Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2008: Difference between revisions
fix redirect |
Added five |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Gillingham F.C. records}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Bleach episodes (season 3)}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of micronations}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rachel Stevens discography}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Calgary Flames award winners}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Indonesian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Indonesian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ricki-Lee Coulter discography}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ricki-Lee Coulter discography}} |
Revision as of 19:06, 7 October 2008
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 19:06, 7 October 2008 [1].
The format of this list is a straight crib from equivalent articles for other clubs which are already at FL, such as List of York City F.C. statistics and records, but please let me know if there's anything I still need to tweak....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
What makes http://www.fchd.info/index.html a reliable source?
- Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FCHD is regarded as the most definitive source for historical club-by-club/season-by-season data in English football. Please consider these football clubs' official sites: Cobham F.C., whose history page starts "For a full breakdown of Cobham's history in the league and FA competitions, check out the Football Club History Database." Abingdon Town F.C., which refers readers from their history page to the FCHD for major milestones and cup results. Biggleswade United F.C. says "For a breakdown of our history in senior football go to the Football Club History Database website". Langney Sports F.C. takes its historical data from FCHD. The South West Peninsula League website takes the entirety of its historical data straight from FCHD. There are many more. Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Works so well I updated my cheat-sheet! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FCHD is regarded as the most definitive source for historical club-by-club/season-by-season data in English football. Please consider these football clubs' official sites: Cobham F.C., whose history page starts "For a full breakdown of Cobham's history in the league and FA competitions, check out the Football Club History Database." Abingdon Town F.C., which refers readers from their history page to the FCHD for major milestones and cup results. Biggleswade United F.C. says "For a breakdown of our history in senior football go to the Football Club History Database website". Langney Sports F.C. takes its historical data from FCHD. The South West Peninsula League website takes the entirety of its historical data straight from FCHD. There are many more. Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please add references to the lead for information that needs it, such as the history of the club.
Gary King (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, I think - paragraph 2 is a "distillation" of the body of the article, so is sourced there..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support but you should fix...
- The New Brompton caption is a fragment so remove the full stop.
- I'd prefer to see [6][14] instead of [14][6].
- Not entirely your fault but "notable seasons" in the template is a little POV and should be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "Between 1938 and 1950 when the club..." - think it would read better with a comma.
- Do you know the specific match that Sancho played at the World Cup?
- Is a source for the first match at Priestfield available, for the "Firsts" section?
- Or for the lowest attendance at Priesfield?
Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorted the comma and the Sancho thing. The club's first match at Priestfield was the club's first match, I feel stating it twice would be a bit silly. I have no source which specifically lists the lowest gate at Priestfield. I could look through all the attendances in Brown's book and find the lowest but a) that's probably original research and b) quite a few early ones don't appear to be recorded, so I can't guarantee that the lowest gate in there is the very lowest gate of all..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair enough. But what I meant for Sancho was to mention what game it was he played for Trinidad, although the number of appearances he made should still be mentioned under "Most World Cup appearances" or such like. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done that now (I think) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair enough. But what I meant for Sancho was to mention what game it was he played for Trinidad, although the number of appearances he made should still be mentioned under "Most World Cup appearances" or such like. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorted the comma and the Sancho thing. The club's first match at Priestfield was the club's first match, I feel stating it twice would be a bit silly. I have no source which specifically lists the lowest gate at Priestfield. I could look through all the attendances in Brown's book and find the lowest but a) that's probably original research and b) quite a few early ones don't appear to be recorded, so I can't guarantee that the lowest gate in there is the very lowest gate of all..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now comments dealt with, good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 1 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:Matthewedwards 19:06, 7 October 2008 [2].
After a long while, I'm bringing another episode list to FLC. sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the page yet, but is the title correct for the Japanese season pages? The American and British TV shows do simply "Bleach (season 3)" Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the style that's always been used (and has been used for other anime episode lists). I was under the impression that [Series name] (season X) was for season articles trying for featured article status and that List of..(season X) lists were for those trying for featured list status. sephiroth bcr (converse) 00:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
"The Bleach Soul Society: The Rescue arc is the third season..." Are you sure that the first "the" is necessary?- Take it as "The arc is..." as versus "Arc is...". Needs the article. sephiroth bcr (converse) 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"the title of the season is simply The Rescue." Simply seems a bit subjective, why don't you use the phrase from the season 2 FL: "...the title is translated as...""The plot of the episodes centers"-->The episodes' plot centers...Why are the dates unlinked in the prose but linked in the table? Is the date linking necessary (remember, date linking is now deprecated by the MOS)?"Hitsugaya and Ichimaru begin to fight, with Ichimaru eventually overpowering Hitsugaya." Awkward structure."Afterwards, Yoruichi shows Ichigo a device that allowed her to fly," Shouldn't it be "give" instead of "show"?- I don't see where this line is in the article. sephiroth bcr (converse) 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- *bangs head on desk* Sorry, I had two similar lists open in separate windows. Disregard this. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see where this line is in the article. sephiroth bcr (converse) 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Renji travels to Rukia's execution area, but meets his captain, Byakuya Kuchiki." False contrast, how does meeting the captain contradict the traveling to the execution?Dabomb87 (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Think that's everything. sephiroth bcr (converse) 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)))[reply]
- "After a clipshow episode" → "After a clip show" – -show and episode are synonymous
Gary King (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks good, there's not much else to say. A couple of the individual episode summaries were worded a bit awkwardly, but since those are minor fixes I performed them myself. --erachima talk 03:41, 1 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.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of micronations
- 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 19:06, 7 October 2008 [3].
It's relatively short since her career wasn't exactly a success. I removed the B-sides and unreleased material based on the recommendation of MOS:DISCOG, but I don't have any objection to adding them back in if people think there's not enough material there. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Lead
- The discography of British pop singer Rachel Stevens consists of two studio albums and seven singles, all released on Polydor Records. - "under" not "on"
- Changed. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stevens gained fame as a member of the pop group S Club 7 (see S Club discography). - why are redirected to the group's discography, in the lead? That should be in the See also section.
- It seemed odd to create a separate section for one link when it could easily be included in the text. Plus, many current FLs use that form (Dave Gahan, Geri Halliwell, Gwen Stefani). PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The group had its last release in 2003, and Stevens signed a four-album solo record deal with 19 Entertainment and Polydor. - How about The group released it's final album in 2003, while Stevens...etc."
- Reworded. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The album's lead single "Sweet Dreams My LA Ex" reached number two on the UK Singles Chart,[2] and the album was certified gold in October 2003. - most discographies use "#2" versus "number two." Also, certified gold by who?
- WP:MOSNUM states that one-digit numbers like this should be spelled out. Added the organization. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The album debuted at number twenty-eight on the UK Albums Chart,[2] and its three singles were commercially unsuccessful. - same comment here.
- WP:MOSNUM suggests spelling out numbers that can be expressed in two words. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The discography of British pop singer Rachel Stevens consists of two studio albums and seven singles, all released on Polydor Records. - "under" not "on"
- Albums
- The chart positions should be separated into a different column than certifications, that's how other FL's are modeled.
- Most discographies have more than one country in which the artist charted, meaning that the positions in different countries can be compared. Stevens' albums only appear to have charted in the UK, so it seems odd to do an entire chart positions section for just one country. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The chart positions should be separated into a different column than certifications, that's how other FL's are modeled.
- Sources
- What makes mvdbase.com reliable?
- It's published by someone whose writing about arts/entertainment has been published in reliable third-party publications, so it seems to pass WP:SPS. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes mvdbase.com reliable?
CommentSupport -will support once sourcing issues is resolved.Sourcing issues resolved as well as my comments to meet WP:WIAFL.--SRX 00:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What makes http://www.mvdbase.com/index.php? a reliable source?
- See above for my response to the same question. If necessary, I can reference them to the bonus DVD of Come and Get It, but it seems better to avoid using a primary source. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise http://acharts.us/performer/rachel_stevens?
- The site's software automatically retrieves information from charts, and the Q&A page says the staff checks when there are errors in the software or source chart. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 14:49, 24 September 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. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Their site states that they analyze the charts themselves and that the method is to cull information from the charts using their software. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That page also says "There may also be some errors in the charts, these are made by our sources or by the software which analyses new charts and adds them to the website." So either they sources they use may be wrong, and/or the software they use to cull information goes wrong. And they rely on waiting for Joe Normal to tell them when it goes wrong. What happens if noone spots a mistake? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Back in the archives of WT:RS, it was determined that it wasn't a reliable source for the reason I just gave, and the same page you offered :/ Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you're referring to this discussion, which didn't really go as you say. User:Stephan Schulz commented that "it might [emphasis added] be better to go to the original sources". The issue here is whether or not the site checks its information against the actual chart positions, and it clearly does if that's where it's getting the information. The fact that it has a way for readers to notify it of possible errors (which still happen in reliable publicatons with editorial oversight) should only attest to its reliability, as compared to UWC in that discussion, which I'm pretty sure has no method of contact on its site. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to make it clear, he didn't add the emphasis on "might", and he said that referring to http://acharts.us/help - the same page you did; however, you have made a good argument. Let's see what others think before any other action is taken on it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That works for me. As a sidenote, the "[emphasis added]" note was meant to indicate that I had italicized that; I wasn't trying to mislead anyone, just point out that only one person replied in the discussion, and that person wasn't definitive about whether or not it should be used. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to make it clear, he didn't add the emphasis on "might", and he said that referring to http://acharts.us/help - the same page you did; however, you have made a good argument. Let's see what others think before any other action is taken on it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you're referring to this discussion, which didn't really go as you say. User:Stephan Schulz commented that "it might [emphasis added] be better to go to the original sources". The issue here is whether or not the site checks its information against the actual chart positions, and it clearly does if that's where it's getting the information. The fact that it has a way for readers to notify it of possible errors (which still happen in reliable publicatons with editorial oversight) should only attest to its reliability, as compared to UWC in that discussion, which I'm pretty sure has no method of contact on its site. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Their site states that they analyze the charts themselves and that the method is to cull information from the charts using their software. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 17:17, 25 September 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. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The site's software automatically retrieves information from charts, and the Q&A page says the staff checks when there are errors in the software or source chart. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support
- Not a nice photo of her - I think the one on her own article is better - at least you can see her face... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - mainly references...
- "(see S Club discography)" - nah - make it a See also.
- There's really no reason to create a separate section for a three-word link. Looking at other FLs, it's a common practice, and it's no more obstrusive than year in music links. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what See also sections are designed for. Adding "See..." mid-prose is awful when we can link things either intelligently or in sections of their own. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's really no reason to create a separate section for a three-word link. Looking at other FLs, it's a common practice, and it's no more obstrusive than year in music links. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "three singles were commercially unsuccessful." - comparatively, perhaps, but two top ten singles out of three is not, in my opinion, commercially unsuccessful. Perhaps that's the problem - the statement is possibly too POV.
- The statement isn't POV, but I think your interpretation of it is. Peak chart positions alone don't indicate if a release was commercially successful. The sentence indicates that the singles didn't generate enough sales to offset the cost to record and promote them, which helps to give context to the following statement that she hasn't released any music since. If it'd help, I could add additional articles from Allmusic, Stylus Magazine, or Popjustice that support the statement. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The statement does need support - commercial success can also be gauged by peak positions, and two top ten singles is, in some people's minds, successful. So yes, you should support this statement.
- There are two more sources there that support the statement. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The statement does need support - commercial success can also be gauged by peak positions, and two top ten singles is, in some people's minds, successful. So yes, you should support this statement.
- The statement isn't POV, but I think your interpretation of it is. Peak chart positions alone don't indicate if a release was commercially successful. The sentence indicates that the singles didn't generate enough sales to offset the cost to record and promote them, which helps to give context to the following statement that she hasn't released any music since. If it'd help, I could add additional articles from Allmusic, Stylus Magazine, or Popjustice that support the statement. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Certifications column is oddly named when you're including sales figures and chart positions in the UK...
- Broadened the column's scope. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did all of her singles actually get released in every country in the singles table or is there a significant likelihood that they didn't? If they weren't released you need to change the note which says "releases which did not chart".
- The sources don't say where the singles were released. Regardless of whether they were released in those countries though, the singles still didn't chart. Is there a better message to use? PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- People have started using something along the lines of "– indicates a that a single was either not released or did not chart." or similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- People have started using something along the lines of "– indicates a that a single was either not released or did not chart." or similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources don't say where the singles were released. Regardless of whether they were released in those countries though, the singles still didn't chart. Is there a better message to use? PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What was the promo single all about? It isn't cited either.
- I left that in there when I was working on the article since the list seemed to already be on the short side. I forgot only official releases are included, so it's gone now. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Other appearances aren't cited by anything.
- There's nothing to cite. The fact that those songs exist on those albums is very obviously referenced to the compilations themselves, so there's nothing that's likely to be challenged. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref [4] can have a
date
added. - You could also add the {{Commonscat}} template.
- Commons doesn't have anything related to Stevens' releases, unlike the external links which all have information about her releases and not just Stevens herself. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:01, 2 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:Matthewedwards 19:06, 7 October 2008 [4].
I still have an FLC ongoing for the head coaches of the Calgary Flames, but after a complete reworking of this article over the past while, I believe this one is FL quality as well. It lists all players honoured by the league and team, for both individual and career achievements, during the 28 years the Calgary Flames have been around. Many images, easy to understand tables. (at least I think so. ;o] ) I look forward to all feedback. Resolute 02:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The NHL's trophies on display at the 2006 NHL Awards Ceremony." – remove the period from the non-sentence
- Done.
- link "Canada"
- Done. Seems like that got hit as part of the battle against overlinking, heh.
- Disambiguate: exhibition, Gary Roberts (multiple times), Mike Sullivan, and Tim Hunter
- Oops, done.
- Why are reference titles italicized?
- Because of how the {{Citation}} template works. I've simply gotten into the habit of using Citation rather than Cite x templates.
- "Retrieved on 19 September 2009" – this came from the future? :)
- Umm, oops. Fixed.
- "pp. pg. 23" – "page page 23"?
- "2008-03-25" – either link the date so that it formats, or spell it out like "March 25, 2008"
- Whoops. Both are cases of copying existing Cite x tempaltes from other articles and converting to Citation. My bad on not noticing the errors those caused. Both are now fixed.
Gary King (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And appreciate the comments. Resolute 15:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose several "assumptions" in the prose are particularly worrying....
- Not sure of the relevance of the lead image, especially considering the caption - just NHL trophies - could be relevant to any NHL list?
- I picked that lead image as it was the most appropriate I could come up with at the moment. Unfortunately, I don't have an image of a player receiving an award to use. I could just move a player up, but that is no less general than the current awards picture. I do hope to replace it with a specific image related to a Flame receiving an award during this season.
- "are a professional ice hockey team" vs "The team has captured" - plural vs singular.
- This is standard usage in North American descriptions of teams. "The Flames are" and "the team is" are both correct, as "the team" is treated as a singular entity, while "The foos" are referred to in the plural. I can't say for certain why this is, but I believe it is related to the general use of pluralized team nicknames in North America.
- "—1986, 1989 and 2004, and —winning..." - odd placement of the em-dash at the end. I'd suggest a minor reword.
- Umm, yeah, that was pretty bad. Fixed.
- "Individually, Jarome Iginla is the team's most decorated player..." - is there any other way to be the most decorated player other than individually?
- lol, good point. removed
- "to go along " - "to go" is redundant.
- Agreed, removed.
- "in team history." - which team? Flames or all-star games team?
- Fixed
- "their numbers retired " - I'm sure there's a link to retired numbers somewhere around here.
- Hmm, I guess I should have realized there is an article on everything. ;)
- " raised to the rafters" - means what to a non-expert?
- I was trying to avoid a repitition, and ended up using a coloquialism. Reworded.
- "who were associated with the Flames" - what do you mean by associated with? (question)
- I'm referring to people who spent a significant time with the orgnaization. As this involves both players and management, that seemed the best wording.
- Do you mean employed by the Flames? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not entirely Johnson and Fletcher were employees, but the players themselves I've never heard described as employees. And, of course, Hotchkiss is an owner, not an employee.
- "hall of fame" - is this "Hall of Fame"?
- I'm not referring to a speficic place name, but rather a general observation of the quality of the player's careers, so it doesn't seem proper to capitalize it. I'll happily change if this is incorrect.
- long-time - quantify.
- About this long: <---------------------> ;) Actually, I just removed it, it's extraneous, and the time he spent with the organization is specified in his chart
- builders - in the UK this unilaterally refers to people who construct buildings. Link or explain or something.
- I've added a clarification statement. Basically, the NHL considers a "builder" to be anyone in management.
- No decent link for builder? You use it in the lead and it's not clear to non-experts. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, I missed that usage. I've linked to a section of the Hockey Hall of Fame article that desribes who makes up the builders category.
- " most three-star selections " - what's a three-star selection?
- Clarified.
- "and respect and courtesy respectively" - this sentence just becomes a little confusing..
- reworded.
- You have individual awards which haven't ever been awarded to Flames players. Why?
- It was suggested by two others on the talk page that it would be good to have. I'm not convinced, but accepted the suggestion.
- Be consistent with linking titles/names etc in captions.
- Checked and changed where needed
- Chronological tables should be in chronological order.
- I am going to presume this is specific to the list of Hall of Famers, as it is in chronological order while the rest are in reverse-chronological order. I've corrected this. If this is not what you meant, could you clarify?
- If it's not sortable, you're really overlinking in each table.
- correcting. This should be completed before the end of the day.
- 1982-87 - use en-dash.
- oops, cut and pasted from another article and failed to correct that. fixed.
- Don't just use MVP without explaining it.
- I would have figured it would be self explainatory. Is this referring to the individual awards chart?
- No, you use the abbreviation MVP once - to a non-expert this is not self-explanatory. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh. Found and spelled out the abbreviation.
- Retired Numbers -> numbers.
- Fixed.
- 1982-94 and 2000-02 - en-dash again.
- Same as above, fixed.
- Why bold year ranges?
- It's the way the chart came out. As a personal preference, I like how it sets a contrast from the player name column. I can correct this if desired.
- Remove it - the other years/seasons etc aren't bold. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can do.
- 94/95 not awarded Ralph T. Scurfield Humanitarian... why not?
- I haven't found a citation for it, but the only logical reasoning is the 1994–95 NHL lockout which caused half the season to be cancelled. Given I can't cite it beyond the fact that it wasn't awarded, I'm not certain how I can explain this.
- Shame - it needs to be explained. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an outside chance I could find a newspaper article from 1995 that would explain this, but it would be a few days at least before I'll have a chance to check.
- J.R. "Bud" McCaig Award - no need for a table. Just write prose.
- Personally, I disagree. I think it looks better with consistent formatting, and these tables will grow as each season passes by.
- Ref 1 - pg. 4 vs Ref 7 - pp. 23 - be consistent with single page notation.
- Ref 1 only needs a p. - pp. is used for multiple pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 1 is "In Hanlon..." while all other refs to same work are simply "Hanlon..." - consider a General references.
- Both errors were the result of a Cite x template that I failed to update to Citation. This has been corrected.
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Appreciate the feedback, Resolute 20:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Prose looks okay.
- Why is it that in the lists you list mention content and list the recipients as none? If there is none, why are they listed?--SRX 14:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That was added on the suggestion of two other editors. As consensus now runs against their inclusion, I've removed such listings. Resolute 15:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from 2008Olympian (talk · contribs) I would think that you would need to add the players and awards (such as they are) from the Atlanta Flames as well, in light of Calgary's acknowledgment of the Atlanta Flames' history. --User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 23:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While the Atlanta and Calgary Flames are the same franchise, and Calgary does acknowledge the Atlanta history, it is really treated as a form of "pre-history" by the Calgary Flames. i.e., the Flames don't care when the franchise reaches a milestone - i.e.: last season was the 35th season of play for the franchise as a whole but went unmarked, where the Calgary Flames' 30th season next year will be. There is also an editorial decision within WP:HOCKEY to give each incarnation of a team its own article, or set of articles. As such, the two articles: Atlanta Flames and Calgary Flames would encompass the history of the Flames franchise.
- With that in mind, and given that the scope of this article specifically states that it is limited to awards won in Calgary, I'd just as soon keep the lists separate. I would be willing to consider an exception in this case, given the Atlanta Flames won only three individual awards in their history, so a separate list would be pointless, but I would very specifically denote that it was outside of the Calgary history. Resolute 16:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a suggestion based just on that notion: that since there is so little there it might be missed and that we would rather be encyclopedic rather than just formulaic.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 01:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I can see that point. I worry about the slippery slope, but I'll add them in tomorrow. Resolute 04:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment In the Awards column of the tables, the name of the award should be left justified. For the longer names, the lack of justification makes them spread out awkwardly. (e.g., Art Ross, Lady Bing).--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 01:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't showing up that way on my browsers. Is this perhaps a custom setting you are using? I'll look into it as well, however. Resolute 04:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose
- NHL All-Rookie Team selections, NHL First All-Star Team, NHL Second All-Star Team, All-Star Game selections, Hockey Hall of Fame elections, Retired numbers are all honors, and are not specifically awards just to clarify.
- True enough. I've revised the lead to clarify.
- NHL Plus/Minus Award is a disambiguation. The article is NHL Plus-Minus Award.
- Ahh, I hadn't realized that article had been moved. Corrected.
- You should denote player who have won the same award multiple times. For example, "2007–08 Jarome Iginla (5)" instead of "2007–08 Jarome Iginla".
- I'm not sure I see that as strictly necessary. In things like the all-star game appearances, I think that would just clutter the page.
- remove the template, Template:NHL.
- Done
- Is Category:Calgary Flames the only category to put on this article?
- So far, it seems so. I don't think very many articles of this type exist yet in the NHL. Like was done for the New Jersey Devils article, I split a lot of stuff out of the main Flames article and called it Calgary Flames notable players and award winners. Since a lot of that information was duplicative of other lists, I reformatted it into this style. I know of one other article (List of Philadelphia Flyers award winners that has duplicated the style. I'll create Category:Award winners by National Hockey League team and populate it as I am able.
-- K. Annoyomous24[c] 23:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support By the way, thanks for making this article "Canadian" since I noticed that you put "honours", instead of "honors". Also by the way, I'm also Canadian. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 02:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hah! It's so annoying when I work on articles for American players or teams to have to adjust to that goofy spelling. ;o) Resolute 04:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really for me. I'm kind of Americanized on Wikipedia. When I write on homework assignment, I usually use American English. I should really stop editing Wikipedia since it's making my wording non-Canadian, but I love wikiing! -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 04:15, 7 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:Matthewedwards 05:44, 4 October 2008 [5].
Nominating another submission list. sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I was unable to check the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support - really gives a little content, but meets the FL criteria and I found no flaws.--SRX 01:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Indonesian director Riri Riza had one of his films, Gie, submitted for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film" can have a period at the end since it's a full sentence.
- "Indonesia has submitted films for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film since 1987." – I think "Indonesia has submitted films to be considerated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film since 1987." is clearer? I was thinking of making it "Indonesia has submitted films for consideration for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film since 1987." but then there are two "for"s.
- The "for consideration" seems to be implied by "submitted" IMO. sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "the United States Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to" – "the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to" – otherwise it seems that "United States" is part of the organization's title. Also, unlink the United States/American.
- "It was not created until the 1956 Academy Awards," – "It was created in 1956," or something along those lines
Gary King (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Think that's it. sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - redlinks, presentation and some phrasing...
- A lot of redlinks. If you think these are worthy are linking, can I (boldly/cheekily) request you, at least, create stubs for them?
- Per past FLCs, I'm more than happy to make stubs for the films, which are the main subject of the list, but not for the other stuff, especially the directors, who may or may not be notable. sephiroth bcr (converse) 19:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, (and I guess this is Safari under MacOS for you) the lead image overlaps the top-right-hand-side of the table.
- Fixed (hopefully). If this doesn't work, I'll cut the image. It's not that necessary. sephiroth bcr (converse) 19:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "is handed out " - a shade colloquial - perhaps - "is presented to"..?
- "Indonesian director Riri Riza had one of his films" - "had one" yuck. Can we rephrase this a bit? "...Riza, whose film... was nominated for..."?
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Think that's it. sephiroth bcr (converse) 19:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support - still not keen on the number of redlinks but everything else is in order. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 30 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 promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:44, 4 October 2008 [6].
Self-nomination. I have significantly contributed to the list and believe it meets all attributes of the featured list criteria. The discography follows the same format as Joel Turner discography, a featured list supported just a week ago. I'm willing to address all concerns and will check this candidacy several times a day. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes: Ricki-Lee Coulter has only charted in Australia (except for her U Wanna Little of This extended play, on non-notable UK component charts). Hpfan9374 (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou for your comments, Ealdgyth. Its a very handy tool. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Lead
- The release performed poorly, despite producing two top ten singles, certified gold by the ARIA. - "the release performed poorly" violates WP:NPOV.
- The release was certified platinum twice by the ARIA and produced two top ten singles, certified platinum and gold by the ARIA.[5] - How about 'The release was certified platinum twice by the ARIA and produced two top ten singles, which were also certified platinum and gold by the ARIA.?
- She released an extended play, U Wanna Little Of This in 2008, with major record label Ministry of Sound. - no need for comma after 2008, I also don't understand why the link to major record label is pipelinked to Music industry.
- General comment
- You should add a dash aligned in the center in the tables that don't have information, I'm talking about the certifications columns.
- Solo
- I feel there is no need for the note about the single being a "current single." It's already ranked and will be off the charts in a couple of weeks.
Notify when done :)--SRX 00:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I feel I have made the necessary changes. Thankyou very much for your comments you have once again expanded both the article and my knowledge. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead
- Does she perform/record as Ricki-Lee? Or only as Ricki-Lee Coulter?
- The artists' article is called Ricki-Lee Coulter. She records as Ricki-Lee, though as a past Idol contestant, Ricki-Lee Coulter should be used. It's a real dilemma. I suggest keeping the name Ricki-Lee Coulter discography, as Ricki-Lee discography redirects here anyway. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't expect the article to be renamed but the Lead should refer to the fact that some material is released under the alternate name. (More on this later: see refs for video directors).Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. How do you propose this be done; "Ricki-Lee Coulter, often shorten to Ricki-Lee is an Australian..." I would appreciate some assistance here. Thanks. Hpfan9374 (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The artists' article is called Ricki-Lee Coulter. She records as Ricki-Lee, though as a past Idol contestant, Ricki-Lee Coulter should be used. It's a real dilemma. I suggest keeping the name Ricki-Lee Coulter discography, as Ricki-Lee discography redirects here anyway. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Album titles (studio albums and EPs) should be italicised: you've missed a few.
- Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Young Divas - did she join them after they were formed or was she a co-founder? Reword the sentence to straighten this out.
- She was a co-founder. Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overlinking terms - e.g.1 ARIA does not need to be linked four times in such a short space, just once. (After the first mention that ARIA certifies gold records it does not need to be mentioned in the Lead (keep in refs though), its implicit that certs are from ARIA unless otherwise specified - but that's up to you.) e.g.2 gold only needs one wikilink in Lead.
- I agree it is implicit. Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fix U Wanna Little Of This to U Wanna Little of This, also explain its relationship to "Can't Touch It" - I expected to go to a different article for each release.
- Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearly, you've missed the of instead of Of. See WP:MUSTARD for more of same.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearly, you've missed the of instead of Of. See WP:MUSTARD for more of same.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs
- For newspaper refs: Use cite news instead of cite web. All newspaper names should be given in full and italicised. e.g. The Courier Mail. Authors names should be given where available: I found two fairly easily.
- Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite. Don't you like Guy Blackman? ... who wrote "On the road with Ricki Lee". I've also found yet another author fairly quickly. You've got more work to do on these. Check each article closely, authors names are usually near top or bottom of article. Some of these are reprints of original article found elsewhere: sometimes they leave the author's name behind. In any case, original site is preferable to reprint site (even if it acknowledges original).Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read the news articles thoroughly and have found another author's name. I have edited both authors, Guy Blackman and Sarah Nicholson to the references. Hpfan9374 (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite. Don't you like Guy Blackman? ... who wrote "On the road with Ricki Lee". I've also found yet another author fairly quickly. You've got more work to do on these. Check each article closely, authors names are usually near top or bottom of article. Some of these are reprints of original article found elsewhere: sometimes they leave the author's name behind. In any case, original site is preferable to reprint site (even if it acknowledges original).Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All Australian Charts Portal or australian-charts.com refs can be combined by Discography Ricki-Lee, which summarises both her albums and singles charts.
- Never seen this before, it's very good. Thanks and fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the two video director refs. Something confusing is happening: the titles appear to have been swapped. Also, one of the refs takes me to just a general page and I don't see any Ricki-Lee video information there: is it on a sub-page? If so, fix the url to go directly to where the information is that you're referring to.
- Changed the names on references around. Also changed the reference to Bart Borghesi to his curriculum vitae, as the site recently changed to a flash-based website. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In changing this reference you will have to add, |format=PDF
- into your ref, so that users will realise they'll be downloading an additional file. This particular ref also reinforces need for "Ricki-Lee" or "Ricki Lee" to be added to Lead sentence, if I search this page for "Ricki-Lee Coulter" or "Coulter" how many of her videos do I get?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. How do you propose this be done; "Ricki-Lee Coulter, often shorten to Ricki-Lee is an Australian..." I would appreciate some assistance here. Thanks. Hpfan9374 (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed the names on references around. Also changed the reference to Bart Borghesi to his curriculum vitae, as the site recently changed to a flash-based website. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notify when done :)--Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I feel I have made the necessary changes. Thankyou very much for your comments you have expanded both the article and my knowledge. Notified. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More required, see above.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou very much for your additional comments. I believe I have made the necessary changes. Notified. Hpfan9374 (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More required, see above.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I feel I have made the necessary changes. Thankyou very much for your comments you have expanded both the article and my knowledge. Notified. Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Rather than have a 'Miscellaneous' table my preference would be to rename it 'Contributions', as it would appear that Coulter has contributed a track to that compliation album - are there any other contributions that she has made?
- I have renamed it to 'Contributions' as requested. Coulter has not many any other original contributions. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the 'Miscellaneous' table don't have a separate column for references - this probably should be a footnote - check Paul Kelly discography
- Footnote added. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the infobox it indicates there are footnotes when there are none
- There is now a footnote, as requested above. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For consistency the table for the 'Extended plays' should have columns for peak chart positions and certifications
- I have edited the 'Extended plays' and included peak chart positions and certifications columns. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The standard convention for discographies appears to be that rather than 'Studio albums' it be 'Studio releases' and if you do this then the 'Extended plays' should be incorporated into a single table 'Studio releases'.
- No thanks. This convention is only used in Paul Kelly discography. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Similarly there probably should only be one table for 'Singles' with "Good Times" incorporated into that table - with a footnote explanation as to the fact Coulter performed as one of the overall group or performers.
- Support - my issues have been resolved to meet the FL Criteria.--Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou very much for your support Shaidar cuebiyar. I greatly appreciated your comments and assistance; they help me expand as a wikipedian. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk)
Comments
- Rather than have a 'Miscellaneous' table my preference would be to rename it 'Contributions', as it would appear that Coulter has contributed a track to that compliation album - are there any other contributions that she has made?
- I have renamed it to 'Contributions' as requested. Coulter has not many any other original contributions. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the 'Miscellaneous' table don't have a separate column for references - this probably should be a footnote - check Paul Kelly discography
- Footnote added. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the infobox it indicates there are footnotes when there are none
- There is now a footnote, as requested above. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For consistency the table for the 'Extended plays' should have columns for peak chart positions and certifications
- I have edited the 'Extended plays' and included peak chart positions and certifications columns. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The standard convention for discographies appears to be that rather than 'Studio albums' it be 'Studio releases' and if you do this then the 'Extended plays' should be incorporated into a single table 'Studio releases'.
- No thanks. This convention is only used in Paul Kelly discography. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Similarly there probably should only be one table for 'Singles' with "Good Times" incorporated into that table - with a footnote explanation as to the fact Coulter performed as one of the overall group or performers.
Notify when done :)-- Dan arndt (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I feel I have made the necessary changes. Thankyou very much for your comments you have expanded both the article and my knowledge. Notified. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment
- In the lead paragraph it states 'The release reached the top thirty, producing two top ten singles...' however it doesn't indicate which top thirty charts you are refering to (i.e Australian music sales charts)
- Fixed, I have specified the ARIA Charts. Thanks. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I feel I have made the necessary changes. Thankyou very much for your comments you have expanded both the article and my knowledge. Notified. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "Ricki-Lee Coulter, often shortened to Ricki-Lee..." ?
- Requested by supporter Shaidar cuebiyar. The artists' article is called Ricki-Lee Coulter. She records as Ricki-Lee, though as a past Idol contestant, Ricki-Lee Coulter should be used. It's a real dilemma. What do you suggest I do?
- Don't need make anything more, I understand this sentence, after your explanation (of course). Cannibaloki 03:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
eponymous debut album→ eponymous debut album (attention to correct links)
- Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Coulter" (×4) on lead!
- The second and fourth occurrences of "Coulter" have been replaced with "Ricki-Lee". Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Studio albums
- Peak chart positions > AUS[10] →
AUS peak<br />positions[10]
- Peak chart positions > AUS[10] →
- Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Certifications → AUS certifications
- Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Extended plays
- Remove: Peak chart positions & Certifications (fully redundant!)
- Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Singles
- Peak chart positions > AUS[10] (Please, don't use this when you have just one column.) →
AUS peak<br />positions[10]
- Peak chart positions > AUS[10] (Please, don't use this when you have just one column.) →
- Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Certifications → AUS certifications
- Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Upcoming compilation album (?) → non-album single
- Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
width="175"
to Singles, Music videos, and Other appearances (refers to Song width)
- Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Contributions → Other appearances (also should be in the infobox)
- Fixed and placed "Other appearances" in the infobox. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the reference to song "Proud Mary"?
- Under "Other appearances" click "[nb 2]" and this will direct you to a footnote as requested by supporter Shaidar cuebiyar. At the end of this footnote, it is referenced by ref 17. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose With their poorly layout, this list become several redundancies. Cannibaloki 16:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou very much for your comments. I have addressed all your objections, except the lead sentence, I request your assistance in fixing this. Otherwise, I believe I've fixed everything. Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks much better now. Cannibaloki 03:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou very much for your support Cannibaloki. I greatly appreciated your comments and assistance; they help me expand as a wikipedian. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk)
Weak oppose - lead needs work, everything seems in order....
- Three paras in the lead is too much for an article of this length per WP:LEAD - try two.
- Should the "Young Divas" sentence: "The release was certified platinum twice and produced two top ten singles, "This Time I Know It's for Real" and "Happenin' All Over Again", certified platinum and gold respectively" be removed? Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to remove stuff, just merge it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "...came to prominence after placing seventh on the second season of Australian Idol ..." - really? 7th place in Pop Idol usually results in complete anonymity. Did she come to prominence after being given a record deal despite coming 7th?
- Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ricki-Lee co-founded girl group Young Divas and released their commercially ..." - gone from singular (Ricki-Lee) to plural (released their)... - reads oddly.
- I don't know how else to word it. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "...Divas and with them released the commercially successful..."? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "which were also certified platinum and gold" - again reads a little odd since you just said "two singles" - which singles were certified what?
- Specified the singles and their certification individually. Hpfan9374 (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you could link extended play.
- Linked. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "in 2008 with major record label" - what do you mean by "major"?
- Removed "major" from "major record label". Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "is currently working" - context - date it, so "As of September 2008..."
- Fixed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou very much for your comments. I have addressed several of your objections, however require further assistance in address lead length and singular to plural sentences. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou very much for your further assistance, The Rambling Man. I have merged the paragraphs and changed the sentence as requested. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support not keen on the placement of the references in the Singles table but other than that, no big problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou very much for your support The Rambling Man. I greatly appreciated your comments and assistance; they help me expand as a wikipedian. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:33, 2 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:Matthewedwards 05:44, 4 October 2008 [7].
I am nominating this article because I think it fulfills the FL criteria, in addressing said subject. It is modeled after Virginia Tech Hokies football seasons, a featured list. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I gave this list a quick copyedit, and suggested some changes, which have already been made. Although short, this list is comparable to Virginia Tech Hokies football seasons and East Carolina Pirates football seasons, both of which are featured lists. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Lead
- This is a list of seasons completed by the UAB Blazers football team of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), representing the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) as the Blazers. - Featured Lists are discouraged to begin with "This list is ___"
Have re-worded the first sentence to adjust for this. Patriarca12 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- UAB is a member of Conference USA (C-USA) and has competed in the conference since 1999, when the Blazers joined after playing as an independent. - as an independent what?
Have wikilinked "independent" to the NCAA Division I-FBS independent schools article it refers to. Patriarca12 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After two years of club football play, on March 13, 1991, UAB President Charles McCallum and athletic director Gene Bartow announced that the university would compete in football as a NCAA Division III team beginning in fall 1991. - how about After two years of club football play, on March 13, 1991, UAB President Charles McCallum and athletic director Gene Bartow announced that the university would compete in football as a NCAA Division III team beginning in the fall of 1991.
Thanks for the suggestion. Have implemented, and it does flow better. Patriarca12 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No link to what football the article is talking about.
Have now wikilinked to College football in the first sentence. Patriarca12 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Season
- You should use the <br> parameters on the seasons column to place the notes under the word "Season."
Have made the necessary change. Patriarca12 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (only includes bowl games; 1 appearance) I find the "1 appearance" not needed because its self explanatory in the total.
Amended this fact, it does look better. Thanks. Patriarca12 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Footnotes
- This is horrible. All of the information related to individual season records was taken from the Records & History section of the 2008 UAB Football Media Guide - This should instead be incorporated as a row into the table with the Source: (name of source with link) like in the FL 2008 WWE Draft or cite the source using {{citeweb}} and divide the references section into general and specific.
Have reformatted per your 2008 WWE Draft suggestion. This is my first submission, and I was not quite sure to handle this type of citation. Will use this formatting for future articles. Patriarca12 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
- Lead
- UAB is a member of Conference USA (C-USA) and has competed in the conference since 1999, when the Blazers joined after playing as an independent. - no need for comma after 1999.
Comma removed Patriarca12 (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After two years of club football play, on March 13, 1991, UAB President Charles McCallum and athletic director Gene Bartow announced that the university would compete in football as a NCAA Division III team beginning in the fall of 1991. - how about instead "that the university would compete for the NCAA in their Division III"?
Reworded and simply removed reference to NCAA as it was indicated in the lead that the team competes as part of the NCAA. Patriarca12 (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From 1991 to 1992, UAB competed as a Division III independent. - as someone unaware of the subject, it would help to explain independent rather than just linking, WP:IN-U could be cited here.
Added statement to clarify what "independent" means in this context Patriarca12 (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- During this period, the Blazers compiled an 11–6–2 overall record before making the jump to Division I-AA for the 1993 season. - how about instead, "before switching to Division I-AA" no need for the long phrases.
Re-phrased as "before moving up to Division I-AA" Patriarca12 (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From 1993 to 1995, UAB competed as a Division I-AA independent, and compiled a 21–12 overall record as a I-AA school prior to making the jump to Division I-A before the 1996 season.[1] - same thing here.
Re-phrased as "before moving up to Division I-A" Patriarca12 (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Already a participating member of Conference USA in other sports, on November 13, 1996, C-USA commissioner Mike Slive announced UAB would be admitted to the league as a football playing member beginning with the 1999 season.[6] - "announced that" (change is in bold)
--SRX 00:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Lead is too long per WP:LEAD - probably two paras for an article of this length will suffice.
Cut the text down to two paragraphs, removing redundant information present in the UAB Blazers football article. Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image could do with being "thumb"ed with a caption.
- Expand where UAB is for non-US experts, so add something like "situated in Birmingham, Alabama..." and appropriately wikilinked.
- No need to abbreviate FBS as you don't use it anywhere after the first time.
Removed Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "regular-season " - is this really hyphenated?
Corrected Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 3rd->third.
Removed statement using this Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Organized football.." - tempted to link football to American football here to avoid alienating billions of "soccer" readers.
Removed statement using this Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "From 1991 to 1992" - is this one season or two?
Clarified and appropriately wikilinked to the supporting article Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "or not as a member of a NCAA-affiliated conference" - reads odd - was it one or the other or does the "or ..." mean an alternative meaning?
Clarified Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "During this period, the Blazers compiled an 11–6–2 overall record before moving up to Division I-AA for the 1993 ..." - this "period" was 1991 to 1992 last sentence...
Reworded and clarified Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Link NCAA first time, not second..
Removed excessive wikilink Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "1996 season" - link both words, not just the year.
Corrected Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Auburn links to a specific team year - avoid this - link to the team by all means but avoid this kind of easter egg linking.
Corrected Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1999 and 2008 "season" links to the "team" so, once again, avoid the easter egg linking.
Corrected Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Scores and overall records need explanation i.e. you have " record of 31–37" and then "record of 91–97–2" - which isn't clear to non-experts.
Clarified all records illustrated on the list Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MOS#COLORS says don't just use colours for representing a property - add a dagger, asterisk or something as well.
Added symbology Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is 2004 season bold?
It should not have been, corrected Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See also is not required.
Removed Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is footnote 1 cited?
Citation provided for now next to footnote Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 3 has a raw URL, and a Pg for page ref.
Corrected Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 4 cites a single page but uses pp.
Corrected Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to make comments, as this is my first attempt at creating a FL. Please let me know what else may need to be addressed.Patriarca12 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]Weak oppose
- "Beginning in the inaugural..." - "Since their inaugural..." - because it is redundant to say they began in their inaugural season.
- Remove space between colon and [2].
- Still don't see where footnote 1 is referenced.
- en-dash for page ranges still.
- And use "pp." for multiple pages, not Pg. (ref 1)
- And use "p." for single pages, not Pg. (ref 6)
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, thank you for taking the time to comment!Patriarca12 (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support
- Why is the footnote [A 1]?
- You have a key for conference champs but it's never used - optimistic?!
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As below, to get the nom out of the way, I fixed these. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- While I am by no means an expert on the subject I feel certain that the image (logo) fails WP:NFCC. The image in question currently claims fair use on 14 pages! It is not an image particually relevent to the page. Neither of the similar featured lists mentioned above—Virginia Tech Hokies football seasons & East Carolina Pirates football seasons—use non-free images so why should this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To get this nomination out of the way, I removed the logo and put an image of their stadium up instead. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:31, 4 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:Matthewedwards 05:44, 4 October 2008 [8].
I am right now going straight to a featured list nomination, and skipping the peer review, since I know this article is ready for this process. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 02:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that a template is used to pipe specific game seasons into a solitary year. This is deprecated by some WikiProjects, rightly so, since most readers will pass over solitary blue years, thinking they're of the useless type. I tried to change the piping to more than just the year ("the 1990 season", I think I used), but it turned red. Does this template make it impossible to do so? Tony (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So what do you want me to do, since the template is impossible to pipe more than just the year? -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 04:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - article looks very good. The only problem I have with it however is the format of the references. All other Opening Day starting pitcher articles have a reference column in the table, which I think is better and more specific than just having a list of "General References" at the bottom. Obviously this isn't set in stone and I'm interested in your opinion of the matter. Besides that however, the article looks great and I'll vote "support" after the reference thing is addressed. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at all my other featured list nominations, you'll se that most of them use that arrangement for references. I know I only used approx. 5 (not looking at my article) references, but I still think it has all the WP:FL? criteria. I hope this issue won't be such a huge problem. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 22:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Consistency it might be better to put the references in the table. If you'd like I'll help with that, but since all the other Opening Day starting pitcher articles do that, it would probably be best if this did too. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Go right ahead. I have homework to do. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 02:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've redone the refs. Once you add them to the opening paragraph so everything is cited, I will change by opinion to support. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need the refs on the prose because the refs are already on the table. Even ask The Rambling Man. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 00:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My fault, I misinterpreted that part of the MOS. One more thing though: in the lead it says "The Blue Jays are the first and only team outside the United States to win a World Series, and the first team to win a World Series in Canada". Is that neccesary for an article on Opening Day pitchers, and if you believe it is, the second part of the sentence should be deleted, as it is already explained by the first part. I will go ahead and change my vote to Support, because I trust that you will make that change. Good luck! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need the refs on the prose because the refs are already on the table. Even ask The Rambling Man. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 00:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've redone the refs. Once you add them to the opening paragraph so everything is cited, I will change by opinion to support. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Go right ahead. I have homework to do. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 02:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Consistency it might be better to put the references in the table. If you'd like I'll help with that, but since all the other Opening Day starting pitcher articles do that, it would probably be best if this did too. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - meets the FL Criteria.SRX 01:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support but you should fix...
- Year heading in table would be better as Season since you pipe link to the seasons from them.
- "and 14 no decisions" I count 8?
- "all of which were pitched on the " both?
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE ALL! -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 19:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- 'DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The 18 starters have a combined Opening Day record of 11 wins, 13 losses and 8 no decisions. No decisions are only awarded to the starting pitcher if the game is won or lost after the starting pitcher has left the game." I know it's wikilinked, but it doesn't help people reading a paper copy, or those who don't wish to navigate away from the page. WP:PCR. It's all a little jargony for the non-baseballer. For example, "11 wins, 13 losses and 8 no decisions" is this how many games were won, or something only the pitcher wins that has no outcome on the game's result?
- The article tells you that, "The 18 starters have a combined Opening Day record", which means what it's telling you. I can't think of any other way to say it. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Blue Jays first ever Opening Day starting pitcher" -- "ever" not needed
- 'DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "who got a no decision" not got. "received", "won", I don't know, but got is not encyclopedic tone
- 'DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "at Exhibition Stadium" is there a need to say this again? It was already said that the first 13 years were played there
- 'DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "has an Opening Day record of 2–3." 2 wins vs 3 losses?
- 'DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "both of which were pitched on the road." they didn't play on a field?
- 'DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Opening Day starting pitchers have a record of 0–1 at Exhibition Stadium" again, as a non baseball fan I don't understand this. I'm guessing it's w-l, but the table shows 3w, 6l, 4ND
- 'DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:18, 2 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:Matthewedwards 05:44, 4 October 2008 [9].
I based the format of the article off of List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers which has FL status. All references are reliable, and featured list criteria appears to be meet. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 03:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment You've made a bunch of these pitcher lists, why not create a brand-new category for MLB starting pitchers?...or just add a navigational box where you can provide links to these lists.--Crzycheetah 06:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Looks like someone else just went and did it. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 14:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The years should be centrally aligned, so should the decision column as well
- Done and Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first season is a Baltimore Orioles season, I think the fact that they became the Yankees should be made clear in the lead to avoid confusion
- The Jim Bouton image should not be used as it is not free use, I'm sure there are other free use alternatives you could use
- Removed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise with Marius Russo and Lefty Gomez, there are loads of images in the commons which I'm sure you could use instead
- Removed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work, well done NapHit (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose
- I've recently seen a list which states whether the NDs were winning or losing when the pitcher departed. Good additional info you can add it?
Yeah I like that better. Added results. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "...in modern baseball ties are..." - comma after baseball.
- "had been lacking appropriate lighting equipment" -lacked adequate lighting.
- "Other pitchers with two or more Opening ..." - since there are so many, maybe making it three?
- Larson seems to be called Larsen?
- Corretced --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Last para is an odd mix - no real flow to it at all - odd trivia facts here and there - please rephrase.
- Avoid small text in the (2) etc..
- Is there a specific policy regarding this? I personally think it doesn't look as appealing when the numbers are normal. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this discussion, it might be better to leave the text as it is. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Make ref 1 a general ref?
- I think the table wouldn't flow as well to have 50 years or so with a ref and then suddenly there be none for the next 40. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NY Times should be "The New York Times" and is a work - unless that's the name of the publishing company too?
- The article was orginally published by the New York Times in 1910. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support good work on my comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- You should mention that there was a time this franchise was known as the "New York Highlanders".
- The ref#1 is cited way too many times. I strongly recommend having a general reference for such a long list. Pages 17-19 of this PDF file have all but 3 lineups and can easily be used as a general reference. For those three seasons, you can put a citation next to the pitchers' names. Page 20 of that file has opponent's name and the result.
- As for the results, why don't you add the scores next to the W, L, T?
--Crzycheetah 04:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is there a reason why these opening day starting pitcher lists don't fail WP:NOT an indiscriminate source of information? I appreciate the amount of work that went into these... it's just, I think it would be nice if there was some reason why we believe the opening day starting pitchers are more notable that the day-two starting pitchers. — PyTom (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because Opening Day is a lot more notable than day-two. —Borgardetalk 14:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- typo "fraanchise"
- WP:PCR. I know there are links, but explain what wins and losses are. Do they refer to the games, or something that the pitcher wins?
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with a few comments. First, avoid pipe-linking a stand-alone year per MOS. Also per MOS, spell out numbers below 10. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the "Key" section would do better as a part (or a sub-section) in the "Pitchers" section. iMatthew (talk) 20:53, 2 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:Gimmetrow 12:32, 4 October 2008 [10].
re-nominated. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC) previous FLC (16:20, 18 August 2008)[reply]
- Support Having had no involvement with this current nomination, I hope my support is worth as much as everyone elses. My support is cautious, as the lead is quite long, though it does a good job of explaining the importance of Homme's involvement with these bands and why he deserves his own discography (He's not a solo artist but is the founder of multiple bands and a serial collaborator). Red157(talk • contribs) 18:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Aren't discographies of artists who have been in bands supposed to just be solo discogs? By that reckoning this list shouldn't even exist?! Andre666 (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If wikipedia didn't ever progress into new territory it would be a terrible site. Yes, discographies are normally restricted to solo artists and bands, but every once in a while something has to come along that's an exception to that rule. Homme has founded all those bands (Without discographies of their own currently) and as I've said before, needs to have a place where all his collaborations can be seen. As there's loads. Red157(talk • contribs) 12:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- John Garcia links to a dab page.
- Corrected link;
- "second guitarist, he befriending vocalist" what?
Done
- You call the Desert Sessions a collaboration but in the infobox you have 20 collaborations...?
Done
- "releasing several extended plays (EPs)" you've already abbreviated this.
Done
- " with Homme back behind the drum kit" reads like a music mag, not an encyclopedia.
- "
Done
- "
- Eagles of Death Metal is singular, so "released their second studio " ought to be "released its second ..."
Done
- "several related bands" what does related mean in this context?
Done
- "Rekords Rekords" is overlinked.
Done
- Headings should not have links in them.
Done
- "—" denotes releases that did not chart - are you sure? Do the sources prove they were actually released?
Done
- No chart positions for anything beside the Eagles of Death Metal?
Done None of the other artist have charted. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The other artists haven't charted. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Collaborations - centrally align ref column.
Done
- I think I count 24 collaborations.
Done
- Artist should be Artist(s).
Done
- In Your Honour should be In Your Honor.
Done
Oppose
- "with 26 different artists" prove this? I count 25 including the four bands he released albums with - and are you classing a band as an artist? Are you counting his collaboration with "Nick Oliveri, Brad Wilk" as two different artists? It's a little confusing.
Done
Not done - are you classing bands as artists?
- Sorry for that last one.
Done
- Sorry for that last one.
- Two collaborations have no references.
Not done
- Sorry for that last one.
Done
- Sorry for that last one.
- Rancho de la Luna should be Rancho De La Luna.
Done
- "two albums, Volumes 1 & 2" but the link to the Volumes 1 & 2 describes it as a single album. And so do you later on.
Done
- "as the band developed " what? not sure this is true.
Done}
- "including the break-through Songs for the Deaf (2002)." - prove it was a break-through - it isn't cited.
Done
- " the Desert Sessions" should be "The Desert Sessions" shouldn't it?
Done
- "although Homme rarely tours " this sentence changes tense and the touring bit reads oddly compared to the clause before it.
Done
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- The only thing I want to point out is that why isn't it that in the lead there is a sentence stating how many albums he has released overall like in other discographies. Other than that the list looks good and has a great prose.--SRX 23:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Same as SRX
- SEE COMMENT BY SKOMOROKH BELOW
- The Desert Sessions is described as a "weekend of collaboration". I don't know if the subheading "With The Desert Sessions" is correct. "During" perhaps?
- HOMME'S IS THE ONLY MEMBER
- It says "Outside of his full-time projects, Homme has appeared on the releases of several bands, including ... Cocaine Rodeo (2000) and A Drug Problem That Never Existed (2003) by ... Mondo Generator" Mondo Generator lists him as an actual former band member, not just a two-time collaborator, or whatever. If that's so, this piece needs changing. If the information here is correct, then shouldn't the "With Mondo Generator" section be merged into the collaborations section?
Done
- Some of the "albums" are EPs, judging by their articles.REMOVED THE EPS SINCE THEY ARE NOT ALBUMS
Done
- WHATS WRONG WITH THAT
- EPs are not albums? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WHATS WRONG WITH THAT
- Why no QotSA albums? You could transclude the table instead of writing it out all over again.
Done
- Wot, no singles, EPs, soundtrack appearances, etc etc?REMOVED THE EPS SINCE THEY ARE NOT ALBUMS
Done
- THE POINT WITH THIS LIST IS TO LIST THE ALBUMS HE HAS DONE
- Then per WP:FL?, the scope of the list should be clearly defined in the lead. ie, say it only includes albums, otherwise it appears to be incomplete. You might also want to retitle it Josh Homme albums discography
Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then per WP:FL?, the scope of the list should be clearly defined in the lead. ie, say it only includes albums, otherwise it appears to be incomplete. You might also want to retitle it Josh Homme albums discography
- THE POINT WITH THIS LIST IS TO LIST THE ALBUMS HE HAS DONE
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is ambiguity in the use of "The Desert Sessions" and "Mondo Generator". The former refers to both the event(s) (i.e. "during the Desert Sessions") and the "authors" of the albums (i.e. "With The Desert Sessions"). Similarly, Mondo G was not a proper band when Homme was a "member" - just a series of once-off gigs in which Nick Oliveri and his friends would play around. Mondo later became a fulltime band.
- I agree that the Qotsa albums should be included.
Done
- Is it really beneficial to separate albums from EPs? The most intuitive two ways of doing so - all albums followed by all EPs or all Artist1 albums followed by all Artist1 EPs - break up the chornological order badly.
- An EP is different. It's like including a single in there. They're different. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To SRX; there is no correct reliable source stating how many albums Homme has released. This is a problem unique to individual person discographies, as there is no boundary on what are "official" Josh Homme releases. Any number we would choose would be arbitrary. the skomorokh 12:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- perhaps something along the lines of "Homme has released #n albums with his bands, and has collaborated with other artists on a further #n." but better, obviously!
DoneMatthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- perhaps something along the lines of "Homme has released #n albums with his bands, and has collaborated with other artists on a further #n." but better, obviously!
- Comments
- I was about to support the promotion to FL of this list, but then I saw new problems with the "new changes"
- Josh Homme is an American rock musician. This list only includes albums he released with other bands. Homme's has released 18 studio albums and has collaberated with 26 different artists. - umm, discouraged using "this list." Also it would read better as "Josh Homme is an American rock musician, who has released 18 studio albums and has collaborated with 26 different artists." (Notice the flow and correct spelling of "collaboration.")
Done
- I am not to happy with the name as it is very redundant, discography means "albums released" What the title reads literally is This is a list of Josh Homme albums list of albums released (that's what it is literally saying) Who told you to move it to that name?
Done
SRX 00:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, as all other discographies include singles, EPs, videos, etc. This one isn't supposed to, so similar to Mariah Carey albums discography, I suggested moving it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the Mariah Carey list is not Featured and it is a redirect to Mariah Carey discography. I'm not sure whether other FL's are like that, but the name doesn't seem right, as discography is a list of albums or released work, or in other words it's the same thing as Mariah Carey albums so IMO it's either or.SRX 02:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Last time I checked it wasn't! :P Well, I don't care if it moves back, so long as the lead clearly defines the scope, and says that it doesn't include singles and everything else. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the Mariah Carey list is not Featured and it is a redirect to Mariah Carey discography. I'm not sure whether other FL's are like that, but the name doesn't seem right, as discography is a list of albums or released work, or in other words it's the same thing as Mariah Carey albums so IMO it's either or.SRX 02:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, as all other discographies include singles, EPs, videos, etc. This one isn't supposed to, so similar to Mariah Carey albums discography, I suggested moving it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - meets WP:FL?.SRX 02:23, 4 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:Matthewedwards 05:44, 4 October 2008 [11].
I believe that the issues from the previous FLC were resolved in the PR. Specific comments are very welcomed. Nergaal (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs): Sources
I note citation inconsistencies: Sometimes, the {{cite xxx}} template is used, other times the citations are made manually.
- Yeah, that is because of the pipe character in the url, and is anyways irrelevant to FL criteria. Nergaal (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current refs 7, 11, and 12 are dead.
- Please check them manually. It is the same reason as with the previous complaint. Nergaal (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.hollywood.com reliable?
- It has been discussed in the previous FLC. Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1236462/ (Ref 34) can be replaced with http://nbcumv.com/entertainment/storylines.nbc/theoffice.html, a more reliable source.
- Thanks, I'll do that! Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current refs 18 and 23 need publication dates.
- Done
Other things
The following is a complete list of episodes from the American situation comedy television series The Office." Featured lists don't start like this anymore.
- Ok, I am going to submit the List of Lost episodes for FLR then. Any suggestions/examples though? Nergaal (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Define (in plain text) what The Office is—"The Office is an American situational comedy series." Dabomb87 (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I am going to submit the List of Lost episodes for FLR then. Any suggestions/examples though? Nergaal (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...it is a mockumentary that follows the day-to-day lives of the employees of the Scranton, Pennsylvania branch of Dunder Mifflin, a paper supply company." You might mention the paper supply company is fictional."Series Overview" Per MOS, only the first word of a section heading should start with a capital letter."The first episode of season four premiered on September 27, 2007,[27] while the last episode aired on May 15, 2008." "while"-->and, while should not be used as an additive link.Dabomb87 (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now? Nergaal (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)))[reply]
Comments
- Please see how List of Lost episodes displays episode lists. It transcludes them from the other articles; please do the same here. The reasoning behind this is so that changes made to the separate seasons will affect the main list, so only one edit needs to be made. Gary King (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand you really don't want to allow me to get this as an FL, but this is getting ridiculous. You gave completely opposite reasons for opposing last FLC which took +100 edits to resolve and were still not helpful. Now you are trying to throw an oppose for the sake of it AGAIN. You should also notice what other comments were made during the last FLC and notice that this format is accepted (check the Simpsons list of episodes if you are paranoid and don't trust me). Nergaal (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked a few and noticed that they don't all do that – although most do have the descriptions on the page itself because they aren't notable enough to have separate season pages. Simpsons FLC was promoted over two years ago; Lost was last year. I'd still think that the rationale makes sense; perhaps not a requirement, but would be nice for it to be done. Gary King (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous FLC I was told it is fine. In this case anyways, linking from subarticles would (1) make the article huge again; (2) not add anything necessary that is not covered now (except for the 5th season which is unstable anyways). Please show me where else has been your rationale used for opposing a FLC. Nergaal (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant was to transclude the season tables but exclude the descriptions, so that only the Title, Director, Writer, Original US air date, and Prod. code information were included. Gary King (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you translude without descriptions, without clogging the original page to a point where it looks ridiculous. Nergaal (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would undoubtedly agree with transclusion. And I don't believe either Gary or myself "don't want to allow [you] to get this as an FL", rather it's just the best way of doing things. Mastrchf (t/c) 22:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a slightly longer story with Gary and I. And to me, opposing only because of a transclusion issue does not sound like a friendly & constructive comment. Nergaal (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please Assume Good Faith on my part. I have opposed many other FLCs; this one is no different. I am involved in this FLC because I was interested in a long time in getting this article to FL status and now that that is possible, I would like to see it at its best. I have also commented before on your previous FLCs without opposing when I didn't feel that the issues were problematic enough to hold the nomination back. Anyways, back to the question at hand. Please check the Lost episodes article and the respective seasons articles to see how it is done; I am certain it will be clear to you once that is done. Gary King (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a slightly longer story with Gary and I. And to me, opposing only because of a transclusion issue does not sound like a friendly & constructive comment. Nergaal (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant was to transclude the season tables but exclude the descriptions, so that only the Title, Director, Writer, Original US air date, and Prod. code information were included. Gary King (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous FLC I was told it is fine. In this case anyways, linking from subarticles would (1) make the article huge again; (2) not add anything necessary that is not covered now (except for the 5th season which is unstable anyways). Please show me where else has been your rationale used for opposing a FLC. Nergaal (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked a few and noticed that they don't all do that – although most do have the descriptions on the page itself because they aren't notable enough to have separate season pages. Simpsons FLC was promoted over two years ago; Lost was last year. I'd still think that the rationale makes sense; perhaps not a requirement, but would be nice for it to be done. Gary King (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand you really don't want to allow me to get this as an FL, but this is getting ridiculous. You gave completely opposite reasons for opposing last FLC which took +100 edits to resolve and were still not helpful. Now you are trying to throw an oppose for the sake of it AGAIN. You should also notice what other comments were made during the last FLC and notice that this format is accepted (check the Simpsons list of episodes if you are paranoid and don't trust me). Nergaal (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ←they use {{:Lost (season 1)}} and I have no idea what ":" does. Nergaal (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Without a namespace before it, ":" resolves to article space. Without that, all you get is a regular template. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it hasn't been addressed already, I will carry out the transcluding if noone else knows how to do it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have experimented a bit but I got stuck. So yes, please. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I had to edit {{Episode list/The Office}}, because you were using the
Rtitle=
field but hadn't included it. When I did include it, it forced it so that every entry that didn't need it, now did. I had to change it one last time so that it only included it when it was needed, but unfortunately, my edit got rid of the alternating light grey. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Excellent, thanks Matthew! Gary King (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks! Nergaal (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is actually one problem now, and that is the writers and director entries are switched. I tried to fix it but I couldn't. Nergaal (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NP, I know what the issue is.. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please check that that's right now. If it is, the writers/directors columns for The Accountants and Kevin's Loan need switching for consistency
- Also, put the years in the heading for season five, since they're there for all the other seasons. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for spotting those. Somebody has been playing with the Season 5 section... Nergaal (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NP, I know what the issue is.. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is actually one problem now, and that is the writers and director entries are switched. I tried to fix it but I couldn't. Nergaal (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please unlink part dates as in "The webisode series began its run on July 10, 2008, and ended on July 31, 2008. And be aware that the MOS no longer requires dates to be linked, in fact it is depreciated except for in certain circumstances
- "although she appeared in the sixth episode, Branch Wars," Episodes should be wrapped in double-quote marks
- "Oscar, Stanley and Darryl also participated." Are these actors or characters? Either way, "appeared" would be better
- "The list is ordered by the episodes' original air dates and not by the production code numbers provided by NBC's official episode guide—which show the order in which episodes were filmed." I think the emdash is overkill here. They're usually used to provide a sharp break in the flow of sentences, but a comma would do, I think
- Why is Victor Nelli redlinked?
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything else should be done except for the redlink (because it is not unlikely that an article will be created about him at some point). Nergaal (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose (moved to Support see below) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The season 5 episodes yet to air should have references for their proposed air dates and names. I can kind of accept "Business Ethics" and "Baby Shower" because they have a link in the episode page but "Crime Aid" has nothing. I think this is important as it helps prevent the addition of unsourced speculation of names and airdates of future episodes.
- done
- Production code for "Weight Loss" cannot be TBA considering it has been produced and aired.
- done
- Season 4 episodes are two lines away from the paragraph text whereas the others are one.
- it took more for you to write this than it would have taken you to solve it. Nergaal (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Viewing figures, and the two rank figures in Series Overview are completely unreferenced.
- And yet you haven't addressed this!! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about the confusion. They should be there now. Thanks for spotting it. Nergaal (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet you haven't addressed this!! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change either the background colour or text colour on the webisodes as black text on dark grey is not easy to read.
- not sure how to solve it. Nergaal (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I have provided a fix. If you have any specific requests for colours just ask? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- not sure how to solve it. Nergaal (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 34 is IMDb. Reliable how?
- done
- Is the note about adapted from UK pilot and the § actually used anywhere.
- done
- That same note also has Pilot capitalised but not italicised. The name of the UK episode was "Downsize" or "Episode One"
- done
- If your going to remove links for overlinking be consistent for example season 3, episode 40 & 41 have identical writers and directors but are linked both episodes. Just needs looking over.
- done
- The second paragraph for season 1 uses only ref [8] but multiple times. Is there a reason not to just put ref 8 at the end of the paragraph.
- done
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The ref's you added current [7] & [9] that you added for the series overviews need a note saying that subscription is required or something.
- I realised you took the option to remove Season 5 to address the issues I raised with it. However in doing so it means that this list now fails Criteria 3 for comprehensiveness, as season 5 has started airing.
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have met stupid reasons for opposing but never so many in one single nomination. Do you even understand that this nomination was STARTED CLOSE TO A MONTH AGO??? There is a single episode missing and the next one will not be out in almost 2 weeks. Seriously you should have come one month ago to write the review when this was not an issue. Wikipedia is not a news feed so you should back off about requesting information that is available only for a few days (I am actually not sure it it possible to get the production code yet). In order to be consistent, you should go nominate all the FLs about the running shows for removal. Also, you should show me based on which rule you oppose based on not having subscription to the refs, otherwise your reasoning will be seen as stupid. Nergaal (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't call me stupid. Lots of things mentioned at FLC are not opposes, hence they are under a comments section. As people are not opposing when they say that there is a stray comma or something. In the same way I'm not opposing on the references, it is a comment that it is probably worth noting that one needs a subscription. However I am opposing on the fact that it is not comprehensive (criteria 3), as it does not include all the episodes aired. I'm sorry that I didn't come along a month ago but there is nothing I can do about that now. We are judging the current list here. Which is currently not comprehensive. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have met stupid reasons for opposing but never so many in one single nomination. Do you even understand that this nomination was STARTED CLOSE TO A MONTH AGO??? There is a single episode missing and the next one will not be out in almost 2 weeks. Seriously you should have come one month ago to write the review when this was not an issue. Wikipedia is not a news feed so you should back off about requesting information that is available only for a few days (I am actually not sure it it possible to get the production code yet). In order to be consistent, you should go nominate all the FLs about the running shows for removal. Also, you should show me based on which rule you oppose based on not having subscription to the refs, otherwise your reasoning will be seen as stupid. Nergaal (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice that you seemed to have backpedalled and put back in the Season 5 transclusion. It means we have the issues I raised before of providing verifibility (one of the criteria) that the future names are correct and not just unsourced specualtion. Also please refrain from personal edit summaries such as "go piss somewhere else". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I called your REASONS stupid. And seriously, you should go ahead and nominate all the present FLs that deal with running seasons based on this reason and see what replies you will get. And again, wikipedia is NOT a news feed so you should (1) read what other reviewers had to say before you, (2) go read other pages that are called "Breaking news" to find production codes. Also, you should also go piss somewhere else. Nergaal (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should check the FL's dealing with running seasons. List of The Simpsons episodes, List of Heroes episodes, List of 30 Rock episodes cites air dates, names, directors for future unaired episodes. Whilst List of Lost episodes doesn't transclude the unaired future series. If your not going to change anything I suggest any conversation is continued on my talk page. I'm off to piss in a toilet. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Simpsond`s does NOT offer sources. If veriafibility is the issue, then go ahead and nominate for FLR the Simpsons. If comprehensiveness is the issue, then go ahead and nominate the Lost one for FLR. Nergaal (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless, these issues should be solved now. Nergaal (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What you did wasn't actually adressing my comment, so I spent a bit of time on the NBC website and managed to find refs for the future episodes in season 5. They are only required for future episodes which are not easily verifiable by RS's. I hope you don't mind but I have added them and now can give my support this nomination. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! The IGN ref right before the table did actually cover the first three episodes. Nergaal (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What you did wasn't actually adressing my comment, so I spent a bit of time on the NBC website and managed to find refs for the future episodes in season 5. They are only required for future episodes which are not easily verifiable by RS's. I hope you don't mind but I have added them and now can give my support this nomination. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should check the FL's dealing with running seasons. List of The Simpsons episodes, List of Heroes episodes, List of 30 Rock episodes cites air dates, names, directors for future unaired episodes. Whilst List of Lost episodes doesn't transclude the unaired future series. If your not going to change anything I suggest any conversation is continued on my talk page. I'm off to piss in a toilet. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I called your REASONS stupid. And seriously, you should go ahead and nominate all the present FLs that deal with running seasons based on this reason and see what replies you will get. And again, wikipedia is NOT a news feed so you should (1) read what other reviewers had to say before you, (2) go read other pages that are called "Breaking news" to find production codes. Also, you should also go piss somewhere else. Nergaal (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- The series premiered on March 24, 2005 in the US - "U.S." per WP:MOSABB, as used in the article's title.
- That same link says when "UK" is used, "US" should be; however, "UK" is only used twice here, and "United Kingdom" isn't. The first "UK" needs changing, and the "US" in the intro should be changed to "United States". In the tables, "Original US air date" could be "Original air date" without any harm. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On this note, I think the article should be moved to List of The Office (US TV series) episodes. Gary King (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it ok to move it during the nomination? Nergaal (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah; if the article is moved then move this nomination page as well, and update the nomination transclusion on WP:FLC. Gary King (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, wait, wait. Read WP:MOSABB - "U.S." but "UK". I do believe I was the person who actually moved The Office (US TV series) to The Office (U.S. TV series) a while ago on this basis. I'm proposing a move back. —97198 (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, yeah, that link doesn't say what I said it did. I was thinking of WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations which says: "In a given article, if the abbreviated form of the United States appears predominantly alongside other abbreviated country names, for consistency it is preferable to avoid periods throughout; never add periods to the other abbreviations (the US, the UK and the PRC, not the U.S., the U.K. and the P.R.C.)." If "UK" became "United Kingdom" on both usages, either "U.S." or "US" would be fine. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of the article title, though, it's my understanding that "U.S." is preferred over "US"; there are no other country abbreviations within the title. —97198 (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I understand "US" is preferred. I think there's a slow change from "U.S." to "US" as it's beginning to slowly become accepted that the periods are unnecessary as it's fairly obvious in most cases that these are acronyms. Gary King (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of the article title, though, it's my understanding that "U.S." is preferred over "US"; there are no other country abbreviations within the title. —97198 (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, yeah, that link doesn't say what I said it did. I was thinking of WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations which says: "In a given article, if the abbreviated form of the United States appears predominantly alongside other abbreviated country names, for consistency it is preferable to avoid periods throughout; never add periods to the other abbreviations (the US, the UK and the PRC, not the U.S., the U.K. and the P.R.C.)." If "UK" became "United Kingdom" on both usages, either "U.S." or "US" would be fine. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, wait, wait. Read WP:MOSABB - "U.S." but "UK". I do believe I was the person who actually moved The Office (US TV series) to The Office (U.S. TV series) a while ago on this basis. I'm proposing a move back. —97198 (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah; if the article is moved then move this nomination page as well, and update the nomination transclusion on WP:FLC. Gary King (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it ok to move it during the nomination? Nergaal (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On this note, I think the article should be moved to List of The Office (US TV series) episodes. Gary King (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That same link says when "UK" is used, "US" should be; however, "UK" is only used twice here, and "United Kingdom" isn't. The first "UK" needs changing, and the "US" in the intro should be changed to "United States". In the tables, "Original US air date" could be "Original air date" without any harm. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- and as of September 2008, 66 original episodes have been broadcast - I'd personally put in a comma after "and", with the commas acting kind of like brackets. Not sure if that makes sense to anyone else! Not a big deal, anyhoo.
- A fifth season has started airing in fall 2008 - specify time of year using months not seasons per WP:SEASON. I live in Australia and it'd be hard enough for me to figure out the time of year that was even if I was in the right hemisphere!
- A fifth season is expected to debut on September 25, 2008 - needs updating, we're in October now.
- Should "The Accountants" be italicised or in quotes? I'd italicise it, but the lead uses quotes, as does the summary, but the subheading (title) uses italics. Should be consistent, either way. Same issue with "Kevin's Loan".
- All the seasons' tables use colours to match those in the series overview, but season 3 is blue in the overview and grey in its section... ?
- Pam's storyline overview for season 1 is basically "trying to deal with Michael's insensitivities and flubs" - correct me if you disagree, as you're probably more familiar with it than I am - but I'd say the more overarching part of her storyline was her relationships with Roy v. Jim. I see that's more detailed under season 2... Your thoughts?
- the only time Roy is mentioned is at the end of the season. And Pam is not quite interested in Jim, but rather Jim in her. Nergaal (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Broadband Program - Comedy - endash, not hyphen per WP:DASH.
- the webisodes became a point of argument for the Writers Guild of America for their strike - technically, the WGA is an "it", not a "they" as we're referring to a physical organisation not a bunch of writers.
- creator of ABC series Alias, Lost, and the movie Cloverfield - why specify "ABC"? Stations aren't specified for Buffy or Firefly, and aren't needed, either. Also, "film" is a little more formal than "movie".
- The entire third season was given an 85 out of 100 on Metacritic with 85% positive reviews and Universal Acclaim - I think people can't really grasp the difference between Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. You've described here what RT does, but Meta is different. Meta doesn't calculate the percentage of positive reviews; it calculates an average point-score. E.g. Critic A gives the season a score of 80/100 and Critic B gives it a score of 90/100 - Meta would assign the season a score of 85/100 if those were the only two reviews collected. That doesn't mean Meta collected 100 reviews and 85 were positive (which is what RT does).
- Please take the freedom to edit it yourself, since I am not quite sure what you mean. Nergaal (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Season 5 lists the writers first with an ampersand (no-no for consistency) and then without an "and" at all (another no-no). Yes, it's picky.
- ha? - about the first half Nergaal (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, in the writers columns for each episode list/table/thing, "and" should be used for consistency - in season 5 there's an "&" that doesn't fit in and there's one with just commas and no "and". —97198 (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You should purge your cache. Nergaal (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, in the writers columns for each episode list/table/thing, "and" should be used for consistency - in season 5 there's an "&" that doesn't fit in and there's one with just commas and no "and". —97198 (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ha? - about the first half Nergaal (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The series premiered on March 24, 2005 in the US - "U.S." per WP:MOSABB, as used in the article's title.
- That's all I've got to say, really. Overall, it's a nice article but just needs a few improvements. —97198 (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- except for the three replies, everything should be fixed now. Nergaal (talk) 23:48, 2 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:Matthewedwards 05:44, 4 October 2008 [12].
I am nominating this article with Chrishomingtang for featured list nomination as we both believe that this article is ready for this promotion. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 19:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from SRX
- Lead
- The NBA All-Rookie Team is an annual National Basketball Association (NBA) honor given since the 1962–63 NBA season to the best rookies during the regular season. - best? What makes them the best?
- Lead
- Replaced by the word "top." The honor is determined by voting.—Chris! ct 22:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The All-Defensive Team is generally composed of two five-man lineups, a first team and a second team. - what is the All Defensive team?
- Overall
- Looks good meets the FL Criteria besides the flaws I pointed out above.
- Overall
--SRX 22:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments
- Lead
- No respect is given to positions. ?
- Gave an example. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 04:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is still confusing, what are you trying to say, that positions don't matter in the process?--SRX 14:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is what we're trying to say. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 18:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you should straight forward say that.--SRX 19:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you haven't noticed, No respect means the same thing as don't matter. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 19:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you should straight forward say that.--SRX 19:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is what we're trying to say. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 18:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is still confusing, what are you trying to say, that positions don't matter in the process?--SRX 14:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gave an example. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 04:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are No images, would benefit by having one.
- No respect is given to positions. ?
- Lead
- Further comments
- No room for image.—Chris! ct 18:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the infobox?--SRX 19:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a navbox, not an infobox.—Chris! ct 00:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My comments have been resolved but one, which is cr 6, no images.--SRX 21:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you suggest an image to even add on this list? I really can't think of any image you can put up. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 22:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An image of one of the recipients (a major one). Or upload a logo under FUR.--SRX 02:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want me to put just one picture of just one honoree? Or upload what logo under FUR? -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 02:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, ONE. A logo, of the NBA All Rookie Team, if there is one.--SRX 20:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no logo for the NBA All-Rookie Team. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 23:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then an image of a recipient.--SRX 02:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Look below SatyrTN's last comment. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 04:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see, it seems like s/he also agrees for the addition of an image. One image of a recipient will not hurt, is there a way to squeeze it in the lead? Make the table smaller? Or add it in the key section, a small one.--SRX 13:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support - original comments resolved but there is still no image.--SRX 01:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see, it seems like s/he also agrees for the addition of an image. One image of a recipient will not hurt, is there a way to squeeze it in the lead? Make the table smaller? Or add it in the key section, a small one.--SRX 13:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Look below SatyrTN's last comment. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 04:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then an image of a recipient.--SRX 02:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no logo for the NBA All-Rookie Team. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 23:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, ONE. A logo, of the NBA All Rookie Team, if there is one.--SRX 20:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want me to put just one picture of just one honoree? Or upload what logo under FUR? -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 02:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An image of one of the recipients (a major one). Or upload a logo under FUR.--SRX 02:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cr. 6: can you rob from the First-team "Nationality" column to make the other nationality column wider?
- No, because some country names on the left "Nationality" column are longer.—Chris! ct 19:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- first-team vote, et al.
- Hope I did it right...just make sure. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 18:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I undid it because the NBA doesn't put hyphen between "first team" or "second team." See [13].
- Comma after 2007, perhaps?
- "Respect" is not quite the word.
- Then what word do you prefer? -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 18:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS breach: "currently" is a dangerous word. "As of 2008", unlinked please.
- I linked the season. Hope it won't be a problem. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 18:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Inconsistent case for "second team". I'd minimise caps.
- Currently, I'm at school doing this, so I don't have time to do that. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 18:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Tony (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What you do mean by OK? Does it mean you support, or are you answering the last question? -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 18:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, Tony rarely supports, so an "OK" is a sign that all his concerns have been met. sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What you do mean by OK? Does it mean you support, or are you answering the last question? -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 18:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Tony (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- SatyrTN comments
- MOS:FLAG suggests that the nationality flags should be removed.
- May you be more specific since I don't see anywhere on WP:MOS that the flags should be removed from ths article. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 00:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you read the second point "Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables, infoboxes or lists provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand", you will see that these flags are appropriate.—Chris! ct 00:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So the citizenship of the player is intimately tied to their place on the NBA All-Rookie Team? I don't think so. Their nationality has nothing to do with being on the team. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you read the second point "Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables, infoboxes or lists provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand", you will see that these flags are appropriate.—Chris! ct 00:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets just wait for User:Chrishomingtang's reply as he is currently unblocked for less than 24 hours. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 19:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Selections" header is redundant
- Sorry, I only have an intermediate understanding of English. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 00:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The current row at the top of the table that says "Selections" doesn't need to be there - it doesn't add anything. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets just wait for User:Chrishomingtang's reply as he is currently unblocked for less than 24 hours. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 19:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The headers "Players" and "Teams" should probably be singular - each row is a player, each player is on one team.
- But ithe article is called, NBA All-Rookie Team, not NBA All-Rookie Team selections. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 00:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The title of the article has nothing to do with it. The table lists players and information about them - each "Player" (singular) and their "Team" (singular) when they are on the All-Rookie team. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets just wait for User:Chrishomingtang's reply as he is currently unblocked for less than 24 hours. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 19:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done The reason is that each year's teams consist of more than one players, so it would make no sense for those words to be singular.—Chris! ct 18:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bob Lanier (1970-71) - Detroit Pistons isn't linked.
- Now that I think of it, I'm wondering about over-linking. Seems like "United States" doesn't need to be linked throughout the table, and that you could probably save a *lot* of room by indicating "(USA)" by the player's name instead of "FLAG United States" in a separate column. And linking every instance of "Boston Celtics" seems redundant and over-linky. That being said, if you linked to each season (as in [[1972–73 Boston Celtics season|Boston Celtics]]), that would probably be good.
- Why would you link the team to the player's team season of that year? -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 00:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To see who else was on their team that year. But I could be wrong. But I *know* that overlinking Boston Celtics doesn't work for a Featured List. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But you're wrong according to SRX on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/All-NBA Team/archive2, he said , "Well citing WP:OVERLINK The same link multiple times. Redundant links make future maintenance harder. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own). So you can do what you want, but tables are the exceptions." You should really read these things carefully. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 05:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please - you're close to attacking with comments about *me* instead of about *the content*. My point is that every row of the table has a team that is wikilinked to the same place - that's the absolute definition of overlinking, and I would disagree with . I've given you two options - link to the specific year for that team (ie 1967-68 Boston Celtics season) or remove the links for all the teams. The way it is doesn't make sense. The substance of WP:OVERLINK says "Avoid obvious, redundant, and useless links" - IMO, these are redundant (which means repeated several times unnecessarily). -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But you're wrong according to SRX on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/All-NBA Team/archive2, he said , "Well citing WP:OVERLINK The same link multiple times. Redundant links make future maintenance harder. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own). So you can do what you want, but tables are the exceptions." You should really read these things carefully. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 05:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To see who else was on their team that year. But I could be wrong. But I *know* that overlinking Boston Celtics doesn't work for a Featured List. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets just wait for User:Chrishomingtang's reply as he is currently unblocked for less than 24 hours. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 19:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But table is an exception to WP:OVERLINK. In "What generally should not be linked" section, bullet 4: The same link multiple times. Redundant links make future maintenance harder. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own). If you disagree with that, I guess you will have bring that to the talk page of WP:OVERLINK.—Chris! ct 18:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with the need for a picture or logo.
- 1. NO LOGO FOR THE NBA ALL-ROOKIE TEAM 2. Are you seriously suggesting me to put a random picture of a random honoree? -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 00:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say that was necessary, though the pictures of some of the more well-known people on the list might be appropriate. Are there team photos? Or *anything* to add a picture to the article? It's quite barren without. Just my opinion... -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But you can only put one picture in the article as the table is too big. Putting one more well-known person is redundant (I don't know what that means, but sound cool). No team photos. If you can find a picture that I can possibly put on, then I'll maybe consider. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 05:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All I'm saying is Wikipedia:Featured list criteria #6 - "it has images if they are appropriate to the subject". Is there nothing available? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm for sure that there are no images that are appropriate to the subject. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 19:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All I'm saying is Wikipedia:Featured list criteria #6 - "it has images if they are appropriate to the subject". Is there nothing available? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But you can only put one picture in the article as the table is too big. Putting one more well-known person is redundant (I don't know what that means, but sound cool). No team photos. If you can find a picture that I can possibly put on, then I'll maybe consider. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 05:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say that was necessary, though the pictures of some of the more well-known people on the list might be appropriate. Are there team photos? Or *anything* to add a picture to the article? It's quite barren without. Just my opinion... -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I too question the use of Flags, and even the entire Nationality column. What does it do to enhance the understanding the scope of the list? Including it makes the table extremely wide. I'm lucky I have a large widescreen monitor. I'd hate to think what it looked like on a normal 19" screen
- I have a 19" monitor and it's fine. Lets just wait for User:Chrishomingtang's reply as he is currently unblocked for less than 12 hours. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 07:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What does the name "Kareem Abdul-Jabbar" have to do with this list? Seems like trivia here -- it might fare better at his actual article
- His name was Lew Alcindo, but was changed to what most people know him as Kareem Abdul Jabbar. Just in case some readers don't know who's Lew Alcindor, but knows areem Abdul-Jabbar. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 07:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, then what does the meaning of his name have to do with it? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Tim Duncan is ... eligible to play for the U.S. internationally." -- Again, wrt this list, so? Etc, etc
- We put the nationality of the VIR, but Duncan plays for the U.S. internationally. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 07:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- VIR? Still, what does his nationality have to do with him becoming part of the All-Rookie Team? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While an image would be good, it isn't mandatory. Does the All-Rookie Team have a logo? If so it might be worth adding.
- For the last time, there is no such thing as a logo for the NBA All-Rookie Team. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 07:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since several people has commented about the flag or the nationality in different places, I will address this here again. Because of the numbers of foreign players, the nationality column and the flags can provided additional info to the readers. BTW MOS:FLAG allows the use of flags on table. —Chris! ct 18:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Their nationality can be found by clicking on each individual's own article. While of different nations, their nationality had nothing to do with their selection on the Team (or at least the article doesn't say it does). Again, what does knowing their nationalities do to aid the reader in the understanding of the topic? I have left a message on the talk page of MOS:FLAGS and asked someone involved with the guideline to come here and comment. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this was only my nomination, I would change it automatically. Since this is a co-nomination, I am for sure that Chrishomintang will appeal like usual. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 06:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe this is the type of table the MOS is intended for their is plenty of space for full country names. I'd suggest a removing of the flags and converting the table to sortable table. Gnevin (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand. What is the big deal if there are flags in the table? I don't mean to offend anyone but it seems to me that many FLC reviewers dislike flags and like to pick on them. I guess that if I want this to pass, I will have to remove the flags.—Chris! ct 18:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One user told me (I forgot who) told me that adding the nationality will make the list more bigger instead of one thin list. If this is about showing the flags, I think this is ridiculous, but we have to follow MOS:FLAGS and remove the flags. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand. What is the big deal if there are flags in the table? I don't mean to offend anyone but it seems to me that many FLC reviewers dislike flags and like to pick on them. I guess that if I want this to pass, I will have to remove the flags.—Chris! ct 18:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEBOLD, {{sofixit}} Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe this is the type of table the MOS is intended for their is plenty of space for full country names. I'd suggest a removing of the flags and converting the table to sortable table. Gnevin (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also added some images. Hopefully everyone is satisfied.—Chris! ct 21:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this was only my nomination, I would change it automatically. Since this is a co-nomination, I am for sure that Chrishomintang will appeal like usual. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 06:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not an actionable comment towards this list, but now that you've removed the flags in this list, you probably should remove the flags from the other awards lists for consistency. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I read through the prose and examined the table, and see nothing of concern. Well done. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:18, 2 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:Matthewedwards 16:40, 2 October 2008 [14].
List is well researched & referenced. Dan arndt (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Needs a little attention to WP:MOS
- You've misused {{tl:Main}}. See the documentation on the template. It should only be used when you've split a big article into several parts, and the main article is written in summary style.
removed Paul Kelly (musician). Dan arndt (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Grammar of your lead paragraph needs a look. I think the second sentence could be reworded to flow a bit better.
Second sentence has been reworded: hopefully it scans better now.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Footnotes link in the Infobox style table is broken.
fixed footnote link. Dan arndt (talk) 10:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a certain amount of inconsistency between the tables. In some you have a column 'Nominated work' and in others you have 'For' for example. I also dislike the way that entries in the second column frequently 'half-span' entries in the first column. I would prefer to see the entries in the second column repeated.
fixed the column headings to ensure consistency & have fixed 'half-span' enteries - as per suggestion. Dan arndt (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You introduce abbreviations at odd times. For example, you've used 'Australasian Performing Right Association' a couple of times by the time you start using APRA. Might as well just use it from the first.
Good point, should look better.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have some overlinking going on: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking. You don't need to keep linking the same term throughout an article.
- In trying to correct some of this, you've started linking section titles, which you shouldn't do according to WP:MOS. Mrh30 (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
De-Linked section titles, used linked abbreviations within first sentence after section heading (where applicable).Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get these done and the article should be well on the way. Mrh30 (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments Definite progress. Compare some of the other similar lists currently in the nomination procees, such as List of The Neptunes awards. That list has several key things that raise it above the Paul Kelly one currently.
- I've just had a look at the FLC awards articles including List of The Neptunes awards, List of Aerosmith awards, List of Metallica awards and List of Ciara awards. I have a better idea of what you mean. I based my work on this list by modelling it on the FL List of Crowded House awards which was passed just over a year ago.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Consistent width of tables
See next point.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reorder columns of tables Year-Song-Award-Result
- Both of these problems seem to be handled by using {{awards table}}, which I've just learnt about (by following your advice and looking at those awards FLCs). I've converted the ARIA table but the others will have to wait for tommorrow.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rest of tables should now have consistent widths and reordered columns.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You've still got some overlinking going on. For example Paul Kelly himself is linked multiple times. Kev Carmody is linked in two different but consecutive notes.
I've delinked a few more, hopefully its enough.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you use the 'Infobox Musician Awards' template instead of your own custom box?
Thanks for the Heads-up there. I didn't even know there was such an Infobox!Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting there! Mrh30 (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Ed Nimmervoll runs Howlspace, he has been an Australian rock music commentator/editor since 1966 and Howlspace editor for about ten years. He also writes reviews for allmusic, including the entry for Paul Kelly which is summarised from his Howlspace entry.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See Paul Kelly discography discussion at its FLC comments.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:25, 23 September 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. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that there have been other posts claiming that mvdbase is not reliable. I'm not sure that I can definitively demonstrate that it is reliable for all those users. However I will attempt to support my opinion that it is reliable:
- 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. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- mvdbase Introduction claims that it has existed since 1998 (initially as VideoZone), that it is maintained and produced by Alex S Garcia, that input is by email or online forms.
- mvdbase stats claims 56070 videos in its database with 41498 having a director named.
- mvdbase Goals and motivations also asks for input and adds that it will be acknowledged on a credit page.
- Alexa Internet analysis at Site information from Alexa shows mvdbase was first registered in December 1999 and is run by Alex S Garcia from a site in France.
- According to Top reference related websites by number of links from Wikipedia it has 55 links from within Wikipedia.
- It is cited by UK Screen The Film and Music Network e.g. Andrea Chiozzotto: Director of Photography.
- It is cited by Poemhunter e.g. Melissa Byers references bibliography.
- LinkedIn profile claims Alex Garcia has been an entertainment journalist for 15 years and a webmaster for over ten years.
- Westfield State College Ely Library lists mvdbase as Film & Televison Web Resource.
In summary, #1, #2 and #3 show that the website gives its sources and methods, the others either reinforce some of the claims made on the mvdbase website or show that it has a reputation for reliability.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've decided to use the mvdbase ref as a backup, I now have ARIA (search by history of Year: 1988) itself confirm that Claudia Castle directed the video. I hope this resolves the problem for this article.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Telstra is an Australian telco which runs BigPond (an internet provider), they sponsor webspace for the Not For Sale Country Music Awards archive. The awards themselves are not determined by BigPond. The sponsor for the awards in 2000 was Toyota.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- APRA has recently reformatted its webpage and moved its Search engine tool. I've found the new url and inserted it into the ref.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think we need the stray awards at the end of the first sentence, there's a certain reasonable time when bold is not useful anymore. Also, I think the title sounds more like "Awards given out by Paul Kelly"; it would be good to rename "List of awards won by Paul Kelly". The crusade starts somewhere. --Golbez (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fixed lead sentence - deleted highlighting of awards. Have been following the discussion on FLC talk page and don't have a problem with the renaming of the article - provided that there is some sort of agreed convention, with all similar articles being renamed accordingly. The only point I would raise is that most of these articles deal with nominations as well as wins so "list of awards won by Paul Kelly" would not be entirely correct. I would hope that this issue as it is unreslved would not delay the finalisation of the article's FLC. Dan arndt (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise, under those same circumstances, "List of Paul Kelly awards" is not entirely correct. :) I did not oppose, merely commented; the crusade is not bloody yet. :P I have no opposition to this being a featured list. --Golbez (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Lead should be expanded to a pair of beefy paragraphs.
agreed, totally new paragraph added to Lead which details all his studio albums. Add some more detail to previous Lead paragrah (now paragraph two.)Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "who has either won, or been nominated, for " odd phrasing - I think he's won and been nominated, right?
- "has won includes eight " include.
- What criteria for inclusion are being used? You have a number of award ceremonies which don't have Wikipedia articles. Check Criterion 3 of WP:WIAFL for "defined scope".
- I believe this has been addressed in re-writing the Lead paragraphs, first paragraphy details main studio albums, second paragraph describes awards being considered.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to be 7 nominations short in the infobox?
whoops forgot to fill in last two for some unknown reason.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- " under many guises " I think you perform in many guises, not under them.
- "under many guises including as a solo act, the Paul ...." I still find this and the rest of the sentence confusing.
I've restructured this whole sentence: is it any better?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "...performed or composed award winning or nominated songs with other artists Christine Anu, Uncle ..." "other artists including ..."?
- "His most nominated category ..." The category for which he has received most nominations...
- "years in a row 1995–2002 " "...row from 1995 to 2002"
- "honour songwriters and music composers" for what?
Expanded the information here.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Australia's longest running music awards" citation?
It's a claim made on the awards page but I've modified the sentence to say they started in 1973 (their archives support this claim) and then cited their stated purpose for the awards. No longer make the claim that they're the longest running music awards.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "and recognise achievements in live entertainment " such as?
I've added more to the Mo Awards section with a listing of 2008 categories and 1989/1990 relevant (to PK) category.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 1 is not specific enough.
I changed the references order when I beefed up the Lead (see above) and before I read this point. I'm assuming that you're talking about the APRA ref has to give the specific songwriters per song? I've rejigged the "To Her Door" ref so that it points straight to the result. The Treaty ref has been changed to an ASCAP result as the APRA display runs out of room before getting to Kelly's name! The other songwriters' refs will be per particular song using APRA where possible.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As indicated above, APRA has recently reconfigured its webpage including its search engines. The changeover broke the ref that I originally had in place and which was fixed by using a different url to their new engine. As a consequence the search engine works differently from previously. Specificially: the re-jigging didn't stick. When you click on Search result it only gives the last searched result no matter whether you have searched six songs today or searched for a song some time ago. The user would then have to click on "search again" button and then input the song title they actually want. Hence the original note for user to input song title appears to be the best that can be done with the current APRA search engine. ASCAP results appears to stick but unfortunately not all Australian songs are registered with ASCAP e.g. a search for Paul Maurice Kelly gives 188 entries (some duplicated) but does not show "Last Train" performed by Anu and Kelly, which is verifiable at APRA engine after input of LAST TRAIN.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support - good stuff apart from the non-specific reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added ASCAP specific references for the following Kelly songs "To Her Door", "Treaty", "Jindabyne" and "Lonesome but Free", unfortunately some songs are not registered with ASCAP and so the less specific APRA search engine is supplied where users will have to input the songs' titles e.g. LAST TRAIN, LANTANA, I WISH I WAS A TRAIN, ONE NIGHT THE MOON, and FROM LITTLE THINGS BIG THINGS GROW.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not being entirely satisfied with the APRA search engine I have tried a 'work-around' to provide a more specifc result for all the above songs. The ASCAP refs remain in place, particularly important for "Treaty". The user no longer needs to input anything: the search results occur on a re-direct page from the base search engine. The APRA search engine only operates on song titles, it provides up to 250 outputs for a search string. Thus some results here may have considerable outputs e.g. "Last Train" gives 89 works and the required one is 12th down. I hope this is closer to being a specific reference.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added ASCAP specific references for the following Kelly songs "To Her Door", "Treaty", "Jindabyne" and "Lonesome but Free", unfortunately some songs are not registered with ASCAP and so the less specific APRA search engine is supplied where users will have to input the songs' titles e.g. LAST TRAIN, LANTANA, I WISH I WAS A TRAIN, ONE NIGHT THE MOON, and FROM LITTLE THINGS BIG THINGS GROW.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:24, 30 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 promoted by User:Matthewedwards 16:40, 2 October 2008 [15].
Here's my second FLC nomination, this one a seasons list from the franchise that my user name is based on. I'll be here to handle any concerns, but I believe this meets the standards now. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The lead image can get bigger, 250px, maybe?
- Increased size of picture to 250px. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "#" sign is usually a symbol for a "number", so I'd appreciate if you could substitute it. It's a little weird to see "1st #".Hmm, after thinking a little, maybe it's better not to indicate division titles in the "finish" column, just in the "division" column will do.- Changed the symbol. Just so I know, are you saying that the finish column should have all indicators removed, including bolding and colors (excepting wild-card years, etc.)? Giants2008 (17-14) 23:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the conference and division titles are already indicated in their respective columns.--Crzycheetah 00:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed the symbol. Just so I know, are you saying that the finish column should have all indicators removed, including bolding and colors (excepting wild-card years, etc.)? Giants2008 (17-14) 23:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The links in the See also section should be in the Giants template instead.- I just removed them. The main history page is already in the template, and the links didn't add that much anyway. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to cite the remaining notes, as well?In ref#2, "Associated Press" should be mentioned as "work", not as "author".Maxwell's link cannot be opened; it's a dead link.- It works for me, but I replaced it to be safe. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead image can get bigger, 250px, maybe?
--Crzycheetah 20:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! I'll get the picture sorted out next. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done all of these now. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! I'll get the picture sorted out next. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - odd formatting is the key for me.
- Link $ to USD.
- At the article's peer review, I was told that the U.S. dollar doesn't need linking, especially not in a U.S.-based article. Tony1 has complained about this practice numerous times at FAC. If you really want me to do it, it's no problem, but I need to work on the formatting first. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair play, leave it - just for such an historic quotation about money, I thought it was worth the link. No worries either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At the article's peer review, I was told that the U.S. dollar doesn't need linking, especially not in a U.S.-based article. Tony1 has complained about this practice numerous times at FAC. If you really want me to do it, it's no problem, but I need to work on the formatting first. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Behind the defensive play..." - a little colloquial for my taste.
- I got rid of this, keeping the focus on the title they won that year This matches better with the rest of the lead, at least in my view. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe (just maybe) worth emphasising quite how much of an upset beating the Patriots in 2007 was? Maybe not - could be POV I suppose, but what an upset...
- How about "widely considered to be one of the biggest upsets in Super Bowl history."? I won't say it's the biggest, because this game has a firm grip on that claim. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What do blank cells mean? I avoid them like the plague - too much room for uncertainty... perhaps a general note?
- I left a note after the date of the statistics' last update. The note is a little technical for my tastes, but I'm open to suggestions. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Wild Card Berth typically capitalised (question)?
- It's used many ways (capitals, lower-case, hyphenated). The NFL uses Wild Card here,[16] so I imagine it can remain that way. The Berth really didn't need capitalization, though, so I made that and the other Berths and Champions lower-case. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've always asked, why is the season link bold?
- I assume this was the result of these lists having two sets of year links, with the bolding being used to differentiate them. It doesn't matter now, because they're gone. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support still not overly pleased about the blank cells, perhaps an en or em-dash instead? Explanatory note is, however, a good start. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went with the em dash and updated the note as well. It looks much better to me now; what do you think? Giants2008 (17-14) 17:44, 29 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 promoted by User:Matthewedwards 16:40, 2 October 2008 [17].
I'm nominating this list for featured status as I believe that after a peer review which addresses many issues this list is now meets all the criteria necessary to become a featured list. Thanks in advance for your comments NapHit (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I was not able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Am I missing something, or does the maths for 1999 not add up? Metz are listed as winning the first leg 1-0, and the second 3-1, but the aggregate is apparently 3-2. Also, I'm confused as to why some countries are bolded and others are not Is it the winners who are bolded? In which case, why are West Ham bolded if they lost? Gran2 16:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I got the scores the wrong way round, fixed them now, yeh the teams in bold are the winners of the matches, I'm sure that's mentioned in the key above the list of winners NapHit (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well there wasn't one when I looked at it. So West Ham won the tie? If so, you need to change it because it says Metz won. Looking again, 2000 appears to be wrong as well. Zenit St Petersburg apparently won the tie 4-3 but are credited with just 3 goals. Aside from those things, everything else seems okay. Gran2 18:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep you're right fixed this now everything is hopefully in order NapHit (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Okay, I have no other complaints. Gran2 20:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep you're right fixed this now everything is hopefully in order NapHit (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well there wasn't one when I looked at it. So West Ham won the tie? If so, you need to change it because it says Metz won. Looking again, 2000 appears to be wrong as well. Zenit St Petersburg apparently won the tie 4-3 but are credited with just 3 goals. Aside from those things, everything else seems okay. Gran2 18:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - please consider the following.
- " leading European clubs " - is leading required here? a bit POV - especially as you then go through the specific qualification criteria.
- Done
- "after winning initially in 2003" - hmm, pretty obvious they won it that year since they retained it the next. Perhaps just "the previous year" or similar?
- Done
- "have won the competition the most " - on most occasions?
- Done
- caption - " a record two times, a record " - "a record" x2, needs work.
- Tweaked it
- Not sure how fascinating the results per team table is. That kind of info could go in the lead (at least, the big winners could) - only the top 8 or so have featured more than once.
- I think it should stay as it is as it provides useful information, and if it did not include all the teams it could be construed as being incomplete
- Don't pipe the football club publishers - it's a little confusing to think that, for example, the city of Montpellier is a publisher of UEFA Intertoto Cup results.
- Fixed
- Is there a football list category this can be added to?
- I don't think so I couldn't find one
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responded to your queries, Cheers NapHit (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - made a couple of microscopic tweaks, all looks good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "...UEFA Cup, the Intertoto Cup..." - should be "with the Intertoto Cup"
- Done NapHit (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2006 and 2007 entries in the table seems a bit misleading. I'm wondering why the first qualifying round matches are included, which seem a bit random to me. But I might just be getting confused.
- Those are the matces the two teams played to qualify for the uefa cup, and after 2005 the team that won the intertoto cup was the team that progressed the furthest, hence why those matches are included NapHit (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but maybe it could be mentioned with a footnote the match they played in that was the furthest of the UEFA Cup teams, or some way show how it was them that won the Intertoto. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's mentioned in the lead, if that's sufficient if not, I will add a note NapHit (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, my concern is that it's not really all that clear what the 2006 and 2007 matches were exactly, and how the team did win the Intertoto Cup. From reading the lead, we know that it is from progressing furthest in the competition that season, but I think it would be worth mentioning where that team did reach in the competition that season. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok added the notes NapHit (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, my concern is that it's not really all that clear what the 2006 and 2007 matches were exactly, and how the team did win the Intertoto Cup. From reading the lead, we know that it is from progressing furthest in the competition that season, but I think it would be worth mentioning where that team did reach in the competition that season. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's mentioned in the lead, if that's sufficient if not, I will add a note NapHit (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but maybe it could be mentioned with a footnote the match they played in that was the furthest of the UEFA Cup teams, or some way show how it was them that won the Intertoto. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference 34 - "Lillestrom 0-3 Newcastle (agg 1-4}" - should be "(agg 1-4)".
- Good spot, fixed NapHit (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments all taken care off NapHit (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Now comments dealt with, good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:09, 2 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.