Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2008: Difference between revisions
+5 |
pr2 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of No Doubt awards}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Brigham Young University alumni}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/West Bromwich Albion F.C. seasons}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/West Bromwich Albion F.C. seasons}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nickelback awards}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nickelback awards}} |
Revision as of 10:03, 2 August 2008
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of No Doubt awards
- 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:The Rambling Man 10:03, 2 August 2008 [1].
List of Brigham Young University alumni
previous FLC (08:36, 17 July 2008)
This list didn't really get a fair look last FLC, as few editors commented. Thanks for your (re-)consideration! --Eustress (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- WP:LAYOUT: "See also" goes before "References"
- Fixed. --Eustress (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think links to categories are usually placed in "See also"? People can click on the categories at the bottom to reach those.
- Good point--fixed. --Eustress (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Every time B.A., M.A., Ph.D., etc. is mentioned it doesn't need to be linked. Just link the first mention, otherwise the page is a sea of blue. Same goes for BYU and other links that are linked more than once, especially in the same section.
- In our last FLC we were told to link them all since they are part of a sortable list. --Eustress (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, makes sense Gary King (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In our last FLC we were told to link them all since they are part of a sortable list. --Eustress (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gary King (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question Does this univerity only have the graduates listed? If there are other graduates, why were they excluded? Fasach Nua (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I understand your question, but in the article's lead it explains that this list "includes notable graduates, non-graduate former students, and current students." --Eustress (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it a comlplete list of alumni? If alumni have been excluded why have they been excluded? Where does the notability crieria come from? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, it is a complete list of BYU's notable alumni. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the question is "What is the definition of 'notable' in this instance?" The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For this context, I feel that "Notable" = "Having a wikipedia article" Bluap (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All notable alumni, as determined per Wikipedia's notable people guidelines, have been listed in order to ensure "a complete set of items [i.e., alumni] where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items" (FL criterion #3). The only place in the list where it seemed impractical to list a complete set was for Football alumni: BYU lists 146 alumni who have played professional football; the FLC includes 24 of them (which accounts for more alumni than any of the other subcategories in the list, and which were not subjectively chosen but were included because they already had articles—perhaps because these 24 alumni had done something more unique than simply playing in the pros, like winning a Super Bowl, being a Pro Bowler, or being a Head Coach). So I believe this criterion is covered in that all of the major items have been covered since it would be impractical to list them all. Such an exception is not only built into the FLC process but is also already apparent in current FLs. For example, List of Dartmouth College alumni#Football only lists 19 alumni while Dartmouth lists 39.
- Hope this helps clarify. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For this context, I feel that "Notable" = "Having a wikipedia article" Bluap (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the question is "What is the definition of 'notable' in this instance?" The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, it is a complete list of BYU's notable alumni. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it a comlplete list of alumni? If alumni have been excluded why have they been excluded? Where does the notability crieria come from? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article is about all "Brigham Young University alumni that meet wikipedia notability criteria for inclusion", the it should be called "Brigham Young University alumni that meet wikipedia notability criteria for inclusion" per WP:NAME. There is an OR problem here, you need an off wiki definition of notable, or it is just someone point of view of what is notable. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(←) We've had this argument before when List of Arsenal F.C. players was listed for demotion as incomplete. The demotion attempte failed and since then we've adjusted the FL criteria. In particular, number 3, the comprehensiveness criterion states "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries." - so once a scope is defined, and once we are certain the list contains everything within the scope, it meets the criterion. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The scope of this list is "Brigham Young University alumni", is it not? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's the title of the list - if the scope is better defined in the lead then so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak supportSupport Seems to be exhaustive, well-referenced, and consistent list with a substantial introduction and accompanying content. There seems to be booster-cruft ("best-selling", "acclaimed", "award-winning", "renowned") which always rubs me the wrong way because these terms (1) they convey no actual information and (2) are inappropriate in an encyclopedia which is clearly not a marketing brochure. These terms should be stripped out and more information provided on what they're specifically acclaimed for, what awards they won, etc. Full support once that is done. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Good catch...I believe I have fixed the booster-cruft issues. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would add that it unabashedly lists alumni that are quite anti-booster (is that a word?) Wrad (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch...I believe I have fixed the booster-cruft issues. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well-referenced, covers its defined scope very well, nice lead. All the little things were fixed in the last FLC. Wrad (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the look of it, in general, but would prefer that the explanation of what BYU is was in the first paragraph of the lead, not the last. I'd also prefer the term "notes" instead of "notability" for each table - "notability" sounds a little too Wikipedia-orientated. BencherliteTalk 00:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved the BYU explanation in the lead accordingly. However, four of the five alumni FLs under WikiProject Universities display the word "Notability" for the brief bio blurb, so that might be personal preference (me, at least, preferring "notability"), but the majority of the WPU FLs use "notability" as well. If other editors preferred "notes", however, I wouldn't be strongly opposed to the change. Best --Eustress (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Support. BencherliteTalk 15:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It looks good. Well referenced, the couple of weasel words I saw a couple days ago isn't here anymore. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 21:10, 28 July 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 promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:15, 1 August 2008 [2].
West Bromwich Albion F.C. seasons
I am nominating this list for Featured List status as I believe it has reached the standard set by other featured football club seasons lists, as well as meeting the FLC criteria. --Jameboy (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would remove the brackets from the first sentence, and replace them with commas. If it's important enough to mention, it's important enough to do so without looking like an aside.
- I would change top-flight to top division. Top flight is probably jargon.
- Again, I'd remove the brackets around the lowest league position, and also replace Division 3 with Division Three and 7th with seventh. Probably best as "... recording their lowest ever league finish of seventh in Division Three in 1991–92."
- Remove the brackets again around the sharing of the charity shield.
- "The club was founded as West Bromwich Strollers in 1878 by workers from George Salter's Spring Works and turned professional in 1885." It's not exactly controversial but it made need a reference.
- "In the 1900–01 season, the club moved to its current home ground, The Hawthorns." Ditto to the above.
Everything else looks fine. Peanut4 (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Think I've addressed everything above. Still not quite happy with the opening sentence and the self reference ("the list below") but getting there. --Jameboy (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Shouldn't the Key be above the table so we know what everything is before we look at the table? Gary King (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An excellent point and one that I agree with. However given that existing seasons FLs seem to have the key at the bottom, I'd like to have some modicum of consensus before making the change. Do we have any guideline or policy on this? What are people's thoughts? --Jameboy (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree that a key should normally go above the table, but the problem is that the key on these lists is huge. The aggravation to the reader who actually wants to read the key, of having to click on Key in the table of contents and then to click on the Back button to get back, is in my view much less than the aggravation caused to the general reader, who generally doesn't, of being confronted with so much key to scroll past before they get to the table. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The key is still much smaller than the list, and helps to prep the reader for what the table contains. I'd rather scroll by the key and then read the table rather than read the table then realize that the key is at the bottom. I don't usually look at the table of contents; I just scroll and see what there actually is in the content. Gary King (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree that a key should normally go above the table, but the problem is that the key on these lists is huge. The aggravation to the reader who actually wants to read the key, of having to click on Key in the table of contents and then to click on the Back button to get back, is in my view much less than the aggravation caused to the general reader, who generally doesn't, of being confronted with so much key to scroll past before they get to the table. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick question - how did the club come to win the league title and Charity Shield in the same season (1919-20)? Surely they would have been in the following season's Shield after winning the title.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The match took place on 15 May 1920, which would be the end of the 1919–20 season. I can see how this would probably appear strange to those familiar with it as the "traditional curtain raiser". I'll do some digging around (as I'm not sure if this was a one-off or if it was always at the end of the season in those days) and add an explanatory footnote. --Jameboy (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, see here [3] for evidence that the shield was played at the end of the season during the early days. I have expanded the Charity Shield footnote. --Jameboy (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Please avoid starting the list with "This is a list of..." we're trying to be more imaginative and compelling now.
- Really? :-P OK, I've changed it - it's better but still not brilliant. I'll give it some more thought tomorrow. I'm struggling with the self-referencing aspect somewhat. Can you clarify this for me? Can we mention the list at all, and if not, how do we introduce it without mentioning it? Are there any really good FLs that you could recommend as examples to draw inspiration from in this regard? --Jameboy (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Caption appears to be the only place where you do year ranges by XXXX–XXXY instead of XXXX–XY. I'd be consistent.
- Fixed --Jameboy (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "In Europe, Albion" - perhaps expand a touch, maybe European competitions? Just for the non-expert.
- Fixed --Jameboy (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aren't [23] and [24] specific references rather than footnotes?
- Yeah fair point, although I'm not sure how best to separate them as I've always lumped them together before now. Should I create a footnotes section similar to that in Norwich City F.C. and then split the references into specific and general?
- OK, now done. Footnotes section contains only footnotes. References section divided into General and Specific references. --Jameboy (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the sake of consistency, link Ipswich Town in the footnote about Kevan.
- Ipswich Town don't deserve a link! Oh alright then, done. --Jameboy (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Lead. In the first sentence, perhaps link 'English' and 'European' to something helpful.
- 'English' now linked to Football in England. Strangely, I couldn't find a similar general article on European football to link 'European' to. --Jameboy (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In "first team competitions", think first team should be hyphenated.
- Think you're right - a very quick Google Search seemed to show the hyphen being used by the more reliable sources and no hyphen by the unofficial/fan sites, generally speaking. Fixed. --Jameboy (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't actually say explicitly that the list is supposed to include only completed seasons, which presumably is the case for stability reasons?
- That is the reason, indeed. I've added a hidden comment to the bottom of the list, advising would-be editors not to add stats while the current season is still in progress. I'm thinking about the best way to phrase the lead so that this list criterion is clear. --Jameboy (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Matthews, BCFC Encyclopedia (ISBN 978-0-9539288-0-4), and Tony Jordan, the Birmingham Senior Cup admitted reserve sides from 1905-06, not 06-07. Only mentioned this in case yours was a typo, on the basis there's no reason why my Matthews reference should be more reliable than yours :)
- Matthews (1987) p202 says "...in 1906-07 the Birmingham FA decreed that local clubs could field their reserve sides in the Birmingham Cup."
- Matthews (1987) p205 says "In 1906-07 the Staffordshire FA decreed that reserve teams could take part [in the Staffordshire Cup]"
- Possibly a typo or misprint at source? Not sure what to suggest. --Jameboy (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Table. Would the goalscorer column look tidier left-aligned?
- Yes it would. Have now done so. --Jameboy (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Repeated links of the same goalscorer. I know overlinking should be avoided in prose, but I think a long list like this is different. The reader shouldn't be expected to chase up and down looking for the single linked occurrence. Especially as you have repeatedly linked names of cup competitions.
- Now that you've pointed out the discrepancy, I've actually linked less of the competitions, only repeating the links where they are relatively distant (as advised by WP:MOSLINK). I'm also looking into increasing the linking to the divisons, as this column is arguably underlinked. With the goalscorers, I think W. G. Richardson has the greatest spread, something like seven or eight rows, which is the equivalent to a decent sized paragraph, so not really much chasing up and down required. It's tricky knowing where to draw the line though, as with lists there is often a lot more repetition of linkable terms than in articles. Could almost do with a WP:MOSLINKLISTS or whatever, assuming something like that doesn't exist already. Couldn't find anything in WP:STAND about link frequency. --Jameboy (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes and references. Consider separating the footnotes from the references as done on Bradford City A.F.C. seasons, using {{ref label}} and {{note}}/{{note label}}. This also allows footnotes to be referenced without the source information getting tangled up with the note. Then you could divide the References section into general and specific.
- Done. --Jameboy (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And one or two notes could do with inline refs, #10, #11, #16. And #16, League Cup started in 1961 but Albion didn't join in until 1965 begs the question "why not?", perhaps just add something like "like a number of First Division clubs" and a reference.
- Done. Can't find the reason they didn't enter from the start, but have footnoted the (probable) reason they did finally enter in 1965-66. --Jameboy (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you use FCHD as a source to anything in the list? if so, it should go in with the other general refs. Either way, I'd credit Mr Rundle by including him in the publisher param :)
- I'd already checked all the stats up to 2002 against the McOwan 2002 and Matthews 2007 books. From 2002 I checked against Matthews and soccerbase. So the FCHD was really an afterthought and I haven't verified all the stats against it. If I do so in the future I'll move it into the References section. Have added the publisher param as you suggested though. --Jameboy (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you add |Seasons into Category:West Bromwich Albion F.C., it will sort more usefully under S on the category page rather than under W.
- Good point. Done. --Jameboy (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hope some of this helps. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments
- Local cups. Leave as is, on the basis you have a reliable source; or change it to since the 1900s. Either would be acceptable.
- I've gone for 1900s. --Jameboy (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now you've gone to a separate notes section, it would be easy to add sources for those notes mentioned above, which could do with them, now notes F (the RSSSF page you cited in response to Chris above would be good), G and L. And any others you think might benefit from a specific source.
- I already did that :) [F][5], [G][6], [L][7]. Is that how you envisaged it? Or did you mean put the reference actually within the footnote? --Jameboy (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I see now. Didn't realise it was possible to reference a footnote like that. I'm learning every day. Done. --Jameboy (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note O should be third rather than 3rd place play-off.
- Done. --Jameboy (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd put the general refs back to normal font size.
- Done. --Jameboy (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left a suggestion about the lead on your talk page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've re-written the lead per your comments. Reads much better now IMO. Many thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Satisfies the criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I am happy that this meets the criteria and is of a similar standard to existing "seasons" FLs. And what a shame it is that we don't have top-flight players with names like "Chippy" Simmons any more :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 29 July 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 promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:15, 1 August 2008 [4].
List of Nickelback awards
Gary King (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support P.S.: Nickelback Rocks! Annoyomous24 00:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers, thanks! Gary King (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Can we avoid the "This is a list of" intros (here and on your other nominations where applicable) please? We can use some imagination now!
- First para seems to be about their releases while this article is about their awards. I know some context is useful but I'd imagine most of that first para would be in the lead of the discog.
- Any chance of references we can check for 1-4, 8, 9, 11 and 14? I know paper references are perfectly acceptable but with a list about a modern band I'd have thought reliable references can be found on the web?
- The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Yeah, it is somewhat discography-related information, but I think it helps to give a background as to which albums, singles etc. the band had success with, since those are often the ones that receive awards. As for the references, I will look around, but for musicians, I find it's easier (and the sources more useful) to find references offline from music magazines and such, which do not always have online mirrors. Gary King (talk) 18:17, 22 July 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 promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:15, 1 August 2008 [5].
Queens of the Stone Age discography
Nomiated again. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a novel way to do some canvassing. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good work. Cannibaloki 22:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- Remove the link to Gamma Ray; (DONE)
- The references on certifications are just for search data, then you should explain to the reader how it should proceed to look for results; (DONE)
- See Garbage discography;
- In the CRIA website there is nothing written about GOLD for Era Vulgaris. Then remove it; (DONE)
- Change the area of 4em to 3em on the singles table, that's very deformed. (DONE)
- Other appearances table all albums have the same reference, then leave only a reference to the side of Song [28], since it does not need to repeat them. (DONE)
- Remove the links to yyyy in music; (DONE)
- Comments - Other appearances should list original material not released on any QOTSA albums singles etc. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that include unreleased tracks not present on any released CD? As there was a huge list of them which was deleted a week or so ago. Red157(talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it isn't released then it isn't discography. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Image could use an informative caption.(DONE)
- The E of Extended play can just be e. It's not a proper noun.(DONE)
- You use ref 1 8 times in a row in the lead. This is overeferencing in the extreme. One per para if you're 100% sure everything in each para is cited in the reference.(DONE)
- "Queens of the Stone Age found itself amidst the sudden popularity and attention" poor grammar and somewhat peacock.(DONE)
- " The band's next album was Lullabies to Paralyze, released in 2005, peaked at number five on the Billboard 200 and launched several successful singles, including "Little Sister" and "In My Head"." copyedit please.(DONE)
- "emulate the precedent " what precedent? It's not clear.(DONE)
- Ref 1 has incorrect title. And it doesn't back up most of the claims in the lead (like the precedent comment, "Kyuss/Queens of the Stone Age EP in 1997.[1]" , Interscope isn't mentioned in this article at all, Rated R first album to chart isn't mentioned at all, "new level of commercial success", "popularity and attention" not mentioned at all in the ref)(DONE)
- Ref 1 also refers to the label as Loosegroove, not Loose Groove.(DONE)
- Ref 2 does not have any singles information at all so you can't use it for the Singles table.(DONE)
- Ref 3 does not have any singles information at all so you can't use it for the Singles table.(DONE)
- In fact, refs 4 to 9 and 12 to 18 are album charts only so you can't use them to references the singles.(DONE)
- Ref 16 has a typo.(DONE)
- Burn One Up isn't in ref 32, The Hard + the Heavy, Vol. 1 is in ref 32 but not in this list.(DONE)
- In fact, ref 32 and your table using ref 32 only don't match up at all really.(DONE)
- Ref 27 does not have any director information whatsoever.(DONE)
- Please ensure you have checked all references are accurate and correctly defined. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the referencing issues were ones Be Black Hole Sun had on the Mark Lanegan discography as well. Trying to fix them... Red157(talk • contribs) 10:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, which is why I prefer people to not nominate many of the same type of list at once, the same problems exist across them all. Good luck with the fixes. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When you say (DONE) please make sure you really have done it. I'll give you one example - where is "The Hard + the Heavy, vol 1" in your list? I will not chase all the other issues, but right now this list will not be promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done that. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs 30 and 31 point to the same URL. So does 35. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "didn't sell as much as its predecessor." prove it, and don't use contractions - "did not"... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hard and the Heavy was 1999, not 1997 according to your source. Why is "Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows [Soundtrack] " in the reference but not in the list? Check all the relevant entries in the reference are also included in this list. This list is currently incomplete. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added two reliable sources. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 32 = Ref 36. Other appearances still is not the same as the reference, there are works missing. Fix the year for Hard and the Heavy (second time I've asked). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Loose Groove " in the lead - the refs called it "Loosegroove" The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed it, all the missing other appearances and the other stuff. I'm sure of it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read my comments carefully. Ref 32 is the same as Ref 36. You need to check that you have fixed every one of the issues I've told you before you tell me you've done them all. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed it. Sometimes i suprise myself. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 2007, the band released its fifth studio album, Era Vulgaris which, the album sold more copies then its predecessor in the United States and sold approximately 149,000 copies worldwide in its first week, while Lullabies to Paralyze sold approximately 97,000 in its first week.[3]" - not English - copyedit please. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed it.--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "released Era Vulgaris the album sold more approximately 149,000 copies " is not much better. Please get a native English speaker to copyedit it for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed it.--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tried one more time, if it doesn't work i'll get an english user okay. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still missing punctuation and, more importantly, missing the point that it more successful than the previous album. But was the most successful of their career? I know the figures are there but without some kind of context they are a little bland. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And really, saying " fifth effort " isn't wise - they've had plenty more efforts than that, state the fact, it was their fifth studio album. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now changed it to fifth studio effort if its okay and added more about the Era Vulgaris chart positions. Another thing whats does punctuation mean, never in my life heard that word.--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support As one of the editors who brought Era Vulgaris to GA, I feel qualified to say that this article is both comprehensive and accurate in its listings of releases. One minor suggestion is to include the track names in the "Other appearances" section, as the tracks are common knowledge. Regards, Skomorokh 11:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help Skomorokh. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:08, 31 July 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 promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:15, 1 August 2008 [6].
Nile discography
After few days of work, I think this discography is ready to be a FL. Cannibaloki 04:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Nice. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Cannibaloki 06:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- " along with Chris Lollis since 2007" - no, you've already said "As of 2008, " so this becomes a bit too much.
- Check you're not using en-dash where hyphen should be used, e.g. self-titled is correct, self–titled is not etc..
- "seminal classical work" - POV - just stick with "classical work"
- " In 1997 "Ramses" demo " presumably Ramses should be in italics without quotes here?
- "Relapse Records was responsible for Nile's debut studio album " incorrect. They may have paid for it but the band and the studio were responsible... reword.
- "After a extensive touring due to large success of first album" - nowhere close to English.
- "released on same year" ditto.
- "In mid 2004 guitarist Karl Sanders, working and his solo album entitled Saurian Meditation. It was released on October through Relapse Records. In 2005 Nile released the fourth studio album Annihilation of the Wicked, that debuted on Swedish charts at number 27. In 2007 they released Ithyphallic, the most sucessfull effort debuting on Billboard charts at number 162." - just not English - suggest you get a copyeditor to sort this all out - at least half a dozen problems here alone.
- "two of their rare previous releases" - rare? Context?
- "the first three music videos." - which "first three"?
- "digital only" - hyphenate.
- What makes Zobbel a WP:RS?
- The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cannibaloki 20:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]Doing... Starting the pilgrimage in search of a copy editor.
Comments
- The order of sections in the infobox should match the order of sections in the article.
- I've never seen any other page lay out the sections the way this one does. Check out WP:LAYOUT and WP:BETTER#Layout, or ask at the talk pages to make sure this is okay. It just looks really odd to me.
- Try to link to discography in the Lede somehow. You could do it by giving an overview at the beginning of the second paragraph in the LS: The discography of Nile consists of # studio albums, # compilations, etc etc.
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done thank you for advice... Cannibaloki 20:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments II
- None of the lead is cited, e.g. where the band are from, who the members are, " After extensive touring to support ..." etc.
- The lead doesn't mention the single Papyrus. And the list doesn't mention how it charted.
- This single didn't any chart;
- "Chris Lollis playing bass, vocals in live performances" reads strangely to me - do you mean he always plays bass and then vocals in live performances, or do you mean he only plays in live performances, both bass and vocals?
- I think it's supposed to say that he is only part of the group in live performances, playing both bass and vocals. Additionally, the "along" is unnecessary. Simply "with" would suffice. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "the most successful effort " why not "their most successful album..."?
- Also not sure about the easter egg-style link to the Mars ogg file. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done "...easter egg-style..." —hahaha!!! Cannibaloki 16:03, 28 July 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 promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:15, 1 August 2008 [7].
List of Slipknot band members
I am nominating the for featured list status because I believe it's comprehensive in it's coverage and is well sourced and accurate and I believe it meets all the criteria of a featured list. REZTER TALK ø 06:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looks great to me. But my main concern is with the prose. Most of it needs a thorough copyedit for misspellings, grammar, and run-on sentences. I did a quick one myself in the lead, but it still needs alot of work throughout. Also, what do the black lines in the timeline denote? I think they need a legend. Drewcifer (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are to represent the bands' releases, they should be labelled but the legend isn't showing it and I'm not sure why, maybe because there are too many labels to fit in the small image. REZTER TALK ø 13:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After some experimenting I think the best thing to do is to add another image for the legend, my proposal is at my sandbox. If you think this is OK I will add it. REZTER TALK ø 18:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if somebody can highlight the problems you mention with the prose then we can fix them. REZTER TALK ø 18:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I like what I see in your sandbox, go for it! Like a said above, the prose needs a copyedit based on spelling (it's vs its for example), grammar, and run on sentences. I'd highly recommend asking someone uninvolved to help you out, since a pair of fresh eyes will do the list alot of good. Also, I just realized that the list should be renamed to "List of Slipknot members" per list naming conventions. Drewcifer (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK I have added the additional timeline legend. Is there anywhere specifically I can request for help with the copyeditting? And regarding the moving of the page, I'm OK with it, I'm just unsure of how we would do that. REZTER TALK ø 20:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Move the page by hitting the Move button at the top of the page, next to History :) Gary King (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah it was done five days ago by Drewcifer. REZTER TALK ø 04:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The language is much better, but with a quick search I found a few typos and a little bit of poor grammar. Unfortunately I don't have time to help long-term, so I'll regretfully abstain. Good luck though. Drewcifer (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah it was done five days ago by Drewcifer. REZTER TALK ø 04:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Move the page by hitting the Move button at the top of the page, next to History :) Gary King (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK I have added the additional timeline legend. Is there anywhere specifically I can request for help with the copyeditting? And regarding the moving of the page, I'm OK with it, I'm just unsure of how we would do that. REZTER TALK ø 20:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I like what I see in your sandbox, go for it! Like a said above, the prose needs a copyedit based on spelling (it's vs its for example), grammar, and run on sentences. I'd highly recommend asking someone uninvolved to help you out, since a pair of fresh eyes will do the list alot of good. Also, I just realized that the list should be renamed to "List of Slipknot members" per list naming conventions. Drewcifer (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are to represent the bands' releases, they should be labelled but the legend isn't showing it and I'm not sure why, maybe because there are too many labels to fit in the small image. REZTER TALK ø 13:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I'd like to see the second paragraph in the lead split up as it's pretty ginormous.
- "band, his replacement " needs either a semicolon or a conjunction
- "Shortly after this" – either "Shortly after" or "Shortly after this change"
- "Jones fitted the" – "Jones fit the"
- "couldn't provide" – "could not provide"
- I definitely agree with Drewcifer that the article needs a thorough copyedit, per what I found above. The contraction was particularly troubling as those are easy to find and resolve.
Gary King (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. I have made several other revisions to the intro, but any other comments are welcome. Blackngold29 04:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- How is the list of members ordered? It's not by number (which is how it is in the template at the bottom of the page), it's not alphabetically, and it's not by the year they became a band member
- They are ordered as such; vocalist, guitarists, bassist, drummer, additional percussion, electronics. They can obviously be reordered if you think there's a more adequate order. REZTER TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose issues:
- "Alongside Anders Colsefini, Donnie Steele, Josh Brainard, Paul Gray and Shawn Crahan, Joey Jordison was a member of the original band formed in 1995 as a drummer." They were all drummers?
- For every one of the original members should it list what each of them did? REZTER TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but the use of "alongside" with a list of people infers that they were all drummers. Each of the sentences that do this should be re-written for clarity. It's fine to say that he's a drummer, but not to have people think that they're all drummers. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed all of the "as a (instrument)", it's mentioned just above there and is kind of unnecessary. REZTER TALK ø 17:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but the use of "alongside" with a list of people infers that they were all drummers. Each of the sentences that do this should be re-written for clarity. It's fine to say that he's a drummer, but not to have people think that they're all drummers. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For every one of the original members should it list what each of them did? REZTER TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Alongside Anders Colsefini, Donnie Steele, Josh Brainard, Joey Jordison and Paul Gray, Shawn Crahan was a member of the original band formed in 1995 as a percussionist and backup vocalist." They were all percussionists and backup vocalists?
- "Alongside Anders Colsefini, Donnie Steele, Josh Brainard, Joey Jordison and Shawn Crahan, Paul Gray was a member of the original band formed in 1995 as a bass guitarist and backup vocalist." They were all bass guitarists?
- "He replaced the spot left on guitar" he should use some furniture polish on that
- Ahaha I like your humour, changed. REZTER TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Taylor was recruited from fellow local band Stone Sour in 1997, the band's music required more melodic singing" should be a semi-colon, I think, and then "the band's" is confusing - which band do you refer to?
- Fixed. REZTER TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "...vocalist Anders Colsefini struggled to accomplish." I understand that current members come before previous members, so Colsefini won't be listed before Taylor, so how about a Self link
- I'm not sure a self link is appropriate, the changes were mentioned chronologically in the intro and the prose for each member is just an extension of that information. This is a list not an article. REZTER TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Shortly after Jones entered the band as a guitarist" -- who is Jones? Self link again, I think. And why give his surname only, whereas in the previous entry, you give Anders Colsefini's full name
- I gave his full name but not a self link. REZTER TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "He replaced the spot left on guitar since Brainard's departure" Who?
- Fixed. REZTER TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Alongside Anders Colsefini, Josh Brainard, Joey Jordison, Paul Gray and Shawn Crahan, Donnie Steele was a member of the original band formed in 1995 as a guitarist." Were they all guitarists?
- "Alongside Donnie Steele, Josh Brainard, Joey Jordison, Paul Gray and Shawn Crahan, Anders Colsefini was a member of the original band formed in 1995 as lead vocalist and percussionist." Were they all etc etc?
- "Alongside Anders Colsefini, Donnie Steele, Josh Brainard, Paul Gray and Shawn Crahan, Joey Jordison was a member of the original band formed in 1995 as a drummer." They were all drummers?
- You should explain what the numbers mean. I think someone unfamiliar with the band won't know that each member is given a number, and without mentioning it in the article, it looks a bit WP:OR
- It is explaiend in the main Slipknot article, does this list really need it? I mean what do you propose, that theres a new section of prose about them? A mention in the lead? REZTER TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A one or two sentence mention of it wouldn't hurt, would it? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is explaiend in the main Slipknot article, does this list really need it? I mean what do you propose, that theres a new section of prose about them? A mention in the lead? REZTER TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Image in the lead is really dark, no better ones available?
- I uploaded a brighter image. REZTER TALK ø 11:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "metal band " in lead probably should be linked to the relevant genre otherwise you could be referring to a wedding ring.
- Done
- "which peaked and has since remained at nine members" doesn't make sense.
- Reworded
- Ought to link "sampler" and "turntablist" really since they're quite specialist terms.
- Done
- "the band realized" collective consciousness? Reword.
- Done. I double checked and it was Joey Jordison who came up with the idea... reworded. REZTER TALK ø 11:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Jones fit the position as " fitted?
- Gary King disagrees above
- "the band decided a new vocalist was needed" again, collective consciousness working?
- Reworded. REZTER TALK ø 11:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "could not provide vocal melody which the band considered integral to the material they were writing. " needs reference.
- Done. REZTER TALK ø 11:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wanting to retain their percussive edge, Greg Welts joined the band as Colsefini's replacement." how does the second clause logically follow the first here? It's not clear.
- They wanted to remain strong in the percussion area, so they replaced the drummer who left.
- "In 1998, Welts became the only member who was asked to leave " try "who has been asked to leave"...
- Done
- "have the vocalists trade-off, " jargon.
- Done
- "Jim Root" then you call him "James Root" - be consistent.
- Done - Keeping it "Jim"
- "Mick Thomson was brought ..." just "Thomson was brought ..." is fine - this goes for all other entries, no need to repeat the first name.
- Done
- What particular order are the members in? It's not alpahebtical, not chronlogical, not numerical - is it just random?
- As Rezter said above: "They are ordered as such; vocalist, guitarists, bassist, drummer, additional percussion, electronics. They can obviously be reordered if you think there's a more adequate order."
- "head butted " needs to be hyphenated.
- Done
- "1997-1998 " needs en-dash.
- Done
- "realised " if this is US-English then surely it should be "realized"?
- Done
- "Alongside Anders Colsefini, Josh Brainard, Joey Jordison, Paul Gray and Shawn Crahan..." boring repeat of the line-up time-after-time. Just say "Member of original line-up" (or similar).
- Page ranges need en-dash.
- I'm unclear what you mean by this, can you elaborate? REZTER TALK ø 11:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Like the references with page x–y. Blackngold29 16:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unclear what you mean by this, can you elaborate? REZTER TALK ø 11:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image in the lead is really dark, no better ones available?
- A lot more work to do, 3 days overdue and currently no supports. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe no supports, but all comments addressed and each reviewer has been notified on their talk page, that's all we can do. Drewcifer appears to be on a Wikibreak, but I have just left a quick reminder to him, Gary King, and Matthewedwards. Blackngold29 03:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much improvement since the nomination opened. All my concerns have been resolved, and it meets the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:13, 1 August 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.