Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2008: Difference between revisions
Scorpion0422 (talk | contribs) + 13 |
Scorpion0422 (talk | contribs) + 11 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 1982 Atlantic hurricane season}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Caltrain stations}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New Jersey Nets head coaches}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Iron Maiden discography}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Tokyo Mew Mew chapters}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/State highways in Hamilton County, New York}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Killswitch Engage discography}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best short fiction}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Pendulum discography}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The O.C. episodes}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of premiers of Prince Edward Island}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Sam Roberts}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Sam Roberts}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FA Trophy winners}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FA Trophy winners}} |
Revision as of 01:46, 6 December 2008
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:46, 6 December 2008 [1].
Now that things with the timeline killing bug have been figured out, I've created images to replace them and using a helpful link supplied by Rambo's Revenge, I've also mapped the image for this timeline. With that said, I believe this timeline is ready for the process known as Featured List Nomination (or Candidate if you so desire). All thoughts and comments are welcome :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wheres Tropical Depression 5? - you seem to jump from TD 4 (Chris) to TD 6 without including TD5 Jason Rees (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, my bad, SD Two is Chris, TD Four should be TD Five which is Debby. I'll fix that now Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportJason Rees (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "Hurricane Alberto was one of the few storms to form in the Gulf of Mexico and not make landfall." Can you be more specific than "few"? Where is the source for this statement?
- "However, rains from Alberto caused severe flooding which killed 23 people in Cuba." Comma after "flooding".
- Only image captions that are complete sentences should have periods at the end. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've corrected these three issues. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The link checker reveals three dead links. Please fix them. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed one, but the other two I cannot because the site they are from is under-construction. So this should only be temporary. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The other three were Laurie of 1969,[1]Henri of 1979,[2] and Jeanne of 1980[3] - space between the ref and "Henri"
- The last paragraph needs to sum up the list more, ie. the first named storm, the most significant ones, and the last ones.--SRX 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I've fixed the reference spacing and added Ernesto to the summary (the last storm). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:46, 6 December 2008 [2].
I am nominating this list because I believe it meets all FL criteria.—Chris! ct 00:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "Caltrain is a commuter rail transit system serving the San Francisco Peninsula and the Santa Clara Valley in the U.S. state of California." "serving"-->that serves.
- "The system serves over 36,993 passengers a day as of fiscal year 2008." as of the fiscal year 2008.
- "(known as Peninsula Commute)"-->(known as the Peninsula Commute)
- Link Double track.
- "36,993 passengers" "7.5 million passengers" "$220 million" need non-breaking spaces.
- "Under Southern Pacific's ownership, the line was double tracked in 1904 and experienced record ridership in 1958, with 7.5 million passengers annually." Split this sentence up.
- "which Peninsula Commute"-->which the Peninsula Commute
- Right-of-way needs disambiguation.
- "Stanford Stadium is a game day-only station" Which sport?
- "while both Atherton and Broadway are served only on weekend." "while"-->and, pluralize weekends.
- "Tamien is served by train on weekday and served by shuttle bus on weekend." Pluralize weekday and weekend.
- "12 stations" Spell out 12, it is at the start of a sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all—Chris! ct 04:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- So Stanford Stadium is a stadium? and a station? doesn't say on the article.
- It is a station, but since the article doesn't exist, I just link it to the stadium.—Chris! ct 20:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then make one to get my support. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 23:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Actually, the article exists. I just misread it when I search for it. Now done.—Chris! ct 07:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then make one to get my support. -- SRE.K.A
- It is a station, but since the article doesn't exist, I just link it to the stadium.—Chris! ct 20:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Align the tables.
- What do you mean?—Chris! ct 20:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The section, "Station"'s table is bigger than the one in "Closed stations". -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 23:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- That is because the "station" table has more info than the "closed stations" table. I don't see how this is a problem.—Chris! ct 03:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- C6. Visual appeal. In short, it'll looks better. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 06:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- But I cannot add more info. The best I could do is increase the width of each column.—Chris! ct 18:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Increased width. If you are still not satisfied, then I am afraid that your comment is not actionable.—Chris! ct 19:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I'm satisfied. At least it looks better. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 23:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I'm satisfied. At least it looks better. -- SRE.K.A
- The section, "Station"'s table is bigger than the one in "Closed stations". -- SRE.K.A
- What do you mean?—Chris! ct 20:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 08:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comments. Can you link or define ridership. I had to look it up - i don't think they would use this word in the UK.
- Wikilink—Chris! ct 20:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How feasible would it be to list which trains stop at each station? Or is it the same for all of them? Or to merge the paragraph about the regularity of service into a "service" or "notes" column. The table seems slightly underused in terms of the info it could convey.Yobmod (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I add a column—Chris! ct 20:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments-
- However, the popularity of the railroad began to decline soon afterward and in 1977 Southern Pacific petitioned to the state government to discontinue Peninsula Commute. - comma before "and in"
- Stanford Stadium is a football-game-day-only station, and both Atherton and Broadway are served only on weekends. - like it was said above, this needs better elaboration to state that it is both a station and stadium.--TRUCO 13:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a station, but since the article doesn't exist, I just link it to the stadium.—Chris! ct 20:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - my review was resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 22:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- support. Could find nothing that needed to be changed, so i think this list meets al the criteria of a FL.Dillypickle (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:46, 6 December 2008 [3].
My first FLC nomination. Thanks to User:David Fuchs for the image check and to User:Chrishomingtang for looking over the article pre-FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I already look through it and can't see any problem. —Chris! ct 02:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- It's about time!
- "The team was moved to a home 40 miles (64 km) away from New York City" – Can this be more specific? Moved to what city? What's the stadium called?
- "He wants to move" – Perhaps "He plans to move"
- Shouldn't "games coached and won" be "games coached and wins" (for both occurrences)?
Gary King (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, Support Gary King (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Sorry for not looking through the article before the FLC, as I was busy with homework. Now on with the comments...
- Led team to ABA championships in 1974 and 1976 --> "Led team to ABA championships in 1974 and 1976" or "2 ABA championships in (1974 and 1976)". I would prefer the second suggestion, as it will be consistent with other List of (team) head coaches.
- Add the note, "Each year is linked to an article about that particular NBA season." on the column, "Term". -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 07:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Butch Beard is not one of the top 10 coaches in NBA history. (second paragraph and list)
- "...won ABA Championships in 1974..." ABA Championships --> ABA championships.
- "...ABA merged with the NBA..." Link to ABA-NBA merger.
- "..., which was 40 miles (64 km) away from New York City." Is this really necessary?
- "New York Nets 1976 (NBA) and New Jersey Nets (NBA) 1976–present" I don't really get this, since it is not mentioned in the prose. Can you tell the readers how the Nets were still called the New York Nets in 1976? You said, in the prose, that they moved to New Jersey in 1976.
-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 07:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done most of your comments. I don't want to link to articles from what looks like plain year-links right now because there is an RfC about that right now. As for the team name, there is no explicit note of when the name changed; however, this source says that the team was the New York Nets in the NBA for a short time. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the link you just provided me, I says that the Nets joined the NBA still as the New York Nets, then change to New Jersey Nets the year after. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 23:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Also, you forgot this one...Add the note, "Each year is linked to an article about that particular NBA season." on the column, "Term". -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 00:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed the years. I didn't add the note because I didn't link the years (seasons). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Laugh out loud. Sorry about that. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 04:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Laugh out loud. Sorry about that. -- SRE.K.A
- Fixed the years. I didn't add the note because I didn't link the years (seasons). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, you forgot this one...Add the note, "Each year is linked to an article about that particular NBA season." on the column, "Term". -- SRE.K.A
- On the link you just provided me, I says that the Nets joined the NBA still as the New York Nets, then change to New Jersey Nets the year after. -- SRE.K.A
- Done most of your comments. I don't want to link to articles from what looks like plain year-links right now because there is an RfC about that right now. As for the team name, there is no explicit note of when the name changed; however, this source says that the team was the New York Nets in the NBA for a short time. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. To be honest, this should be the BEST "List of (NBA team) head coaches" article, but not ever...I'll make one better...Hehehe...:D -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 04:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- But you're a Lakers fan, which means you can only be the second-best... ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- -.- I find that offensive...:( -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 06:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- All in jest. :) Dabomb87 (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- -.- I find that offensive...:( -- SRE.K.A
- But you're a Lakers fan, which means you can only be the second-best... ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- However, because of a weakening U.S. economy, tentative financing of the construction project and protests of local residents who would be displaced by the center, the Nets will not move until at least 2011. 1)Link to the the financial crisis of 2007–2008 or the global economic crisis of 2008, where you say "weakening U.S. economy.
- In the table, you list the accomplishments as Led team to ABA championships in 1974 and 1976. It should be instead..ABA Championship (1974, 1976).
- Done both. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - meets FL standards.--TRUCO 17:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Killervogel5
- "Two Nets coaches, Chuck Daly and Bill Fitch, were named to the Top 10 Coaches in NBA History list." - link top 10 coaches in NBA history as in the table, and reword slightly. It sounds awkward as is. Suggest: "Chuck Daly and Bill Fitch were selected as two of the top 10 coaches in NBA history."
- "Larry Brown is the franchise's all-time leader in regular-season winning percentage (.576)." - link winning percentage.
- Use the city-state template for East Rutherford, New Jersey, and for Brooklyn, New York.
- "The franchise's first head coach was Max Zaslofsky, who coached for two seasons." - saying coach twice in such quick succession is redundant. Suggest "who led the team".
- Suggest superscripting the daggers in the table for visual effect and to eliminate crowding.
- Link the years in the table to the team's season article.
Hope this helps. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I have done most of your suggestions. I don't like linking to cities and states, linking to states doesn't really provide relevant info for the reader, and readers can get to the article about the state through the article about the city. Also, I don't want to superscript the daggers because none of the other head coach FLs do and it doesn't make a huge difference anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:46, 6 December 2008 [4].
After much work and help from various users, this "great monster" is ready. Cannibaloki 17:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Excellent list and well referenced, but a few notes.
- After several auditions and lineup changes, the band settled on vocalist Paul Di'Anno, guitarists Dave Murray and Dennis Stratton, and drummer Clive Burr.-They settled for this when they made their debut, correct? (Just making sure..)
- There needs to be an overall count of their discography in the lead somewhere.--TRUCO 21:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Great article, there is very little wrong with it. The only thing that I feel is worth mentioning is that the paragraphs in the lead seem a little intimidating. Per WP:Layout and WP:Lead I would suggest redistributing them into three or four paragraphs (ideally four). The first paragraph should include the current first sentence, and a breakdown of the discography by type – Ikara talk → 00:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't agree with putting a sentence on top of the lead saying how many albums, singles, compilations, etc they have released, as it can easily be seen on the sand infobox and only makes they lead longer. Also, I've seen in many FL that it's no longer used the phrases: "Discography of", "List of awards and nominations recived by".; That's my opinion. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 03:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you; a bit redundant, since have an infobox to make the count. Cannibaloki 03:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to remove the phrase "discography of..." from the first sentence, and instead use something like: "Iron Maiden are a British heavy metal band. They have released..." If you keep it as is, there should really be a comma after "Iron Maiden" in the first sentence. However, note that infoboxes are intended as a summary of information in an article, not an alternative, so the list of releases should be included in the prose somewhere. The lead is the most sensible choice in this case – Ikara talk → 12:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks great, but TNOTB has been certified gold in Germany. --78.48.76.229 (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Everything has been updated. The first paragraph of the lead was re-written, and shortedned as much as possible. TNOTB recieved a gold certification in Germany: that was updated too. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 17:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent! You have my support as well. --Hullu poro (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks great, you have my support now. All the best – Ikara talk → 00:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Disclosure: I helped with the copy-editing of the article. However, all the credit goes to Cannibaloki and Rockk3r. Great job! Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Support igordebraga ≠ 22:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:46, 6 December 2008 [5].
I am nominating this list for featured list status as I believe it meets all of the current FLC criteria. The entire article is well sourced using reliable references. The lead is comprehensive and provides the relevant details normally found in a chapter list, with the appropriate opening sentence and an appropriate image in the upper right corner. The list itself is well-formatted, comprehensive, and complete. The individual volume summaries are of a reasonable length for 200 page volumes, with all summaries around 300 words each. It has been extensively peer reviewed, both through its own talk page and in the formal PR process, and all issues brought up have been addressed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "The first chapter premiered in the September 2000 issue of Nakayoshi where it was serialized monthly until its conclusion in the in the February 2003 issue." Comma after "Nakayoshi".
- "adapted into a 52 episode anime series"—Hyphenate "52 episode".
- "The manga series is licensed for regional language releases by Pika Édition in France,
byJaponica Polonica Fantastica in Poland, andbyCarlsen Comics in Germany, Denmark, and Sweden." - "Tokyo Mew Mew was licensed for an English language release"—I think "English language" could be hyphenated.
- "Afterwards, she begins displaying cat-like behaviors."-->Afterwards, she begins to display cat-like behaviors.
- "Ichigo learns she is a 'Mew Mew'" Insert a that before "learns".
- "Joined by Keiichiro Akasaka, they go to Cafe Mew Mew, the Mew Project's headquarters."-->She ges with Keiichiro Akasaka to Cafe Mew Mew, the Mew Project's headquarters.
- "The boys request that Ichigo find the other four Mew Mews"—Which boys?
- "he traps all of the chimera animas in a barrier which allows them to be captured and Kish retreats." Comma after "barrier".
- "Mint, who idolized her, is hurt so the the girls gather at her house to cheer her up." "hurt"-->disappointed.
- "the team to the citizens as "Tokyo Mew Mew."" Citizens of what?
I'll comment more later (I can take only so much manga!). Dabomb87 (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All corrected or clarified :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ichigo avoids Masaya out of fear he knows her secret." Add that after "fear".
- "Happy her secret is safe," Add "that" before "her".
- "Meanwhile, the other Mew Mews
go toinvestigate a strange cocoon" - "While Masaya is asleep, Ichigo steals a kiss which turns her back to normal," Comma after "kiss".
- "After a brief run in with Tart" I think "run in" should be hyphenated.
- "Ichigo finds Ryou who fills her in on what happened with the others." Comma after "Ryou".
- "The Mew Mews quickly defeat it, but are attacked by Kish, Pie, and Tart." "but"-->and, the attack by Kish and co. doesn't contradict the Mew Mews' victory.
- "Now almost 8," Clarify that time is the subject.
- "intending to collapse it and kill 50,000 people who are inside to attend a concert."-->intending to collapse it and kill 50,000 people who are attending a concert inside.
- "Ichigo is forced to reveal that she is Mew Ichigo
in orderto fight the alien." - "The Blue Knight joins her and badly wounds Kish, nearly killing him before Ichigo stops him allowing Pie and Tart to take their friend away." Comma after "him".
- "Pie and Tart erect a dome over the city that causes the temperature to rise dangerously, then join Kish and bow before the Blue Knight saying they have been waiting for him." Comma after "Blue Knight".
- "He declares he loves her, but she rejects him causing him to cry and demand to know how he can make her love him." Insert that after "declares", comma after "him".
- "Ichigo is initially unable to deal with Masaya's really being Deep Blue"-->Ichigo is initially unable to deal with Masaya's true identity of Deep Blue...
- "even attacking her fellow Mew Mews when they try to attack the alien"-->and attacks her fellow Mew Mews when they try to attack the alien.
- "As he lying dying in a crying Ichigo's arm" Wrong tense.
- "Masaya decides to study abroad to study endangered species, so the girls hold a mock wedding for he and Ichigo." "so"-->and.
- "Wanting to thank him, she follows him to the café where she accidentally enters the Mew Project laboratory and is merged with the DNA of two endangered species." Comma after café.
- "Shocked, she faints then pretends she does not remember Ryou telling her she is now a Mew Mew, but later begins exhibiting rabbit-like behaviors." Insert that after "pretends".
- "
Meanwhile, the Mew Mews have become very popular due to the media buzz created by the Saint Rose Crusaders, " - "Blaming her for the Mew Mews "becoming bad", the citizens direct their attacks at Mew Berry who runs away to protect the others." Comma after "Mew Berry".
- "Seeing the girl to safety, she returns to Tasuku." Insert "off" after "girl".
- "At the café, Tasuku and Berry team up for the shop's new delivery service and Mew Mews agree that they will all be friends "to the very end."" Insert the before "Mew Mews"
- Change the References section to "References and notes". Dabomb87 (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All done except the last as I don't see why it needs to be done. I never use "References and notes" as a section name in any article I work on. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Read the summaries and they were easy to understand. Sources are okay.Tintor2 (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is "afterward" the word they use, or should it be "afterword"? The latter is more typical for an essay-like piece of writing by the author. But maybe afterward is being used instead of "epilogue"?Dillypickle (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm...I'll have to double check that volume this evening. Might be my own typo. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Checked and yes, they actually use "afterward" instead of "afterword." Its a page with comments from the author, which is normally called afterword in most other series, so its probably another typo from that volume (it had several). Should I mark it with [sic] or a footnote? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:46, 6 December 2008 [6].
first FLC (01:14, 29 September 2008)
previous FLC (18:59, 15 November 2008)
Ok, after solving the final problem with a user on my 1st and 2nd FLCs, I finally got to finish it off, and now I believe this is a sustainable candidate for FL. Again, all comments are open and welcome.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The comments raised in the two previous FLCs seem to have been resolved. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't satisfy the Featured List Criteria, perhaps think about using an alternative to "truncated" in the lead on occasions. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Like Sunderland said, comments have been resolved. All looks good! iMatthew 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:46, 6 December 2008 [7].
Something made by someone. Cannibaloki 15:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- The Westfield, Massachusetts-based metalcore group, Killswitch Engage was formed in 1999, and after sign with Ferret label, released its self-titled full-length debut a year later. - Change sign to signing.
- They sign a record deal with Roadrunner Records, releasing Alive or Just Breathing in 2002. - This needs a transition like They then.. Also change sign to signed.
- The End of Heartache appeared in 2004 and peaked at #21 on the Billboard 200—which is their highest chart position in the United States to date—and sold 38,000 copies in its first week of release. - Reword to The End of Heartache appeared on the Billboard 200 in 2004 peaking at #21—which is their highest chart position in the United States to date—and sold 38,000 copies in its first week of release. Another thing, the dash does not work well between date and the word and. Either split the sentence or use a comma/semi-colon. In addition, to date is WP:WEASEL, give exact year (i.e. 2008).
- The album was certified gold by Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in 2007, for more than 500,000 copies sold. - reword The album was certified gold by Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in 2007 for the sale of more than 500,000 copies.
- Later that year, the band issued its first DVD, (Set This) World Ablaze, which contain a live concert in their hometown, a documentary, and all music videos from 2002 to 2004. - Change contain to contained. Add their before music videos.
- The DVD was certified gold by RIAA in 2006 for 50,000 copies sold. - Reword The DVD was certified gold by RIAA in 2006 for the sale of 50,000 copies.
- Their fourth studio album As Daylight Dies, was released later that year and peaked at #32 on the Billboard 200 with 60,000 sales in its first week. - Comma before the album name.
- Did the singles only chart on the US Main.? Plus is this an appropriate abbreviation for the chart?--TRUCO 01:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Looks good! I just have one little nitpick. Maybe notes could be added to references that take the reader to a database, telling them what should be entered into the search engine and where? I've seen it added to other discographies. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Cannibaloki 02:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:46, 6 December 2008 [8].
4th article in the series, formatted the same as previous ones, whoch have gotten no objections so far, so i think this is also a FL.Yobmod (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "and works produced prior to the inception " prior to-->before.
- "Each award consists of an etched image on lucite on a stand, using a spiral galaxy in a triangle logo, based on the logo the Gaylactic Network." Add which is before "based".
- "The cost of the awards is met through individual donations and fundraising events." Can we use a better word than "met"? How about covered or paid for.
- "the books were released is the preceding years. " Typo?
- Use centered em dashes in table instead of hyphens where there is no data.
- "As of 2008,
onlyone short story has been inducted into the Hall of Fame:" Dabomb87 (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed typo and grammar changes, and replaced hyphens. Therefore all done. Thanks again - without your reviews i don't think any of these lists would have enough comments to pass (and i got my first FL yesterday! :-DYobmod (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as almost identical to other lists, including the changes i suggested for them. I could not find any new mistakes in the lead, and the actual list looks fine.Dillypickle (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:46, 6 December 2008 [9].
I am nominating this discography because I believe it to be complete and well-referenced, and because I feel it now satisfies all featured list criteria. The list had a peer review about two months ago – Ikara talk → 11:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - fails FL Cr 1,2, and 3
- Pendulum is an Australian drum and bass band originating from Perth. - like U.S. states, Perth is in a Australian state, so it should be Perth, Western Australia (or the correct state name).
- Pendulum was formed in 2002 by Rob Swire, Gareth McGrillen and Paul "El Hornet" Harding in Perth, Western Australia. - if what I recommended is done above, then remove Western Australia from this sentence.
- Done, with above – Ikara talk → 12:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Their first individual release was the double A-side "Spiral / Ulterior Motive" in July 2003.[2] The single was only released in New Zealand and did not receive much publicity, but later that year their track "Vault" was met with widespread underground recognition. - These are connected, but in the first sentence it should be stated that it was their first individual singles release. What is verifying the statement about underground recognition?
- Done, specified that it was the first individual singles release, and added reference for the latter statement – Ikara talk → 00:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Soon after the band relocated to the United Kingdom, where they were joined by guitarist Perry ap Gwynedd, drummer Paul Kodish, and MC Ben "the Verse" Mount. - is the "ap" supposed to be there?
- Comment – his full name is "Perry ap Gwynedd", checking various sources including the band's official website will confirm this. So the "ap" is supposed to be there – Ikara talk → 12:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Five singles were taken from the album, including "Slam / Out Here", the first single by Pendulum to reach the top forty in the UK Singles Chart. - it sounds like Pendulum literally took only 5 songs and ranked them on the UK Chart. This would be better worded as Five singles were produced from the album, etc.
- Done, as proposed – Ikara talk → 12:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two further singles were released; the Pendulum remix of "Voodoo People" originally by The Prodigy, which reached number twenty in the UK charts and was the band's most successful single for almost three years,[4] and "Blood Sugar / Axle Grinder", which was later amended to the re-issue of Hold Your Colour due to its popularity. - this is going to need a full stop somewhere, or a semicolon, this is a ridiculously long sentence. Also, when were these singles released, it is not stated?
- Done, separated into four sentences along with both release dates – Ikara talk → 00:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Source for this statement Contains a cut version of Pendulum's performance at the iTunes Festival 2008, consisting only of songs performed from the album In Silico. in the live albums section?
- Done, reference added – Ikara talk → 12:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Source for this statement Contains songs written by Pendulum, as well as by other artists that have been mixed by Pendulum. - in the compilation section?
- Done, reference added – Ikara talk → 12:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Has there been an attempt to look for the missing directors in the music videos section, if so, instead of leaving them blank, place an emdash there or the word Unknown with a footnote explaining why they could not be found.
- Done, the remaining three directors have been found and added with references – Ikara talk → 00:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--TRUCO: 00:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good so far, but what about my other comments that have no replies?--TRUCO 21:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about the split reply, I have been fairly busy and tracking down the three missing video directors took me several hours over the last few days. Hopefully I have now addressed all the problems you found with the article. Thanks for all the suggestions, they were very helpful – Ikara talk → 00:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - my review was addressed and it now meets WP:WIAFL. +Your welcome :)--TRUCO 17:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposefor all the reasons given above, but especiailly for the missing directors. Writing unknown might be ok for one entry, but for half of them it clearly does not meet "comprehensive", no matter if finding the director is not a simple websearch. Sometimes getting featured content requires more hard work - there is no way that this info is inherently uncitable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by yobmod (talk • contribs) 09:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully I have also addressed your concerns with the article now, the missing directors have all been added. If you can find any other issues holding this article back from FL status I would be grateful. All the best – Ikara talk → 00:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks much better. Support.Yobmod (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support All my issues were resolved at the peer review, and the article now meets all criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question What makes rolldabeats.com a reliable source? I couldn't find much info on it on the main page. It looks questionable to me, and since you rely so heavily on it in your citations, it's kind of a make-or-break issue for me. Drewcifer (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rolldabeats is a database compiled by a small team of volunteers in a fashion similar to IMDb, however unlike IMDb no information is directly submitted by the general public. New data and corrections can be proposed by various people, including the artists, via the forums or email, but are only published on the website after they have been verified by one member of the team. As such I believe Rolldabeats to be reliable as a tertiary source for the purpose of citing track listings as in the article currently. An alternative for the article would be to cite the liner notes of each release instead, which would be considered reliable but prevents readers from easily verifying the information. My preference would be to use Rolldabeats, but if you disagree that it is reliable then I can change the citations as appropriate – Ikara talk → 12:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Use the liner notes in addition to Rolldabeats. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, the article now references the liner notes of the releases directly where appropriate, and then provides the Rolldabeats for support. Hopefully that should address any concerns over the reliability of the references in the article. Thanks for the suggestion – Ikara talk → 15:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, but the one use of it still bothers me. I see what your saying about how info is added to the cite, but it's not just important that it seems "reliable" in quotes, but satisfies Wikipedia's definition of "reliable". I'm not so sure it does. Also, along the same lines, mvdbase.com is not considered reliable. Drewcifer (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, the article now references the liner notes of the releases directly where appropriate, and then provides the Rolldabeats for support. Hopefully that should address any concerns over the reliability of the references in the article. Thanks for the suggestion – Ikara talk → 15:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Use the liner notes in addition to Rolldabeats. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referring to the one remaining reference that uses rolldabeats directly, or the use of it to support the other references? I could probably remove the one reference (I overlooked it when changing the others) but I feel that we should keep the rolldabeats links with the other references. The mvdbase.com reference was a replacement for this reference which I was unsure about the reliability of. I expect I can find a substitute reference shortly. Thanks – Ikara talk → 02:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Looks good. =) Cannibaloki 02:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Certifications (sales thresholds) → BPI certification
- Done, although this may eventually have to be reverted should the band receive certification in other countries – Ikara talk → 01:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Warner Music UK Ltd. → Warner Music
- Done – Ikara talk → 01:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove: "Recorded: 28 July 2008" or move to notes (live albums' table)
- Removed, that information shouldn't be there at all, it isn't on any other albums – Ikara talk → 01:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why has space between word and reference? (like the entire 'Music videos', 'Remixes' & 'Miscellaneous' sections)
- Removed, the spacing was personal preference, but doesn't comply with MoS – Ikara talk → 01:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Miscellaneous → Other appearances (more normal)
- Done – Ikara talk → 01:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove 'Radio mixes' section – remember, this is a discography
- Removed, these were left over from when I started, I was unsure if they should be kept at the time – Ikara talk → 01:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that you merge the sections 'Remixes' and 'Miscellaneous' to 'Other appearances'.
- Merged, however I have kept the remixes and original songs in separate subsections to make some distinction between original and covered material. Not sure if that is what you meant – Ikara talk → 01:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Pendulum remix) on the section remixes is redundant.
- Removed – Ikara talk → 01:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cannibaloki 21:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All done (I think), thanks for the suggestions – Ikara talk → 01:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the "radio mixes" are not needed, and that Remixes and misc would look better combined. If that is done, i would support this as being inline with other discog. FLs. Dillypickle (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sections have been merged, sort of, and I have removed the "radio mixes" section – Ikara talk → 01:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:46, 6 December 2008 [10].
This has undergone a brief peer review, and the four season it covers (& transcludes are in parts) are all featured. I think it meets all the criteria. Thanks in advance for comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "The show ran until February 22, 2007, with a total of 92 episodes split over four seasons."-->The show ran until February 22, 2007, with 92 episodes split over 4 seasons. MOSNUM says to make comparative quantities written out the same way. Done
- "Season three was twenty-five episodes long, but only sixteen episodes were ordered for the final fourth season as falling ratings meant the show was cancelled."-->Season three was twenty-five episodes long, but only sixteen episodes were ordered for the final fourth season as falling ratings led to the show's cancellation. Done
- "Additionally The O.C. The Complete Series was released on November 27, 2007" Comma after "Additionally". Done
- "For registered members of the US iTunes Store episodes of the first, second, and fourth season are available to purchase and download." Comma after "Store". Done
- The Note system is not working properly.
On hold- Comment this is because the note is in a transcluded table. The link down works, but not back up as I guess it tries to go to the transcluded article. I cannot see a way round this, without transcluding the notes section from the season pages, but this wouldn't allow the wording to differ, hence I have not done it. I am very open to suggestions on this though. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider using Template:Ref label system. I can do it if you want. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, thanks for that I didn't think it would work. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider using Template:Ref label system. I can do it if you want. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this is because the note is in a transcluded table. The link down works, but not back up as I guess it tries to go to the transcluded article. I cannot see a way round this, without transcluding the notes section from the season pages, but this wouldn't allow the wording to differ, hence I have not done it. I am very open to suggestions on this though. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good list, good introduction and well sourced. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Sorry I missed the PR, I was having some issues.
- "The O.C." and "iTunes Store" are WP:Overlinked Done
- "troubled teen": WP:TONE --> "troubled teenager". I'd also prefer "teen drama" to be "teenaged drama" Done
- "The show" implies it's a one-off. "The series" is better, IMHO Done
- Use "United States" before "US", and "United Kingdom" before "UK" Done
- "For registered members of the US iTunes Store, episodes of the first, second, and fourth season are available to purchase and download." This implies not all episodes of the seasons are available, but my guess is that they all are. Done
- "This section indexes official specials and recap episodes that were made specifically by the creators of The O.C." Don't refer to WP. How about something like "Two special episodes, not part of the official continuity, were produced to complement the second season and were broadcast on Fox in the weeks leading up to the season premiere. The first documents the shows impact on popular culture, and the second provides "a day in the life" of the show.[1]" Done
- "In America airing of "The Return of the Nana"" either a comma or a word is missing from after "America". You should use "United States" or "US", too, since "America" could be seen to encompass Mexico, Canada, Cuba, the West Indies, etc. Done
- I don't see the four general references as necessary. Wouldn't The OC Insider be better since it also offers airdates? If you do stick with it, use {{cite video}}. Done
- Ref 4 needs formatting correctly. TVShowsOnDVD.com is a website and doesn't need formatting. Just remove TV Guide from the publisher=field, and put TVShowsOnDVD there instead of at work= Done
- Sorry, I meant it doesn't need itallicising, but I guess you knew what I meant. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories need fixing. It appears in Category:Lists of soap opera episodes, but no article about The O.C. describe it as a soap opera, rather a teen drama. What about Category:Lists of drama television series episodes instead? Done
Everything else looks good. FL Criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 appear to be met. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider whether it's worth mentioning that the Fox/NBC joint venture Hulu carries some episodes [11]
- On hold I can see this info. but before it's addition please see comment below.
- Done
- On hold I can see this info. but before it's addition please see comment below.
- As does The WB's new website [12]
- Comment Not being from the US, the link automatically redirects to [13]. I cannot therefore see what information (episodes) are available. I would happy for the addition of this with the a summary of episodes on Hulu (above) however I would need a US user to do this, as I can not verify the content on the WB site. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just a small selection of episodes, which changes regularly. Like right now, all the episodes they have, Friends, Gilmore Girls and The OC have Thanksgiving and Christmas episodes up. A couple of weeks ago it was a different theme. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, assuming this is an accurate description of what is available. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That appears to be a good summary, and works for me. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, assuming this is an accurate description of what is available. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just a small selection of episodes, which changes regularly. Like right now, all the episodes they have, Friends, Gilmore Girls and The OC have Thanksgiving and Christmas episodes up. A couple of weeks ago it was a different theme. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not being from the US, the link automatically redirects to [13]. I cannot therefore see what information (episodes) are available. I would happy for the addition of this with the a summary of episodes on Hulu (above) however I would need a US user to do this, as I can not verify the content on the WB site. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have tried to find these beleive me. But ABC Medianet has broken pictures or ratings before Feb 11 2004 (Like this) I have also trawled through every Mediaweek Programming Insider from then with no luck. If anyone knows anywhere else please let me know. However, that said Season 1 was originally promoted without any viewer figures. Other episode lists contain no figures, remaining comprehensive without them, but surely removing 89 verifiable viewing figures goes against common sense, and that not including them per comprehensiveness goes against improving Wikipedia, and should be ignored. Let me know your thoughts on this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was promoted without viewing figures because they weren't initially included and so the "complete set of items" rule didn't apply. The set of items that were there were episode and series numbers, titles, writers, directors, airdates and prod codes. Adding in only some viewing figures provides another set of items, and that set is not complete. I'm happy to wait and see if anyone else comments on this though. Perhaps request someone from WP:TV, such as User:Collectonian, User:Bignole or User:Thedemonhog to comment here? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Request for comment made to all above mentioned users. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I have always believed in the philosophy (only when it comes to these types of situations), if you don't have it all then don't list it partially. Viewing figures are nice, but they are not necessary given that (unfortunately) at the moment you have an individual page for each episode, AND a season page. Then again, you're only missing 3, so it's not like you're missing the first couple of seasons, but have the later ones. I have to assume that if they are there for the episodes before, after, and in between these vacant spaces then they must be there for the ones you don't have as well. One thing I would like to ask, where did this production number come from? Production numbers are hard to accurately verify. Please tell me they didn't come from TV.com or IMDb.com (which are virtually the same in their respect in fact that we cannot cite them as sources because of the way they attain a good portion of their content). The reason I mention this is because, not only are they hard to reliably verify, but they really hold not actual value to the article. The average reader won't understand what they are (kind like listing viewership numbers for anything other than the overrall viewership, e.g. 17/60 males...average readers don't understand that in a table). If an episode was filmed out of order, then it's easier to put a star beside it and put a "Notes:" section below the respective table and indicate that said episode was filmed early (but only when you have a reliable source to prove that). You also need a source for those airdates. TVGuide and MSN are some good sources for airdates (see the MSN listing here). Now, I'm going out of town, so I won't be able to respond any any responses/rebuttles to my comments. For the initial reason I was brought here, I have to side with Matthew on this one, because it's clear that the numbers are there for all the other episodes, and why these three cannot be found is odd to me. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the airdates are referenced, sort of, to the one general reference, however you have to go through and click on each individual episode to see the airdate. Might be better if the nom replaced that general ref with more specific ones for the individual ep pages at same site. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think replacing one encompassing general reference by 92 specific ones is excessive, and as such will leave it as it is, unless further objection is raised. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was actually meaning that you should place a ref name tag in "Original Airdate" section of each table. That will easily show that each season is referenced. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the airdates are referenced, sort of, to the one general reference, however you have to go through and click on each individual episode to see the airdate. Might be better if the nom replaced that general ref with more specific ones for the individual ep pages at same site. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with the others. If all of the figures are not available, it can not be considered to meet "Comprehensiveness" as is. I can not imagine that figures are not available for those few episodes if they are available from all. If those few pages from the ABC Net site are broken, I'd recommend emailing their webmaster and asking them to fix those pages. I also must second the question on those production numbers. If they are from TV.com or IMDB, the column needs to go. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have emailed the webmaster Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming the webmaster doesn't fix this, the missing figures can be calculated from reliably sourced data. Would this be acceptable? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you couldn't do that math yourself. If you don't know the 3 numbers, then they could theoretically be anything. As one number could be higher than you calculated, while another could be lower, and in such case they would offset each other in the average for the season. If you have the original url (I read above about somethinb being "broken"), then have you tried the Internet Archives? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But two of them are not theoretically anything, as they are directly related to the Nielsen Share rating. That leaves one missing, which can be worked out with maths from the average. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why aren't they listed? If you know them, then they should be there. If you have a source for them, then use it. If you don't, then you don't know what they are, and are hypothesizing what they are. Also, the season average is based on the final, official numbers. The numbers you have for each episode are the estimated figures. The official numbers are usually not calculated until about a week later (well, not released until then). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But two of them are not theoretically anything, as they are directly related to the Nielsen Share rating. That leaves one missing, which can be worked out with maths from the average. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Production codes are listed at the end of each episodes credits. If you want web verification they cannot all be found in any one place but reliable sources that verfy them include IGN which lists some of the production codes in a summary box next on individual episode pages (like this) and CNBC-e who also list some. (An example) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just confirming that production codes for The O.C. are shown on screen at the end of each episode's credits, so the episodes are the reference for this. I don't know if including them in an episode list is something to be discussed in a FLC. The article is utilizing {{episode list}} which includes the
prod code=
field. I feel that part of the discussion should be taken up at [[Template talk:Episode list}}. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The production codes appear right at the end of the credits, like this one for the pilot episode - Image:TheOCprodcode.jpg (apologies for the low quality) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with them is over their relevance. What relevance do they hold for the average reader? Does the average reader even know what they mean? Most don't, and if you have to explain that it shows if they were filmed out of order, then you might as well do that in prose and drop the needless columns. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- They are part of the template, and as Matthew said the validity of their inclusion is not really something for FLC. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just confirming that production codes for The O.C. are shown on screen at the end of each episode's credits, so the episodes are the reference for this. I don't know if including them in an episode list is something to be discussed in a FLC. The article is utilizing {{episode list}} which includes the
- I have emailed the webmaster Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I have always believed in the philosophy (only when it comes to these types of situations), if you don't have it all then don't list it partially. Viewing figures are nice, but they are not necessary given that (unfortunately) at the moment you have an individual page for each episode, AND a season page. Then again, you're only missing 3, so it's not like you're missing the first couple of seasons, but have the later ones. I have to assume that if they are there for the episodes before, after, and in between these vacant spaces then they must be there for the ones you don't have as well. One thing I would like to ask, where did this production number come from? Production numbers are hard to accurately verify. Please tell me they didn't come from TV.com or IMDb.com (which are virtually the same in their respect in fact that we cannot cite them as sources because of the way they attain a good portion of their content). The reason I mention this is because, not only are they hard to reliably verify, but they really hold not actual value to the article. The average reader won't understand what they are (kind like listing viewership numbers for anything other than the overrall viewership, e.g. 17/60 males...average readers don't understand that in a table). If an episode was filmed out of order, then it's easier to put a star beside it and put a "Notes:" section below the respective table and indicate that said episode was filmed early (but only when you have a reliable source to prove that). You also need a source for those airdates. TVGuide and MSN are some good sources for airdates (see the MSN listing here). Now, I'm going out of town, so I won't be able to respond any any responses/rebuttles to my comments. For the initial reason I was brought here, I have to side with Matthew on this one, because it's clear that the numbers are there for all the other episodes, and why these three cannot be found is odd to me. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Request for comment made to all above mentioned users. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. If a FLC can determine what needs to be added, then it can determine what should not be included. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done 17:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Criterion 6. Visual appeal Give all four tables of the seasons the same column widths so everything aligns
- Comment. I have considered this, but (using D:TNG as an example) this puts the column headings in strange alignments on the individual season pages (somewhere between left and centre align). IMO this equally in breach of Cr. 6, and as there doesn't seem to be a solution that satisfies both. Surely 1 list with a slight problem is better that 4 with problems. Please let me know your opinion on this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- D:TNG uses {{episode list}}. Any alignment is forced by that template. <shrugs> Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment - I know this is by no means justification but in List of Lost episodes, season 3 is not of the same width as the other seasons and the air date wraps onto 2 lines in season 1 & 4, which I guess is also undesirable by Cr. 6 (and probably forced by the template too) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adjust it, it should be completely over. Another issue. Linking. This page is severely overlinked. You should only link a name once, not every instance. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had this discussion with The Rambling Man before about WP:OVERLINK, and it does not apply here. "Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I have sorted the Cr. 6 Visual appeal and managed to transclude the tables at 99% length, thanks to an edit by Bignole. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adjust it, it should be completely over. Another issue. Linking. This page is severely overlinked. You should only link a name once, not every instance. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment - I know this is by no means justification but in List of Lost episodes, season 3 is not of the same width as the other seasons and the air date wraps onto 2 lines in season 1 & 4, which I guess is also undesirable by Cr. 6 (and probably forced by the template too) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- D:TNG uses {{episode list}}. Any alignment is forced by that template. <shrugs> Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have considered this, but (using D:TNG as an example) this puts the column headings in strange alignments on the individual season pages (somewhere between left and centre align). IMO this equally in breach of Cr. 6, and as there doesn't seem to be a solution that satisfies both. Surely 1 list with a slight problem is better that 4 with problems. Please let me know your opinion on this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Formal oppose.
The more I look at this page the more I find things wrong with it. First, there was the fact that all of the tables were linked to the season pages, so you had to go to the season pages just to edit them and even then certain edits would not be reflected here. I have personally fixed this. You should never send someone to another page to edit the one that they are on.Next, why do we ever list the DVDs if you provide no information about them? This page keeps linking everything away. That DVD section should have release dates for Region 1, 2, and 4...given that the lead of the page claims that the DVDs have been released in all of the sections. Counting up the episodes in that section? Pointless really. People can do the math themselves, it isn't hard. People can also see that the show first released a DVD set in 2003 and finally in 2007, they don't need a separate line telling them such. You don't need a link to season 1 and then a link to season 1's DVD section in the same line. Maybe each row should stand alone (which I question, and have sent a request to the guideline page for clarification, as this is the first time I have read such a thing on that page), but not each cell. You don't need need the title "The O.C. - The Complete First Season", as you're presenting it as if it has its own page. Take a page from here.Last (at the moment), where are the writers and directors for those two special episodes? Documentaries DO have writers and directors. There is no need to ignore them just because these are not official "episodes".BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- First indented points below are responses from Rambo's Revenge (talk) at 20:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What! You have just taken (diff) a 11,972 byte page to 100,003 bytes without adding any information. How is that a good idea. Featured episode lists commonly transclude e.g. Lost, D:TNG, The Office etc. Just because "your" Smallville one doesn't, that does not mean it is right! I have added back the transclusion as, thanks to you, I found a way to fix the visual appeal width issue at the same time.
- Size isn't a problem. The 100k is all code, thus it doesn't meet the idea of the article being too big. Just because others did it doesn't make it right. You should not force editors to have to go to another page just to edit this one. If an anon doesn't know how to actually do that, they will be quite confused as to how to edit this page when they click the "edit" button on each section. You have to remember, this isn't YOUR page, it's everyone's page and it must be designed so that ANY person that comes along and sees a problem can fix it. It should not be designed so that someone has to put in a request to have someone fix the page for them because they cannot figure out that the actual list is on another page and is being mirrored over here. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see your point of view, however it doubles the required maintenance and transclusion was requested at the List of The Office (US TV series) episodes FLC I have not reverted your change at the moment, and have requested comment from Gary who brought this up there. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's useful to transclude the tables, because the information in the tables will not change very often. There are no plot summaries, which are typically the parts that receive the most edits. I suggested this format in the other FLC because I saw it used in other episode list FLs, however. Gary King (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's very useful, to people that know how to use it. But, assuming that nothing will change doesn't mean that it won't, and limiting the editors that can edit the page to ones that know how to edit a transcluded section is not what Wikipedia was designed for. It wasn't meant to basically seclude pages from the public. Scrolling reference boxes were nice too, but we discourage them because they forced people to actually have to scroll through to exam sources. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, another advantage of using it is so that there isn't two versions of the same information on two pages. Gary King (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's also a pitfall, because if there is something wrong on one page it will be wrong on both pages. If someone comes in and messes up the code on the season three page, it will be noticed on the LOE page but not the season three page (depending on the error). If the error has to do with the transcluding link, people will be wondering where the section went on the LOE page (and if you don't check the page regularly you won't know it is missing because the edit doesn't appear on the LOE page). If you aren't reading carefully into someone's edits on a season page (maybe they made a lot of good edits and accidentally removed one of the code tags in the process)? I've seen this happen and go unnoticed for quite awhile because (as you said), since the LOE page wasn't going do go through any real changes, no one bothered to check to make sure it appeared good on a regular basis. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Translcusion is gone, per discussion with Scorpion0422. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's also a pitfall, because if there is something wrong on one page it will be wrong on both pages. If someone comes in and messes up the code on the season three page, it will be noticed on the LOE page but not the season three page (depending on the error). If the error has to do with the transcluding link, people will be wondering where the section went on the LOE page (and if you don't check the page regularly you won't know it is missing because the edit doesn't appear on the LOE page). If you aren't reading carefully into someone's edits on a season page (maybe they made a lot of good edits and accidentally removed one of the code tags in the process)? I've seen this happen and go unnoticed for quite awhile because (as you said), since the LOE page wasn't going do go through any real changes, no one bothered to check to make sure it appeared good on a regular basis. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, another advantage of using it is so that there isn't two versions of the same information on two pages. Gary King (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's very useful, to people that know how to use it. But, assuming that nothing will change doesn't mean that it won't, and limiting the editors that can edit the page to ones that know how to edit a transcluded section is not what Wikipedia was designed for. It wasn't meant to basically seclude pages from the public. Scrolling reference boxes were nice too, but we discourage them because they forced people to actually have to scroll through to exam sources. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's useful to transclude the tables, because the information in the tables will not change very often. There are no plot summaries, which are typically the parts that receive the most edits. I suggested this format in the other FLC because I saw it used in other episode list FLs, however. Gary King (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see your point of view, however it doubles the required maintenance and transclusion was requested at the List of The Office (US TV series) episodes FLC I have not reverted your change at the moment, and have requested comment from Gary who brought this up there. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Size isn't a problem. The 100k is all code, thus it doesn't meet the idea of the article being too big. Just because others did it doesn't make it right. You should not force editors to have to go to another page just to edit this one. If an anon doesn't know how to actually do that, they will be quite confused as to how to edit this page when they click the "edit" button on each section. You have to remember, this isn't YOUR page, it's everyone's page and it must be designed so that ANY person that comes along and sees a problem can fix it. It should not be designed so that someone has to put in a request to have someone fix the page for them because they cannot figure out that the actual list is on another page and is being mirrored over here. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added directors for the specials. They have no writers as such, as they are just clips, cast interviews etc.[14][15]
- That's cool. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The official DVD names are "The O.C. - The Complete ... Season" and as such are named like that, regardless of them not having their own article, and as for take a leaf from Smallville, it sums up episodes, double standards perhaps?
- No, it lists the number of episodes in the season. I do not believe it actually holds the readers' hands and says "2+2=4". It allows them to add it up themselves. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing you consider as a "DVD table" is a Series overview. The information is all presented elsewhere, what the hell is the point in mindlessly repeating it elsewhere. In fact you have said "what I find to be unnecessary is the repetative issuing of information in each of the [season] pages" at a previous FLC. Now you are arguing for repetition of DVD release dates.
- A little different in this case, as you're providing an overview of when each season was released on a page that is an overview of the entire series. I didn't say repeat it all, I said add some release dates so that the reader doesn't have to go visit every single damn article just to find out when something was released. Not that hard. Don't get pissed because I'm trying to get you to pull the page up to a higher standard than I have been seeing in FLCs lately. To clarify, my oppositioni on the other FLC was over the huge chunk of repeated information being presented, in this case, the only information I'm saying should be present is the release dates for each region for each season. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For "not each cell [standing alone]", the rows do not link something that has been linked in the row before, it says rows not columns.
- There seems to be dissention over at the WP:OVERLINK talk page on this issue. It seems that others are slightly confused as well. I've asked for clarification on linking a name each time it appears when it appears in 3 rows in a row. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as article is easy to follow (works good as a table of contents to other articles) and well verified with multiple references. Good job! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with Bignole that everything should be on the page, not transcluded from somewhere else. Why there are episode summaries when I press the edit button, but they don't show up on the page? -- Scorpion0422 22:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not meant to be there, it was just that Bignole copied the info from the season pages. If you think that they shouldn't transclude i'll get to work on remove the excess stuff that doesn't need to be there (the things that didn't transclude before) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just never really been a big fan of transcluding lists, especially when it comes to FLs. It is confusing for IPs and even veteran users to edit. I'd prefer to see the tables here have some differences from the season tables. Perhaps the production code or ratings could be removed? -- Scorpion0422 22:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the "hidden" episode summaries. Do you think the production codes and ratings should go as well? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's up to you, it doesn't matter to me either way. -- Scorpion0422 22:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would leave the ratings, not sure bout the prodcodes. It would require a new template to be made. (See this) But I will do this if there is enough demand for it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You know my stance on the prod codes, but I would keep the ratings. It's nice to see the transition in ratings as the seasons went on (as opposed to making that season only, in which case you'd have to look at every season page to get an idea of how the ratings increased/decreased over time). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, prod codes have gone, ratings have stayed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You know my stance on the prod codes, but I would keep the ratings. It's nice to see the transition in ratings as the seasons went on (as opposed to making that season only, in which case you'd have to look at every season page to get an idea of how the ratings increased/decreased over time). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would leave the ratings, not sure bout the prodcodes. It would require a new template to be made. (See this) But I will do this if there is enough demand for it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's up to you, it doesn't matter to me either way. -- Scorpion0422 22:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the "hidden" episode summaries. Do you think the production codes and ratings should go as well? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just never really been a big fan of transcluding lists, especially when it comes to FLs. It is confusing for IPs and even veteran users to edit. I'd prefer to see the tables here have some differences from the season tables. Perhaps the production code or ratings could be removed? -- Scorpion0422 22:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not meant to be there, it was just that Bignole copied the info from the season pages. If you think that they shouldn't transclude i'll get to work on remove the excess stuff that doesn't need to be there (the things that didn't transclude before) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIs there a reason to use the full month names in the table? Are 3 letter abreviations not considered standard enough to be used? I noticed beacuse some cause entries to be twice as high as others, which attracts the eye. Abbreviating would fix this. Other than that, this looks as good as the other FLs, so i support.Dillypickle (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The 3 letter month abbreviations are not used. WP:MONTH says that months should be expressed as "whole words". Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:46, 6 December 2008 [16].
Gary King (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment Please get an experienced image reviewer (i.e. User:David Fuchs to verify that all images are properly licensed/attributed. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left a note to Fuchs about the FLCs. Gary King (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
God, Dabomb you need to stop referring everyone to me. Gary just doesn't know when to stop :P
- Image:George Coles.jpg - the original source/author needs to be restored.
- Image:John Walter Jones.jpg - source that author is dead 70 years?
Leave me a note on my talk, I'm not watching these pages. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done both. Also, I had already asked Awadewit to check the images for some of my other lists so there's less work for you. Gary King (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, images check out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done both. Also, I had already asked Awadewit to check the images for some of my other lists so there's less work for you. Gary King (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coomet Can the rows without images be made the same height as those with? At least for w/o image entries between 2 with-image entries. The pictures really make one subconciously consider them to be more important, and similar height might help rectify this. Other than that, i supportDillypickle (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you're saying, but I don't think that would look good. Also, the other 12 lists use this same format (they are linked to from here). Gary King (talk) 16:03, 4 December 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 awards and nominations received by Sam Roberts
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 22:30, 2 December 2008 [17].
I am listing this list for Featured List status as I feel it meets all the criteria, please feel free to agree, disagree, or chastise me for excessive use of the word "list" :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- There should be way more categories that can fit into this article.
- As a non-educated person about association football, you should tell the readers what a replay is in association football.
-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 23:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have both explained and wikilinked replay, and added a couple more categories...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Can you put dashes (or something else) in the empty boxes (eg, Last final won and others), so they auto sort to the bottom instead of the top with the first click.
- Could you add a little on what they actually win? I know the info is in the main article, but there is space here, and it saves on clicking. Other than that, looks good, so i support Yobmod (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
thatboth -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]- Ha, i was still writing! Yobmod (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As per the Peer Review, I'm afraid that I still think this information should be the basis of the main FA Trophy article rather than span off into a separate two-table article. It's certainly more important and relevant to the main article than some of the stuff in there (e.g. venues, sponsorship). Even if this succeeds as a FLC, I think it's imperative that the main final results table goes back in the FA Trophy article. Other than that, it's misnamed - should be List of FA Trophy finals as the runners-up have equal prominence to the winners, and I'd get rid of the colour shading for extra time etc. - fchd (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, obviously your points can't really be actioned within the scope of an FLC as I would normally look to do, as you're essentially asking for the article to be merged into another article, but I'll see what other people think and will accept the majority view. Out of interest, do you feel that existing FLs like List of FA Cup winners and List of UEFA Cup winners, the precedent for which I felt I was following with this article, should be merged back into their parent articles and/or re-named? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - This list meets the criteria set out and as other lists stated above have been awarded FL status i see no reason why this one shouldnt. The problem is with the FA trophy page itself needing more detail rather than this list being on another page. Venues, sponsorship and other similiar things are information some people seek to know and belong on that page. The name also seems fine to me, a list shouldnt be condemned because it seeks to provide the reader with as much information as possible. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 22:30, 2 December 2008 [18].
-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 19:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —Chris! ct 23:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- charter member -> member
- charter member means that you came from that league. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 20:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The table should have a separator (I mean, colspan) between season in ABA and those in NBA
- It isn't necessary. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 20:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- It is because it is clearer. Because people won't know when the team is in ABA or NBA. Also people won't know why some of the years aren't linked—Chris! ct 20:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE I also forgot that the Pacers won 3 championships in the ABA, so yeah... -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 21:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE I also forgot that the Pacers won 3 championships in the ABA, so yeah... -- SRE.K.A
- It is because it is clearer. Because people won't know when the team is in ABA or NBA. Also people won't know why some of the years aren't linked—Chris! ct 20:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "1980–81 NBA Coach of the Year" missing ref
- link George Irvine
- This is not a sortable table, so there should be no overlinking. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 20:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Well, table are exception to WP:OVERLINK. But this is not a big deal, so I guess I'll drop this.—Chris! ct 20:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Larry Bird note is unnecessary since this list is about coaches
- Sure, but at first, I thought that readers may wonder why Larry Bird wasn't elected into the Basketball Hall of Fame. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 20:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
—Chris! ct 20:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE all without comments
- Support - This was on my to-do list, you beat me to it. Looks almost identical to the other NBA Head Coaches lists that are FL. Very well done. HoosierStateTalk 21:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Review by SRX [TRUco]
- Larry Bird, who coached three seasons with the Pacers, is the Pacers' all-time leader for the highest winning percentage with .687. - comm before with.
- Bird is also the only coach to win an NBA Eastern Conference championship with the Pacers, in the 2000 NBA Playoffs, but lost in the 2000 NBA Finals against the Los Angeles Lakers. - sounds confusing. How about, ..with the Pacers, winning the 2000 NBA Playoffs, but losing the 2000 NBA Finals against the Los Angeles Lakers.
- Remove the extra space between the lead and the first section, as it is causing a break with the Table of Contents.
- Coaches: The note 3 championships (1970, 1972, 1973)[4] - like in your other list, should be 3 ABA Championships (1970, 1972, 1973)--TRUCO 22:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE all. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 00:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - meets WP:WIAFL standards.TRUCO 02:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "Dick Versace, and Bird have spent their entire NBA coaching careers with the Pacers." No comma necessary.
- "Jim O'Brien has been the head coach of the Pacers since 2007–08."-->Jim O'Brien has been the head coach of the Pacers since the 2007–08 season. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great, informative list! Reywas92Talk 16:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 22:30, 2 December 2008 [19].
I am nominating because I think it fulfills the FL criteria.—Chris! ct 00:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - excellent list,
- In the table, for coach Harrison, his achievement states 1 championship (1951), I believe it would be better worded as being NBA Championship (1951). Other than that, prose checks out fine.--TRUCO 00:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - my review was resolved to improve the article to FL standards.--TRUCO 01:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would change the level 2 headings for the key and table to level 3 or lower, so they are not so split up, and can be edited more easily together, then make a level 2 header called coaches that includes both. (or some other combination of titles, as long as key is nearer to table). Apart from that, i think it passes all the criteria and support featuring.Yobmod (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "which merged with NBL to become the NBA a year later" Add the before "NBL".
- "The franchise won its first NBA championship in the 1951 NBA Finals, while coached by Lester Harrison."-->The franchise won its first NBA championship in the 1951 NBA Finals, under the coaching of Lester Harrison. The way it is right now, the second phrase is rather disconnected from the independent clause.
- "by a group of Kansas City businessmen,"-->by a group of businessmen from Kansas City,
- "In 1982, the franchise was brought by a Sacramento group and became the Sacramento Kings." "Sacramento group"-->Sacramento-based group
- "The Kings is currently owned by the Maloof family and coached by Reggie Theus." "is"-->are.
- "It was briefly named Kansas City-Omaha Kings" Add a "the" before "Kansas City".
- "Harrison, Bobby Wanzer, Ed Jucker, Bob Cousy, Draff Young, Jerry Reynolds and Reggie Theus have
allspent their entire coaching careers with the Kings." Dabomb87 (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all—Chris! ct 00:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 22:30, 2 December 2008 [20].
first FLC (18:54, 21 May 2008)
previous FLC (15:52, 25 October 2008)
A lot more people have been added since the last FLC, including a list of honorary degree recipients. Gary King (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Honorary degree recipients section uses the same ref over and over and over again. Maybe you should remove the ref column in that section and just add it to the top (or put Source [insert link) at the bottom of the section. -- Scorpion0422 21:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I opposed the last FLC on the grounds of comprehensiveness, but am happy with that now. However, I would like (a) a note of what the hon degree recipients are famous for and (b) the odd photo of them, if available. Any chance? BencherliteTalk 10:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Gary King (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- References are surely required for this info (since it's not covered by the general ref for the hon degree recipients). Some dates (e.g. of holding office) would be good, too. BencherliteTalk 19:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay; I will remove the column for now while I work on that. Gary King (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- References are surely required for this info (since it's not covered by the general ref for the hon degree recipients). Some dates (e.g. of holding office) would be good, too. BencherliteTalk 19:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Gary King (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I know that list like this can never be certain to be comprehensive, but it would be better to put the sub-lists that are comprehensive (chancellors, honorary degrees) first, imo. I hope you do it, but it's not worth an oppose, so i'll weak support for now.Yobmod (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this format is more useful because for one thing, I imagine most people think of alumni first when thinking of people associated with a university. I'll leave it like this for now unless there is more opposition to it. Gary King (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) All the prose issues were resolved at the last FLC, but I have sourcing quibbles:
- Ref 44 is missing everything except for the URL.
- Refs 57 and 73 are missing PDF parameters in their citations.
- I don't have the time or willpower to go through every reference to make sure that all possible information has been included in the citations. I can tell you that all references to public affairs need publication dates. I think the page titles should be more detailed—use the name of the news stories themselves rather than "Wilfrid Laurier University - Public Affairs - Headlines".
- More examples of publication dates: Refs 26 and 27.
- In many cases, you've put the base name of the URL as the publisher of the site; put the actual name of the site whenever possible for better descriptions e.g. (Ref 27) Instead of "library.wlu.ca", Put "Laurier Library". Dabomb87 (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All done Gary King (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 22:30, 2 December 2008 [21].
Despite this article just being created, there is nothing more I can really add. The Timeline follows the structure of the other Atlantic Timelines and all storms are included. With nothing more I can really do with it, I am nominating it for Featured List. All thoughts and comments are welcome :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the formation for TD 1? Also, on the bottom, should it really say "none" for timelines before and after? Is that the format? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed both of them. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- Even though I rated this article like 20-30 min ago, I think it is good for a FLC.----Neka 2008! 23:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think I am biased, you can get rid of my support.--Neka 2008! 23:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - excellent list, comprehensive prose and list, one thing however - The season ended about a month and a half later on September 30. ~ this needs to be more specific i.e one month and 28 days per WP:Weasel.--TRUCO 23:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, changed it to "month and 16 days later" Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - my review was addressed in order to comply with WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 23:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - the only thing i saw wrong with it was the year in the lead but since it was so minor i just corrected it Jason Rees (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThe timeline picture is very confusing at first glance. Please consider making a new one, as it took me a good while to understand it. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have put a note here first, sorry. There is currently a bug on the site which I cannot fix. It has been reported and hopefully it is being worked on. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err....That auto edit killed the timeline...It's a very fragile image, if one thing in it is changed, it might not show up until the correct spacing (I don't know why, it just works) is done to allow just the image to show. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Meddled around to fix timeline.--Neka 2008! 00:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is very interesting. In that case, I'll still keep my oppose up, but please don't take it personally, as I just want all of the Featured Lists to be at the best possible detail. Also, the picture is broken in every previous revision and the current one. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. BTW, when I said killed, I meant that the image was a ? in a box, now it at least shows the image. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See bug 16085 regarding the timeline function. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. BTW, when I said killed, I meant that the image was a ? in a box, now it at least shows the image. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is very interesting. In that case, I'll still keep my oppose up, but please don't take it personally, as I just want all of the Featured Lists to be at the best possible detail. Also, the picture is broken in every previous revision and the current one. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposebased on the bug with the timeline. While the bug may be beyond control, I'm afraid that I cannot support the featuring of this list while it remains inaccessible to many users. Hopefully a way around this can be found, as the rest of the list looks very good. The thumbnail (right) is what I see. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I see with the timeline too. How is the page inaccessible? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the timeline that is inaccessible. It has no text on it, no legend, no labels, nothing. However the code suggests it should have labels etc.
e.g.from:01/05/1983 till:01/06/1983 text:May
Notice that no text is shown in the screenshot image (right). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- That's what the bug does. It doesn't show text for me either. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that is what the bug does. I am saying that because it should display text, and I cannot endorse the supporting of the list with this bug in it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what the bug does. It doesn't show text for me either. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the timeline that is inaccessible. It has no text on it, no legend, no labels, nothing. However the code suggests it should have labels etc.
- Can i just point out to all those who are opposing this FLC because of the bug, thats affecting ALL of the timelines at the minute that have been edited in the last month. That the Timeline of the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season passed its FLC with the timeline image not showing up the text.[[22]] Jason Rees (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, and I advise people to not oppose an article because of a bug that is affecting all such timelines, and cannot be addressed by the nominator. It will likely be disregarded by the closing FL director, as it is not actionable. Thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have a Solution, I made an image out of the timeline, This is for 2003, but see please. --Neka 2008! 23:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, and I advise people to not oppose an article because of a bug that is affecting all such timelines, and cannot be addressed by the nominator. It will likely be disregarded by the closing FL director, as it is not actionable. Thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great job, so much for it being "not actionable"!Yobmod (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, didn't think of an image at first ;) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great job, so much for it being "not actionable"!Yobmod (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There is now an ongoing centralised discussion about opposes based on bug 16085 here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposingwith current timeline bug. The image idea might be an ok stopgap, but the current state is certainly not. An article in which the info is not displayed due to a bug is certainly not an example of wikipedia's best work. Why aren't people fixing it instead of submitting FLC like this?Yobmod (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because its a wikipedia wide problkem Jason Rees (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing I can do either. I barely know how the timeline image works, let alone how to fix it. As Jason Rees stated, the 2003 timeline was promoted with the same issue, as was the Timeline of the 2005 Pacific hurricane season. I understand that the timeline is an issue, but what I don't understand is how something that cannot be fixed by us (I think) is such an issue. JW, any thoughts on the actual Timeline not the image? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the tempate isn't working, why use it? Make another one, using table wikiformatting, or find another way to show the info. I understand it is not the articles editors fault that this broke, but it still doesn't show wikipedia's best work, unless our best template editors are really that bad.Yobmod (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As Elena85 has done with the 2003 timeline, I created an image of it and added the text, I've already put it on the page so things should be good on that end (just with the timeline, not the overall issue with the bug). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I struck my oppose mow that image is there.
- Further comment: why does August 27th have 2 entries, both with the same cite? Shouldn't they be combined?Yobmod (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, the second one was the 28th and the second 28th is now the 29th Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because its a wikipedia wide problkem Jason Rees (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Much better with the image there now. I took it upon myself to do an image mapping to provide the links that the unbugged timeline should. Hope you don't mind. Only thing is that in the image it should say Alicia not Anita. Otherwise, fine Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, oops, I'll fix it soon and thanks for mapping it :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy! I now support this nomination. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- Sorry I didn't comment sooner, I was waiting for all the image issues to blow over.
- "during which
onlyfour tropical cyclones formed." - Image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods at the end.
- "
However, the first named storm, Hurricane Alicia, formed on August 15. " - "Hurricane Alicia had its name retired due to the loss of life and severe damage in Texas."-->Hurricane Alicia had its name retired due to the fatalities and severe damage caused in Texas.
- "Hurricane Barry was a weak Category 1 hurricane which traveled almost due west across the Gulf of Mexico for most of its track, before making landfall in extreme northern Mexico."-->Hurricane Barry was a weak Category 1 hurricane that traveled almost due west across the Gulf of Mexico for most of its track before making landfall in extreme northern Mexico.
- "Tropical Depression One passes over the island of Saint Lucia with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)" Needs a period at the end.
- "Hurricane Alicia strengthens into a major hurricane—a storm with winds of 111 mph " Needs a period at the end.
- You've mixed Template:Citation with Template:Cite XXX, per MOS, you should only use one format. I suggest changing refs 10 and 11 to use the cite news template. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's ok, at least you did comment. :) I have correct all but one of the issues you addressed. The only one not done is the second to last one you mentioned since the period is already there. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, didn't see the line break there. Why did you delete that sentence with the statistics about Alicia? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad, I just put it back. I accidentally lumped it together with the sentence before it which needed to be changed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, didn't see the line break there. Why did you delete that sentence with the statistics about Alicia? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 22:30, 2 December 2008 [23].
This is a list of current Canadian Premiers and its Prime Minister, known together as first ministers. Gary King (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Killervogel5
I don't usually review non-sports lists, but I like Canada, and I want to branch out.
- If you are using abbreviations in the table (CP, SP, NDP), then they need to be noted in the lead after the first iteration.
- I would comment on the colors, but I think everything with them is OK. I think.
- In the lead you mention that three Premiers are from the Conservative Party of Canada, but the table doesn't link to the Conservative Party of Canada, it goes to the provinces. Maybe this should be indicated in a key or in the lead.
- No sort facilities - I would recommend adding a column to specify federation, province, territory, then add sort facilities.
- If you aren't going to sort, only the first iteration of an element in a table needs to be linked (really just referring to the parties at this point).
- If you aren't going to sort, only the first iteration of an element in a table needs to be linked (really just referring to the parties at this point).
- All done Gary King (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would change the name of "Notes" to "Ref", since there are no written notes, but only reference links.
- To Reference, not to Ref, since readers may not understand what a ref is. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 23:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- References are, or should be, present and prevalent in every article on Wikipedia. They also direct to the references section. Aside from the obvious whitespace issues, Ref is sufficient. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just put Reference just in case, since on Wiktionary, [http:www.en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ref Ref] abbreviates three things. Also, I think think Ref is a word in the dictionary. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 00:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- With the amount of FLs that currently use a "Ref" column, I think either is acceptable. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Viewing the list on a standard 1152x864 monitor, "References" now takes up so much space that it makes the line break. I still recommend using "Ref" for this purpose. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The line break is created purposely. Gary King (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh! Is this to alleviate the whitespace issue? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The line break is created purposely. Gary King (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support from KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's everything? Gary King (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor comments
- The templates do not link to this article.
- Suggest for adding images of the ministers onto the table.
-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 23:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More comments
- "the newest Premier is Brad Wall of Saskatchewan, who assumed office on November 21, 2007." Isn't Eva Aariak the newest Premier?
- "All but one of the Premiers are men, and were born in the province or territory that they now govern. The longest-serving Premier is Gary Doer of Manitoba, who has held the position since October 5, 1999; the newest Premier is Brad Wall of Saskatchewan, who assumed office on November 21, 2007. Doer, who was born in 1948, is also the oldest sitting premier; the youngest Premier, Robert Ghiz of Prince Edward Island, was born in 1974." this whole thing should be referenced.
-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 01:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both done. For the first, her term hasn't started yet so I just said that she will assume office in 2008. Gary King (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I made most minor fixes myself, but here are a couple comments:
Format ref 16 so that it looks like the others.none is overlinked in the table. Do you really need to link Canada in the table, too?Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
GuideColor chart, dang it. Circeus (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Add a note on ref 5 that says registration is required to read the full article. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. I think that's how you do it? Gary King (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 22:30, 2 December 2008 [24].
I have nominated this list to FLC after having a peer review, and comments from the wikiproject manga and anime, saying it was easy to understand. The summaries were copy-edited after being written and the references are reliable sources. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I reviewed the list before it was nominated. Since then, all my issues have been resolved. -- Goodraise (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) There are just too many prose issues; this is from the first two episode summaries alone:
"they have to kill a little creature, apparently an alien,in orderto survive.""The tall alien attacks Kato making him fall from a a bridge and finds Kurono and Kishimoto." Comma after Kato."After that another teenager named Joichiro Nishi, who was among the other people from the building kills the alien." Comma after "building"."With the alien's death every person who survived return to the building."-->After the alien's death, the survivors return to the building."The ones who return are Kurono, Kishimoto, Nishi and Kato whose injures are healed." Comma after "Kato""The ball Gantz displays a score with the points of the ones who returned." Unclear. What displays the score?
I will try to help copy-edit if I can. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done the fixes showed.Tintor2 (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I copy-edited the first five chapters, make sure to address the inline comments I put in. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done 6–10, more inlines to address. I will have to do more copy-editing later, I have other things to do now. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.Tintor2 (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done 11–15. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.Tintor2 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done up to 21. I have something to do but will be back in about 30–40 minutes or so. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.Tintor2 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done 11–15. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.Tintor2 (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done 6–10, more inlines to address. I will have to do more copy-editing later, I have other things to do now. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I copy-edited the first five chapters, make sure to address the inline comments I put in. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done copy-editing. Also, per MOS, the titles of the references should not be all caps. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, lead looks good, image is appropriate, and volume summaries are of a good length and cover volumes well. References all appear to meet WP:RS and links are all good. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:47, 25 November 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 universities in Atlantic Canada Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of universities in the Canadian Prairies
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 22:30, 2 December 2008 [25].
This is the second of hopefully three featured lists candidates that will be going through FLC. After a lengthy peer review, it should be ready to go through FLC. So, what do you guys think? - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 02:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Checklinks for this particular list already done. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 02:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
"Season Two (Book 2: Earth) of Avatar: The Last Airbender, an American animated television series on Nickelodeon, first aired its 20 episodes from March 17, 2006 to December 1, 2006."-->Season Two (Book 2: Earth) of Avatar: The Last Airbender, an American animated television series on Nickelodeon, aired 20 episodes from March 17, 2006 to December 1, 2006.- There were reruns of the show during this period; first aired is better, I believe. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "
The season begins with protagonist Aang, and his friends Katara and Sokka, and their quest to find an Earthbending teacher"-->In the season's beginning, the protagonist Aang and his friends Katara and Sokka are on a quest to find an Earthbending teacher. "which finishes when they recruit Toph." How does the quest "finish"?- I thought that it is implied that Toph becomes his teacher. In any case, she is wikilinked. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The season ends with Ba Sing Se falling to the Fire Nation, and Aang escaping with his friends on a recovered Appa."-->At the season's end, Ba Sing Se falls to the Fire Nation and Aang escapes with his friends on a recovered Appa."Only three volumes have been released for Region 2." Shouldn't it be "Only the first three volumes have been released for Region 2."?- Oops. Fixed.
"The majority of the"-->Most of the...- "
All of the season's music was composed by" "However, several new characters also appear""In addition, two other characters"- Change to "Two antagonists, Mai and Ty Lee, are introduced as Azula's minions who are tasked with capturing Aang"
"though it did not win." Not a complete sentence.- Somehow the info was deleted from a long time ago. I readded it. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will review the episode summaries later. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes the following sites reliable sources?
http://www.dvdactive.com/reviews/dvd/avatar-the-last-airbender-book-2-vl-1.htmlhttp://www.film.com/celebrities/ethan-spaulding/20193248http://www.hollywood.com/tv/Avatar_The_Last_Airbender/5205494- Not sure. I wasn't around when this was added. Any other contributor want to chime in? - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 20:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ask User :Rau J. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DVD Active's sourcing is used as a review; and everyone is entitled to their own opinion and we are using this a source to their quote; not to an informational analysis. As for the other two, I'd have to find out its usage as a cite...which I'll do soon. --haha169 (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replaced the other 2 with more reliable sources.--haha169 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, you added sources to IMDb, which is generally not considered reliable. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced source with a TV Guide one. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, you added sources to IMDb, which is generally not considered reliable. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replaced the other 2 with more reliable sources.--haha169 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DVD Active's sourcing is used as a review; and everyone is entitled to their own opinion and we are using this a source to their quote; not to an informational analysis. As for the other two, I'd have to find out its usage as a cite...which I'll do soon. --haha169 (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ask User :Rau J. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure. I wasn't around when this was added. Any other contributor want to chime in? - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 20:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Aang, Katara, Sokka, Momo, and Appa travel to an Earth Kingdom military base to receive an escort to the city of Omashu" Doesn't make sense. Why would someone receive an escort to a place?
- They actually are being escorted to the city, as it is a wartime situation. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 20:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "but released when pockmark on Sokka create the illusion of illness." Pluralize "pockmarks".
- "While at an Earthbending tournament, the group see blind Earthbending master Toph." "see"-->sees. Add the before "blind".
- "Aang challenges
herand easily defeats her with Airbending," - "but fails when Azula calls" Who is Azula?
- added in apposition and wikilink
- "Eventually, Katara, Sokka, Iroh, and Toph
all come andhelp to corner Azula." - "Aang tries to learn Earthbending from Toph, despite interference from his Airbending philosophy."-->Despite interference from his Airbending philosophy, Aang tries to learn Earthbending from Toph.
- "The gang then continues to Ba Sing Se, now with two goals to complete within the city." "within"--in.
- "but learns
insteadthat Zuko and Iroh are Firebenders after seeing Iroh heat his tea at a Ba Sing Se train station." - "The mini-episode where Iroh helps
outpeople in the town was dedicated to Mako." - "fleeing a startled farmer"-->fleeing from a startled farmer
- "However, Zuko decides to free the Sky Bison and Aang and Appa are reunited at the end of the episode."-->However, Zuko decides to free the Sky Bison; Aang and Appa are reunited at the end of the episode.
- "After returning from Lake Laogai, Zuko falls spiritually ill. " What does this mean?
- Explained further.
- "The first five DVD releases contained one disc that consisted of four episodes each." "contained"-->contain.
- "which contained all of the episodes in the season dispersed on five discs"-->which contains all of the episodes in the season on five discs
- "All of the DVD sets for Book 2 were released with Region 1 encoding, meaning they can only play on North American DVD players." Add "that" before "they".
- The second general ref needs a publication date. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Following the peer review I find the article to be of a very high standard and, including the odd little improvements here at FLC, believe it meets the FL criteria. I especially commend the inventive use of colour to match the series title page/cover. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yay, thanks! For those who are wondering, SFB was the one who did the peer review. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 22:30, 2 December 2008 [26].
Self-nom. I believe this list fits the FL criteria, as it:
- Is Well-written
- Is well-defined by its lead
- Is as comprehensive as would be practical, with clear inclusion criteria
- Is navigable and sortable
- Is consistent with the Wikipedia MoS
- Uses colours, formatting and images to convey and illustrate information
- Is largely consistent and uncontroversial, with only occasional updates required.
I believe it is of comparable quality to equivalent FLs, such as List of Sweden international footballers. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]Weak Support Oppose Almost a quick-fail. Needs significant work, let us go down the failed FL criteria:
- Lead:
The lead is nowhere large enough.Provide some background information on the footballers. Write about notable footballers and significant stats. The lead should provide enough context for the reader rather than a dull introduction to the table.There should not be a sentence in the lead for "see also"; those references belong in the See also section and the Categories. - Comprehensiveness:
Needs a key.What I said about expanding the lead above applies here. - Style:
Breaches WP:MOSDASH in the lead;replace those hyphens (national team - it covers players with 20 or more appearances) with en dashes.Breaches WP:ACCESS and WP:COLORS in table, use symbols such as (* ^ #) to provide information in conjunction with the colors. Referencing: Needs inline citations. This lack of inlines is understandable, because as of yet there is no need to verify the lead, which right now is just a description of a table. However, when you expand the lead and add appropriate info, add inline citations as needed.
All in all, needs a lot of work Dabomb87 (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
More Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)[reply]
- Looks much better.
- Inline citations should go after punctuation.
- done
- "and during this time many of its players have made a significant impact on the game." This is a vague phrase that can be deleted.
- done
- I still think the lead can be expanded more. Add more information about individual players (most appearances, most wins, most awards) and games.
- done - expanded significantly
- "20 of its players have won both the World Cup and UEFA European Championship and five have won gold, silver and bronze medals at the World Cup. " Per MOSNUM, sentences should not start with a numeral. "20"-->Twenty.
- No longer the beginning of a sentence
- "In addition five players have won" Comma after addition.
- No longer applicable
- "Due to the country's turbulent 20th century history" Instead of adding a POV word like turbulent, provide more background on what exactly made Germany's history "turbulent" (wars, political strife, economic concerns, etc.).
- Changed - all the events that affected the team are specified
- "many of Germany's 1938 World Cup squad were from
thethen-annexed Austria"—"many"-->most.- not done- 9 of 22 were Austrian, so it wasn't most
- "After World War II, and the break-up of Germany" First comma is not needed.
- done
- "During this time"—"time"-->period.
- done
- "plus"-->including.
- Not done - I've changed to 'and', because it's not really including; it's an intersect
- You don't need to link column headers since they are linked in the key.
- done
- Add all the column headers to the key (Pos and caps).
- done
- Spell out the lesser-known abbreviations in the references (FIFA, RSSSF, UEFA).
- done
- Add
format=PDF
to reference 5. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- done
- Shouldn't the page title be "List of German international footballers"?
- No - naming convention on WP uses the national team name - to show that it's players who played for Germany, not just any German international, which could include players for the other German national teams, dual nationals, etc. Otherwise resolved ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "World football" Why is this capitalized?
- Reference 5 needs a last access date. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Agreed as above with DB87 on all counts. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently neutral. Still a couple of issues.
- There are images in the table area but none in the lead. Move up one of the images to the lead section.
- In the key, you don't need to link the position and the abbreviation. Just link the spelled-out name.
- Otherwise, well constructed at this point. Sorting seems to work well, which is more than I can say for a lot of lists I review. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK - both issues resolved. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per everyone else's resolved comments, I support this list for promotion. I applaud the FL community for working together on this list that needed a lot of edits and a lot of eyes, and also editor ArtVandelay13 for his continuous work for the last two weeks. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Sorry, but this needs substantial work. The lead needs to be expanded, inline citations are needed, and there are MOS breaches, just to name a few things. I suggest withdrawing this to work on it in your own time. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The article needs a lot of work done! As per above, the lead needs to be expanded and inline citations added. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK: I think I've addressed much of your comments: the lead is more descriptive, with citations, The key is more comprehensive, and the WP:ACCESS issues have been addressed. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It looks much better now—Chris! ct 23:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- I think each citation should be placed after the punctuation, not before.
- done
- "Several hundred players" is unclear. Do you know the exact number?
- not done - Can't find it, unfortunately
- "One of the most successful national teams" is pov, in my opinion. You can't say that unless a specific source says that.
- I've justified that statement a bit more
- What is the Ballon d'Or? People who know nothing about football/soccer won't know
- done - Clarified
- Does this list include East Germany national footballers? I think you should clarify that in the lead
- done - Clarified
- I think each citation should be placed after the punctuation, not before.
—Chris! ct 21:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've addressed the specific concerns listed above - comments are in Italics. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- Per above, lead needs to be expanded, tables need to be reformatted, and needs referencing to reliable sources.TRUCO 22:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the Germany national football team's first official match in 1908,[1] it has been represented by several hundred players. - several is WP:WEASEL, needs to be more specific.
- It has been one of the most successful national teams in world football, having participated in sixteen World Cups and ten European Championships, winning three of each[2]. the citation should go after the period.
- I can't find the specific number, so I've removed it as it's not really relevant and is fairly self-evident.
- In doing so, 20 of its players have won both titles, and five have won gold, silver and bronze medals at the World Cup. - so in winning the world titles, 20 of the players have won both titles? That doesn't make sense, do you mean 2 teams of players have won it?
- It means that of the three world cup wins and three european championship wins, 20 players have been involved in one of each.
- Lothar Matthäus has played in a record 25 World Cup matches and his participation in five World Cup tournaments is a joint record. - joint with what other player?
- done
- Matthäus was the inaugural winner of the FIFA World Player of the Year award in 1991,[5] and is one of five Germany players to have been awarded European Footballer of the Year – Franz Beckenbauer and Karl-Heinz Rummenigge each having won the award twice. - reword Matthäus was the inaugural winner of the FIFA World Player of the Year award in 1991,[5] and is one of five German players to have been awarded the European Footballer of the Year – Franz Beckenbauer and the Karl-Heinz Rummenigge on two occasions.
- done
- Beckenbauer was also voted in eighth place for the FIFA Player of the Century award, and was named in the World Team of the 20th Century. - eight place is really not as notable as in the top 5. Also, do you mean he was selected as a player in the WT of the 20th century? (selected works better in that sentence)
- eigthth is still pretty notable among the millions of people that played football during the 20th century. Other change done
- Ten German players were named in the FIFA 100,[8] a list of the 125 greatest living footballers chosen by Pelé, and six are in the FIFA Century Club, having earned 100 or more caps. - who/what is Pele? Caps is WP:JARGON, needs to be elaborated as it is not a common term. Are needs to be changed to were for past tense.
- done, except the Century Club remains present tense - they still have 100+ caps, so it stays with them.
- Lothar Matthäus' 150 caps make him the ninth most capped player in world football, while Gerd Müller's 68 goals (in just 62 games) is the eighth most of any international player. - remove just.
- done
- Germany's borders underwent many changes during the 20th century, and which had an effect on the make-up of the German football team. - remove and.
- done
- Following the annexation of Austria, the Austrian team was absorbed into the German team, with the result that Germany's 1938 World Cup squad included many Austrians. - absorbed is wordy, merged would work better.
- not done - merged suggests a more equal partnership than was the case. The country and team was still called Germany in every respect.
- How about integrated? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is that better, though? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really know actually; ask SRX (TRUco), this issue is a matter of personal style. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- During this period the team was commonly known as West Germany[14] until reunification in 1990, when the East German team was re-integrated into the German national team. - add a the before reunification. Also, reintegrated is one word, no need for the dash.
- done
- It includes all players with 20 more appearances, or 10 or more goals, for the German team, and all capped players that were in the squad for a World Cup or European Championship finals. - very repetitive, how about It includes players with over 20 appearances, over 10 scored goals, and all capped players that were in the squad for a World Cup or European Championship finals.
- Not done - the current sentence better explains that it's any of these criteria, not all
- My
opposeremains per prose issues.TRUCO 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I've addressed your comments above. Responses in italics. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - my review was resolved to meet WP:WIAFL. Sorry for the late revisit.--SRX 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Matthäus was the inaugural winner of the FIFA World Player of the Year award in 1991,[5] and is one of five Germany players to have been awarded European Footballer of the Year – Franz Beckenbauer and Karl-Heinz Rummenigge on two occasions." – Shouldn't it be "one of three Germany players" if the other two won twice each? Also, it's worded strangely anyways at the end; the "person and person on two occasions" doesn't fit in well with the rest of the sentence
- No, it's five players, two have which have won twice (seven wins). I've changed the last sentence to "twice each"
- "ninth most" – "ninth-most"
- done
- "while Gerd" – "and Gerd"
- done
- "eighth most" – "eighth-most"
- done
- "many changes during" – linking "changes" to History of Germany? That's quite an assumption to think that readers will know where the word "changes" links to (readers should already have an idea of where links lead to, otherwise the links are poorly placed). Either remove the link or link a larger phrase, like "underwent many changes during the 20th century"—I assume that this is related to WWI and WWII, so probably would be more logical to even link to a specific section in the article concerning these events.
- done - linked to a more appropriate article
- "with the result that Germany's 1938 World Cup squad included many Austrians." – "resulting in Germany's 1938 World Cup squad to include many Austrians."
- not done - I'm sorry, that sentence doesn't work at all.
- Try "resulting in Germany's 1938 World Cup squad's inclusion of many Austrians." Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's better - although, on reflection, 'several' is more appropriate than 'many'. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Try "resulting in Germany's 1938 World Cup squad's inclusion of many Austrians." Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- not done - I'm sorry, that sentence doesn't work at all.
- "break-up of Germany" – perhaps link to a relevant article about the creation of West and East Germany
- done - covered above
- "During this period the" – "During this period, the"
- done
Gary King (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've addressed your recommendations. Comments in italics. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a few more changes, but a few issues still remain.
- "Notes" column should not be sortable; why would anyone want to sort it? The information in there is not comparable, alphabetically-speaking.
- Done - I wasn't aware you can do this with individual columns
- Check the table's sorting. "Klaus Allofs" and "Karl Allgöwer" are in the wrong order, for instance. Use {{sortname}} if the article isn't already.
- Done - sortname is used, this row was incorrectly placed
- "captain, with" – "captain, and has"
- Done
- "most successful era" – seems a bit subjective to me
- It's qualified by mentioning that they won the two competitions consecutively; they haven't done this at any other time. I feel that adding more detail would be inappropriate for an image caption
Gary King (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, same drill. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Gary King (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
For the benefit of those of your readers with less than perfect eyesight, please consider using normal rather than small font size for the notes column.- done
- Numeric columns would look better either numerically-aligned (as done in player infoboxes), or centred; anything but left-aligned, really.
- done
- What's the significance of "Ehrenspielführer"?
- It's established in the key, but I've added a reference to it
- I saw the translation, but was wondering what the concept meant. Does it have any relationship to team captain (as there are only 4 Ehrenspielführer but many team captains), or is it the name of an honour awarded after the player's career finishes, or what? Struway2 (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I've added a para about it to the lead. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw the translation, but was wondering what the concept meant. Does it have any relationship to team captain (as there are only 4 Ehrenspielführer but many team captains), or is it the name of an honour awarded after the player's career finishes, or what? Struway2 (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps change the caption of the Ballack picture to something like "Ballack was appointed captain in yyyy"; as it stands, it needs an as-of date and updating every game.
- done
cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
replied. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- resolved satisfactorily. Struway2 (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 22:30, 2 December 2008 [27].
previous FLC (20:26, 11 October 2008)
Comprehensive, well written, meets FL criteria; after two extensive peer-reviews and a failed FLC, this article is once more, ready to be a FL candidate. One of the main issues that other editors encountered with this article was that it was hard for those unfamiliar with Australian rules football to understand the jargon and football-related concepts. In light of this, I've re-written this article from the standpoint of someone who is encountering the topic for the first time. Once again, if there are any minor issues remaining, I'd be willing to work on them, until the article reaches FL status. --Flewis(talk) 13:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice that there are no actual book sources, so i would expect sources do exist for the missing data, but require a trip to the library. Hence i would oppose at this time, at least until print sources have been checked. I don't see how it is possible for newspapers of the time not to have these results, so this fails to be comprehensive. (Also, is Youtube a reliable source for these stats? What's to stop someone faking an official looking video on there?).Yobmod (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Issue fixed - A reference, namely this one was found. --Flewis(talk) 05:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Youtube is not being used as a source of information, it is only linked so as to present visual evidence. This issue has already been discussed in the previous FLC and Peer reviews. --Flewis(talk) 07:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the Youtube videos not copywrite breaches by Youtube, which should therefore not be used as links? or are the PD for some reason?Yobmod (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The usability of youtube videos has been discussed here. Copyright has been discussed here.--Flewis(talk) 00:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The copywrite discusion did not show that these are not illegal copywrite violations. You wrote:"However I failed to find an exact copyright pertaining to synthesis of sport broadcasts". Until that is known for certain i'm sure this wouldn't fly with featured articles and shouldn't with featured lists.Yobmod (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the links to the youtube videos are detrimental to the article/block to FL, then I see no reason not to remove them. I personally believe that the reader will want to see the mark, not just read about it. Linking directly to the video, is simply a convenience. Wikipedia is not paper after all, and a video link certainly sets this article apart, presenting both a textual and visual encyclopedia experience. On the other hand, copyright is a very serious issue, and Youtube is directly responsible for any copyright videos appearing on the site. As a rule of thumb, copyrighted material is either promptly removed from the site, or displayed with advertising. If the video has not been removed, we can safely assume that it is presented in a legal fashion. The wikimedia foundation cannot be held liable for what appears on youtube, so we can safely assume that a harmless link will not incur any legal action. --Flewis(talk) 14:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The copywrite discusion did not show that these are not illegal copywrite violations. You wrote:"However I failed to find an exact copyright pertaining to synthesis of sport broadcasts". Until that is known for certain i'm sure this wouldn't fly with featured articles and shouldn't with featured lists.Yobmod (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The usability of youtube videos has been discussed here. Copyright has been discussed here.--Flewis(talk) 00:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the Youtube videos not copywrite breaches by Youtube, which should therefore not be used as links? or are the PD for some reason?Yobmod (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Youtube is not being used as a source of information, it is only linked so as to present visual evidence. This issue has already been discussed in the previous FLC and Peer reviews. --Flewis(talk) 07:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Issue fixed - A reference, namely this one was found. --Flewis(talk) 05:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) It's not about what the reader wants, it's about breaking the law, and getting Wikipedia closed down. Anyone else noticed that the German courts have shut down wikipedia.de for something that should never have been in an article according to policy? I'm not a copywrite expert, so if an experienced user in this area can say we are not breaking the law, then that's fine. But at the moment, we have no indication at all. Official policy = If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. Yobmod (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the videos are now gone, i look over some other parts, and it looks nearly there. Some (one?) of the colour-code symbols are missing,m and i agree with those below that the descriptions of the win need to be sourced to someone. I'll go for neutral, as there still seems a lot of comments from others that need atending.Yobmod (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is much improved over its first FL review, but there are 2 major issues and some minor ones:
- Several items in the list that are very important, like round and location, are missing. I've flagged SOME of these with HTML comments. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)
- Comments in the list which are not sourced may be perceived as WP:Original Research. If it's obvious from inspection of the video then it will probably be okay but if it's editorializing or even looks like it, or it contains facts not visible in a publicity photo, it should be sourced. 1975 is an example of one that must be sourced. Ideally, they all would be. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)
- Mostly done - there are a few other un-sourced descriptions, but the sources for them shouldn't be hard to find. --Flewis(talk) 12:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The normal wikipedia rules of "only link the first instance" aren't done but they may not apply. However, the principle author should adopt a convention of when to link the same word or name more than once and document it on the talk page. If it makes sense to do so, this should be the wiki "first mention gets a link" rule. Because of the nature of the tables, I'm okay with a link in the first instance in each table, plus the first use in the article if different. I'm also okay with a link for every use in the tables, but try to avoid that if possible. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)
- To someone unfamiliar with Australian Rules football jargon, or to someone skimping through the article, an overlink when relevant to the context is helpful and necessary. Otherwise it may be best to WP:IAR? --Flewis(talk) 15:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of single-quotes, double-quotes, italics, and bold needs to be standardized and documented on the talk page. The use of "fancy quotes" or "angled quotes" or "curley quotes" should be avoided. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)
- I don't understand. --Flewis(talk) 12:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See this edit. "Fancy" quote characters like ‘ and ’ and “ and ” (note: these characters may LOOK the same as normal quotes but check the wiki-source to see the difference) should be avoided except when necessary as they look awkward on some older platforms. Use ' and " instead. Sometimes, italics or bold is better than putting a word in quotes, I just played with the text and decided which one felt right and most consistent with the rest of Wikipedia when I made that edit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't seem find any instances of this type of formatting within the article. Could you please double check if the issue has been resolved? --Flewis(talk) 12:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's been taken care of. But if and when new material is added by the editor who put them in in the first place, care should be taken not to introduce these again. Some word- and text-processors turn quotes into curly-quotes automatically, this feature should be turned off when preparing articles for Wikipedia.
- I can't seem find any instances of this type of formatting within the article. Could you please double check if the issue has been resolved? --Flewis(talk) 12:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See this edit. "Fancy" quote characters like ‘ and ’ and “ and ” (note: these characters may LOOK the same as normal quotes but check the wiki-source to see the difference) should be avoided except when necessary as they look awkward on some older platforms. Use ' and " instead. Sometimes, italics or bold is better than putting a word in quotes, I just played with the text and decided which one felt right and most consistent with the rest of Wikipedia when I made that edit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand. --Flewis(talk) 12:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reason the links to videos are emphasized/bolded? Is there a reason it is in citation format rather than [http://www.url.goes.here description] inline format? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)
- I wasn't entirely sure exactly how the video column had to be presented (a link to a MOS guideline regarding this issue would be great). Otherwise, the youtube videos were converted into citations for some reason here--Flewis(talk) 07:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did some cleanup and some minor formatting changes. Please make sure none of my work introduced problems.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC) }}[reply]
Comments from Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs)
Comments by Ruhrfisch: I peer reviewed this and was asked to look at the article for FLC. I do not normally write sport articles, do not follow or totally understand Australian Rules Football, and it has been some time since I last weighed in on an FLC. I reread the article, reread WP:WIAFL, and reread the pertinent parts of WP:MOS. I do not think this currently meets FL criteria, but also imagine the changes needed are relatively easy.
Per the MOS, please give English units (feet or yards) as well as metric (metres). The {{convert}} template may help here.I think the article is seriously overlinked - see WP:OVERLINK. For example, Australian Football League is linked four times in the article, and fairly common terms like Autralia and kick and ball are also linked. Note I am not specifically objecting to overlinks in the sortable table.- Most unnecessary links have been removed. Most of the links left within the prose are content-specific. E.g. ball --Flewis(talk) 04:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:IMAGE, Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other. but the image of the football and 2008 Mark of the Year Image sandwich the text.One the criteria at WP:WIAFL is comprehensiveness: Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical .... However, I am confused by the "Round. Ground" column in the list - it gives the game (match) in every case (so should the column header be "Game. Round. Ground"?) but it does not give the round every time. For example,current ref 38 says the 1998 Mark was in Round 18, but this information is not given in article.- Done--Flewis(talk) 05:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but 1973 and 1978 still need a ground listed. I would also suggest changing the column header to "Teams, Round, Ground" or "Match, Round, Ground" or "Game, Round, Ground". I wnt through and made this column consistent - commas between all entries, "vs" instead of "v" or "vs." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's the last of them - Also I changed "Round, Ground" to "Match, Round, Ground"--Flewis(talk) 10:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I struck but have one last question. For 1972 it says Halfback Peter Knights throws screamer against Collingwood.[3] - since this is about catching the ball, should the verb really be "throws"? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's all colloquial jargon - see here [28] --Flewis(talk) 13:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I struck but have one last question. For 1972 it says Halfback Peter Knights throws screamer against Collingwood.[3] - since this is about catching the ball, should the verb really be "throws"? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's the last of them - Also I changed "Round, Ground" to "Match, Round, Ground"--Flewis(talk) 10:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but 1973 and 1978 still need a ground listed. I would also suggest changing the column header to "Teams, Round, Ground" or "Match, Round, Ground" or "Game, Round, Ground". I wnt through and made this column consistent - commas between all entries, "vs" instead of "v" or "vs." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Flewis(talk) 05:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at ref 38 and the information it is used for as a citation, I am not sure the description of the Mark matches the ref cited (this may be my ignorance of AFL terminology). As one example, the 2000 description is A chest mark over a pack in typical Tony Modra fashion.[38] while ref 38 says DETAILS: From within a pack, Tony Modra rose on the back of his opponent to yet again take a spectacular and memorable mark, this time from the kick by team mate Ashley Prescott. [29]. Note it does not say it was a "chest mark" and the "typical Tony Modra fashion" seems a bit of a stretch. Is this WP:OR?- No, the facts weren't wrong, however without a source, the description could be considered borderline OR. I've paraphrased the info from within the source, and replaced the previous commentary.--Flewis(talk) 05:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - the descriptions really need to be made consistent. For example is it 'Overhead mark' (single quotes, 1970) or Overhead mark (no quotes, 1974) or why is only the 1976 Overhead mark linked (either link the first one, or link them all). Similarly is it 'screamer' (single quotes, 1972) or screamer (linked, 1974) or screamer (italics, 1976)? The names of the winners are also inconsistent in the descriptions - some are just last name, others are first and last name. I also note that all the descriptions end with a period / full stop, but should the fragments that are not full sentences end this way? Or is this an FL / MOS criterion somehow? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I cleaned up and added info to some of the "problematic" descriptions. I've also gone ahead and placed full-stops at the end of each of the descriptions, and fixed the linking issue. FL criteria does not specify exactly what the table must include, so there's some leeway there for personal opinions. I don't think naming inconsistencies within the descriptions is a problem though. Otherwise, I think I can basically say done in regards to these issues. --Flewis(talk) 11:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck. I made a few more cleanup edits - as always please revert / fix if I introduced any errors Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I cleaned up and added info to some of the "problematic" descriptions. I've also gone ahead and placed full-stops at the end of each of the descriptions, and fixed the linking issue. FL criteria does not specify exactly what the table must include, so there's some leeway there for personal opinions. I don't think naming inconsistencies within the descriptions is a problem though. Otherwise, I think I can basically say done in regards to these issues. --Flewis(talk) 11:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - the descriptions really need to be made consistent. For example is it 'Overhead mark' (single quotes, 1970) or Overhead mark (no quotes, 1974) or why is only the 1976 Overhead mark linked (either link the first one, or link them all). Similarly is it 'screamer' (single quotes, 1972) or screamer (linked, 1974) or screamer (italics, 1976)? The names of the winners are also inconsistent in the descriptions - some are just last name, others are first and last name. I also note that all the descriptions end with a period / full stop, but should the fragments that are not full sentences end this way? Or is this an FL / MOS criterion somehow? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the facts weren't wrong, however without a source, the description could be considered borderline OR. I've paraphrased the info from within the source, and replaced the previous commentary.--Flewis(talk) 05:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I raised this issue at the peer review and will raise it again here. I do not think that most or perhaps all of the many YouTube links are justified. There is no clear indication that I can see that they are posted by the copyright holder. Despite the claims made above, they are linked as inline citations, not given in the External links section. However, even if they were External links, WP:EL says under Restrictions on linking: For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: 1. Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. If they are references (which is how I see them), then you still should not link to a copyright violation. Perhaps we should find a copyright expert and ask them.
- I mentioned this previously during a discussion with Yobmod at the top of this page, along with the respective PR's and previous FLC. I reiterate once more - If the video is currently on display on youtube, either:
- It's there with consent from the copyright holder
- The video has an expired copyright due to an Australian TV sporting law
- The video is a Copyvio that has not yet been discovered by the Copyright holder.
- If this will be a block to FLC, then by all means, remove the videos. The only reason they're within the article, is to provide a direct link which will visually aid the prospective reader. It's your call. --Flewis(talk) 05:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please clarify which links / videos are in which category - obviously types 1 and 2 are OK and type 3 links need to be removed. Type 2 seems easiest if it is date based - all videos older than a certain year would presumably be allowed. I also note that there are about 2650 hits in the official AFL website for "Mark of the Year" on Google, some of which are videos, which might be helpful. See here Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe the official site stores video clips, other than within the official Mark of the Year portal - that only shows the latest winners. I also couldn't tell you which videos fall into which categories. I guess the only way to find out, is to remove any Youtube deadlinks (which would mean that the video was removed due to copyright infringement.) YT, like wikipedia is created on user-generated content, so it would be extremely difficult to determine each and every video's copyright status. --Flewis(talk) 11:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not a copyright expert. If you want, we can try to get an expert opinion by asking somewhere. I do not know anything about Australian copyright, but what you said about expired copyright made me think that if it were a 10 or 20 year limit, then those video clips would be easiest to identify. Similarly if the official AFL website (or the original television broadcaster's website - the ABC?) have a clip, then that is OK to link to. Unlike criminal trials (innocent until proven guilty), I think the standard here must be assume videos on YouTube are a copyright violation unless you can prove otherwise. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Afl.com.au and the respective Australian broadcasters don't have the videos listed within their sites. So, should I remove the links, or keep them? - or would you rather have an expert review the situation? It's your call. --Flewis(talk) 13:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer to ask an expert since I know nothing about Australian copyright law. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Afl.com.au and the respective Australian broadcasters don't have the videos listed within their sites. So, should I remove the links, or keep them? - or would you rather have an expert review the situation? It's your call. --Flewis(talk) 13:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not a copyright expert. If you want, we can try to get an expert opinion by asking somewhere. I do not know anything about Australian copyright, but what you said about expired copyright made me think that if it were a 10 or 20 year limit, then those video clips would be easiest to identify. Similarly if the official AFL website (or the original television broadcaster's website - the ABC?) have a clip, then that is OK to link to. Unlike criminal trials (innocent until proven guilty), I think the standard here must be assume videos on YouTube are a copyright violation unless you can prove otherwise. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe the official site stores video clips, other than within the official Mark of the Year portal - that only shows the latest winners. I also couldn't tell you which videos fall into which categories. I guess the only way to find out, is to remove any Youtube deadlinks (which would mean that the video was removed due to copyright infringement.) YT, like wikipedia is created on user-generated content, so it would be extremely difficult to determine each and every video's copyright status. --Flewis(talk) 11:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please clarify which links / videos are in which category - obviously types 1 and 2 are OK and type 3 links need to be removed. Type 2 seems easiest if it is date based - all videos older than a certain year would presumably be allowed. I also note that there are about 2650 hits in the official AFL website for "Mark of the Year" on Google, some of which are videos, which might be helpful. See here Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this will be a block to FLC, then by all means, remove the videos. The only reason they're within the article, is to provide a direct link which will visually aid the prospective reader. It's your call. --Flewis(talk) 05:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are five fair use images in the article. While I am not sure if this number is excessive per WP:NFCC (it is down from 9 when I reviewed it), the images in all cases need, but do not have {{Non-free use rationale}} templates. This must be done or the images can be deleted.- If you need an example, see the rationale at Image:PriestleyStamp.jpg Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:LloydMark 246.jpg and Image:Moorcroft - 2001 mark.jpg and Image:SvNEWTON.jpg all need a Fair Use Rationale still.
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Video Clips - how to best reference the video clips is under discussion. Until that discussion is resolved this article should not be promoted. However, it should not be failed either as long as discussion is happening. This is a case where the "standard" way of doing things creates an unnecessarily long list.[reply]
- I have asked for advice on the copyright status of these clips here. If they are copyvio, they can not be in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we are talking about the same clips. It's my understanding that linked-to material can be copyrighted and does not have to be fair-use, it only has to be relevant. Since this is a list class article, each row in the list can have things in it, including photo- or video-links, related to that year's Mark. If this were only article about the award itself, then at most 1 or 2 such links would be appropriate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree there is no restriction on linking to copyrighted material, there is a prohibition against linking to material that is on the web as a copyright violation. Please see Yobmod's comment and mine above. I have asked others better versed in copyright issues than I to weigh in here, let's see what they say. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I heard from User:Ealdgyth on this. Please see under WP:C, specifically WP:LINKVIO, where the relevant text is ... if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. ... I see no indication that the copyright holders (AFL and/or broadcasters) posted these videos. Unless there is some clear Australian law that copyright on videos expires after a certain number of years that would affect the videos linked in this article, all of the links to YouTube should go. If the AFL or broadcasters have links to the Marks, then they could be linked. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - After much discussion I've went ahead and removed all the Youtube video links [30]. It's evident that the majority of them have an unclear copyright status (On a side note Goal of the Year (Australia) has a similar problem), and would therefore risk violating WP:LINKVIO. Some videos previously linked within the article have been removed as copyvios by youtube, and the remainder are still undiscovered by the copyright holders. Despite my personal opinions, I have no doubt, that the prospective reader won't have trouble finding footage of the marks via a simple google search. It is likely that this issue would've gone back and forth for quite some time, with the videos eventually being removed. This has just saved everyone the trouble of unnecessary hyperbole over the only real solution. --Flewis(talk) 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I have changed from Comments to Support. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - After much discussion I've went ahead and removed all the Youtube video links [30]. It's evident that the majority of them have an unclear copyright status (On a side note Goal of the Year (Australia) has a similar problem), and would therefore risk violating WP:LINKVIO. Some videos previously linked within the article have been removed as copyvios by youtube, and the remainder are still undiscovered by the copyright holders. Despite my personal opinions, I have no doubt, that the prospective reader won't have trouble finding footage of the marks via a simple google search. It is likely that this issue would've gone back and forth for quite some time, with the videos eventually being removed. This has just saved everyone the trouble of unnecessary hyperbole over the only real solution. --Flewis(talk) 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I heard from User:Ealdgyth on this. Please see under WP:C, specifically WP:LINKVIO, where the relevant text is ... if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. ... I see no indication that the copyright holders (AFL and/or broadcasters) posted these videos. Unless there is some clear Australian law that copyright on videos expires after a certain number of years that would affect the videos linked in this article, all of the links to YouTube should go. If the AFL or broadcasters have links to the Marks, then they could be linked. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree there is no restriction on linking to copyrighted material, there is a prohibition against linking to material that is on the web as a copyright violation. Please see Yobmod's comment and mine above. I have asked others better versed in copyright issues than I to weigh in here, let's see what they say. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we are talking about the same clips. It's my understanding that linked-to material can be copyrighted and does not have to be fair-use, it only has to be relevant. Since this is a list class article, each row in the list can have things in it, including photo- or video-links, related to that year's Mark. If this were only article about the award itself, then at most 1 or 2 such links would be appropriate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I made quite a few copy-edits. I think the list is ready for FL status. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support all of my concerns have been addressed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are two red-links in the transcluded template at the bottom. If anyone here knows enough about the subjects, please create stubs for Dreamtime at the 'G and VFL/AFL Captains. Newly-minted FL articles look so much better when they don't have any redlinks.
- ^ FOX: Press release (2004-08-26). "The O.C.' returns with two specials featuring exclusive behing-the-scenes footage, Thursday, Sept. 16, and Thursday, Sept. 23, on FOX". The Futon Critic. Retrieved 2008-11-21.