Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2014: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
Next edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
+4
 
Promote 3
Line 1: Line 1:
__TOC__
__TOC__
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of plantations in West Virginia/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/85th Academy Awards/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Premier League Golden Boot/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Lorde discography/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Lorde discography/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Sky Ferreira/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Sky Ferreira/archive1}}

Revision as of 21:05, 6 April 2014

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:05, 06 April 2014 (UTC) [1]].[reply]

List of plantations in West Virginia

Nominator(s): Caponer (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this list for Featured List status because it gives an exhaustive listing of former plantations once operational in the present-day U.S. state of West Virginia, and it provides a comprehensive introduction. The list also features images of the majority of the plantations accounted for within this listing. I am also nominating this list because I feel it meets most FL criteria and can easily be improved to meet the criteria not already achieved. Please note, I had previously nominated this list, during which time it received two supports. I withdrew the article due to the fact that I had more than the two allowed nominations for FL at the same time. Please see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of plantations in West Virginia/archive1 for the previously addressed comments and previous votes of support. -- Caponer (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2014 (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 00:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC) [2]].[reply]

85th Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2013 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, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2009, 2010, and 2012 Oscars were written. --Birdienest81 (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Minor, but the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award winner could use a bullet point, like the honorary winners have.
  • Presenters and performers: "Annual" is improperly capitalized again in the first note.
  • Ceremony information: "an nationwide bus tour promoting the event...". "an" → "a".
  • Introduction of electronic voting system: "amongst" → "among"?
  • "but technical errors and glitches promoted the Academy to move the deadline one day later." "promoted" → "prompted"?
  • Box office performance of nominated films: Again minor, but a serial comma would be helpful after Flight, since you use it elsewhere in this section.
  • Note A: "the" is needed before "awards gala." Giants2008 (Talk) 19:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done: I have fixed everything you requested above.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:05, 06 April 2014 (UTC) [3]].[reply]

Premier League Golden Boot

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly since January and now meets all 6 FL criteria. This is my 12th FLC nomination, but first non-baseball nom and first one on football, so please be understanding if I get anything "football-specific" wrong. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Arsenal.com article under the general ref sources every entry in the table. That was the only reliable source I could find that has a record of every goal and game played by the winner. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Soccerbase would have them all, I would have thought. Here is RvP's record for 2011/12, which if used as a source would remove the need for the note at the bottom indicating that Arsenal have their own player's stats wrong! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would still need the note, since the article will still be used to source his winning the award that year. If you want, I'll add the Soccerbase source for RVP's 2011–12 stats, but only for that year as I'm not very keen on having to produce individual Soccerbase sources for all the other years. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (sorry for the delay)
  • "annual .. presented each season..." do you really need both?
  • "In addition to the award..." what exactly is the award?
  • Don't overlink £.
  • Link sponsor first time round.
  • "the most times out of all players" a bit American. Maybe, "Henry has won the award four times, more than any other player."
  • "Carlos Tévez" our article seems to omit the diacritic...
  • Sorting by player name, I get Henry, Henry 4, Henry 2, Henry 3...
  • Sorry, but I'm not really sure how to fix this. It appears the problem lies with the orange colour utilized for European Golden Shoe winners, since the cells are grouped together as coloured v. no fill. I'm guessing this is the case given the fact that none of the other multiple award winners have the same sorting problem, and all the other EGS winners won the PL Golden Boot only once. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect you can use trickery, such as the {{ntsh}} template, which provides an invisible sort. You may need to do something odd like add {{ntsh|Henry 1}} etc, but have an experiment, and do check out the template documentation, it's reasonably helpful. If all else fails, ping me and I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed it. However, it leaves an ugly space in between the player's name and the double-dagger. Without the space, the ntsh won't work. Do you know how I could keep the space in the wikitext, while hiding it in the article itself? —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cirt (resolved) — Cirt (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments from Cirt

  1. NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. Image review: One major problem: File:AlanShearer2004.png depends on File:Fung Ka Ki and Alan Shearer at friendly opening 2004.jpg which was deleted for no permission, so that one has to be deleted as well. All other images check out okay. So not done for now.  Not done
  3. Notes - Please change title of sect to "Footnotes".
  4. References - Please break out to 2 separate sects, one for "Notes", then one for "References". Notes are the inline cites, References are the general references those cites refer back to.
  5. Notes - Please add inline cites to back up the assertions for each of these footnotes.
  6. See also - Consider adding a few more entries here. Suggest adding also a couple more relevant portals.
  7. Otherwise, all looks great, quite high quality.
  8. Please feel free to update me or drop me a note once above is responded to, and after that I'll have another look over to see if I'm ready to Support at that point in time.
  9. NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

— Cirt (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Cirt – Replaced Alan Shearer's pic with a free one.
  • Regarding the "Notes" and "References" comments, I modelled it after recently-passed FL Marvin Miller Man of the Year Award, List of Major League Baseball pitchers who have struck out four batters in one inning, etc. For consistency sake, I'd rather leave it in its current, FLC-approved format.
  • Regarding "Notes" and inline cites, all but one of my notes have inline citations already. And the only one that doesn't (note 2) doesn't need a citation, since it is giving common knowledge and not asserting a claim (i.e. it's common knowledge that players usually don't play every game in the season. But I'm trying to make it clear that this relates to the number of games the player played in, not the number of games in a season).
  • Added List of Premier League players with 100 or more goals to "See also" section. It was the only relevant one I could find (hat-trick list has iffy relation at best).

—Bloom6132 (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:05, 06 April 2014 (UTC) [4]].[reply]

Lorde discography

Nominator(s): Adabow (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly a year since she commercially released her first piece of work, Lorde has come a long way, and is arguably the biggest Kiwi musician ever. Happy to hear any constructive criticism on the list. Adabow (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Decodet
There may be other issues that I missed, since I'm not an expert on reviewing. However, I noticed those issues and I would be more than happy to support this article when they are resolved. Overall, you've done a good job in here! :) decodet. (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After all those issues being addressed, I support this nomination now. Everything looks good in here for me, congrats :) decodet. (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - could you clarify what exactly a "promotional single" is? I ask particularly in the case of "Royals/White Noise" - if this was available to purchase singly (and it must have been to have charted in the UK, where the charts are based solely on sales), in what way was it different from a "normal" single? My understanding of a promo single is that it is one that is given away for free to DJs, etc, but maybe the term's usage has changed and I'm just not down with the kids ;-) ..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the term is well-defined and it confuses the hell out of me. "Royals/White Noise" has been moved to the singles table. Per WP:PROMOSINGLE and promotional single, songs that were released via digital retailers for a short amount of time as part of the album build-up are deemed "promotional" (most of those songs listed here fall under this category, and have actually been delete from the iTunes Store website). "Bravado" is a bit contentious, but there is some sort of consensus that since it was released only digitally in a few of the more minor markets, it is not a "full" single. I hope this helps a bit... Adabow (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blimey, it certainly was easier back in the good old days when if a hunk of vinyl was present on the shelves of the local Woolworths then it was a single and that's all you needed to know. The explanation above makes sense, though, so I support the nom -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Image could use some alt text.
  • Any reason why "chart positions" is wikilinked in the singles table but not the albums tables?
  • Same goes for why the year, title and director columns are sortable in the music videos section – seems inconsistent with the other tables in the article.
  • Perhaps some table captions could be added? I've seen them being included in most featured discographies.

And that's about it, I guess. I'd argue that "Bravado" should be listed as a single rather than a promotional single, but keeping it there won't stop me from supporting the list. Good work, overall. Holiday56 (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Holiday. I suck at writing alt text, and it's not part of the FL criteria. I have unlinked chart positions; people aren't stupid. I have made the 'Other appearances' table sortable, but the more complex layout of the other tables means that even when made "sortable", they won't sort properly (try for yourself to see what I mean). Most discography table captions I have seen just repeat the section and column titles, and don't actually serve any purpose; from [5], "A data table needs a table caption that roughly describes what the table is about." In my opinion, these would be redundant and clunky in this situation. Adabow (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll support, then. Holiday56 (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick Comment: In the references section, all content derived from Billboard should cite Prometheus Global Media as the publisher since it is the owner of the website and magazine. Otherwise, it's a solid support from me.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per {{cite news}}, the publisher field is "not normally used for periodicals." Editorial oversight and fact-checking make a source reliable, not which company makes the money from it. Adabow (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2014 (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 04:48, 05 April 2014 (UTC) [6]].[reply]

List of songs recorded by Sky Ferreira

Nominator(s): WikiRedactor (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have based much of List of songs recorded by Sky Ferreira on my first nomination List of songs recorded by Miley Cyrus, which has received unanimous support after undergoing several revisions and allows me to nominate a second project. It is a fully-comprehensive list of Ferreira's published tracks, including those on her studio albums and extended plays, and those in which she is featured in. Writing credits are supported by the liner notes of the appropriate record, with additional citations from reliable sources including Billboard and Spin. Assuming that Ferreira will continue to release new songs in some form as her career continues, this list will be able to be easily updated with its simple, straight-forward internal formatting, and will become a great companion to an eventual Sky Ferreira discography page. WikiRedactor (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WonderBoy1998

  • Is there any better source you can find than The Lynx?
  • Done
  • Which of the two refs mention that Ghost deviated from electropop to synthpop since I can't see any of that mentioning. Also do note that the WP page of Synthpop (which is a good article) mentions that the genre is also known as electropop, so aren't both one and the same thing?
  • Done
  • Done

Other than these points this is a fairly well-made list. I will support once these issues are addressed successfully. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments! WikiRedactor (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm not sure of No Ripcord too, I will still support since the publication is being used by Metacritic in its aggregates. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! WikiRedactor (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Prism

  • The key has the green color and the symbol to indicate a single release, though the latter isn't used to indicate a single release?
  • Done
  • You probably should list "Boys" as a promotional single or even an official one as it was reported by Idolator and other RSs. However Sky wrote on Twitter this, so it's probably just promotional.

:* I was thinking about that, although since Sky herself said that it wasn't the official second single (yet), I think that should be left out, at least for now.

  • Actually, scratch that, it's been officially released in the UK, so I guess it can be considered a single.
  • The list shouldn't have 1 and 2 categorized as such, maybe just as a number sign which is cleaner. Could you change it on the contents box and anchors?
  • Done
  • Per WP:CAPWORD, incomplete sentences shouldn't close with a full stop, such as the first caption.
  • Done

Everything else is excellent. I support the nomination, as it is concise and meticulously referenced. :) Prism △ 17:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! WikiRedactor (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. This is an interesting read. I don't see any major or glaring issues here. Very well written and supported by strong sources. I support this nom. Thanks. Mediran (t • c) 05:45, 4 April 2014 (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 00:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC) [7]].[reply]

Timeline of the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to predictions, the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season featured below-average tropical cyclone activity. Fifteen tropical cyclones formed, but only two became hurricanes, and none became major hurricanes. Following the completion of all National Hurricane Center post-season storm reports, all information on the timeline has been updated; as a whole, I believe the article now meets FLC status. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support this nomination.--12george1 (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks good. As much as I'm not a fan of timelines, this one is like other timelines that are featured, with no problems that I can see. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2014 (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 00:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC) [8]].[reply]

Rani Mukerji filmography

Nominator(s): KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this because I feel that it meets the criteria for being a featured list. After taking her biography to FA-status, I feel proud to have worked on her filmography as well. I look forward to a lot of constructive comments. Thank you. KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping) 12:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from —Vensatry (Ping)
  • "star Aamir Khan" are you referring to him as star or I'm missing something here?
Removed "star".
  • "In 1998 she received public recognition ..." sentence looks too long. Consider splitting them
Done.
  • I'd like to see a mention of Hey Ram and Paheli in the lead as both were critical successes. This being a filmography page, I think there is no harm in mentioning films that were critically acclaimed irrespective of Mukherjee's performance in these films.
I agree. Mentioned both the films.
  • You could add the names of directors of Bombay Talkies, probably as a foot note.
Added footnote.
  • Doesn't she portray herself as Neetu Singh in "Phir Milenge Chalte Chalte"?
She doesn't exactly portray Neetu Singh. The song was meant as a tribute to the yesteryear actors and her look was just based on Singh's.
Thank you so much for the comments Vensatry. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much appreciated. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The issues I could see previously seem to have all been identified by Vensatry and addressed. A good clean looking list which should quite rightly be promoted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Blofeld. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it's been a while since the last support. Does anyone else have any other comments? Thanks. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite surprising that this Bollywood list hasn't attracted many reviewers. Perhaps, you should invite editors to comment here. —Vensatry (Ping) 10:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: No other problems found. Great work!
--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Birdienest.-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Bollywood Dreamz. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I seriously looked for the last two hours, scrutinizing and analyzing the sources, the content and the validations, however, nada. Couldn't find anything that needs changing, tweaking etc. All around exceptional work. Congratulations and I would be happy to see this list being promoted. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a ton Indian Bio. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Featured_log/April_2014&oldid=603057475"