Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2009: Difference between revisions
promoting 9 |
promoting 8 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ashlee Simpson discography}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rufus Wainwright discography}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Vancouver Canucks captains}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Chiefs of Naval Operations)}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Olympic medalists in speed skating}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Philadelphia Phillies no-hitters}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of winners of the Chicago Marathon}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Los Angeles Kings head coaches}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Los Angeles Kings head coaches}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Cincinnati Reds managers}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Cincinnati Reds managers}} |
Revision as of 21:50, 7 March 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 21:50, 7 March 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Underneath-it-All (talk)
I think this discography about the American singer is comprehensive and well referenced. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 17:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happy to support, very nice work. Only two minor comments: year columns should be centered (they look off to me), and you may want to put a # before the catalog numbers. Great work though! Drewcifer (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, nice. Without much enthusiasm, please. Cannibaloki 16:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- No need to link actress, it is a common term and most people know what it is.
- "2.9 million" Needs a non-breaking space.
- "top forty singles"-->top-forty singles I think "spawned" would be a better word here. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:38, 3 March 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 21:50, 7 March 2009 [2].
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk)
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all requirements. Despite receiving support from two reviewers, my previous attempt at obtaining FL status was unsuccessful. However, I have made all corrections requested here, so I hope the list satisfies all reviewers this time. Thanks again! --Another Believer (Talk) 04:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Previous comments resolved in the first FLC, and I still feel it meets the WP:WIAFL criteria despite changes. Good work.--TRUCO 22:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from JD554
|
---|
That's all for now, --JD554 (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Just one more thing I've spotted: The gold certification for Release the Stars isn't confirmed at the BPI's website[3] (use 'wainwright' as the search term) but it looks like Want Two was awarded silver. It may be possible that the BPI haven't kept their database up to date (but doubtful): Do you have another source for the gold certification that isn't a quote from Wainwright? --JD554 (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have added the silver certification to Want Two on the table. This, this, and this all mention Release the Stars' gold certification in the UK. Does the reference need to be replaced? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about the last source as it's blocked from where I am at the moment, I could check it later, but from the URL it looks like an interview - does the reporter say it's gold or does Wainwright? This is also the problem with the second source as it's simply Wainwright saying it's received gold. The first one may be enough, but it's a bit weak compared to the BPI's site which I would have thought to be the most reliable. --JD554 (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reporter, who says: "Congratulations on the success of Release The Stars, which has been at the top of the charts both here in the States and in the U.K., where it went Gold." --Another Believer (Talk) 17:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on the proviso that the two independent sources are used over the current one for the gold certification. --JD554 (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on the proviso that the two independent sources are used over the current one for the gold certification. --JD554 (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reporter, who says: "Congratulations on the success of Release The Stars, which has been at the top of the charts both here in the States and in the U.K., where it went Gold." --Another Believer (Talk) 17:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about the last source as it's blocked from where I am at the moment, I could check it later, but from the URL it looks like an interview - does the reporter say it's gold or does Wainwright? This is also the problem with the second source as it's simply Wainwright saying it's received gold. The first one may be enough, but it's a bit weak compared to the BPI's site which I would have thought to be the most reliable. --JD554 (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was pretty tough on this list, so I'm very happy to finally support. It clearly meets all of the standards expected of an FL discography. Great work! Drewcifer (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Drewcifer
|
---|
Comments Since you've already gone through my un-ending list of comments already, I'm pretty pleased with the way this list has turned out. There's a few more things that I'm noticing now, but nothing major:
I think that's it for now. Drewcifer (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support My comments were resolved at the previous FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, "It clearly meets all of the standards expected of an FL discography." Cannibaloki 02:42, 4 March 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 Vancouver Canucks captains
- 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 21:50, 7 March 2009 [4].
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
--TRUCO 01:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 03:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of my comments on the Astronaut list also apply to this one. Please review those. Reywas92Talk 16:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New York Times-->The New York TimesTIME-->TIMEDabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:01, 1 March 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 21:50, 7 March 2009 [5].
This is one I've had ready for a while now, but I decided to hold off on nominating it. It's a wikicup entry, fully sourced and all concerns will be addressed by moi. Enjoy. -- Scorpion0422 18:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 01:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- There is a main article template at the top of the article pointing to Speed skating at the Winter Olympics, but it is also linked to in the first line under "is contested". Since Andrwsc considers these to be companion articles I don't mind if there's the template, but only one should be linked; pick one or the other. This should be consistant with all medalist articles, including List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing and List of Olympic medalists in freestyle skiing.
- Support Everything else is excellent. Reywas92Talk 16:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The main templates were stuck in a few days ago by Maxim and I haven't decided if I like that or not. I guess the main template is a much more obvious link to the other article, so perhaps it is best. -- Scorpion0422 17:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which one are you going to remove? It should not be linked twice. Reywas92Talk 00:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Left in the seealso, removed the lead link. -- Scorpion0422 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which one are you going to remove? It should not be linked twice. Reywas92Talk 00:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The main templates were stuck in a few days ago by Maxim and I haven't decided if I like that or not. I guess the main template is a much more obvious link to the other article, so perhaps it is best. -- Scorpion0422 17:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the medal sweep section you should say something about Eric Heiden's sweep of all the male medals.
- Should this be separate from short track speed skating? Short track should be mentioned somewhere in the article I think.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments - Looks like a great list overall. Just some picky things before I support:
|
Support - List looks good to go after the changes. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 1 March 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 21:50, 7 March 2009 [6].
- Nominator(s): KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all of the FL criteria. It is fully referenced and contains appropriate images and content. Disclaimer: The list contains only 9 items, but contains notes about each unique no-hitter. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comment -- Before I review, I want other reviewer's input on this list on the 10-item limit rule. Notes are added, but this is a list that can be built upon (since its a list in the present and not a list in the past) and the notes don't really add to the entries to exemplify it from the rule; this from my standpoint. But if other disagree, I would be happy to review.--TRUCO 23:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 03:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This one is a very hard one to decide whether or not it is an exception. In my opinion, a no-hitter in a season only occurs 1-4 (IMO approx.) times a season. that's around 1-4 times per 30 seasons for a team. According to calculations, the Phillies should get one in 2009 or the 2010s. In my conclusion, I think the user should wait until 2013, OR if more people support, then I will support the community's decision. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to oppose I oppose the inclusion of this list as a featured list per the 10-item limit rule. I see no reason whatsoever why this list should be exempt from the rule. That said, I can be persuaded if the nominator can justify his/her reasoning.—Chris! ct 02:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My reasoning behind this is simple: a list of this length is perfectly able to satisfy all of the written FLC requirements. The 10-item rule is an unwritten guideline, however strictly it made be adhered to or not. Admittedly, this is not the format that I originally wanted to use for this list; the format I desired would have made this list itself much longer and more likely to ignore this guideline. However, the list features professional standards of writing (Cr.1), has an engaging lead and a title which clearly defines the scope of the list and explanatory material for those outside the baseball community (Cr.2), comprehensively covers said scope (Cr.3), is easy to navigate and sortable (Cr.4), complies with the MOS (hopefully so far, Cr.5), makes use of appropriate color and images (Cr.6), and is as stable as any other list in the present (Cr.7). I don't know how much more clear I can be. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 04:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So what you're saying is that any list with 9 entries are allowed for FLC? I'm going to notify WT:FLC about this. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not what I said by any means. I simply think that a 10-item minimum is arbitrary, especially if the content meets the requirements laid out in WP:FL?. As I said, I doubt that we would be having this discussion if I were able to put this list in my intended format. If consensus on this issue goes toward opposing this list, I would be willing to withdraw the nomination at this time until I can locate the proper offline sources to make this list into my preferred format. However, I see no valid reason why it could not at least go through a nomination process. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think User:Dabomb87's comment on WT:FLC really convince me that this list should be exempt from the rule. I no longer oppose the inclusion of this list as a featured list.—Chris! ct 04:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —Chris! ct 22:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment
Everything else looks good—Chris! ct 19:45, 22 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]] 00:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] (continued)
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 07:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Well done on the list. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "Also known in their early years as the "Philadelphia Quakers",[1] pitchers for the Phillies" The way this is phrased, it sounds like only the pitchers were known as the Quakers.
- I can't think how to rephrase it, but I want to mention the Quakers since Ferguson's no-hitter was thrown during that era. Suggestions are welcome. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "encompassing
a total of58 years"
- Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "which involves judgment, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out… [the umpire's judgment on such matters] is final." WP:PUNC logical punctuation, the period should be outside the quotes.
- "is defined as that area over homeplate (sic) the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap." Same comment.
- (two above) The periods are both part of the quotes; they are included from the source.
- "a special type of no-hitter" Would "a special subcategory" work better?
- Much, thanks. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "and stands as a defining moment in National League history" Not really necessary, let the facts stand for themselves. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed, though it makes the paragraph look stubby. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 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 21:50, 7 March 2009 [7].
- Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)
I am nominating this for featured list because I have finally taken the time to split this off properly. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider a peer review next time to catch the copyediting issues. Hope this helps. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support - all other concerns resolved to my satisfaction. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. --TRUCO 22:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- The year and date columns of the table need to be combined. You may want to try {{dts}}.
- I am not sure about this template, but I combined the columns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For 2008-10-12 just make it {{dts|2008|10|12}}, which reads as October 12, 2008 and is sortable.
- It is sortable on my browser (Firefox) now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For 2008-10-12 just make it {{dts|2008|10|12}}, which reads as October 12, 2008 and is sortable.
- I am not sure about this template, but I combined the columns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Retry the hyphens for 1987 with a footnote and a dash.
- Can you be more clear.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. Change "-ran as half marathon-" to a dash centered in the cell and move the footnote from the date to next to the dash.
- I can not figure out how to format footnote next to dash.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. Change "-ran as half marathon-" to a dash centered in the cell and move the footnote from the date to next to the dash.
- Very good to me overall. Reywas92Talk 03:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great job! Reywas92Talk 02:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you be more clear.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:15, 1 March 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 21:50, 7 March 2009 [8].
- Nominator(s): Nehrams2020 (talk)
I have been working on this list for the last two weeks and believe that it meets the FL criteria. There currently are not that many actor filmographies that are featured and I plan to expand on this in the future, starting here with Schwarzenegger. I have looked to similar lists for formatting and made some modifications to make it a little different. Let me know if you see any issues and I will get to them as soon as possible. Thank you for taking a look and happy reviewing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"This is a list of..." FLs don't start like this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. I had referred to this revision of Christopher Walken filmography when it had passed as a featured list. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 16:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I've removed my oppose, since alot of progress has been made. I still have reservations with portions of the lead, which bring up awards and box office gross, which are not mentioned anywhere else in the article. So, per WP:LEAD, I believe they shouldn't be there. But, given the excellent state of the list otherwise, I don't want to hold up its nomination if everyone else is ok with it. So, I'll just refrain from either opposing or support. Drewcifer (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Drewcifer
|
---|
Weak Oppose I guess I'm somewhat to blame for the confusion, given I was the author and nominator of the Christopher Walken filmography. That said, that was the first filmography list promoted to FL, and standards and conventions have improved since then. I've continued to work on that particular list to bring it up to snuff, which I believe it is now, but I feel this list is somewhat lagging behind, still basing itself on an old standard. So, a few suggestions:
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BusinessWeek is one word (ref 13).
- Fixed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only publications should be italicized. Websites and publishing companies (Canwest News Service, NBC News, Box Office Mojo, The Numbers, CBS News) should not.Dabomb87 (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed all occurrences for the ones that remained in the article (since some were being used to source the salaries). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 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 06:56, 3 March 2009 [9].
- Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support - previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 00:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: No concerns here; looks good as usual. – Nurmsook! talk... 01:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:06, 1 March 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 06:56, 3 March 2009 [10].
This is a nomination which I will be a part of, but without a nomination credit. I truly believe that this article should have been promoted if jj137 was still editing. To WikiCup nominators, jj137 will not be answering the comments unless he returns. I have fixed all the comments from the last FLC, and truly hope this list will be promoted. I repeat, I will not be accepting the nomination. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- My issues in the previous FLC were resolved, in addition to me supporting the original nomination. I also was unable to find any flaws in this revision of the list.--TRUCO 23:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments Some of these were not resolved from the last FLC.
Dabomb87 (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Baseball-Reference sources are still inconsistently formatted.Dabomb87 (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments -
|
Support - Another in the series of fine manager lists that FLC has produced lately. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:58, 2 March 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 06:56, 3 March 2009 [11].
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. It is a full list of all US Naval Academy graduates who became astronauts (over 50 of the them, more than any other university). All images are free licensed. All entries have refs. I'm in WikiCup. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 02:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, regarding the above comments, NASA isn't a primary source; even if it was, it wouldn't be a problem as the information is highly uncontroversial. This seems to be addressed, however. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Why are all the other Naval Academy alumini links listed in the General references. They should be removed, escept for the astronauts.
- I meant to do this but forgot. I've cut the unused ones. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This list of alumni is a not a college or university, so the template at the bottom should be removed. That one especially, but none of the navboxes link to this list. I generally believe that navboxes should only be on the article if the article is in the navbox.
- Cut it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "This list is drawn from graduates, non-graduate former students, current students, and faculty of the Naval Academy." None of the astronauts are current students, and I don't think they're faculty either, and surely all of them graduated.
- Fixed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a more specific lead image than a generic hat toss?
- Looking, hard to find one that says "Naval Academy and Astronauts". — Rlevse • Talk • 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ADDED an astro pic to the lead. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking, hard to find one that says "Naval Academy and Astronauts". — Rlevse • Talk • 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the need for any of the collquial names of the Naval Academy, especially Canoe U. and Boat School.
- Cut. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "This list is drawn from graduates, non-graduate former students, current students, and faculty of the Naval Academy." What does this have anything to do with astronaut alumni?
- Tweaked. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The table is very good, but the lead isn't very descriptive of it specifically. I see that most of copied verbatim from List of United States Naval Academy alumni, and I really don't like that. Reywas92Talk 03:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pls revisit, worked your issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead really needs to be more specific to the astronauts. You can't just copy and paste the lead from the main article. "A few are also given the option of entering the United States Army or United States Air Force. Most students are admitted through the congressional appointment system." This is not relevant to astronauts. Many good lists have statistics in the lead. What year(s) had the most future astronausts graduate? How about a breakdown by NASA project - Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Shuttle? How many naval grads actually walked on the moon? Did any naval grads go on the the same flight together? Reywas92Talk 16:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as a co-nom since I did a large quantity of the work when this list was still integrated with List of United States Naval Academy alumni. -MBK004 18:33, 21
February 2009 (UTC)
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Pretty good list
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The work should only be used if the website is a publication or is different from the parent company, i.e., "Biographical Data" in the NASA refs should not be there. Same with USNA Astronauts.Dabomb87 (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See email and juliancolton's stmt above. NASA is not a primary ref and both are completely uncontroversial. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand. I didn't say don't use the sources, I am talking about the formatting. See this sample edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, sorry I misunderstood, apologies. Done (in a few minutes). — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand. I didn't say don't use the sources, I am talking about the formatting. See this sample edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See email and juliancolton's stmt above. NASA is not a primary ref and both are completely uncontroversial. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 1 March 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 06:56, 3 March 2009 [12].
My third and final nomination of head coaches in Pittsburgh sports. I will address any issues to the best of my abilities. Thank you! blackngold29 20:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure that I like this new format. Where is the playoff win percentage column? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 03:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24
|
---|
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]
Good luck with the FLC, and there will be more comments from me soon. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support with one comment; switch the last and second last sentences, as the current head coach sentences are usually last. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments -
Also would like to see a playoff win percentage column, as it would be a nice touch. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The changes all look good. One more thing from note e: "Coach Eddie Johnson was replaced by Craig Patrick, who finished the season 7–10–3 and lost in the first round of the playoffs four games to one." Technically, the team did those things, not the head coach. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support - Meets the standards after the fixes above and below. Good work. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:42, 1 March 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 06:56, 3 March 2009 [13].
I am nominating this for featured list because after putting it on a peer review with all concerns adressed, I think it is more prepared to meet the WP:FL?. Thanks in advance, Cannibaloki 03:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good, and I'm happy to support. Great work! Drewcifer (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Cannibaloki 01:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Drewcifer
|
---|
Comments Looks good, but I have the same old comments I usually make:
|
Comments
- Why were the Extended Plays and Other appearances removed from the article? From what I can see most other featured lists have them so I don't really see any reason to remove them, especially when they were sourced. Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What extended plays? If you're refering to Lonely Day, it is a maxi-single not EP.
- The section Other appearances was added.
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.TRUCO 21:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 28 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 Scissor Sisters
- 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 06:56, 3 March 2009 [14].
A fairly straight-forward discog from a relatively new band with relatively few releases. As always, any feedback and opinions are welcome and appreciated. Drewcifer (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 21:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your help and your support. Drewcifer (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Can you get rid of "Max Knies Photography Sample" from the photo, please? Its very distracting
- The author of the photo wanted it to stay. It's an otherwise awesome photo, so I think it's worth it. Then again, since it's GFDL-approved, anyone could come along and Photoshop it out... But I'll leave it as is in good faith, since the author trusted me with his photo, and it doesn't particularly bother me. Drewcifer (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure whether It's Blitz can be included in the discography yet as it hasn't been released
- Yeah, technically it shouldn't be included, given the verbatim definition of a discography. But I've realized in situations like these it's best to just let the will of the people take over. The entry was added literally like an hour or two after the announcement, and I guarantee it'll be put back up right away if I take it out. So why fight it?
All good otherwise. Nice to see you back. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the notes, and the warm welcome! Drewcifer (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the BPI certification ref (no 9) points to the listing for "Pretty Hate Machine£ by Nine Inch Nails?!?!?!? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Woops! Got a little carried away with the cut+paste I guess. Fixed it. Drewcifer (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment - the self-titled EP's peak position of #1 was on the very minor UK Budget Albums chart (as denoted by the ¥ symbol next to it on the zobbel.de page) - this should probably be noted, as currently it could give the impression that the release actually topped the main UK Albums Chart (which in fact it seems to have missed completely) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. Took it out. Drewcifer (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment - the self-titled EP's peak position of #1 was on the very minor UK Budget Albums chart (as denoted by the ¥ symbol next to it on the zobbel.de page) - this should probably be noted, as currently it could give the impression that the release actually topped the main UK Albums Chart (which in fact it seems to have missed completely) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, thanks alot for the help. Drewcifer (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.everyhit.com/ a reliable source?Dabomb87 (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rearranged the citations so that it's no longer needed. But, for the record I believe it is reliable, but I can't remember where I found it officially recognized. I'll look into that for next time. Drewcifer (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/ Right hand side menu column, at the bottom. It's a shame you can't link to the actual results page with this site :( Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, good looking out. I've added that link to MOS:DISCOG, so hopefully we don't have that issue again, at lease with this site. Drewcifer (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Took care of your other comments, by the way. I kind of didn't notice them until just now. Drewcifer (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked User:Ealdgyth about EveryHit. I want to resolve it once and for all. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- She says that more than one reference to EveryHit would be good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems as the reference was removed, so I will strike. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Took care of your other comments, by the way. I kind of didn't notice them until just now. Drewcifer (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, good looking out. I've added that link to MOS:DISCOG, so hopefully we don't have that issue again, at lease with this site. Drewcifer (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/ Right hand side menu column, at the bottom. It's a shame you can't link to the actual results page with this site :( Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from Cannibaloki
|
---|
Comments from Cannibaloki (talk · contribs)
|
- Support, all done. Cannibaloki 15:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: Since everyhit.com is no longer being used in this discog, there is no point keeping the nomination to continue the discussion about it. Best place is WT:DISCOG. Since there are no other outstanding concerns, I'm hereby promoting the list. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:02, 3 March 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 06:56, 3 March 2009 [15].
- Nominator(s): NuclearWarfare (Talk)''
Did you know "...that you can get a million dollars for solving a millenia-old math problem?", but that even locking yourself in a garage as Charlie Epps did many times in a Numb3rs episode does not help solve it.
Well, I have spent the last few days working on this article, and I really feel that it meets the Featured List criteria now. There isn't a lot of prose, so I didn't feel that grabbing a copy editor was necessary, but feel free to tell me how awful I am at writing them. So...here you guys go :)
Also, this article had existed for a long time before I started my work on it, so if you feel that you were a primary contributor to the article, just add yourself. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 06:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It has come to my attention that this article does not meet one of the seven criteria of a FL: "Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; it has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text; and it has a minimal proportion of red links." This seems to go against one of the philosophies that made Wikipedia grow, Wikipedia:Red link. I'd take an editor being interested enough to write an article over visual appeal anyway, so I do not wish to remove the redlinks. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 07:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redlink is all well and good, but the idea is that Featured content should exhibit some of Wikipedia's best work. Links that go nowhere and gaps in the surrounding knowledge are not conductive to this idea. Ironholds (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- The prose needs to be referenced.
- The redlink:bluelink ratio is too close for my liking. WP:REDLINK is all well and good, but this many redlinks seems to violate section 6 of the FL criteria which requires that a featured list "has a minimal proportion of red links". Options: either write articles or just delink.
- Replied in original post. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 07:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is BIGWentertainment considered a reliable source?
- I was told that it is kind of the Amazon of Australia. I figured that was good enough. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 07:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That be all. Ironholds (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- My issues were resolved but I will wait until there is some outcome on the discussion opened above on the redlinks, because that is substantial to FLs.--TRUCO 02:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
File:Numb3rs Insignia.jpg is not acceptable due to it's digital watermarking.- This issue should be resolved soon by the Graphic Lab: [16]. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- pd_Thor has kindly given us an SVG version to use. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 05:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This new SVG simply is not the Numbers logo, it is misleading and frankly offensive to the show and the logo designers to claim otherwise. It would have been better just to edit the previous image to rubber stamp out the offending watermark. This new image is not an improvement by any means. Sorry.-Andrew c [talk] 22:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew, I really cannot see a difference between the original and the SVG version, besides the watermark. I'll create a "rubber-stamped version, but can you explain why you dislike the SVG one? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This new SVG simply is not the Numbers logo, it is misleading and frankly offensive to the show and the logo designers to claim otherwise. It would have been better just to edit the previous image to rubber stamp out the offending watermark. This new image is not an improvement by any means. Sorry.-Andrew c [talk] 22:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- pd_Thor has kindly given us an SVG version to use. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 05:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This issue should be resolved soon by the Graphic Lab: [16]. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Numb3rs" should be italicized.- It was like that, but someone removed it. Readded. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: Year ranges should be ndashes per WP:DASH- I'm unsure where you mean. Instead of say, "September 2007 to January 2008", should I do "September 2007–January 2008"?
- In the lead and now general ref. It is "2005-2006" etc. but should be 2005–2006. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, I hope. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite. I've done it though. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, I hope. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the lead and now general ref. It is "2005-2006" etc. but should be 2005–2006. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unsure where you mean. Instead of say, "September 2007 to January 2008", should I do "September 2007–January 2008"?
"Seasons One, Two, Three, and Four have" - why the capital letters?- Fixed. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is still some more of these in the lead. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, I hope
- There is still some more of these in the lead. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this FLC the consensus is not to use transclusion for the episodes. This will also allow alot of errors from the transclusion to be fixed. e.g. uncentered headings.- I could substitute all of them, but as this is a currently running series, I am unsure if season five should be substituted. If we left season 5 transcluded, it would make updating things a whole lot easier. Would it be acceptable to leave that transcluded? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can compromise if you really wish, but one of the reasons to not transclude was accessibility. This would alow people to update it who don't know how transclusion works (and might reduce the work). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All five seasons transcluded. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can compromise if you really wish, but one of the reasons to not transclude was accessibility. This would alow people to update it who don't know how transclusion works (and might reduce the work). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could substitute all of them, but as this is a currently running series, I am unsure if season five should be substituted. If we left season 5 transcluded, it would make updating things a whole lot easier. Would it be acceptable to leave that transcluded? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Visual Appeal would be greatly improved if alternate rows were coloured along with the headings (like this)- Done. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't really matter but normally, like in the example I showed you, the colours reflected the DVD colour (so here season 3 would be maroon. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. Colors changed to match up with Region 1 DVDs, except for season five, for which I picked an arbitrary color. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't really matter but normally, like in the example I showed you, the colours reflected the DVD colour (so here season 3 would be maroon. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there other media releases? (e.g. Hulu, iTunes, Amazon Unbox etc.)- Nothing that I could find any reliable sources for. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The first search I did gave this. That mentions Unbox. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think these are notable (sorry, that's what I meant) enough to mention, but I did add a paragraph on iTunes and Unbox. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tweaked the wording, but feel free to revert/change/discuss. Also are you in the US, becuase I think they are available from the CBS website, but cannot check as I am not. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually about the previous three episodes are available for free at cbs.com. Is that available for inclusion? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it should be included, but is there anybody you know (I'm thinking onwiki) that is in the US and could confirm the number available? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right no, there are 16 (Wow! That's higher than usual) episodes that a US resident can watch for free, though many are from season four, and were rebroadcast recently during weeks where there were new episodes. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it should be included, but is there anybody you know (I'm thinking onwiki) that is in the US and could confirm the number available? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually about the previous three episodes are available for free at cbs.com. Is that available for inclusion? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tweaked the wording, but feel free to revert/change/discuss. Also are you in the US, becuase I think they are available from the CBS website, but cannot check as I am not. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think these are notable (sorry, that's what I meant) enough to mention, but I did add a paragraph on iTunes and Unbox. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The first search I did gave this. That mentions Unbox. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing that I could find any reliable sources for. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The piped links of the seasons don't work in the "Series overview" table.- The formatting changed. I'll fix the links. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "DVD releases" table experiences some strange text wrapping. I suggest making only the "Region 1 Extras" wrap onto one or more lines. To be honest I'm not fussed about having that column at all and would remove it completely.- I'll move the entire thing to the Numb3rs article. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Season 1 and 2 are completely uncited. The IGN links for those seasons contain no information that can verify the airdates, directors etc.- IGN replaced with DVD booklet. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the DVD booklet really cite the airdates? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TVGuide added for the airdates. I personally do not have the DVD; I had to call a friend who does. He isn't around at the moment, so in the interest of expediency, I have added TVGuide. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the DVD booklet really cite the airdates? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IGN replaced with DVD booklet. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Production codes: Are these right or verifiable in any way. It appears they are just the season number + episode number. I thought they were usually something like they are here.- Usually, but not always. IGN should verify these ones, at least for the later seasons. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IGN does not seem to verify these (e.g. in [http://uk.tv.ign.com/objects/142/14274718.html season 5). I would strongly suggest removing this column per se, but you could add in a column equivalent to listing the "# in series". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Numb3rs production codes, for example, comes up with several links to IGN. IN the two lines below the title/hyperlink, you can see: "TV Network: CBS Airdate: May 18, 2007. Episode Number: 324. Production Code: 324. Runtime: 60 minutes. Genre: Crime Series: Numb3rs ..." NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm I am less than convinced but will ignore whether they are right for now. Assuming they are, I still don't think they are worthy of inclusion. This FLC also wanted the prod. codes removed. I especially share this view on this list, because they are all exactly Series #, Season #. They presume (not all cited) that they were all produced in the order they aired, but there is no reason this should be the case. I would still strongly suggest swapping it for a "Seasons #" column, which contains all the same information without having any controversies. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I converted the format a little.[17][18] I hope it is good now. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 05:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I converted the format a little.[17][18] I hope it is good now. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 05:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm I am less than convinced but will ignore whether they are right for now. Assuming they are, I still don't think they are worthy of inclusion. This FLC also wanted the prod. codes removed. I especially share this view on this list, because they are all exactly Series #, Season #. They presume (not all cited) that they were all produced in the order they aired, but there is no reason this should be the case. I would still strongly suggest swapping it for a "Seasons #" column, which contains all the same information without having any controversies. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Numb3rs production codes, for example, comes up with several links to IGN. IN the two lines below the title/hyperlink, you can see: "TV Network: CBS Airdate: May 18, 2007. Episode Number: 324. Production Code: 324. Runtime: 60 minutes. Genre: Crime Series: Numb3rs ..." NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IGN does not seem to verify these (e.g. in [http://uk.tv.ign.com/objects/142/14274718.html season 5). I would strongly suggest removing this column per se, but you could add in a column equivalent to listing the "# in series". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually, but not always. IGN should verify these ones, at least for the later seasons. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you stubify some redlinks
- I would prefer to wait until the discussion at WT:Featured list criteria is over. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion is completely stalled. If you have to rely on a massive policy change to push an FL through then you're grasping at straws; simply create some stubs, it'll take an hour at most. Ironholds (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update please - are you planning to do this? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, I missed this comment. I have set aside some time in a few days; I should be able to do it then. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 19:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update please - are you planning to do this? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion is completely stalled. If you have to rely on a massive policy change to push an FL through then you're grasping at straws; simply create some stubs, it'll take an hour at most. Ironholds (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer to wait until the discussion at WT:Featured list criteria is over. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2006/06/08/now_on_itunes_csi_survivor_ncis_aamp_num a reliable source?- I'm not sure if this is enough, but it has partnered with IGN, so it isn't just a run-of-the-mill site. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise http://www.bigwentertainment.com.au/product/numb3rs_705875_229972.html?- Someone, who I cannot remember now, told me that it was a smaller version of Amazon in Australia. I didn't dig deeper than that. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's one of the websites of Aussie retailer Big W. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone, who I cannot remember now, told me that it was a smaller version of Amazon in Australia. I didn't dig deeper than that. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Web titles should not be in all caps; convert them to title case.- Doing. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Image fails WP:NFC, specifically Criteria #8: "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
- The image is in the public domain. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- American television series →→ American television series
- Done. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps wikilink pilot episode
- Good idea and I have done that. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As of February 16, 2009, five seasons consisting of 94 episodes have been broadcast. needs updating ;)
- Hey, I'm only two days late :) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first season was the shortest of the five, and spanned 13 episodes from January to May 2005. could you perhaps say it was a midseason replacement, perhaps even what it replaced?
- Added and cited. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe link "2005–2006 and 2006–2007"
- I forgot those articles even existed. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Season six is projected to begin in early September. What year?
- 2009, it is. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects:
- CBS
- Federal Bureau of Investigations
- Region 1 Regions 2 4 (plus WP:OVERLINK)
- Amazon Unbox
- TBD (Plus WP:OVERLINK)
- Martha Mitchell
- Fred Keller
- Frederick K. Keller (the same person)
- Michael Watkins
- All redirects done. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs:
- Dennis Smith
- Peter Ellis
- Andrew Black
- Amazon in references
- Done. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References:
- Dates should be in the same format as the article
- I can't believe I missed that. All changed to mdy format. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also unsure about the reliability of the Starpulse article.
- replaced with CNet reference. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bigwentertainment references: please attribute to Big W
- That makes more sense. Thanks. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dates should be in the same format as the article
That's all. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:40, 1 March 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 2002 (U.S.)