Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2009: Difference between revisions
m Bot updating FLC archive links |
two withdrawn by nominator |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The Batman episodes}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Batman: The Brave and the Bold episodes}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy people/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy people/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rufus Wainwright discography/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rufus Wainwright discography/archive1}} |
Revision as of 04:11, 19 February 2009
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The Batman episodes Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Batman: The Brave and the Bold episodes
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [1].
This list is well structured, illustrated and includes references to all entries. I believe it deserves to be featured.Silin2005 (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We don't start lists out "This is a list of..." anymore. I can tell you right now that the lead needs expansion (summarize the list more and talk about the university more) and that all web citations need titles, URLs, publishers and last access dates. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick-fail
You have not made a single contribution to this list and are therefore not a significant contributor. You do not appear to have consulted any of the significant contributors either. Aditionally this list has quite a few flaws. All references are missing publishers, the lead seems too short. For the image of the seal you uploaded, did you make the seal? If not then surely you are not the author and cannot release it into the public domain. This also needs an image review for bad/incomplete licenses (e.g. File:Skovoroda.jpg).
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there have been 87 edits to this list. The nominator has made 77 of them. Ostap 02:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear, I'm very sorry I was using the contribution tool on the wrong FLC, and confused the multiple tabs I had open. I have struck my qf, but I still Oppose due to the other issues mentioned. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [2].
I am nominating this list for FL status because I believe it meets all of the qualifications and I have made improvements to the article based on a recent peer review session. I believe I corrected all concerns raised during PR, except that I left the 13 chart columns on the album discography (I do not think it is excessive, and according to MOS:DISCOG approximately 10 charts are suggested; 13 is close to 10).
Also, it was suggested that the Operas section be deleted, though I would like to get additional feedback regarding that request. I realize this is a Discography, and the opera has not yet been recorded and distributed as an album. However, this is a major work and I still wonder if it is worth listing. At the same time, I am more than willing to remove the section if consensus reveals it should be eliminated from the list. Perhaps a list of composition could be created, since Wainwright has composed other pieces as well? If there is a "List of compositions" template or example I could follow, I'd be interested.
Sorry so long. Anyways, I think that apart from the aforementioned concern, this is an informational, highly-referenced list that I would love to see join the other FL discographies. Thank you so much for your time, consideration, and assistance. -Another Believer (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
I have another question. This is a compilation album compiled of songs CHOSEN by Wainwright. He does not perform on the album. It is a collection of songs he likes, plus two of his songs performed by a string quartet ("Hometown Waltz" and "Cigarettes and Chocolate Milk"). Does this belong anywhere on the list? -Another Believer (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 22:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.soundtrackcollector.com/catalog/soundtrackdetail.php?movieid=75992 a reliable source?
- Comment: I'm afraid I cannot find any newspaper articles or other more reliable sources with the track list. If this, this, this, or this cannot be used, I will simply have to remove the entry. I think part of the problem is that this film was released in France so there is little English text about the film/soundtrack. -Another Believer (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you show that any of these listed sources are reliable through support by a reliable third-party institution, being cited by a reputable publication/institution, or methods of fact-checking? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I've gone ahead and removed the entry. I can add it back later if I come across a reliable source. -Another Believer (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you show that any of these listed sources are reliable through support by a reliable third-party institution, being cited by a reputable publication/institution, or methods of fact-checking? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: radio-canada.ca is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's French site. I've update the reference to display Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as the publisher, rather than Radio-Canada. I hope this helps.
You need to add a publisher to the Billboard sources. Billboard is the work, and Nielsen Business Media, Inc is the publisher.Dabomb87 (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thank you so much for your time and assistance! -Another Believer (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very thorough, but I do have a few complaints that I hope you can address.
- My complaint has to do with the 13 charts. Yes, 13 is close to 10, but I see no justification or rationale for going past the suggested 10. On the contrary, there are many reasons not to go past 10, which are in fact the same reasons why 10 is suggested in the first place. I think it would be very easy to trim the fat on this: the German, Austrian, and Spanish charts aren't particularly notable or useful in my opinion, and that would bring it down to the magic number.
- My other main complaint is that the list is over-referenced. (Yes, there is such a thing as too many citations). For instance, it's extreme overkill to provide a citation for every single release, when one or two general references would suffice. Take a look at the reference section of The Prodigy discography for an example of what I mean.
I have some other more minor style-based complaints, but those are my two main ones. I don't have time to do a full review at the moment, so I'll save those for if and when the other two are addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. The difference between the Rufus Wainwright and The Prodigy discographies is that the latter does not list 77 contributions to soundtracks, compilation albums, and albums by other artists. I do not think the article would look "over-referenced" if it were not for that extensive list. However, I feel the contributions list is very helpful and necessary, showing the extent of his involvement with many projects. If I could find a single reliable source that listed many of his contributions (including track name, album title, etc.), I would reduce the number of references. Since I cannot, I will leave the list as is for now. Thanks again! -Another Believer (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not suggesting getting rid of citations that aren't coverable by general references, and if the soundtrack contributions need specific citations then that's fine. But for a start, a citation for every studio album, live album, compilation, EP, and video album seems unnecessary. A single link to allmusic covers alot of this. And a single link to his website covers alot of other stuff. Drewcifer (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So just use the allmusic link you provided to reference all of the albums? It just seems the references provided (that direct to Billboard) note more information--album name, date, release formats, peak positions, etc. In other words, they provide details allmusic does not. In no way am I unwilling to change/improve the article, nor do I take offense. I am really just trying to make sure I understand why the article should be edited to contain fewer references when those references may be more useful to the reader. I hope other users will express their thoughts on this issue. Are there any other issues that need to be addressed in order to earn your support? -Another Believer (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, well let's compare the Poses pages from Allmusic link and Billboard link. They both have title, label, catalog number, and release date. Billboard has some chart positions (though so does Allmusic, it's just one click away rather than on the same page). So for this one release they're essentially the same. The difference being allmusic has a all-inclusive discography page link, where as Billboard does not. So that is why I would say Allmusic is better, since one link can provide information for a whole bunch of releases, rather than one link per release. Hope that makes sense. It also looks like Allmusic is a little bit more inclusive, as it includes Yellow lounge, but Billboard does not. I think this may be because Billboard only lists things that have charted, though I could be wrong.
- The reason less citations is preferable is because 124 of them is just data overload, and it implies that if the reader wants to find out more they need to go to 124 places, rather than a few all-inclusive ones.
- Aside from the citations bit, there's still the 13 charts thing that needs to be addressed. And I'll try and find some time soon to do a more thorough style-based review of the list. Drewcifer (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So just use the allmusic link you provided to reference all of the albums? It just seems the references provided (that direct to Billboard) note more information--album name, date, release formats, peak positions, etc. In other words, they provide details allmusic does not. In no way am I unwilling to change/improve the article, nor do I take offense. I am really just trying to make sure I understand why the article should be edited to contain fewer references when those references may be more useful to the reader. I hope other users will express their thoughts on this issue. Are there any other issues that need to be addressed in order to earn your support? -Another Believer (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not suggesting getting rid of citations that aren't coverable by general references, and if the soundtrack contributions need specific citations then that's fine. But for a start, a citation for every studio album, live album, compilation, EP, and video album seems unnecessary. A single link to allmusic covers alot of this. And a single link to his website covers alot of other stuff. Drewcifer (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [3].
I'm nominating this because I believe it meets all FL criteria. It's comprehensive and cited with reliable sources. Pyrrhus16 13:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be: "List of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson"? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no nominations listed. It would take forever to find every award he has been nominated for. Pyrrhus16 14:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with Pyrrhus on that point, the logistics of having every award Jackson has won and been nominated for would be entirely overbearing on a reader. There would be difficulty loading the page for a start. — R2 16:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the list is only for the awards Jackson won, shouldn't the result in the table be removed. Frcm1988 (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there is a way to remove that column. Besides, it's also used to differentiate between awards won and hall of fame inductions. Pyrrhus16 18:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about renaming the list to "List of awards received by Michael Jackson"? Gary King (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, what Gary King said is OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about renaming the list to "List of awards received by Michael Jackson"? Gary King (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there is a way to remove that column. Besides, it's also used to differentiate between awards won and hall of fame inductions. Pyrrhus16 18:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the list is only for the awards Jackson won, shouldn't the result in the table be removed. Frcm1988 (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with Pyrrhus on that point, the logistics of having every award Jackson has won and been nominated for would be entirely overbearing on a reader. There would be difficulty loading the page for a start. — R2 16:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Frcm1988 (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the nominated work is missing: for example in the Soul Train Awards, in the Best R&B/Urban Contemporary (Music Video), what video was nominated?
- The book in which I used for reference doesn't state which video won that award.
- Did Jackson actually won the BRIT Award for Best British Album?
- According to the reference book, yes.
- Africa should be replaced for Gabon.
- Done
- In the International Awards there are only the names of the countries but not the name of the Award, and also what was the nominated work.
- Again, the book doesn't state and I wouldn't like to assume.
- In the Golden Globe Awards, which award did he won? Best Original Song I suppose.
- Done
- The MTV European Music Awards should be in a table like the rest of awards.
- The MTV Europe awards? They are in a table, unless I misunderstood the comment?
- Some of the awards are lacking a description, like the Smash Hits, or in Mix Magazine he won for Best Foreign Male Singer but it dosen't said from which country is the magazine.
- Added the countries. Pyrrhus16 18:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
- Lead
- The seventh child of the Jackson family, he debuted on the professional music scene at the age of 11 as a member of The Jackson 5 and began a solo career in 1971 while still a member of the group. - comma before and
- Done
- Rename the article to List of awards received by Michael Jackson (per consistency with other awards lists)
I can think of a few FL lists that aren't 'consistent'... but consider it done.Pyrrhus16 09:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will move after FL discussion, it was messing with the link to here - despite a redirect. Pyrrhus16 10:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead needs to be expanded a bit, I see many many awards listed, some of those should be summarized further in the prose.
- Added a bit more info to the lead. Pyrrhus16 10:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List
- Some of the entries are missing the description/purpose of the awards.
- Little is known about some of the awards. Pyrrhus16 10:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Research will have to be done then because you can't just have some awards that don't list their purpose, it questions the reader as to what they were nominated for.--TRUCO 22:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Little is known about some of the awards. Pyrrhus16 10:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the entries are missing references for the description/purpose of the awards.
- Which descriptions do you feel need a reference? Pyrrhus16 10:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of them, some of the awards have descriptions as to why they are held, but this is not verified with a reference. It seems redundant to source it in this article, but you can't have original research in the article.--TRUCO 22:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this is a list of his awards and not his nominations, I find it redundant to list the result in every entry.
- As I said above, I don't think there is a way to remove that column. However it's also used to differentiate between awards won and hall of fame inductions.Pyrrhus16 09:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess, this should be discussed at the template page or the respective project page to see if the "result" field can be made optional per lists like these. What above my first 2 comments in this section?--TRUCO 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also
- This section goes before the references per WP:SEEALSO
- Done — R2 07:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References
- The grammy award reference should have Grammy award piped linked in the publisher field.
- Done. — R2 07:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pipe link to Grammy, not Grammy award.--TRUCO 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done — R2 13:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pipe link to Grammy, not Grammy award.--TRUCO 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — R2 07:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The RIAA should not be piped to www.riaa.com, it should be just RIAA, or the acronym should be spelled out.
- Done — R2 07:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reagan-utexas.edu should be linked to the appropriate article
- It doesn't have a corresponding article on Wikipedia, that I know of.
- It looks like its an alternative to Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, so that's the best to place in the publisher field.--TRUCO 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I see, thanks, done. — R2 13:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like its an alternative to Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, so that's the best to place in the publisher field.--TRUCO 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't have a corresponding article on Wikipedia, that I know of.
- ABC News needs to be linked.
- ABC News is linked in the footnotes once, on the first occasion it is used. Do we need to keep relinking the same publisher each time in the notes? I'm not a fan of linking for the sake of linking. — R2 07:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--TRUCO 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I didn't see that it was linked already. No, no need to link it again.--TRUCO 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. — R2 13:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) There are some basic errors that result from not having an outside editor looking through it with a detailed eye. Luckily, the problems aren't large; a twenty-minute proofread by someone new to the article should suffice. A larger problem is that lack of description for awards. Examples:
- Birthdate not necessary; this isn't his main article.
- Done
- "The seventh child of the Jackson family" Another irrelevant detail.
- Done
- "at the age
of11" - "and a RIAA certification" Spell out RIAA on its first appearance.
- Done
- "has
alsobeen honoured "
- Done
- "is an organisation which helps"-->is an organisation that helps
- Done
- "whilst facing"-->while facing
- Done
- Jackson has went on to collect 22 "-->Jackson has collected 22
- Done
- Why is there no description of the American Video Awards?
- "BET Awards" Once again, there is no description.
- Many of the awards have no description.
- "The Billboard Music Awards, sponsored by Billboard magazine" Comma after here.
- Done
- "has won a total of 40 Billboard related"-->has won 40 Billboard-related
- Done
- "hem as royalties to
thosemembers" Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those were only examples; please find somebody to go through the whole text. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
Sources
- Citations with multiple page numbers should use the notation "pp."
- Done
- Dates should not have leading 0s. Example: "Retrieved on February 03, 2009"-->Retrieved on February 3, 2009 Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- http://www.forbes.com/feeds/prnewswire/2008/11/07/prnewswire200811071005PR_NEWS_USPR_____NY44689.html (ref 26) deadlinks. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- When does the Michael Jackson ceremony take place? What I mean by that is that List of Saturn Awards, List of BAFTA awards, List of Grammy Awards would be okay, because they are awards of Saturn, the BAFTAs, Grammys. There are no Michael Jackson awards, only awards received by Michael Jackson. The page title should reflect that. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We will certainly find a more suitable name when the FLC is closed, as you can imagine, this is not the best time to go changing titles. — R2 14:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you need to start with "Michael Joseph Jackson". It isn't the name he goes by as a performer, and it is given at Michael Jackson.
- Done. — R2 14:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been any progress? I still have not heard a reason for why many awards have no descriptions. Language concerns still – "Bravo is the largest teen magazine within the German-language sphere." Why such a jargony and vague word like "sphere"? "Its membership comprises hundreds of music companies including" Comma after "companies". "a weekly publication devoted to the music and coin-operated machine industries which was published from July " "which"-->that. "Jackson was awarded with a humanitarian award, from the Crenshaw Community Youth & Arts Foundation, in 1994.[14]" Repetition of "award" and the comma is not necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's rather difficult to find a description and reference for all 80+ awards. It would certainly take more than the 10 day allocation, therefore, I suggest withdrawing this and resubmitting when all concerns have been met. Probably submitting it for Peer Review beforehand. I hadn't anticipated the work that goes into Featured Content and submitted this way too early, as you can see here. Pyrrhus16 10:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, we know what needs doing, it's just going to take some time. Best to let this close, we will be back. :) — R2 13:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [4].
previous FLC (23:14, 20 January 2009) Rambo's Revenge notified
I have addressed all the issues that caused the list to fail last time including copyediting and finding sources that were requested.じんない 19:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I could not evaluate the foreign-language sources for reliablity. Having said that, what makes http://momoi.info/discography/under17/ reliable?- I removed it since when I put it on, it had been referenced by another reliable source, but it looks like that source has taken them off. It does not affect the article though as the remaining source can verify the statement.じんない 18:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 2 (official website) needs a publisher.Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
This list had definately improved from last time, however I still have some issues with it and so will not support just yet.
- "Between December 12, 2004 and March 22, 2005, it produced three DVDs each with four episodes.[17][18] A final box set was released on August 14, 2007, shortly before Geneon's demise.[18] Unlike the Japanese DVD releases, the English ones had no promotional content." The whole of this part is currently referenced only my refs 17 & 18 which (per previous FLC & WP:ANIME) are not considered reliable. I don't know what exactly parts are being referenced but this source might possibly help.
- The episode numbers I cited from the dvd back cover. It's the release dates that are the problem because I cannot seem to find any press releases except on the 2nd DVD nor any coverage about the release dates except ANN for English market. I'm not sure where to look for the release dates for the 1st and 3rd DVD that would meet WP:RS.じんない 01:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually would Target Target #2 be considered a reliable for the release date?じんない 01:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would consider it much more reliable. The fact that target.com has different DVD release dates from the list currently also strengthens my case for not using ANN. However the box set release date, "shortly before Geneon's demise", and "English without promotion content" still need sources. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changes them to Target then.
I will cite Geneon's demise statement later.Geneon's demise is cited. As for the "English without promotional content", i again ask you, how do you cite a negative? No one is going to say "This item doesn't come with promotional content." If it's a matter of just citing the DVDs themselves, i can do it with the appropriate template.じんない 17:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changes them to Target then.
- I would consider it much more reliable. The fact that target.com has different DVD release dates from the list currently also strengthens my case for not using ANN. However the box set release date, "shortly before Geneon's demise", and "English without promotion content" still need sources. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually would Target Target #2 be considered a reliable for the release date?じんない 01:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The episode numbers I cited from the dvd back cover. It's the release dates that are the problem because I cannot seem to find any press releases except on the 2nd DVD nor any coverage about the release dates except ANN for English market. I'm not sure where to look for the release dates for the 1st and 3rd DVD that would meet WP:RS.じんない 01:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The general ref "Episode titles". Popotan (TV). Anime News Network. Retrieved on 27 October 2008. may be better suited to the external link section (due to its reliability).- I disagree here since it is being used for a secondary source for the episode titles rather than just the primary. Per the criteria for ANN it does say it can be used if it's backed up with another source.じんない 01:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"which features character designs by Haruka Sakurai based on the original concept by Akio Watanabe,[2][3] under the alias of Poyoyon Rock,[4][5]" No comma in the middle I think.- Done with that point.じんない 23:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More comments
- What is currently citing the original airdates?
- The director's homepage. The fact he poorly designs his webpage so you can't get back to the main page without manually editing the address is not an excuse not to cite it.じんない 17:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant the individual ones in the table not in the lead. Also for the lead the directors homepage only gives the dates in range YYYY-MM, whereas you include the DD which are not specified on the cite. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The director's homepage. The fact he poorly designs his webpage so you can't get back to the main page without manually editing the address is not an excuse not to cite it.じんない 17:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently the seperate references 15 and 16 are the same website. Should this be the case?
- That was wrong. I accidentally cited it incorrectly. I changed the statement
and will correctly cite the statement later.I have cited 4/6 from Getchu. If you think that's not enough, you'll have to wait until after the convention for me to cite the last 2.じんない 17:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That was wrong. I accidentally cited it incorrectly. I changed the statement
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even more for when you're back
"indivisual DVDs" -> individual?- removed indivisual. Should sound better now.じんない 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 20 & 21 look funny beacuse the inclusion of "[DVD]" in the title causes an error.- I corrected it in the least intrusive (to the title) as possible using nonwiki.じんない 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General ref, and refs 5, 22, 23: Need a space between "Geneon,Long Beach,"- That is a template issue, not a FL issue. Geneon is in a seperate section to Long Beach, California.じんない 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I fixed the template, so this is no longer an issue. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a template issue, not a FL issue. Geneon is in a seperate section to Long Beach, California.じんない 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 8 & 16 are the same; 9 & 19 are the same.- Corrected.じんない 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put the sentence about box set release into the paragraph above.- Inconsistent airdates: The lead says "October 3, 2003" but the table says "October 2, 2003"
- Table is correct. I found 1 WP:V source citing July 31st which would help it conform to the weekly standard time. Unfortunately, www.popotan.com is missing a lot of dates for that time period and TBS doesn't keep info archived for non-current series for playtimes.じんない 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 24 seems to be dead (checked manually as Checklinks is down)- Changed it. The format was causing the broken link and it was not reliable anyway.じんない 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a convention to run this weekend so I'd ask you to give me until atleast monday before doing anything.じんない 17:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update on my stance
Right, it might be easier for you (and FL directors) if I summarise my thoughts on the above. Currently I'm going to have to oppose again. You have done some good work, and been prompt in addressing many of my concerns, however I still have one major objections which is:
- Currently the all but one of the original airdates are not verifiable, you state the table is correct but that not good enough for WP:V (even if I believe you).
Sorry, but if this is not resolved I cannot support. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you are putting undue weight on what WP:ANIME has said with reguard to airdates. That I was able to find at least verification for 1 air date and the fact that shows are done weekly should be considered WP:COMMON SENSE as i can't find anything to indicate that somehow Popotan was the 1 exception to the rule, I believe ANN does verify the information.じんない 19:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ANN actually contradicts what you said. It states that episode "4: All Alone" aired on the August 8, whilst your suggestion of a weekly pattern would imply August 7 (the date in the table). It is these types of inconsistencies that IMO validate my oppose. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway after looking around I managed to find this page. That also confirms the first and last date at least.じんない 19:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)じんない 19:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just incase you question that site, it is listed as a valuable resource site that has a published version by Penn Library.
- [EDIT] The site also lists the day of the week of the broadcast, 木, which corresponds to Thursday in English.じんない 23:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:02, 15 February 2009 [5].
I am nominating this list because i believe it meets all FL criteria and also the guidelines of MOS:DISCOG. Myself and two other editors have been working on the list, so i felt there was no need for a peer review. Thanks. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 08:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 22:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very good work overall, but there's a few issues that keep me from supporting. The first comment is the main one, while the others are just less-important minor stuff I noticed in no particular order.
- "The name of the Director for these music videos has not been found in reliable sources." I'm glad to see that you're honest about it, but without this information the list is incomplete. The information exists out there, it's just a matter of finding it.
- Have undertaken thorough searches of most databases but have been unable to locate detials of the directors of early music videos.Dan arndt (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We've gone through album liner notes, searched google endlessly, Midnight Oil fan club and official sites, of course MVDbase, we've basically extended to all resources i know of. Unless there is some out of print Midnight Oil biography book which lists them, i doubt they've been published. What do you suppose we do if this list passes in all aspects apart from some superfluous information about some irrelevant director? (ps. Other discographies have managed to pass? 1, 2, 3? Including this Powderfinger, which was never fixed. I don't suppose we'd be removing FL from these if they were reassessed?) k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I for one agree that the music video directors are a bit unnecessary (much like I disapproved of the producers being listed). But that said, the standard seems to be to include them. A featured list is expected to be complete, so it's not okay to just include the information that is convenient/easy to include. Also, as standards are improved, older articles like the Powderfinger list you mentioned are bound to seem a little lax in many respects. Many older discogs need to be updated badly, but this is a step I've been hesitant to undertake until MOS:DISCOG becomes official, and not just a guideline. That does not excuse newer articles from our newer standards, however. Honestly, this seems like an issue beyond the scope of this one FLC, so discussing the pros and cons of including directors might be better done at the MOS:DISCOG talk page, and not here. If you'd like to undertake that discussion there, I'd be happy to chime in there. However, since the consensus right now seems to be to include them, I have to stick with my oppose until it is addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have added details of all Directors that I am able to locate 32 out of 35 videos. Am unable to still find any details for the outstanding videos. Given that many other video tables in other FLs are incomplete (as you state at least we are being honest) are you willing to change your position on this matter? Dan arndt (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction 34 out of 35 videos. Dan arndt (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, but still not 100% there. Incomplete is still incomplete. But that said, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and at least retract my oppose. Otherwise it's a well-done discography; I just don't think it's FL quality until it's complete/finished/comprehensive, based on the current standards. Drewcifer (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction 34 out of 35 videos. Dan arndt (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have added details of all Directors that I am able to locate 32 out of 35 videos. Am unable to still find any details for the outstanding videos. Given that many other video tables in other FLs are incomplete (as you state at least we are being honest) are you willing to change your position on this matter? Dan arndt (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I for one agree that the music video directors are a bit unnecessary (much like I disapproved of the producers being listed). But that said, the standard seems to be to include them. A featured list is expected to be complete, so it's not okay to just include the information that is convenient/easy to include. Also, as standards are improved, older articles like the Powderfinger list you mentioned are bound to seem a little lax in many respects. Many older discogs need to be updated badly, but this is a step I've been hesitant to undertake until MOS:DISCOG becomes official, and not just a guideline. That does not excuse newer articles from our newer standards, however. Honestly, this seems like an issue beyond the scope of this one FLC, so discussing the pros and cons of including directors might be better done at the MOS:DISCOG talk page, and not here. If you'd like to undertake that discussion there, I'd be happy to chime in there. However, since the consensus right now seems to be to include them, I have to stick with my oppose until it is addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We've gone through album liner notes, searched google endlessly, Midnight Oil fan club and official sites, of course MVDbase, we've basically extended to all resources i know of. Unless there is some out of print Midnight Oil biography book which lists them, i doubt they've been published. What do you suppose we do if this list passes in all aspects apart from some superfluous information about some irrelevant director? (ps. Other discographies have managed to pass? 1, 2, 3? Including this Powderfinger, which was never fixed. I don't suppose we'd be removing FL from these if they were reassessed?) k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first series of year columns are 35px, but the singles are not.
- done
- The certification column headings need only be wikilinked in the first table. I would also say the dash in those columns is unnecessary, as is the note in the footer of each column. Most FL discogs just leave those cells blank.
- done dash removed from column & not corrected, done Certification links
- "Released on 5 May 1992" is inconsistent with other FL discogs and the label and formats of each release as well. I'd recommend "Released: 5 May 1992".
- done
- The producers of the albums are unnecessary details, and better left for the album articles themselves.
- done producers details deleted
- As for labels, some releases denote multiple labels. My suggestions is just to go with the original, home-country label, since listing every label could be a slippery slope, given re-releases, releases on various formats, and releases in various territories.
- done multiple release details deleted
- Some general references would be good, say a la The Prodigy discography.
- done
- For multiple releases in the same year, use rowspan="#" for the year columns.
- done
- Discogs is not considered a reliable source. And Amazon is usually avoided as well, since they are a retailer. Also don't abbreviate publisher names (ie ARIA). Drewcifer (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Discogs is only used as a second reference for music videos, so i can remove that no worries. Amazon refs replaced, one with Allmusic which should be fine and the other by Xponentialmusic, which looks to be the label which have released the CD. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Contrary to what you said, the article would have benefited from a peer review. Problems with prose and sourcing:
- I really could not be bothered posting something on 5 different Wikiprojects just to get 2 replies in a peer review, i don't spend all day on here like some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiac (talk • contribs) 3 February 2009 (20:02 UTC)
- But that doesn't mean come here unprepared and put the burden on the reviewers. This FLC has turned into something of a peer review. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry you feel that way, if it is such a burden for you, maybe you should take a break. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily a burden for me, I was just saying. Anyway, disregard that comment, I was just blowing off steam, no harm intended. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry you feel that way, if it is such a burden for you, maybe you should take a break. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that doesn't mean come here unprepared and put the burden on the reviewers. This FLC has turned into something of a peer review. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I really could not be bothered posting something on 5 different Wikiprojects just to get 2 replies in a peer review, i don't spend all day on here like some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiac (talk • contribs) 3 February 2009 (20:02 UTC)
Disambiguation links need to be fixed.Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 02:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "consists of 11 studio albums, 39 singles, two EPs, four video albums, three live albums and two compilation albums." Comparable quantities should be writtent the same way, either all numerals or all in words.
- Done. I'm sure this should be explicitly stated in the discog style sheet, a lot of lists have it wrong, thanks for the pickup
- Good idea. Going over there right now. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually not necessary to put it there. MOS:NUM says it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. Going over there right now. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I'm sure this should be explicitly stated in the discog style sheet, a lot of lists have it wrong, thanks for the pickup
- "Their first three albums
allcharted" Done - "Australian Kent Music Report, with Head Injuries being certified gold and Place without a Postcard platinum, in Australia." Unclear; were both certified in Australia? Try: "Australian Kent Music Report; in Australia, Head Injuries was certified gold and Place without a Postcard was certified platinum." Notice what I linked "Australia" to. Done
- "However, it wasn't until their fourth album in 1982 that they reached the top 10" Much too wordy, try: "Their fourth album (1982) was the first to the top 10"
- Done, might want to check this one, your wording didn't really work either
- Oops. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, might want to check this one, your wording didn't really work either
- "It also brought their first feature on the United States charts" Huh?
- Huh? Replaced feature with appearance
- "number one album"-->number-one album Done
- "highest charting Australian "-->highest-charting Australian Done
- "which came in at number one"-->which charted at number one Done
- "number one studio album"-->number-one studio album
- Done. There was also a few more there that i've changed
- "Over the next decade"-->In the next decade Done
- "which all registered on"-->all of which registered on Done
- "but failed to live up to the success of their earlier efforts" In what way?
- In the way that is explained later in the tables, this is just an introduction to the list, not a novel. The trailing off album peaks, the lack of certifications, one single charted in their last 6 years as a band. Do i have to somehow explain this in an already extensive lead?
- "In 1997, they released"-->In 1997, the band released Done
- "which has since gone on to achieve four times platinum"-->which has since achieved four times platinum Done
- "In 2002 lead vocalist Peter Garrett announced his decision to leave Midnight Oil, concluding the band's 30 year career." Comma after "2002", hyphenate "30 year". Done Dabomb87 (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies by k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
- Let me start off by saying; some of these are a rediculous waste of time. Have you never reviewed a discography before? A little research yourself would have helped, and saved me the bother.
- Take a look here and I think you can tell I have reviewed some. I don't have all the time in the world to examine every source thoroughly, I have to make educated guesses sometimes. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well nevertheless thankyou for the review. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look here and I think you can tell I have reviewed some. I don't have all the time in the world to examine every source thoroughly, I have to make educated guesses sometimes. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me start off by saying; some of these are a rediculous waste of time. Have you never reviewed a discography before? A little research yourself would have helped, and saved me the bother.
Why is IMBd used?
- IMDb is used to verify the existence of the Video albums.
- What makes the following reliable sources:
- Official website of the release. All it is saying is that the song existed on the album? Surely this verifies the material justifiably
- Can this DeadHeart link be replaced by a link from a preview of the book on Google books?
- Can a reader find the info from that preview? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can this DeadHeart link be replaced by a link from a preview of the book on Google books?
- List of U2 awards, Red Hot Chili Peppers discography, Powderfinger discography, Hilary Duff discography, Metallica discography, Soundgarden discography, Delta Goodrem discography and Paul Kelly discography. Need i say more?
- Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The fact that other articles got through under lesser scrutiny doesn't set a unbreakable precidence. The fact that these things slip through is just a result of FL and similar processes being imperfect and prone to human error. If guidelines, community consensus, or Wikipedia policy says it should be done a certain way, then we should go by that and nothing else. Obviously this is not an issue with just this one unreliable source, but with many of the arguments you've made so far. Drewcifer (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am very much aware that that is not a good basis of any argument, however i would tend to assume if it has been accepted in a dozen plus featured lists, then it has been reviewed before. Nevertheless, i have removed MVDbase, as the same information was cross-referenced in the album liner notes. Good day to you. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The fact that other articles got through under lesser scrutiny doesn't set a unbreakable precidence. The fact that these things slip through is just a result of FL and similar processes being imperfect and prone to human error. If guidelines, community consensus, or Wikipedia policy says it should be done a certain way, then we should go by that and nothing else. Obviously this is not an issue with just this one unreliable source, but with many of the arguments you've made so far. Drewcifer (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of U2 awards, Red Hot Chili Peppers discography, Powderfinger discography, Hilary Duff discography, Metallica discography, Soundgarden discography, Delta Goodrem discography and Paul Kelly discography. Need i say more?
- Changed to official ARIA website
- Removed and replaced
- Unnecessarily, IMO, the Australian Government recognises Australian Rock Database here. That makes it reliable.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed and replaced
- Front page of site states: Ed.Nimmervoll's in-depth, informed up-to-date profiles on Australia's finest (Ed Nimmervoll)
- So how does that make it reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the site states that a highly notable and reliable Australian musical journalist, wrote the article. How else am i meant to prove this? If there's a problem, take 2 minutes to explain and i'll do my best to help. Isn't that what wikipedia is about, helping each other, working together? Not scrutinising and burdening others who are voluntarily contributing. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that. What I mean is, just because the site states that he is notable or reliable does not automatically make him so. Per the guideline on self-published sources, you have to prove that they are reliable. Have they written any well-regarded publications or has a reputable third-party institution recognized them as an expert in this area? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's alright, no harm done. I wasnt indicating the site had said that, just that it stated he had written the article, badly worded on my part. Moving on, Nimmervoll has edited GO SET magazine (Aussie charts and so forth) and was founding editor of JUKE magazine (the ABC reports). He has also had articles published by the ABC and AllMusic (Googled it because there's an absolute shitload of them). A few more publications. I think the AllMusic link should be sufficient - if his work there isn't reliable then we have a big problem with a lot of pages on WP!! Thanks for being patient. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 15:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good enough for me. I will return later for a final checkover. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's alright, no harm done. I wasnt indicating the site had said that, just that it stated he had written the article, badly worded on my part. Moving on, Nimmervoll has edited GO SET magazine (Aussie charts and so forth) and was founding editor of JUKE magazine (the ABC reports). He has also had articles published by the ABC and AllMusic (Googled it because there's an absolute shitload of them). A few more publications. I think the AllMusic link should be sufficient - if his work there isn't reliable then we have a big problem with a lot of pages on WP!! Thanks for being patient. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 15:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that. What I mean is, just because the site states that he is notable or reliable does not automatically make him so. Per the guideline on self-published sources, you have to prove that they are reliable. Have they written any well-regarded publications or has a reputable third-party institution recognized them as an expert in this area? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the site states that a highly notable and reliable Australian musical journalist, wrote the article. How else am i meant to prove this? If there's a problem, take 2 minutes to explain and i'll do my best to help. Isn't that what wikipedia is about, helping each other, working together? Not scrutinising and burdening others who are voluntarily contributing. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So how does that make it reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Front page of site states: Ed.Nimmervoll's in-depth, informed up-to-date profiles on Australia's finest (Ed Nimmervoll)
- Removed
- Removed. Good old AllMusic
- Spell out abbreviations in publishers such as ABC and BPI. Done Dabomb87 (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Partial replies (hopefully find some more useless time to waste later) by k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that "so-and-so" source was used on another FL doesn't prove anything. It just shows that nobody checked the sources or b) nobody questioned that particular source. We need to know what kind of fact checking those sources do. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Partial replies (hopefully find some more useless time to waste later) by k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should promotional music videos be included in the list? Also, how would i go about verifying the likes of Undercover as reliable? k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 06:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't strike through reviewer's comments. Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only place i ever striked through your comments was where the information had been removed, thus making it irrelevant. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't strike through reviewer's comments. Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, fail with the criteria numbers 1, 2, 3 and 6, in WP:FL? Cannibaloki 02:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cannibaloki, could you provide specific examples of how this article fails those criteria? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cannabaloki, Dobomb87?--Cannibaloki 02:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I choose to cancel my comment.--Cannibaloki 02:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cannabaloki, Dobomb87?--Cannibaloki 02:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this is going to need another complete revision since Cannibaloki thought it necessary to chop and change the entire lead. I'm really not liking WP's promotion to FL process. Every reviewer has different opinions, there's no clarity, you guys have your own opinions (which is alright), just that something that could be completely ambiguous to one person - another comes along and it's suddenly a massive problem. There should be some kind of set standard because this is just not working for us here. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 03:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks fine to me, although I haven't studied the history to see if you've reverted back. Note that English is not Cannibaloki's first language, but either way, it's a Wiki, open for anyone to edit. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My earlier issues have been addressed, but in light of the recent major revisions and the oppose from Drewcifer, I will not support yet. Has someone contacted Drewcifer? I will try to copy-edit the lead some in the next two days. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A message has been left on Drewcifer's talk page, seeking his position in relation to the assessment. Dan arndt (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I am very sorry to hear that you are disillusioned with the FLC process. Nevertheless, the fact that you have treated FLC like some sort of Peer review may have something to do with it. So you can't be bothered to post it there;[7] what if we couldn't be bothered to review it? It shows a lack of respect for the people who spend their time here. The fact that this has had so many comments, some of which you feel are conflicting (I don't see too many conflicting comments), shows to me at least that it wasn't FL ready when it was nominated. Now you seem to be complaining that people have actually taken the time to give it an extensive review, but you don't like that because it's still too much bother.[8]
With regards to that second quote, all articles should be verified through reliable sources. That is especially true for Featured content. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb is questioning the reliability of the sources to make sure they meet this policy. The onus is on the nominator to make sure or prove that they do, and correct them if they do not -- not the reviewer.
We are aware that some lists do not meet current standards. Last summer the WP:Featured list criteria were updated, and not all the Featured lists have gone through WP:FLRC yet. Some of the discogs you have referenced were promoted before the criteria was updated. Aside from anything else, consensus (and standards) can change, so something that was deemed okay three months ago may not be okay today. For example, just because http://www.mvdbase.com "has been accepted in a dozen plus featured lists", this may have been before WP:RS deemed it unreliable. I certainally haven't seen it used in recent Featured discogs.
As for other FLC ettiquette, per Template:FLC-instructions which is transcluded at WP:FLC (and WP:TPG), please do not strike out comments, even if you feel they have been addressed. You may say "done", "not done", etc instead. Leave it for the reviewer to strike, cap, or otherwise state that his concern has been addressed to his satisfaction.
- Do you have full dates for the first 6 album releases?
- Nope
- 20,000 Watt R.S.L. states a different release label
- So does Capricornia, Midnight Oil and Species Deceases
- In fact, all the articles for the studio albums, except Earth and Sun and Moon, Breathe and Redneck Wonderland contradict this page with regards to the labels
- In reference to the previous three points - Wikipedia should not be used as a source, even for these, people make that shit up all the time. Nevertheless, those are labels for the USA, I originally had multiple labels added, which was deemed unnecessary and they were removed. The home country of Australia's release details were used as far as i am aware.
- Thank you. I was not aware that we couldn't use WP as a source. I just thought the inconsistency was odd. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "12 February, 2002" MOS:NUM states that Wikipedia doesn't put commas between months and years
- Fixed
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was nothing stopping them from giving it an oppose straight away and sending me off to peer review, nothing. They've had the courtesy to FL review it for me and i thank them for that. As for your comments, they were unjust. Dabomb's issues were resolved a week ago. My issues with his issues were resolved 20 mins after i wrote them. No need for the lecture. MVDbase was removed. I was not aware that striking was illegal in these parts, my bad. My problem quoted above, was the fact that this all runs by so much personal opinion. Cannibiloki (spelling?) came in an did his own edits, i know he is a reviewer himself and am not pointing any blame on him - the edits contradicted the instructions of the other reviewers (eg. It was made quite clear that self-titled debut album should not be linked, but instead have , Midnight Oil, follow it). And in effect we have come back to square one with the lead, after 2 (3?) reviewers had no problems with it. Now i am sorry this review has stalled, but i have been making sure my house does not burn down in these bushfires. Thank you. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 12:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't lecturing, I was trying to explain how the FLC process works because a day earlier you said I'm really not liking WP's promotion to FL process... There should be some kind of set standard because this is just not working for us here. I went through the nomination to see what had been happening, and responded. Very sorry to hear about your house and the fires in your country. I know what that's like; I live in Southern California. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check the toolbox, there is still one disambiguation link left. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:02, 15 February 2009 [9].
I believe this list meets criteria and follow the same style as similar FLs. --Gman124 talk 02:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 22:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - one of the rules for WP:FAC is that the same editor may not nominate more than one article at a time. I am unsure if the same rule applies here but if so then this nomination should be closed until the nomination for Seinfeld (season 1) is concluded. Might want to check with an FL wrangler. Otto4711 (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Not at WP:FLC, users usually are usually able to nominate up to 3, since lists are less complex to review and is a less complex process as opposed to FAC.--TRUCO 22:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have asked the FL director, Scorpion0422, and he says he has no problem with more than one nomination by the same editor. Gman124 talk 14:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is usually fair that for each FLC nominated, the nominator should review another in return. Gman124 seems to have done that, so it is all fair and well. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have asked the FL director, Scorpion0422, and he says he has no problem with more than one nomination by the same editor. Gman124 talk 14:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at WP:FLC, users usually are usually able to nominate up to 3, since lists are less complex to review and is a less complex process as opposed to FAC.--TRUCO 22:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The writing in this article is better, but it is still not at FL quality yet. If I feel up to it, I might do some copy-editing myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "start on January 16, 1991. Its premiere "-->start on January 16, 1991. However, its premiere
- Done --Gman124 talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "It comprised
of12 episodes "
- Done --Gman124 talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "This season received"-->Season two received
- Done --Gman124 talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "thirteen years" Numbers over nine should be written in numerals.
- Done --Gman124 talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "This season was directed " Same as two bullets above. The "this" back-reference is often a bit confusing, better to refer to the noun directly.
- Done --Gman124 talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- " Barney Martin replaced Phil Bruns as Jerry's Father
starting this season." Understood from larger context.
- Done --Gman124 talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "and caused NBC to put the show on hiatus"-->causing NBC to put the show on hiatus
- Done --Gman124 talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "after
justfour weeks"
- Done --Gman124 talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "thirteen episode order" Compound adjective, should be "thirteen-episode order"
- Done --Gman124 talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "rings with truth and familiarity, as well as laughter and just plain silliness." Logical punctuation (WP:PUNC), period should be outside the quotation marks.
- Done --Gman124 talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The episodes "The Pony Remark" You are only talking about one episode here, why "The episodes"?
- "
The episode"The Deal" wasalso" Understood by now that you are talking about episodes.
- Done --Gman124 talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "George comes to Jerry complaining about his girlfriend Marlene"-->George complains to Jerry about his girlfriend Marlene
- Done --Gman124 talk 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "George takes Jerry's advice and breaks off their relationship" Not clear who "their" is.
- Done --Gman124 talk 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "George insists Jerry see Marlene to get back some books" Repetition of "insists" is a bit annoying. Insert "that" after "insists". Is there a better word than "get back"? (rhetorical question)
- Done How about if I use regain or reover--Gman124 talk 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Jerry suddenly finds himself in a relationship with Marlene." Not possible. Clarify.
- Done Changed the sentence a little bit--Gman124 talk 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "However, after seeing his act," Which act? Don't leave readers in the dark.
- Done --Gman124 talk 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are most of the issues from the lead through the first episode summary. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further down: "a starving Elaine mentions that she is so hungry that she would eat food off of another patrons plate" Spot the two redundant consecutive words.
- Done I think it's fixed now. --Gman124 talk 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "They question her as she walked away, losing the wager." So they lose the wager as they question her? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Elaine looses the wager. --Gman124 talk 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:02, 15 February 2009 [10].
Despite there being a shedload of discography FLs, there is something of a dearth of ones pertaining to record labels. This, I hope, is sufficient to meet the bar. Seegoon (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Commentsfrom Truco (talk · contribs) - fails FL Cr 1, 2, 3, and 4.
- Ipecac Recordings is an independent record label based in Orinda, California, founded in 1999 by Greg Werckman and Mike Patton. - you have three options here, reword to Ipecac Recordings is an Orinda, California based independent record label founded in 1999 by Greg Werckman and Mike Patton. , Ipecac Recordings is an independent record label based in Orinda, California. It was founded in 1999 by Greg Werckman and Mike Patton., or Ipecac Recordings is an independent record label based in Orinda, California that was founded in 1999 by Greg Werckman and Mike Patton.
- I think I've solved this by removing some extraneous information.
- Its creation also provided the Melvins – friends of Werckman and Patton's – with a label. - 1)capitalize The since its their proper name 2)Source for this statement?
- 1) Not quite; they're known simply as Melvins. I could simply remove "the", though. 2) Done.
- Ipecac has distributed other artists including Isis, Dälek, and many of Patton's other projects and collaborations. - you mean "signed" not distributed since we're talking about people
- I've added "material by", as I don't actually have a source regarding contracts and so forth.
- ..it has also released works of comedy and soundtracks as well as a book and DVDs. ---> it has also released books, DVDs, soundtracks, and works of comedy.
- Altered.
- Alongside original content, it has been responsible for re-releasing older and imported recordings originally handled by other labels as well as vinyl releases of later albums by Queens of the Stone Age. - comma before as well
- OK.
- The lead needs to summarize the list more, in terms of what was the first release, most recent release, and other significant releases.
- The first release is mentioned, and the most recently released is bound to change at least once a month. I wouldn't mind changing it, but I'm not sure that's so vital.
- A key should be made to explain the table terms like IPC-###
- Releases are in the form of compact discs (CD) or vinyl; either 7 inch singles (7") or long plays (LP). - if a key is made, the acronyms don't need to be here they can be in the table
- The dashes need to be right aligned, like the rest of the entries in the table
- Do you mean left-aligned?
- Some of the entries, like "Antivermin", need to be in a {{sort}} template to sort with other entries of the letter "A"
- Done. Fantastic, thanks. I didn't know how to address that.
- Why aren't the album entries for the The Melvins in italics?
- Those are singles; WP:MUSTARD dictates so.
- The refs need to be formatted correctly according to the instructions at {{cite web}}
- Could you be a touch more specific please?
- The refs need to be in a general/specific format, in which the general ref verifies the entire list and the specific refs verify specific statements, as seen in this FL's references.--TRUCO 22:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
- Thanks for your feedback. I feel I've addressed everything except for those I've noted and what you've mentioned regarding a key. Do you have an idea regarding how I could go about this? I agree it would be handy, but I'm not sure how to implement it. Thanks, Seegoon (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup
- Why is kid not capitalized? I checked his article and his name is not in lowercase
- Cool.
- For the {{cite web}}, disregard.
- For the key, make a table like its seen in this FL, and add the entries I noted above.
- How's it look?
- Disregard all my comments regarding the Melvins, including their singles.
- I meant left-aligned for that comment above.
- Done.
- I meant add a bit more to the prose than just the first/most recent release, more needs to be added for a more thorough summary.--TRUCO 01:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'm going to have to give this some thought... I'm not sure what is pertinent at the moment.
- It looks much better now, including the key, but the lead still needs to be expanded because its not representative of the list itself. So give that some thought, until then I can't support.--TRUCO 22:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you know what I mean by this comment.--TRUCO 02:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "Ipecac Recordings is an American independent record label, founded in 1999 by Greg Werckman and Mike Patton. " Comma not necessary.
- That was a leftover, thanks.
- "The label was established
in orderto- Okely dokely.
- "Ipecac has distributed material by other artists " Comma after here.
- Yup yup.
- "Though the label's main output is rock and experimental music, it has also released DVDs, a book, soundtracks and a work of comedy." Needs a source.
- Like what, the main general source itself? This is fairly self-evident when the table is consulted.
- WP:CAPTION, image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods after them.
- OK.
- "Flower With No Color"-->Flower with No Color
- Thanky.
- "Delìrium Cordìa"-->Delìrium Còrdia
- Tasty.
- "Neither Here Nor There"-->Neither Here nor There
- Yuss.
- The link to Isms is incorrect, I think.
- 'Tis indeed.
- "Mouse On Mars"-->Mouse on Mars
- Affirmative.
- "Otto Von Schirach"--> Otto von Schirach
- Jä.
- "A Senile Animal"-->(A) Senile Animal
- Of course.
- Era Vulgaris should link to Era Vulgaris (album).
- It should.
- "Bohren & Der Club of Gore"-->Bohren & der Club of Gore Dabomb87 (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...jä? Thanks for your comments! Seegoon (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: My comments have been addressed, but I am waiting for Truco's issues to be addressed before supporting. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...jä? Thanks for your comments! Seegoon (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Looks pretty good. A few suggestions/comments, mostly based on Dischord Records discography and Load Records discography:
- The "IPC" before every catalog number is redundant. We all know they're Ipeecac catalog numbers, so just go with the numbers.
- I see your point. Though it should still be apparent how they're formatted; do you think that information could go in the key?
- I think that would be a fine place to put it.
- I see your point. Though it should still be apparent how they're formatted; do you think that information could go in the key?
- Columns with numbers (ie the date column) should be centered. Also, I think it would be better to put the year column to the left, as per pretty much every other FL discograpy (artist and label).
- Is there a way to centre them all at once instead of doing it over a hundred times? My only issue with moving the year column is that it breaks the sortable function if the rows are blended; also, they're not precisely chronological. But yeah, you're right for the sake of uniformity.
- Unfortunately, I don't think there's a way to center a whole column all at once. And if you want to keep the sort function you don't need to merge the cells. I prefer them merged, but that's just a personal preference. But I would say the positioning and the centering of the column is more important than merging cells.
- Is there a way to centre them all at once instead of doing it over a hundred times? My only issue with moving the year column is that it breaks the sortable function if the rows are blended; also, they're not precisely chronological. But yeah, you're right for the sake of uniformity.
- As per the other label discogs I mentioned, and based on info from the lead, co-releases between multiple labels should probably be noted.
- Are you referring to the Queens of the Stone Age vinyls? If
- Yes, if those are the only ones. What about 10, 12, 15, 36, 37, and 41 (for a start)?
- Are you referring to the Queens of the Stone Age vinyls? If
- "Live - Psalm 69 Tour 1992 [cancelled]" needs a citation.
- Sure.
- What makes scenepointblank.com or furious.com reliable sources?
- They probably wouldn't be for simple information, but they are each hosting interviews with Greg Werckman, one of the label's co-founders.
- Some external links would be good.
- Sure thing, good idea.
- A column header shouldn't be a symbol (#). Replace with "No."
- OK.
If you can take care of these, I'd be happy to support. Drewcifer (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your feedback – I'll get to work right away! Seegoon (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Because of image placement, please read WP:BUNCH
- Done, thank you.
- IPC-009, Live - Psalm 69 Tour 1992. I'm guessing the [cancelled] means it was never released. If so it doesn't belong in a discography.
- It's in there at the moment because of a desire for comprehensiveness; should I trash it completely, add a footnote, or put it in the lead?
- Is there anything that shows that the releases or even the label are notable? The page relies heavily on WP:SPS and primary sources.
- I see what you mean, but I was following the precedent set by two preceding label discography FLs. What criteria does it have to satisfy? As for the sourcing, I'll add some third-party listings as are present in the other FLs.
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; I'm going to get on addressing these issues straight away. Seegoon (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:02, 15 February 2009 [11].
Well written, and has pictures and citations. If you have concerns, please address them. And, I will fix them as soon as possible. Thanks. miranda 02:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c]
- Uhh...shouldn't this list list all the furry conventions, not just the ones from 2008 and 2009? -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 anyone? 02:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It does, look at the "discontinued conventions". I put the recent dates for the conventions because those where when they were last held. miranda 02:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I really think you should remove the Date column then, since you or someone else will have to update the list every time a convention is over. If there is a extremely good encyclopedic reason why the Date should be there, throw it on me. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 anyone? 02:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I really think you should remove the Date column then, since you or someone else will have to update the list every time a convention is over. If there is a extremely good encyclopedic reason why the Date should be there, throw it on me. -- SRE.K.A
- It does, look at the "discontinued conventions". I put the recent dates for the conventions because those where when they were last held. miranda 02:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhh...shouldn't this list list all the furry conventions, not just the ones from 2008 and 2009? -- SRE.K.A
The date column is relevant to the conventions, to show the reader, or anyone who is interested in going to the conventions, when they would be held. Also, not to be a bother, but, your sig is over the signature limit. Could you please change the length? Thanks. miranda 08:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, you or someone else will have to update the list every time a convention is over. Could you just at least change the column name to something else? Date could be all the dates, or the event was only for that period of time. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 08:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- That really won't be a problem, since some of Wikipedia's articles will be updated everyday. Sure, people and I will update the article once conventions are over with. miranda 08:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But could you rename the Date column into something more specific with the reason above? Thanks. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 08:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But could you rename the Date column into something more specific with the reason above? Thanks. -- SRE.K.A
- That really won't be a problem, since some of Wikipedia's articles will be updated everyday. Sure, people and I will update the article once conventions are over with. miranda 08:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. :) miranda 01:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhh...ok...can you at least tell the readers what the column is for? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps "Next held" would be a more descriptive title? Or "Date occurring", since it may have been held without a new date being announced. GreenReaper (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the "Next held" idea, but some dates are the last ones. I think you should just put a note for those that are most recent. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps "Next held" would be a more descriptive title? Or "Date occurring", since it may have been held without a new date being announced. GreenReaper (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cites to wikis are not reliable sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Citations to WikiFur are reliable, since it's relevance to the subject matter. And, people who sponsor these conventions post on this website? miranda 02:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what the link says. "Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources. However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources." (italics mine). How do we know that the people who post on the website are reliable? You would have to prove their reliablity as dictated by WP:SPS. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In Miranda's defense, if there's anywhere that has reliable information other than the convention sites or staff journals, it's WikiFur. We're a wiki, but we have a community of experts. We get details like attendance directly from people who run or attend the convention, normally within a day or so (I chase a few con chairs up every year to ensure that our timeline is complete). We also cite multiple sources if we think official ones may be questionable.
- There are probably some conventions without any other published sources for this information. Unfortunately updating websites is usually the last thing people have on their mind after a con. They also have a habit of throwing away their old websites every year, so it can be hard to keep the primary source around. You may be able to find attributable reports in our list of convention resources.
- The ones least likely to keep good records also tend to be the smallest, which may help if it is necessary to exclude them. GreenReaper (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How do we know that the information is accurate? Anyone can edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know that information posted on any website is accurate? Some of these events are at the level where the official website is one page of HTML, and good luck getting media coverage of a foreign event involving 200 people. In some cases, we are the only source available. If that's not good enough, I suggest you ask those concerned directly, like I do. GreenReaper (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We can never be 100% sure of any source's reliability, so we have to go off what is more likely to be reliable by looking at their reputation and methods. For example, the New York Times is an established publication with a reputation for fact-checking; therefore, it is considered a reliable source. For less well-known sites, an about page or proof that the site is supported or owned by a large publishing company is helpful. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, yes. I've been here a while, I know how it works. :-)
- WikiFur has run almost four years now. It has original news coverage and even a convention coverage checklist. I believe it is highly reliable on the topic of furry convention attendance. However, there may be no sources you consider reliable to back this statement up. There are occasional links from newspapers, but given that the last time the site was mentioned it was called an image archive, I feel they lack authority in this area.
- WikiFur was never intended to be completely verifiable; given its topic, the site would exclude 90% of potential content with such a policy. I encourage you to make your own determination of its reliability, perhaps based on comparison of our figures for those events which do have other sources. The references concerned only rely on WikiFur because editors know of no better source. GreenReaper (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I have started a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WikiFur. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We can never be 100% sure of any source's reliability, so we have to go off what is more likely to be reliable by looking at their reputation and methods. For example, the New York Times is an established publication with a reputation for fact-checking; therefore, it is considered a reliable source. For less well-known sites, an about page or proof that the site is supported or owned by a large publishing company is helpful. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know that information posted on any website is accurate? Some of these events are at the level where the official website is one page of HTML, and good luck getting media coverage of a foreign event involving 200 people. In some cases, we are the only source available. If that's not good enough, I suggest you ask those concerned directly, like I do. GreenReaper (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what the link says. "Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources. However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources." (italics mine). How do we know that the people who post on the website are reliable? You would have to prove their reliablity as dictated by WP:SPS. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
←Someone has replied to the effect that WikiFur has no reliability and the direct citation should be used whenever possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the latter. The former may be the only conclusion possible within Wikipedia's definition of reliability as a function of verifiability. GreenReaper (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
- In major conventions, attendees receive a bag with a convention book (or conbook), a lavishly illustrated volume featuring themed artwork, fiction and articles submitted by members and the Guests of Honor, along with a description of the event's programming, staff, rules, guests and any charity being supported by the convention. - this sentence has a lot of punctuation, it would be best to split this up in some way because it reads akwardly.
- I split the sentences into two. miranda 08:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead does not summarize the list itself very much. I.e. first/most recent conventions in each geographical region or where they are held, etc.
- How about this?--TRUCO 17:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Introduced in the late 1980s, furry conventions originated in California, with ConFurence. I'll add more later. miranda 16:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well until then, I can't support because this is substantial to the prose of FLs.--TRUCO 22:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The references column should be unsortable.
- Can you please help me with that, because I am kind of a intermediate n00b on that issue. miranda 08:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all browsers can handle 3 reference columns, see {{reflist}}
- I will do two. However, I tried with IE and Firefox. miranda 08:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this has future events, an {{future}} template should be added.--TRUCO 03:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I will do. Thank you. miranda 08:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I probably won't get around to a full review today, but please check the article for MOS and prose glitches:
- Date ranges should use en dashes, see WP:DASH.
- Fixed. miranda 02:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ran and staffed mostly by volunteers" Why are you using the past tense here? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the conventions should be in present tense and the discontinued should be in past tense. miranda 02:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But these conventions still exist; it should be "Run and staffed..." Dabomb87 (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite a few dead links, see the link checker. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed those. miranda 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am looking at the table format, and the tables look very bad (i.e. not able to be readable). Please change the format back to the original. miranda 16:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How it should look (800px width) - Can you be more specific about what you find to be "not readable" about it - are we talking about a physical readability issue, a clipping problem, or something else? If it is a technical issue, what browser and what OS you are using? I have attached a picture of how it should look.
- The original table is unusable on small/low-resolution devices (anything lower than 1024) - for example, at 800x600 the description of Anthrocon is spread across 17 vertical lines (as opposed to four in the redesign). The intent of the changes is to split the combined description and references onto a second row, where they can make full use of the width of the table, while decreasing its minimum width. The date column was placed to the left so that both it and the name could remain sortable (sortable tables don't like colspan in general).
- Aside from compatibility with handheld devices/netbooks, I feel this makes it more readable, and makes better use of the space available, as it ensures that you don't have a five or six-line paragraph stuck in one corner (which happens even on higher resolutions). This will become increasingly relevant as further details are added to those sections over time.
- The comment about Chrome in the history is in relation to a clipping issue; it does not imply that it was intended solely for Chrome, just that it was one browser I was testing on. The design was prototyped on Firefox. I am aware of the "grey line extending into the second row" issue in IE7 and I am actively working on fixing it. There is also a flow issue on the Windows 7 build of IE8 (Beta 2), but that has been fixed in IE8 RC1.
- And if you're referring to readability of the wikitext itself - I agree completely, but it can be converted to a template used by each convention entry, potentially ending up quite a bit more readable than before. I just didn't have time to fix table issues and do that last night. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, you can revert me back. miranda 18:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmm....well, I kind of like how it's formatted now, but you can ask other people if they object to the formatting issue. miranda 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The initial version laid the information out in a clear manner, but it demanded too much in the way of width, and caused the height of items to vary wildly depending on the description. You can resize your browser window to see how it looks as screen size decreases (30% of WikiFur users are on 1024x768; it still functions at that width but is definitely getting longer). The challenge is to make it as clear while also allowing it to occupy less space.
- I'll have a go at fixing it up to use templates and improving the presentation of both the wikicode and the displayed table later tonight when I get off work, incorporating all your changes to that point. I'm reasonably confident we can reach a version that everyone is happy with, even preserving the images on the side. GreenReaper (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now implemented this. The relevant templates are {{furry-con-list-start}}, {{furry-con-list-start}}, and {{furry-con-list-end}}. The initial versions of these correspond to the original table style. Changes can be made to the list page containing the data without affecting the formatting, and vice versa. GreenReaper (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've re-implemented the style changes I made earlier using these templates, along with a few tweaks (adding a bit of padding, hacking around the column line on IE and turning the background of the second row white to distinguish it from the next item). You can see a comparison of the designs on my Nokia N800. This is admittedly a contrived example, but it's not that far-fetched. GreenReaper (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of ISO date format is very confusing, especially for the date ranges. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? There's only one possible interpretation of an ISO date. It also happens to be sortable; the original format was not, even though it was in a sortable column. GreenReaper (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of ISO date format is very confusing, especially for the date ranges. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmm....well, I kind of like how it's formatted now, but you can ask other people if they object to the formatting issue. miranda 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, you can revert me back. miranda 18:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The dates should NOT be in ISO, but following this format. miranda 18:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And as it says right there: "YYYY-MM-DD style dates (1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose, and should not be used within sentences. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness." Now, it is unfortunate that the - (hyphen) in the middle of there conflicts with the wish to use – (en-dash) to indicate a multi-day event; this is why I used . instead of - to separate the day, month and year. I'm open to other representations that are easier to understand while maintain conciseness and sortability, but I things like "September 29 - October 2, 2009" are both too long and unsortable. GreenReaper (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is possible to make regular date formats sortable, using {{dts}}. The date formats themselves aren't confusing as such, but the ranges are messy. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- As a worldwide Encylopedia, is there a reason the article is structured as US and "rest of the world", as though a dichotomy? Are Furry conventions a particularly US phenomenon, requiring that the US is treated differently? Furry conventions happen all over Europe (UK editors remember Eurotrash on Ch4?) - is the rest of the world list really comprehensive? Only 2 in the UK, which is 1/5 the size of the US?
- It would probably be OK to merge them. I think the main reason we had them separate to start with was that attendance was very different (more tens and low hundreds than hundreds and thousands) and it would not be fair to compare a non-North American con to those in other areas. The original list came from WikiFur's timeline of attendance, so it was particularly intended to display that factor. And yes, there really are only two in the UK. There's not such a history of big sci-fi conventions over the pond, and furry fandom was relatively unorganized there until RBW and ConFuzzled started up, although there are some long-running and well-attended furmeets. India and China are far more populous and don't have any! :-) GreenReaper (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an un-needed scrollable box in the table that should be removed (i assume the text in it was shortened?)
- Can you be more specific about the box? What browser are you seeing this on and what OS? (Maybe a screenshot?) There is a scroll directive there - it was added to prevent IE from clipping off the text, and the scrollbar should not actually show up as there is enough space; but there may be another way of doing it. GreenReaper (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Firefox with XP, at 1280 x 1040 px. I see scroll bars under the descriptions for FA:United (in New Jersey) and Furry Fiesta (in Texas). Did you check this at different font sizes? I use the one larger than default for example. Can think of any other reason. But why are they needed? I cannot actually scroll anywhere - all the text is visible already.
- The dates look unappealing and confusing to me. Hidden sort key should be used, then the date can be formatted in any way, which keeping sortability. Isn't there even a specific date sort key template?
- Yes, see the discussion above. I'm still uncomfortable about the space it will take up, but I can take a look. GreenReaper (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering it is a sub-article, is there a need for such a long lead. Sticking to WP:LEDE is not the be all and end all, but this one is the length of some Good Articles. Some of the info given seems very specific to certain cons. Yobmod (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also prefer to see less in the lede (furry convention is already a good article) and more text in the list entries, which are wanting in some areas. GreenReaper (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the long lead would be necessary, because past FLs have a long lead before the list. miranda 18:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A good introduction to the subject is always welcome, but there are no rules saying that it must all be in the lead. Many other FLs have (short) prose sections after the lead but before the list itself. Thelead only needs enough detail to introduce the topic, so an ignorant reader like myself can understand what is being listed and why. More information might be needed, but can go to a prose section.Yobmod (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the long lead would be necessary, because past FLs have a long lead before the list. miranda 18:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that "Nähe von Hamburg" is not a place, it is a description. Should be tranlated as "Near Hamburg".
- Okay, I will change. Thank you. miranda 18:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Ref #3's title is different from the actual title of the webpage
- Taken out. miranda 04:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Date format is incorrect. It should be YYYY-MM-DD, rather than YYYY.MM.DD according to MOS:NUM, though I fail to see why they need to be in the ISO 8601 format at all
- Yes, I agree with this, and changed it, but Green Reaper wanted to change it back to the ISO. miranda 03:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, the way in which you had done so broke the ability to sort by date. GreenReaper (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not if you do it like MOS:NUM suggests, and do
{{sort|2008-11-01|1 November 2008}}
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)- Right. And it wasn't done like that. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not if you do it like MOS:NUM suggests, and do
- As I said, the way in which you had done so broke the ability to sort by date. GreenReaper (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not do Irvine/San Diego, California, reducing the repetitiveness
- Inconsitency when the list states "Canada" when they take place in Canada, but not "America", "US" or "U.S." when in the US.
- Took Canada refs. out. miranda 03:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fur Affinity redirects back to furry fandom
- I took that out. miranda 03:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Scrolling in the Camp Feral! and Mephit Furmeet entries should be removed per WP:ACCESS and other MOS guidelines
- I can't see via Firefox, but I do agree that the scrolling should be taken out. miranda 04:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sponsored by the Northeast Anthropomorphic Association and community website Fur Affinity, FA: United had 310 participants during the first year in 2007. sounds too much like an advertisement
- Took the advertisement out. miranda 04:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Beginning in 2005, the only furry convention held on a cruise ship. is not a complete sentence
- Made it a complete sentence. miranda 04:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In 2008, sponsored New Leash On Life and Pays De L'ours. is also not a complete sentence, and it is unclear whether the convention sponsored the two, or if they sponsored the convention
- completed the sentence. miranda 04:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- English relative clauses
- Furry in ==See also== redirects to Furry fandom, which also appears in that section
- Taking out. miranda 03:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Midwest Furfest in Footnote 1 redirects to furry convention
- Taking out. 03:58, miranda 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Per MOSNUM, (post by registration coordinator on 2006-11-20 needs recasting with the date written in words because it is part of a sentence
- from 2008 to 2009 -- should be "between 2008 and 2009", I believe.
- I stopped about halfway down the page because there's no point repeating myself for other list entries that do the same.
On a more general note, The Lede is well written, but the convention descriptions need work. Are they supposed to be reviews, summaries, or what? Many of them are extremely flowery and read like advertisements.
I'm unhappy about the number of primary sources for the conventions, especially those WP:SPS hosted on sites such as Geocities, LiveJournal, etc. There are also a number of references that still point to WikiFur, which has been determined at WP:RS as an unreliable source. The list should establish notability for each and every convention by use of reliable sources as Dabomb87 described above. If they haven't been covered by reliable secondary parties, they're probably not notable enough for inclusion, just as they're not notable enough for an article (I presume, otherwise they would have articles). Further to that, notability isn't inherited, and so even those conventions with articles should use secondary sources in this list to establish notability, rather than expecting the reader to click on the link to see if that article does it. Right now the page looks like Wikipedia is providing notability for the conventions, and it shouldn't be that way. I understand that this may be difficult based on the subject, but Featured status is not something that is easily attained either.
Secondly, it appears as if the authors wish to provide a guide for furry fans or potentioal convention attendees. I come to this based on the flowery, advert-type descriptions and what the nominator said above, "The date column is relevant to the conventions, to show the reader, or anyone who is interested in going to the conventions, when they would be held." Same as with our episode lists which are also subject to fan attention, the list should not pander to this audience, but provide encyclopedic information to any potential reader such as one who may click on Special:Random.
The specific concerns should be fairly easy to address, but my other concerns I think may be more problematic. I hope you're not too disappointed, but at the moment I don't think it's ready. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not disappointed at all, myself; I know it is a high standard to meet (that's why it has a reward), and I appreciate the detailed feedback. I think the tone of a few of the list entries is more to do with anons who added them; regardless, it's something to address.
- I don't personally see it as a bad thing for encyclopedia articles (or lists) to serve the needs of the most likely audience, as long as they satisfy other audiences as well. I'm a little surprised at all the date-hate; yes, this means the list needs updating regularly, but "when is it?" seems like a rather important item of information for almost any event (consider Wikimania).
- The entries are meant to be summaries of known information relevant to a convention's notability - the sort of things you'd see in an article lede. Attendance might be split out into a separate column; it's something every convention should have, and is presumably of encyclopedic interest (so you can easily turn it into a list of conventions by attendance).
- I would appreciate details of the browser/version/OS combination that exhibits scrolling, as it is not something I am seeing. GreenReaper (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have several featured lists which are kind of categorized as to the Special:Random category. miranda 04:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not of the date-hate camp. I didn't think I came across that way, but the date format is incorrect. For sortability, do "
{{sort|2008-11-01|1 November 2008}}
" Perhaps the way to satisfy people is to just give the date of the last convention, not the date of the forthcoming one. Again, referencing TV shows, unaired episodes rarely get articles until very close to the airdate and FL episode/season lists do not list episodes until they have aired. Same with FL discogs -- unreleased albums and singles are disallowed, even if the release date is confirmed. A wikt:convention, is a meeting or a gathering of people. If the people haven't gathered yet, the convention hasn't happened. - My reply re: notability is not different from what I stated earlier, but I do think an attendance figure would be
bettermore encyclopedic than a slogan and may help to establish notability. The problem with that is who is providing the figure? The convention organisers themselves? May they be likely to falsely "up" their numbers to make it appear as if their convention is more popular that it is? - I will upload an image with regards to the scrolling. I believe it is because of the templates being used in the tables and the images next to the table. The template probably has some size/resizing issue.
- Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Furry list.png. I am using Firefox 3, Win XP SP2, 1024×768, 19" monitor. I will delete the image when the FLC has closed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the picture. I'll try and reproduce that particular setup. The issue is likely to be the use of the scroll CSS parameter, which was used to get around a (worse) clipping issue with IE. In theory the scrollbars should not actually show up, but browsers vary. There may be another way to avoid the clipping problem.
- ConFurence had governance issues; figures from it, at least up to the turn of the century, should be regarded as "best estimates". To the best of my knowledge, this problem has disappeared with the advent of non-profit organizations keeping computerized records. There's the occasional debate about official figures of all kinds; so far they've turned out to be either within expectations or fundamental shifts mirrored a later at other events. Obviously, there's pressure to look good, but any organization caught falsifying records would face an internal and external backlash. Public financial filings from the larger conventions tally with their reported growth, and those not doing so well have reported declines. However, attendance may only be reported verbally at the closing ceremonies. WikiFur gets this figure within days, if not hours, but it's hit or miss as to whether the convention's website is updated, and not all publish historical figures. GreenReaper (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I partly agree with USER:Matthewedwards. I expected a list at this title to be a list of notable and/or recurring conventions, but this seems more of a guide to this years & upcoming conventions. As it can be expected to double (at least) in size each year with the current format, I think that it would be best refocussed on notable/recurring conventions, and seperate lists made for 2008/2009 (although they may fail WP:NOTDIR). I suspect that this is also the reason there have been lots of comments, but not supports/opposes - the whole focus of the list seems wrong for a FL. I think that such a drastic overhall would be too much work, considering it is already in the "urgently needs revies" box. So i'm going to say oppose at this time, with no predudice agains a list of recurring/notable conventions in the future.Yobmod (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a list of recurring conventions. Events intended to be one-offs are not included. The growth rate is more like one or two events a year (perhaps three if you consider the discontinued event section). GreenReaper (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it a list of recurring conventions, i think the date should be the last column, not the first, and should be renamed "Date of last con" or somesuch. There should also be an indication how long they have been going in the table imo. This is more encylopedic than the date of the last/next con - cons with 10 year history are qualitatively different from those with 2 years, so this should be easily seen.Yobmod (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason it's at the front is due to deficiencies in the sortable table algorithm's handling of colspan - if I put it later, sorting got screwed up. The date of the first convention might also be appropriate. GreenReaper (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it a list of recurring conventions, i think the date should be the last column, not the first, and should be renamed "Date of last con" or somesuch. There should also be an indication how long they have been going in the table imo. This is more encylopedic than the date of the last/next con - cons with 10 year history are qualitatively different from those with 2 years, so this should be easily seen.Yobmod (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 [12].
Meets the criteria and is up to par with other lists that follow the same topic (List of New York Jets first-round draft picks, List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks, etc.) --Pbroks13talk? 00:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't start lists as "This is a list of ... " Dabomb87 (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- done --Pbroks13talk? 01:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, but it doesn't provide context for the average reader. See some other NFL featured lists, such as List of Tennessee Titans head coaches. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
- This is a list of first-round draft picks made by the San Francisco 49ers of the National Football League. - FLs are discouraged to begin as This list of _____
- The team joined the NFL along with the Cleveland Browns and the original Baltimore Colts in 1950. -the link to Baltimore Colts needs dabbing
- Teams are ranked in inverse order based on the previous season's record, with the worst record picking first, and the second worst picking second and so on. - comma before third and
- In the first three years as an NFL team, the 49ers picked three consecutive future Hall of Famers in the first round: Leo Nomellini, Y.A. Tittle, and Hugh McElhenny; since then, the team has picked three more future Hall of Famers in the first round (Jimmy Johnson, Lance Alworth, and Ronnie Lott), making it six in total - 1)be consistent, in the previous sentences, the date in which the players were chosen was noted, it should also be noted in these sentences 2)the last part of that sentence should be ;six overall.
- A list of this topic should be made sortable, so the table need to be able to sort.
- The references need to be formatted correctly using the {{reflist}} templates. In addition, use a general/specific refs format as seen in this FL.
- Footnote#7 is not correct, the ref should not be in that way it should be made as a specific reference
- The refs need to be correctly published with {{cite web}}.
- Please note: Use of {{cite web}} is not required; it is merely a tool to help with construction and organization of references. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but the citations still need to be formatted properly, and the citations to #7 and #12 at this point are not. Rlendog (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All the footnotes need to be verified.
- For the entries in the table that don't have notes available, they should have emdashes (the long dash located in the toolbox).
- The color coding explanation should be in the key not above the table itself.--TRUCO 01:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Most of the transactions should have in line citations. One of the general references seems to cover them, but that is just a cover page, and one has to search to find the appropriate transactions. The transaction citations should link to the page that supports the transaction. Rlendog (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 [13].
- I am renominating this list at FLC. --Gman124 talk 15:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 21:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To correct a correction, when referring to a person or fictional person, use who and not that. Also, "was aired of NBC" should be "aired on NBC". no need for the "was" and "of" is obviously a typo. Otto4711 (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Gman124 talk 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To correct a correction, when referring to a person or fictional person, use who and not that. Also, "was aired of NBC" should be "aired on NBC". no need for the "was" and "of" is obviously a typo. Otto4711 (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't meet criterion 1 (professional standards of writing) of the FL criteria. Examples from the lead alone:
- "The pilot met with poor reviews, as a result, NBC passed on the show." Not a grammatical sentence; the first comma should be a semicolon.
- Done --Gman124 talk 18:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "and gave Seinfeld a budget to create four episodes" I think "allotted" is a better word here.
- Done --Gman124 talk 18:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "which began airing on May 31, 1990" So all four episodes began airing on that date? I don't think so. Try: "the first of which began airing on May 31, 1990
- Done --Gman124 talk 18:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Seinfeld later went on to become one"-->Seinfeld became
- Done --Gman124 talk 18:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "one of the most successful sitcoms" In terms of what? Popularity, revenues, cultural references, etc.
- Done fixed to most popular as stated in the USA Today article. --Gman124 talk 22:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "As well as every episode from the two seasons"-->In addition to every episode from the two seasons
- "features bonus material" Comma after here. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - First, I was under the impression that there was a minimum number requirement for featured lists. I'm not seeing it in the criteria but I have seen it mentioned in other FLC reviews. Five items may be too few for a featured list. If not, then my concerns are...
- Episode summaries may be too detailed, possibly implicating copyright as a derivative work although I am not an expert in that field.
- I don't think they are too detailed, in fact I think it could be longer. When this list was nominated previously, someone opposed it having one line summary and said it should be "3-4 times bigger than they are". Now that they are 3-4 lines long now you're saying it should be less. I don't know what the heck's goin on with that. --Gman124 talk 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I say, I'm not an expert. I'm going by WP:PLOTSUM and my own previous experience with GA nominations for films and TV episodes. The ideais that plot summaries shouldn't serve to replace the experience of viewing the episode. If others feel that the summaries as written are acceptable then I'll certainly defer to their judgment. Otto4711 (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Otto4711
|
---|
|
Strong Oppose
- The reception section is not WP:NPOV as there are no negative reviewers. I notice a negative mention in the lead I suggest using it to balance out the reception section.
Ref 3: TV.com is not a reliable source- That is not TV.com it is actually TVGuide.com --Gman124 talk 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry that was a complete error on my part. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not TV.com it is actually TVGuide.com --Gman124 talk 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose problems - a few examples, by no means the whole story
"NBC passed on the show" - passed is to colloquial- Changed passed to decided not to pick up --Gman124 talk 22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- " Larry David was the main show runner for this season, who was also one of the producers" - also is redundant, and it reads funny with the "who". Use "and one of the producers" instead.
- Done --Gman124 talk 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Soon after the "Stock Tip" episode", the table calls it "The Stock Tip", which one is it?- Changed it to The Stock Tip, since that's the episode name. Gman124 talk 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just removed the line also. I don't know if it is necessary to say how many more episodes wee ordered after saying that the next season was ordered in the previous line. --Gman124 talk 22:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed it to The Stock Tip, since that's the episode name. Gman124 talk 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the first of many nominations" - not very neutral, try listing them instead of using weasel words like many.- I have removed this. --Gman124 talk 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact on further investigation "This episode was nominated for a Writer's Guild Award, the first of many nominations for the series. Brandon Tartikoff kept a scene from "The Stake Out" cued up on his office VCR to show guests how funny Seinfeld was; despite this, NBC was held off broadcasting the first four episodes until summer." is purely copied from [17] - this copyvio (this caused me to change to a "Strong Oppose")
- I removed this, but kept the Writer's Guild nomination part. Also is it still copy-vio if we add the link where we got the stuff from as a reference? --Gman124 talk 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You would have to put in quotes. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed this, but kept the Writer's Guild nomination part. Also is it still copy-vio if we add the link where we got the stuff from as a reference? --Gman124 talk 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck some comments, but still oppose as I still feel this list is below featurable quality.
- Ref 11 in no way cites the production codes.
- "The pilot met with poor reviews" Like? Try and give an example.
- For WP:NPOV try and provide a worldwide perspective. Did it air in any other countries.
- Is Seinfield available on any digital medium. iTunes, Amazon Unbox and the like?
- Citations for DVD region release dates?
I realise there was there are only 5 episodes but the whole thing (lead, reception section) just seem a bit short. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think an article that only lists 5 things is really not a FLC. It should be reviewed as a normal article. The criteria for FL are to address specific challenges in the wrting of encylopedic lists, that this article doesn't face. I know the "at least 10 items" is unoffical, but this article shows why it exists. Eg. We don't consider a 5 book series to need a list.Yobmod (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing comment General feeling is that this isn't a list with some prose, but an article with a list, so even though it's well written and may well meet all the FL criteria, if it isn't a list it can't be listed at WP:FL. I think you'd have a good chance at WP:GA WP:FAC though. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 21:15, 10 February 2009 [18].
All right, I think this one is ready. Let's see how it fares. All comments are welcome. (And yes, I am in the Wikicup, if that matters at all.) jj137 (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 22:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
- Managerial records all needs references. None are provided, and neither is a general reference, though specific ones are preferred.
- I added references for these. jj137 (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No playoff ties in the table, so not needed in the key.
- Removed. jj137 (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that you need the footnote in the "#" column if there are no repeated managers.
- Removed. jj137 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Differentiate between players inducted to the Hall of Fame as managers and as players (see List of Baltimore Orioles managers for an example).
- Fixed. jj137 (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "baseball team"→"baseball franchise"
- Fixed. jj137 (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you aren't going to use the abbreviations NL and MLB, it's unnecessary to explicitly define them in the lead.
- Fixed. jj137 (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "in
theirfranchise history"- Fixed. jj137 (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand lead: add discussion that complements the most successful managers shown already, such as managers with highest and lowest winning percentage, etc. See List of Philadelphia Phillies managers for ideas.
- Added. jj137 (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the above, in that linking to the Black Sox scandal isn't enough to define it, especially since it's an Easter Egg link, which isn't the best to start with.
- I removed it. jj137 (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note in the key that linked years link to the corresponding MLB or baseball season.
- Fixed. jj137 (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Last thing that I can see is that Baseball Almanac is not considered a reliable source by the Baseball WikiProject. You could replace those links from Baseball Reference or add references from BA/Retrosheet to each manager's table row. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does the Baseball WikiProject state that Baseball Almanac is not considered a reliable source? Rlendog (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just going by what I was told in my first two FLCs by other reviewers; I had to remove all of the references to Baseball Almanac because it wasn't reliable. I would say that perhaps this page establishes reliability, but I'm far from an expert on the subject. What's your opinion, Rlendog? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually asked because I had a similar experience. I just thought from your comment that there might be something on WP:BASEBALL noting that, rather than it being the opinion of one or two particular reviewers. The reason I was given was along the lines of "they claim to have x number of pages and y number of facts, but how do we know we can rely on their factchecking process." And I am not sure how that can be addressed, or why Baseball-Reference or BaseballLibrary don't generate similar concerns. I can't say I use Baseball Almanac as much as BR, but I haven't found any problems with the information there (I did actually find an error in BR that I think Basball Almanac has correct, where they listed a Kansas City Athletics home game - not even against the Red Sox - being played at Fenway, not that I am suggesting BR is unreliable as a result). My view is that at the very least the information on BA should be viewed on its own merits, rather than a blanket statement that it is considered unreliable. For example, I would think a box score appearing on Baseball Almanac would be as reliable as that box score appearing on any other source. Or if a Baseball Almanac article contains some information that can traced back to a different accepted reliable source but also some additional information, there is a good chance that the additional information is reliable as well. That said, I believe that the information referenced from Baseball Almanac in this article is also available on B-R, so it may be best to just switch the ref to deflect any concern. I may just add the B-R ref myself if I get a chance tonight. Rlendog (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note: Baseball-Reference was proved reliable at this FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What am I missing? I don't see Baseball-Reference discussed at all at that FAC, and the FAC was failed. In any case, I have no problem considering BR a reliable source. I'm just not sure what it would take for Baseball Alamanac to be considered a reliable source, and even if it is not considered a reliable source for everything, it would seem that it would be a reliable source for certain things, such as box scores. With respect to this FLC, I changed the ref to BR. In this case, it is clearly superior to BA, since it includes games managed. BA only has the won-lost record, and so the games managed was apparently determined by adding the two. But this is a problem, since it ignores tie games, and there were also some typos or arithmetic mistakes. I think I fixed all those. Rlendog (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note: Baseball-Reference was proved reliable at this FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually asked because I had a similar experience. I just thought from your comment that there might be something on WP:BASEBALL noting that, rather than it being the opinion of one or two particular reviewers. The reason I was given was along the lines of "they claim to have x number of pages and y number of facts, but how do we know we can rely on their factchecking process." And I am not sure how that can be addressed, or why Baseball-Reference or BaseballLibrary don't generate similar concerns. I can't say I use Baseball Almanac as much as BR, but I haven't found any problems with the information there (I did actually find an error in BR that I think Basball Almanac has correct, where they listed a Kansas City Athletics home game - not even against the Red Sox - being played at Fenway, not that I am suggesting BR is unreliable as a result). My view is that at the very least the information on BA should be viewed on its own merits, rather than a blanket statement that it is considered unreliable. For example, I would think a box score appearing on Baseball Almanac would be as reliable as that box score appearing on any other source. Or if a Baseball Almanac article contains some information that can traced back to a different accepted reliable source but also some additional information, there is a good chance that the additional information is reliable as well. That said, I believe that the information referenced from Baseball Almanac in this article is also available on B-R, so it may be best to just switch the ref to deflect any concern. I may just add the B-R ref myself if I get a chance tonight. Rlendog (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just going by what I was told in my first two FLCs by other reviewers; I had to remove all of the references to Baseball Almanac because it wasn't reliable. I would say that perhaps this page establishes reliability, but I'm far from an expert on the subject. What's your opinion, Rlendog? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does the Baseball WikiProject state that Baseball Almanac is not considered a reliable source? Rlendog (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "The Reds are members"-->They are members
- "There have been fifty-nine different managers in the team's franchise history," Comma should be a colon.
- "regular season games"-->regular-season games
- "regular season game wins"-->regular-season game wins
- "Pat Moran, Lou Piniella, and McKechnie had one World Series victory each" "had"-->have.
- Image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods.
- File:BidMcPhee3.jpg needs an author. How do we know that the image was published before 1923? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
- What makes http://www.baseball-almanac.com/mgrtmcr.shtml a reliable source? We need to know their methods of fact-checking.
- The Baseball-Reference citations are inconsistent. This is how they should be formatted: "Baseball Hall of Fame Inductees". Baseball-Reference. Sports Reference LLC. Retrieved 2009-01-27. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I fixed the issues with games managed and the references (see above), but I think the list should reflect League Championships (e.g., 1970 and 1972) in addition to World Series Championships. Rlendog (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c]
I don't know if this still stands, but wikilinking articles like this: 1940, violates WP:MOS. Don't know for sure now, but hope that more users will comment on this situation. You could wikilink it like this: 1940 season. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "...in regular season games managed (1,449)..." The table lists 1,450.
- "...with 1,380 and 744, respectively...." The table lists 1,386.
- Please fix the disambiguation links.
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The discrepencies in the number of games managed came about when I corrected the number of games in the table. I fixed those numbers in the lead now too. Rlendog (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This FLC seems to have stagnated; the nominator has not edited since January 27. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 18:27, 8 February 2009 [19].
I am nominating this list because I believe it meets all FL criteria. My goal is to bring it and its four sibling lists to FL status in the near future. Many thanks to User:Ruhrfisch for his usual good job in peer reviewing the list. Otto4711 (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
WITHDRAWN - clearly I am not going to be able to satisfy the nit-pickery without completely stripping out the images and I am unwilling to do so since in my view they are fully and completely and obviously well within even the ridiculously over-restrictive image use policy that is designed to discourage some editors who want to actually improve the project and empower others whose preference is to diminish it by playing image police. Every time I nominate something for featured status it's because I've forgotten the level of petty criticism that's attendant in the process and without fail I'm well reminded of it by the time the process is over. If anyone ever sees my sig on a featured nomination again, please call a psychiatrist because certainly it will mean that I've gone insane. Otto4711 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Sources
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images I struck the support above because I just noticed that the article uses four non-free images. Please be more detailed in the fair use rationales than "for illustration and critical commentary". Judging by the consensus on a peer review for a similar article, there should not be so many. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The images in the article are of of critical historical importance to this topic. The first identifiably gay character on television, the first self-identified gay character on television, an image from the first national television program on homosexuality and an image showing the lengths that fear of identification drove interviewees to conceal their identities. I can certainly expand the fair use rationales, although I do not think any such expansion is necessary since all that the licensing template requires is what I've written, but under no circumstances will I agree to the removal of any of these images. Fair use images are perfectly acceptable in featured material and the idea that four images in an article this size is too many is nonsensical. There is no numerical limit on such images per article so "there are too many of them" is not a legitimate reason for opposing the promotion. The point is not how many images there are but whether they comport with the (IMHO far too restrictive and stifling) image policy. These clearly do. Otto4711 (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—on images—true, pure numbers of non-free images is not a reason to oppose based on image criteria. But WP:NFCC has several bits that undermine your defense. First, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". So for example, if you wanted to use File:Tcjones.jpg, File:Tc jones 1965.jpg would be better as it's a free image (you could argue the transvestite thing, but that's a different argument altogether. File:Gayplant.jpg is frankly a crappy image that does zero to increase my understanding of the topic, "significantly" per NFCC or otherwise. The other images are just actors, meaning that it's conceivable free shots would suffice to represent the same content; either way, images of them is not significant to reader understanding, and the FUR are weak. If you had historians talking about how pivotal the role was, and some element of their appearance, then you would have a more defensible case. In addition, there's a lack of citations throughout, leading to blatant original research. Who says "Turnabout Intruder" has LGBT themes? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:PSTS episode content serves as its own sourcing. Content drawn directly from an episode in no way implicates WP:OR and everything else is cited. There is no way that a free image of the characters can be created. The point is not to show what the actors look like. The point is to show how the characters were presented.
Comment Oppose - I have a real problem with the images. Not their rationales, but their placement in the article. They stretch the table horribly and make it look completely unprofessional. Can something be done with them - perhaps merge them into single composite image at the top of the article? Skinny87 (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After looking at David's comments above and the article again, I have to agree - how I missed that I don't know. The lack of citations is indeed a big concern, and as a Trekkie I'm confused over the two TOS episodes selected. Frankly the Trouble with Tribbles looks tacked on (Tribbles are a reference to LGBT?), and who says the Turnabout Intruder has LGTB themes? Skinny87 (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, yes, when an entire species is described on-screen as "bisexual" then it is a reference to the "B" in LGBT, which stands for "bisexual". When a male is in a female body and vice-versa, that is a reference to the "T" of LGBT, which stands for "transgender". Otto4711 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still OR. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's OR to note the fact of a species' bisexuality? It's OR to note the fact of a body switch and an actor's altered mannerisms? I do not think "OR" means what you think it does. This is no more original research than any other description of an episode's plot. Otto4711 (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [20].
- Nominators: Nergaal & Igordebraga
Asides from minor cleanup, I believe this list is ready to be featured. Constructive comments are welcomed. Nergaal (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from Truco (talk · contribs)
- Metallica is an American heavy metal band, founded in 1981 by Lars Ulrich in Los Angeles. - state that he is a drummer
- Since 1982, Metallica has performed numerous times in North America and Europe, but has also performed in other parts of the World such as South America, East and Southeast Asia,[1] Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and South Africa. - 1)unlink the countries/continents, they are too common terms 2)decapitalize World
- As of 2009, the band has performed live gigs during each year with the exception of 2001, in a total of over 1500 shows. - gigs is not an encyclopedic word, should be events (as well as other occurrences of this)
- The prose needs to be expanding substantially, by summarizing the list more and telling more on the background of Metallica
- All phrases in the notes in the tables should be in past tense not in present tense
- Unlink the countries/states/continents in the table
- What makes Metallicaworld.co.uk , Metsanitarium.com, Encycmet.com., All Metallica. , Last.fm., and Metroactive.com. reliable?
- Consistency is needed in the publishers for the references, like the encyclopedia reference
- Add |format=PDF to the PDF files.
- The notes need to be seriously copyedited, they need to be in complete sentences or in a better worded fragment.--TRUCO 01:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup comments
-
- The notes need copyediting still need copyediting First gigs as a band is not grammatically correct.
- The intro should have the first, most recent tour, and other significant tours.
- The sourcing issues need to be resolved--TRUCO 02:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some more copyediting is needed in the notes, example: Festival tour. (this is not a complete sentence, so no full stop needed, there are others also with grammatical errors, this is just one. Some of the notes are sourced, while others aren't, so some are being verified with references, and others aren't, which makes the list unverifiable. Some of the references also look unreliable, but check with User:Dabomb87 for a check on those.--TRUCO 00:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean something like First gigs as a band were not played as a tour. needs a reference? Nergaal (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah.--TRUCO 01:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- The lead is too short and not very well written or organized.
- metallicaworld.co.uk is a fan site, as is AllMetallica and encycmet.com (AllMetallica is the only one of the three that does not admit this on their main page) and is Last.fm useable?
- The format appears to be modelled after List of Kylie Minogue concert tours, but personally I like the format used at List of Nine Inch Nails tours (although listing the band members would not be necessary). -- Scorpion0422 19:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please fix the dabs. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of replacing fansites and Last.fm refs, but else do you suggest in the intro? I picked that format to add notes on tour events, specially because not all tours have their pages. igordebraga ≠ 17:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've improved the prose of the notes significantly. Please give specific suggestions for the introduction, because I have no idea what is missing right now. Nergaal (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "Since 1982, Metallica has performed numerous times in North America and Europe, but has also performed in other parts of the world such as South America," – "Since 1982, Metallica has performed in North America, Europe, South America,"
- "As of 2009, the band has performed in live events during each year with the exception of 2001, in a total of over 1600 shows." – "As of 2009, the band has performed in live events each year with the exception of 2001, in over 1600 shows."
- Please provide more information for the image captions, such as what city they are in. Frankly, we should learn something new from the image; an image of a concert is just like the image of any other concert, unless we learn more about that specific image.
- "was
the"Kill " - The lead is three short paragraphs. Either expand them or merge them logically.
- The en dashes should be spaced if not between two elements of the same type, like two numbers or two months. So "Mar 14–Nov 30, 1982" to "Mar 14 – Nov 30, 1982". Also, I would very much prefer seeing full month names.
- "Saxon, [4]" – Remove the space after the comma.
Gary King (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done all but two - the original source for the Damage Inc. photo is a dead site, so I can't find the location (but expanded the captions a bit), and need to know what could be done in the lead. igordebraga ≠ 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the lead, talk about their concerts, perhaps typically how much money they gross, and so on. There is only 1000 bytes of prose in the article right now, surely there can be more. This is the only article about Metallica concerts, so let's make it good. Nine Inch Nails has an entire article dedicated to their live performances at Nine Inch Nails live performances. Gary King (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will review fully tomorrow, but what makes http://www.rockthebayou.com/Bio.aspx?id=27 a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a festival website. If it's not written by the organizers, it's a press release from the band. Either way doesn't fail WP:RS. igordebraga ≠ 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question: is this site reliable: http://www.ilikethat.com/metallica/ ? Nergaal (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [21].
An anime episode list. -- Goodraise (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple things, mostly WP:MOS-JA related:
- Kônosuke Uda → Kōnosuke Uda: circumflexes are deprecated in favor of macrons (the page linked to should be moved as well). In the same vein, Eiichirô Oda → Eiichirō Oda.
- Links changed and move requested. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Title emphasis and WP:MOS-JA#Titles of books, CDs, movies, etc.: BRAND NEW WORLD → "Brand New World"; the tildes in "We Are ~7 Straw Hat Pirates variant~" need to be replaced with something more appropriate (parentheses, maybe); ADVENTURE WORLD → "Adventure World".
- Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "seiyūs" → "seiyū": non-naturalized Japanese words are not pluralized with "s".
- Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rōmaji titles should be title-cased, as seen in episodes 313 on. And some fixes along with that:
- episode 302, 305: "Rucchi" → "Rutchi": っち is "tchi", see Hepburn romanization#Double consonants
- episode 303: "oozakura" → "Ōzakura"
- episode 311, 320: "zenin" → "zen'in": んい and に need to be disambiguated, WP:MOS-JA#Body text #5
- episode 319: "Jī-san" → "Jii-san": WP:MOS-JA#Body text #1, kanji/hiragana *aa/*ee/*ii are not macronned unless used with ー (e.g. らーめん rāmen)
- episode 320: "Tsuini" → "Tsui ni": don't attach particles to the preceding word
- All done. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kônosuke Uda → Kōnosuke Uda: circumflexes are deprecated in favor of macrons (the page linked to should be moved as well). In the same vein, Eiichirô Oda → Eiichirō Oda.
- —tan³ tx 22:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolved, but when I went to title case the rōmaji, I glanced over a couple spelling errors and a wording error; the episode summaries should be given a closer look. No comments on content, as I've not watched this series past the first fifty episodes. —tan³ tx 07:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, that's what you meant with "title-cased". Thanks for doing it. I'm reluctant to mess with the romanizations. I'd propably break more than I'd fix. -- Goodraise (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolved, but when I went to title case the rōmaji, I glanced over a couple spelling errors and a wording error; the episode summaries should be given a closer look. No comments on content, as I've not watched this series past the first fifty episodes. —tan³ tx 07:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Needs a copy-edit. Depending on whether I can take care of my other real-life and wiki obligations, I may return to look at the prose again.
- "The Special Chapter contains episodes, recapping the back stories of the Straw Hat Pirates, and five omake adaptations of short comics by Oda, originally published in the One Piece Log fan magazine. "-->The Special Chapter contains episodes, which summarize the back stories of the Straw Hat Pirates, and five omake adaptations of short comics by Oda, which were originally published in the One Piece Log fan magazine.
- Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "over fifty-seven episodes" Numbers over nine should generally be written in numeric form (57).
- Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "These episodes seamlessly continue the story of season 8." "seamlessly" as opposed to what...?
- Fixed. (Rewrote that paragraph.) -- Goodraise (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "
Togetherwith the sea train conductor Kokoro"- Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "They crossed the yearly occurring storm" Why are is the past tense suddenly used here?
- Fixed. (Rewrote that paragraph.) -- Goodraise (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "
in orderto" (multiple occurences)- Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Enies Lobby drawing near"-->As Enies Lobby draws near
- Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "and as his friends gaze in awe"-->While his friends gaze in awe (add a period before this phrase)
- Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "All goes smoothly at first, but by the time the" Who are "they"?
- Fixed. -- Goodraise (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "ten-thousand men. "-->10,000 men.
- Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Galley-La foremen and the leading members of the Franky Family arrive late at the second gate, but they are bringing with them the family's king bulls mounted on caterpillar tracks."-->The Galley-La foremen and the leading members of the Franky Family arrive late at the second gate, and have brought along with them the family's king bulls mounted on caterpillar tracks.
- Not done. Fixed in an other way. -- Goodraise (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "With their combined forces" comma after this phrase. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking oppose, will come back to copy-edit over the weekend. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to weak support, the prose actually gets better as you move down. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The general ref is missing a publisher.- Fixed. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 3 to 7 should not have the title in all caps. Make it in sentence case.Dabomb87 (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 23:37, 4 February 2009 [22].
- I think that this is a featurable list on Wiki. Mario1987 22:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that peer reviews should be closed before coming to FLC... I closed it for you this time. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, pertaining to the list, I don't think that the title "Wind power in Romania" is accurate. It sounds like the article is an overview of wind power in Romania, which it is not. Wouldn't it be "List of wind farms in Romania"? To that end, what was the inclusion criteria for the wind farms? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria was all wind farms over 10 MW installed capacity. Mario1987 09:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The name should stay as it is to be consistent with other Wind Power in Country articles. One quick comment is that "in romanian" in the references needs to be capitalized. Reywas92Talk 23:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But those are not considered lists. See Wind power in the United States. This article should either be copy-pasted into a new article or moved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should i move it to "List of wind farms in Romania"? Mario1987 09:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't move per se, maybe create a new article through cut-and-paste, and leave some info (the lead) here. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I created a separate article List of wind farms in Romania. Should i propose that as a featured list? Mario1987 17:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should i move it to "List of wind farms in Romania"? Mario1987 09:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But those are not considered lists. See Wind power in the United States. This article should either be copy-pasted into a new article or moved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Yes. Do not remove the FLC template or withdraw this nomination yet. Let the FLC director take care of it. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For article history purposes, it would be better to close this one, then start a new one for the List of wind farms in Romania. This one is closed. Mario1987, you can create a nom for the new list whenever you are ready. -- Scorpion0422 23:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.