Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/June 2008: Difference between revisions
add Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Fruits Basket chapters|List of Fruits Basket chapters |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Houston Rockets head coaches}} added |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Houston Rockets head coaches}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Fruits Basket chapters|List of Fruits Basket chapters}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Fruits Basket chapters|List of Fruits Basket chapters}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks/archive1}} |
Revision as of 14:33, 7 June 2008
- 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 User:Scorpion0422 00:19, 26 November 2008 [1].
previous FLC (14:33, 7 June 2008)
A little short, but I still think it fulfills the FL criteria.—Chris! ct 23:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- In the image caption of Rudy Tom, it says, "Rudy Tomjanovich is statistically the Rockets' most successful coach." Can you make it more specific more the readers? How bout, "Rudy Tomjanovich has the most wins as a Rockets' coach." or something similar. It shouldn't be most successful since he doesn't have the highest winning percentage.
- Key to 100%.
-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 00:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this link would be useful to supoprt the basketball-reference link. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 02:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] - In the prose, link 1994 and 1995 to 1994 and 1995. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 10:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] - In the table, link "Championships" to NBA Finals. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 20:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] - In the prose, link expansion team. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 20:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all—Chris! ct 21:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Review by SRX
- However, after four losing seasons,[2] the team was sold to a group of investors based in Houston.[1] - it's not grammatically correct to start a sentence with "However."
- I reviewed a list like this before, main reason I oppose; something about the coaches history should be added, like who was the first one, which one led the Rockets to a NBA title? It should also be explained how GMs are different from Coaches, and what they do, and their history.SRX 21:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to your second point, why do I have to talk about the GMs since this list is about coaches? Also, none of the other coach list talk about the GMs, why should I do that with this list? I don't understand your oppose at all since everything else is easy fix.—Chris! ct 21:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fix point 1 and add some words about first coach and the coach who led the Rockets to NBA titles.—Chris! ct 21:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I confused this with a baseball managers article, sorry. But, if you are going to mention the GM in the lead, it should be in the list itself, if it's not, it should be removed.SRX 22:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, I remove the GM bits.—Chris! ct 22:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I confused this with a baseball managers article, sorry. But, if you are going to mention the GM in the lead, it should be in the list itself, if it's not, it should be removed.SRX 22:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fix point 1 and add some words about first coach and the coach who led the Rockets to NBA titles.—Chris! ct 21:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to your second point, why do I have to talk about the GMs since this list is about coaches? Also, none of the other coach list talk about the GMs, why should I do that with this list? I don't understand your oppose at all since everything else is easy fix.—Chris! ct 21:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets all criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image Comment Image:Rudy.jpg is missing source info. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, what should I do? Should I replace it?—Chris! ct 05:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Contact User:Eversman, the uploader and ask him to provide information. Alternatively, here is a replacement image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cunni_doing/361065351/. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I contacted the uploader. Also, the flickr image says All rights reserved, are you sure I can upload it?—Chris! ct 03:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delay, and I did not look at the license before, so I did not see the "all rights reserved". No, the image cannot be used. If there is no free alternative, I guess we have to wait for the uploader to add in information or go without an image. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, if no free alternative is available, I'll used a picture of the team arena just like other head coach lists. Thanks—Chris! ct 03:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replaced the image with another that has proper source info. A bot removed the previous one.—Chris! ct 21:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, if no free alternative is available, I'll used a picture of the team arena just like other head coach lists. Thanks—Chris! ct 03:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delay, and I did not look at the license before, so I did not see the "all rights reserved". No, the image cannot be used. If there is no free alternative, I guess we have to wait for the uploader to add in information or go without an image. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I contacted the uploader. Also, the flickr image says All rights reserved, are you sure I can upload it?—Chris! ct 03:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Contact User:Eversman, the uploader and ask him to provide information. Alternatively, here is a replacement image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cunni_doing/361065351/. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
previous FLC (14:31, 7 June 2008)
- 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 User:Scorpion0422 23:03, 3 June 2008 [2].
My first featured list nomination, and I think it's a good one. The scope is narrow, the content is clear, the heading is well-written, and it gets bonus points for just being interesting. --jonny-mt 17:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Why the repetition of the article title as "this is a list of..."? See also Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
- Consider this as an alternative
- In the days following the September 11, 2001 attacks, many television and radio stations altered normal programming in response to the events. During this period, the rumor spread that Clear Channel Communications and its subsidiaries had established a list of "songs with questionable lyrics"
- "that stations might not want to play after the attacks." Stations, or station executives, producers, etc?
- "and songs done by multiple artists" Consider "songs recorded by multiple artists", "performed by" etc. Anything by "done by"
- Reference needed for final paragraph of Lead
- Is there any information about why each particular song was banned? Which exact lyrics were "questionable", etc
- The first reference doesn't work
Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the repetition in the lead, the verb "done", and the first reference (apparently it hadn't been updated since the article was moved to an archive). While I'm not sure whether or not there's a need to specify to what individuals within a given radio station the suggestion targeted, I'll do some poking around and see if there's anything more concrete on the reasons behind the listing of the individual songs. --jonny-mt 23:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. Make sure you still include a wikilink to Clear Channel Communications though. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh. This article is little changed from when it went through two AfD's, neither of which managed to garner a consensus to keep. Much of the information on the "why" behind songs being included on the list is speculative original research (including the statements about only certain versions of some songs being included on the list, which implies that there was a reason for this beyond mere oversight on the part of the list's original author). The article is also repeatedly vandalized and/or incorrectly edited by people adding songs that were never part of the list. On a side note, I find the current table layout to be less professional-looking than the previous alphabetical-heading layout. --DachannienTalkContrib 02:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, not enough in-line citations. GreenJoe 23:52, 27 May 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 23:03, 3 June 2008 [3].
I've based this nomination off of both List of Super Bowl champions and List of NBA champions and believe it fulfills all of the FL criteria, including the comprehensiveness and well-referenced criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments-
- "This is a list of franchises that have won the American Basketball Association (ABA) Finals, that is those who have won the championship series of the ABA" - Thats a bit wordy
- Image:IndianaPacersOriginal.png - even though the Pacers won it three times, I believe its a bit POVish. An ABA finals logo would be best or a standard ABA logo would be sufficient.
- "The ABA Finals started in 1968, the league itself formed in 1967 and both ended in 1976." I believe it should read The league formed in [the fall of(i assume)] 1967 and the Finals started in [the spring of(i assume)] 1968. The league dissolved in 1976. Something along those lines.
- "Since its formation, outstanding players in the Finals won the ABA Playoffs Most Valuable Player." - if there isnt going to be any elaboration, which there shouldn't be, I believe this sentence should go. This list is about the teams not the players.
- The key needs symbols included with it. Symbols will allow color-blind people the ablity to follow the list. For example Eastern Division should read Eastern Division #. Than for the 1968 season the Pittsburgh Pipers should be the Pittsburgh Pipers #.
- I've implemented everything you've requested, but have just removed the logo. I have not been able to verify what the official logo of the ABA is and can't find any other image that would seem to be NPOV. If you or anyone else has a suggestion for this, please say so. Hello32020 (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- No reference in the second paragraph?
- What do the numbers and the #'s mean? You should add it to the key.
Noble Story (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- References added and the numbers and number symbol comment were already symbolized in the key. Hello32020 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. It looks good, but it's so short it could be merged into the main article. GreenJoe 00:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Please see Wikipedia_talk:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence.
- Sentences shouldn't start with "However" (Grammatical conjunction)
I agree with Joe that due to the size of the list it should be merged. As such I'm staying Neutral. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Hello32020 (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This page should be merged into this section. There's already a table there that's more useful than the one here, so I don't know why this page was even created. There were nine champions only and that number will never increase. I strongly suggest to redirect this page to American Basketball Association#List of ABA championships. --Crzycheetah 04:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- En dashes, not hyphens, after 2000 at top, and in the first piped ref.
- Basketball-ref.com: the copyright is held by Copyright © 2000-2008 Sports Reference LLC. Shouldn't this appear in the ref list?
- The pink and blue are fine, but the glaring orange at the bottom isn't so nice. Can you select a better match?
- "Key" section: I find this clumsy—"Numbers in parentheses in the tables are used as follows:
Winning team column indicates number of ABA championship wins for that team." TONY (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Hello32020 (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 23:03, 3 June 2008 [4].
This is a complete listing of the Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl manga volumes and chapters along with descriptions for the volumes, and with the chapter titles all verified in their English and Japanese forms. I believe it satisfies the FL requirements and meets the level of quality of similar lists as in List of Claymore chapters and List of Naruto chapters (Part I).--十八 07:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - what is the purpose of the "Series chronology" section and why have it here instead of in the main article? I can't see what value it adds to the list and it seems out of place. Also, the plot seem overly long, pushing 500 words in some instances. Why use "List of volumes and chapters" as a header instead of the most standard "Volume list" as seen in the FLs you pointed to?Collectonian (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's funny, I didn't catch the header; I initially pattered the list off List of Yotsuba&! chapters which bears the same heading, but it's changed now. Also, I got the idea for the series chronology from the non-FL List of Kodomo no Jikan chapters, but I moved it to the main article as you suggested. As for the summaries, I do realize that they are quite lengthy, but when I initially discussed this here when {{Graphic novel list}} was first instituted, I was told that lengthy summaries were unavoidable with volumes that cover a lot of material; even with one or two sentences a chapter, that amounts to a lot. If I try to shorten them dramatically, than much of the context from a volume summary will be lost, or will be so curt that it won't be adequate enough to provide a concise summary of a given volume. As I said, I tried to seek guidance on this issue, but no one said longer summaries weren't allowed, especially when you consider how long normal novel summaries are supposed to be under WP:NOVEL. Furthermore, the main-part summary for volume one of Kashimashi (not counting the small omake description below it) is slightly smaller than the volume 1 summary of the list you worked on, List of Marmalade Boy chapters. The main-part summaries for volumes 2-4 are also approximately that same length, with volume 5 being the more bloated of all. I could scrap all the omake descriptions that are there, effectively bringing the word count to a more reasonable limit, if you'd like.--十八 09:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I had to cut Marmalade's down to 300 words or so each :( I think the omake/extra's could be scrapped, but curious as to what the current precedence is. Neither Claymore nor Naruto seems to have extra chapters to give descriptions of, and Marmalade really doesn't either, but I have some other chapter lists that do that I'm also getting ready for FLC, so it would be good to know for sure. And if they are allowed, at what length they should be. Collectonian (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed on the need for a copyedit. Other than that, everything meets the FLC criteria. The content is well sourced and the formatting is good. A one sentence mention that the chapters were adapted into an anime series would seem to be appropriate, though.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see exactly why. Why should adaptations matter on an article that's only about the manga? And why only mention the anime then? There was also a light novel, drama CD, and video game. I think going into adaptation info would not be focused in terms of providing a list of chapters for the manga.--十八 08:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the anime was adapted from the chapters of the manga. The light novel and drama CDs could also be noted, if they are adapted from the manga itself. It is part of the basic information of the manga, and speaks to the chapters. List of Naruto manga volumes, List of Naruto chapters (Part I), List of Naruto chapters (Part II) (all FLs and together an FT), and List of Claymore chapters (also FL) mention their adaptations. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, those articles do, but that was up to editor preference, not convention or consensus, so I don't see a reason for adding in the info about the anime when the main article takes care of it.--十八 10:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the anime was adapted from the chapters of the manga. The light novel and drama CDs could also be noted, if they are adapted from the manga itself. It is part of the basic information of the manga, and speaks to the chapters. List of Naruto manga volumes, List of Naruto chapters (Part I), List of Naruto chapters (Part II) (all FLs and together an FT), and List of Claymore chapters (also FL) mention their adaptations. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see exactly why. Why should adaptations matter on an article that's only about the manga? And why only mention the anime then? There was also a light novel, drama CD, and video game. I think going into adaptation info would not be focused in terms of providing a list of chapters for the manga.--十八 08:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Concerns regarding prose. This is from the first summary only:
- "After Hazumu Osaragi is pressured by his friends Tomari Kurusu and Asuta Soro to confess to the girl he likes, Yasuna Kamiizumi, he goes along with it, but is turned down." — Confesses what? "Goes along with it" is a bit colloquial. Sentence is a little long and clunky
- "In order to rectify his death, the alien brings Hazumu back to life only to switch his gender completely, and returns her to her former life" — accidentally switches his gender, or purposefully
- "Due to this, reporters constantly want to interview Hazumu about the incident, which bothers her, and Tomari, greatly whom has to protect Hazumu from them." — too many commas. Try "Reporters constantly attempt to interview Hazumu about the incident, which bothers her and Tomari, who has to shield Hazumu from their advances."
- "After the change, Hazumu learns some things about being a girl" — What things?
- "When the sketch contest comes around again at school," — "Comes around" is unencyclopedic, and why the word "again"?
- " Hazumu discovers Yasuna's unique affliction to not be able to see males clearly, but instead as hazy outlines." — discovers how? Affliction or ability?
- "Tomari walks in on them in the process, shocking her greatly." — Is kissing a process?
I haven't checked out the other summaries. I think this should be taken to WP:FR and also given a thorough copy-edit. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried cleaning up the summaries as best I could, though someone else may need to finalize it. Also, WP:FR goes to Wikipedia:WikiProject France, so I don't know what you wanted to direct me to.--十八 01:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, WP:PR -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article still needs a good copy edit. I suggest taking this to WP:PR. For example, "After Tomari catches Hazumu and Yasuna kissing, she tries to avoid Hazumu for several days afterwards." After and afterwards in the same sentence is very clumsy. Also read WT:FLC#Straight repetitions of the title in the opening sentence and WP:LS#Bold title regarding the repetition of the article title in the lead and the bold text + wikilinks. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you suggesting that I unbold the bolded portion in the lead and make it more like the lead of List of University of Waterloo people (which I just altered)? And if the only other concern is a good copyediting, wouldn't taking this to WP:LCE be the proper place (or else ask help from WP:ANIME)?--十八 06:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, something like that would be fine. LCE seems to be abandoned, so check out WP:PR volunteers and find someone who does copyedits. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, not enough citations. GreenJoe 00:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What more do you want me to cite, if I may ask? If there is nothing else that needs citing, then it has enough citations.--十八 05:50, 28 May 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [5].
I have been working on this list for the past 3 weeks: I have fully referenced and expanded it into what I believe fulfils the criteria of a featured list. Al Tally talk 17:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick comment, why does the title say "deaths through alcohol" Wouldn't List of deaths by alcohol, List of deaths caused by alcohol, List of alcohol-caused deaths, or List of alcohol-induced deaths be better? Personally "deaths through alcohol" doesn't make sense. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree; there was an old discussion on the talk page regarding this. I'm personally uncertain of which name sounds best. Perhaps others who comment here may have a preference. Al Tally talk 21:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks pretty good, although I think it would work better if the table was sortable. Gran2 20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Which bit would be relevant to sort? I'm not familiar with how sorting works, especially formatting the stuff that needs sorting. Al Tally talk 21:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The locations column needs to be expanded to include country. How come John Bonham is just a "Musician", while Steve Clark is the "Def Leppard guitarist"? indopug (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll expand them. The occupation is just taken from the list that was there before I worked on it. I'll make each occupation more specific. Al Tally talk 21:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I agree that the title needs to be changed - I might humbly suggest List of alcohol-related deaths is better. Furthermore, I don't think this can be considered comprehensive. Why not her, for example, or any of the other American college students whose alcohol-induced deaths caused new programs on campus or national nonprofits and whatnot? Why not Jimi Hendrix, who IIRC died choking on red wine vomit because a sedative overdose kept him from waking up? That is certainly dying from the effects of excessive alcohol consumption, since he vomited due to drinking too much, thus killing him. That's as much an alcohol-caused death as Ira Hayes seems to be, for example, where alcohol made him unable to protect himself from dying from exposure. I also don't believe that there is not a single documented alcohol death prior to 1869. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure Hendrix died from a drug overdose - he then vomited what he had just happened to consume which was alcohol. OK, point taken there are other people. Do these individuals have articles? If they do, I'm sure they can be added to this list. I believe it's as comprehensive as far as you can document these things. Al Tally talk 22:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevertheless, if not for the overconsumption of alcohol, he wouldn't have vomited and therefore, would not have died (the overdose itself could have killed him, maybe, but didn't). Anyway, my point is not that Hendrix needs to be included - it depends on how you want to set the scope of the list, I guess. But alcohol has been one of the leading killers of human beings in just about every civilization throughout history (citation needed, I know, but I feel confident in it...) but this list includes only a handful of people from prior to the 20th century, and no one who died later than 1869. It also includes a whole gaggle of Americans, a few Brits and Irishmen, and one Canadian and one Russian. Some casual googling for the phrase "drank himself to death" and other terms reveals seemingly notable people named Colin Clive, Agron, Leroy Carr, Güyük Khaan, Franz Kline, Demetrius, Garrincha, Emperor Wenzong of Tang, George Frederick Cook, Guitar Slim,
Dylan Thomas(oops, he is on the list), William Holden, Robert Greene, Attila the Hun, Jackson Pollock and Edward D. Wood Jr.. Our article seems to disagree on Attila (our articles also disagree on Mozart and Alexander the Great, though there appears to be a lack of historical consensus), and Pollock apparently died in a drunk driving accident (why doesn't that qualify?), but there simply have to be more people worth adding. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Also Rory Gallagher, Bill Haley, Juke Boy Bonner, Gene Vincent, and John Panozzo, and there are several people on the List of drug-related deaths that aren't listed here (Leroy Carr, Bridgette Andersen, Tommy Bolin, others). Even taking all of my suggestions as fact (and I don't know that they are), the list would still completely ignore all of Indian and Middle Eastern civilizations, the Roman Empire, Australia and Africa - I'll bet any amount of money that there are notable people whose deaths were caused by alcohol in those places. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevertheless, if not for the overconsumption of alcohol, he wouldn't have vomited and therefore, would not have died (the overdose itself could have killed him, maybe, but didn't). Anyway, my point is not that Hendrix needs to be included - it depends on how you want to set the scope of the list, I guess. But alcohol has been one of the leading killers of human beings in just about every civilization throughout history (citation needed, I know, but I feel confident in it...) but this list includes only a handful of people from prior to the 20th century, and no one who died later than 1869. It also includes a whole gaggle of Americans, a few Brits and Irishmen, and one Canadian and one Russian. Some casual googling for the phrase "drank himself to death" and other terms reveals seemingly notable people named Colin Clive, Agron, Leroy Carr, Güyük Khaan, Franz Kline, Demetrius, Garrincha, Emperor Wenzong of Tang, George Frederick Cook, Guitar Slim,
- I'm sure Hendrix died from a drug overdose - he then vomited what he had just happened to consume which was alcohol. OK, point taken there are other people. Do these individuals have articles? If they do, I'm sure they can be added to this list. I believe it's as comprehensive as far as you can document these things. Al Tally talk 22:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppport, this looks really good. Well done. GreenJoe 23:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
- Biased entries as pointed out by Tuf-Kat
- More work clearly needs to be done. If Tuf-Kat can find 26+ more people through a quick Google, how many have actually been excluded?
- Read Wikipedia_talk:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
- Table looks odd without borders—never seen it in any other FL
- List is sortable, so all the locations and causes need wikilinking because depending on how it's sorted, an unlinked entry might be given before a linked one.
Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:44, 29 May 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [6].
Self-Nomination It looks like this is ready for FLC. It's well written, and the lead and the table seem to be well referenced. It meets or so I think... all criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ( talk / contribs) 22:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (as nom) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no link to Detroit Red Wings in the lead at all?
- You should probably completely remove the bold text in the lead and then link the first mention of Detroit Red Wings. Bold text should not be linked per WP:BOLDTITLE.
- Remove italics from the publishers in the references.
- Some of the publishers still have italics.
- Including references
- Some of the publishers still have italics.
- On a side note, I don't know why every reference has several empty fields. It just clutters things up a lot. I'm guessing that you are using a script to fill those out, but I don't consider it effective if it leaves a lot of empty fields. I would just suggest keeping the fields accessdate, url, title, and publisher.
Gary King (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Asterisks and table color are both used to show Hall of Fame induction - I suggest lose the asterisks.WP:Colors claims there is a reason for this. Rmhermen (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Jack Adams is not shown in the table as having ever coached the team while it was named the Red Wings. He should probably have two entries - one in each section of the table. The first coach shown under the heading Red Wings is #4 Tommy Ivan. It is only from reading the lead carefully that we realize that the first Red Wings coach was, in fact, Adams. The table itself carries no indication of what year the team name change occurred or that Adams continued coaching through it. Rmhermen (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rmhermen (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The Achievements section seems rather arbitrary. Example would include the mentions of career playing achievements of Pronovost and Park, which has no bearing on their coaching abilities.- This is especially true of Park, who spent the vast majority of his career with teams other than Detroit. Nearly all his achievements were done with other teams.
- In regards to this, there is nothing mentioned under Ted Lindsay. He won the Stanley Cup 4 times playing for the Wings, led the leage in scoring once, and was named to the NHL All-Star team 9 times. None of this is mentioned.
I'd suggest either add this, or more appropriately, make the Achievements section coaching-specific. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support All good now. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Good job on the article, although I have to point out something - there is one other NHL coaches list that is FL, List of New Jersey Devils head coaches. However, the Devils list is in a completely different format from this one, with a slightly shorter intro and extra information (such as playoff records) that could be pertinent to this list. I worry that if this became an FL, we would have two different styles for NHL coach lists, instead of having one unified style for the whole set of team coach lists. Just a thought. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks good. GreenJoe 00:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I made an edit by replacing {{legend2}} with {{colorbox}}.
Other than that I see nothing else to remark on. Support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Sorry, this format is totally different to other FL or FLC. (See List of New Jersey Devils head coaches or List of Pittsburgh Steelers head coaches. As such I have stricken my support and changing to oppose. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.