Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2009: Difference between revisions
promoting 8 |
promoting 7 FLCs |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Copley Medal}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Adele}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of African American United States Cabinet Secretaries}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Australian George Cross recipients}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Bauhaus discography}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Willowtip Records discography}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Gaylactic Spectrum Awards}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Triple Gold Club}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Triple Gold Club}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of valkyrie names in Norse mythology}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of valkyrie names in Norse mythology}} |
Revision as of 01:00, 25 February 2009
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [1].
Another RS medal: don't worry reviewers, only two more to go after this! then I start submitting the awards and lectures, mwahaha Ironholds (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check the toolbox, there is a dab link and a couple of dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done; one of the deadlinks isn't dead, I don't know why the toolserver couldn't resolve it (possibly because it is a .pdf?) Ironholds (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support | Problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.TRUCO 02:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Lead looks good after a lookover. Meets WAIFL (waffle?). NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I remember seeing these in the nominators userspace, and remember this as the longest one. I can't see errors with the list, yet another quality Royal Society list from Ironholds. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, thanks. Sounds like an advertisement "yet another good quality list from Ironholds! Oh what WILL that man think of next? Order now and receive free shipping." Ironholds (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "been changed a number of times"-->been changed a several times
- "A second donation of £1666 13s. 4d." What do the "s" and "d" stand for?
- "Since its creation"-->Since its inception
- "including 52 winners of
variousNobel Prizes" - "These include Frederick Sanger who was awarded"-->These include Frederick Sanger, who was awarded
- "and is one of
onlyfour people" - "having won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry
twicein 1958 and 1980" Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- All done. Ironholds (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
- All web citations that are PDFs should have
format=PDF
added to their templates. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- All corrected. Ironholds (talk) 06:25, 22 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.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Adele
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfills the FL criteria. —Chris! ct 21:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very good list similar to your others. Again, you could add a couple more pictures if you want. This one has a few more than the last list, but more articles should link to this one. Reywas92Talk 22:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, BencherliteTalk |
---|
;Comments from Bencherlite
An interesting list; just a few points.
BencherliteTalk 14:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support, good work. BencherliteTalk 17:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Dabomb87 (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:19, 24 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [3].
- Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I launched this list into the main space about a week ago after several days of construction in my sandbox, during which time I have received technical support and guidence from Woody (of which I am very greatful) and the list has also just passed an A-Class Review by Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Any and all comments welcome. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the two remaining redlinks should be filled out within the next few days. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Meets the criteria. It is a well organized list, the lead section introduces the subject very well, and refs are reliable. AdjustShift (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 01:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your input, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As Abraham says, I have done some work on the list, mainly ironing out the little problems with it. It meets all the criteria in my opinion, it is extremely well-cited, it meets the MOS, the lead is ok and it has an appropriate images. No issues here, regards, Woody (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.gc-database.co.uk/exchanges.htm a reliable source?Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- The George Cross Database is the unofficial website on the George Cross and its recipients. They have published several books on both the decoration and biographical information on recipients, leading me to believe the site is reliable. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide a link to the books please (Google Books link or something else). Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The best link would probably be the site's main page [4]. Also, it was just brought to my attention the site is published by Chameleon HH Publishing Ltd. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide a link to the books please (Google Books link or something else). Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The George Cross Database is the unofficial website on the George Cross and its recipients. They have published several books on both the decoration and biographical information on recipients, leading me to believe the site is reliable. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:50, 19 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [5].
I am nominating this for featured list because I finally got around to finishing it off and I believe it meets the FL criteria. If any editors have any concerns, I will of course address them as soon as I can. JD554 (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments You should make it clearer that "Kick in the Eye" did not chart on the "main" US singles chart; someone just glancing at the page might misinterpet it that way. "US Club" should suffice. Also, I think there might have been six music videos, but I may just be misremembering (although footage from The Hunger was fashioned into a video for "Bela Lugosi's Dead"). WesleyDodds (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed "Club Play" chart. I'm not sure if we should be listing videos that weren't released to promote either the single or the album the song was from. Was The Hunger video released to promote a re-release? I'm not sure, so it's probably best to leave it out unless a reliable source can be found to say it was. --JD554 (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's mentioned in the Bauhaus bio I own. I'll look it up. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from Cannibaloki
|
---|
Weak oppose
Studio albums, Live albums, Compilation albums
Video albums
Music videos
For now is that. Cannibaloki 16:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support, all done. Cannibaloki 04:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very good work. My only issue is regarding the video section; could you remove the redlinks? NSR77 T 16:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You beat me to it --JD554 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support | Problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--<TRUCO> 503 20:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 21 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [6].
I am nominating this list because it is mostly based on the discographies of Dischord Records and Load Records, as both were promoted to featured list status (model and source of "respiration"). This is the first list containing only extreme metal bands which at least reached this page ("gangrenik" grammar). I chose not putting it on peer review, because its content is very short, and we don't need lose time with this. I think it is ready to receive comments, of course. Cannibaloki 05:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - pretty good list overall, but
|
- Support - (1) problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.
(2)IMO an external link to the official website should be added.(3)Court date is tomorrow =P.<TruCo> 503 18:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Okay. Done. I will be busy, how about 31 February 2009? =D <Cannibaloki> 666 18:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perfect, see you then lol.--<TruCo> 503 18:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Done. I will be busy, how about 31 February 2009? =D <Cannibaloki> 666 18:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks very nice, so I'm happy to support immediately. Only one minor suggestion: I'd take out the last sentence of the lead ("Since its foundation, Willowtip has released 72 albums from 52 artists.") It's something that would require constant updating as the label releases more and more, and therefore it's prone to be out of date. I don't think the sentence is necessary, so I'd just take it out to avoid the hassle. Otherwise, great work! Drewcifer (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks!--Cannibaloki 15:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And one other thing I noticed: "Split" isn't the name of anything, so it should be lowercase, not uppercase. Drewcifer (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Is there a reason to not make the table sortable? Being able to find the albums alphabetically, or see all of a groups releases next to each other would be helpful. If made sortable, i would support. If free images exist for some of the bands, might be a nice addition down the side of the table (I use larger than standard fonts, and there is still enough space). The list of bands at the parent article should be a see also now.Yobmod (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a specific rule? Cannibaloki 15:01, 23 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [7].
The lists of nominees for the 3 categories of this award all already made FL, so this is the final part to make it a featured topic (i forgot i hadn't submitted it, this was essentially finished months ago!). It is very much a niche award, with no controversy, so 99% of sources are just list results, hence our article reflects that. All the formatting and sources are essentially the same as the sublists, so should have no problems. ThanksYobmod (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please fix the disambiguation links. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed all links except the Buffy one. The awards for buffy are for the TV series, comic and a novel, so in that case i think the disambig is the best destination. Thanks for pointing outthat tool, it will make finding these much easier!Yobmod (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What are those three FLs? -- Banjeboi 15:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best novel
- Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best short fiction
- Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best other work
- also note that lists cannot pass GA, and a GA would not be appropriate for FLC. GAN talk page has a discussion on this). Thanks.Yobmod (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) |
---|
Please note these are all points I quickly noticed without reading a single bit of prose. FLC is not a substitute for peer review, and this should have had these simple problems solved there not here. Regards, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support, all my issues have been resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question (or Help! :-)). The images on my settings overlapp with the first heading, they don't cause it to move. This happens whether or not the TOC is expanded and on different monitors. Is this the same for everyone else? If this is something that settings can affect, can someone explain how to change it? I always make sure images don't move any tables, but thought that overlapping the headings was normal.Yobmod (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed this. If this is not what you desired please feel free to revert or enquire further about what to do. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Looks better.Yobmod (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Sources
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the links for the dates in the table are fixed. Some of them do not point to the correct article location (for example films with dates that link to the year in literature.)Dillypickle (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, checked them all, and fixed the five i found going to lit instead of right aricle. Evil copy/paste to blame!Yobmod (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- struck my comment, leaving the support.
- Ah, checked them all, and fixed the five i found going to lit instead of right aricle. Evil copy/paste to blame!Yobmod (talk) 18:00, 23 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 06:36, 21 February 2009 [8].
Oh boy, my first nom with this fancy new preload template. Anyway, sourced, WikiCup entry, will address concerns, etc. For those who may think the current table is too cluttered, there is a sample version that lists only the first year the player won that accomplishment here. Enjoy. -- Scorpion0422 16:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) |
---|
Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
Otherwise I am impressed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Okay, my issues have been resolved, I won't support just yet because this nomination has only been open a short time and I'd prefer to wait to see if any other reviewers find a cause to object. Congrats for your excellent work. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, No major issues have been raised in the other reviews. I can now confidently support this nom. Well done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - Excellent list overall.
|
- Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 503 01:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as well presented, written and actually interestingly informative.Yobmod (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I made some minor changes, but otherwise looks good! – Nurmsook! talk... 16:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 16:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:26, 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 06:36, 21 February 2009 [9].
- Nominator(s): :bloodofox: (talk)
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the requirements. I've recently rewritten valkyrie from scratch (now GA), for which this is a subpage, and you may be interested in having a look at that too if this list interests you. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of them are self-redirects from the navbox, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I just caught that too. I fixed the one redirect in the introduction. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (yobmod)Support - all queries answered.
- The names of the works they appear in would be better linked each time, as the first linking moves when sorted.
- Done! –Holt (T•C) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the translations shouldnot be sortable, as they are not standard (some have more than one translation). Sorting would imply to a reader that they can simply sort and look for the meaning, which doesn't work for "Help" for example.
- Done! –Holt (T•C) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first sentence needs re-jigging- "...who choose who..." is confusing (even if not technichally wrong.
- I changed it to "...who choose which warriors who will win or die...", but that might need rewording as English isn't my first language. –Holt (T•C) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed.
- Can the one entry in the source column with an explanation have the name of the source first for sorting (or use a sort key).
- Done! –Holt (T•C) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the entries for the sources written so that the major/earlier source is first? If not, it should be, or maybe even 2 columns (Earliest source and other sources). This latter method would be great if not too wide, and the information is known.
- I agree that this would have been very handy, but I am not sure if the markup would work correctly. Quoting from meta:Help:Table: "With colspan and rowspan cells can span several columns or rows," ... "However, this has the disadvantage that sorting does not work properly anymore." If someone with more experience with tables could look into this, I'd be grateful. I'll read some more on the help pages and see what I can do. –Holt (T•C) 17:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- EDIT: Reading your comment again, I understand you didn't imply anything about colspan/rowspan, which I thought at first. It should be doable regarding the dating of the sources, and this is basically how it would look (mark all, copy, paste on Wikipedia and preview). I'll let Bloodofox say his opinion before anything is done here. –Holt (T•C) 18:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's possible to figure what are "major" and "minor" sources here. They are all major sources for our purposes. All of these sources were recorded around the same time, but they reach much further back. It will be problematic to trot out all of the theories regarding dating here, but suffice to say that much of it comes from much earlier oral tradition. With these factors in mind, I would just leave them listed as they are. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, if there is no good way to detirmine which is earlier, then this is fine.
- I don't think it's possible to figure what are "major" and "minor" sources here. They are all major sources for our purposes. All of these sources were recorded around the same time, but they reach much further back. It will be problematic to trot out all of the theories regarding dating here, but suffice to say that much of it comes from much earlier oral tradition. With these factors in mind, I would just leave them listed as they are. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it this includes all of the names used in the sources? (so is presumably comprehensive?)
- Only sources specifically referring to figures as valkyries. The problem with including all of the mentions of all of the figures is that their names are commonly employed in skaldic literature in kennings, which would mean listing a whole lot of works that only use valkyrie names as synonyms for "battle." It wouldn't be helpful. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK.
- Could it not be renamed to simply "List of Valkyries" (keeping current name as redirect)? The current list is both a list of name meanings and list of orignal sources, so if there is no conflict with other lists, a general name would be better for a sortable list. Are there notable Valkyries outside of Norse mythology?
- The problem is that there are a lot of valkyries in Wagner and a lot of valkyries in anime, video games, and manga, for example. This article is specifically about valkyries in Norse mythology. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, just "List of Valkyries in Norse mythology" (removing the names part).
- Well, it's specifically a list of names that are outright referred to as valkyries. There are other figures that could be valkyries that are not specifically called this, etc. The reason for the specific title is because who could or could not be a valkyrie can get complex fast without precision. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, just "List of Valkyries in Norse mythology" (removing the names part).
- Confusing: "The valkyrie name Herja may point to a connection to the name of the goddess Hariasa, who is attested from a stone from 187 CE." Which one does "who" refer to, and what is meant by "attested", the existance of the Godess? The link in mythology? Yobmod (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The stone from 187 CE refers to Hariasa. In this case, as everywhere else it is used when referring to sources, 'attestation' means "to bear witness; give testimony." In other words, the source says it was a goddess, therefore the goddess is attested by that source. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So the stone attests to the existance of such a goddess, rather than attesting to the link between the names? I think this should be clarified. Modern scholar saying there is a link is notthe same as archeological proof of such, which is how i first understood it.
- Yes, that is correct. Hariasa is attested on the stone inscription. I've adjusted the prose to reflect this perhaps a bit more clearly. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So the stone attests to the existance of such a goddess, rather than attesting to the link between the names? I think this should be clarified. Modern scholar saying there is a link is notthe same as archeological proof of such, which is how i first understood it.
Support Comment Why aren't the Rök Runestone and the Karlevi Runestone mentioned?--Berig (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe Bloodofox left these out on purpose because they are not specifically referred to as valkyries on the stones. diff –Holt (T•C) 18:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I have only mentioned sources where the figures are outright called valkyries. The reason for this is because if they're not outright referred to as valkyries it gets complicated; all of those Brynhildr mentions, all of those Hildr mentions, the iffy Róta mentions. The Prose Edda says Hildr is the same figure as Brynhildr, Hildr appears as a witch, Brynhildr appears in several late sources, and it's not even clear we're talking about the same figure sometimes, and so on and so on. Better to just leave those attestations out and handle them on their individual articles (when there is enough information for an individual article) or things get too complicated for the purpose of this list. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But they aren't mentioned as Valkyries in some of the sources that are included, i.e. Oddrúnargrátr[10] and Grímnismál[11], unless I've missed something.--Berig (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is to narrow down the attestations to only sources where each name is explicity said to refer to a Valkyrie, I think it has to be explained in the lead, if not in the name of the list.--Berig (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)I strike that seeing that there is information which I missed.--Berig (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I have only mentioned sources where the figures are outright called valkyries. The reason for this is because if they're not outright referred to as valkyries it gets complicated; all of those Brynhildr mentions, all of those Hildr mentions, the iffy Róta mentions. The Prose Edda says Hildr is the same figure as Brynhildr, Hildr appears as a witch, Brynhildr appears in several late sources, and it's not even clear we're talking about the same figure sometimes, and so on and so on. Better to just leave those attestations out and handle them on their individual articles (when there is enough information for an individual article) or things get too complicated for the purpose of this list. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also the zillion kenning mentions, which is why I came to the conclusion that I had to narrow the list down to only where the figures are specifically referred to as valkyries. I'll remove the Oddrúnargrátr mention, since I may have missed this from my earlier purge, but it seems to me that it's doubtless that Odin refers to the list in Grímnismál as that of a list of valkyries, although he doesn't use the name "bear me a horn .... einherjar in Valhalla ..." :bloodofox: (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean. There's no reason to include the runestones unless the other kenning attestations are included as well.--Berig (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also the zillion kenning mentions, which is why I came to the conclusion that I had to narrow the list down to only where the figures are specifically referred to as valkyries. I'll remove the Oddrúnargrátr mention, since I may have missed this from my earlier purge, but it seems to me that it's doubtless that Odin refers to the list in Grímnismál as that of a list of valkyries, although he doesn't use the name "bear me a horn .... einherjar in Valhalla ..." :bloodofox: (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Easily the best list of valkyries there is, online and offline. It is thoroughly sourced, comprehensive, clear and well-written. –Holt (T•C) 19:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) A very interesting and well done list.
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- All my potential objections have been answered. Rules99 (talk) 15:40, 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 06:36, 21 February 2009 [12].
I've been working on this one on-and-off for a while, but I think it's finally ready. Thanks for any comments and suggestions you could give me. Drewcifer (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 2, should be The New York Times, not just New York Times.The Hollywood Reporter ref requires registration. Denote this in the ref withDabomb87 (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]format=Subscription required
in the citation template.
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 503 22:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worthwhile to separate out some of the credits into further tables - such as for the television work, as well as appearances as himself. Since he is mainly known for his work as a filmmaker, the appearances in particular would benefit from their own table, as they otherwise give the impression of being part of his body of work (as a filmmaker). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I in a way disagree since he has been apart of the direction/promotion of those films.--TRUCO 503 01:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not talking about his appearances in his films, though. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When you're right you're right! Done. Drewcifer (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not talking about his appearances in his films, though. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:40, 13 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 06:36, 21 February 2009 [13].
- Nominator(s): KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it exemplifies all of the featured list criteria. I know that I may be stuffing beans up my nose here, but I feel it necessary to address some concerns ahead of time. I am aware that the level of citations in the lead may be low compared to some other leads. The reason for this is due to the length of the Phillies' franchise history. The list is unsplittable by city or other non-arbitrary criterion vis a vis the Giants or Orioles lists. Some of the facts in the lead would require the use of between five and, in one case, fifteen references to fully verify. Though all of these references are available and presented in the article with their individual years, I feel that citing fifteen refs on one fact to be overkill per WP:LEADCITE and visually unappealing/distracting per WP:FL?'s Cr.6. Comments are welcome and will, of course, be addressed by the nominator. Cheers. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport -I need to take a closer look, but at first glance tThis is EXTREMELY impressive. Having worked on many of the lists in this series myself, I'd be surprised if this wasn't the best of the lot. Rlendog (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Upon further review, changed to support. Rlendog (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I appreciate it; I've been working hard on it for two months. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
numbers indicate game number during that Opening Day in the case of a doubleheader. - 1)if you mentioned the acronym of the Major League Baseball (MLB) in the lead, you can write MLB here to save space 2)"the" should be added before game number
|
- Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 503 23:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
* Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Also, what makes Retrosheet a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Sources
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:49, 21 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 06:36, 21 February 2009 [17].
This is my fourth list for a BBC Sports Personality of the Year topic. I believe it now meets the criteria. Per this I think I am meant to mention I am participating in the WikiCup, but please note I started this topic before entering the competition. Thanks in advance for comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 503 01:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24
|
---|
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] (continued)
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support You're welcome. :D -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - passes all the criterion imo. Found nothing actionable to change. I would probable merge the "by sport" and "by nationality" sections into a "statistics", with the tables next to each other.Yobmod (talk) 10:01, 19 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 06:36, 21 February 2009 [19].
- Peer review (February 7, 2009}
I am nominating this article for featured list because it has previously gone through a failed FL review. I addressed the majority of points, passed it through Peer Review and now want to try and get it promoted. I feel it now meets the criteria and errors should be minor. 03md (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.
However, for the references, in everyhit.com capitalize the H because its how the website writes it.--TRUCO 503 15:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for all your help. I have fixed this last issue. 03md (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your welcome.--TRUCO 503 17:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for all your help. I have fixed this last issue. 03md (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
General comment Truco, the hyphen in number-one singles is correct because it is a compound adjective. I moved the article back and moved the other decade articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good, but other reviewers are asked to provide the viewpoint on everyHit.
- What makes everyHit a reliable source?
- It is the only source that I can find that provides evidence of 42 number-ones in a year being the record. The data is all accurate and covers the whole period. What other similar source could you suggest?
- As long as it is being used for that one claim and its other uses are supported by more reliable sources, it can stay. I will leave this unstruck for other reviewers to decide Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems reliable, but I don't think we can link to it since their FAQ states This is an altruistic, non-commercial public resource for personal and educational use only. Additionally, according to their about section, it is a fan website created by a random person who has many records and lists them, but they state that they get every release that reaches the top 40 by the British Record Industry, so I see it as a bit questionable.--<TRUCO> 503 16:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have decided to replace the general everyHit reference with one to the Official Charts Company website (see this link) which should be more reliable. Is it okay to leave everyHit as the verification for 2000 seeing a record number of different songs at number-one? 03md (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that should be fine. Minimal use of the source is what we are aiming for. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- I think that should be fine. Minimal use of the source is what we are aiming for. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have decided to replace the general everyHit reference with one to the Official Charts Company website (see this link) which should be more reliable. Is it okay to leave everyHit as the verification for 2000 seeing a record number of different songs at number-one? 03md (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems reliable, but I don't think we can link to it since their FAQ states This is an altruistic, non-commercial public resource for personal and educational use only. Additionally, according to their about section, it is a fan website created by a random person who has many records and lists them, but they state that they get every release that reaches the top 40 by the British Record Industry, so I see it as a bit questionable.--<TRUCO> 503 16:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as it is being used for that one claim and its other uses are supported by more reliable sources, it can stay. I will leave this unstruck for other reviewers to decide Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the only source that I can find that provides evidence of 42 number-ones in a year being the record. The data is all accurate and covers the whole period. What other similar source could you suggest?
There is one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Removed dead link
- Comment
- "Before the advent of music downloads, the chart was based entirely on sales of physical singles from retail outlets. The chart is based on sales only, and rankings do not reflect the degree of airplay the songs may receive." Perhaps this info is too general for the list. I think it would be better to just state what determines the chart ranking during the year. --Efe (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Before the advent of music downloads" When was it? When was digital downloads incorporated in determining chart ranks? --Efe (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "the chart was based entirely on sales of physical singles from retail outlets. The chart is based on sales only" Seems redundant or needs a little rephrasing. --Efe (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "and rankings do not reflect the degree of airplay the songs may receive" Perhaps this could removed. --Efe (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, only state what factors determine the ranking. --Efe (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the redundant sentence and added that downloads were incorporated into the chart from 2005. Hope this solves that issue.
- Better now. --Efe (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks to pass all of the criteria to me. Question: Will there also be lists of number ones by decade, then by year? Seems useless to do so, but the people seem to also be supporting the US list of no. 1s by years.Yobmod (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is up to others to decide - I suppose yearly tables could be created with more specific references etc. which could also get up to featured list standard.
- This is a general comment. Yes, we can possibly create that like the yearly list of US number-one singles. --Efe (talk) 12:04, 20 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 06:36, 21 February 2009 [20].
I am nominating with User:SRE.K.A.L.24, comments welcomed—Chris! ct 02:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Memphis Commercial Appeal-->The Commercial Appeal (refs 16 and 22)Dabomb87 (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - excellent list, Dabomb got most of my comments
|
- Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 503 00:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
- "first non-United-States team" - there are two here, so change to "teams". Also, the comment above from Truco regarding "non-United-States" was never fixed though it was marked as such. It should be "non-United States".
- Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Grizzlies and the Raptors became the first non-United-States team to join the NBA since 1946." - needs a ref
- I'm not very good at finding refs. I hope Chris can find one soon. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "all-time leader in regular-season games wins (95)." - remove "games" or change to "games won". Either is fine.
- Dabomb87 changed the grammar, but I'm hoping you're right. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "to have won NBA Coach of the Year." - should be "to have won the NBA Coach of the Year award."
- Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is a "contributor" in the context of the Basketball Hall of Fame? This needs some more definition or a link. I see that it was noted above; however, I believe that context is needed. Even a reference that explains it from the NBA Hall of Fame would help.
- Got one. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "though Johnny Davis head coached two games" - just coached, "head coached" isn't a valid verb.
- Re-phrased it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "before Hollins' third term with the Grizzlies" - I would say "with the team" or "with the franchise"; Grizzlies has been said a lot and this would break it up a bit.
- Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made two minor grammar changes and a punctuation fix. I now support. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:26, 20 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 06:36, 21 February 2009 [21].
- Nominator(s): Saola Talk to Me
I am nominating this article for featured article because I think it satisfied the criteria. Saola Talk to Me 22:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I think you meant featured list :)
Sources
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
commentsJason Rees (talk)
- Local time needs to be added in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Rees (talk • contribs) 00:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)done[reply]
Will do so tomorrow, I'm going to bed. --Saola Talk to Me 04:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Did local time.--Yue of the North 19:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change the Track map from the timeline one to the one in the seasonal article
- "2 p.m. EDT (1800 UTC) – A subtropical depression forms from a extratropical cyclone southeast of Savannah, Georgia.[2] [3]" - References need to be together also after extratropical cyclone add a comma and add in "located to the" southeast .....
- "8 p.m. EDT (0000 UTC May 26) – The subtropical depression strengthens into a subtropical storm and is named Alpha." - Add in "previously located to the southeast of Savannah, Georgia," before the strengthens into part.
- "6 a.m. EDT (1200 UTC) – Subtropical Storm Alpha reaches its peak strength of 70 mph (110 km/h)." - Change its peak strength to its maximum sustained winds.
- Add a point before this sentence - 7 a.m. CDT (1200 UTC) – A tropical depression forms while over the Yucatan Peninsula.
- Change that sentence to say A tropical depression forms over the Yucatan Peninsula.
- "The tropical depression emerges off the Yucatan Peninsula" - Emerges into what? (i presume the GoM)
- Change this from "Tropical Storm Agnes strengthens into the first hurricane of the season" to Tropical Storm Agnes intensifys into a Category One hurricane.
- This one is fine Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "1 a.m. CDT (0600 UTC) – Hurricane Agnes reaches its peak strength of 85 mph (140 km/h)." Again change this to its maximum sustained winds.
- "2 p.m. EDT (1800 UTC) – Tropical Depression Agnes unexpectedly strengthens into a tropical storm how can ." Strengthens -> Reintensify
- (1800 UTC) – "Tropical Storm Agnes makes landfall near New York City, New York with winds of 65 mph (100 km/h)." - Add local time which is 1300 EDT. (UTC -5)
- Change this - "There was no tropical systems during the month of July." add a comma and add the words within the Atlantic Basin.
- was -> were Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "A subtropical depression forms north of Bermuda." add the words to the before north.
- "Subtropical Storm Bravo become tropical and is named Betty" - Change to Subtropical Storm Bravo becomes Tropical and is renamed Betty.
- "Tropical Storm Betty strengthens into the second hurricane of the season" - Again into a Category One Hurricane.
- This is fine also Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "A tropical depression forms west of Daytona Beach, Florida" add the words forms "to the" west of Daytona Beach, Florida.
- This is fine (per minor discussion on IRC) Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "2 p.m. EDT (1800 UTC) – Tropical Storm Carrie reaches its first peak intensity of 60 mph (95 km/h)." References need to be together.
- "Tropical Storm Betty become extratropical in the frigid waters of the North Atlantic." become -> becomes
- "Tropical Storm Dawn strengthens into the third and final hurricane of the season" into a Category one Hurricane
- This is also fine Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Tropical Depression Dawn dissipates northeast of Charleston, South Carolina after having paralleled the Georgia and South Carolina coasts for the last 24 hours." add "to the" before northeast
- This is also fine Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "A subtropical depression forms northeast of Bermuda" add "to the"
- This is also fine Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "There was no tropical activity in the month of October in 1972." Change this to "There was no tropical activity in October, within the Atlantic Basin.
- Try and be uniform throughout the article, it should read "There was no tropical systems during the month of October." Cyclonebiskit 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think thats it Jason Rees (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I did the fixes.--Yue of the North 19:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think so too SupportJason Rees (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I did the fixes.--Yue of the North 19:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Subtropical Storm Alpha and Subtropical Depression Alpha - are these the same? It's unclear. Do either have articles?- Yes they are the same - Irmela had forgotten to put in when subtropical storm alpha weakened into a subtropical depression Jason Rees (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, why is anything in May included, when you've already stated the season doesn't begin until June? These events are not part of the season.- Whilst they may not be a part of the offical season, they are counted because they formed within that basin within that Tropical Cyclone Year.Jason Rees (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tropical Storm Agnes, Hurricane Agnes - the same as the subtropicals? Do any of these have an article you can link to?- No they are not the same as Subtropical storms. Jason Rees (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article link for Subtropical Storm Bravo?Article link for Tropical Storm Betty or Hurricane Betty?Link for Tropical Storm Carrie, or Hurricane Dawn, or Subtropical Storm Charlie, or Subtropical Storm Delta, or Subtropical Depression Delta?- Just of note, the above storms don't have articles yet. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. OK. Well I don't mind redlinks. I'm of the school that they encourage new articles. One question though, which is probably not suitable for FLC but it has my curiosity all the same: Is the reason they don't have articles that no one has gotten around to writing them, or because they're not notable enough? If the latter, is a list of non-notable hurricanes notable? I know it has references, but just because it happened and the fact it happened can be verified doesn't mean it is notable. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Well, this is where it can get tricky. In theory, all storms meet WP:N, although most of them are generally deemed non-notable by the WikiProject. Also, in terms of tropical cyclone documentation, 1972 was quite a long time ago, and thus information is probably scarce for the storms that didn't make landfall. I suppose articles could be created on all of these storms, but they would probably be little more than stubs. Each storm has its own individual section in the 1972 Atlantic hurricane season article, however, so it might be more appropriate to pipe-link to those. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just of note, the above storms don't have articles yet. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still unresolved
- MOS:NUM -- local times should include minutes (2:00 p.m. EDT, not 2 p.m. EDT.)
- Please link to EDT and UTC for readers unfamiliar with either
- "There was no tropical systems" --> "There were no tropical systems", surely?
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:33, 21 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 promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [22].
- Nominator(s): MisterBee1966
The list is complete and covers all 318 recipients within the Kriegsmarine. Every bit of information is cited. I therefore feel that it may qualify for the featured list rating. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Goodraise |
---|
General
Otherwise, sources look good. (Including the German ones.) Nice list, good work. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comments from MisterBee1966
|
Support: All issues resolved. Sources look good (including the German ones). -- Goodraise (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well constructed and comprehensive list that meets the criteria. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A++ list; meets FL criteria. AdjustShift (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:50, 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 promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [23].
The above list is a complete collection of the Scheduled Monuments (SM) in Greater Manchester, England. The subject is an important one, and SMs are sites of historic importance that are protected from change by legislation. The list features a developed lead and descriptions of each monument in tables. I believe the article fulfils the FL criteria. Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll return for a full review later, but for now, my only comment is that there is a dead link and the disambiguation links need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The links were easy enough to fix, the reference was used as a back up and wasn't necessary so has been got rid of. Nev1 (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Excellent list overall; there are no major issues, just some proofreading things:
Images
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments - mostly look and feel.
- When first looking at the page I was slightly surprised to see the set of images 'start' above the first table. On checking the source I saw that all tables and the image column are part of an outer table - something I hadn't seen done before. I would suggest that you get rid of this outer table and put the images separately in each section (before each individual table). One advantage of this is that you can have images directly next to the table of the district that the depicted monument is in (and thus you don't 'run out' of images half-way down the page).
Will address this next. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)The problem is there aren't enough images, some sections would be without them (not so bad for Trafford which on has one SM, but Bolton has three and no images) which leads to the tables being different sizes. Also, some sections have too many images, which means they follow on to the next section, looking messy and causing link bunching; this would mean some have to be left out, in an article with not that many images to begin with. Take a look here to see the problems. While it would be desirable to have the images nearer to the appropriate entry, the current ribbon of images is a neat solution to the problems mentioned. Nev1 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made my original suggestion because there is now a large right margin of white space for nearly half the page. However, if there aren't enough images available there is not a lot you can do about it (except a field trip perhaps). Boissière (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A few of the image captions don't have wikilinks to the depicted monument.
- Links added for consistency. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that you need to review the sortability of the columns. In my mind you don't need to sort the description column and if the date and location column are to be sortable then the sort order when you click on them needs to make some sort of sense. Currently both are just doing the default sort on the text of the cell.
- Agreed, the description column does not need to be sortable, the date column is the only one that concerns me, as Bronze Age doesn't sort nicely with dates like 1677. I'm not sure how to fix that, I'll have a look round, there's probably some template or something, like "sortname". Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sorting now works, I cheated by adding "<span style="display:none">01</span>" where necessary and forcing it to sort chronologically. Nev1 (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's much better. There is one error though, in Wigan the Moat of Moat House is in the wrong place in the date order. Boissière (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After a couple of attempts, Wigan now sorts properly. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As all the tables contain the same columns then you need to ensure that the columns line up from table to table.
- The columns are already fixed to a set width, this is pretty much as good as it gets. If the columns don't quite line up, it's because the text inside the columns is too long. For example, for the Bury section, 200 BC–250 AD won't break down into anything smaller because the manual of style requires non-breaking spaces between the numbers and BC/AD. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Not look and feel) I am almost certain the the Hanging Bridge is entirely within the city of Manchester and that no part of it is inside Salford. The city boundary in this area is the River Irwell and for the bridge to be in both cities it would have to span this river which it does not do. The cited reference (the Salford city council website) does not explicitly claim that the bridge is in Salford.
- I think you're right, the confusion arose because it's part of the Cathedral conservation area that covers part of the City of Salford. Fixed. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boissière (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - FLC criteria are met. It's just a pity that the images do not link up better with their descriptions, but I understand the reason for that. This will be improved as more images become available. In the meantime it may be better to place them in the order in which they appear in the list. For example Radcliffe Tower should be lower down, and Mamucium and Hanging Bridge should be swtiched. Otherwise an excellent list with good, short but adequate, descriptions (the editors are fortunate that that there are "only" 38 SMs in the county). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:46, 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 promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [24].
I believe this list meets the Featured List criteria, similar to List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Atlanta Braves Opening Day starting pitchers, and other similar featured lists. Rlendog (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - excellent list
|
- Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 503 04:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) An excellent list (as always), just a couple things:
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes
BaseballLibrary.comandRetrosheetreliable sources? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- BaseballLibrary was considered a reliable source for List of New York Yankees Opening Day starting pitchers and List of Boston Red Sox Opening Day starting pitchers, both of which are featured lists. BaseballLibrary is in fact the sole source for much of the information in the Red Sox list.
- Retrosheet is actually the source for much of the box score information included in Baseball Reference, which is itself considered a reliable source. See for example the attribution at the bottom of this page [25]. It is also heavily used in Sabermetric books researching baseball history. See, for example, the acknnowledgement on page 7 of Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein's Baseball Dynasties book [26] (you may need to search for "Retrosheet" and link to the "Front Matter" item; there is also a 2nd reference to Retrosheet within the book).Rlendog (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification on Retro sheet. For BaseballLibrary, we need to know exactly what kind of fact-checking the website does; that it is used on other FLs mean nothing. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The information I was sourcing from BaseballLibrary was included in the Retrosheet and Baseball-Reference sources anyway, so I removed those citations. I am pretty sure the BaseballLibrary information is good, since it matches up to the other sources, but I do not know how to prove it, and it is unnecessary for this article anyway. Rlendog (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I reinstated the BaseballLibrary source; it was proved reliable at an FAC a while back. Sorry for the trouble. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The information I was sourcing from BaseballLibrary was included in the Retrosheet and Baseball-Reference sources anyway, so I removed those citations. I am pretty sure the BaseballLibrary information is good, since it matches up to the other sources, but I do not know how to prove it, and it is unnecessary for this article anyway. Rlendog (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification on Retro sheet. For BaseballLibrary, we need to know exactly what kind of fact-checking the website does; that it is used on other FLs mean nothing. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:35, 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 promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [27].
A Royal Society medal - worked on by myself and Ironholds, seems FLable. — neuro(talk) 16:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note One of the nominators, Neurolysis, is a WikiCup participant. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I asked Garden if I should note that (I listed this before it was mentioned, and he said it didn't matter, in case you are wondering why I didn't do it myself). I don't know FLC etiquette so well, so I just figured it was best to leave it alone once it was announced that it should be mentioned in the opening statement.. — neuro(talk) 17:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Scorpion said something about it here and here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh right, didn't see those. Fair enough then. :) — neuro(talk) 12:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Scorpion said something about it here and here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) |
---|
Comments
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, all my issues above have been resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.TRUCO 16:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Publications such as The New York Times (by the way, "The" is part of the title and should be part of the work), the Chicago Tribune and The Telegraph should be in italics. This can be done by changing "publisher" to "work" in the citation template.Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- All done. Ironholds (talk) 01:53, 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 promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [28].
I've recently reformatted the page to be consistent with other FLs of similar scope. Hopefully it meets the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note The nominator is in the WikiCup. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
--TRUCO 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment - I would support this nomination since the prose and other related issues were resolved to meet WP:WIAFL, but with the discussion and worry about this being content forking, I will wait to see the outcome of that discussion first before making my final decision.--TRUCO 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Support - I feel that this article is fine to stand alone and is not subject to CFORK in this case.--TRUCO 22:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "after beating the French national football team 5–3 after a penalty shootout." Change the second "after" to "in".
- Done
- "Of these,
onlyeleven have made it to the final match, andonlyseven have won."
- Done
- "while Germany holds three"-->and Germany holds three
- Done
- Add a note that describes where the hidden year links and the links in the match scores go to. 17:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Done
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks for reviewing Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from OdinFK (talk) Shouldn't it be mentioned (in a footnote probably), that the 1950 "final" was not a real final but the final game of group play? OdinFK (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done (stolen from the FA FIFA World Cup :) ) Thank you! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)
Support — I like the list the way it is. I also don't think that this is an unnecessary content fork. Actually some content has to be forked off from the main article, otherwise it will just grow to huge proportions with all there is to say about the World Cup. OdinFK (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)
- No need for comma after first four words
- Done
- Ref 1 is before full stop, should be after
- Done
- "The championship has occurred every four years, except in 1942 and 1946, due to World War II." - reword, grammatically speaking this sentence indicates that the championship has occurred every four years due to World War II
- Done
- "Teams compete to win the World Cup Trophy" - very short sentence, should be merged with another one. Also, if you're going to mention the trophy, you should elaborate that a different trophy was used up to and including 1970
- Done
- Is it really necessary in the sentence starting "the most recent...." to write "Italian national football team" in full? Surely "Italy" would suffice? I doubt even the most non-football-savvy person would read "the tournament was won by Italy" and assume that the entire population of the country competed
- Done
- "In the eighteen tournaments held, seventy-five nations have appeared at least once in the World Cup finals tournament." - I suggest that everything after "once" is redundant
- Done
- "The current World Champions.....follows with four titles" - grammatically incorrect. Also I see no real reason for the capitals on World Champions
- Done
- "The other former champions are Uruguay who won the inaugural tournament" - needs comma after Uruguay and tournament
- Done
- In the table, for the two matches that went to a penalty shootout, you have listed the "score" of the shootout itself as the match result. This is completely incorrect, under the laws of association football the result officially recorded is that at the conclusion of on-field play. The score shown in the table should be the score as it stood at the conclusion of normal play, with the "score" of the shootout shown in the footnote.
- Not done (yet). I'm not sure about this one. I get what you're saying, but we're not governed by the laws of football. At the end of the game the winning score is that from the penalties. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "At the end of the game the winning score is that from the penalties". No it isn't, the final score of the game in 2006 was 1-1 (see BBC report), the penalty shoot-out did not form part of the game and was equivalent to a coin toss to decide who got the cup. If the game had been decided by a literal coin toss (as many big games were back in the day) would you show the score as 1-0 ont he grounds that Italy got one "head" to France's nil? We may not be bound by the laws of football, but we are bound by the requirement to present accurate information. The information as presented is inaccurate so unfortunately I have no option but to oppose unless it is rectified (if it's changed, I would support) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It now shows the Final scores with the penalty results in footnotes. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above, "runner-ups" is not a real word, should be "runners-up" (as it originally was, in fact)
- Done
- In the footnotes, why are there capital letters on "Full-time" and "Extra time"
- Done
- Do BBC Sport and FIFA need to be wikilinked 20 times each in the refs?
- Not done There's no guarantee that what is currently the first ref will continue to be, and if removed the Wikilink will go with it. There is no harm in linking them each time. WP:OVERLINK states nothing about references.
Looks good apart from these points. The most important issue if the one regarding the scorelines for the 1994 and 2006 finals, which must be corrected as the information as currently presented is inaccurate -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing. I have done all but two. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - unnecessary content fork of FIFA_World_Cup#Results. A list this size can easily sit within the parent article. Only the stadium and host city of the final match have been added, and these could be added to the existing table with a bit of re-formatting (maybe by giving the third and fourth place teams less prominence). --Jameboy (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your oppose has no validity. The page has existed for over two years with no previous complaints of forking. The Featured list criteria does not mention content forking, which I don't believe this page is. It has eighteen entries in the first table and eleven in the second. That is well above the requirement for a List.
- FIFA World Cup is a WP:Featured article, the formatting, layout and information in the table in the Results section is the same now as it was when it was promoted. It was not mentioned at its FAC, or its FAR, where it was kept as a FA.
- Your oppose should reflect what is listed at WP:FL?, nothing else.
- Does it meet Wikipedia's general requirements? Yes
- Does it contain professional standards of writing? Hopefully
- Is it comprehensive? Well it has the results for every World Cup final, there are no empty table cells of missing information, it has footnotes to accompany the entries. So yes
- It is easy to navigate? Does it have section headings and table sortability? Yes
- MOS compliant? Yes
- Visually appealing, suitable use of colors, layout and formatting? Yes
- Stable? No edit wars, only needs updating every 4 years. Yes.
- I don't see where you're coming from. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have opened a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of FIFA World Cup finals to get input from the community. This isn't a WP:POINTY move -- WP:DEL#REASON says Content forks are a reason for delting, and I am happy to let it rest if the community agrees with you. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly let me say that as a standalone piece of work, it is excellent, and I hope I wasn't too blunt or disrespectful with my previous comment. You are correct, it deserves to be a featured list based purely on the list criteria, but if content forking is not part of the list criteria, I think it should be. Given that that the user is quite likely to have navigated from FIFA World Cup to this list, I think he or she would be disappointed to see the same information repeated - the list has to offer them something more. Increasing numbers of lists are appearing that, while well-produced and informative and great standalone pieces, fail to ask the questions "should I exist?" and "where do I fit in"? If stating my opposition based on such things is invalid, then fair enough, I accept that. I guess this is a wider point that I should take up at WP:Lists and WP:FL. --Jameboy (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another pointless list that should be the centre piece of the main FIFA World Cup article, not split off onto a separate article. I see the AFD raised this morning was closed on a technicality within a very short space of time. Perhaps putting a mergeto tag here would be a better idea. - fchd (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, after looking at the main World Cup article again, all the information in this list is already there, albeit in a slightly less-readable form. Therefore, I suggest just copying the two tables and the references to replace those in the main article, and making this a redirect. - fchd (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I rather think this is the wrong forum to discuss that. Here we discuss the list and decide if it is worthy of being listed at WP:FL based on the FL criteria. Content forks should be discussed at a different venue, either WP:AfD or WP:Proposed mergers. I had opened a disussion at AfD, but it was closed after an hour by an admin who apparently had not read WP:GD for it says, "Nominations imply a recommendation to delete the article unless the nominator specifically says otherwise". Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as fork of FIFA World Cup#Results. The fact it existed for two years has no bearing on whether it is suitable as a standalone article. Given the list's relative brevity, I would recommend merge & redirect into the main page. Qwghlm (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your oppose is invalid based on WP:FL?. I'll discuss whether the list meets the criteria, but not whether it deserves to exist. This isn't the right forum for that. Take it to WP:AfD or WP:Proposed mergers and I'll be happy to discuss it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though this is an invalid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I'd like to point out that many such "content-fork" like lists have been promoted at FLC in the past eight months. For example, by some of the opposers' reasoning, just about everything at Template:NBA head coaches by team could be nominated for deletion, even though 80% of those articles are Featured lists or good quality (those not eligible to be featured). Same with Template:MLB managers by team. As I said, perhaps invalid, but consider that there may be a precedent set at FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Content forks, because this discussion has the potential to affect many FLs. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest we place this nomination on hold until a discussion about it being either a valid stand-alone article or a content fork takes place in the appropriate venue -- WP:AfD or WP:PM. We at FLC cannot decide that. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally I favour larger lists/articles, but I'm ok with this as is. Support. Tony (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also think this is fine as a stand-alone article. Does FIFA World Cup even need a list? I don't think removing that table from the main article would do any harm; directly below it is a list of finalists with all winners and runners-up. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Actually, I didn't support above. I merely said that I thought it was an appropriate list for Wikipedia to have. As long as I'm here, I might as well offer a full review. I probably don't do enough reviewing at FLC anyway, considering that I have five FLs myself. Wish we had 36 hours in a day to make things easier.
- Unneeded links in the lead: Germany (country, not national team) and South Africa. Also multiple links to Italy national football team and France national football team.
- What are your thoughts on making the table key its own section? It looks like it doesn't cover the Results by nation section, when it is meant to.
- Here's an innovative one: How about offering a note in the key that the links in the Winners and Runners-up columns go to national teams? They're a lot more valuable than straight country links, which are what they appear to be at first glance.
- Footnote 3: Take "also" out of the parenthetical part?
- Is the TM mark needed in reference 5?
Very good list overall, and I'll be happy to support for real when these are done. You also might want to put ChrisTheDude in your summary above. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I have made the necessary changes and removed you from the summary below. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Italy and South Africa links are still in. Do you want to leave them? I'm not really worried about the South Africa link, but am not crazy about having duplicate links in the lead. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that. I've now fixed it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Italy and South Africa links are still in. Do you want to leave them? I'm not really worried about the South Africa link, but am not crazy about having duplicate links in the lead. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not really convinced by the rationale of the opposers, and it's a high-quality list that meets the standards. I noticed that a new paragraph has been added, and I'll make any needed fixes myself when I get a chance to read it closely. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There isn't enough context for the list to stand alone as it is currently written. At no point are we told what a World Cup final actually is, i.e. that it is a one off match with extra time if required etc. Since the Maracanazo was not actually a World Cup final as such, the explanation for its inclusion should be described fully in the text, not hidden away in a footnote. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing I can do about it being a stand-alone article. I still feel FLC is the wrong forum to discuss it. I've tried to address your point about describing what the final is, and the Rules of the Game for the match. Since the refs, including FIFA, verify the claim that the 1950 final is the final, and since the article does discribe the discrepancy, I'm leaving it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean not to debate as to whether the article should exist, but to say that it ought to be able to stand up without having to refer to other articles to get context. For penalties, it'd be useful to put that they have been the tiebreaker since [year] - the rules used to be different. I'd much prefer an explanation for 1950 in the prose. It wouldn't take much, a paragraph starting something like "The tournament has been decided by a one-off match on every occasion except 1950, when..." Oldelpaso (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - I have moved the footnote and put it in the lead section. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean not to debate as to whether the article should exist, but to say that it ought to be able to stand up without having to refer to other articles to get context. For penalties, it'd be useful to put that they have been the tiebreaker since [year] - the rules used to be different. I'd much prefer an explanation for 1950 in the prose. It wouldn't take much, a paragraph starting something like "The tournament has been decided by a one-off match on every occasion except 1950, when..." Oldelpaso (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent piece of work here, meets the criteria and is fully deserving of that little bronze star. Great work. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Summarising !votes of those who have commented
- (as of 23:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC))
- User:Dabomb87 Supports
- User:Tony1 Supports
- User:ChrisTheDude Supports
- User:OdinFK Supports
- User:Giants2008 Supports
- User:Rambo's Revenge Supports
- User:Sunderland06 Supports
- User:Jameboy Opposes on WP:CFORK but notes it is an excellent piece and "it deserves to be a featured list based purely on the list criteria"
- User:Qwghlm Opposes on WP:CFORK
- User:Oldelpaso Opposes
- User:Richard Rundle has not opposed but also feels its a CFORK
- User:Truco Supports
is holding back from supporting or nominating due to the CFORK issue
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What was the outcome of this anyhow? I haven't really followed and the discussion at WT:FLC is a bit confusing.--TRUCO 503 01:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The FLC is still open; there is still no consensus on the validity of this page's existence. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The FLC is still open; there is still no consensus on the validity of this page's existence. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made two minor copyediting changes. I support the prose and list, and abstain from commenting on the CFORK issue. I'll let
Matthew orScorpion make that decision for us. :P Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Odelpaso is on a WikiBreak. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:28, 18 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 promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [29].
I am nominating this list for FL status because I believe it meets all requirements and I have made improvements to the article based on a peer review session. Hopefully this awards list can join the other wonderful featured lists relating to awards and nominations won by musicians. Thanks so much! -Whataworld06 (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I reviewed the article during its peer review and I now find it up to FL standards.--TRUCO 00:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Sources
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't like this one, because all the small section give me brain ache. But this is a result of the short career, so cannot be helped. As i find nothing actionable to change, i think it matches all the criteria.Yobmod (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Struk support, after seeing a better formatting possible.Yobmod (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- She is best known for her eclectic mix of various musical genres including soul, jazz, rock and roll and R&B. Ref?
- Since refs 1-7 all go to Billboard pages, can they be replaced with the Billboard page for Winehouse? I'm pretty sure that will link to those pages anyway.
- I'm also not a fan of the many small sections. Have you looked at List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations, a recently promoted FL with a different layout style?
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- oohm strongly agree that the List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations type formate is prefferable. Will support is something like that is enacted.Yobmod (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All music awards lists use this format. The problem with the Old Men format is that there are no descriptions of the individual awards. Readers shouldn't have to click on every award link to find out what it is. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. The list I created is similar to most of the other Featured Lists relating to awards and nominations received by a particular artist. I think wikipedia users will appreciate the consistency. -Whataworld06 (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the alternate format allows sorting by year, which would be very useful. I can't support a format all becasue other reviewers have accepted it in the past, when that format results in poor readability, as it does in this case. The idea that creating tables with a single entry is the best wikipedia can do is simply not true. But i don't oppose, staying neutral.
- Episode lists manage to have continuous sortable lists and detailed descriptions, so it is possible for these too, no?.
- And they clearly don't all use this format, as we have an example that doesn't (supported by some of the same people that are supporting here.) So both formats are acceptable, and i think for this one the current format is the wrong one, sorry!Yobmod (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I only said that all music awards lists use this format. You may be right that the other format is better, but consistency is important, as shown in this discussion. I think there should be an independent discussion on this, not one that confined to those who participate in FLCs. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. The list I created is similar to most of the other Featured Lists relating to awards and nominations received by a particular artist. I think wikipedia users will appreciate the consistency. -Whataworld06 (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All music awards lists use this format. The problem with the Old Men format is that there are no descriptions of the individual awards. Readers shouldn't have to click on every award link to find out what it is. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- oohm strongly agree that the List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations type formate is prefferable. Will support is something like that is enacted.Yobmod (talk) 10:10, 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 [30].
I believe this list meets all the requirements to become a Featured List. If promoted, it will be the first all-time baseball team roster to reach FL status. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
- Note: I peer reviewed this list and support its inclusion as a featured list after the correction of the following concerns/suggestions.
- Captions that are complete sentences need to end with full stops/periods. I think that this only applies to the lead image at this time.
- I would like to see expansion of the captions for any players who are franchise leaders and have pictures, since these are important facts to note.
Other than that, excellently done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) How many more articles do have left for your Featured topic?
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice job! Rlendog (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - wow no problems, meets WP:WIAFL.
Though, I would request an image review.--TRUCO 503 01:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images check out and are all licensed/tagged properly. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool.--TRUCO 503 01:56, 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.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2004 (U.S.)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 [31].
One, two, three, four... (Better than leave this blank.) Cannibaloki 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Are you absolutely sure that "Cowboys From Hell" and "Cemetery Gates" weren't released as singles? I mean, the band's template at the bottom of the page disagrees with this discography.
- Those you mentioned were released as [one-track] radio promos, not singles.
- I'd consider removing the refs from the lead as everything is obviously referenced again. indopug (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "Pantera formed in the early 1980s, and" Comma not necessary.
- "it included
allvideo clips" - "as well as additional material." Delete this phrase. "included" means that there is additional material.
- "This video was"-->The video was
- "by the Australian Recording Industry Association and
bythe RIAA." - "both songs received music videos" What do you mean by "received"?
- "which debuted atop of the U.S. Billboard 200 and Australian ARIA charts, and reached the top five in Sweden and the United Kingdom, and was certified platinum in Canada and the U.S.."-->which debuted atop of the U.S. Billboard 200 and Australian ARIA charts, reached the top five in Sweden and the United Kingdom, and was certified platinum in Canada and the U.S.
- "—the latter, reached" Delete comma and make em dash a semicolon.
- "the top five in Finland" "in"-->on.
- "Although it only reached number 38 on the Billboard 200, was certified platinum by RIAA." Insert "the album" before "was". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead needs an inline citation. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For?--Cannibaloki 15:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Later in that year, Pantera broke up and the band members formed the groups Damageplan, Down, and Superjoint Ritual." Dabomb87 (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For?--Cannibaloki 15:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
"Elektra Entertainment Group"-->Elektra RecordsDabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- All done!--Cannibaloki 21:56, 3 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 [32].
Peer review, Previous FLC, Collectonian informed, Dabomb87 informed, Rambo's Revenge informed
Most of my rational can be found on the page of the previous FLC. The list has been copyedited by Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) (informed of FLC) and I have removed the unsourced episode in question. Thanks. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 21:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to question on my talk page: I don't see a problem with citing the episode, as long as the information is not controversial. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Undid the removal and cited the episode. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Goodraise |
---|
Comments
|
Support, all issues resolved. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 19:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support My issues with the prose have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 19:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
- Did we ever get confirmation on whether http://cal.syoboi.jp/tid/521/time was reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't heard anything. I removed it in an earlier revision, but apparently I reverted that. Anyway, I've removed it for now. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Meets the criteria, as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 19:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Is there a better reference (possibly foreign language) to use instead of (with) reference 1, because the encyclopedia section of Anime News Network is editable by anyone and therefore not considered very reliable.
- In general, that source is widely accepted when it comes to anime episode list FLCs. That being said, I'll go take a look anyway. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 19:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the refs as best I can. Most of the refs indicate that the songs were the openings or endings, but do not confirm the episode numbers. I could just cite the episodes themselves if you would like, as the episodes do list the opening and closing tracks and the artist's name when the credits roll. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 20:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these citations are actually needed. Everything they are used to cite should be verifiable from the episodes themselves. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the episode summaires try not to be too colloquial – e.g. I noticed the word "dorm" in episode 1 & 2
- Fixed the "dorm." NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 19:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:35, 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 [33].
This article was previously reviewed for Featured List status, but back then, there were not many other NFL "starting quarterbacks" lists. Some objected to the format of the list but now that others have seemed to copy off my idea, I think it's ready to be passed. There are many references and it has been updated thoroughly. conman33 (. . .talk) 08:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
(Resolved comments by nominator)
conman33 (. . .talk) 06:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 503 01:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Disambiguation links need to be fixed.- "The Chiefs have had 31 starting quarterbacks in their franchise's history." Move this sentence to the start of the next paragraph.
- "Cotton Davidson was the team's first starting quarterback, playing all 14 games for the Texans in their inaugural 1960 season." A bit clumsy, try: "Cotton Davidson was the team's first starting quarterback; he played all 14 games for the Texans in their inaugural 1960 season."
- "Davidson played with the franchise from 1960 to 1962, by then Len Dawson was acquired through free agency and played for the franchise for 14 seasons" a) What happened to Davidson, did they release him? b) the sentence structure is off—"by then" doesn't belong here.
- "following the Chiefs' victory in Super Bowl IV"-->after the Chiefs' victory in Super Bowl IV
- "Three future Hall of Famers played for Kansas City, including Dawson, Joe Montana, and Warren Moon." You say three, but "including" means that there are more. Reword to "Three future Hall-of-Fame quarterbacks started for Kansas City: Dawson, Joe Montana, and Warren Moon."
- "After Croyle and Huard were sidelined by injuries, Thigpen played in 11 games, winning one and losing ten
games." - "Thigpen remained the starter through the remainder of the season." Change "remained"-->was. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
Refs 88 and 89 need publishers.Dabomb87 (talk) 20:35, 3 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 [34].
I am nominating this list for FLC because I believe it meets the FL criteria. Thank you. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the reference titles should be changed a bit. Right now all of the last half of references on that page say The Billboard 200. For example this link is about the Week Of Jan 01 1983. but all of your references from 17-69 say The Billboard 200. I think for all those reference titles should include the week for reference title. So for example, change "The Billboard 200" forJanuary 1 column to --> "The Billboard 200 for The Week of Jan 01, 1983" and so on for every other citation.--Gman124 talk 05:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed References. Frcm1988 (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- now Support --Gman124 talk 22:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed References. Frcm1988 (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- I feel some of the information on Thriller is more relevant to the 1984 page, not this page. For example, only 6 of the 7 singles were released in 1983. "Thriller" was released in 1984 and was one of the reasons the album spent 15 weeks at number one in 1984. His Grammy awards are more relevant to the 1984 page because they helped the album sell well in 1984.
- I agree with you in the singles part, since you know more about Jackson than me, did you have any suggestions for any relevant information about the album for this year? In the awards part, it may helped the album sell in 1984, but the 26th Grammy Awards are for accomplishments from the year 1983.
- Nothing really, you can take any relevant information from Michael Jackson or Thriller (album) if you want it. I think you have the main points, just that some of them are more relevant to the 1984 page, which currently lacks info on why the album was the best selling of 84 as well. Note that his visit to the White house also boosted sales in 84.
- Ok I will changed the singles part an mention that 6 singles were released in 1983 and 2 of them reached number-one, and I will remove the part of the 7 singles and put it in the 1984 list. Frcm1988 (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed that part, and I will put the removed information in the 1984 list. Frcm1988 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you in the singles part, since you know more about Jackson than me, did you have any suggestions for any relevant information about the album for this year? In the awards part, it may helped the album sell in 1984, but the 26th Grammy Awards are for accomplishments from the year 1983.
- Inconsistency with the number formatting in the lead (and caption).
- Changed
- I can still see examples where where you have twenty-two and then 25.
- Sorry I missed that one
- Is there a reason that you mention none US act's nationalities but don't do the same for American act's?
- In the list for 1999 another reviewer told me to remove the American nationalities since the list is American
- Personally I don't think nationality needs mentioning at all, but it's no big issue.
- I'll add more as I see it. — R2 12:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 00:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "with the seven singles released from the album ranking on the top ten on the singles chart" The noun + -ing sentence construction is awkward and ungrammatical.
- I will change the sentence, some information belong to 1984.
- Ok I changed the singles part a bit. Frcm1988 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "to have seven top ten singles" I think "spawn" would be better and stronger than "have".
- Changed
- "British band The Police were the year's most influential rock band, with Australian, British, and American bands copying the white-reggae formula of their earlier successes." This is too subjective to be a flat-out statement. Maybe "British band The Police were considered by [insert whoever said that here] to the year's most influential rock band; Australian, British, and American bands copyed the white-reggae formula of their earlier successes."
- Do you think that the author of the article should be mentioned or is fine with just The New York Times
- New York Times would be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "which remained three weeks at the top"-->which spent three weeks at the top
- Done
- "Singer-songwriter Lionel Richie," No comma necessary.
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ref dates are inconsistently formatted. I will fix these myself, so this is just a note.Dabomb87 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think is because some of them are with {{cite web}} template and others with the {{cite news}}. Frcm1988 (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:01, 3 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 [35].
- I am renominating this list because FL director Matt stated I could immediately renominate it since the last FLC only had one support, and only one reviewer reviewed it. The same statements I made in the previous FLC apply here as well, any other comments will be addressed.--TRUCO 18:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support My issues were resolved at the last FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The only problem are the images, that are not being next to the table in my browser. Cannibaloki 18:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about now?--TRUCO 18:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, not changed at all. You should remove those images, see Wikipedia:Layout#Images. Cannibaloki 19:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]Or convert them into a gallery.Cannibaloki 19:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- How about now? I'm not sure what resolution you're using, but I am also using FF 3, and they work fine for me. If it still doesn't I'll just remove them.--TRUCO 19:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, looks good now. (1024×768) Cannibaloki 19:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool cool. It was the coding of the thumbnails and the width of the table, so I fixed it.--TRUCO 19:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, looks good now. (1024×768) Cannibaloki 19:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about now? I'm not sure what resolution you're using, but I am also using FF 3, and they work fine for me. If it still doesn't I'll just remove them.--TRUCO 19:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some of the first paragraph and all of the second paragraph, which is basically half of the article itself, contains no citations of where the information came from. — Moe ε 19:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets start this over, the first paragraph is sourced by the refs that are there. The beginning of that paragraph is sourced by the general reference, which serves as a ref to the entire article (prose and list). The second paragraph is not sourced because per an accepted FL standard, the summary paragraph does not need references because since it is a summary of the list, the references in the list cover for that paragraph, so there is no need for inline citations for that paragraph. In addition, that paragraph is also sourced by the general reference.TRUCO 20:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still prefer inline citations, but if the information is actually cited in someone way then I'm fine with it. — Moe ε 21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so you still oppose it?--TRUCO 21:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. — Moe ε 21:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- May you cross it out, you don't have to support.--TRUCO 21:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. — Moe ε 21:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so you still oppose it?--TRUCO 21:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still prefer inline citations, but if the information is actually cited in someone way then I'm fine with it. — Moe ε 21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentPlace separate numbering for notes and citations. Perhaps change the four notes numbering you have to a, b, c, and d. Examples: Packers, Saints, and Eagles. --Gman124 talk 15:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--TRUCO 16:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very well written article, and can find nothing else wrong with it. Gman124 talk 16:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--TRUCO 16:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I only saw one suspect thing: "WWWF World Tag Team Championship". Too many W's? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At one time WWE was called the "World Wide Wrestling Federation", hense WWWF.--WillC 07:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)--WillC 07:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to being explain in footnote C.--TRUCO 503 21:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At one time WWE was called the "World Wide Wrestling Federation", hense WWWF.--WillC 07:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)--WillC 07:20, 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 [36].
I believe this list is worthy of featured list status, it has had a thorough peer review which addressed many issues, and I now believe the list is very close to attaining FL standard. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Nominator is a WikiCup participant. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A very good list (started by me, I might add ;) ). My only suggestion would be to use "Wembley Stadium (1923)" and "Wembley Stadium (2008)" instead of "Wembley Stadium (original)" and "Wembley Stadium (new)", as, while the current Wembley Stadium is currently the "new" Wembley Stadium, that will not always be the case, so it would be better to disambiguate by the year that each one opened. – PeeJay 15:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - While I'm not aware of any guidelines on how much prose can or should be included in a list, I don't think the History section is required. It says For more details on this topic, see Football League Cup, but the History section there is the same size, so something isn't right. The History section could be merged into the lead without losing any information, and I have put forward a proposal for what this may look like in my sandbox. By doing it this way, the reader goes straight from the lead into the list, while maintaining a good lead to introduce the list. --Jameboy (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I was just going along with what has already occured in other featured lists such as List of FA Cup winners which has a history section, I think it should remain personally it is nice addition and does not detract anything from the section in the main article. NapHit (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with NapHit. Similar sections have been included in pretty much all of the other "List of [competition] winners" articles, so it stands to reason that this one should have one too. It doesn't stray from the main topic of the article too much, so I don't see what harm it does. – PeeJay 17:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, I agree with User:Jameboy, I don't see any need at all for this to be a standalone article. Merge the table of winners back in to the main League Cup article, and you have all the information in one article, which isn't too big (which might have been the case for the FA Cup). The way this stands now, it's just an article for an article's sake. - fchd (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with NapHit. Similar sections have been included in pretty much all of the other "List of [competition] winners" articles, so it stands to reason that this one should have one too. It doesn't stray from the main topic of the article too much, so I don't see what harm it does. – PeeJay 17:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I was just going along with what has already occured in other featured lists such as List of FA Cup winners which has a history section, I think it should remain personally it is nice addition and does not detract anything from the section in the main article. NapHit (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.TRUCO 20:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "The Football League Cup is a knockout cup competition in English football, organised by and named after The Football League." Comma not necessary.
- "second most important"-->second-most important
- "
It wasduring this period" - "whilst "-->while
- "the first time that any team
hadwon" - "The last League Cup final replay was held in 1997, with Leicester City beating Middlesbrough 1–0 after extra time at Hillsborough" The noun + -ing structure is awkward.
- "both teams winning two titles each"-->as both teams won two titles each
- Add a footnote or item to the key that says the links in the year column link to an article about the Football League Cup Final for that year. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don;t think this one is necessary, iyt just sees like overkill to me, if they hover over the link they will find out is the final article, responded to the rest of your comments. NapHit (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the header so the note is not necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, the section titles indicate that the tables are about the finals of the competition, so it should be more appropriate to title the columns as "Year". – PeeJay 19:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am OK with "Final". Dabomb87 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However, the entire article is about the finals of the League Cup, so why is anything other than "Year" required? – PeeJay 19:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus at MOS is that while having hidden year links in tables is acceptable, it is preferable to add explanatory text or make the header clearer so that the reader knows that those are not trivial year links. See List of Nashville Sounds managers for example; many other sports FLs do this. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However, the entire article is about the finals of the League Cup, so why is anything other than "Year" required? – PeeJay 19:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am OK with "Final". Dabomb87 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, the section titles indicate that the tables are about the finals of the competition, so it should be more appropriate to title the columns as "Year". – PeeJay 19:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the header so the note is not necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I think the references need some slight formatting. Please check with User:Ealdgyth
- guardian.co.uk, independent.co.uk and football-league.co.uk are the names of websites and should not be italicised. football-league.co.uk can be removed completely since the publisher is "The Football League"
- Ref #4 needs a space between "BBC Sport" and "(British Broadcasting Corporation)"
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To add on that, I would argue that the .co.uk is unnecessary. Just use The Independent or The Guardian as the work. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To Matthew: There is actually a space between the publisher and work, but the italics obscure it. There is no way to fix it without editing {{cite news}}. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the problem with the refs. NapHit (talk) 14:43, 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 [37].
Another Royal Society medal; comments appreciated as always. Ironholds (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.TRUCO 01:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "in recognition of distinguished contribution to the medical sciences generally." Logical punctuation, the period should be outside the quotation mark.
- "One winner has also won a Nobel Prize; Barry Marshall, who was awarded the Buchanan Medal in 1998 "in recognition of his work on discovering the role of Helicobacter pylori as a cause of diseases such as duodenal ulcer, gastric ulcer, gastric cancer and gastritis-associated dyspepsia" and won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2005." Semicolon should be a colon.
- "who won his in 2008 "for his outstanding " Can you eliminate the "his ... his" repetition? Maybe change the first "his" to "the medal".
- The image caption should not have a period. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use a three-column reflist, they break on some browsers.Refs 8, 10 and 14 needDabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]format=PDF
added to their citation templates.- All (sources and comments) done. Ironholds (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. I think the notes column would look better with the contents centred and the lead split into 2 paragraphs for easier reading.Yobmod (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you thought of linking the years to "xxx in science" articles. I don't use them, but presumably someone finds them useful, and they ccan be useful places to compare all the awards of one year.Yobmod (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- but since 1990, the medal has been awarded every two years instead. no need for either the comma or the "instead"
- unlike other Royal Society medals such as the Royal Medal - link to Royal Medal perhaps?
- "for his important role in reducing pollution of the River Thames and of his significant contributions to risk assessment" -- a bold quote. I think perhaps a reference is necessary.
- Because some of the entries have an emdash in the ref column, it appears as if
he isthey are all completely unreferenced. Perhaps the archive page can be referenced each time instead?
Nothing else. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All done except the last point; could you clarify "he"? Ironholds (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They idea is that the "general" refs cover those without third-party references; if I reference the general ones for those with missing marks I'll get a horrible blue abcdefghijklmn...so on thing at the references section. Ironholds (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All done except the last point; could you clarify "he"? Ironholds (talk) 01:03, 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 [38].
The next go at an FLC from WP:POKER. This list has a completely different format than previous ones, so I'm not sure what to expect here.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Needs a link in the lead to 2008 World Series of Poker
- All images need to be in their correct place. The photo of Hinkle should be within that section (Event 2), not right above it.
- Not done. I ended up having todo that due to formatting issues. When I put the images below the break for the individual event, there was lot of over lap of images pushing into the next event. See this for an example. By putting the images first, I kept the images correct and was able to improve the formatting.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What? That example is pushing the images way too low, below the information. They only need to be below the header, which will not overlap. And this is part of WP:MOS#images. Put the photo within the relevant section, not the one before it. Reywas92Talk 18:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done. I ended up having todo that due to formatting issues. When I put the images below the break for the individual event, there was lot of over lap of images pushing into the next event. See this for an example. By putting the images first, I kept the images correct and was able to improve the formatting.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty good. I don't see any other major problems. Reywas92Talk 15:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 22:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "All events but the $10,000 World Championship No Limit Texas hold 'em Main Event, the most prestigious of the WSOP events, ended by July 15." How is the most prestigious?
- ??? I'm not sure what your question is, but the Main Event is easily the most prestigious of all poker tournaments.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Prior to"-->Before.
- "and made three final tables, as recipient of the Player of the Year Award." Unclear, did he win the bracelet and make the tables because he received the Player of the Year Award?
- Reworded---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "At the other extreme, Phil Helmuth, a Poker Hall of Famer, set new records for the most WSOP cashes (68) and most WSOP final tables (41)." That opening clause is a bit confusing, what do you mean by "At the other extreme"?
- Reworded---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "concluded with the heads-up final" Is there a link to "heads-up"?
- "Most of the tournaments played at the WSOP today are variants of Texas Hold 'em."-->Most of the tournaments played at the WSOP are variants of Texas hold 'em.
- "Phil Helmuth"-->Phil Hellmuth
- "7 card stud"-->seven-card stud
- "in contrast to poker variants like"-->in contrast to poker variants such as
- "draw where each player "-->draw in which each player
- "Omaha is version of poker" Missing "a".
- WP:CAPTION, image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods at the end.
- "Roland de Wolfe"-->Roland De Wolfe
- "J.C. Tran"-->J. C. Tran
- "Galfond after winning the $5,000 Pot-Limit Omaha w/Rebuys." Don't use shorthand such as "w/". Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://web.archive.org/web/20061123021244/http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/issue21/clark0906.html a reliable source?- Two Plus Two Publishing is arguably the biggest poker publisher in the world. It was founded by Mason Malmuth and has published books by almost all of the major poker writers. The cite is so well respected, that poker blogs on the cite would have the value of a blog written by an editor or writer for a major newspaper/tv station/etc. An online magazine that bears the name of Two Plus Two, would be one just as reliable as (if not more so) than All-in Magazine or Cardplayer Magazine or Bluff Magazine. (Heck, the cite has so much prestige, that I once cited a comment from a Forum post!! Granted, the comment was made by Mason Malmuth and was a post explaining current legislation they were engaged in.) In short, 2+2, is without a doubt one of the top publishers on poker.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Publications should be in italics. For example, ref 4, "CardPlayer.com" is unnecessary. Just put Card Player Magazine.Dabomb87 (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- In this case, CardPlayer.com is the work, CardPlayer Magazine is the Publisher.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 12 needs a publisher.
Comments
- Nice lead section. It introduces the game well, and I could understand it, even though I've never played a game
- All events but the $10,000 World Championship No Limit Texas hold 'em Main Event, the most prestigious of the WSOP events, ended by July 15. Perhaps say when that finished too because if it finished after July 15, wouldn't that be the last day of the competition?
- Reworded. The competition was during the summer, but one event was suspended until November.
- that event's prize money, which (after the casino's rake) ranged from $87,929 to $9,119,517. perhaps say here which games' prize totals were $87,929 and $9,119,517.
- Since this is a World Championship, it might be worth mentioning that prize money is in US Dollars?
- It was already in the key, but added to the lead.---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 19:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Over past decade -- probably supposed to be "Over the past decade"? Also, although this page is one-year-specific, "the past decade" may seem aged (and even incorrect) in five or ten years.
- Or it may include variations on the rules -- I may be wrong, but I don't think sentences are supposed to begin with "Or"
- Perhaps check with User:Ealdgyth, but I think some references may need re-formatting:
- Contacted Ealdgyth for guidance.---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman
- References should use the same date format as in the prose of the page, in this case mmmm dd, yyyy, not the ISO yyyy-mm-dd format
- Refs such as #1, where the publisher is given as WorldSeriesofPoker.com, need only be "World Series of Poker". Linking to the Wikipedia article is preferred but not required IIRC. I think that should be the work, too, with Harrah's being named as the publisher
- Names of websites (Pokerpages.com, Pokernews.com, Pokerlisting.com etc), should not be italicised, per WP:ITALICS
- Refs 7 through 61 have three references in each reference. At one of my FACs I was told not to bunch citations into one reference. I don't know if this has changed though.
Otherwise it looks okay. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:00, 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 [39].
- Nominator(s): SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 anyone?
-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 23:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support - problems fixed by WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 03:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets all criteria, and I fixed all issues that I saw myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As a NBA Wikiproject regular, I can say this is an excellent list—Chris! ct 04:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - this list meets all the criteria as far as I can see, is properly referenced, and is well-constructed. Cheers. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:43, 13 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 21:15, 10 February 2009 [40].
Based on the List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing and List of Olympic medalists in freestyle skiing, except with many of the kinks and flaws already worked out. This is a WikiCup submission. -- Scorpion0422 18:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
Experimental medal table with bullets
|
Comment "South Korean Yang Yang (A) is one of six athletes to win five medals in short track speed skating." should be "Chinese Yang Yang is one of six athletes to win five medals in short track speed skating."—Chris! ct 19:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are correct that she is from China. In regards to the (A), it is used to differentiate her from her fellow speed skater Yang Yang (S). -- Scorpion0422 19:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good, I support.—Chris! ct 22:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "Prior to"-->Before.
- Done.
- "The men's and women's 1500 metres was" "was"-->were, we are talking about two things here (men's 1500 and women's 1500).
- Done.
- "A total of" Redundant.
- Done.
- "Eric Bédard"-->Éric Bédard
- Done.
- "Francois-Louis Tremblay"-->François-Louis Tremblay
- Done.
- "Ahn Hyun Soo"-->Ahn Hyun-Soo
- Done.
- " Jin Sun-yu"--> Jin Sun-Yu
- Done.
- "Chun Lee-kyung"-->Chun Lee-Kyung
- Done.
- "Kim Yun-Mi"-->Kim Yoon-Mi Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
Sources
Ref 4 needsDabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]format=PDF
added to the citation template.- Done. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion0422 17:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, there is no need to change the style of the medalists in the relay events! We have hundreds of Olympic pages which list the medalists in team competitions NOT in this style. All Olympic page had and have an established style up to now... Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not exactly a major issue. What's wrong with it? I think it makes the table neater, more organized and easier to read. -- Scorpion0422 21:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer something like this instead:
Sorry no, I would not prefer the change to this style. To bring this list to featured status there is no need to change the style which is used on (all?) other Olympic pages. If we want to change the style we had to discuss this topic not only for this page but for all Olympic pages (and these are hundreds). And I think we had to do this on the WP:Olympics talk page? Up to now I have never read that the common Olympic style is not neat, organized and easy to read? Please see e.g. Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics. I think it is necessary and desirable that all Olympic pages have the same style? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said the common style is bad, I just think this version is an improvement. Is there any reason why you are against the current style other than maintaining the status quo? -- Scorpion0422 00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason is that I think it is not to prefer to have different styles on the Olympic pages. It was and is a hard work for only a very few editors to bring all the Olympic pages in line. To establish a new style on only this page destorys a long work and makes confusion. And again, I don't think that there is a need to add dots or spaces. So please allow me again to ask to reestablish the common style. Kind reagards Doma-w (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about just one space then for the individual athletes? That way it would be similar to the old style (but still not a huge difference) but still differentiate between the nation and the athletes. -- Scorpion0422 02:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason is that I think it is not to prefer to have different styles on the Olympic pages. It was and is a hard work for only a very few editors to bring all the Olympic pages in line. To establish a new style on only this page destorys a long work and makes confusion. And again, I don't think that there is a need to add dots or spaces. So please allow me again to ask to reestablish the common style. Kind reagards Doma-w (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- :) First I still do not think that this is the right place for this discussion. Second I am sure that I can not decide this alone! And if there is not a huge difference why we do not keep the established style? Isn't the flag shown in front of the nation enough difference between the nation and the athletes? Please see also e.g. Athletics at the 2007 Pan American Games or 1930 British Empire Games. All these pages had to change the style? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've reverted for now, but I do think you are over-reacting to this. If you think about it, 4 of 57 medalist pages are now within FL standards, but would that not make them inconsistant with the old standards? Should you ever not make potential improvements simply to maintaining the status quo? No. -- Scorpion0422 18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not involved with this, but quality always trumps consistency or maintaining the status quo. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've reverted for now, but I do think you are over-reacting to this. If you think about it, 4 of 57 medalist pages are now within FL standards, but would that not make them inconsistant with the old standards? Should you ever not make potential improvements simply to maintaining the status quo? No. -- Scorpion0422 18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- :) First I still do not think that this is the right place for this discussion. Second I am sure that I can not decide this alone! And if there is not a huge difference why we do not keep the established style? Isn't the flag shown in front of the nation enough difference between the nation and the athletes? Please see also e.g. Athletics at the 2007 Pan American Games or 1930 British Empire Games. All these pages had to change the style? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Scorpion! Every improvement is welcomed. But is it an improvement? Is it better quality? Again, if you want to change the style please discuss this on the WP:Olympics talk page. I remember that one of the members of the WP:Olympics started last autumn a guideline for these kind of pages. As far as I know the work is still in progress. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Due to the list being currently wrong (I guess this may have been accidental from when you were fiddling with what tables to use). I noticed the one capped above didn't match the article's list. Looking at the 5000m for example the reference does not state the names listed currently in the article. It lists the ones capped earlier in this FLC. I didn't check any further than that but I urge you to double check the information as we don't want to go featuring the wrong stuff! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC) As a side note I personally prefered the stylistic change to the table suggested earlier.[reply]
- This is a simple but pretty embarassing case of human error. When I went back to the old version of the table, I decided to do it the easy way and copy and paste the table from an old version. Long story short, I accidentally copied the results of the women's 3000 metre relay into the section for the men's 5000 metre relay. It has been fixed now. -- Scorpion0422 19:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guessed as much, anyway no harm done I just figured the best way to get your attention and stop the wrong version being promoted was with an "oppose". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
The only questionable thing I could find is listed is should "Chun Lee-kyung" be Lee-Kyung?Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Chun Lee-kyung is Korean and they list their names in reverse (Korean name), so Chun is her family name and Lee-kyung is her given name. -- Scorpion0422 20:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I'll clarify, I knew that what I meant was should the K be capital like it is for their main article? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are correct. Fixed. -- Scorpion0422 21:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I'll clarify, I knew that what I meant was should the K be capital like it is for their main article? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Chun Lee-kyung is Korean and they list their names in reverse (Korean name), so Chun is her family name and Lee-kyung is her given name. -- Scorpion0422 20:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:08, 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 21:15, 10 February 2009 [41].
Another of my Royal Society lists. To anticipate a query about the use of numbers (3) rather than words (three) in the nationality section of the lead; the biggest numbers are large enough that using words isn't appropriate, and I didn't want to apply two different standards to the same area of the list. Ironholds (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "First awarded in 1800" Comma after this phrase.
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Since its creation" Comma after this phrase.
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The source link for File:Benjamin Thompson.jpg is dead.
- and by source link you mean..?
- [42] Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh right, the external thing. It was uploaded in 2005, so that isn't suprising; it is currently hosted directly at commons, although I suppose that doesn't count. Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We need a source link to verify the image, just as we do with content. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replaced the source at commons with a working one (diff). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We need a source link to verify the image, just as we do with content. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh right, the external thing. It was uploaded in 2005, so that isn't suprising; it is currently hosted directly at commons, although I suppose that doesn't count. Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- [42] Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- and by source link you mean..?
- Concur with some of what Truco says below, especially on finding third-party sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The best I can do with third-party sources is to find notices of individual awards from whichever institutes the winners work at; would that be acceptable? Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The best I can do with third-party sources is to find notices of individual awards from whichever institutes the winners work at; would that be acceptable? Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed. Ironholds (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spell out abbreviations such as IOP, NNB and NNDB.Italicize publications such as The Daily Telegraph. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done. Ironholds (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support - someone was eager for this support :P (All problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.TRUCO 04:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I just find that if the contents of each section aren't capped when they are dealt with I get confused. My first FL had about 2 pages of that stuff, and by the end I was so confused over what had/had not been done it failed like a bitch. Ironholds (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) |
---|
* NB. This is a good reason not to have many lists from one topic as candidates, as many of the problems may apply to all lists. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. All my issues (and minor nitpickings) have been resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is the main article for this award, not a "List of winners", yes? I am suprised that there is so little to write about a 100+ year old award. I really think the introduction should be longer and give more information, or this should be retittled to "List of...", so that a future article on the award in general can be written.Yobmod (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There really isn't any more information available, either from the royal society or elsewhere. It isn't like the Nobel or the Turner; while a highly respected set of awards it is an "internal" set; the only coverage comes from news reports of the organisations who employ the winners, and even then it is normally parotting the Royal Society website. Ironholds (talk) 10:15, 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 21:15, 10 February 2009 [43].
I am nominating this list for FLC because I believe it meets the FL criteria, and is modeled after the List of WCW World Tag Team Champions FL. Any concerns will be addressed, co-nom with User:ThinkBlue.--Truco 16:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spell out "WWE" in the general ref.- Done.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book ref is missing a title.- Title added.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 2, addDabomb87 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]format=PDF
to the citation template.- Done.--TRUCO 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) |
---|
Quick comments
I saw a note on your talk page from Dabomb87, I will try and review this fully later. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] More comments
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Additionally
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've struck all the issues that no longer apply. There are two issues remaining in the at the top of the "Additionally" section. After those are resolved I will cap all this (basically reset my review) and go through the numbers again. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second review of numbers
I am happy with all the numbers after these fixes :) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For these I am assuming that the "days held" column has the correct numbers. If there is a cite for these tables then maybe those are wrong, either way something is. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support. This is probably the most thorough FLC review I have ever done (click show!) and every issue was resolved to my satisfaction. The only thing I haven't checked explicitly is the numbers for the "days held" column. However using this tool I checked a random sample and all were correct. Therefore I will now support this nomination. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:50, 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 promoted by Gimmetrow 23:50, 7 February 2009 [45].
This was an easier one; I've tried to fix problems that were raised in my earlier nomination of the Rumford Medal. Enjoy. Ironholds (talk)
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support - I did a general copyedit and my problems were fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)--TRUCO 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent! Just to keep you on your toes I'll be posting another one in about an hour :P. Ahh, the joys of being a student post-exam season.Ironholds (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all that Truco has to say except for the last. Articles are only considered unstable if "It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, ". However, the lead needs significant expansion, an image also would be nice. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed; significant expansion is not something that makes it 'unstable'. Significant expansion followed by an edit war with a user who doesn't agree with said expansion would be unstable. Ironholds (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment Why is "of the Royal Society" a part of the article title for Leverhulme Medal? Shouldn't it just Leverhulme Medal, similar to Royal Medal, Darwin Medal etc?—Chris! ct 02:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support looks good —Chris! ct 19:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support In this edit, I fixed everything that I would have normally commented on here. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 31 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 promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [46].
Based on my experience with this FL, I believed this list fulfills the FLC criteria.—Chris! ct 00:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a few copyedits, and, as with the female list, you've done an excellent job! All you need to do is make the tables centered; just add
style="text-align:center;"
to the head of the tables and then remove thealign="center"
from within them. Also, in the cells listing two presidents, please add a semicolon or comma to separate the links. Reywas92Talk 21:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't that make everything in the table centered?—Chris! ct 21:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Everything shouldn't be pushed over to the left. It would also be nice if the column order was the same as the Female list: Party to the right of the administration. In addition, not a single article links to this list. I recommend you add links from the people listed to the list, as well as a See Also from the Cabinet and Female articles. And if you wanted there's nothing wrong with more pictures. Reywas92Talk 21:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am pretty busy right now and will probably get to your comment later today/tomorrow. Thanks—Chris! ct 23:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all except centering every column. I try to do that (using preview) and I don't like how it look with everything in the column centered. I want to see what other think first.—Chris! ct 02:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am pretty busy right now and will probably get to your comment later today/tomorrow. Thanks—Chris! ct 23:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Everything shouldn't be pushed over to the left. It would also be nice if the column order was the same as the Female list: Party to the right of the administration. In addition, not a single article links to this list. I recommend you add links from the people listed to the list, as well as a See Also from the Cabinet and Female articles. And if you wanted there's nothing wrong with more pictures. Reywas92Talk 21:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "who were born outside
ofthe present-day United States." Anytime you have "outside of", always delete the "of", as it is redundant. What do you mean by "present-day"?
- "Present-day" means today.—Chris! ct 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- i.e. anyone born in an area which was at the time outside of the union is included, provided it has since joined as a state (or commonwealth). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.146.140 (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Irish-born James McHenry, who was appointed by Washington as Secretary of War in 1801 and served the same post in John Adams's administration" Comma after here.
- "Albert Gallatin, born in Switzerland, became the third foreign-born members" "members"-->member.
- "including German-born Oscar Straus and Mexican-born George Romney, father of former Governor of Massachusetts and the 2008 Republican U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney." Needs a citation because it is WP:BLP information.
- Will get to this tomorrow.—Chris! ct 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Department of Treasury has had the most foreign-born Secretaries" Comma after here.
- "each have had two."-->have each had two.
- "while the others"-->and the others
- "Since most foreign born Cabinet members are not natural-born citizens, meaning that they were not born in the United States or born aboard to American parents," Use em dashes (—) instead of commas.
- Explain the italics. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think note d is pretty clear at explaining that.—Chris! ct 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all except those that I have responded to.—Chris! ct 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I Support, but the list definitely shoudl have more pages linking to it. Only one article links here. Reywas92Talk 00:54, 6 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 promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [47].
This is my third list for a BBC Sports Personality of the Year topic. I believe it now meets the criteria. Per this I think I'm also meant to mention I am participating in the WikiCup, but I had already started this topic before entering so that fact is largely insignificant to this submission. Thanks in advance for comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Personally, I'd like to see the name column sorted properly by surname, not by nationality first then surname.
- Perhaps have a separate column for nationality, then drop the "by nationality" section as redundant.
- Also, the "by sport" is redundant to the main table, and I'd drop that as well.
- Sorted the sorting. Sorry it was an old issue from when nationality and name columns were combined. I am reluctent to immediately unmerge those columns as I merged them following a suggestion by Chrishomingtang at another FLC. If people really want them unmerged I can do it, I'd just like to see what the consensus really is first. The "by sport" section is there for consistency across the topic, as while it may be easy to count them here, other awards that have been given a lot more times would be difficult to count (e.g. this award). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BencherliteTalk 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.TRUCO 22:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "Helen Rollason was the first female presenter of Grandstand and after being diagnosed with cancer helped raise over £5 million to set up a cancer wing at the North Middlesex Hospital where she received most of her treatment." Split these sentences: "Helen Rollason was the first female presenter of Grandstand. After being diagnosed with cancer, she helped raise over £5 million to set up a cancer wing at the North Middlesex Hospital, where she received most of her treatment." -Done
- "Since then nine"-->Since then, nine -Done
- "the exception being South African Paralympic sprinter Oscar Pistorius"-->the exception is South African Paralympic sprinter Oscar Pistorius -Done
- "Two recipients have not played a sport professionally, they are Jane Tomlinson who won in 2002, and Kirsty Howard who"-->Two recipients have not played a sport professionally: Jane Tomlinson, who won in 2002, and Kirsty Howard, who -Done
- "Geoff Thomas, who won the award in 2005, raised money by cycling the 2,200 miles of the 2005 Tour de France course in the same number of days as the professionals completed it." If he is not a professional cycler, what does he do? -Done, well spotted
- The different notes systems are confusing (n 1 and n 2, then a) -Standardised
- "both Cricket and Rugby union at a professional level." Are you sure that these sports should be capitalized? -Uncapitalized
- "for fundraising and raising awareness of multiple sclerosis, since being diagnosed with the disease in 1999." Comma not necessary. -Done
Dabomb87 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments, I have now fixed the above. Regards, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:09, 29 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.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Fiona Apple
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [48].
iMatthew // talk // 13:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 17:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note A: "The Rangers were placed in the Clarence Campbell Conference's Patrick Division." Did somebody copy that note from the Rangers list I worked on, by chance? Also, the general reference for Hockey Database has a typo: "Hockey Datebase". Good luck! Giants2008 (17-14) 03:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done with your comments. Thanks! iMatthew // talk // 12:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "the team has won four Stanley Cup championships and has qualified for the playoffs 21 times." Comparative quantities should be written the same way.
- "their first out four consecutive" What does "out" mean?
- "Since then, the team went as far as losing the Conference Finals in 1993 to eventual Stanley Cup champions Montreal Canadiens. Since then, the Islanders only qualified for the playoffs once between 1994 and 2001. " Very choppy prose; repetition of "Since then" is annoying. "went as far as" is ungrammatical.
- "regular season points"-->regular-season points
- "The Islanders last qualified for the playoffs in 2007, while their most recent playoff series victory was in 1993. "-->The Islanders last qualified for the playoffs in 2007; their most recent playoff series victory was in 1993. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good although note Giant's comment on the typo. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done with your comments. Thanks! iMatthew // talk // 12:53, 30 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 promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [49].
Ok, let's see how well I learned my lessons from my first FLC attempt. Here is my second go at an FLC. Tell what I need to do to get this to the next level.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c]- I still suggest you remove the infoboxes, since, well, they're infoboxes. I don't think WP:MOS negates this, but it just looks kind of bad on the article. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 anyone? 07:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Not necessarily opposed to it, but let's see what others think... I kind of like them because it gives a little more info about the champions... but if the consensus is to remove it, then I'll take them off.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can still have pictures... -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 anyone? 07:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Truco asked to have them removed...---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 08:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I said remove the infoboxes, the images could remain with subcaptions.--TRUCO 15:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added back in---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The second one should be removed, it messes up the format. One picture is fine.--TRUCO 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved it, howz it look there?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its irrelevant there, but its better.--TRUCO 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved it, howz it look there?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The second one should be removed, it messes up the format. One picture is fine.--TRUCO 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added back in---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I said remove the infoboxes, the images could remain with subcaptions.--TRUCO 15:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Truco asked to have them removed...---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 08:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can still have pictures... -- SRE.K.A
- Removed---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily opposed to it, but let's see what others think... I kind of like them because it gives a little more info about the champions... but if the consensus is to remove it, then I'll take them off.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still suggest you remove the infoboxes, since, well, they're infoboxes. I don't think WP:MOS negates this, but it just looks kind of bad on the article. -- SRE.K.A
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from GaryColemanFan
Is it necessary to show who participated in the 2008 tournament? Won't this information be outdated soon? I'm not sure what it adds to the article.
- ????I'm not sure where/what you are referring to here? The only place where somebody from the 2008 tournament is mentioned other than the winner, is when I'm talking about the "WSOP Academy Ladies Only Poker Camp," which is a camp designed to coincide with this tournament.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to the section in the key that states: "† Denotes player who participated in the 2008 WSOP." GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded, what I was looking for was something to indicate which players were still active. So I changed the wording to reflect that.
- I don't know if I'd consider it necessary, but I'm sure some people would find it helpful. It certainly doesn't hurt anything, so I'll cross that out. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded, what I was looking for was something to indicate which players were still active. So I changed the wording to reflect that.
- I was referring to the section in the key that states: "† Denotes player who participated in the 2008 WSOP." GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ????I'm not sure where/what you are referring to here? The only place where somebody from the 2008 tournament is mentioned other than the winner, is when I'm talking about the "WSOP Academy Ladies Only Poker Camp," which is a camp designed to coincide with this tournament.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nani Dollison's lifetime winnings need a second look. They should be consistent, and I'm assuming that lifetime winnings shouldn't be lower than the winnings from a single tournament.
- Fixed---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a new problem here, as it now states that she won $622,904 in both 2000 and 2001. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Ooops, was rushed due to my son waking up from a nap... he's in bed now, so I fixed it.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason that Barbara Enright's name can't be centered?
The list of men's champions gives additional information (winning hand, number of entrants, etc.). Would that information be appropriate here? There is some extra space in the table, which would allow this to fit. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The women's event has been as well documented as the Main Event. It has only been in the past few years that it has started to emerge as one of the pre-eminent events at the WSOP. When it was first added, it was added as a gimmick to get more women to play poker (I wish I could find the source where I read that!) But anyway, the first tournament was only a $100 buy in, and frankly the WSOP doesn't even know how many people were in the earliest tournmanets let alone the winning hands. I could add a column for the number of participants, but about half of them would be empty and I figured it would be better not to include it.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you mean that the women's event has not been as well documented as the Main Event. I was expected that was probably the case, so feel free to ignore this comment. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, that's what I meant. Not as well documented. Many of the earlier Ladies events we don't even know who the runner up was or how many people were in the event.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you mean that the women's event has not been as well documented as the Main Event. I was expected that was probably the case, so feel free to ignore this comment. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The women's event has been as well documented as the Main Event. It has only been in the past few years that it has started to emerge as one of the pre-eminent events at the WSOP. When it was first added, it was added as a gimmick to get more women to play poker (I wish I could find the source where I read that!) But anyway, the first tournament was only a $100 buy in, and frankly the WSOP doesn't even know how many people were in the earliest tournmanets let alone the winning hands. I could add a column for the number of participants, but about half of them would be empty and I figured it would be better not to include it.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Notes" section has a formatting problem. The notes read a,[b],c. There should be consistency. The corresponding "a" seems to have been removed when the infoboxes were taken out, so it doesn't link to anything in the prose or table. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "The World Series of Poker (WSOP) is the "the oldest, largest, most prestigious, and most media-hyped gaming competition in the world".[1] It is held annually in Las Vegas." I think that there is a way to merge these sentences: "The World Series of Poker (WSOP), held annually in Las Vegas, is the "the oldest, largest, most prestigious, and most media-hyped gaming competition in the world".
- "prior to"-->before.
- "but rather an event with a set start and stop time with the winner determined by secret ballot" Is there a way to eliminate the "with ... with" repetition?
- "the first Ladies only event"-->the first Ladies-only event
- "Jackie McDaniels won that event to became the first Ladies Championship." A couple things wrong here: wrong verb tense, and one can't become a "Championshiop".
- "
onlythree players"
- "of color," Check your logical punctuation here, the comma should be outside the quotation marks.
- "Traditionally" Comma after here.
- "The women who have attended the camp have done well at the Ladies Championship" Can you verify this?
- reworded---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sally Anne Boyer similarly" "similarly"-->also.
- no longer applicable, reworded section---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:CAPTION, images that have captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods.
- done Made into sentences.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.pokerroom.com/newsroom/news/592/ reliable? We may have discussed this last time, but I didn't check.
- Yes we did, the poker room is an established gaming casino and one of the oldest/largest poker cites on the web. I would not rank it as reliable as a magazine, but for this story, which is pretty well known in poker lore, I believe it is reliable. ---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 36 (the last one) needs a last access date.Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 29 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 promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [50].
I am nominating this timeline article for featured list candidacy because I feel it satisfies the criteria. While not being a great follower of hurricanes/tropical cyclones I've based this of many similar lists, capturing the same comprehensiveness. I believe the lead is sufficient, the timeline image accurate, and the timeline itself to be complete, also accompanied by images. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TRUCO
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 19:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jason Rees
- A very well written timeline but the only thing i can see wrong with the timeline is that there are brackets obscuring the UTC times eg (1800 UTC).Jason Rees (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone ahead and removed these. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Local time needs to be added in to the timeline Jason Rees (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added all these times in now. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Theres was just one mistake with the local times so i have changed it and i now Support this article -Jason Rees (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added all these times in now. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Local time needs to be added in to the timeline Jason Rees (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone ahead and removed these. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "started on June 1 1992" Comma after "1". Done - Added comma.
- "however Subtropical Storm One" Comma after "however". Done - Added comma.
- "It produced
a total ofseven storms" Done - Removed redundancy. - "caused severe flooding over southwestern Florida and Cuba" "over"-->in. Done - Changed to "in".
- "When Andrew struck Florida and Louisiana through April," What do you mean by "through"? Comment - In the month, simply changed to "in".
- "to hit the United States with damages estimated around $26.5 billion, while killing 68 people."-->to hit the United States. Damages were estimated to be about $26.5 billion and 68 people were killed. Done - Changed to that.
- "coast on September 25 causing minimal flooding" Comma after "25". Done - Added comma.
- Inconsistencies, sometimes you say "weakens into " but other times it is "weakens to". Done - I've changed all "to"s to "into"s. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3 needsDone - Did that. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]format=PDF
added to it.
Support, all issues resolved. Cyclonebiskit 18:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) Comments
- Several of the storms don't have where they formed in relation to land. Comment - While reading the reports on the NHC website, some did not mention where they formed.
- I'll give you the locations shortly. Cyclonebiskit 17:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be brilliant thanks. :) Sunderland06 (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll give you the locations shortly. Cyclonebiskit 17:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TD One- formed 220 mi (355 km) northwest of Havana, Cuba
- TD Two- formed 305 mi (490 km) southeast of Bermuda
- Andrew- formed 775 mi (1,245 km) southwest of Brava, Cape Verde
- Bonnie- formed 345 mi (555 km) east-northeast of Bermuda
- Frances (as an EX-low)- formed 475 mi (765 km) southeast of Bermuda
- Hope that helps :) Cyclonebiskit 18:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers a lot for that Cyclonebiskit, I've added them all in. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hope that helps :) Cyclonebiskit 18:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the units are in nautical miles, which is generally discouraged. The units for an Atlantic based article should be in imperial with metric conversion in parenthesis Done - There is miles with kilometers in brackets.
- I'm just wondering as to why there are so many wind speeds compared to other timelines, not that I find anything wrong with it, it just seems strange Comment - Not sure really, I saw it in a timeline NuclearWarfare was working on and decided to use it, as I'm not very common with the usual method.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [51].
Another professional wrestling hall of fame list, its pretty much based off its sister list. Any comments will be addressed.--TRUCO 23:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]Comments The following comments have already been addressed pre-FLC, but I will post them here for convinience:
- "National Wrestling Alliance (NWA)" You already defined the abbreviation in the bolded phrase.
- "The Class of 2005, the inaugural inductees into the Hall of Fame did not have a formal induction ceremony," Comma at the end of this phrase should be a semicolon.
- "There were no inductees in 2007 due to the NWA planning an international expansion to the promotion." The noun + -ing structure ("NWA planning") is ungrammatical. Reword.
- "which
alsoincluded" - "Kai is the only woman to be inducted into the Hall of Fame."-->Kai is the only woman to have been inducted into the Hall of Fame.
- "Overall, there were 21 inductees; two managers, commentators, and promoters, and fifteen wrestlers." "21"-->twenty-one.
- "The NWA Hall of Fame logo (2008-)" Hyphen should be an en dash.
- Fix the dab. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all.--TRUCO 22:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good, but reviewers' opinions on this one would be welcome. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Publications should be in italics (The Sun, Ref 4). Also, what makes this a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Well, The Sun is a tabloid, which is generally not reliable on Wikipedia. But the author Paul Heyman is a prime and reliable individual in the world of professional wrestling. He is the former owner of Extreme Championship Wrestling, worked for World Wrestling Entertainment for many years, and now reports for The Sun, so I find his work reliable. He also has connections with people in WWE, as he states in other reports.--TRUCO 23:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide a source or something that says Hayman did all that you said he did? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- About him and ECW, its in his book The Rise & Fall of ECW. About him in WWE, he states it in his report.--TRUCO 23:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to meet WP:SPS, but I would still like other reviewers' input. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the source meets the requirement on WP:V.—Chris! ct 19:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/Bios/heyman_paul.html gives a good biography of Heyman, and it confirms that he has been a major player in the WWF, WCW, and ECW. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments For some reason, there is a large white space above the table. I think the images are too large and they push the table down.—Chris! ct 05:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? I don't see that on my browser [Firefox 3], are you referring to the white space due to the table of contents box creates, if not, then it must be your browser.--TRUCO 15:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I know why this happen. The table width is set to 80% and the images don't have enough room, pushing the table. Do you mind removing the set width on the table?—Chris! ct 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh okay, done.--TRUCO 00:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent, I support—Chris! ct 00:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Chris, could you comment on the above source issue? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent, I support—Chris! ct 00:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh okay, done.--TRUCO 00:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I know why this happen. The table width is set to 80% and the images don't have enough room, pushing the table. Do you mind removing the set width on the table?—Chris! ct 00:27, 25 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 promoted by Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 [52].
Been a week since my last active FLC. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 anyone? 02:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 18:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "The Atlanta Hawks are an American professional basketball team based in Atlanta, Georgia. The Hawks play"-->The Atlanta Hawks are an American professional basketball team based in Atlanta, Georgia. They play...
- "names since its inception; they were called"-->names since its inception; it was called
- "The Hawks won their
first andonly NBA championship"
- "Alex Hannum is the only head coach to have
everwon an NBA championship with the Hawks"
- "Auerbach, Holzman, and Wilkens were also named one of the top 10 coaches in NBA history in 1996."-->Auerbach, Holzman, and Wilkens were also named as 3 of the top 10 coaches in NBA history in 1996.
- Fix the dab.
- Both image captions need rewording:
- "Current head coach of the Hawks, Mike Woodson, has coached the Hawks since 2004."-->Mike Woodson has coached the team since 2004.
- "Hall of Famer Red Auerbach coached one season for the Blackhawks."-->Hall-of-Famer Red Auerbach coached the Blackhawks for one season.
- Done both, though Hall of Famer is usually spelled without dashes. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 anyone? 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
- NBA-NBL merger? There was no such merger. Reword a little.
- Done. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] - He's referring to the BAA-NBL merger. The resulting league was called the NBA. Zagalejo^^^ 07:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The leagues weren't merged, the NBL just defunct. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 anyone? 23:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The leagues weren't merged, the NBL just defunct. -- SRE.K.A
- Done. -- SRE.K.A
- ...as 3 of the top 10 - ...as three of the top 10?
- It should be "three of the top ten" or "3 of the top 10", though I prefer the second choice. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Crzycheetah 03:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice seeing you back on Wikipedia. Hope you'll get your Wikiholistic ways back. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 anyone? 03:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
Sorry to complicate things, but the Hawks actually started out in the NBL as the Buffalo Bisons. They moved to the Tri-Cities midseason. The Hawks' website doesn't mention this for some reason, but here are a few sources: [53], [54], [55].Zagalejo^^^ 07:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add that part because I didn't have a reference, and they never played as the Bisons. I'll clear up the sentence just in case someone is gonna comment on that again. -- SRE.K.A[reply]nnoyomous.L.24 anyone? 07:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)- Added. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 anyone? 07:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Are you sure they never played as the Bisons? Where did you read that? Zagalejo^^^ 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the sentence. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 anyone? 23:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the sentence. -- SRE.K.A
- Are you sure they never played as the Bisons? Where did you read that? Zagalejo^^^ 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. -- SRE.K.A
- A few more comments
The Hawks won their only NBA championship in 1958, and they have not returned to the NBA Finals since the 1960 NBA Finals. Why not just say, "they have not returned to the NBA Finals since 1960"? I don't like the repetition of NBA Finals.
Did Roger Potter coach the Hawks while the team was in the NBL? If not, the article should clarify that he was the first head coach after the team joined the NBA.
- Why not include the NBL seasons in the list? This might require some more research, but I'm pretty sure the book Total Basketball contains that information. Zagalejo^^^ 07:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the potential featured topic that I will be working on is List of NBA head coaches (now a redirect, so no bother wikilinking the article). If WP:NBA agrees on adding the NBL seasons, I'm fine with that, but right now, consistency is what I, and maybe the WP:NBA, want. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 anyone? 08:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not that important, I guess, but other articles (eg List of Indiana Pacers head coaches) do include ABA seasons. Zagalejo^^^ 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it was maybe because the ABA was merged into the NBA. Also, they have an internet source for ABA seasons. If you can get references for the NBL seasons, I'll put it on the list if you really want it on the list. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 anyone? 20:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it was maybe because the ABA was merged into the NBA. Also, they have an internet source for ABA seasons. If you can get references for the NBL seasons, I'll put it on the list if you really want it on the list. -- SRE.K.A
- Because the potential featured topic that I will be working on is List of NBA head coaches (now a redirect, so no bother wikilinking the article). If WP:NBA agrees on adding the NBL seasons, I'm fine with that, but right now, consistency is what I, and maybe the WP:NBA, want. -- SRE.K.A
- The second paragraph (especially the fifth sentence onward) seems a little choppy to me. Is there any way to improve the flow? Much of that information is already available in the list, so perhaps we can simplify things. You could just say, for example, that five Hawks coaches have been elected into the Hall of Fame, rather than listing all of them in the lead. Thoughts? Zagalejo^^^ 20:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's four by the way. Listing them aren't that bad, as long as it doesn't list like more than five at max. How is that going to improve the "flow" though? I'm not very experienced with the creating sentences (barely passing my English class), so any help from you would be great. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 anyone? 20:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, my bad. There are five Coach of the Year winners. Anyway, we wouldn't automatically improve the flow by doing that, but we would reduce the wordage and make it easier to merge similar ideas into single sentences. I'll have to think about this a little more, though. I don't have any quick fixes in mind. Zagalejo^^^ 20:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a stab at it. Did I remove too much? I deleted the sentence about the coaches who have spent their entire careers with the franchise, since that's not a particularly meaningful statistic. Many of them were just interim coaches. Zagalejo^^^ 05:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think game wins is better than games won. ;b It doesn't really matter, as long as it has featured list criteria. Thanks for being dedicated to trying to make Wikipedia better! -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 anyone? 05:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think game wins is better than games won. ;b It doesn't really matter, as long as it has featured list criteria. Thanks for being dedicated to trying to make Wikipedia better! -- SRE.K.A
- It's four by the way. Listing them aren't that bad, as long as it doesn't list like more than five at max. How is that going to improve the "flow" though? I'm not very experienced with the creating sentences (barely passing my English class), so any help from you would be great. -- SRE.K.A
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 [56].
I have been working on this list for quite awhile. I overhauled it substantially a few months ago and have been tweaking it ever since. Based off of similar tallest buildings featured lists, I think it meets all FL criteria: it's comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. Let me know of any concerns so I can address them ASAP! --TorsodogTalk 17:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.TRUCO 22:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't start lists out as "this is a list of..." anymore. Take a look at List of tallest buildings in Vancouver for a suggestion. Also, in the title, "structures" seems redundant and isn't consistent with other similar lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd, almost all of the tallest buildings FLs start out with the "this is a list of...", but I will happily change it. Also, the structures portion is consistent with lists for cities that contain tall structures. See:London, Salford and Manchester. If this is also changed for some reason, however, let me know. --TorsodogTalk 22:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have moved away from that robotic repetition of the article's subject in the past half-year, most of those tallest-building FLs were promoted before. On your second point, no need to change it if it is consistent with others. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. Well I've switched up the first paragraph quite a bit and added a few more bits into the lead. I hope this addresses your concern! --TorsodogTalk 02:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have moved away from that robotic repetition of the article's subject in the past half-year, most of those tallest-building FLs were promoted before. On your second point, no need to change it if it is consistent with others. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "second tallest overall structure"-->second-tallest overall structure
- "Overall, of the 25 tallest buildings and structures in Japan, 18 are
locatedin Tokyo." - "height limit of 31 metres until 1963 when " Comma after "1963".
- "in favor of a floor area ratio" Shouldn't it be "Floor Area Ratio"?
- "Doubling the height "-->Double the height
- "Tokyo is broken into two sections" I think "divided" would be better here.
- "are
locatedwithin" - "tallest free standing structure"-->tallest free-standing structure
- Add a note about the equal signs in the list, as in List of tallest buildings in Vancouver.
- "42th-tallest building in Japan"-->42nd-tallest building in Japan
- "42st-tallest building in Japan"-->42nd-tallest building in Japan Dabomb87 (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All done! --TorsodogTalk 17:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
Quite a few of the sources need publisher information. Examples only: Refs 93, 95, 99, 100.Ref 104, addformat=PDF
to the citation template.
- Added PDF tags. Removed refs in question in favor of more reliable sources with publishers. --TorsodogTalk 17:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent buildings list comparable to others. Reywas92Talk 01:47, 1 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 promoted by Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 [57].
My first FL nomination or maybe in a featured process of any sort. This is a continuation of the trend of bringing San Francisco Bay Area rail station lists here for FL consideration. —kurykh 08:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —Chris! ct 19:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
I helped write this list and am satisfy with it, but I still have some comments.
|
- Comments - boy oh boy I love metro stuff. So, some comments, from overcast Cusco...
- Any reason that the Castro line is excluded from the map?
- The official Muni Metro map that the list's map is based off of does not have the S Castro Shuttle line on it. —kurykh 06:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ¨...stops that consist from a traffic island or a sign painted on a telephone pole..." doesn´t read well to me..
- Done. —kurykh 06:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BART should be explained before being used as an acronym.
- Done. —kurykh 06:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is Castro stuff in italics?
- Because the Castro line is a line with limited service.—Chris! ct 21:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, but forgive my ignorance, where is that stated in the key or in the text? The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the Castro line is a line with limited service.—Chris! ct 21:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to superinflate the image sizes of the stations - i think you´re forcing the image sizes to 270px, no need.
- Fixed by Chrishomingtang. —kurykh 06:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Surface stations Platform col does not sort correctly.
- Fixed by Chrishomingtang. —kurykh 06:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason that the Castro line is excluded from the map?
- Good work, not too far off I reckon. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support my concerns addressed, good work. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, Rambling man basically read the review in my mind :P. I have the same concerns raised by TRM, I can support once those are done because this is excellent, but those few problems.--TRUCO 22:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - meets WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 22:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, Rambling man basically read the review in my mind :P. I have the same concerns raised by TRM, I can support once those are done because this is excellent, but those few problems.--TRUCO 22:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "Muni Metro is a light rail system serving San Francisco, California"-->Muni Metro is a light rail system that serves San Francisco, California.
- Done. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Muni Metro serves 173,000 passengers a day, making it the second busiest in the United States" Secpnd-busiest what?
- Done. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The system consists of nine subway stations, 24 surface stations" Comparable quantities should be written the same way. Either make them both numerals or both written out.
- Done. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Four
of thestations"- Done. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The backgrounds should not cover the whole row, only the "Station" column. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, other similar FLs have backgrounds covering the entire row. Leaving this the exception would be strange. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So then, we change the others. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. —kurykh 19:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So then, we change the others. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, other similar FLs have backgrounds covering the entire row. Leaving this the exception would be strange. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On several refs, you spell out abbreviations, which is good, but you never actually use the abbreviations by themselves. I think that those parenthetical abbrevations should be removed.- Done. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 1, 8 and 15 needformat=PDF
added to them.- Done. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://world.nycsubway.org/us/sf/muni-streetcar.html a reliable source?- Removed; other sources suffice. —kurykh 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabomb87 (talk) 17:08, 24 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 promoted by Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 [58].
I am nominating this list for FLC because I believe it meets the FL criteria. Thank you. Frcm1988 (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Efe
|
---|
Comment(s) by Efe
|
Support Issues addressed. --Efe (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support - comments resolved to meet WP:WIAFL. I would still like to see the article renamed.--TRUCO 00:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "which spent a consecutive run of five weeks at the top of the chart starting in early December 1998."-->which, starting in early December 1998, spent a consecutive run of five weeks at the top of the chart.
- Changed
- "TLC's third album, Fanmail,
which wasthe year's top selling hip-hop"
- Removed
- "in the summer of 1999" Don't use seasons; use months instead.
- Done
- "late-1999" No hyphen necessary.
- Removed
- "making them the first country group to have reached"-->making them the first country group to reach
- Changed
- Spell out RIAA.
- Is it necessary to spell the name again, I already put the complete name: "Pop singer Britney Spears's first album ...Baby One More Time peaked at number one for six non-consecutive weeks. Certified as diamond by the Recording Industry Association of America." Frcm1988 (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3, change the title to sentence case. Web page titles should not be in all caps.
- Changed
Spell out lesser-known abbreviations such as RIAA.
- Done
Ref 19 should have Billboard linked since all the other instances are linked.Dabomb87 (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2003 (United States)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 February 2009 [60].
iMatthew // talk // 20:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Nice to see a different type of sports list, but there are many problems. These are just from the top:
- I'm not sure about the title of this article. How about: List of New York Islanders awards and accomplishments, a la Portland Trail Blazers accomplishments and records?
- There is already a List of Calgary Flames award winners. I think it's fine. iMatthew // talk // 13:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The team
haswon the Clarence S. Campbell Bowl trophy" - "Denis Potvin, Bryan Trottier, and Mike Bossy are the team's most decorated players, with all three winning the Calder Memorial Trophy once." You say they are the most decorated and then you say that they have won a trophy? What is the criteria for "most decorated"? Instead, say how many awards/achivements that they have won. The sentence construction is also awkward with the noun + -ing.
- Prune this redundancy-plagued phrase: "
In addition, they have also won othervariousawards" - "Other management personnel to be inducted"-->Other management personnel who have been inducted
- "General manager" Why is this capitalized? Also, it would be more useful if you pipe linked this to the "Sports teams" section in that article.
- Whenever a year range is preceded by "from", do not use an en dash. Example: "from 1972–1992"-->from 1972 to 1992.
- "In its history" Another redundant phrase; when else could they have won these awards?
- "Bryan Trottier, Denis Potvin, and Mike Bossy are some of the Islanders' most decorated players" In the lead, you say they are the most decorated. Now you say that they are only of the most decorated players. Which is it? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will come back for more comments later. One thing: Fix the dabs. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The New York Islanders have retired six numbers. Of the six retired numbers, five players have been inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame." Confusing. Readers who don't understand these things will be confused over retired numbers and players.
- "One of these is for Al Arbour, Islanders head coach for 19 seasons."-->One of these is for Al Arbour, who was the Islanders' head coach for 19 seasons.
- "Another banner is for Bill Torrey, General manager of the Islanders from 1972 to 1992."-->Another banner is for Bill Torrey, who was the general manager of the Islanders from 1972 to 1992.
- "Potvin recorded 310 goals in 1060 games for the Islanders, while Bossy recorded 573 goals in 752 games." "while"-->and.
- In the "All Star Games selections" "Year" column, change the header to "All Star Game" or something like that.
- "33 All-Star Games have been held since the Islanders arrived on Long Island, with at least one player representing the Islanders in each year, but the 2001, 1999, and 1979 games." Don't start sentences with numerals; the noun + -ing ("player representing") structure is awkward.
- "The All-Star game has not been held in various years" "various"-->several.
- "Mike Bossy played a franchise high"-->Mike Bossy played a franchise-high
Still not there yet. Find a copy-editor (User:Maxim or User:Resolute) to look at it. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I'll ask Maxim later. iMatthew // talk // 16:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done a copy-edit this morning on request. Resolute 16:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the Hockey-Reference sources, Hockey-Reference is the work and Sports Reference LLC.Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Sure, thanks for the comments. Will get to as soon as possible. iMatthew // talk // 23:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done with everything. Thanks. iMatthew // talk // 13:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it just me or is this article uncategorized? – Nurmsook! talk... 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its uncategorized.--TRUCO 23:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. iMatthew // talk // 13:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its uncategorized.--TRUCO 23:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Several teams offer internal team awards; i.e.: The Molson Cup for the Canadian franchises. Do the Islanders have any such awards? Resolute 16:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I'm aware of (or could find, anywhere). iMatthew // talk // 16:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just kidding! I found one, and added it in. iMatthew // talk // 18:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, good add. Support meets WP:WIAFL, well written. Resolute 06:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just kidding! I found one, and added it in. iMatthew // talk // 18:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL, in addition, I participated in this article's peer review, so I find it up to standards.--TRUCO 19:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - One minor thing though, in the table for Individual awards there seems to be a stray cell between the Seasons header and the 1978–79 cell. I tried to remove it but couldn't. Perhaps it could just be colspan/rowspan playing up. This however doesn't effect my support. Sunderland06 (talk) 01:58, 1 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.