Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/September 2008: Difference between revisions
m Bot updating FLC archive links |
archive four, three with no consensus to support after 17/18 days, one which is too unstable |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Bryan Adams awards}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of German submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Carnivàle awards and nominations}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Philadelphia Phillies team records/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Philadelphia Phillies team records/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/DragonForce discography/archive2}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/DragonForce discography/archive2}} |
Revision as of 15:45, 17 September 2008
List of awards and nominations received by Bryan Adams
previous FLC (01:14, 29 September 2008) Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of German submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film
- 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:Matthewedwards 20:13, 1 November 2008 [1].
List of Carnivàle awards and nominations
previous FLC (15:45, 17 September 2008)
The first FLC was unsuccessful last month, criticism was already addressed during that time, and I am trying again. – sgeureka t•c 16:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Need to say in the references when the source is not in English (current ref 5)http://www.castingsociety.com/artios/winners deadlinks
- Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both fixed. castingsociety.com is under construction, so I expect they'll keep changing their website structure in the foreseeable future. – sgeureka t•c 15:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Created by Daniel Knauf, the show is set in the United States Dust Bowl during the Great Depression and traces the disparate storylines of a young carnival worker named Ben Hawkins (played by Nick Stahl) and a preacher in California named Brother Justin Crowe (Clancy Brown). The Dust Bowl was a period of time, not a place, if you want to say the place, then it should be the Great Plains. Better as ..set in the Great Plains of the United States during the Dust Bowl and Great Depression.
- Carnivàle garnered numerous awards and nominations and was nominated for seven Emmy Awards in its inaugural season, winning five in creative arts categories. ---> Carnivàle garnered numerous awards and nominations, which included seven Emmy Awards in its inaugural season, winning five in the creative arts categories. (bolded changed content).
- The second season received eight further Emmy nominations in 2005 without a win. - how about, The second season received eight further Emmy nominations in 2005, but did not win one.
- Nominations for two Golden Reel Awards, four Satellite Awards and two Saturn Awards did not result in a win. - in the previous sentence it is stated that one of the actors won an award, so which is this, the actor or the series itself?
- For the satellite awards under nominee, wouldn't the dash be better as having the name of the series, since that is what it was nominated for, right?
- Satellite awards: Carnivàle was nominated in two categories in 2004 but failed to win in either. - comma after 2004.
- Is there an image of the show on common or a logo for free use?SRX 20:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything addressed, or at least tried to do so. I rewrote the intro almost completely as I just couldn't make your suggestions work the way I wanted to (thanks for pointing out the Dust Bowl time-place issue, of which I was unaware). In the last FLC, someone objected to the title card image in the infobox although the FUR said that "Carnivàle's main title design won an Emmy", so I took it out. I may be able to get possibly-free images, but I'd have to read up on Canadian Panoramafreiheit rulings (if there any) and then ask many involved parties, which I consider a little out-of-proportion for the gain to pursue at the moment. – sgeureka t•c 11:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
I would rename the article "List of awards and nominations received by Carnivàle" to match the current format. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Ludacris for the discussion."The inaugural season of Carnivàle garnered numerous awards and nominations including five Emmy Awards and two Emmy nominations in the creative arts categories." Comma after "nominations".Dabomb87 (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I added the comma. But although I have no attachment to the name of this list (feel free to change it), it could be argued that Carnivàle didn't receive the awards but mostly people for Carnivàle. The current naming follows the TV series format of List of Lost awards and nominations (formerly List of awards and nominations for Lost), List of Passions (TV series) awards and nominations, and List of 30 Rock awards and nominations; there is also List of awards won by The Simpsons that is intentionally incomplete and therefore named differently. I hope that we'll have settled on a one-size-fits-all naming format in a year or two. – sgeureka t•c 19:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you're saying. This is different from music group award pages. But explain why the infobox says "List of awards won by Carnivàle". Dabomb87 (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You got me. Stupid copy-paste mistake on my part. I changed it to "Awards and nominations for Carnivàle", as "Carnivàle awards and nominations" sounds too much like "MTV Awards". (I am seeing the point of a list renaming more and more...) – sgeureka t•c 21:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you're saying. This is different from music group award pages. But explain why the infobox says "List of awards won by Carnivàle". Dabomb87 (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the comma. But although I have no attachment to the name of this list (feel free to change it), it could be argued that Carnivàle didn't receive the awards but mostly people for Carnivàle. The current naming follows the TV series format of List of Lost awards and nominations (formerly List of awards and nominations for Lost), List of Passions (TV series) awards and nominations, and List of 30 Rock awards and nominations; there is also List of awards won by The Simpsons that is intentionally incomplete and therefore named differently. I hope that we'll have settled on a one-size-fits-all naming format in a year or two. – sgeureka t•c 19:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks great, nice work.--Music26/11 14:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
The infobox totals do not add up. For instance, Emmy awards shows 5 wins, and 10 nominations, yet it was actually nominated for 15 awards, and won 5 of those. I think it's a little misleading. Matthewedwards 19:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind, I did this cause I was bored.
- I simply counted the greens and the reds instead of adding the greens to the reds. But I see all other TV award wiki articles use your convention. Sorry for forgetting the VES Awards. – sgeureka t•c 18:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Costume Designers Guild Awards -- The category, according to the article, is "Excellence in Period or Fantasy Costume Design for Television Series"
- Satellite Awards is "Best Television Drama Series", not "Best Series - Drama"; "Best Supporting Actress in a Series, Miniseries or Motion Picture Made for Television", not "Best Supporting Actress - Drama Series"
- Check out all the other award categories for each Award ceremony to make sure WP calls them what they do.
Matthewedwards 22:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've copypasted the names now that the official sites give. In several cases, IMDb calls them differently, and wikipedia has a third name for them. E.g. per the official site, the name for the Costume Designers Guild Awards is "Excellence in Period / Fantasy Design for Televsio" [sic] and "Outstanding Period/Fantasy Television Series", per IMDb it's "Excellence in Costume Design for Television - Period/Fantasy" and "Outstanding Costume Design for Television Series - Period/Fantasy", and wikipedia combines them under Costume Designers Guild Award for Best Costume Design - Period or Fantasy TV Series. The article starter must have used the names from a fourth website. It looks a little inconstant now, and I was unsure what to do with the Golden Reel Award, the Artios Award and the Satellite Award naming (the Satellite Award website gives different names than what you said). – sgeureka t•c 18:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks inconsistent amongst the different award giving bodies, but at least it's correct now; however, the standard rule in the English language is to capitalize words that are the first or the last word in the title and those that are not coordinating conjunctions (for, and, or), prepositions (in), articles (an, a, the), or the word to when used to form an infinitive. Be careful with "Single-camera" and "Single-Camera", especially from the same people (as at the Emmys). Matthewedwards 07:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unsure if your last comment was intended as an explanation or as a request to go over the titles again. Do I read this right that "for, and, or" etc. aren't capitalized? Is "Single-camera" or "Single-Camera" correct? – sgeureka t•c 18:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Re "for, and, or", etc, yes, they shouldn't be capitalised. As for "single-camera" vs "Single-Camera", I'm not sure, but I think they should all be the same. Matthewedwards 19:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have fixed this now. Thanks for the comments. – sgeureka t•c 19:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Re "for, and, or", etc, yes, they shouldn't be capitalised. As for "single-camera" vs "Single-Camera", I'm not sure, but I think they should all be the same. Matthewedwards 19:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unsure if your last comment was intended as an explanation or as a request to go over the titles again. Do I read this right that "for, and, or" etc. aren't capitalized? Is "Single-camera" or "Single-Camera" correct? – sgeureka t•c 18:03, 30 October 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:Scorpion0422 20:31, 29 November 2008 [2].
List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead
previous FLC (15:45, 17 September 2008)
- Corrected everything from the last round; I'm now looking to get it promoted. I've made the names sortable (and an f-load of work that was, too, my wrist is about dead) and the constitutencies/parties; I didn't see the point of sorting the resignation date (since it is in order anyway). Referenced, bluelinked, absolutely complete. Comments? Apologies for my informal stylings, I'm about dead on my feet.Ironholds (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dates should be sortable, as at the moment sortinmg by party (for example) puts them out of order, and they cannot be returned.Yobmod (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, good point. I'll do that now, then. Ironholds (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, done. Anything else? Ironholds (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as i can see, the general reference does not give any reasons for resignation. If that is the case, i think they all need to be cited for this to be fearutred - ascribing motives to people without cites is dubious or looks like OR.Yobmod (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, done. Anything else? Ironholds (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, good point. I'll do that now, then. Ironholds (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dates should be sortable, as at the moment sortinmg by party (for example) puts them out of order, and they cannot be returned.Yobmod (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I'll get on to that. They come (mainly) from the articles on the MP's themselves, and the facts there aren't necessarily individually cited. I'll have to work on that bit now.
- Ja, i'm sure it can all be cited, but is an annoying job. If it takes a while, consider mine a conditional support if that will keep this nomination open longer (condition being citing the reasons as above).Yobmod (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That was quick! consider me as a supporter.
- One tweek, can the date column be widened so they are all one line? (notes column seems to have enough space to spare).Yobmod (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. They aren't all actually done yet, btw :P. I'm about 2/3rds through, I'll finish them off when I come back from lectures. Ironholds (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rightyo, done. Ironholds (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. They aren't all actually done yet, btw :P. I'm about 2/3rds through, I'll finish them off when I come back from lectures. Ironholds (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Weak Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- Many of the inline citations are not formatted and are missing info (publisher, last access date).
"Currently the positions of Steward of the Manor of Northstead" Comma after "Currently"."Appointment to an "office of profit under The Crown" disqualifies an individual from sitting as a Member of Parliament (MP)" Add "An" before "Appointment".- "
In order to circumvent this prohibition, a legal fiction is used." "Most references say that it was first used in this way" What is "it"?"The writ for the electing of a replacement was moved as if Chalmers had been appointed to the Chiltern Hundreds." Unclear.- The entire last paragraph of the lead is confusing; I don't understand the "alternation" of the two offices. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you see that as "stuff to redo" rather than simply "reasons to oppose"? I'll work on it, but saying "here is a list of easily changeable reasons why I'm opposing" seems a bit odd.Ironholds (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done everything except the last para and the refs, which I'll work on. I'm not sure how to phrase the last para better, so maybe if I explain the principle here you can do a better job than I would; the positions are alternated in that if X, Y and Z resign, X will be appointed to the Chiltern Hundreds, Y to Northstead and then Z to the Hundreds. This is designed to allow multiple MP's to resign at once; if X and Y both want to resign at the same time, they are simply given the two different positions. If more than 2 resign at once (as in the case of X, Y and Z) then they would remove the first person to allow the third to resign, and so on. So if X, Y and Z want to resign, X is given Northstead, Y is given the Hundreds. X is then "fired" to free up the position, and Z is appointed. Ironholds (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The way you just explained it to me is the best way to rephrase it. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- mmn, but WP isn't a big fan of OR examples. I'll try and rephrase it in a bit to remove those. Ironholds (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The way you just explained it to me is the best way to rephrase it. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done everything except the last para and the refs, which I'll work on. I'm not sure how to phrase the last para better, so maybe if I explain the principle here you can do a better job than I would; the positions are alternated in that if X, Y and Z resign, X will be appointed to the Chiltern Hundreds, Y to Northstead and then Z to the Hundreds. This is designed to allow multiple MP's to resign at once; if X and Y both want to resign at the same time, they are simply given the two different positions. If more than 2 resign at once (as in the case of X, Y and Z) then they would remove the first person to allow the third to resign, and so on. So if X, Y and Z want to resign, X is given Northstead, Y is given the Hundreds. X is then "fired" to free up the position, and Z is appointed. Ironholds (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you see that as "stuff to redo" rather than simply "reasons to oppose"? I'll work on it, but saying "here is a list of easily changeable reasons why I'm opposing" seems a bit odd.Ironholds (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Righto, done the ref's. I've rephrased the last para as best I can; if you have time to check it I'd be grateful. Ironholds (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:25, 17 September 2008 [3].
List of Philadelphia Phillies team records
I am nominating this list because:
- I believe it meets the FL criteria.
- it is a unique list and a unique topic.
- this list could be a guide for others wishing to create lists of this type.
Because of its unique nature, this list was peer reviewed before nomination. To read the reviewers' input, please go here. Thanks in advance! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Some quick comments,
- Sorting doesn't work at all
- Names should be left-aligned
--Crzycheetah 07:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been having problems with the sorting too, I don't have any idea what's wrong with it or how to fix it. I did check it and it works for some tables and some columns, but not all. As for the alignment, I construct all my tables and FLs as centered as an aesthetic choice because it looks sloppy to have some left columns and some center. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorting by name? Use the {{sortname}} template instead of the plain {{sort}} template - should fix at least one of the problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been having problems with the sorting too, I don't have any idea what's wrong with it or how to fix it. I did check it and it works for some tables and some columns, but not all. As for the alignment, I construct all my tables and FLs as centered as an aesthetic choice because it looks sloppy to have some left columns and some center. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)
- The problem with the sorting is because of the statistical source at the bottom of the table, because you have used colspan in the table it does not sort properly due to their being some problem with colspan and sortable tables being together. To get around this issue just put the reference next to the title on each one. Or you could have a little bit of text introducing each table and have a reference at the end of the text.
- I can't put the references in the title per MOS. No links in section headers.
- Ok then I advise writing a short sentence above the tables and putting the reference there and remove it from the list, otherwise it won;'t sort properly. NapHit (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can use
[[{{{first}}} {{{last}}}|{{{first}}} {{{last}}}]]
to sort names instead of sort for exampleBilly Hamilton
- Well, the name sorting works fine the way it is at the moment.
- Dates should be not wikilinked per recent MOS changes
- Baseball dates (especially if they are in context to the presented facts, which these are) are supposed to be linked to the appropriate MLB seasons.
- Sorry seems you got confused, I meant dates as in September 1, 2002, but they're all unlinked anyway, yeh the MLB dates are fine NapHit (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I'm right it's only figures that should be centrally aligned anything else should be left aligne
- As I've said above, I center tables as an aesthetic decision; I believe that having parts of the table centered and others not looks extremely sloppy.
Hope this helps NapHit (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies above. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comment - sorting names is easy if you use the {{sortname}} template. Give me a shout if you need any more help with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it appears embedding the {{mlby}} template causes further problems with sorting. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to a lack of time on my part currently as an editor, I ask that this nomination be suspended pending the completion of my move back to Pennsylvania, at which time I will fix the concerns here and re-nominate. Thank you for your help and consideration. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:42, 17 September 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:The Rambling Man 16:01, 11 September 2008 [4].
DragonForce discography
Resubmitting as per the previous FLC (07:08, 4 July 2008). — Balthazar (T|C) 23:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
http://www.dragonforce.com/error/404 deadlinks
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y fixed. — Balthazar (T|C) 01:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now - the lead is not like other lists like this. There is no explanation how the band formed. Also, few prose issues.
- Their remixed and remastered version of Valley of the Damned was set for release in October, 2007 but has since been postponed and their fourth studio album Ultra Beatdown was released to the world on August 25, 2008. - this doesn't flow well. No comma needed after "October." Comma after "2007. Replace "and" with "while" .....etc. Also, "was released to the world?" Really? Just write "release." —
Y done. — Balthazar (T|C)
- in 2006 followed by "Operation Ground and Pound" in the same year. - how about "later that year."? —
Y done. — Balthazar (T|C)
- For the Music Videos, I don't like how it says that the director is unknown, has any research been done?
- I've done quite a lot of searching for the director to no avail. Nowhere mentions the director. — Balthazar (T|C) 01:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Their remixed and remastered version of Valley of the Damned was set for release in October, 2007 but has since been postponed and their fourth studio album Ultra Beatdown was released to the world on August 25, 2008. - this doesn't flow well. No comma needed after "October." Comma after "2007. Replace "and" with "while" .....etc. Also, "was released to the world?" Really? Just write "release." —
- Well at least you tried.--SRX 16:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--SRX 21:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks a little better, but I would still like to see the lead expanded for my support.--SRX 16:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Lead is too short really, it's not engaging per criterion 2 of WP:WIAFL.
- The tables that say " "—" denotes albums that were released but did not chart." - can you prove each of these were released and failed to chart?
- Ultra Beatdown row is incomplete (i.e. the final cell is missing its right hand edge).
Y Done. — Balthazar (T|C)
- Ref 6 and Ref 11 are not specific. Find alternatives.
Y Done. — Balthazar (T|C)
- The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will expand on the lead in about 7–9 hours after some sleep. — Balthazar (T|C) 03:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded on the lead slightly, hopefully enough; I don't think it will go much further without unnecessary padding or going into depth with the line-up changes. — Balthazar (T|C) 04:29, 31 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.
- 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:The Rambling Man 16:01, 11 September 2008 [5].
Doctor Who (series 4)
After two false starts to the FLC, I am now confident enough that it passes the featured list criteria. I am deciding to submit as a list as I feel it is more of a list than an article; it is more evocative of Lost (season 4) (an influence) than Smallville (season 1). Although the Christmas special has not yet been named, I do not think this should cause opposition: I employ a two-out-of-three rule when creating episode pages and episode sections on lists: if a television episode has two sourced aspects of: a title, an airdate, and a plot summary; I will include it. Removal would compromise the comprehensiveness of the article. See List of Desperate Housewives episodes#Season 5: 2008–2009 for a comparison with a featured list. The list itself needs no changes beyond small improvement, apart from updating the title when announced and including the AI and viewing figures when release. Sceptre (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What makes the following sources reliable?
Current ref 19 (New series trailer) is lacking a last access date.
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced with a statement about a trailer being premiered at Comic-Con. Sceptre (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has been blocked indefinitely. Don't know whether it's worth withdrawing this for the time being. D.M.N. (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sceptre asked if I would be willing to address any concerns, so we can keep it open for the time being. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to keep the nomination live as long as comments are addressed in a timely fashion. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will also help address concerns. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to keep the nomination live as long as comments are addressed in a timely fashion. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- No bold links in the lead please.
- Lead is too short, just one small para?
- Don't link all the dates just for the sake of it - think - does linking this date enrich the reader's experience? (as a good e.g. you have "BBC Proms "cutaway" scene "Music of the Spheres"—completed recording on May 3." Do you think this kind of "event" is likely to be comparable with other events that historically took place on May 3rd?)
- Should "Special" (in lead, as in Christmas Special) be capitalised? Same with the next series part of the infobox.
- Image caption in infobox is a fragment so no full stop required.
- Production section, two consecutive sentences starting with "This..." reads awkwardly.
- Expand RSC before using it so non-experts stand a chance...
- "The 15 episodes comprised of 13 regular " - perhaps it's me but I always thought it should be "consisted of 13" or "comprised 13"...
- "Doctor Who Magazine gradually revealed writers for the series..." - under what jurisdiction? Was it official or just speculative?
- Infobox leaks over the right-hand side of the table (on my browser - Safari under Mac OS 10.5.4...)
- Sorry, I've been interrupted so I'll have to stop here for the moment. More to follow. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As to the bold links... MOS states that the text of the title should be bolded in the lead, and that the first instance of a subject (Doctor Who) should be linked, which happens to be part of the title.
- No, don't have bold links, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, see WP:LEAD which says "Do not link words in the bold title." The Rambling Man (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Link moved. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As this is a list, leads tend to be short.
- No, please re-read WP:WIAFL. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's not much to add without falling into repetition; lists are hard to summarise. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they're quite easy. This will fail criterion 2 as it does not have an engaging lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's not much to add without falling into repetition; lists are hard to summarise. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, please re-read WP:WIAFL. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Date links can be removed, as long as all dates are in British format.
- Up to you to format them however, but don't link them. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding auto-formatting. Currently, it should not fail FL; List of Doctor Who serials is also a FL, with all dates linked. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Justify why you need to link all the dates then. There's absolutely no need. And just because historic lists passed with this overlinking, it does not mean the current standards are so low. Once more, as a good e.g. you have "BBC Proms "cutaway" scene "Music of the Spheres"—completed recording on May 3." Do you think this kind of "event" is likely to be comparable with other events that historically took place on May 3rd? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They do not need to be linked; but they also do not need to be unlinked. They are linked for the sole purpose of auto-formatting, which is still an acceptable practice (but that may change). Therefor inactionable. — Edokter • Talk • 12:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the manual of style, as I view it today: "The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated." Actionable once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They do not need to be linked; but they also do not need to be unlinked. They are linked for the sole purpose of auto-formatting, which is still an acceptable practice (but that may change). Therefor inactionable. — Edokter • Talk • 12:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Justify why you need to link all the dates then. There's absolutely no need. And just because historic lists passed with this overlinking, it does not mean the current standards are so low. Once more, as a good e.g. you have "BBC Proms "cutaway" scene "Music of the Spheres"—completed recording on May 3." Do you think this kind of "event" is likely to be comparable with other events that historically took place on May 3rd? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding auto-formatting. Currently, it should not fail FL; List of Doctor Who serials is also a FL, with all dates linked. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Up to you to format them however, but don't link them. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Special" capitalisation
Fixed.
- Full-stop
Fixed.
- Double "This"
Fixed
- RSC
Fixed
- Comprised > consisted
Fixed
- Doctor Who Magazine is quite authorative on the subject; they publish official announcements.
- Prove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just click it and read "Officially sanctioned by the BBC..." — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand that in this lead then to say "Officially sanctioned by the BBC, Doctor Who Magazine...."
- That falls outside the scope of this article, hence the link to Doctor Who Magazine. — Edokter • Talk • 12:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it falls within the scope to ensure readers are aware that it's an official source, not just a fanzine. Readers should not have to click away from this list to discover that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The statement is cited to Doctor Who Magazine, which is also linked. The statement is hence verifiable. DWM has already built a reputation as a reliable source; we do not need to re-assert that. It is up to the reader to do so if they so desire. Accrediting sources falls outside the scope of any subject. Our job is only to provide them. — Edokter • Talk • 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it falls within the scope to ensure readers are aware that it's an official source, not just a fanzine. Readers should not have to click away from this list to discover that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That falls outside the scope of this article, hence the link to Doctor Who Magazine. — Edokter • Talk • 12:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand that in this lead then to say "Officially sanctioned by the BBC, Doctor Who Magazine...."
- Just click it and read "Officially sanctioned by the BBC..." — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That should not happen... but my screen isn't big enough to test it.
- Still needs fixing. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't fix what ain't broken. The page uses standard tables. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid it needs to be fixed regardless of your specific browsing experience. If a portion of the table is inaccessible to me then the list cannot be promoted under any circumstances. In any case, it appears to have been fixed already. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ehm, no... If standards code breaks a browser, it is time to change browsers. It appears fixed now because I added a rather nasty hack that should normally never be used, because it breaks layout for other browsers. — Edokter • Talk • 12:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good but ideally it should be fixed for the majority of browsers, in particular IE6, IE7, Firefox and Safari. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ehm, no... If standards code breaks a browser, it is time to change browsers. It appears fixed now because I added a rather nasty hack that should normally never be used, because it breaks layout for other browsers. — Edokter • Talk • 12:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid it needs to be fixed regardless of your specific browsing experience. If a portion of the table is inaccessible to me then the list cannot be promoted under any circumstances. In any case, it appears to have been fixed already. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't fix what ain't broken. The page uses standard tables. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still needs fixing. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Edokter • Talk • 21:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As to the bold links... MOS states that the text of the title should be bolded in the lead, and that the first instance of a subject (Doctor Who) should be linked, which happens to be part of the title.
- Comments
- Another "Christmas Special" in the infobox.
- No. of episodes in the infobox is 15 + 2 supplemental, so 17 total. The lead does not back this up.
- No source information for the fair use image.
- "(Blocks 2, 5 and 7)" - why is Block a proper noun?
- Is series capitalised or not? Be consistent.
- Order citations numerically unless there's a good reason not to.
- Episode(s) and Writer(s) should be used as col headings because a lot of the rows have only one entry.
- premièred is now an English word without the accent grave. It's used again in the last story synopsis.
- "announced that in a partnership with Carlton Screen Advertising a " commas missing after "that" and "Advertising".
- "on TV" - television and, presumably, "British television"?
- Avoid overlinking the episode names.
- Merge first two paras of "Guest stars" - single sentence paras should be avoided.
- "Doctor Who's format of stand-alone episodes allows a greater flexibility in story telling. " says who? is this your opinion?
- "Like the previous three series" then "Unlike the previous three series" - reads awkwardly to me.
- What is PC in the table? You just called it Code in the previous table.
- Why is Doctor relinked in story 194's synopsis?
- " CAL (Eve Newton) - a computer-linked child "- why not just a comma here instead of a hyphen?
- Chino links to a disambiguation page.
- " works with Doctor" - the Doctor?
- " It will feature a new mutant Cyberman called Cybershade[44] on Earth in Victorian England[45][46][47][48] " - missing punctuation and do you need to link England? And do you really need four citations for this?
- Doctor Who Prom is linked twice in quick succession. Avoid.
- " the former in Block 4; the latter in Block 10." - this information is already in the first table. And why is Block proper noun once again?
- Why didn't the other supplemental episode have a production code?
- Why all the bold in the references?
- ref 49 needs fixing.
- Check all references use en-dash, not hyphen for page, date ranges etc. (e.g. ref 20, ref 50 etc).
- The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed most of the above issues, minus some points; the bold refs are caused by the {{cite journal}} template, so cannot be fixed; Hyphens are acceptable practice; and there is no production code for "Music of the Spheres" because none has been published. — Edokter • Talk • 13:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Should indicate it's a television series in the opening sentence, not just a series
- "a regular series of thirteen episodes
wasaired" - Could it say which channel the series aired on?
- Can we attempt to counter the Systemic bias, and provide a worldwide view, by stating which networks the series appeared on in other countries, especially those such as US, Canada, Aus and NZ?
- "Doctor Who
had beenwas recommissioned" - "The tenth production block — consisting of the 2008 Christmas special and the BBC Proms "cutaway" scene "Music of the Spheres" — completed recording on 3 May." Per WP:DASH, em-dashes shouldn't be spaced, but spaced en-dashes can be used instead.
- The table for the production block could be removed, with an extra "Block" column added to the main episode table. What's the point in repeating five columns' worth of information?
- Some dates are linked, while others aren't.
- The casting section is a distracting sea of blue links. Consider unlinking the episode titles, since they're linked in the episode table anyway
- Expand "Code" to "Production code" in the episode table
- Unlink character names in the episode summaries, and remove actors names, as it's all repetition of the Cast section
- {{citation}} is being used in conjunction with {{cite web}}, cite video and cite news. WP:CITET says only one version ({{citation}} or {{cite xxx'}}) should be used because of the different markup.
- I'm not a wiz with image use, but the DVD image seems to fail WP:NFCC, since it doesn't illustrate what it says it does (ie, a DVD cover, but no mention of the DVD in the article). But as I said, I'm not very knowledgeable on images and fair-use stuff.
That's all I have. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:36, 11 September 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:The Rambling Man 16:01, 11 September 2008 [6].
Tori Amos discography
Self-nom I have been working on this discography for about 2 months and have greatly improved the overall quality. At this point, I'm looking for feedback on what is left to do to achieve FL status. Thanks! --Pisceandreams (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What makes the following sources reliable?
- http://www.everyhit.com/ (Discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard leaned towards it not being reliable).
- I'm unclear what makes everyhit.com unreliable? It's not user-based or influenced, it's a chart position database. Also, several featured list discographies include this source. --Pisceandreams (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the discussion here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 11#Tenacious D - Reliability check. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unclear what makes everyhit.com unreliable? It's not user-based or influenced, it's a chart position database. Also, several featured list discographies include this source. --Pisceandreams (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 20 (Tori Amos to release new album...) is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
Fixed - Replaced Starpulse.com source w/ one from Billboard.--Pisceandreams (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Six paras in the lead is too much - see WP:LEAD.Fixed --Pisceandreams (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't start with "This is a discography for American pianist and singer-songwriter Tori Amos." - featured articles don't start with "This is an article about..." so nor should featured lists.Fixed --Pisceandreams (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image caption in infobox is fragment so remove the full stop.Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A few years later" - not encyclopedic.Fixed - replaced with "From 1984-1989" --Pisceandreams (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Amos was the singer of punk-rock band " - just mysteriously "was the singer"... ?Fixed - replaced with "Amos fronted the punk-rock band..." --Pisceandreams (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Amos began writing and recording material that would serve as the debut of her solo career." - citation req as this seems very significant.Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comma after Stanley (in my opinion) is required.Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Release of the EP is glossed over quickly - what was it called, how did it do?Fixed --Pisceandreams (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I usually don't see spaces between # and number for chart placements, so #14 instead of # 14.Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"reaching as high as only # 54" - redundant words - "as high as".Fixed - replaced with "reaching only #54..." --Pisceandreams (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Order citations numerically unless there's a really good reason not to do so.
"a covers album" - is there a decent link for cover available?Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"After working with Atlantic for the first 15 years of her career, Amos fulfilled her contract with the release of Strange Little Girls and decided to seek another label due to professional conflicts she had with Atlantic." - awkward reading. Rewording could remove the need to mention Atlantic twice.Fixed - replaced with "After working with Atlantic for the first 15 years of her career, Amos decided to seek another label upon fulfilling her contract with them due to professional conflicts." --Pisceandreams (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"With the changing landscape of the music industry" - is this a quote or is it your opinion?Fixed --Pisceandreams (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox says 3 compilation albums, lead says one.Fixed --Pisceandreams (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A highly active artist" - peacock, just stick to the facts.Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information column for studio albums is incomplete on my Safari browser.Fixed --Pisceandreams (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Left align album information.Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(To Be Released) - make this uncapitalised at least, and perhaps a footnote to the table.Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some odd number of spaces (maybe a tab?) between the colon and the certification. Why not just a space?Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that "releases that did not chart" were actually "release"d in each region you claim? This includes the singles.Fixed --Pisceandreams (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"comprised of non-LP tracks" - "comprising non-LP tracks".Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notes on singles table seem a little small. No need.Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"promotional only" - hyphenated probably.Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
" garnered a reputation for releasing an extensive catalogue of CD singles in conjunction with her albums. " - this reputation needs citation, otherwise it's just "she released CD singles... "etc.Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- B or b-side? And where are the references for all this hidden information?
Directors are not cited.Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nor are soundtracks.Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 5, 10, 37 etc which are specific references need to be replaced with specific references.
- The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Tori Amos is an American pianist and singer-songwriter whose musical career began in 1980, at the age of seventeen, when she and her brother co-wrote the song "Baltimore". - period should be in between the parenthesis, (i.e "Baltimore.")Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The song was selected as the winning song in a contest for the Baltimore Orioles and was recorded and pressed locally as a 7" single. - what is a 7" Single?Fixed Added a wikilink --Pisceandreams (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the Choirgirl Hotel, Amos' first album written and recorded with a band and her first album recorded at her home studio, Martian Engineering, debuted in May 1998 at #5 on the Billboard 200 and at #6 on the UK Top 40.[16][9] - with what band? a comma is needed after "band." What does "her home studio" mean?Fixed Changed to "From the Choirgirl Hotel, Amos' first album written and recorded with band mates Matt Chamberlain on drums, Jon Evans on bass and Steve Caton on guitar, and her first album recorded at her in-home recording studio, Martian Engineering, debuted in May 1998 at #5 on the Billboard 200 and at #6 on the UK Top 40." with wikilink to "recording studio". --Pisceandreams (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of the lead really needs to be cut down or split into another paragraph as it is too long.Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following year, To Venus and Back, a double album of original studio and live material, debuted in September 1999 at #12 in the US and at #22 in the UK.[17][9 - "of original studio?"Fixed Removed "original" --> "a double album of studio and live material..." --Pisceandreams (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the additional information in the table needed? It is unsourced and unverified and is a bit trivial.Fixed Removed said column from the studio album, compilation album, live album and EP tables. --Pisceandreams (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tables should follow the format of the Lostprophets discography, not an FL but FL's follow this format. In this way the noted are incorporated into a row in the table, and the size of the table is decreased.Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are B-Sides?Fixed Added a wikilink --Pisceandreams (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the music videos section, in the 1996 & 2003 row, unknown needs to be capitalized.Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--SRX 19:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comments
A bit better, but because the B-sides are in a collapsible table, they should not be in a section format since you can't access it from the ToC, I would recommend instead that you just place the section headers in a bold format.Done - Good point and I agree with you completely on that. The issue of the inaccessibility from the ToC never occurred to me. --Pisceandreams (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The dashes in the videos section need a note of explanation.Fixed - I opted to remove them so as to comply with other tables in the article --Pisceandreams (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The additional information in the videos, music videos, and soundtracks should also be removed because most of it is unsourced and irrelevant to the "discography" itself.Done - Embedded a few pertinent items as footnotes in respective table. --Pisceandreams (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--SRX 21:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- WP:DASH 1984-89
- "Shortly thereafter" sounds slightly archaic
- Visit MOS:DISCOG for what to put in the Certifications column
- Why is the album column not left-aligned? It makes the bullet points look funky
- I'm not convinced More Pink: The B-Sides is a legitimate release. It appears to be just an extra disc added to a re-release of an already released album
- Live at Montreux 1991/1992 has not been released, therefore is not part of the discography yet.
- iTunes is not a label
- Unnecessary whitespace in the singles table's header. Condense "US Adult Top 40" to "US Adult"
- B-sides aren't usually allowed in discographies, which lists releases, not tracklistings. Why are B-sides included but album tracklistings not?
- Studio albums, live albums, compilations, EPs and Official bootlegs should be level 3 (===) sections of a Level 2 "Full length releases"
- Soundtracks, tributes, other contributions should all be level three subsections of a Level 2 section
- According to The Lead and How to Swing It she only contributed to "I Wanna Get Back With You"
- Without You I'm Nothing is a dablink
- According to Last Days of the Century, she only contributed to "Red Toupee" and "Last Day Of The Century"
Oppose This list is simply incorrect and not ready to be a FL. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to your comment, "At this point, I'm looking for feedback on what is left to do to achieve FL status", WP:FLC shouldn't be used as a peer review to see what else is necessary. That's what WP:PR is for. FLC is to nominate lists that are ready to be promoted and need only minor tweaking. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:15, 11 September 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:The Rambling Man 16:01, 11 September 2008 [7].
List of Maryland hurricanes (1950–1979)
I can't think of a clever nomination statement... –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "The List of Maryland..." - firstly no need to capitalise the L and secondly, can we start it more imaginatively?
- Also, could you consider writing "1950–1979" out as "between 1950 and 1979"?
- Done with both. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "classification of these storms" -which storms?
- Removed "these". –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "while tropical storms and tropical depressions are generally weaker. " - interesting but is it relevant to this list of hurricanes?
- When I had another very similar article up for FLC (List of Maryland and Washington, D.C. hurricanes (1980–present), I was told I needed to clarify that. I'll remove it if you feel it's needed, though. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are cyclones and hurricanes synonymous here? I'm not sure so it could use a clarification.
- Note added. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Agnes was also the deadliest storm..." - presume you mean costliest this time round?
- Whoops, got it. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "caused sustained hurricane force winds " - I'm not clear on the differentiation between a hurricane (of which you say there were 29) and a storm with "sustained hurricane force winds" of which you say there are two. I think this needs help for the layman (i.e me!)
- I'm not sure how I would explain it. Several storms that were once hurricanes affected the state, though only two actually caused hurricane-force winds. Any suggestions? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot of jargon-hopping in the lead - hurricane, storm, cyclone, tropical storm, tropical cyclone... it could do with being rationalised or, at least, some guidance that all are synonymous.
- I added a note. Let me know if it's any better. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead image ought not have the thumb size forced.
- I wasn't sure about this, as MOS:IMAGES says, Examples of images which typically need more than the default size include lead images (see above) and detailed maps.
- "fourth was injured [4]" - missing full stop.
- "The heavy flooding leads to severe flooding " - really?
- Camille's map caption should have no full stop. And it's probably worth moving it up to the top of the section as it "leaks" into the following section.
- "As well, 17 farm buildings were ..." - no keen on starting a sentence with "As well..."
- Done with all of those. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, replies are above. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What makes the following sources reliable?
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delay, I forgot to watchlist this. Anyway, the first site is a website that copies information from a book, so I expect that makes it at least somewhat reliable. And the second is an extension of Yahoo. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:39, 7 September 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:The Rambling Man 20:02, 8 September 2008 [8].
Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1)
Since a couple of good article listings and delistings, the article has essentially been rewritten and turned into a list. I feel that it is ready for a featured article.
Also, I contacted User:Haha169, User:Parent5446 and User:Rau J, the other recent writers of this list, to let them know of its nomination. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What makes the following reliable sources?
http://www.animationinsider.net/index.php- Need a better one for that, I guess. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Animation Insider is an RS. It has early reviews on episodes of series, is given permission to host copyrighted material from the copyright holders, and is given lengthy interviews with staff of shows. Specifically for Avatar, it reviewed The Awakening before it was out and hosted music from the show for examples of when they interviewed the people who make the shows music. If being recognized by Corporations like that doesn't make them an RS, then we need to rethink what does. *SIGN* 19:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Need a better one for that, I guess. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.helium.com/- That's a peer-reviewed website, but I agree, we probably could get better ones. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's being used for reviews. I don't see how one review is more reliable than another. *SIGN* 19:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a peer-reviewed website, but I agree, we probably could get better ones. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 5 is lacking a publisher (Animation Magazine?)- That's there, at the end of the tag, labeled as "...|Publisher=Animation Insider}}"
- It's 4 now... (Ryan Bell "Cartoons on the Bay...") Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I get what you mean, it's taken care of. *SIGN* 21:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's 4 now... (Ryan Bell "Cartoons on the Bay...") Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's there, at the end of the tag, labeled as "...|Publisher=Animation Insider}}"
http://www.nicksplat.com/Error404.html deadlinks- Fixed with Amazon link
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck the two above, but there are two broken links at the moment. Those should be fixed so they aren't big red "Error" messages. (I'm not watching this FLC any more, I trust ya'll to fix the error messages) Otherwise, it's done! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken care of. *SIGN* 01:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck the two above, but there are two broken links at the moment. Those should be fixed so they aren't big red "Error" messages. (I'm not watching this FLC any more, I trust ya'll to fix the error messages) Otherwise, it's done! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I believe that other than the questionable source in the lead, everything else seems OK. I am not exactly sure about the sourcing used in the Production section; it seems that the character voices are sourced to Variety.com and Hollywood.com, the latter of which I am not too sure. — Parent5446 ☯ (message email) 02:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, character voices do not require sourcing. They can be verified by the official site and animation DVDs.--RekishiEJ (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 5 days since an objection was raised, so, as the nominator, I support making this a FL. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I must say that since the beginning (this is probably one of the first articles I worked on where I saw its creation, though I think somebody else made the Season 1 article) the article has come really far. The article's lead successfully captures a concise plot summary, critical reception, and the DVD Release information as well as a catchy introduction. Though the Production section does not contain as much variety in sources as I would like, it provides a good amount of information on the behind-the-scenes for the show. The Reception section provides a lot of positive critical review, and I am a little worried about whether it might be one-sided (is there really no negative critical reception for the season?). Other than that, the episode summaries seem good, and the DVD release section is really good (I must say the chart standardization amongst all the lists has really been a great improvement; I was never a fan of gray). In conclusion, the article has come a long way, and despite some few flaws it might have, I provied my support in this nomination. — Parent5446 ☯ (message email) 02:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "find a Waterbending master to teach Aang and Katara." -- teach them what?
- Isn't that implied? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I guess. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that implied? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Season One of Avatar: The Last Airbender" -- Show titles must be in itallics
- "end the seemingly endless war between the four nations." -- what four nations?
- "This is with the hope that" -- not a good way to start a sentence
- "Season One" vs "Season 1"
- Do you suggest we rename the page or the opening sentence? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything in prose that says "Season 1" should be changed to "One", per MOS:NUM Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you suggest we rename the page or the opening sentence? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "It attracted more than a million viewers each time the show aired a new episode" -- the network aired new episodes, not the show
- The second halves of the first and second paragraphs of the lead are basically the same, ie an overview of the season's plot
Done by removing the second paragraph part. Although now, the second paragraph looks rather short, so I'm splitting the plot into its own paragraph. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "A couple days before the release of the fifth volume" -- "A couple of days", but anyway, it needs to be something more concrete. Does it mean "two", or "a few"?
- That isn't even right, so I fixed it. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "A bulk of the individual episodes were directed by Dave Filoni." how many?
- The following developed x numbers of episodes each:
- Dave Filoni - 8
- Lauren MacMullan - 5
- Giancarlo Volpe - 5
- Anthony Lioi - 2
- Would a sentence removal be a good idea? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about removing the sentence, but it should be a real figure, not something vague. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "9-14 year old demographic" -- "9–14-year old demographic"
- "The first season of Avatar" itallicise the title
- "The exception would be" -- "The exception was"
- "Since this
wasis not compatible in most countries outsidethe United StatesNorth America," - Why are we promoting Amazon? Use TVShowsOnDVD.com, which isn't a sales site
- Ugh, reference changing? Will do. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately. We shouldn't be seen to be giving preference to one sales site over another. TVShowsOnDVD.com is owned by TV Guide, and doesn't sell anything so that's a better choice. For the UK, Amazon usually is allowed to slide through because there is no site similar to TVShowsOnDVD. Some cult magazines have DVD listings, though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- {
Done, I think. I left all of the Amazon references for Region Two, which you said is fine? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 19:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- {
- Unfortunately. We shouldn't be seen to be giving preference to one sales site over another. TVShowsOnDVD.com is owned by TV Guide, and doesn't sell anything so that's a better choice. For the UK, Amazon usually is allowed to slide through because there is no site similar to TVShowsOnDVD. Some cult magazines have DVD listings, though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, reference changing? Will do. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minor comment - Current ref 18 broke, anyone want to see how to fix it? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 18:19, 6 September 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:The Rambling Man 20:02, 8 September 2008 [9].
List of Stratocaster players
List clearly meets FL criteria and should be recognized as such. Washburnmav (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Interesting article. Well sourced. An excellent companion piece to the main Fender Stratocaster page. Libs (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the above, in that this is a very interesting article; however, I see just a few things that could be improved.
Comments from Killervogel5
- Section headings (A-E, etc.) should use en-dashes instead of hyphens.
- Bullets in the lead begin with capital letters; grammatically, they shouldn't because they are not complete sentences.
- The first sentence of the lead should be something more interesting than "The following is a list of...".
- Reference lists should not be 3 columns per MOS; reduce to 2.
- I like the way the list is put together, but it's grammatically incorrect. Nearly every entry starts with a sentence fragment. These need to be fixed.
Review by Killervogel5
Fixed all of the above Washburnmav (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My final concern has not been fixed. This list is still replete with sentence fragments. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is just the writing style of all the "player" lists. This article was modelled after the, already featured, List of Telecaster players. The Gibson player, Epiphone player, Ibanez player etc all use this same writing style as it is comparable with most of the "player" books currently in publication which tend to be fairly technical and less poetic.
- Just because a list is based on another list doesn't mean that both lists shouldn't change and evolve to meet new standards, which do change. If I had reviewed the first list, I would have said the same thing, and I think that the other one should be changed too. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the writing style of this article is just fine. Having participated in the push to FL for the Telecaster players list I can speak on some of the pre-history of the page. It was created to mirror the Tele player as mentioned. The writing style of both is done on purpose to give the list a "pseudo-glossary" look, as a technical writing would do, and also to give the page a feeling as though the text were a narrative lifted straight from a TV documentary about the subject. Were it done as a visual each list entry would start out with the player name... and then jump straight into the content without wasting time. As an example. Ever view "The Compleat Beatles?" A great music documentary. And Malcolm McDowell's narrative throughout the entire programme is built on sentences that start in the middle. Just like the last 3 or 4 sentences in my text here. Broken, but narrative or conversational. A style which gives the page life. It's encyclopedic. But doesn't stifle the word down to a barren cold list. A long time ago a user tried to re-do the entire page as a horrible table with a gallery at the bottom. The user broke the inline citations away from the text they were intended to source and put them into a column. That user was reverted quickly. This isn't a list of inanimate objects. It's not the periodic table. It's a list of guitar players, written by guitar players in a style guitar players are used to reading. It is a worthy featured list candidate just the way it is. Ready for elevation. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well put, but I haven't changed my position. I oppose, and will continue to oppose this list until grammar is fixed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the writing style of this article is just fine. Having participated in the push to FL for the Telecaster players list I can speak on some of the pre-history of the page. It was created to mirror the Tele player as mentioned. The writing style of both is done on purpose to give the list a "pseudo-glossary" look, as a technical writing would do, and also to give the page a feeling as though the text were a narrative lifted straight from a TV documentary about the subject. Were it done as a visual each list entry would start out with the player name... and then jump straight into the content without wasting time. As an example. Ever view "The Compleat Beatles?" A great music documentary. And Malcolm McDowell's narrative throughout the entire programme is built on sentences that start in the middle. Just like the last 3 or 4 sentences in my text here. Broken, but narrative or conversational. A style which gives the page life. It's encyclopedic. But doesn't stifle the word down to a barren cold list. A long time ago a user tried to re-do the entire page as a horrible table with a gallery at the bottom. The user broke the inline citations away from the text they were intended to source and put them into a column. That user was reverted quickly. This isn't a list of inanimate objects. It's not the periodic table. It's a list of guitar players, written by guitar players in a style guitar players are used to reading. It is a worthy featured list candidate just the way it is. Ready for elevation. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a list is based on another list doesn't mean that both lists shouldn't change and evolve to meet new standards, which do change. If I had reviewed the first list, I would have said the same thing, and I think that the other one should be changed too. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is just the writing style of all the "player" lists. This article was modelled after the, already featured, List of Telecaster players. The Gibson player, Epiphone player, Ibanez player etc all use this same writing style as it is comparable with most of the "player" books currently in publication which tend to be fairly technical and less poetic.
- My final concern has not been fixed. This list is still replete with sentence fragments. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Symbol_declined.svg/15px-Symbol_declined.svg.png)
Comments
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Current refs 18, 19, and 20 shouldn't the title of the webpage be in the link and what is now in the link be the publisher? Lacking a last access date also. Also these links timed out so I couldn't evaluate their reliability.
- Current ref 21 is just a bald url. Needs a title formatted correctly as well as publisher and last access date at the least.
- Current ref 35 is lacking a publisher and last access date at the least.
- Same for current ref 41.
- Same for current ref 54.
- Current ref 59 is lacking a publisher.
- Current ref 63 is lacking publisher and last access date.
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 26 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.
- 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:The Rambling Man 20:02, 8 September 2008 [10].
List of National Historic Landmarks in New York
I am nominating this list-article for Featured List status as I believe it has been ready for FL status. It is an important article for wp:NRHP, covering more than 10% of the National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) nation-wide. Together with the List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City article that it links to, it comprehensively covers the 256 National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) in New York State, and includes 242 photographs collected (134 in the non-NYC list alone, 108 in NYC). Major contributors are Daniel Case, Dmadeo, Lvklock, Cg-realms and Mwanner, and me in probable rough order of number of non-NYC photographs contributed (Dmadeo probably contributed the most photos if NYC photos are included), and most development and editing by Daniel, Dmadeo, Lvklock and myself. It benefited greatly from peer review, with peer review comments (and later copyediting) by Ruhrfisch.
For simplicity, this nomination is for the New York state-wide list named, and is not also for the New York City list in its separate article. The New York City one is ready for FL as a separate list, or it is nearly ready, and involves the same editors, so side comments about it would be appreciated as well. doncram (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As noted above, I peer reviewed this and made some copyedits to it. I felt at the time it was of FL quality and has only improved since then. I also think this will be a great model for other state NHL lists. My only quibble is that "National Monumnets" is a red link in a reference 61. I am surprised there is no article on this topic. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! There is an article, U.S. National Monument, which i just now pipelinked to, to remove the redlink from the footnote. doncram (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you - I could not find the article somehow. Good work on the list. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! There is an article, U.S. National Monument, which i just now pipelinked to, to remove the redlink from the footnote. doncram (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - well written and referenced. Nice work. Dincher (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest you use the ref group= syntax to sort out your informational footnotes from the actual references? As it is now, the actual references are swamped by purely informational references.
- Reply Thanks. I will look into how to apply that group syntax. doncram (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Applying tips in wp:REFGROUP and in documentation of "template:reflist", done. Now have informational footnotes under "Notes" and source footnotes under "References". doncram (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Thanks. I will look into how to apply that group syntax. doncram (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not sure that "Date of listing as National Monument or similar designation, from various sources in articles indexed." (Current ref 66) is a valid source reference. Hate to be a pain, but Wikipedia articles are not considered a reliable source.
- Reply No doubt that Wikipedia articles are not WP:RS, but this article is essentially an indexed list to other articles (much like DYK if you think about it). If you want us to bring references forward from each of the sub articles, that's going to be another 150 - 200 or so references since *none* of them would be repeats. dm (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, you were being more specific than I realized. The reference for the location column in the National Monuments table does not have a handy one place to look up list of dates. My suggestion, remove the reference. dm (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply That reference is about Date Established for the other NPS areas. I was always uncomfortable about those dates here and in the corresponding articles on the individual NPS places. Found and added a good PDF source from the NPS, "National Park System Areas Listed in Chronological Order of Date Authorized Under DOI", that covers all 13. Four of the dates previously listed seem to be incorrect. Updated here and in their corresponding articles now. Thanks for pointing out the problem. doncram (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply No doubt that Wikipedia articles are not WP:RS, but this article is essentially an indexed list to other articles (much like DYK if you think about it). If you want us to bring references forward from each of the sub articles, that's going to be another 150 - 200 or so references since *none* of them would be repeats. dm (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The list generally looks excellent, but I didn't review its guts yet. As so often happens in my reviews of FLCs, I got stuck in the introductory text:
- In the first sentence, what is the significance of "other sites of equivalent landmark status"? Clarification is needed; if this is identified as a list of NHLs, it should not include sites that are not current or former NHLs. If this "other sites" statement is intended to refer to Historic areas in the United States National Park System, make this aspect of the scope clear in the lead sentence. (However, I think it would be preferable to put those in a separate list article about NPS units in the state.)
- "There are 148 NHLs in upstate New York or on Long Island, and 108 within New York City (NYC)." - Outside NYC, New Yorkers happen to think that upstate and Long Island are totally unrelated places. Accordingly, please list their NHL counts separately. (If that's not convenient, say there are 108 in NYC and 148 in other parts of the state.)
- Changed to "There are 135 NHLs in upstate New York, 13 on Long Island, and 108 within New York City (NYC)." That 135-13-108 order highlights the upstate and Long Island ones which are covered in table in this article first. I'd be happy to have it in 135-108-13 order if that reads better. doncram (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good fix! --Orlady (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "There are 135 NHLs in upstate New York, 13 on Long Island, and 108 within New York City (NYC)." That 135-13-108 order highlights the upstate and Long Island ones which are covered in table in this article first. I'd be happy to have it in 135-108-13 order if that reads better. doncram (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Copy-editing is needed. For example, I see several "which"s that I think should be "that"s; phrases like "outside of NYC" beg for trimming of extra words; locutions like "the NHLs in NYC are in this companion article" could use a better verb; and I don't think that the first and most recent NHLs to be designated are correct described as "the first New York NHLs" and "the latest NHLs" (they are the earliest and most recent designations, not the first and "latest" NHLs). I am curious to know whether "landmarked" is truly a verb that means "designated as a landmark."
--Orlady (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very pointed and helpful comments, we'll see what we can do to tighten this up before asking you to take another look at that. For the sake of argument, if you scan through the rest or article, any other trends jump out? Thanks dm (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply To respond, firstly, a lot of consideration went into choosing to set up this list this way and choosing its title, with some rehashing at peer review, and I think the current setup is really pretty good. I agree some wordsmithing can improve the intro and the rest of the article, but the questions of what should be included and what the overall title should be are the most basic and important here. Orlady, I recognize you did not consider the whole list-article, and some of your concerns might be addressed when you get through it all and see it as a whole. But for a whole picture about why this list is defined as it is, you also have to consider the organization of related Wikipedia articles at higher and lower levels. I guess i need to expand a bit on why I think the basics here are pretty good, and how they fit in with the other articles, and what you'd need to consider if you really wanted to argue with the basics here (not saying you necessarily do, and perhaps i am too defensive already).
- The list-article as written is in fact more than just NHLs in NY, it is three lists: 1) nationally-historically-important sites designated as both NRHPs and NHLs (current ones), 2) equivalently-nationally-important historic sites in the state (designated both as NRHP and another Federal designation of historic type such as National Historic Park, and 3) former nationally-historically-important sites (which happens to be just former NHLs, there are no former National Historic Parks in the state). By the numbers, there are 256 current NHLs, 20 equivalents (of which 7 are NHLs among the 256), and 3 formers.
- This seems (to me) like a good group to cover in one list-article. It is all the "NHLs or higher", if you look at National Historic Sites (NHSs) and National Historical Parks (NHPs) as being "higher" than NHLs for the fact that they are Nationally Park Service operated, while most of the NHLs are privately owned. It is all of the nationally-historically-important sites in the state, and they all appear on one Google map. A reader interested in learning about, or visiting, nationally-historically-important sites in the state can find them all together here. There is not much difference between the NHLs vs. the NHSs. In a general reader's perspective, St. Paul's Church National Historic Site in Mt. Vernon is roughly the same as St. Paul's Cathedral, in Albany; it's a bit random which ones are NPS-owned and operated vs. not. In one article, we can cover them all, and it is better for the reader than having separate parallel lists and Google maps for each (one for NHLs only, one for NHSs only, one for NHPs only, and so on).
- What's not in the list-article? Well, NPS-administered areas which are not of national-historic-importance, such as Gateway National Recreational Area, are not included. Only the NPS areas which are indicated in the NPS's own list of NHLs are included (yes, to emphasize, the National Park Service's PDF list of NHLs itself makes a point to include the National Parks, NHSs etc. that are of historic importance but which are not NHLs, and it omits the National Parks etc. that are not of historic importance). Note, there does exist a Wikipedia list-article on NPS areas, grouping all the NHSs together, all the NHPs together, etc., nation-wide. That is List of areas in the United States National Park System, a higher level list. Also, not included in this list-article are sites which are merely NRHPs without additional designation, at lower levels. The criteria for NRHPs further being designated NHLs are stricter, requiring more nationally-oriented historical importance, more integrity of the sites, etc. And there are many more NRHPs. For New York State, we have a separate list-article covering the NRHPs in each county (with New York County divided into 5 segments, and some other counties split out further, too). Each one of these includes the NHLs and higher designations in the given county, so there is overlap the same way as including the higher ones in this NHL list.
- It was considered before and during the peer review of this article, whether to include also a list of New York State-operated historic sites (SHSs) which are NRHPs. Some SHSs are also NHLs and are included, but after developing out a separate list of the other SHSs (mostly me trying on that), many seemed to be of lesser importance, and I somewhat reluctantly dropped that list. (Its remains survive in List of New York State Historic Sites). So the article focuses on Federally-designated nationally-historically-important places only.
- Also, the contents of this list-article are chosen with an eye to what works for other states, in terms of what is included and not included. In other states, there is less info available about state historic sites, or the state programs are just less developed, or the state programs vary significantly in other ways so it usually would not work to include state sites in the same list-article. In NYS, there are more NPS areas, and yes you could have a separate article about them. But on average there are 3 or fewer NPS areas of historic importance in each state, so having a separate state list would not usually work. And, even if you have a separate state list, I think i would still want to include a then-duplicative table of them in the list of NHLs and equivalents in the state, so that the reader gets to see all the nationally-historically-important places in the state, in one article. So, I come back to having the Federally-designated NHLs-or-higher, current-and-former, in one article per state.
- Okay, then if you accept the nationally-historically-important definition and the 3 tables within the article, then what about the title? Well, "List of National Historic Landmarks in New York" is pretty good, I think. You don't have to have everything in the title, and 256 out of 272 (256+13+3) items in the 3 tables are really-well-described by the title. The 13 and 3 others are pretty well related, and don't need to be mentioned in the title. If you have an article of that title, the contents are what i would want to put into it. If you have the contents we have, I would want that title.
- Briefly about the wordsmithing: it is not possible or desirable to put all the specific information into the first sentence, or into the first paragraph. The exposition progresses from general to more specific statements: the intro sentence is intentionally general and not too specific about the non-NHLs. The 3rd paragraph in the lead section provides more specifics about the non-NHLs. The intro to the section titled "Historic areas in the United States National Park System" provides more specifics. And footnotes provide even more. So, while the first sentence can be tweaked to be more specific, that's not necessarily good to do. Too much information about the exceptions, too soon, takes away from getting across the biggest facts about the article.
- About Long Island and upstate vs. NYC, it sounds like some word-smithing could be helpful. Sure, we can report the total number of NHLs in the combo of Nassau and Suffolk Counties separately somehow, perhaps in an informational footnote.
- About landmarking as a verb, dictionary.com gives definition: "tr.v. land·marked, land·mark·ing, land·marks To accord the status of a landmark to; declare to be a landmark. "
- My print dictionaries don't list it as a verb. Neither do most of the online dictionaries I consulted. The vast majority of the google hits for "landmark" as a verb turn out to be New York City blogs and articles. IMO, it's not an accepted English word yet. --Orlady (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, in summary response to Orlady's comment's, I agree that some wording adjustments can be made and could clarify the article. And i will try to make adjustments that would lessen the negatives triggered for Orlady. But, in these comments, i don't see compelling arguments that would necessitate basic organizational changes. The set of related Wikipedia articles, higher and lower, could be organized differently, but this is a pretty good way to go, I have argued here. And I think in the end you have to give some discretion to the editors involved for organizing it this way. Orlady stated a potential absolute policy: "if this is identified as a list of NHLs, it should not include sites that are not current or former NHLs", but i don't want to follow that dictum too strictly. It is easy to compose other absolute dictums, and this article follows, instead, the dictum: group all Federally-designated nationally-historically-important historic sites in a state together in one list-article. Orlady, I hope this works for you; I really hope we can do some copyediting and then have your support. doncram (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow -- that's a long response to a short review! I don't have time to respond to all of your points today, much less write a similar-length essay.
However, please note that the article title uses the proper noun "National Historic Landmarks", but the broader scope you are describing would better be titled with the more generic noun "national historic landmarks." After reading your defense of the scope, I feel more strongly than before that the scope too broad. Focus on the designated NHLs, and put the other sites in other lists.
You correctly note that I did not comment on the whole list article. However, I happen to believe that a nicely formatted and thoroughly sourced table is not sufficient for an FL; every FL needs a good lead section, too. Furthermore, I don't think it's too much to ask for this list to clearly define its scope in the first paragraph, if not the first sentence.
--Orlady (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow -- that's a long response to a short review! I don't have time to respond to all of your points today, much less write a similar-length essay.
- Oppose for now. I want to see some featured lists of NHLs (to balance all those sports and pop culture lists), but I'm concerned about intellectual sloppiness in defining the scope of this list (it seems that it's a list of "national-class historic landmarks" under the title "National Historic Landmarks". (This is related, BTW, to the intellectual sloppiness of other articles/lists that use the made-up term "Registered Historic Places" for entries on the National Register of Historic Places, as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 15#Use correct terminology:__National Register of Historic Places and Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP renaming proposals.) --Orlady (talk) 14:44, 5 September 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:The Rambling Man 20:02, 8 September 2008 [11].
List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty
This is a self-nomination. I believe the list currently meets all of the FL criteria: it covers an important topic, is stable and non-controversial, fully referenced and has a nice layout. Moreover, there are currently only three monarchy-related featured lists on Wikipedia, so a new addition would be good. All objections of course will be promptly addressed.BomBom (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- lots of MOS issues especially
Y
- First and third paragraphs in the lead have no references
Y
- "1805 till 1953." – "1805 until 1953."???
Y
- "1805-1867" – year ranges use en dashes per WP:DASH
Y
- page ranges in references use en dashes
Y
- "13 - 19 March 2003" – "13–19 March 2003" etc.
Y
- "nineteenth century" – I think consensus is to spell out centuries so "19th century"
Y
- unlink lone years like in "in 1882, the "
Y
Gary King (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All of your objections have been addressed.BomBom (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- En dash for date ranges—one there needs to be spaced. Please see MOS:DASH.
- Table: can you manipulate the column widths to give more to "Fate" in the second table: the text is like skyscrapers. Tony (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done. Your comments have been taken into account. BomBom (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like the use of colour in columns that big, would it be possible to remove all the green colouring and just use grey? Also, could you make the images a little smaller? -- Scorpion0422 16:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done. I replaced the green background with a light gray one, and reduced the size of the images to 80px. BomBom (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I don't understand what all the pink is for.
- Are you sure Isma'il Pasha's reign in the Ottoman province didn't end on 7 June, and he begin with the Ottoman Khedivate on 8 June? What I mean is was he granted the title of Khedive on 8 June and he used it immediately, or was he granted it before 8 June, and he became Khedive as soon as the clock struck midnight?
- Why aren't there full entries for Aziz Ezzat Pasha, Prince Muhammad Ali and Sherif Sabri Pasha?
- Same for the rows after the Revolution
- Why is the table header "Revolution" written as "R E V O L U T I O N"? This causes WP:ACCESS problems with screen readers.
- Per Wikipedia:CITE#Citation templates and tools and WP:CITET, {{citation}} shouldn't be used on the same page as {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} or anything else in the {{cite xxx}} range. I know that the citation ones are being used for {{harvnb}}, but as I've found out from my nominations -- it doesn't matter. All the reference templates should be converted to citation, or lose the harvard referencing function. :(
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll address your concerns one by one:
- Where do you see pink???
- Isma'il Pasha obtained the Ottoman firman (i.e. decree) appointing him as wāli on 8 June 1867, and the decree had immediate effect.
- It seems to me the answer is pretty obvious from the article itself. Aziz Ezzat Pasha, Prince Muhammad Ali and Sherif Sabri Pasha were regents. Therefore, there should be a distinction between them and the other monarchs.
- Same answer regarding the rows after the Revolution.
- The "Revolution" table header has been fixed.
- All reference templates have been converted to citation.
- BomBom (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll address your concerns one by one:
- 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:The Rambling Man 12:31, 7 September 2008 [12].
Mastodon discography
I started to work on this discography from a request of Lykantrop, and now after all done—in addition to being really happy with my work, I think that this list is ready to be a FL. Since now, I thank all that help me with comments and suggestions. Regards, Cannibaloki 06:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Please check all "releases which didn't chart" were actually released in the countries you claim they were released in. e.g. Ref 8 doesn't mention any album besides Blood Mountain so you can't use it to say their other two albums were released and didn't chart in the UK.
- The lead says the discog consists of a few things but is different from the infobox, i.e. there's a lot more in the infobox than in your lead.
- Check WP:DASH to see if you need the spaces before and after that em-dash.
- "which debuted at number " well, it peaked there too didn't it.
- One EP has reference, the others don't.
- "American Heritage " is a redlink.
- " 7"" or " 7-inch "?
- "This 7-inch EP is limited to 2,000 copies " was limited and prove it.
- In the Notes, what does "Split with..." mean?
- Singles are not referenced at all, nor do they have chart information outside the US Billboard.
- I would imagine the demo ought to be in this discog, not a see also.
- "which soon later, also helped they to " simply isn't English.
The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that all
Done --Cannibaloki 22:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 26 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.
- 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:The Rambling Man 11:52, 6 September 2008 [13].
Dual Irish international footballers
This article is a complete list, and is unlikely to change, and avoids recentism. I think it is a quirky and interesting phenomenon, unparallelled in international soccer, the principle author is User:Djln, whom I feel has performed an excellent job. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - a few quick things.
- Citations should use {{cite web}} with parameters such as
accessdate
,publisher
etc used where appropriate, and should be placed according to WP:CITE. - Year ranges should use the en-dash, not hyphen, per WP:DASH.
- IFA v FAI is not a good heading - it needs expertise to understand what this means, spell it out.
- Numbers below ten should be spelled out as text.
- "After 1924 they all went onto played for the FAI XI." - grammar.
- "surprise victory" - POV.
- "two full caps with the FAI XI [16] " punctuation?
- A lot of data is incomplete.
- What makes http://nifootball.blogspot.com/2006/10/dual-internationalists.html a WP:RS?
The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn per nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 6 September 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:The Rambling Man 16:55, 4 September 2008 [14].
List of Trina awards
previous FLC (11:13, 3 August 2008)
This list is indeed fairly short but it meets the criteria and still has a sufficient number of items to justify a list. Also, it will definitely continue to grow. Gary King (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Heh, Gary is not a WP:CRYSTAL BALL :)
- At the moment I still think this would be better as a section of Trina.
Sorry, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with Matthew, the article for Trina isn't particularily long, I think this could easily be merged there. -- Scorpion0422 03:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright done Gary King (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably then you'd like to withdraw this FLC Gary? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright done Gary King (talk) 16:03, 4 September 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 03:41, 4 September 2008 [15].
List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes
I think this fulfills the FL requirements. Nergaal (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
remove the link from the bold per WP:BOLDTITLE- Format the references. What's up with "^ http://nbcumv.com/entertainment/release_detail.nbc/entertainment-20080512000000-nbcdigitalentertai.html Nbc Digital Entertainment Serves Up Users' Favorites]"?
- stuff like "Main article: The Office (U.S. TV series) season 1" can used piped text with the "l1=" parameter (to remove the brackets); check the docs at {{main}} for details
- times such as "at 9:00 " should be "at 9:00 p.m. " per WP:MOS
I also now see "As of [[{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}]], [[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]]", which should be a fixed date.
Gary King (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First batch of comments resolved. Nergaal (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is inconsistency in italicizing the references; only publications should be italicized, so not BBC News, for instance.
- What makes the following reliable:
- amazon would be better? everything on this topic seems to be blogs, or pages that will surely change with other topics (i.e. the official site) Nergaal (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I think Amazon is okay but some have mentioned that it is not reliable, akin to IMDB. Gary King (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- amazon would be better? everything on this topic seems to be blogs, or pages that will surely change with other topics (i.e. the official site) Nergaal (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=20051107nbc03 (this references an NBC press release, so an alternative can probably be found easily)
- hmm, I thought the same but.. Nergaal (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- the subarticle on season 2 gives the reference http://www.celebrityspider.com/news/january06/article012206-6.html Nergaal (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That website looks even less reliable. Gary King (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- the subarticle on season 2 gives the reference http://www.celebrityspider.com/news/january06/article012206-6.html Nergaal (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- hmm, I thought the same but.. Nergaal (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Office. The program" – italicize The Office
- excessive links in the lead; "the American situation comedy television series The Office" is just a blob of links; for instance, why is American linked? British?
- I could remove the date links but I am not sure how would that work. Could I remove the year link at least if the year is repeating? Nergaal (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "t of Committed,[13]. Season" extra comma there?
- the article needs a thorough copyedit; for instance,
- "Season one introduced each of the main characters" – "Season one introduced the main characters"
- "The office gets a new employee in temporary worker Ryan Howard (B.J. Novak)." – "in" probably not the best preposition
- "on July 10th. The" – format date
- "NBC ordered " – unlink the NBC; lots of NBC links throughout already
- "e 2008-2009 television seaso" – endash needed here
"premiere Thursday, September 25 and the first episode is likely to be titled "Weight Loss" or "Summer."[22]" – why is "Thursday" there? At least unlink it; I assume most people know what Thursday is
Gary King (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I know this sounds odd, but what is Region 1, 2, 3, 4??? Should I link them since I assume ppl outside US don't understand them. Nergaal (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
- Yes I think they should be linked. Gary King (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But to what? Nergaal (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably link only one of them (the first mention) to DVD region code. Gary King (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But to what? Nergaal (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything should be ok now.Nergaal (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "British] series"
- either link the month/day/year combinations, meaning month/day is linked together and the year (this is for user formatted date preferences), or don't link dates at all
- disambiguation links: Roy Anderson, Writers Guild of America
- do you have a tool to find these or you do it manually? Nergaal (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The office gets a new employee" – "The office gets new employee"
The overviews of all of the season sections need references
Gary King (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried to add refs to each section. How's now? Nergaal (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following information and/or paragraphs still require references:
- I've tried to add refs to each section. How's now? Nergaal (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Season two featured the first"- "In November 2007 the Webisodes"
- "NBC ordered a full fourth season of"
"Technology was another theme as the office staff struggled with initiatives introduced by Ryan to modernize the company."
Gary King (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Done? Nergaal (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new references need to be formatted correctly. Some are different formats from others; such as "Retrieved" vs. "retrieved". This causes problems, also, such as the date formatted in "Retrieved on 20080-08-23." and some of the access dates are unlinked while some are not.Also, I should have been clearer – the text I mentioned above meant that that information to the very end of the paragraph need citations. So the following are still unreferenced:- "It further developed into the plot of the fear of company downsizing, along with developing the minor characters in the series."
"In the end, due to the shutdown, the fourth season of The Office actually consisted of 19 half-hour segments, ten of which were combined to form five one-hour specials."
Gary King (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Done. Nergaal (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"on DVD in Regions" is linked but I think linking the text "Regions 1, 2 and 4 " makes more sense- There are three Zap2It links that are dead (and have been since April)
- check them manually Nergaal (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1228401,00.html is a reliable reference but does not back up all of the information mentioned in the paragraph (notably, there is no mention of any of the dates, nor the exclusion of most of the mentioned characters)
- http://weblogs.variety.com/wga_strike_blog/2007/11/greg-daniels-we.html is a blog and not considered reliable
- But he is one of the directors of the show... isn't that reliable enough? Nergaal (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- http://dvd.ign.com/articles/816/816383p1.html does not back up all of the information in the paragraph; notably the dates, etc.
- added for dates Nergaal (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please copyedit the entire article. I was just randomly scrolling through and found a few issues:
- "But later in the day, it pays off" – "However, later in the day, it pays off" or even "Later in the day, however, it pays off"
- "But the group's fun quickly turns sour," – same as above
- there are more sentences that start with "But"; same solution as above please
"When Michael burns his foot while at his own home, he requests that one of the employees of the office come to his house to pick him up. An enthusiastic Dwight volunteers, but in his rush, he crashes his own car before he is even able to get out of the Dunder Mifflin Scranton parking lot, suffering a concussion. But the concussion brings out a good-natured Dwight, who is kind and helpful to the other members of the office. Eventually, Jim drives both Michael and Dwight to the hospital, where they are both helped with their respective injuries. " – can be written better. Something like "When Michael burns his foot at home, he asks for one of his employees to pick him up. An enthusiastic Dwight volunteers, but in his rush, he crashes his car before he gets out of the Dunder Mifflin Scranton parking lot. Following the accident, he suffers a concussion which brings out a good-natured Dwight who is kind and helpful to his co-workers. Later, Jim drives both Michael and Dwight to the hospital, where they are helped with their injuries."- I'll check back in a little while for an update on how the other episode summaries are doing.
The plot summaries for the "Season 1: 2005" section should be expanded; they are significantly shorter than the other summaries, and yet those episodes still have quite a bit of content like the later episodes
Gary King (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now? Nergaal (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not ready.
- Now? Nergaal (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Albeit unintentionally, Michael outs Oscar's homosexuality." can be done as "Michael outs Oscar's homosexuality unintentionally." to be more straightforward.
- "Jim tries to adjust to his new life with his new co-workers" – "Jim tries to adjust to a new life with new co-workers" – as we can safely assume that it's his life that he's adjusting for.
- The season 1 episode plots should still be expanded further.
simple things need to be fixed, like this: "doesn't " – contractions should be expanded, so this should be "does not"
Gary King (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ? #41308789025 Nergaal (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, still not ready. FLC is not a peer review; WP:PR exists for this purpose. Just give you an example of how stringent FLC has become, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Office (U.S. TV series) season 4/archive1 just recently failed its FLC because of no supports (primarily due to copyediting issues). "harassment suit, leading" – "harassment lawsuit, leading", "an easy-going office" – "an easygoing office", etc. Gary King (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through the entire plot summaries, and tweaked the text. It should look much better now. Nergaal (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS issues and such still linger. "1 A.M. " – "1 a.m. " per WP:MOS, for example. Gary King (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks for spotting that, but could you be a bit more precise? Nergaal (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Issues like the dozens that I brought up above still exist. FLC isn't meant to be a peer review; please fix the remaining issues and then I will give my support. Gary King (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks for spotting that, but could you be a bit more precise? Nergaal (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS issues and such still linger. "1 A.M. " – "1 a.m. " per WP:MOS, for example. Gary King (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through the entire plot summaries, and tweaked the text. It should look much better now. Nergaal (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, still not ready. FLC is not a peer review; WP:PR exists for this purpose. Just give you an example of how stringent FLC has become, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Office (U.S. TV series) season 4/archive1 just recently failed its FLC because of no supports (primarily due to copyediting issues). "harassment suit, leading" – "harassment lawsuit, leading", "an easy-going office" – "an easygoing office", etc. Gary King (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ? #41308789025 Nergaal (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ok, I've went again in detail and switched some of the refs and improved the text. what is still missing? Nergaal (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just took a quick look. How is this reliable? Gary King (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not going to wonder weather you even checked what was it referencing and just say that the text was altered to not need it. Nergaal (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just realized that this is a forum post and is not considered reliable, either. Gary King (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ok, I added a new one and altered the text accordingly. The only publisher left that has a any chance to be considered unreliable is zap2it, but it looks ok and it does not try to refference dubious facts. Nergaal (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know when this cropped up, but year ranges such as "2005-2006" must use an en dash per WP:DASH. Also, perhaps merge the second and third paragraphs of the lead (in a logical manner) as they are both pretty short. The Zap2It references are also formatted incorrectly; date goes after publisher I believe. Also, in the references, authors must be
last name, first name
format. Gary King (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I think {{citeweb}} puts the date after author-but in this case there is none. I could move them after the publisher if you really think that is the way they should be. As for the last, first, I am quite sure that there is no strict preference, except that it must me either one of the other throughout the entire article - again, I could switch them if you really think it should be the case. Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest just using cite web for the two Zap2It references just so there is no confusion; also, there should be a space after the date and before the title, and no leading zeroes for the days in the dates, anyways. The last name, first name is mandatory, not optional, as far as I know since I've been at FAC and FLC. Gary King (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- as I've allready stated below, the use of cite web in this case is not possible since the url of zap adresses contains the character "
- I suggest just using cite web for the two Zap2It references just so there is no confusion; also, there should be a space after the date and before the title, and no leading zeroes for the days in the dates, anyways. The last name, first name is mandatory, not optional, as far as I know since I've been at FAC and FLC. Gary King (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think {{citeweb}} puts the date after author-but in this case there is none. I could move them after the publisher if you really think that is the way they should be. As for the last, first, I am quite sure that there is no strict preference, except that it must me either one of the other throughout the entire article - again, I could switch them if you really think it should be the case. Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know when this cropped up, but year ranges such as "2005-2006" must use an en dash per WP:DASH. Also, perhaps merge the second and third paragraphs of the lead (in a logical manner) as they are both pretty short. The Zap2It references are also formatted incorrectly; date goes after publisher I believe. Also, in the references, authors must be
- ok, I added a new one and altered the text accordingly. The only publisher left that has a any chance to be considered unreliable is zap2it, but it looks ok and it does not try to refference dubious facts. Nergaal (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just realized that this is a forum post and is not considered reliable, either. Gary King (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not going to wonder weather you even checked what was it referencing and just say that the text was altered to not need it. Nergaal (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just took a quick look. How is this reliable? Gary King (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still are issues like the above.
Gary King (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that points 1&3 are ok in some countries/areas even in the literary English–although I might be wrong. Anyways, I solved them. As for #4, I really do not believe it needs a ref (it is a relatively minor plot detail that can be verified by watching the episode). Nergaal (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm asking because it might as well be specified as it shouldn't be hard to find, not because it needs a ref; which it would as a side-effect, anyways. Gary King (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- why isn't this link ok? http://www.tv <delete this space> rage.com/person/id-48829/?show_all_gcredits=1#ecast_6061
- also, I went through the text again... Nergaal (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The link is blacklisted; it was probably spammed on several articles before. Gary King (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- so it is basically worse than unreliable? Nergaal (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically Gary King (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- so it is basically worse than unreliable? Nergaal (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The link is blacklisted; it was probably spammed on several articles before. Gary King (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm asking because it might as well be specified as it shouldn't be hard to find, not because it needs a ref; which it would as a side-effect, anyways. Gary King (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that points 1&3 are ok in some countries/areas even in the literary English–although I might be wrong. Anyways, I solved them. As for #4, I really do not believe it needs a ref (it is a relatively minor plot detail that can be verified by watching the episode). Nergaal (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ←how is http://www.hollywood.com/celebrity/Rashida_Jones/186511? also, is there any point to continuing with this? I've put a humongous amount of time into this and it seems that little has changed. should I just give up on this article? Nergaal (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like it is not considered reliable. Gary King (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what 1 user thinks, and the obvious counter-question is: what makes it unreliable such that it cannot be used to list the appearances of a certain character? Also, you still did not answer wather there is any point in continuing with this FLC. Nergaal (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The primary issue is that it is unclear how the information at that URL is obtained. Also, I think I suggested at the beginning of my review that this be withdrawn so that it can be worked on before re-submitting it to FLC; if I had not mentioned this, that I will mention it now. It gives everyone more time to work on the article and it does not cause a strain on the already stretched reviewers at FLC; I'm the only person that has gotten to this FLC so far (besides Ealdgyth, who checked the URLs), so there might be other issues that others bring up that I missed. Gary King (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to hollywood.com, and a similar link on one of my FAC submissions, User:Ealdgyth at WP:Featured article candidates/Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation) said "Given the information being sourced to it, I can deal with this. However, I would be much more worried about using it for contentious information." TVShowsonDVD.com is owned by TV Guide and is considered reliable. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The link shows the appearances of the character, and as a result it shows that it has been disappeared from most of the episodes. I do not think this is contentious. Nergaal (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to hollywood.com, and a similar link on one of my FAC submissions, User:Ealdgyth at WP:Featured article candidates/Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation) said "Given the information being sourced to it, I can deal with this. However, I would be much more worried about using it for contentious information." TVShowsonDVD.com is owned by TV Guide and is considered reliable. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The primary issue is that it is unclear how the information at that URL is obtained. Also, I think I suggested at the beginning of my review that this be withdrawn so that it can be worked on before re-submitting it to FLC; if I had not mentioned this, that I will mention it now. It gives everyone more time to work on the article and it does not cause a strain on the already stretched reviewers at FLC; I'm the only person that has gotten to this FLC so far (besides Ealdgyth, who checked the URLs), so there might be other issues that others bring up that I missed. Gary King (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what 1 user thinks, and the obvious counter-question is: what makes it unreliable such that it cannot be used to list the appearances of a certain character? Also, you still did not answer wather there is any point in continuing with this FLC. Nergaal (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like it is not considered reliable. Gary King (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- It is only meant to say that there are x episodes, of which y are 1h long. Nergaal (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. On this site, perhaps you could find something like TV Guide for the information? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is only meant to say that there are x episodes, of which y are 1h long. Nergaal (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Current ref 28 is lacking a publisher.
- I'd try to replace the IMDb reference with something a bit less likely to get challenged.
- The zaptoit refs are showing up as deadlinks in the link checker tool.
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Zap2it links are NOT dead. The problem is that they contain the "|" character, and since I've used citeweb, the template reads it as the end of the url. Any ways around that? Nergaal (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Urf. No clue. Do they work from the article itself? If they do, then don't worry about it. If they don't work, I have no idea.. you might have to format the refs by hand. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If they don't work, consider replacing the "|"s with an ndash or colon? I'll take a look at the page tomorrow. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Don't start with "This is a list of..."
- rephrased entire intro
- The DVD image appears to fail WP:NFCC#8
- removed; but no images?
- "The program" --> "The series"
- The Office (U.S. TV series) is linked to on the second use of The Office, not the first
- "and a full-length second and third season in 2005–2006, respectively in 2006–2007." doesn't make sense
- "two sets of webisodes." -- Is "sets" the right word? Perhaps "seasons"?
- Many Featured episode Lists where the series also have season pages do not include episode summaries, and instead leave them for the season pages.
- All the Featured episode lists where the series also have season pages transclude the episode tables from the season pages. This allows for easy updating because when the season page is updated, the main list is updated automatically.
- UK, not U.K., and because of that, US, not U.S.
- You suggest moving the page? Nergaal (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to oppose at the moment because it's just not up to current episode list standards. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- YESSS, somebody actually bothered to write specific complains and not just a random pick. I will try to fix these issues within the next few days. Nergaal (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rephrased most of the intro, and I think I dealt with all the complains listed. Any other problems? Nergaal (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe my "specific complains [sic]" are under the "Resolved comments from Gary King (talk)" banner up top? Gary King (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I believe I solved all of them. It is possible to have skipped a very few but I kind of doubt that. Nergaal (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe my "specific complains [sic]" are under the "Resolved comments from Gary King (talk)" banner up top? Gary King (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rephrased most of the intro, and I think I dealt with all the complains listed. Any other problems? Nergaal (talk) 06:34, 3 September 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 03:39, 4 September 2008 [16].
List of University of Pittsburgh buildings
This is an incredibly thorough listing of buildings owned by the University of Pittsburgh. Every building on the list has a free photo. Every major building and most minor buildings have usage information, construction and architectural data, as well as any design awards.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I presume there's no specific section in the University of P article, since your link isn't to a #section. Pity. Much more information should be provided in the lead to enrich the reader's experience of the list. Cr. 2. En dash for year ranges—see MoS. Premature nomination, IMO. Tony (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
- your references are just links. References should at the minimum give title of website, publisher of website, and date of last access. I'll leave the question of whether they should be attributed using footnotes to the other reviewers.
- Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I'd agree with Tony, this is premature. But some comments nevertheless.
- Lead is far too short and fails to meet WP:WIAFL - engaging lead.
- "This list University of Pittsburgh buildings catalogs" - isn't good English and we avoid the use of "This list is..." etc these days.
- "technically separate legal entities." - cite it.
- en-dash, not em-dash for year ranges.
- Not sure the use of sorting "Designations" does - it's free text so sorting it isn't that useful.
- What does "Pitt-owned" mean? Are you saying Pitt=University of Pittsburgh?
- "Buildings in the sortable table below are initially listed alphabetically." - unnecessary.
- Why so many blank cells?
- See Also should be See also.
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No need to repeat comments. The above haven't been addressed, and with the exception of TRM's, there's been ample time to. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:23, 2 September 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 20:37, 2 September 2008 [17].
List of Calgary Flames draft picks
Nominating as I believe this meets the criteria. All feedback will, of course, be responded to. Resolute 23:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't looked properly, but heck "Stats are complete"—no, "The statistics are complete" ... more formal register, please. Tony (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "This is is a list of draft picks by the Calgary Flames..." zzz - please start the list with some more imagination - featured articles don't start with "This is an article about..." so featured lists shouldn't either.
- "came into existence" -really? This could be reworded in my opinion, discussing a brief history of the franchise and its various locations, ending with the move to Calgary.
- "For the first eight years of the franchise's history" - is this before or after it moved to Calgary?
- I guess "The 2008 draft was the 29th in which Calgary participated, where they selected seven players, including first round pick Greg Nemisz." would make more sense toward the end of the lead rather than the end of the opening paragraph.
- A (very) brief description of how the NHL draft works would be of great use to non-experts reading this.
- "was also drafted by the Toronto Blue Jays and chose a career in Major League Baseball over the NHL.[2]" - emphasise that Blue Jays are a Major League Baseball team.
- Fix Tony's "stat" issue.
- "Goaltender stats are listed in the form of wins–losses–ties for goaltenders who played prior to the 2005–06 NHL season, and wins–losses–ties–shootout losses for goaltenders who played after." - I guess there's a good explanation for this so include it as a referenced footnote.
- "year they hosted the draft." - is there a reference for this? Does the draft location move from year to year? Again, that could be part of the explanation you could add - as a matter of interest, some of the NFL draft lists include information regarding the technicalities of the draft - perhaps use one of those as inspiration?
- Why is Penalty Minutes abbreviated to PIM and not PM?
- Seems a shame to have so many separate table with the see also's when you could incorporate all the information into one table.
- Several abbreviations seem to lack explanation, such as Ret-#2, STL, CGY, USHS, GAA etc.
- Does the colour coding indicate anything that the P column doesn't already tell you?
- I'd prefer to see column widths the same from table to table if you insist on keeping each year's draft in a separate table.
- Some players have no position, at least one has no nationality - don't leave blank cells, explain why they're unknown (or whatever).
- Is it clear somewhere that all these statistics are for the NHL entirely rather than just for Calgary Flames appearances?
- What's a supplemental draft?
- The notes need references.
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of very good suggestions that I will look to address in the next couple days. As a quick note - PIM is the standard abbreviation used by the NHL, and stands for "Penalties in Minutes." "Ret" and GAA are linked in the table. I'll link the other abbreviations. Resolute 01:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Your player stats reference needs a last access date. (Picky, I know...)
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to withdraw this nomination for the time being. I have some ideas on how to change this, which will probably leave the article in a considerably different format when done. No sense carrying on with this nom for the time being. Resolute 23:26, 26 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.
- 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:The Rambling Man 15:40, 1 September 2008 [18].
Wolfmother discography
Although the Wolfmother discography is short, I believe I have created a list which can be used as a template to create/improve further discographies. All charts and references are tidy and the lead section is valid and informative. I have created and edited this alone. Andre666 (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- Videos --> Video albums
Done
- According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style unreleased songs and B-sides should not be included
Done
- All music video directors need to be sourced
Done
- All entries in the other appearances section need to be sourced
Done
- Is their any other way to source how many copies of their album were sold worldwide?
Done
- Fan sites should not be used (see WP:Source)
Done
-- 00:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comments - Relatively a short list but not that many flaws in my eyes.
- The album peaked at #3[2] and was subsequently released in Europe (through Island Records) and the United States (through Interscope Records) in 2006. - what is verifying the release by Island Records in EU and by Interscope Records in the US?
Done
- The other flaw i see is with the references, for the international charts. The publisher reads as the country which the chart belongs to but it should be the name of the publishing site not the country in which it is published.
Done
SRX 15:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- No links to release dates;
Done
*Peak chart positions — reduce from 12 to 10 positions in the table;
- You don't need to do that. So if you want to you can add it back. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done
- Worldwide sales → remove this field from the table, and add on the lead text;
Done
- Certifications (sales thresholds) → left-aligned (see The Mars Volta discography);
Done
- Where is the cat. # for Dimensions & Please Experience Wolfmother Live?
Done
- Singles
!rowspan="2" width="150"|Title
→!rowspan="2" width="175"|Song
Done
!style="width:3em;font-size:75%"| [[Hot Modern Rock Tracks|US<br />Mod.]]
Done
!style="width:3em;font-size:75%"| [[Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks|US<br />Main.]]
Done
- "—" denotes singles that did not chart. → "—" denotes a release that did not chart.
Done
- Music videos
- Ref. = YouTube
- YouTube is a valid and reliable source in this case as the videos are from Universal Music Group's official collection. Andre666 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref. = YouTube
- References
- Much of references not cite the correct information of which were obtained. This is a problem.
- How's that? Andre666 (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of references not cite the correct information of which were obtained. This is a problem.
- External links
Done
- Add {{commons}}
Done
Oppose per the current structure of this list and the poor references. Cannibaloki 16:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, Pt. 2
- Album details → Video details;
Done
- Peak chart positions
! style="width:3em;font-size:75%"|
for all!- Example:
! style="width:3em;font-size:75%"| [[ARIA Charts|AUS]]<br /><ref></ref>
- Example:
Done
- Remove FRA & SWI;
Done
- The countries are out of order, and should be organized by the country name.
Done
Cannibaloki 20:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- http://undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=5903 would not load for me.
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Avoid linking the names of anglophone countries and nationalities (see MOSLINK). Remove "native", since you've told us that already.
- Avoid "currently" in this context—it won't be current in a few years' time (see MOSNUM on vague chronological items).
- Australian date format in the tables, please. Tony (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Just makes the 10-entries or more threshold, but I've seen other discogs opposed with more.
- This I don't get. I have been told no more than 10 entries are allowed and so I reduced it.
- No, it's no generally no fewer than 10 entries on any list at FLC. See the current discussion at WT:FLC. KT Tunstall discography failed because of a lack of entries on its first attempt. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This I don't get. I have been told no more than 10 entries are allowed and so I reduced it.
Done
- Page isn't up to date, despite the word "currently". According to Wolfmother, new group members have been found. This page should be updated
- What? Nothing anywhere says new members have been found.
- "Stockdale has two Americans lined up to replace the former band members in order to continue work on the second Wolfmother album.[1]" it implies that he has found their replacements although I didn't check the reference Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Nothing anywhere says new members have been found.
- "The album peaked at #3[1]" can the reference be put after punctuation?
- What punctuation? There is only a full stop at the end but that reference only backs up the chart position, not the whole sentence.
- OK Matthewedwards (talk •
- What punctuation? There is only a full stop at the end but that reference only backs up the chart position, not the whole sentence.
contribs • email) 21:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done
- the quote "irreconcilable personal and musical differences" needs a citation
- There is a citation at the end of the sentence!
- Wikipedia:Citing sources#When quoting someone A reference should follow the quote. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a citation at the end of the sentence!
Done
- ""—" denotes a release that did not chart." they were all released in those markets, then?
Done
- UK Albums Chart is not the publisher of http://www.chartstats.com/ Also, the reference points to the main page, rather than anything specific, and there are more reliable websites than this one for the UK. http://www.theofficialcharts.com/ has http://www.theofficialcharts.com/top40_singles_archive.php, but the BBC recommend http://www.everyhit.co.uk/
- In fact, refs [5] to [13] all point to the main pages of the sites, rather than anything specific
Done
- eil.com is a shopping website. Can a better reference be found?
- No, I cannot find one. Someone needs to scan a copy of their DVD in to show the cat. #.
- The onus is on the nominator or other active editors of the article, not reviewers. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I cannot find one. Someone needs to scan a copy of their DVD in to show the cat. #.
- 19 to 25 are youtube videos.
They are published by the band's record label, thus reliable!- YouTube message for me whem I try watch these videos: "This video is not available in your country." Cannibaloki 20:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done
- The general reference isn't needed when you have the external link
Done
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- ""American chart". Billboard. Retrieved on August 8, 2008." doesn't link to a specific page; it just links to Billboard's homepage.
Done
- "Wolfmother was formed in 2003 by guitarist and vocalist Andrew Stockdale, bassist and keyboardist Chris Ross and drummer Myles Heskett. The band signed with Modular Recordings and released the EP Wolfmother in 2004." needs a reference
Done
Gary King (talk) 21:52, 29 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.
- ^ "Wolfmother Disband". Ultimate Guitar. 2008-07-08. Retrieved 2008-07-08.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help)