorry, I don't understand. Reference 11? Matty.007
      • Yes. "11. ^ "ERM II". Minestary of Finance. 11 November 2011. Retrieved 17 October 2013." It is a ref on Sweden but the website is the Danish ministry. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, that is ERM ii, which got me confused. I backs up the sentence at the very bottom. Matty.007
          • And I was previewing it, which is why it wasn't #11 for me. Matty.007
  • UK dates are still wrong. There is no correct solution, but you could use the 1489 date I suggested above unless you can find a better one. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • "all of which are members of the United Nations" this reads as if it applies to the currencies not the countries.
  • All linked elements in a table should be linked every time if the table is sortable.
  • Why aren't all sub-units linked, e.g. Öre?
  • What are blanks meant to represent in Previous currency column?
  • Why is First Ruble so capitalised?
  • "Oesterreichische Nationalbank" surely "Austrian National Bank" unless you're going to use official native names for all banks.
    • That is what the banks call themselves in English, e.g. if they call themselves the 'National Bank of Belgium' in the English site, then that's what they're down as. If they call themselves 'Danmarks Nationalbank', then that is what they are called. Matty.007
  • Remove SHOUTING from ref titles.
    • I copied and pasted the titles (although I fixed the one shouting). Matty.007
  • Check ref titles for WP:DASH compliance.
    • Sorry, I didn't quite understand that. So refs with '-' in them need {{spaced ndash}}? Thanks, Matty.007
      • Attempted fix, sorry if wrong. Matty.007
  • Table does not comply with MOS:DTT for row and col scopes.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Arsenikk (talk)

  • Quite frankly I don't see what this article offers which isn't or could not easily be included in List of circulating currencies.
    • A splitting into continent size chunks of a large list. Matty.007
  • Any reason currency codes are left out? It would be a very useful thing to include.
  • I find it odd that the article provides external links to the national banks rather than a wikilink to out article on them.
  • Any reason Norwegian speciedaler is not listed as a former currency of Norway?
    • Because I couldn't find any sources which said this. (I have found one, and added the info.). Matty.007
  • "Øre" is spelled "Öre" in Swedish.
  • Avoid contractions, such as "doesn’t".

Arsenikk (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why are the fractional units capitalized? Nergaal (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I pointed out earlier that citation 5 on Sweden is both on the wrong country (Denmark) and mis-spelled, but this has not been corrected. I would suggest deleting it. Also "but in addition, Sweden does not use the Euro, but Sweden has not yet met the ERM II, the Exchange Rate Mechanism, which has the result of them not using the Euro." is confusing. ERM is just one of the technical hoops Sweden would have to go through if it decided to join. I think all you need is something like "Sweden has also not adopted the Euro, although unlike Denmark and the UK it has not formally opted out." Dudley Miles (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
  • Haléř, when googled, links to Heller (money) which could be used as it does discuss the Czech currency unit in passing. I would "czech" the others.... (my bad).
  • What is that odd line in the table "Recongnised countries in Europe"? If that's a note to the reader, then make it a note, not an odd row with a single column, badly formatted...
  • "Icelandic króna:first króna" vs "Icelandic króna: second króna" consistent spacing post-colon please.
  • Still struggling to understand what N/A means for previous currency when "None" exists as well. Are these "Not applicable" referenced?
    • N/A refers to when no RS could be found to back up the currency, none means that we are definite that it never existed. Matty.007
  • Sortable table, so link every linked item each time (e.g. Deutsche Mark).
  • "on 2007-12-19." looks like everywhere else you stick to dmy date format, be consistent.
  • Non-English references should state which language in which they are presented, e.g. ref 56.
  • Is it "Xe" or "Xe"?
    • Not sure. I put 'Xe' for all, but ProveIt GT seems to have italicised some, and not other things. Matty.007
  • What would make a website like "http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/europe/liechtenstein/currency/" meet our WP:RS guidelines?
    • The site uses specialists, such as the US Time Agency, Royal Greenwich Observatory, HM Navy, etc.. Matty.007
  • The Telegraph article has a publication date included so should be included.
    • I got my formatting in a muddle, now fixed. Matty.007
  • You link Royal Mint as if it's a work not a publisher, and then don't link The Telegraph, what's the linking strategy for publishers and works in the references? No matter what, it should be consistent.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 15 December 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, 25 November 2013 (UTC) [35].[reply]

List of Detroit Red Wings general managers

Nominator(s): Rejectwater (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Detroit Red Wings are back at it again with another Featured List nomination. Will they ever give up? Still going strong since 1926 so apparently not. Up for our attention this time is the team's general managers, all the men who have built the club into what it was, what it wasn't, and what it is today. The list has undergone the peer review process and came out clean. I am curious to know what the community has to say and I am looking forward to reading your input and acting on your recommendation. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentsSupport
  • I'm not sure that the alt-text for the images needs to be quite so detailed. Is it necessary for such detail (is it really important that in the image of Ken Holland he has a slight smile on his face?)? I'm not sure whether it needs to be so detailed to meet WP:ACCESS
  • I have never read an alt text I found too detailed. The point is to describe the image to someone who can't see it; the more detail the better in my book. A picture is worth a thousand words after all. Rejectwater (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Gender-neutral_language doesn't make it 100% clear, I see no reason why "Eleven men have served as general manager (GM) in franchise history" should not read "Eleven people have served as general manager (GM) in franchise history" -- is their gender important, are we implying it is by saying "men" rather than "people"?
  • I know that this may not be necessary, but I'm wondering if a note could/should be added giving a bit of detail into what the exact role of a general manager is within the team? General manager isn't bad, but my main question is what responsibilities the head coach has, and what the general manager has. This is especially relevant because the roles were held by the same person for twenty years.
  • It's a question of whether the list is about the managers themselves, or the role itself. Of course it is likely a combination of both rather than one or the other. Wondering if a sentence or two describing the role (in the context of this team, not a general description of a general manager) would be good. The fact that at least a couple of the GM's were simultaneously coach is quite interesting, but not sure how best to tackle that. -- Shudde talk 06:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe reference the trader Jack sentence more explicitly, and add [9] immediately after the semi-colon.
  • The references had been more explicit until recently when they were moved due a comment in peer review which stated that it looks nicer to have them at the end of the sentences. Six of one half a dozen of the other? Rejectwater (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under first Abel and then " -- Because you mentioned Abel was also coach in the preceding sentence, it's not 100% clear where you're saying "under first [head coach] Abel", or "under first [general manager] Abel" -- You might want to clarify this
  • "when they made the playoffs only twice" -- "during which they ..." ?
  • "from 1990–94" -- "from 1990 to 1994" as per WP:YEAR
  • "from 1994–97" see above
  • Wondering if more could be said about Art Duncan. Especially considering he was part of the teams founding, and was a player, coach and manager.
  • I have wondered the same thing. There is an odd vacuum of information concerning Duncan's tenure with the team, which I imagine is due to being in Adams' shadow. One would think the man who was the first team captain, head coach, and general manager (all at the same time no less) would be a legend, but he's not. His bio on the Red Wings website doesn't even have a picture. He's just the guy who is first on each list. Rejectwater (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thinking about this more it makes sense. He was only in Detroit one year and they didn't accomplish anything to note in that time. His claim to fame in Red Wings history was being first on those lists and that is it. Rejectwater (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that he was founding GM, coach, player and captain, and yet had no significant influence on the side is itself quite notable! Maybe that could be added. The only other question I'd ask is how he got all those responsibilities -- who appointed him? Even if not much is known about him, if a RS says so "that not much is known about his tenure", then there is nothing wrong with saying so in the lead itself. -- Shudde talk 06:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was typical of the time for someone to serve in multiple capacities concurrently; see General manager, for example, which states "For many years in U.S. professional sports, coaches often served as general managers for their teams as well, deciding which players would be kept on the team and which ones dismissed, and even negotiating the terms of their contracts in cooperation with the ownership of the team." Serving as coach and general manager at the same time is still done today in various sports leagues (Bill Belichick for example) and has been done many times by the Red Wings. As recently as 1990 owner Mike Ilitch was quoted as saying "I feel it's absolutely necessary to consolidate the position of GM and head coach." Jimmy Skinner was the first Wings GM to not also be head coach for at least some portion of his tenure, although he had been head coach in the mid 1950's. The only guys in Detroit who have acted as general manager while also never coaching are Jim Devellano and Ken Holland. Rejectwater (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm not really talking about the fact that he was both coach and GM at the same time - I don't think that's worth commenting on, rather I'm inquiring about his lack of influence considering he held four notable positions simultaneously: coach, player, captain and GM! Is there a reason he was only with the team one year? -- Shudde talk 03:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I imagine Adams was seen as an upgrade at coach and gm; hindsight proves it so. Adams traded Duncan away before the ink was dry on Adams' contract, probably as a house cleaning move. New leadership wanted to put it's stamp on the organization. This is almost all conjecture. I'm not aware of any source that goes into any kind of detail about the behind the scenes "what were they thinking" aspect of these moves. Rejectwater (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. Shame it's all conjecture because would be good to have a little more on him (and why he was there so briefly). Anyway happy to support. All my comments have been addressed. - Shudde talk 10:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Minor suggestion; rather than "Ken Holland is Detroit's current general manager." (I hate the term currently) say "Ken Holland has been Detroit's general manager since 1997."

That's everything. All rather minor (other than the Art Duncan thing). -- Shudde talk 06:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your input. Usually I would just hammer out your suggestions but a few of these seem to be more toss up type comments(?). I look forward to hearing anything you have to say on those or any other issue you see with the page. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I apologise if my comments read like thoughts rather than "fix this please". I'm quite open to my comments not being valid or being a bit pedantic, but I'd rather say something if I'm going to spend the time on a review. Usually I just add comments as I read the article, and don't necessarily consider them important/critical. -- Shudde talk
  • Support. The lede is of appropriate size, per WP:LEAD, and also provides good background info for the reader. The list is formatted well and meticulously referenced throughout. I like the Key, it's quite helpful. Nice use of portal selection. Great job overall, deserves the star. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)
*Comments from Crisco 1492
  • oversees all aspects of Detroit's hockey operations including all matters relating to player personnel, development, contract negotiations and player movements - lack of a comma between "operations" and "including" in the original?
  • Under first Abel as GM and then Ned Harkness, Alex Delvecchio, Lindsay, and Jimmy Skinner in the position, - perhaps "First under first Abel, then under Ned Harkness, Alex Delvecchio, Lindsay, and Jimmy Skinner,"
  • Finals - that this is the Stanley Cup Finals is not clear as you haven't used the word yet.
  • Under first Devellano and Bowman and then Holland - too many ands — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of comma - yes, that is a cut and paste from the source.
  • Switched the "first" and the "under" as suggested, however the "as GM" was added due to a comment in peer review that it was necessary to specify the position as head coach was mentioned in the previous sentence.
  • Finals - changed "Cup final" to "Stanley Cup Finals" in previous paragraph.
  • Too many ands - fixed.
  • Thank you for the input and for taking the time to look it over. Kind regards, Rejectwater (talk) 23:49, 13 November 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.

Older nominations

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Crisco 1492 23:05, 31 October 2013 [36].

United States congressional delegations from Massachusetts

Nominator(s): Designate (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list is good for FL. —Designate (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose looks pretty horrific to me and takes a day-and-a-half to load.

  • Tables need to meet WP:ACCESS for row and col scopes.
  • A key is needed, what is (F), (Pro-Admin) etc?
  • I would suppress the Table of Contents. Too many arbitrary sections.
  • "1928–1971" etc check WP:YEAR.
  • I see not one single in-line reference. How odd.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't object to making big changes, but combining all these tables is a lot of work without any clear benefit. What's the advantage of having one huge table instead of 20 small ones? You think we're better off without linking to the Census and pointing out the changes in each redistricting? District 8 in 1813 has nothing to do with District 8 in 1913, so it's not like there's any continuity to preserve. What you propose would 1) remove a lot of useful information and 2) would crush the later tables into half the existing width. What am I getting for that? I don't think the two existing FLs are automatically the standard just because they were nominated already. —Designate (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you have said, it's a proposal. In answer to your questions/comments: a)No more arbitrary sections. Easier to to read. Consolidates things like links to districts which are currently repeated over and over again. b)Yes. The article isn't about the Census and/or redistricting. A few sentences can explain those issues well enough for the purposes of this list. c)Massachusetts's 8th congressional district called and it would like to have a word. 1) The links to the census are not necessary. I don't see what other information would be lost. 2) I don't see width as necessarily being an issue. d) Yet we know that they are written in an accepted form and what we have here has already been described as "horrific". Rejectwater (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I accept that reasoning. I want to keep a clear division to indicate redistricting, though. This is an article on Congressional delegations—redistricting is inextricable from the topic. I don't want to imply that the 4th district in 1993 was the 4th district in 2013 and that the 10th district just disappeared into the sea. Part of the reason Congressmen resign (e.g. Barney Frank) is because the shape of their district got out of their control. Even if we don't go into those kinds of interpretations, we need to make the data available so other people can. —Designate (talk) 14:44, 20 October 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 not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC) [37].[reply]

List of Christina Aguilera performances

Nominator(s): Simon (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think this is a comprehensive list of Christina Aguilera's concert tours, as well as her notable live performances, thus I think it is suitable for a featured list. Simon (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose what makes a performance "notable"? {{famous}} applies.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does it look now? — Simon (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--Birdienest81 (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, how do we know this is complete? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Game 6 and Game 7 performances at the Super Bowl are all counted as performances of the anthem at the Super Bowl that year. — Simon (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean the Super Bowl. I meant the 2010 NBA Finals. She also performed at Game 6 and 7 of that series. Super Bowl only has one game. And she also performed at the 2007 Primetime Emmys.--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simon, how do we know this is complete? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The list only includes performances that are performed at big awards, big television series, or/and telethons. (I followed List of Madonna concert tours to work on this list.) — Simon (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is the definition of a "big" award? A "big" television series? Etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd certainly consider the Emmys a big award ceremony, since that is the most significant award for U.S. television shows. That performance still isn't included, although the NBA Finals ones have been added (how were they overlooked when the All-Star Game performance counted as a major event?). I'm also leery of the list's scope, and wonder how many other appearances aren't included. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of other appearances, she performed "What a Girl Wants" at the Miss USA 2000 pageant. So really, there could be plenty of performances you may have missed.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Big" is subjective. Perhaps we should be including all notable performances? The nominator has stated that this page is based on List of Madonna concert tours, so might this page likewise be List of Christina Aguilera concert tours? "Notable live performances" is a section of the Madonna page; the Aguilera page could be built the same way. Rejectwater (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • There is no verification for the tour duration dates. Sources like this are reliable and support that kind of information.
  • Number of performances should be referenced, if possible.
  • I could see that all of them have been sourced already
  • Oppose - This is taking too long to get the article up to FL. If you can fix all these things I've listed then you'll have my support, but if it gets denied FL then you have a guideline to work with.
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, 11 November 2013 (UTC) [38].[reply]

68th Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1996 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I read the requirements and criteria. I also followed how the 1929, 1990, 1992, 2000, 2004, 2009, 2010, and 2012 Oscars were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a confusing "it also lower a higher" in the ratings section that needs to be rewritted, otherwise good work like with the others and Support. Reywas92Talk 07:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed: I changed "it also lower a higher" to "it also earned."
--Birdienest81 (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The ceremony, televised in the United States by ABC." That sentence lacks a verb. Perhaps it can be "The ceremony was televised...". The special awards and very few and may be better in a single section. In multiple nominations and awards you said "The following 19 films received multiple awards" over the list of multiple nominations. "The following individuals (listed in order of appearance) presented awards or performed musical numbers" lacks a period, and the parentesis may be replaced by commas. Cambalachero (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed: It is supposed to be in italics.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 11:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The 1-3 sentences of the article, does not have a source to acknowledge it.
  • ″Winners are listed first and indicated with double dagger (double-dagger)″ Please put it in a table, for example see 40th Daytime Emmy Awards
  • Do not put references in the infobox, it would better to add those refs in the lead.
  • WP:Overlink, the winners and nominees table is not sortable therefore there is no reason why it some word are overlink.
  • ″Because of the negative reception received from David Letterman's stint as host....″ → a sentence never starts with the word because.

 — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 00:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed: I fixed everything you listed above with a few notes
  • The references in the infobx were moved so that they could be used a sources for the first three sentences in the article, the intro, or elsewhere appropriate.
  • The winners and nominees table is now sortable (clicking on gold bar changes order) with winners in one column and nominees in another column. So no dagger necessary because winners are clearly separated from rest of nominees.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Winners and nominees: According to our article, Howard's End shouldn't have the apostrophe.
  • Division of Best Original Score category: "dived" should be "divided".
  • "Four years later, the two categories scoring were merged back into one category." Feels as if "categories" and "scoring" should be reversed in order.
  • Rainbow Coalition: I see "African Americans" and "African-American" here. Does it have the hyphen or doesn't it?
  • Fixed: I fixed everything you listed above. For African Americans, I removed the hyphen per se Wikipedia's own article. Thank you.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Goldberg is now missing the d. Everything else appears to be fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed: I fixed the problem. Thank you.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)
*Comments
Jones immediately selected actress and comedian Whoopi Goldberg to oversee hosting duties for the second time - So he selected her two times, or she had previously been selected? Need to make this sentence clearer
the gig, - not quite formal
the Best Song nominees performances - either nominees' or performances of the Best Song nominees.
Watch for duplicate links! I'm seeing a lot in-text.
ceremony, presented - can you present a ceremony?
 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed: I fixed everything you listed above.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:21, 3 November 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, 25 November 2013 (UTC) [39].[reply]

List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for the United States

Nominator(s): Anthony (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the similar Switzerland article recently passed. Sourced, thorough, the PR problems have been resolved. I believe this one is sufficient to pass standards now. Anthony (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Rejectwater

Additional Comments from Rejectwater

  • Sorting doesn't work quite right in the skaters table due to some skaters having an en dash in the assists column. Replace the en dashes in these cells with {{sort dash}} to correct this.
  • En dash (does not apply) isn't in the key.
  • Some sort of explanation as to why some skaters have en dash in the assists column, a note explaining assists were not recorded at the time, or whatever the reason, should be added. I think at the top of the column next to the "A" would work well. Rejectwater (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well written, well sourced, comprehensive. I believe it meets all the criteria. Rejectwater (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Quick comment
  • The "Tournaments" column sorts differently for netminders (where is sorts as "Olympics") and the skaters (where it sorts exclusively by year). I vastly prefer the way it sorts for the skaters. Harrias talk 21:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just noticed that myself. I have no idea why it does that or how to fix it, as it appears the tables are formatted exactly the same. I prefer the way it sorts for skaters too, but I don't know what to do to get the goalies to sort the same way. Any help? Anthony (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was looking at the code also and came to the same conclusion. I applied a fix to the goaltenders table using the {{sort}} function, just for the three goalies that have appeared in multiple tournaments. Why it worked one way on one table and another on another is beyond me. Rejectwater (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SaskatchewanSenator
  • No link to the United States men's national ice hockey team?
    • Added link in lead.
  • The material about Canada in 1972 and 1976 doesn't seem relevant.
    • It's relevant to the discussion about the integration of professionals in the Olympics - without Canada's boycott, the IIHF never would've allowed the NHL to play.
  1. If that's the case, it should be stated rather than implied.
  2. I don't think the boycott influenced the IOC's decision. It was 10 years after the last boycott that they changed the rules to allow professionals.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That paragraph appears in the Canada and Switzerland articles, both of whom passed FLC. The rationale was the same there as it is here: to provide historical perspective. And the IIHF moves at a glacial pace, so it's not surprising it took 10 years. I can pare it down, but the information is still important and should be included, at least IMHO. Anthony (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reference for that opinion about the IIHF?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was intended as a casual observation, not a declarative statement. I don't need a source for an opinion on a talk page... Anthony (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the information is relevant, however it does come across as Canada specific. Maybe something more like "The Olympic Games were originally intended for amateur athletes, so the players of the National Hockey League (NHL) and other professional leagues were not allowed to compete. In 1986, the IOC voted to allow all athletes to compete in Olympic Games, starting in 1988, following a boycott of the 1972 and 1976 games by Canada. Many of Canada's top players were professional, so the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association (CAHA) had pushed for the ability to use professional and amateur players." Rejectwater (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made edits to the lead - hopefully it comes across as less Canadian-centric than before. Anthony (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The new sentence "The move was spurred on by Canada's boycott ..." is not supported by the two references cited. I don't think that is a widely held view.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now it says "The move followed Canada's boycott..." which is a factually correct statement. Anthony (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a problem. That's WP:SYNTHESIS. You can't make that implication unless a reliable source has.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Bringing it back a bit). It's not a problem. The boycotts were in '72 and '76, and the vote was in '86. Chronologically, the vote took place after the boycotts. It's a factually correct statement, made clearly and without any other blatant implications. Anthony (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read WP:SYNTH? It applies to combining these facts in that paragraph.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have ready SYNTH, and I failed to see a violation. However, as I do not want this nomination hung up any longer, I've removed the sentence about Canada entirely from the paragraph. Hope this satisfies you. Anthony (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it looks good.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent notes. --SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
#There is inconsistent dating format in the "Notes" section. - some are formatted as "February 28, 2010. Retrieved September 30, 2013", others as "2009-03-30. Retrieved September 30, 2013". You should aim for consistency throughout.
    1. Fixed.
  2. The "Notes" section is ill-named and confused, in that it largely contains "footnotes" and "notes": "Notes" 22, 28 30, and 32–41 are notes: the rest are footnotes. I suggest splitting these out into two separate sections, named as such.
    1. Fixed.
  3. The current "References" section contains six entries: three of them are not used and should not really be there.
    1. Removed two that admittedly were not used, but the other four definitely are. Anthony (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- SchroCat (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up on these so quickly. Just a couple of other small points

Footnotes

  • FNs 6 & 7 are from an unreliable source—see WP:RS/IMDB. Google books may be able to help out with a more reliable entry
    • Fixed.
  • FN 9: do you have a page number for this? Not a problem if not, but it is preferred
    • No, I took the reference from the Canada article, which didn't have it, and I don't have access to the archives to check.
  • The Podnieks and Szemberg book: do you have a location for the publisher, which should also be in there?

Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All good: many thanks for polishing those bits off. - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Resolute 20:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments from Resolute
  • " After sitting out the 1928 tournament, in 1932 they sent a team made up almost entirely of players attending college in the US." - reads awkwardly. Perhaps: "After sitting out the 1928 tournament, they returned in 1932 with a team made up entirely of players attending college in the US."?
    • Fixed.
  • "The early American teams were successful, winning three silvers..." - "The early American teams were successful, winning three silver medals..."
    • Fixed.
  • Something tells me the AHA was not expelled "despite" Olympic rules mandating amateur players only. Specify that they were expelled for refusing to accept the players.
    • Fixed.
  • There is an incongruity in the joined statements that the US did not do well and that they won silver in 1972.
    • Fixed.
  • I'd probably split that giant second paragraph in two, starting the second with "In 1960..."
    • Fixed.
  • Question on the reserve goaltenders: I may be wrong, but I think Olympic rules require that a player has to actually participate in a game to qualify for a medal. If so, the notations that the reserves won medals should probably be removed.

Overall, nothing all that significant. Just some small questions. Cheers, Resolute 23:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC) [40].[reply]

Lo Nuestro Award for Pop Album of the Year

Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is part of a project for the Lo Nuestro Awards that were considered the "Latin Grammy", before the inception of the actual Latin Grammy Award. References for the first ceremonies are hard to find, I even sent emails to Univision and Billboard to find out about the nominees on the missing years, with no success. This was a hard investigation by Erick and yours truly. I will be attentive to your comments and help to improve the article. Thanks. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC) [41].[reply]

List of people who performed on Beatles recordings

Nominator(s): matt (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive list of the subject, and a list that meets all FL criteria. It has recently been through a peer review, which threw up no major issues (mainly style and referencing, a few content suggestions)—all of which have been seen to. The list is stable, and content is unlikely to change as no new entries will be added (for obvious reasons!). matt (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're going to hate me, but I think a sortable list would be much better here. Columns would be Name, Instrument (with "vocals" for singers), track(s), and Ref(s) (the last one being unsortable); "Date" or "Year" may also be useful. This would be much more useful as it would allow us to, say, see all of the people who helped record "Yesterday" at a glance.
Also, you have numerous harv errors (i.e. the links are broken). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, you're right, I hate you now! How would sorting work with numerous rowspans (for musicians who contributed on numerous occasions)? I presume the best way would be to use one row per contribution (i.e. per song per person)? Thanks for your feedback—is there a tool I can use to quickly check the ref linkage? matt (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. The tool worked a treat! I guess it's either have the song column sortable (one entry per row) or not sort by it. How would you suggest doing the "name" field for sorting—"Aspinall, Neil"? Not sure if I've seen any MOS topics addressing this. Thanks again for the help. matt (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment(s). Wow, firstly: great job!

  • I wonder if it might be an idea to add something like "Performers" or "Contributing musicians" as a heading inside the contents box near the top of the article. I did a bit of a double take, seeing the letters of the alphabet there with no apparent explanation.
  • I would include the Asian Music Circle in the alphabetical list, for their contributions to "Love You To" and "Within You, Without You". And also change wording under Omissions sections for these songs – maybe something like: "the individual members of the Asian Music Circle who contributed to "Love You To" (performing on sitar and tambura)[28] and "Within You Without You" (performing on dilruba, swarmandal, tabla and tambura)"?
  • By the way, the sitar in "Love You To" is now generally acknowledged as played by Harrison (Everett and Lewisohn assume so, Peter Lavezzoli is much more committed on this credit). It always surprises me that MacDonald's uncertainty about the identity of this sitarist continues to appear in revised editions of his book; more than anything, the main hook/riff is so obviously blues-based, and very similar in style to Harrison's harder (darker) guitar riffs on Revolver compared with earlier Beatles albums. Having said that, I realise that mention of there being unknown musicians on the song "performing on sitar and tambura" doesn't necessarily conflict with Everett, Lewisohn and Lavezzoli – perhaps there was a second sitar player.
  • Also, is there any rationale behind the order of those songs mentioned under Omissions? It's a bit of a surprise to read about the two Indian tracks at the end of the discussion, when "Love You To" is one of the earliest examples of a non-orchestral guest musician appearing on a Beatles recording (perhaps the very first, I'm not sure).
  • Jackie Lomax definitely sung on "Prudence", according to MacDonald and others. He was also among the backing chorus on "Hey Jude". I thought I'd read this in Chris O'Dell's book (maybe I did but I can't find it now from mentions of the song listed in the index); and I've come across it in one or two Beatles books. Not very helpful, I admit – Lomax discusses the session in a 2004 interview with Terry Staunton [Terry Staunton, "Jackie Lomax: Is This What You Want?", Record Collector, July 2004; available at Rock's Back Pages]. Not everyone's as mad as me to shell out cash on that RBP site, so here's the relevant text: Staunton: "You were involved in The White Album yourself, weren't you?" Lomax: "I sang the low harmony part on 'Dear Prudence'. I was in the next studio working on my album, and they just dragged me in to help out. It was a bit of a surprise, because I honestly never thought I could add anything to what they were doing. They were The Beatles! I also did a bit of "na na na" on 'Hey Jude', there was quite a pool of us doing our bit there."
  • Perhaps add for Lomax and Billy Preston that they were also Apple Records artists? It seems logical to mention it, given the Beatles context of the list.

Hope this helps, Matt. I don't mean to quibble – if you "hate" Crisco 1492, I don't stand a chance either! Again, it looks mighty good right now. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sorry—incredibly busy IRL. Thanks for the feedback guys, I'll be on it when I can... matt (talk) 23:06, 3 November 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, 11 November 2013 (UTC) [42].[reply]

World Fantasy Award for Best Novel

Nominator(s): PresN 18:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, time to take a step back from increasingly-obscure video game-related lists, and return to speculative fiction award lists. We even have a non-obscure subject matter for y'all this time- the novels category of the World Fantasy Awards, the biggest player in the Fantasy-specific literary awards. Like always, the list is based off of the dozens of Hugo, Nebula, etc. award lists I've pushed through here in the last few years, so it should be pretty smooth sailing for this and future WFA category nominations. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 18:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine, but do we need an asterisk and blue background for each winner? I think that the blue background alone does this pretty well Cambalachero (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you can't differentiate between things based on color alone, or color-blind people can't tell the difference. --PresN 14:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Crisco 1492
  • Trophy is a copyvio, as the trophy itself is likely a copyrighted design and thus this is a derivative work of a non-free object.
  • previous year. - calendar year or 365 days before the awards ceremony? You say it further below, but this is the first mention
  • Tying in with that, do you need to repeat "previous year" whilst talking about the novel category?
  • late Spring - Means a completely different thing for people in the southern hemisphere. Find another wording that means the same for everyone (see WP:SEASON)
  • Should Ægypt be sorted after Z?
  • Are any of the unlinked authors notable? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed image and addressed other concerns; I'm not sure if Æ should be sorted as AE or what, so I left it as the default; and no, to the best of my knowledge the unlinked authors don't need a redlink. --PresN 17:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Combed through it a few times but I can't really find anything to quibble about, bar my own aesthetic preference for something other than an asterisk for the secondary highlight—to me, an asterisk seems a little too easy to miss at a glance; though maybe this could be changed by placing it before the name rather than after it ({{sort|Hellwing, Jim|*Jim Hellwig}} would keep things sorted properly). But that's wholly a personal taste thing. GRAPPLE X 21:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and I can see little to suggest save these tweaks:
For The Mist you chose to link to Dark Forces but not also the publisher. Unless there is some protocol for this I suggest having both.
You use "Victor Gollancz Ltd" but don't use this style for e.g. Methuen Publishing Ltd or Simon & Schuster, Inc. I presume the first is the article title for purposes of disambiguation but I see no need for this inconsistency here.
Re "Collins Publishers" I see (a) no reason not to link to William Collins, Sons and (b) no evidence that this is the correct name, which would seem to be either "William Collins, Sons" or simply "Collins".
I don't know where it should go, but the link you have chosen for Macdonald is a set index article for names related to Clan Donald rather than a publisher.
It would assist readers if you copied the ref for The Club Dumas into the end of the Note about it being withdrawn.
Good work. Ben MacDui 13:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS Forgot to say that the infobox looks a little sparse. I imagine comments above suggest an image was found to be a copyvio and its a pity the last two winners are red links, but is there a reason not include an image of say The Forgotten Beasts of Eld or The Drowning Girl?
Fair enough - it would be good to have something although I can't see anything generic on Commons. A picture of an author, e.g. Lavie Tidhar, would presumably be acceptable from a licensing point of view. Ben MacDui 16:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all of the publishing issues and copied the ref into the note; shame you can't nest refs. I'd rather not add a photo unless it's of G. Willow Wilson, the current winner; I can't find anything of her that's free-use though. I'll ask some people on Flickr if they'll relicense their photos.--PresN 18:02, 10 November 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, 11 November 2013 (UTC) [43].[reply]

NME's Cool List

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is of sufficient quality. I believe that this article meets the necessary FL criteria, and I welcome any comments about ways in which it could be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*"Jack White, lead singer": a US or journalistic error – this should be "the lead singer". There should be a definite article before all such descriptors. (You have it a few times below as well, such as "Alex Turner, lead singer", "Beth Ditto, lead singer", and others).
  • Got them all (I think).
  • "bandmate Meg White (right) placed at number six": I think "was placed" is more correct BrEng/non-journalese. This crops up a few times below, such as " Ditto placed" and others. (I suspect it may be the language used by the NME, but our encyclopaedic grammar should be tighter).
  • Got these all too (I think).
  • "Had It, Lost It" list: James Bond should sort under B

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had considered this, but, from what I can tell, it seems to be customary to refer to fictional characters by their first names rather than their surnames (maybe for WP:WAF reasons, or something). WP:FA#Media and WP:WikiProject Fictional characters/Quality content both list fictional characters by their first names. That said, James Bond filmography refers to the character as "Bond" rather than "James", so, if you feel that it would be better to have it sort under B, I'm happy to change it.

Thank you very much for the review, SchroCat! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: all good from me. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SchroCat! And thanks for catching those ones that I'd missed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "The first woman to top the Cool List was Beth Ditto, the lead singer of American band The Gossip, who was named the coolest person in music in 2006", think it's better to keep it short and sweet.
  • Done.
  • "The 2006 list was lauded as the most female-oriented to date", is that the right word to use, especially with Lily Allen hiting out at the magazine for being 'sexist'? Maybe replace with a word that stands for striking, worthy of attention.
  • Changed to just "noted".
  • Added.
  • Fixed. I'm afraid that, as far as I can tell, NME never really explained why there was no Cool List in 2009 – they didn't even acknowledge its absence when it returned the following year. For whatever, they just never did one in 2009.
Thanks very much for the review, Lemonade51! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lemonade51 (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I can see little to suggest save the following tweaks. Ben MacDui 18:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "mega-watt" - This is per the source but I think you could add <!-- sic --> to the text as it seems to have the same meaning as megawatt and looks like a typo to anyone familiar with the scientific term.
  • Having reread MOS:QUOTE, it appears that "trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment", so I've just changed "mega-watt" to "megawatt".
  • "a combined age of 1,389" I don't think it breaches our OR restrictions to divide one number with another and tell us that the average was more than 27.5 as this would be a more meaningful statement.
  • Per WP:CALC, it would seem that you're correct. I have added a parenthetical comment stating that each person was aged approximately 28.
  • Cite 19 about Frank Carter's planned tattoo won't open for me but I don't have a good internet connection and Checklinks seems to think it's OK. I presume if you knew whether or not he actually did it that you'd include this information.
  • Agh, every XFM link has gone down. They have now all been fixed.
  • Ladyhawke links to the wrong article.
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, 11 November 2013 (UTC) [44].[reply]

Fractional currency

Nominator(s): Godot13 (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it represents a complete type set (list) of United States Fractional currency (with high resolution images), a description of all known varieties, and a succinct historical overview. Two start-class articles were recently merged, expanded, and stylistically turned into this list-class article with the addition of the illustrated and sortable table of different note types and their corresponding varieties.-Godot13 (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from --TIAYN (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
I can't find big, or any problems for that matter.
  • I'd move section two and three from the lead, and create a section for them (they don't seem to belong there any more than the info in the "Postage curreny" section)... But this is not a must..
This is difficult regarding the spacing of early images.
  • You need a general reference for everything which is in the tables, because I don't know where you got them from.
Done. General references added for the varieties columns in both tables, and individual sources added for the explanation of different varieties in the Issuing periods and varieties table.
  • Question, why are some sentences not sourced?
Done. Some of that was the result of the merging of two existing articles. I've added sources for more of the prose in the beginning. If more sourcing is needed just let me know.
Thanks for the comments.-Godot13 (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. --TIAYN (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --TIAYN (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm a little bit concerned about the name of the article. To me the term "fractional currency" refers to "Coin or paper currency in a denomination less than a standard monetary unit", as per, for example, The American Heritage Dictionary or the Collins Dictionary. By my interpretation this would mean any American penny, Euro cent, Mexican centimo, Peruvian centimo, Australian nickel, etc. However, this article is only about a particular series of American fractional currency. At the same time I realize that there is not currently a Wikipedia article on fractional currency (as a concept defined by the dictionary definition quoted above). Additionally, this page, while not WP:RS itself, quotes The Standard Catalog of World Paper Money - General Issues, 6th edition, 1990 in reference to Canadian fractional currency. I would suggest that the page title be moved to Fractional currency (United States of America) or similar per project naming conventions. Alternatively, if you can demonstrate that the term "Fractional currency" overwhelmingly is used to refer to this particular set of banknotes than I would still like to see someway of mentioning the more (theoretical?) definition of fractional currency. Ravendrop 04:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking at the article/list. I understand your concern. I am thinking of possibilities which include United States fractional currency and Fractional currency (United States). Would either of these be objectionable?-Godot13 (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Make 'coinage[1] - gold' an unspaced mdash
  • Make '1 – 3%' an unspaced ndash
  • -> June 1862
  • Justice holding scales, Bust of Liberty and Bust of Columbia need not be italicized unless they are actual titles of the artwork (In which case the first would need to be capitalized).
  • See also section generally goes before References.

Great work Reywas92Talk 08:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reywas92Talk 16:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron- Thank you for your comment. I had intended the first few text sections to be the lead. I have removed the headers and done some very minor editing on the text and I hope it flows better and sets up the main tables. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A phenomenal task, given that the subject matter is at best, obscure. Well doneCoal town guy (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • The lead is very short at only one paragraph and doesn't summary the whole article, as was pointed out above. Two or three decent-size paragraphs should be the goal here. - Will work on this by putting some of the later material in the lead
  • Last two words of "United States Federal Government" shouldn't be capitalized.-done.
  • The pictures could use alt text.-done.
  • Civil war economy: Again, "Government" shouldn't be capitalized.-done.
  • "borrowed gold coin from New York City banks...'. Should "coin" be made plural? -Not in this case, it is already being used in a slightly different sense in the plural.
  • Periods needed before refs 9, 10, and 13. That's something that at least one of the three supporters should have spotted during a review.-done.
  • Remove comma in "January, 1862".-done.
  • Postage currency: Closing parenthesis mark needed after "which led into the use of fractional currency".-done.
  • From postage to fractional: "and" is needed before "watermarks to name a few."-done.
  • The last sentence of this section is uncited and use terminology ("Today") that could become outdated.-done, getting page number for citation.
Last sentence in question removed as a suitable citation is not available.-Godot13 (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issuing periods and varieties: In the headings, the second word of "Features/Varieties" should be decapitalized.-done
  • Third Issue: The hyphen in the features note should instead be an en dash.-done.
Actually done-Godot13 (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 3: A colon would be nice before the quote.-done.
  • In refs 7 and 9, the en dashes for the page ranges should be unspaced.-done.
  • Ref 20 should have the date formatted like all of the others (3 May 2013) for consistency. You could also change all of the others to ref 20's style, but I figured this would be the most convenient way to make the cites consistent.-done (and yes, much more convenient).
  • What makes Monetarylaw.com (ref 29) a reliable source?-It isn't and has been replaced. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments Giants2008. They have all been resolved except where noted. I will revise the lead within the next 2-3 days. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question @Giants2008: I had intended the first three-four paragraphs/sections to actually be the lead for the list, I added headings because I thought it would otherwise be too long. If I remove the first three headings and make sure the information flows properly, is that an appropriate lead? Otherwise it seems I would be writing 3-4 paragraphs to describe the following 3-4 paragraphs and the table. Either way, just let me know and it will be done. Thank-Godot13 (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Giants2008- I have removed the section headings and done some very minor editing to make the text flow as a lead. Please let me know if this change is acceptable or you would like to see something different instead. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead as-is is a bit long for my tastes, but it's workable. A couple of other problems are caused by removing the section, though. There's still one subheading which needs to be removed, and the lead is now overloaded with photographs. The gallery in particular is odd; if it's to be kept, I suggest moving it down in the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Giants2008 - I tried moving this around a bit: the gallery (which may or may not be tenable to keep) I moved out of the lead in between two of the tables. If it needs to go I understand, but it is a great pictorial illustration on the evolution from an initial idea to a final proof. The section on the law prohibiting living people from being on currency I moved to the end of the list. It is not really lead material as it does not have to do with the history of the notes themselves. It is important however, as the law banning living persons was caused specifically by fractional currency. Let me know if this is better and/or if something simply needs to be removed. Thanks.-Godot13 (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does look better now. The alt text issue above is still outstanding, but I'm satisfied with the rest of the fixes. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input on that, if does flow better. I think (given resolution of the Alt/alt issue above) that all your comments have been addressed. - Godot13 (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)
*With the introduction of federal paper currency, public confidence favored precious metals, and gold and silver coinage was hoarded as bullion. - Link between this and its surrounding sentences is unclear
Thanks for catching that Crisco 1492. It was a single-sentence edit made just before switching direction and should have been removed.
  • shinplasters - you just said shinplasters were another name for fractional currency, and now they are not?
With the sentance removed does it make more sense?
  • I see the issue, it has been corrected. Shinplasters (as an alternate word for fractional currency) was issued by the federal government (the subject of this list) and also by local merchants and municipalities (i.e., script). I have clarified that the laws against shinplasters was leveled against script, not federally-issued fractional currency.-Godot13 (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed throughout to postage currency. Thanks for the feedback.-Godot13 (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (with apologies for their tardiness...)
    • No worries, thanks for the review.
  • You link some relatively common terms in the lead (e.g. gold, silver) but not some which may be useful and pertinent to the article (e.g. cent, bullion, specie payment).
    • Done. Specie payment was linked to the specie payment act, I added a link to the word specie by itself as well.
  • Image captions which aren't complete sentences shouldn't have a period.
    • Fixed.
  • "paper money" is linked twice to different destinations.
    • Fixed.
  • cent or ¢?
    • cent.
  • demonination is linked second time round, not first time.
    • Fixed.
  • Don't think the image column needs to be sortable...
    • Done.
  • Not sure how the size column is supposed to sort.
    • Not resolved. Right now it would be sorting by the size of the horizontal edge. I will either 1) remove size sortability or 2) calculate a single (hidden) surface area and use that as the size sorting principle. Preference?
  • "Red reverse." vs "Green reverse" consistency with periods.
    • Done.
  • Ref 1 has a missing publication date.
    • Added.
  • "Financial laws of the United States 1778-1909" needs an en-dash.
    • Dashed.
  • Change the template to take into account the new article title.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

        • Thanks for taking care of the template. I fixed the size sort with a hidden key so it is based on the surface area of the bank note (mm squared) and added this information to the already existing note at the top of the size column.-Godot13 (talk) 23:39, 6 November 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, 2 November 2013 (UTC) [45].[reply]

List of battleships of Italy

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another in my "list of warships" series, this list is for the modern battleships built by the Italian Navy, starting with the first pre-dreadnoughts. The list has been reviewed at a Milhist A-class reveiw (see here). Thanks for all who take the time to review this list. Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • I think you mean naval gunfire support rather than coastal artillery support
    • Fixed.
  • Need a cite for revolutionary nature of Dreadnought.
    • You mean in the lead? It's covered by the cite in the Regina Elena section.
  • This seems awkward: Therefore, a new battleship that could match the firepower of the dreadnought battleships was needed. Perhaps something along the lines of: "a dreadnought-type of battleship was needed"
    • See how it reads now.
  • Fate of Dante Aligheri should be added to the lede.
    • Added.
  • What about fates of the Conte di Cavour and Andrea Doria classes?
    • Also added.
  • Would indecision be a better word here: confusion in the naval design staff
    • Sure.
  • Rhodes is more appropriately placed in the Aegean, not the Mediterranean.
    • Fixed.
  • Link magazine
    • Done.
  • Pictures are appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm nowhere near as certain on the images, as Italian copyright law is ... weird. First, you need to prove that it's a "simple photograph". I don't think this is a stopping point, as warship profiles were common and may not meet the "artistic merit or reflections of photographer creativity or personality" criterion. Second, Italy's laws do not jive well at all with US copyrights. For basically all of those images, you have to prove that they were taken before 1976 (easy) and make a reasonable argument that it wasn't published in the US before 1978 (hard). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmm, based on this, it seems the threshold for originality isn't an issue - Italy's is quite low. The problem is going to be a pre-1923 date of publication or a pre-1978 date with no notice of copyright. I'll have to see what I can dig up, but it looks like the WWII photos are going to have to go, at the very least. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC) [46].[reply]

List of songs recorded by Whitney Houston

Nominator(s):  — ₳aron 13:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because.. I feel that the list is very comprehensive and meets the FA criteria. I have followed other FL's a guideline for the list so I hope that it meets it. I've not done a list for a singer like this with this many albums, so I feel that the main issue that will be bought up by other editors could potentially be the length of the lead. It is four paragraphs, but there is 10 albums mentioned, so it's not much per album when broken down like that. Thanks.  — ₳aron 13:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All
;Comments:
  • Remove 0–9 from the contents navbox
  • Add {{Use mdy dates|date=August 2013}} {{Use American English|date=August 2013}}
  • "The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire)" + "The First Noël" → need to sort under C and F respectively
  • Ref 7 → add January 30, 2006 as date of publication
  • Ref 10 → add Rovi Corporation as the publisher
  • Ref 12 → add Stephen Holden as the author
  • Ref 14 → add Jose F. Promis as the author
  • Ref 18 → add November 24, 1996 as date of publication
  • Ref 30 → add [[IAC (company)|IAC]] as publisher and Bill Lamb as author

– Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments –

  • Reference 30 (About.com) is not a reliable source. I suggest finding an alternate source to cover this information.
  • In the last three references, I see "Arista Records", "Arista", and "Arista Record". Which is it? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

  • FN28 has Arista Records linked, the other refs don't: it's up to you which you choose, but you need to be consistent
  • (Related to, but separate from, the above) You have a number of the refs with all the publisher details linked, and others with none of them linked. Again, your call which way you go, but you should be consistent. Those with unlinked details are: 23 (British Broadcasting Corporation); 29 (Christianity Today International)
  • FNs 1, 4 and 6 has "Billboard. Prometheus Global Media."; FN16 has Billboard "(Nielsen Business Media)": which is correct?

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 03:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress on the above two groups of comments? It's been a couple of weeks, and I'd expect to see some work done by now. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:20, 29 October 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.

Nominations for removal

Bleach season 1

Notified: Erachima, Sephiroth BCR, WikiProject Anime and manga, WikiProject Television

Following the recent FLRC for 30 Rock season 1 and a discussion regarding expectations for TV season articles, this list appears to fall clearly short of current-day FL standards. High-quality season articles (whether FLs or GAs) are generally expected to cover production, reception, etc. in addition to providing plot summaries. Sourcing is also poor, relying heavily on primary sources. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a note: seasons 2–10 of the show are also FLs and I plan to nominate those for FLRC later for similar reasons, but it's only fair that each FLRC get due consideration, so barring any notes to the contrary (and to avoid flooding FLRC), I plan to nominate them one at a time. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't even close to being complete. At best this is a C level article. Gonnym (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original editor left Wikipedia years ago Tintor2 (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know that both the nominator of this season's list and the nominator for most later seasons left, so please let other people know about this FLRC if they are in a better position to help or provide feedback. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist – poorly sourced, and generally not up to standard. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove all of the relevant information simply being formatted into a lead section is a poor format and extremely unencyclopedic. As those above have said, we expect more from articles of this type than we did in the past. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=579673025"