Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2014: Difference between revisions
Giants2008 (talk | contribs) Promote 6 |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 21:12, 4 May 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 21:12, 04 May 2014 (UTC) [1]].[reply]
Luis Aparicio Award
- Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly over the past month and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Both Santana (2006) and Cabrera (2012) are the only award winners to also earn the pitching and batting Triple Crown, respectively, in the same season" - pretty sure the "both" isn't needed here
- "The date marks both the feast [....] as well as the anniversary of Aparicio's professional debut" - is "both....as well as" valid in AmEng? In BrEng we would say "both....and"
- Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed both comments. Thanks for the review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved objection from Cloudz679
|
---|
|
- Support as my concerns have been addressed. C679 11:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support meets the criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Post-closing support Just noticed this nomination existed. Whoops. I took a look at the page before coming to the review page and I concur that this currently meets FL criteria. Well done! – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 11 May 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 21:12, 4 May 2014 [2].
79th Academy Awards
- Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating the 2007 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013 Oscars were written. Please note that some references were retrieved via Internet Archive.--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Winners are listed first and highlighted in boldface.[20]"—No they aren't...—indopug (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed: Changed to "Winners are listed first and indicated with a double-dagger (‡)."
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 00:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support Looks good as usual. Reywas92Talk 19:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support All good! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great job, once again.--Jagarin 03:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support Great list!--Earthh (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:45, 4 May 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 21:12, 04 May 2014 (UTC) [3]].[reply]
Deportation of Armenian intellectuals on 24 April 1915
- Nominator(s): Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it garnered much support votes last time but wasn't passed due to it being archived early. It's a great list, very informative and accurate. It exposes a side of world history that few may know about. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Article is high quality and appears to meet the requirements for an FL. --1ST7 (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seems quite extensive and well referenced. — Cirt (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "fate" bar under the "Notable deportees" section reads along the lines of "Killed", "Survivor" and "Died". I suggest you change "Survivor" to "Survived" throughout for consistency. 23 editor (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @23 editor: I appreciate your suggestion. As you may know, the definition of the words died and killed are different. The column is already consistent in the sense that those who were killed (murdered) are labeled as such and that those who died (i.e. illness, fatigue, and etc.) are labeled as such as well. I think the reader would be interested in determining and differentiating who was deliberately killed or who just happened to have died. That's important in genocide studies since the deliberate attempt to murder is often viewed as an evidential consequence of any genocide. I believe the Armenian Genocide is no exception in that regard. Thanks, Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having read and re-read your comment, I don't think you understand what I said. I'm talking about "Survivor" and "Survived" (the references to "Killed" and "Died" were putting my statement into context). "Survivor" is a noun, while "Survived" is a verb. "Killed" and "died" are also verbs, and there should be a consistency in the list. We can't be mixing these things around :). Other than that, it's a great list and I'm happy to support provided this issue is resolved. 23 editor (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @23 editor: Oh boy, sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes I'll fix that right away. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @23 editor:
Done Sorry once again for the misunderstanding. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @23 editor:
- @23 editor: Oh boy, sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes I'll fix that right away. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. Again, I'll reiterate my support for FA promotion. Good job! All the best, 23 editor (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I supported the last nomination where I did a large review, and I see no changes that I find objectionable, so I'll support again. --PresN 17:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:46, 4 May 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 21:46, May 4, 2014 (UTC) [4]
Madonna filmography
- Nominator(s): Bluesatellite (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL requirements. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In the lead, "She had campaigned for the role for nearly ten years and, in December 1994, she wrote a four-page, handwritten letter to director Alan Parker explaining that she would be perfect to play the role." would read better as just "She had campaigned for the role for nearly ten years. In December 1994, she hand-wrote a four-page letter to director Alan Parker explaining how she would be perfect for the role."
- Implemented. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Try merging the years into one bit for films, so for example it looks something like this:
Title Year Vision Quest 1985 Desperately Seeking Susan
- This is discouraged per WP:FILMOGRAPHY, "Please avoid rowspan as it is a significant accessibility issue—as you can hear at User:RexxS/Accessibility", and it does cause problems with the sorting. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad, never mind. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Include an overall rating average from critics (i.e. Rotten Tomatoes scoring) for each film in "feature films", "short films", and "theatrical plays" where available
- I went up to random filmographies and could not see this being present. Have you seen this in any other filmography or is this a personal preference? The critical part is said in the lead itself and including another column just to repeat it seems redundant. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking of specific average ratings (i.e. 36% approval ratings), but it was just a suggestion. Don't have to do it if you don't want. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In "Television" section, just link Saturday Night Live once and merge the appearances/creator(s) to have something like this:
Title Year Creator(s) Saturday Night Live 1985 Lorne Michaels 1986
- The comment about rowspan is same as above, and about the overlink, if you scroll over you can see that each of these links are for different seasons not the same one. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After this, you have my support! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to both of you for looking up to the article. Really appreciated! Bluesatellite (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from - KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Prose
|
- Support: Nice list! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from - AB01 I'M A POTATO 04:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from AB01
You guys have done pretty well on this article, so these are the only comments I can think of. Good luck :D AB01 I'M A POTATO 09:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Nice list! And good luck once again :-) AB01 I'M A POTATO 04:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot Krimuk90 and AB01, appreciate your diligent comments and the list is improved now. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Status (talk · contribs) 23:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*I'd like to see a bit more variety instead of always starting sentences in the lead with "In (year)". For example, with these two sentences: In 1986, she made her theatrical debut in David Rabe's Goose and Tom-Tom and her first commercial for Mitsubishi in Japan.[7][8] In 1989, she starred in the commercial for Pepsi-Cola alongside her song "Like a Prayer." (the period should also be outside of the quotation marks).
— Status (talk · contribs) 23:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Everything looks good to me! Happy to support. Great job! — Status (talk · contribs) 02:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's really weird that music videos aren't mentioned at all, especially given that commercials have their own table. If they are dealt with in another article, you should have a note at the top, "for a list of her music videos, see this".—indopug (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Indopug:, the article Madonna videography covers this and I will add the hatnote as suggested. Thanks. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Congrats to both Bluesatellite and IndianBio! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you... Cheers! :D Bluesatellite (talk) 23:49, 4 May 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 21:12, 04 May 2014 (UTC) [5]].[reply]
Priyanka Chopra filmography
- Nominator(s): —Prashant and ♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because Priyanka Chopra is one of the most popular and versatile actresses in Hindi cinema. The article has been thoroughly researched and is a comprehensive and well-written account of her filmography. The lead covers the most important content from the table, which is sortable.—Prashant and ♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks good to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Nice list. Great work all in detail. Daan0001 (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "Following this, Chopra starred in a series of critical and commercial failures, such as Salaam-e-Ishq, Love Story 2050 and Drona,[6] leading many critics to believe that the end of her career was imminent", something about this sentence that doesn't read well to me, maybe it's 'leading' used as a gerund in this instance. Perhaps you could rejig it?
- Author for Ref 71
- Few dead links according to this. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I have added the author and fixed dead links. Also in my opinion leading seems fine to refine the failures. Daan0001 (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Having read the article thoroughly, it has my support for FL pass. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:47, 4 May 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 21:12, 04 May 2014 (UTC) [6]].[reply]
List of Chief Ministers of Karnataka
- Nominator(s): —indopug (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Karnataka is a south Indian state, probably best-known to the wider world for its capital city Bangalore, as well as beautiful historical cities such as Mysore and Hampi. This is a list of the state's chief ministers—i.e. chief executives of the state govt a la governors in the United States. I look forward to your feedback; any issues will be resolved quickly.—indopug (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Couldn't find much wrong with prose, list covers the scope and is structured well. Would be nice if the table meets MOS:DTT, so rowscopes added on the name column. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally a comment! Thanks for the kind words, I'll take care of the accessibility issue tonight.—indopug (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Good work with the list! Just one thing: images need appropriate ALT texts. —Zia Khan 22:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, and added alt-text.—indopug (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. This is a good list. Just a couple of points where I think more detail would be helpful.
- "The governor appoints the chief minister". Presumably the governor appoints whoever can command a majority in the assembly, but it would be helpful to spell this out.
- Doesn't the previous sentence cover this, "Following elections to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the state's governor usually invites the party (or coalition) with a majority of seats to form the government" ? I don't want to say "leader of the majority party", because things in India are rarely that clear cut. Often you have the winning-party's central high-command imposing their loyalist in the state as chief minister. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was especially notorious for doing this.—indopug (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So if I understand you correctly, the governor has to appoint a government which can command a majority in the assembly, but the chief minister may not be the choice of the ruling party or coalition, but may be someone else chosen by the party high command. Can the high command do this if it is in opposition at the centre, or only if it controls the central government? I think it would be helpful to spell out the situation, but it is not a deal-breaker. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly. The governor appoints somebody from the party that has a majority in the state legislative assembly. But this somebody isn't always the democratic choice of the state unit of the party; often the higher ups in the party, at the national level (which is what I meant by the high command), simply picks whoever they like to be the chief minister. TLDR: rather than the state unit electing their representative to become chief minister, the national high command picks their favourite. (opposition parties are not involved at all)
- Honestly I don't believe this is within the scope of the article, which is a simple list of one state's chief ministers. One day I'll revamp Chief Minister (India), and I think that'll be a better a place to discuss this.—indopug (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So if I understand you correctly, the governor has to appoint a government which can command a majority in the assembly, but the chief minister may not be the choice of the ruling party or coalition, but may be someone else chosen by the party high command. Can the high command do this if it is in opposition at the centre, or only if it controls the central government? I think it would be helpful to spell out the situation, but it is not a deal-breaker. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't the previous sentence cover this, "Following elections to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the state's governor usually invites the party (or coalition) with a majority of seats to form the government" ? I don't want to say "leader of the majority party", because things in India are rarely that clear cut. Often you have the winning-party's central high-command imposing their loyalist in the state as chief minister. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was especially notorious for doing this.—indopug (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "There have been six instances of President's rule in Karnataka". This seems a high number. Is it when no one can command a majority? I would suggest moving and expanding 'footnote e' to give more details, including that it is really rule by the governor. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded the note as suggested. But six instances isn't really a high number, rather it is par of the course. Such is the political instability and centre–state acrimony in India!—indopug (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I would have liked more on the rules of appointment but we can agree to disagree on that. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:49, 4 May 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.