Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2009: Difference between revisions
Scorpion0422 (talk | contribs) m Re-added |
Promoting 14 FLCs |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Boston Reds (1890–1891) all-time roster}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2008 NBA Draft}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Silver Slugger Award winners at third base}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one albums of 2008 (U.S.)}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Veronica Mars (season 2)}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Paulini Curuenavuli discography}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Michael Faraday Prize}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chicago Blackhawks players}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of churches and places of worship in Crawley}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of One Piece episodes (season 5)}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Ratatouille}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Sheryl Crow}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (astronauts)}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (astronauts)}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1998 Winter Olympics medal table}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1998 Winter Olympics medal table}} |
Revision as of 07:12, 11 April 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 07:12, 11 April 2009 [1].
Boston Reds (1890–1891) all-time roster
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the critera for promotion. But, if the review process shows that it needs improvements, I will ensure that it that they are completed with haste. Neonblak talk - 04:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Additional comments (KV5)
- Few more comments, very minor.
- "Played sparingly for both the Reds and the Louisville Colonels in 1891, his last season in the majors." - looks like this is the only fragment left (John Irwin's entry).
- In references, there is a double period on Retrosheet, Inc. I'm guessing you used a citation generator. No problem, but the double period should be removed.
- With the baseball-reference.com refs (Sports Reference LLC), both work and publisher are required because the Sports Reference publisher is responsible for a number of websites. Add
|work=baseball-reference.com
to those references. - I might make the lead image larger; it's not doing much good at such a small size. MOS allows it, so I might suggest 225px?
This should be the last of it for me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for all these suggestions. I wanted it to be as thorough as it can be, because I think this would be the first all-time roster list to get promoted, so I wanted this to be a template, so-to-speak, for future feature lists involving all-time rosters. I incorporated all the changes you just mentioned, and I upped the size of the photo to 325px, seems to fit pretty good at that size.Neonblak talk - 01:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Nashville Sounds all-time roster became a FL on Feb 14, 2009. But this would be the first major leauge and defunct all-time roster. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for all these suggestions. I wanted it to be as thorough as it can be, because I think this would be the first all-time roster list to get promoted, so I wanted this to be a template, so-to-speak, for future feature lists involving all-time rosters. I incorporated all the changes you just mentioned, and I upped the size of the photo to 325px, seems to fit pretty good at that size.Neonblak talk - 01:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NatureBoyMD |
---|
Other than these suggestions, the list looks fine. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support - All of my concerns have been addressed. Nice work on an old-time base ball list. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I will review this list once the above comments are fixed to avoid conflicting reviews, please notify me when that is done (if I don't come back to this list in time). Please, also avoid using {{done}} templates, they are discouraged, see the main page.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All items fixed, and used all suggestions, except for one. I will let you know per your suggestion.Neonblak talk - 23:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- previous issues resolved; article now meets WP:WIAFL. Great work.--Best, TRUCO 02:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
(ec) Comments - First, the disambiguation link means that an article, in this case Tommy Dowd, leads to a dab page instead of the one meant to be linked. This can be checked by using the dab checker on the top right of the FAC page. Here are my other comments upon seeing this list.
The photo issue is by far the most pressing. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - Meets the criteria after these, and other, fixes. Disclosure: I made some copy-edit changes to the notes to help this along. As for the content fork concern below, I feel that the main article isn't the right place for an all-time roster. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FLC talk asked reviewers to evaluate lists against the new criteria here. I'm sticking with my support because my viewpoint hasn't changed regarding this list. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - What makes this list notable? It seems like a content fork to me. It is fairly short space-wise; can it not be merged with the Boston Reds article, which much shorter than this article? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 19:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:WIAFL is the current standard to meet, not any of the above items pointed out. A major league team, and major league players are all notable; other FLs are either shorter or not significantly longer, i.e. List of Boston Red Sox captains; nor do I think it matters whether it is longer than a related article.Neonblak talk - 21:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My support stands after the FLC criteria changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 8 April 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 07:12, 11 April 2009 [2].
2008 NBA Draft
Another NBA list—Chris! ct 01:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
|
Support - Has been substantially improved during the course of this FLC, and now meets the standards. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- In general the article meets WP:WIAFL standards, but I would like to see the outcome of the undrafted players before giving my final decision. I will check back, if I don't you may notify me for the result. --Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Previous issues resolved; article now meets WP:WIAFL, and it still checks out to the new criteria.--Truco 01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noble Comments
- "taking turns" rather informal, I would think
- Can't think of how to better rephrase it. Any suggestions?—Chris! ct 02:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The draft was broadcast on ESPN at 7:00 PM EDT in the United States.". a- This has no ref; b- this excludes international broadcasts; c- this interrupts the flow.
- Ref can be easily added. But since you think this sentence disrupts the flow, I will remove it instead.—Chris! ct 01:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "According to the NBA, 91 players, including 69 players from U.S. colleges and 22 international players, filed as early entry candidates for the 2008 NBA Draft." Maybe there is some way to explain this more clearly? I mean, most people wouldn't know why being an "early entry candidate" is so important. Or, for that matter, what it is.
- I am not too sure what "early entry candidate" is or its significance. I will look it up.—Chris! ct 02:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't know the significance of "early entry candidate", can I ask why you put it in the lead? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 08:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, a majority of the prose wasn't written by me. I just saw this list looked pretty good and decided to bring it here after fixing it up. And, I am not sure why the original writer didn't clarify at the first place.—Chris! ct 17:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't know the significance of "early entry candidate", can I ask why you put it in the lead? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 08:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not too sure what "early entry candidate" is or its significance. I will look it up.—Chris! ct 02:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another record was set, with ten freshmen drafted in the first round and twelve in total. Try maybe: "Another record was set when ten freshmen were drafted..."
- Fixed—Chris! ct 02:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "This was also the Seattle SuperSonics' last official team draft. In July, the franchise relocated to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma as the Oklahoma City Thunder. The Thunder's first official team draft will not come until 2009." Could this, by chance, go into a footnote? It seems it would fit better there.
- I think this is pretty notable, so I prefer it in the lead.—Chris! ct 01:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thinking that saying "First round" and "Second round" would be better, since that's usually how they are referred to.
- What reference do you use to determine a player's exact position?
- Added ref—Chris! ct 02:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The draft board, and the player profiles still don't say the exact player positions. So again, how do are you determining their positions? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 08:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the original positions and used those from the draft board.—Chris! ct 18:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The draft board, and the player profiles still don't say the exact player positions. So again, how do are you determining their positions? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 08:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added ref—Chris! ct 02:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you need to say the birth years of the international players? Also, I don't think Mike Taylor is an international player, yet you do the same for him.
- Removed—Chris! ct 02:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think instead of saying "international" and foreign", you should say "non-American" or something like that.
- "non-American" is too informal, IMO.—Chris! ct 01:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then maybe try "or something like that", if you can. :) Noble Story (talk • contributions) 08:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "non-American" is too informal, IMO.—Chris! ct 01:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For your list of Traded Picks, you say "acquired" the first and last times, then "received" all the rest of the times.
- Fixed—Chris! ct 02:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would stand by my comment that the undrafted list seems out of scope. However, I would like to see what other reviewers think.
- Like I already said, it can be easily removed if needed.—Chris! ct 01:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now, but I will add more if and when I see anything else. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When you say "...trade involving X Player", I'm pretty sure there are several players involved in most of those deals, but you only mention one. Was your choice just arbitrary?
- (Cough) Ahem. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 08:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added all players—Chris! ct 18:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well...OK, I actually didn't ask you to put in every player, I just asked you how you chose a particular player. But since it's done, it needs to be reworded. For example: On January 26, 2006, Minnesota received a second-round draft pick from Miami in a trade involving Antoine Walker, Jason Williams, and James Posey via Boston in a trade involving Ricky Davis, Marcus Banks, Mark Blount, Justin Reed, Wally Szczerbiak, Michael Olowokandi, and Dwayne Jones. Better worded, it would be: "On January 26, 2006, Minnesota received a second-round draft pick, Antoine Walker, Jason Williams, and James Posey from Boston for Ricky Davis, Marcus Banks, Mark Blount, Justin Reed, Wally Szczerbiak, Michael Olowokandi, and Dwayne Jones." I think that would be better. As it is, it's not clear who is coming from which team. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've clarified every trade in that section.—Chris! ct 22:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well...OK, I actually didn't ask you to put in every player, I just asked you how you chose a particular player. But since it's done, it needs to be reworded. For example: On January 26, 2006, Minnesota received a second-round draft pick from Miami in a trade involving Antoine Walker, Jason Williams, and James Posey via Boston in a trade involving Ricky Davis, Marcus Banks, Mark Blount, Justin Reed, Wally Szczerbiak, Michael Olowokandi, and Dwayne Jones. Better worded, it would be: "On January 26, 2006, Minnesota received a second-round draft pick, Antoine Walker, Jason Williams, and James Posey from Boston for Ricky Davis, Marcus Banks, Mark Blount, Justin Reed, Wally Szczerbiak, Michael Olowokandi, and Dwayne Jones." I think that would be better. As it is, it's not clear who is coming from which team. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added all players—Chris! ct 18:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Cough) Ahem. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 08:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support My concerns have been fixed. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 04:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Source look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crzycheetah
|
---|
Most of the hard work is done, just need to make it easier to use, that's all!--Crzycheetah 02:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Great work!--Crzycheetah 04:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm my support after the criteria changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:21, 9 April 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 07:12, 11 April 2009 [3].
List of Silver Slugger Award winners at third base
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the criteria, etc. I waited until one of my lists cleared out of the queue and gave a little time before nominating this list, but I think it's ready. It's article 4 toward my proposed WP:FT (see bottom of this page for details) and I will address all concerns as always. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved; article now meets WP:WIAFL. In response to the main article, that would be overkill to do so, I think just having the winners from each league will suffice.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since there are 73 inline refs, it is a good idea to split them into 2 columns.—Chris! ct 22:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As always, nice list, so support—Chris! ct 05:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- The award consists of a three-foot (91 cm) tall silver bat trophy with the engraved names of each of the winners from the league. - "Consists of" → "is". Also, "three-foot" should be "3-ft".
- Fixed per WP:MOSNUM. Changing to a digit here is correct but using the dash and abbreviating the unit on first use is not. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then why is cm abbreviated? –Juliancolton | Talk 23:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "In the main text, spell out the main units and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses" per MOS:CONVERSIONS (specific section of the same page). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, my mistake, it must have changed since I last read it. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two National League third baseman have also won three Silver Sluggers. Matt Williams won the award in 1990, 1993, and 1994,[8] when he was on pace to tie Roger Maris' home run record of 61 before the players' strike - Try to be consistent with the format of numbers (three, 61).
-
- Could you please elaborate? MOSNUM says "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." –Juliancolton | Talk 23:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no "comparable quantities" here. Three awards is unrelated to 61 home runs. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KV5 is correct here, these are not comparable quantities or entities. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are four semi-colons in the final paragraph of the lead, which leaves the prose rather choppy. Most of them could simply be broken into two sentences.
- These are intentional because they are related; some units are common between the two clauses. See semicolon for more details. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I know what a semicolon is meant to do, but we still don't need one for every sentence. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed two of them, the ones that I felt could have stood the change. The other three still need to be there with the way it's written. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
–Juliancolton | Talk 23:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Dabomb87 (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments - Looking good, just like the others in the series. Just a few picky things before I support:
|
Support - Meets the standards, along with the others in the series so far. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the new FL criteria, this list is still up to those standards. My Support for promotion stands.--Truco 15:00, 9 April 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 07:12, 11 April 2009 [4].
List of number-one albums of 2008 (U.S.)
I am nominating this for featured list because it was reviewed and I feel it meets the criteria. Regards, Efe (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I make a couple minor edits, but overall the prose looks pretty good. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 18:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to ask Sandy. Thinks she's busy as of now. --Efe (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "longest-running album" sounds like the album is of the longest duration. Maybe "had the longest run" is better?
- That is clarified by the supporting phrase "is the longest-running album among the releases that have reached peak position in 2008". --Efe (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I meant it can be misconstrued as total length of the album (in terms of hours, minutes, seconds). indopug (talk) 06:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. Your right. I have changed it based on your suggestion. --Efe (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I meant it can be misconstrued as total length of the album (in terms of hours, minutes, seconds). indopug (talk) 06:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that you have a lot of white space in the side, I think you can add a few of pictures of artists. Eg: Metallica, for consecutive weeks at the top, or Radiohead, for most vinyl records sold.
- Added two images for best albums in digital and vinyl formats. --Efe (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the issue dates column would look much better if you align the entries to the right. indopug (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. That's a general comment. Any changes to a single list must reflect to all pages. I think we can discuss this at the project page, I suggest. --Efe (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm my support after the criteria changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the new FL criteria, this list is still up to those standards. My Support for promotion stands.--Truco 14:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further
- Shouldn't the artist for Juno and other soundtracks be "Various artists"? Soundtrack could possibly be part of the album name, like "Juno soundtrack". indopug (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Date format of references should be the same as in the main body of the article, in this case, mmmm dd, yyyy. Matthewedwards : Chat 02:44, 10 April 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 07:12, 11 April 2009 [5].
Veronica Mars (season 2)
- Nominator(s): Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria. With the almost pass of the first season, and having formatted this list after that one, there should be few problems. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 11:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments
"Veronica Mars (Kristen Bell) it her mission to discover why the bus crashed" - makes it?Spell out PCH on first occasion, assuming it is an abbr. for Pacific Coast Highway or something.- I know it is explained in the first season but you may need to explain "09ers" again here.
- You explain this in the ==Episodes== section but have already used it twice in the ==Cast and crew== section. It should be expained on the first occurance. Rambo's Revenge (ER) 09:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I reshuffled some info earlier and this got mixed up. Good catch. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You explain this in the ==Episodes== section but have already used it twice in the ==Cast and crew== section. It should be expained on the first occurance. Rambo's Revenge (ER) 09:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff I mentioned in the season 1 list: Ref dates, worldwide coverage, general ref, awards etc. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 14:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. Everything except for the ref dates has been fixed; I'll get on that later. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 09:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How come these pages always have the episodes listed last? To me, it never made sense to have reception for a topic that you have no context for. It just seems that you should read about what happens in the season before you read about whether someone liked it. It's kind of the same principle behind why film articles don't put the plot section last Other than that, it seems to match the other recent FLs for season articles that have come out. Got my support. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support. The order of the episodes vs. prose is following the norm., although I can totally see where you're coming from. I guess this allows the prose to be more obvious/dominant, as the plot is kinda summed up in the lead. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues have been resolved; the article now meets WP:WIAFL.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Done
Not done (yet)
Sources
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from 97198
|
---|
Otherwise, looks good. Nice work :) —97198 (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Concerns have been addressed. Nice work :) —97198 (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Seems to match up comparably to the other FLs of season articles. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm my support after the criteria changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the new FL criteria, this list is still up to those standards. My Support for promotion stands.--Truco 14:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Confirming my support after changes to criteria. —97198 (talk) 01:21, 10 April 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 07:12, 11 April 2009 [6].
Paulini Curuenavuli discography
- Nominator(s): Alex Douglas (talk)
I am nominating this for featured list because I, before my username change as Hpfan9374, have significantly contributed to the list and believe it meets all attributes of the featured list criteria. The discography follows the same format as my previous discographies for past Australian Idol contestants, Ricki-Lee Coulter discography and Joel Turner discography. Please note that Paulini Curuenavuli has only charted in Australia, except for her debut single, "Angel Eyes" which also charted in New Zealand. I'm willing to address all concerns and will check this candidacy several times a day. This list has previously undergone feature list candidacy, however failed because the music video director's name(s) was not found in reliable sources. They are not on the internet, I have searched it for hours just trying to find the music video director's name(s). They are not on the liner notes to the singles or any of her subsequent releases. In the last candidacy, I contacted Paulini's management and even after they contacted Paulini directly, they were unable to provide me with the music video director's name(s). Unless, consensus has changed, a previous precedent made in the featured list candidacy of Paul Kelly discography stands that a list can become featured, if it does not contain the music video director's name(s) for up to two music videos, by using a footnote stating that the "Director name for these music videos has not been found in reliable sources." I ask you to consider, all of the above, before reviewing this discography. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Before I fully review, the lead needs to be expanded like it is in other FLs of the same subject.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a sentence that introduces the subject, Paulini. If you believe the lead still needs to be expanded, please suggest what needs to be included. I await your response. Thanks for your comments. Alex Douglas (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have since expanded the article further by acknowledging Paulini's membership with the Young Divas. If any more needs to be included or if you feel the lead needs to be expanded further, please state them and I will address them as soon as possible. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a sentence that introduces the subject, Paulini. If you believe the lead still needs to be expanded, please suggest what needs to be included. I await your response. Thanks for your comments. Alex Douglas (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- I agree that the lead should be expanded with some more general information.
- I have added a sentence that introduces the subject, Paulini. If you believe the lead still needs to be expanded, please suggest what needs to be included. I await your response. Thanks for your comments.
- I have since expanded the article further by acknowledging Paulini's membership with the Young Divas. If any more needs to be included or if you feel the lead needs to be expanded further, please state them and I will address them as soon as possible. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a sentence that introduces the subject, Paulini. If you believe the lead still needs to be expanded, please suggest what needs to be included. I await your response. Thanks for your comments.
- As of December 2008, Paulini is working on her third studio album. - Is it possible to find a more recent report?
- I have searched the internet and have already exhausted most online resources about Paulini, and could not find a more recent news article or report that references that she is working on her third studio album.
- The link to the references section in the infobox is rather odd, though I'm not sure if that's standard.
- The "References" field in the Artist Discography infobox states "yes". This is standard for artist discographies, see FLs of the same subject.
–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou very much for your comments. If you have any further concerns, please state them and I will address them as soon as possible. Alex Douglas (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Membership of Young Divas not mentioned.
- Non-notable chart positions should not be mentioned in Lead - leave for table(s).
- Replace and peaked at number thirty-four in New Zealand with and peaked into the Top 40 in New Zealand. Use a specific Australian Charts Portal ref for "Angel Eyes" number one (it covers NZ appearance).
- Replace despite peaking at number seventy-two. with or peak in the Top 50. You can use more generic Australian Charts Portal (Ref #8) to verify it did not appear.
- Disambiguate predecessor in The album failed to achieve the commercial success of its predecessor, despite peaking at number seventy-two. The predecessor could be the EP just mentioned in previous sentence. Also fix chart peak in line with previous comment. Hence, try The album failed to achieve the commercial success of her first album and did not peak in the Top 50. Ref #8 can go here too.
- Check refs:
- Ref#1: Use work=[[The Age]]|publisher=[[Fairfax Media]] inside ref.
- Ref#2: Use work=[[The Courier-Mail]]|publisher=[[News Corporation]] inside ref.
- Ref#3: Use original source at allmusic as written by Matthew Chisling. For chart peak, see note above.
- Ref#4: Add in |last=Blackman|first=Guy and change work=The Age|publisher=Fairfax Media in ref.
- Ref#5: Something weird is happening with the Sony link, I ended up at bandit.fm and had to do a search to find bandit.fm - xidol - Paulini. I couldn’t see the article you're citing: you might have to check this and use the redirected link to search for a direct connection.
- Ref#6: Chart peaks in Lead should be from ARIA. See note(s) above.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref#7: Use work=[[Fiji Times]]|publisher=[[News Coporation]] inside ref.
- Ref#8 OK.
- Ref#9 wikilink Australian Recording Industry Association here. First appearance.
- Ref#10 delink Australian Recording Industry Association here. Subsequent appearance.
- Ref#11–15 OK.
- Ref#16 I'm assuming you're using this ref for verifying the list of Australian Idols on the album not its chart position. Hence change title=Rise Up #1 to more accurate title=Cast Album released next week and change date=2003-10-20 to date=2003-10-19.
- Ref#17 OK.
- Ref#18 Tells me its directed by TWiN, don't see names Jonathan and Josh Baker. What gives?
- Only problem, not major at all. The videos were directed by TWiN, who are a video director duo whose members are Jonathan and Josh Baker. What would you suggest doing? I've changed it to TWiN now, but if you have a concern regarding that, just tell me.
- You've done well.
- Only problem, not major at all. The videos were directed by TWiN, who are a video director duo whose members are Jonathan and Josh Baker. What would you suggest doing? I've changed it to TWiN now, but if you have a concern regarding that, just tell me.
- Ref#19 See #18 above.
- Ref#20 Similar problem to #5 above.
- Ref#21 OK.
- Ref#22 Similar problem to #5 above.
- Ref#23 OK.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whew! That was fun. I'm pretty sure I've addressed all your concerns. Paulini's membership with the Young Divas has now been acknowledged. All non-notable chart positions have been removed from the lead and re-referenced and re-worded, as per your request. Changed the "predecessor" sentence to your suggested phrasing. I have edited the reference to include all of your suggestions. See my query about the directors of the "Rough Day" and "So Over You" music videos. About Sony BMG's website changes, I have changed the references to some of them, but to reference the director of the "I Believe" music video, I have added a footnote that informs the reader how to access the information, in a similiar way as some footnotes in Eminem discography. Thankyou very much for your comments as they not only help to improve this article, but many others, as it expands my WikiKnowledge. Alex Douglas (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - my issues have been resolved to meet the FL Criteria. Congratulations and best wishes on future efforts.--Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou very much for your support Shaidar cuebiyar. I greatly appreciated your comments and assistance; they will help me expand as a wikipedian. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Comment Could this not be merged back into the main article? The number of tables is short enough that merging this info would not make the main article overwhelming. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the "australian-charts.com. " and similar New Zealand charts refs, adding the website name and "Australian charts portal. " is redundant. Remove one of them.
- Agreed. I have removed the redundant "Australian charts portal."
What makes http://www.bandit.fm/xidol/paulini a reliable source?
- This website is Sony BMG's new website, it is the only online resource that references the music video director of Paulini's "I Believe" music video.
Ref 22, Sanity links to the wrong article.Dabomb87 (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, removed pop-up also. Thankyou for your comments, the list is looking better and better each day. I'll be sure to make note of your comments when I create another discography. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou very much for your support and comments, particularly in regard to sourcing. Alex Douglas (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose
|
- Weak support but you must fix...
- Music Videos doesn't tie up between infobox and list.
- The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed the number of music videos from the infobox to "5" under the Music videos field, so as to reflect the true content of the list. Thankyou very much for your support and continued comments and suggestions, I will be sure to read over your comments again before putting another discography through featured list candidacy. Alex Douglas (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments References still need a bit of work. There's a couple of "Australian charts portal"s; Allmusic is a website and shouldn't be italicised, and the date format is a mix between the Commonwealth dd mm yyyy and the ISO yyyy-mm-dd. Ideally they should be the same format as in the main body of the article. Matthewedwards : Chat 02:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the single occurence of the phrase "Australian charts portal" from the references. Allmusic is a website, however it should be placed under the "work" field of the cite web template as it is the item's larger work (the website the webpage is found on). The default format of this field is italicised, I don't believe this can be changed. If you still have a concern about this, please suggest how this template should be used when referencing the Allmusic website or raise it on the discussion page for the cite web template, as I have used this template in the same way as a multitude of other featured lists on the same subject do. I have changed formatted the entirity of the reference's dates into the Commonwealth standard, as this is the same format used in the main body of the list. I hope you are satisfied with my recent edits, in regard to addressing your concerns, if you have any further comments, suggestions, issues, problems or queries with this list please state them so I can get to them as soon as possible. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 07:28, 10 April 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 07:12, 11 April 2009 [7].
Michael Faraday Prize
Another Royal Society related FLC, seems FLable. I checked with the Royal Society about the years with no rationale, they told me that it is indeed correct that some have no rationales (the sources agree, but I just wanted to be sure). To present a conflict of interest where none exists, I am required at this point to say that I am a participant in this year's WikiCup. — neuro(talk)(review) 00:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is it possible to expand the lead a bit more?—Chris! ct 01:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give examples of things to include? We've covered everything normally covered; the reason that it is shorter than normal is that there are no massive quotes in the lead (which is precisely the thing which makes this Royal Society award so different from the others). Ironholds (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, just asking—Chris! ct 01:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give examples of things to include? We've covered everything normally covered; the reason that it is shorter than normal is that there are no massive quotes in the lead (which is precisely the thing which makes this Royal Society award so different from the others). Ironholds (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues have been resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Despite the relatively brief lead, it meets the criteria. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support remains, in spite of the new FL criteria. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Publications (newspapers, magazines and journals) should be italicized. You can do this by changingDabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]publisher=
towork=
in the citation templates.
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Weak support. I think we may have an issue with lists that have verbatim notes/criteria/whatever which include with abbreviations and techspeak and are perhaps unapproachable to a regular reader. However, the list meets the new criteria so hurrah. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the new FL criteria, this list is still up to those standards. My Support for promotion stands.--Truco 14:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, even with new FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment date and accessdates in the references should be in the same date format throughout. Matthewedwards : Chat 02:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for fixing that, sorry for not doing it myself, I've not been around much. :) — neuro(talk)(review) 08:12, 11 April 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 07:12, 11 April 2009 [8].
List of Chicago Blackhawks players
- Nominator(s): Teemu08
The bane of my Wiki-existence, this list is back at FLC for now the fourth time. Sorry if it looks a little bare-bones without pictures, but the list is already a whopping 109kb without them. The list is consistent with all of the other lists of NHL players and features every player to ever don the Hawks uniform. There's a few redlinks, but its certainly not overbearing. Teemu08 (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Weak oppose - fails WP:WIAFL 2 and possible 1. The lead is too short. See recently promoted lists for example.—Chris! ct 20:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
|
- Support—Chris! ct 19:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Matthewedwards asked me to revisit this FLC due to recent criteria change and I still think it fulfills the criteria, so I stand by my support.—Chris! ct 05:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Chris.-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 22:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lead lacks, referencing is very scarce, and the formatting of the table also lacks to not meet WP:WIAFL standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Much better than when I first saw it, the table and references check out up to standards, as does the lead. However, I would like to see the lead expanded a bit more, I just think its too short IMO.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - For an idea of how to expand the lead, one good example is Nashville Sounds all-time roster, which states what players have won important awards. This might be a good way to squeeze out a third paragraph. The lead needs references for facts not covered in the list itself. Also, I'm unsure of the reliability of Hockey Goalies.org. I've seen that site questioned at FAC before. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From WIAFA: "(a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections". Player awards are not mentioned anywhere in the subsequent text and therefore would be irrelevant in the lead. For what its worth, I plan on spinning off award winners into their own article once I'm done with this one since there's so many. Teemu08 (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, this is FLC. From Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, "It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject" (emphasis mine). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
|
- Don't separate symbols from their entries (no space between dagger and name, etc.). If you think it looks cramped, superscript the daggers.
- I tried this and it looks terrible. How about a non-breaking space instead? Teemu08 (talk)
- The issue isn't breaking; it's having a symbol next to its entry. It's just proper writing. Did you try superscripting? I've used that with a degree of success at List of Philadelphia Phillies team records and other tables. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything new on this front? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue isn't breaking; it's having a symbol next to its entry. It's just proper writing. Did you try superscripting? I've used that with a degree of success at List of Philadelphia Phillies team records and other tables. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried this and it looks terrible. How about a non-breaking space instead? Teemu08 (talk)
- Additional comment: "The franchise has had thirty-four players selected as captains"→34 per WP:MOSNUM. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/ttotdisplay.php?tid=35 a reliable source?
- The site has a bibliography which reliable sources and they have a strict policy of only accepting official documents to add stats etc. This source has been deemed reliable for many previously featured articles. -Djsasso (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good enough for me! Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise http://hockeygoalies.org/bio/nhl/chicago.html?Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments addressed. Hockeygoalies also cites their sources [15] and has been deemed reliable for other featured lists. EDIT: upon further review, I'm just going to delete it. While it was a big time-saver, the information there is redundant to the other sources. Teemu08 (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hockeygoalies is still being used as an inline citation. Also, you've mixed {{citation}} with the {{cite web/news/journal etc.}} templates; these should not be mixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good call. I've swapped it out for a source from the official website. Teemu08 (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hockeygoalies is still being used as an inline citation. Also, you've mixed {{citation}} with the {{cite web/news/journal etc.}} templates; these should not be mixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that current and former captains should be denoted as such, as it is important information to know. This renders List of Chicago Blackhawks captains unnecessary, which is in line with the stricter content forking guidelines of the new FL criteria, which is about to be instituted. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean simply by colour coding, or by the addition of an extra column? I'm still not entirely sure if the captain's list is considered content forking because of length concerns and a list of captains does have independant notability (although maybe it's just because I'm a hockey fan). I included the List of Vancouver Canucks captains in my audit because it is reasonably short and the players list is 63,602, so a merge might be realistic whereas the Blackhawks are a much older team. These sports lists are tricky ones to judge though. Unlike the musician awards list, there is at least a standard where every team has these lists and they aren't just arbitrarily split off. -- Scorpion0422 16:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Captains are players, yes? Would it be possible to add footnotes to the player list, saying "player was team captain from X season to Y season"? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. I suggest adding both the color code and footnotes to denote who are captains.—Chris! ct 17:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that the new criteria has passed, I'll merge the captains into this article. It will take a little time though, so cut me a little slack on this one. Teemu08 (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update Captains have been merged into the article. Teemu08 (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. I suggest adding both the color code and footnotes to denote who are captains.—Chris! ct 17:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Captains are players, yes? Would it be possible to add footnotes to the player list, saying "player was team captain from X season to Y season"? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would it be possible to note which players have been inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame? -- Scorpion0422 16:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments - Looks much better than when it first came here. In addition to denotations for captains and Hall of Famers, I'd like to see a couple of other things done.
Otherwise, good job getting this up to snuff. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - Would still like to see Hall of Famers denoted in some way, but I think it meets the standards as is. Nice work on such a long list. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm my support after the criteria changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the new FL criteria, this list is still up to those standards. My Support for promotion stands.--Truco 14:57, 9 April 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 07:12, 11 April 2009 [16].
List of places of worship in Crawley
- Nominator(s): Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)
This is a comprehensive list of all places of worship in Crawley, a medium-sized town and borough in Southern England. I have tried to keep the use of churches' own websites to a minimum (and in any case to verify uncontroversial info only). The three missing pictures will be taken soon! This is intended to be a precursor to a nom of a similar but much larger and more ambitious list, so all feedback will be gratefully received. Thanks, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment
Everything else looks good—Chris! ct 01:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support —Chris! ct 00:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Matthewedwards asked me to revisit this FLC due to recent criteria change and I still think it fulfills the criteria, so I stand by my support.—Chris! ct 05:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you didn't mind my moving the list; lists' names usually start "List of...". Dabomb87 (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- →No, that's fine; tomorrow I'll do the same to the other similar list I mentioned above (which had actually started life as a prose-style article before I listified it). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 00:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Good work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 19:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support definitely a good article, at this points, honestly, I'm sorry I can't suggest much to modify, as it's already pretty OK. Not necessary, but maybe wouldn't have been a bad idea, would have been a distinct column with the years of construction; but I understand this would have depleyed the notes tomuch in some cases.--Aldux (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues (includes resolved naming discussion), Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Really nice article.
Comment about name Why is it "churches and places of worship"? Is a church not a place of worship? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the latest comments; I will do another sweep through the article in ~3 hours in case I have missed any of Dabomb's points. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 09:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments -please forgive me if I mention something that has been discussed already, these are my feelings coming at the list raw.
|
WeakSupport - sorry for not getting back to you, real life has been pounding my skull lately. So, I think you've done really well to address my concerns, the only outstanding issue (which I can't oppose for, since it's not one of the criteria) is a lead image. I would be happy to see an image that isn't necessarily repeated, nor a pair etc, but perhaps just a really nice image of one of the subjects of the list. I understand that people may perhaps complain that it would give undue weight to one of the places of worship, but it would certainly make the list much much more attractive to a passing reader if there was something other than text for the first screen's worth. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- → Many thanks for your comments. Going through my pics again, I found a nice one showing a different view of St Nicholas' Church. As it is the oldest and arguably most architecturally important in the Borough, it seems like a reasonable choice, so I have uploaded and added. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 10:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All good. Great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- → Many thanks for your comments. Going through my pics again, I found a nice one showing a different view of St Nicholas' Church. As it is the oldest and arguably most architecturally important in the Borough, it seems like a reasonable choice, so I have uploaded and added. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 10:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quadell's suggestions
Resolved comments from Quadell
|
---|
|
- Support. Great list. Well done! – Quadell (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the new FL criteria, this list is still up to those standards. Still support.--Truco 14:55, 9 April 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 07:12, 11 April 2009 [17].
List of One Piece episodes (season 5)
- Notified: NocturneNoir and Rambo's Revenge
- Not notified: Dabomb87 (on vacation)
Since the last nomination, it has been copyedited. References to the ANN encyclopedia, which was recently declared non-reliable, have been replaced. Everything else was checked and re-checked, just to make sure. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. My concerns, found at my talkpage, have all been addressed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 01:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: NocturneNoir reconfirmed their support.[18] -- Goodraise (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. All sources are reliable and the summaries are easy to understand. Nice work.Tintor2 (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. As per Tintor2's comment. Extremepro (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I confirm my vote of support per the new FL criteria. See Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#New criterion discussion.Tintor2 (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the summaries need some copy-editing, which I will do tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to go through all the episode summaries, my only comments are:
- "The next three episodes are called "Shutsugeki! Zenii Kaizoku Dan" (出撃!ゼニィ海賊団?, lit. "Sortie! Zenii Pirates")", not true is it? I thought the episodes have individual names (as indicated in the table) and the 3-episode arc is called this.
- Reworded. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you use "webcitation.org" for so many references where the original page still works fine. It just seems a rather round about way of doing things.
- Webcitation.org archives on demand. Once the original pages stop working, I won't be able to archive them anymore. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 14:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing issues I previously brought up have been resolved in discussions between us. I am happy this page is reliably sourced. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 14:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved (taking into account new criteria). Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I'm copy-editing, but these are questions that I have:
Note I confess I had forgotten about this, I'll try to return tomorrow or Tuesday, so don't archive this nomination just yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to finish tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are the last issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose - this is the first time I have seen this list so my comments will be from the perspective of a prospective new reader. Apologies if I repeat something already mentioned.
|
- 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 07:12, 11 April 2009 [23].
List of awards and nominations received by Ratatouille
- Nominator(s): Diaa abdelmoneim (talk)
I am nominating this for featured list because it has fulfilled all FL criterias and is in my opinion FL quality. It has the required FL prose length and is well referenced from reliable sources. Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]
- No categories? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is this single-section article really necessary? Why not just grab the table and insert it into Ratatouille (film)#Awards and nominations? –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Split:The list has been split to List of awards and nominations received by Ratatouille. Having a list of awards in an article is usually not that good. It takes more space than the article itself and should therefore be split to a list by itself. An article should generaly have more prose than lists and a list should have more list content than prose I think. I therefore went on and split the list to a standalone list.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what CB meant was that each award should be in its own section, like the current FLC of List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E, which I also question.--₮RUCӨ 21:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should it be like List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations ? Please give an example--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did give you an example, the WALL-E list.--₮RUCӨ 21:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should it be like List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations ? Please give an example--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I don't see why it can't be at Ratatouille (film)#Awards and nominations. This list is not particularly long.
- This list is also redundant to the section in List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films). I see no reason why it cannot be there.
- The page history shows that you just recently created this list, and it is copied verbatim from List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films). It almost seems as if you were splitting and creating a new article just for the purpose of easily getting it featured. Why not work on simply doing that for the large main list?
- The list should be standardized to be similar to List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E, or else it should be merged back to the main article. Reywas92Talk 21:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explanations
- I split List of Pixar awards and nominations to List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) because of its exhaustive length. After improving List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) it seemed that the split wasn't right after all (this comes after solving an Afd). I should have just made seperate lists for each movie with it's awards. I therefore created List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E and split the contents of the section to it. After I cited everything and put in reliable sources I posted it for FLC. Truco reviewed it and most problems were solved easily. I rearranged the list to be after Awards and hope this solves the problem that is facing this FLC.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Question
- If I edit it to be after the model of List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E would it be enough reason for it to be standalone? The contents of WALL-E on List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) will be compressed and contain only prose. I think after I create lists for each film I will post it for deletion as it would be like you said redundant. The idea is that each film of pixar won enough awards to have its Standalone list like List of awards and nominations received by No Country for Old Men which is a featured list. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure, Ratatouille didn't have the success as WALL-E, and I tend to agree in a way that this could fit better in the article's section.--₮RUCӨ 22:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ratatouille was a huge success, maybe not as much as WALL-E, but certainly enough to have an awards page. The list is still incomplete. I will address it tomorrow because it's now 1:00 am. Please look into List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E so I can know what it takes for a list to become featured. I need to know what the problems are so I would fix them in the future without repeated reviews. Thank you, --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically the table format and the type of info in the lead section. Its incomplete? You shouldn't nominate an article for FLC if its incomplete.--₮RUCӨ 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is now complete. I thought it was complete when I nominated it, but when I saw all the awards that a film can receive, I found some that Ratatouille received. What do you mean with the table format? Should I make sections for the most important awards and list the rest on an "Other awards" section? And I will expand the prose, but please explain what's wrong with it.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the table had a column year, but was unexpectedly removed, so hold off on that. So for now, just the lead comment should be addressed before I can fully review.--₮RUCӨ 23:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can the lead still not be expanded? Or is that all that can be summarized in the lead?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will expand the lead and add the year column.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaa abdelmoneim (talk • contribs)
- Please also add the year as to when the awards were given to Ratatouille as seen in the WALL-E list.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will expand the lead and add the year column.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaa abdelmoneim (talk • contribs)
- Can the lead still not be expanded? Or is that all that can be summarized in the lead?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the table had a column year, but was unexpectedly removed, so hold off on that. So for now, just the lead comment should be addressed before I can fully review.--₮RUCӨ 23:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is now complete. I thought it was complete when I nominated it, but when I saw all the awards that a film can receive, I found some that Ratatouille received. What do you mean with the table format? Should I make sections for the most important awards and list the rest on an "Other awards" section? And I will expand the prose, but please explain what's wrong with it.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically the table format and the type of info in the lead section. Its incomplete? You shouldn't nominate an article for FLC if its incomplete.--₮RUCӨ 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ratatouille was a huge success, maybe not as much as WALL-E, but certainly enough to have an awards page. The list is still incomplete. I will address it tomorrow because it's now 1:00 am. Please look into List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E so I can know what it takes for a list to become featured. I need to know what the problems are so I would fix them in the future without repeated reviews. Thank you, --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) There are quite a few basic proofreading errors, such as forgetting to italicize films and simple grammar issues. In the future, please find someone to quickly look through lists before nominating for FLC.
Sources
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Reviewby Truco (talk · contribs) -- I don't know the issues on the table formatting, but from my view its fine. Meets WP:WIAFL standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
- Ratatouille was released to both critical acclaim and box office success, opening in 3,940 theaters domestically and debuting at #1 with $47 million,[1] grossing further $206,445,654 in North America and a total of $624,445,654 worldwide -- add to before $206,445,654
- It was nominated for five Academy Awards, including Original Score, Achievement in Sound Editing, Achievement in Sound Mixing, Original Screenplay and Animated Feature Film, winning the last one. -- last one should be latter
- References
Ref 10| What is IMDB verifying? Per WP:RS, its not a reliable source.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- finished all. Done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Same question I asked in the WALL-E FLC, is there a reason why the table has invisible borders? I tried it as a wikitable and I think it looks more organized and easier to read. By the way, there is an image of Brad Bird with his Oscar, why isn't it used here? -- Scorpion0422 15:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey nice catch. It's now in the list. Thanks.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think Year is an accurate header. Can you call it something else, such as "Ceremony"? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "Date of ceremony". Think this fits better.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I fixed the formatting of the page which was screwed up by the image (I uploaded a cropped version, made it smaller, and added {{-}}). Is there a reason why I am being ignored every time I ask about the table format? -- Scorpion0422 15:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought you fixed the border thing. Anyway, I don't know what you mean by invisible borders. Could you give me an example of uninvisible borders. The new formatting poses a problem because when you expand the infobox it moves the whole list down. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Current format with invisible borders
Date of ceremony | Award | Category | Recipients and nominees | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|---|
February 24, 2008 | Academy Awards[1] | Animated Feature Film | Brad Bird | Won |
Original Score | Michael Giacchino | Nominated | ||
Achievement in Sound Editing | Randy Thom & Michael Silvers | Nominated | ||
Achievement in Sound Mixing | Randy Thom, Michael Semanick & Doc Kane | Nominated | ||
Original Screenplay | Brad Bird, Jan Pinkava & Jim Capobianco | Nominated | ||
February 17, 2008 | American Cinema Editors[2] | Best Edited Feature Film – Comedy or Musical | Darren Holmes | Nominated |
February 8, 2008 | Annie Awards[3] | Best Animated Effects | Gary Bruins | Nominated |
Best Animated Effects | Jon Reisch | Nominated | ||
Best Animated Feature | Pixar Animation Studios | Won | ||
Best Character Animation in a Feature Production | Michal Makarewicz | Won | ||
Best Character Design in an Animated Feature Production | Carter Goodrich | Won | ||
Best Directing in an Animated Feature Production | Brad Bird | Won | ||
Best Music in an Animated Feature Production | Michael Giacchino | Won | ||
Best Production Design in an Animated Feature Production | Harley Jessup | Won | ||
Best Storyboarding in an Animated Feature Production | Ted Mathot | Won | ||
Best Voice Acting in an Animated Feature Production | Janeane Garofalo | Nominated | ||
Best Voice Acting in an Animated Feature Production | Ian Holm | Won | ||
Best Voice Acting in an Animated Feature Production | Patton Oswalt | Nominated | ||
Best Writing in an Animated Feature Production | Brad Bird | Won |
- Normal wikitable format
Date of ceremony | Award | Category | Recipients and nominees | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|---|
February 24, 2008 | Academy Awards[1] | Animated Feature Film | Brad Bird | Won |
Original Score | Michael Giacchino | Nominated | ||
Achievement in Sound Editing | Randy Thom & Michael Silvers | Nominated | ||
Achievement in Sound Mixing | Randy Thom, Michael Semanick & Doc Kane | Nominated | ||
Original Screenplay | Brad Bird, Jan Pinkava & Jim Capobianco | Nominated | ||
February 17, 2008 | American Cinema Editors[4] | Best Edited Feature Film – Comedy or Musical | Darren Holmes | Nominated |
February 8, 2008 | Annie Awards[3] | Best Animated Effects | Gary Bruins | Nominated |
Best Animated Effects | Jon Reisch | Nominated | ||
Best Animated Feature | Pixar Animation Studios | Won | ||
Best Character Animation in a Feature Production | Michal Makarewicz | Won | ||
Best Character Design in an Animated Feature Production | Carter Goodrich | Won | ||
Best Directing in an Animated Feature Production | Brad Bird | Won | ||
Best Music in an Animated Feature Production | Michael Giacchino | Won | ||
Best Production Design in an Animated Feature Production | Harley Jessup | Won | ||
Best Storyboarding in an Animated Feature Production | Ted Mathot | Won | ||
Best Voice Acting in an Animated Feature Production | Janeane Garofalo | Nominated | ||
Best Voice Acting in an Animated Feature Production | Ian Holm | Won | ||
Best Voice Acting in an Animated Feature Production | Patton Oswalt | Nominated | ||
Best Writing in an Animated Feature Production | Brad Bird | Won |
There you go. And I fixed the table as well. -- Scorpion0422 16:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it called invisible borders? It's not invisible in my browser, on the contrary it has thick borders. I changed it anyway. Thank you for this nice explanation--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I think I see what's going on here. I use IE and sometimes it doesn't let me see special border formats. So I could not see any borders between the rows and columns of the table. -- Scorpion0422 16:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahaa, I just checked it out on IE8. It does look awfull with the invisible borders, but it looks much better than wikitable on Firefox.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So the wikitable format doesn't look good on firefox? -- Scorpion0422 18:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks ok. I just thought having thicker borders would look better.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So the wikitable format doesn't look good on firefox? -- Scorpion0422 18:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahaa, I just checked it out on IE8. It does look awfull with the invisible borders, but it looks much better than wikitable on Firefox.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the changes to the FL criteria, I still believe this article warrants being a stand-alone list. Therefore, my support stands. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't oppose a merge, but I support this article. Reywas92Talk 13:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the new FL criteria, this list is still up to those standards. Still support--Truco 14:54, 9 April 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 07:12, 11 April 2009 [24].
List of awards and nominations received by Sheryl Crow
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk)
I am nominating this awards list for FL status because I believe it qualifies. I have created several similar awards lists that have reached FL status, so I am aware of the expectations and I hope this one can join the others. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 03:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The list is generally from the overall look FL quality but: Rock on the Net is not considered a reliable source Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_25#Rock_On_The_Net. This a lot of work I think to find the right sources for something like that.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? That's a shame. I have seen Rock on the Net used on many of the featured awards lists, and I did not have trouble using the site for the other awards lists I created. However, I appreciate the feedback
, and I will start looking for alternative references. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done. Rock on the Net is no longer used as a reference. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The References shouldn't have their own column but be at the end of the intro paragraph of each section or in any of the already available columns. Examples: List of awards and nominations received by Akon (references at the sentence before the table), List of awards and nominations received by Judy Garland (references in the year column). --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again for your feedback. Actually, I would like to get some additional feedback on this issue. I am aware of what method other articles use, but I wanted to see if this template would be accepted. For a chart with 32 nominations, I think the Ref. column allows the reader to be directed to a specific entry's source, as opposed to simply having to guess which reference at the end of the paragraph pertains to a particular entry. If other reviewers wish to see the Refs at the end of the paragraph, I can certainly fix that ASAP. I just thought it made the article look more organized, and it was easier for the reader.--Another Believer (Talk) 22:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Before I review, I would like to say that I agree with this new format because having like 32 refs at the end of a paragraph is just overkill.--₮RUCӨ 02:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Unbelievable but I found no problems that prevents it from meeting WP:WIAFL.--₮RUCӨ 02:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is/Are there any WikiProject(s) that this list could go under? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. WikiProject Country Music seems to fit best. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think this list is more justified than most of the current awards list FLs, but I think it might not hurt to hold off on promoting this one until after the current criteria dispute is resolved. -- Scorpion0422 15:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the changes to the FL criteria, I still believe this article warrants being a stand-alone list. Therefore, my support stands. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the new FL criteria, this list is still up to those standards. Still support--Truco 14:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the new FL criteria, this list is up to those standards. I support.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:23, 10 April 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 07:12, 11 April 2009 [25].
List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E
- Nominator(s): Diaa abdelmoneim (talk)
I am nominating this for featured list because WALL-E is a great movie with a multitude of Awards that deserves a great page. The list was split from a longer List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) list and was tweaked to conform to the FL criterias. This is my first FL nomination and I hope for it to be a success. Any comments or criticism are encouraged and I'm awaiting your suggestions. Concerning the right to post the nomination: I am the biggest contributor to the original list it was split from and the list before that and have therefore the right to post the nomination. Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues found in review are now resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 14:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I moved this page whilst standardising page names Category:Lists of awards by award winner, and more specifically Category:Lists of awards by film. I wasn't aware this was an FLC at the time, but I have moved this page so the article talk page finds it, and changed the header of this and updated the transclusion at FLC. I'm not sure if this is the right procedure but it seems to all work. Someone might want to check it though. Sorry if I caused any inconvenience. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will change to be like List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations.
SupportAfter a lot of improvements [26] the list is undoubtedly of FL quality. Please tell me any suggestions cause if this gets FL I will bring at least 6 more FLs till the end of the month. I just need to know how much is missing for an FL and asses the fixes needed to bring a list to FL. Thank you so much for the previous review and I'm awaiting your next review.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've stricken this support which was added by a different user. Supports from the nominator are not necessary. Matthewedwards : Chat 22:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments You need to link to List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films), and the border between cells needs to be thicker. I can hardly see it. Reywas92Talk 21:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done as requested. I theckened the lines between Awards. Hope that's what you meant.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support this list. Reywas92Talk 13:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Despite the changes to the FL criteria, I still believe this article warrants being a stand-alone list. Therefore, my support stands. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
*"grossing $23.1 million on its opening day, and $63 million during its opening weekend in 3,992 theaters, ranking #1 at the box office." Make this a separate sentence "The film grossed $23.1 million...
Sources
Tomatoes should not be italicized.
|
Note: I've stricken this support which was added by a different user. Supports from the nominator are not necessary. Matthewedwards : Chat 22:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my own support. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. Matthewedwards : Chat 22:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Is it possible to make this a sortable list? I was confused about the ordering (I thought it was chronological at first), because most lists are organized by the first column. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure it's possible. It has to have no rowspans which would ruin its visual style because sortable lists only supports lists with no rowspans. If there was a script to move columns? It would help a lot so I can move the columns next to the awards column.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you collapse the resolved comments? I don't see anything more that should be changed.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comments
- Comment- In the nominations table, it counts 25 total nominations, however, the reader would instantly think that the wins are included (because winning also means it was nominated!). I think the red square should include the 25 lost nominations and the 31 won. Raaggio 22:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Unresolved? Raaggio 13:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done this. Matthewedwards : Chat 06:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment -- Why was the year column removed from the table?--₮RUCӨ 23:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where would it be? It can't be the first column because the table isn't arranged after year but after award. Should I put it in the middle or where and should I put the exact date of the award?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Somewhere because its awkward not telling the reader when the film gain any of the awards. It also doesn't matter if it is the first column, it just shows which year the award was given.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done (This was a lot of work)--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, sorry for that inconvenience, but it benefits the reader of the article.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done (This was a lot of work)--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Somewhere because its awkward not telling the reader when the film gain any of the awards. It also doesn't matter if it is the first column, it just shows which year the award was given.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where would it be? It can't be the first column because the table isn't arranged after year but after award. Should I put it in the middle or where and should I put the exact date of the award?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What makes the Central Ohio Film Critics Association and British Academy Children's Awards notable enough for inclusion. I think awards should only be included if that award or the corresponding guild/critics association qualify for a wikipedia page. I know comprehensiveness is desired, but there are a lot of very minor awards given out and why should they be noted above others? -- Scorpion0422 15:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The British Academy Children's Awards was meant to show its reception among children. It's under the arm of the British Academy of Film and Television Arts and was started in 1969. You can see the section in th British Academy of Film and Television Arts article which explains its notability. The Central Ohio awards has pages of its ceremonies on Wikipedia but not about the association itself. You can see the link on the date category. When I improved the list I was merely aiming at including the most awards mentioned in Wikipedia. It was meant to be as comprehensive as possible. If there was some objections on an award or some awards missing I would remove or add them accordingly. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Due to the current Featured List criteria dispute, I'm hesitant to promote any awards lists. I believe this one is more justified by many of the current FLs, but I think a case for merger could be made. As such, I will hold off on closing it until we decide what to do. This is the same for the Ratatouille list. -- Scorpion0422 16:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a concern of this FLC? You aren't proposing merging the two lists to List of Pixar awards and nominations along with List of Pixar awards and nominations (short films) and List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films).--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It has nothing to do with this FLC, I just thought that I should avoid promoting awards lists and other similar lists until we figure out what is going on. -- Scorpion0422 18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a concern of this FLC? You aren't proposing merging the two lists to List of Pixar awards and nominations along with List of Pixar awards and nominations (short films) and List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films).--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I uploaded an image for the list. I got the image from flickr after "negotiations" with Victor Navone. Hope it boosts a little and complies with the new guideline. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This list still meets the new criteria passed in April 2009. Still support--Truco 14:51, 9 April 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 07:12, 11 April 2009 [27].
List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria -- Tinu Cherian - 05:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there no mergers to speak of? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There were no mergers as of now , known -- Tinu Cherian - 01:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a divestiture, though, which is something that belongs under a "mergers and acquisitions" list. This was the only one that I could find. Gary King (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Although this list does not list mergers, the lead can be substantially expanded to tell more about the history of the company and more information about the merges, as it is in the List of mergers and acquisitions by Adobe Systems FL.--₮RUCӨ 04:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only divestitue known is already added at List_of_acquisitions_by_Juniper_Networks#Other_deals , not sure whether it can be called as a 'merger'. Should more to the history be added to lead section of this list or it is better to remain at Juniper Networks main article ? ( I am willing to add it still..) One reference model to this is list is another FL article List of acquisitions by Cisco Systems.-- Tinu Cherian - 10:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that was passed almost a year ago, which is when the criteria wasn't as strict. Right now, the lead in this article (and the other) one really doesn't say much, it needs more of a summary of its acquisitions. Not just 3 of them.--₮RUCӨ 15:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Roger that ! I will work on it -- Tinu Cherian - 04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about now ? -- Tinu Cherian - 05:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any other suggestions ? -- Tinu Cherian - 02:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about now ? -- Tinu Cherian - 05:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Roger that ! I will work on it -- Tinu Cherian - 04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that was passed almost a year ago, which is when the criteria wasn't as strict. Right now, the lead in this article (and the other) one really doesn't say much, it needs more of a summary of its acquisitions. Not just 3 of them.--₮RUCӨ 15:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
--₮RUCӨ 02:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--₮RUCӨ 20:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support-- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Great work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was a bit skeptical about this against 3b, but it seems fine. Still support.--Truco 14:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Sources
Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Juniper Networks contains a similar (albeit unformatted) list, so I'm wondering why the table can't just be re-added to that one. I'm bringing this up because there is a discussion at WT:WIAFL about changing the criteria so that unnecessary splits can't become FLs. I don't want to promote any lists that could end up at FLRC in a few months. (I'll leave the closing of this one to Matthewedwards though). -- Scorpion0422 21:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I may disagree to this, as much of the content to the aquisitions section of Juniper Networks was added by me and later I decided to make a clean list after seeing FLs in Category:Lists of corporate acquisitions. -- Tinu Cherian - 03:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because other pages were split, it doesn't mean this one needs to be. -- Scorpion0422 15:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the valuable suggestions, comments and support. I hope most of the suggestions are taken care. -- Tinu Cherian - 04:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the changes to the FL criteria, I still believe this article warrants being a stand-alone list. Therefore, my support stands. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:14, 5 April 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 22:19, 4 April 2009 [30].
List of United States Military Academy alumni (astronauts)
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the criteria especially since I used a current FL (List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Astronauts)) as a template. Just like the Naval Academy lists, this list is one of many sublists that will eventually be part of a Featured Topic. I am appreciative of Rlevse's assistance with this list and taking care of the majority of the issues with the format which were identified in the FLC for the Naval Academy astronauts. -MBK004 16:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bencherlite
|
---|
Lots of nit-picking, but couldn't see anything fundamentally wrong. BencherliteTalk 16:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Previous oppose is striken; support since the remaining matters that were outstanding from my comments are, on reflection, too trivial to deny this list promotion and are matters on which opinion could legitimately differ without either side being "wrong" (I hope). I take account also of my isolation on these matters after thorough reviews by more experienced eyes. Good work, MBK004 and Rlevse, and apologies if the tone of my contribution to this discussion was not always what it should have been. BencherliteTalk 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Oppose from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
Hope the comments help. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previously promoted USNA lists have been moved to de-capitalize the common nouns. Now, there is consistency. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, good work on resolving the issues I brought up. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spell out USMA and NASA at least once in the references (I would prefer every instance, but it's not a dealbreaker)Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Again, butting in, one of my resolved suggestions was that the mixture of "publisher=Office of Admissions [no mention of USMA]", "publisher=Office of the Dean, USMA" or "publisher=United States Military Academy" should be made consistent (I expressed no preference as to which); they were changed to "USMA", which was fine by me. BencherliteTalk 23:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad that they were made consistent, but I would like the abbreviations spelled out in the publishers on the first appearance at least. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, butting in, one of my resolved suggestions was that the mixture of "publisher=Office of Admissions [no mention of USMA]", "publisher=Office of the Dean, USMA" or "publisher=United States Military Academy" should be made consistent (I expressed no preference as to which); they were changed to "USMA", which was fine by me. BencherliteTalk 23:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:54, 1 April 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 22:19, 4 April 2009 [31].
1998 Winter Olympics medal table
- Nominator(s): Giants2008 (17-14)
Nobody has nominated an Olympic medal table in a while, so I decided to give it a shot. It has fundamental similarities to other similar FLs, but I've made changes to the introduction, among other things. This has been through one of the shortest peer reviews in FLC history, which I cut short when Scorpion0422 indicated that he thought it was ready. As always, I appreciate the community's feedback and will be around to respond to it. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nothing like seeing a page with one of my images end up at FLC..... Just sayin'. -- Scorpion0422 01:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments — I copyedited the lead a bit, so the prose quality seems sufficient. I do have some other concerns/questions, however:
- A TOC to balance out the page would be nice, but this isn't a big deal.
- I can't figure out how to force a TOC properly. Can anyone help with this?
- [32]. I didn't realize there were only two sections, though, so I'm not sure if it's justified. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't figure out how to force a TOC properly. Can anyone help with this?
- The first paragraph in the Medal table section seems rather redundant, as the chart itself is fairly self-explanatory.
- There are some who think that the table should be sorted by total number of medals won. I borrowed this format from 2008 Summer Olympics medal table, where this was repeatedly debated. I'm sure the intention behind that paragraph is to avoid possible disputes.
- Alright, fair enough. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some who think that the table should be sorted by total number of medals won. I borrowed this format from 2008 Summer Olympics medal table, where this was repeatedly debated. I'm sure the intention behind that paragraph is to avoid possible disputes.
- Is that reference really needed in the caption for File:Nagano 1998-Russia vs Czech Republic.jpg?
- The reference was for a photo that was replaced; the new one didn't need it, and I removed it.
- I prefer 2-column reflists for articles with more than 10 citations, but this is a matter of personal opinion.
- The article now has a two-column reflist.
–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing it so quickly. Let me know if you have any advice on the first two comments. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, now that my concerns have been addressed. Nice work. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- I think the parentheses in the first sentence should be removed.
- I turned them into commas.
- The Athletes from 24 countries... sentence is too long and sounds a little awkward to me.
- I made it a little shorter and eliminated the semi-colon to improve readability.
- It says that a star(*) denotes a host nation, but I don't see it.
- That's because I forgot to include it until now. :-)
- Sports Reference LLC is the company that owns the Sports-Reference website, isn't it? So, Sports-Reference should be the publisher and Sports Reference LLC the work.
- This one is going to be controversial among many FLC participants, since they have pushed for this system. If I had my way, I wouldn't use a work column at all there, as I don't consider it vital to note the difference between Sports-Reference and Sports Reference LLC. That's what reviewers want, however, so I've gone along with it until now. I'd like to see what others think about this one.
- If the information is sourced from the actual sports-reference.com website, then having work and publisher is unneeded (Sports Reference LLC will suffice). However, if it comes from a subpage (baseball-reference.com, pro-football-reference.com, etc.), then both are necessary. I recently had a discussion with Truco about this on the FLC for Silver Slugger Award regarding Major League Baseball's website; you can read his capped comments there for more info. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After some pondering, I changed it to just give Sports Reference LLC. Since the site is just sports-reference.com, I really don't think anything else is necessary, though I am open to debate on the issue. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the information is sourced from the actual sports-reference.com website, then having work and publisher is unneeded (Sports Reference LLC will suffice). However, if it comes from a subpage (baseball-reference.com, pro-football-reference.com, etc.), then both are necessary. I recently had a discussion with Truco about this on the FLC for Silver Slugger Award regarding Major League Baseball's website; you can read his capped comments there for more info. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This one is going to be controversial among many FLC participants, since they have pushed for this system. If I had my way, I wouldn't use a work column at all there, as I don't consider it vital to note the difference between Sports-Reference and Sports Reference LLC. That's what reviewers want, however, so I've gone along with it until now. I'd like to see what others think about this one.
- Since for some refs The Washington Post is the publisher, why is it in italics?
- Because it's a printed publication, and printed publications should always be in italics. FAC reviewing has ingrained that in me.
- I think the parentheses in the first sentence should be removed.
--Crzycheetah 02:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm repeating myself, but thanks for the quick review. I'm interested in the Sports-Reference issue since that has always bugged me a bit. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The publisher Sports Reference LLC is reliable, as it is used in many other sport-related FLCs.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was talking about formatting, not reliability. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see. According to the site, the name of the subsite is "Olympics at SR [Sports Reference]" and the publisher is Sports Reference LLC.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was talking about formatting, not reliability. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The publisher Sports Reference LLC is reliable, as it is used in many other sport-related FLCs.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is "To sort this table by nation, total medal count, or any other column, click on the icon next to the column title." necessary?—Chris! ct 02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I'm assuming this was placed there because of debates on how to order medal lists. I decided to remove the note because anyone familiar with Wikipedia lists should know what the sort tab does. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the references, instead of usingDabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]work=Associated Press
, useagency=Associated Press
.- This must be a new feature of the template, and it makes sense considering how many AP stories are used as references. The three AP stories here now use the template. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:24, 30 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 Scorpion0422 22:19, 4 April 2009 [33].
List of Silver Slugger Award winners at second base
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all of the FL criteria, etc. Article 3 in the forthcoming featured topic (see bottom of this page) on Silver Sluggers. All concerns to be addressed by me. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Looks quite nice and very similar to the first basemen list. I only have a few complaints:
- Comma after "who played his entire career with the Houston Astros".
- The year Cano set the batting average record is wrong in the lead.
- "who won the award in the inaugural 1980 season". Move "inaugural" to before "award" so it doesn't sound like 1980 was the first MLB season.
- Cheers, I was looking for a better way to say that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be ready to support once these are done. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With these done, I support. Wish every review was that quick. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- All previous issues resolved; article now meets WP:WIAFL.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:36, 30 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 BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards
- 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 22:19, 4 April 2009 [34].
List of career achievements by Kobe Bryant
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it fulfills the criteria.—Chris! ct 21:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help without nomination. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 00:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Good work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments - I like the idea behind the improvements to this list. The career achievements lists are generally in rough shape and could use a good model. Here are my thoughts:
|
Support - Nice to see a new kind of list at FLC. For an original list, it's quite good and I think it meets the standards. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Overall, really nice job. Just a few things that need addressing.
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In the "career statistics" table, would it be possible to note the years in which he led the league in a certain statistic? For example, if he led the league in free throw% in 06/07, could that cell be bolded or something? -- Scorpion0422 17:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is possible. I will add a symbol and color.—Chris! ct 03:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can only do it for point per game since it is the only one that appears in the career statistics table.—Chris! ct 03:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is possible. I will add a symbol and color.—Chris! ct 03:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments - very good. A few things...
Give me a shout... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 1 April 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 22:19, 4 April 2009 [35].
List of TNA X Division Champions
- Nominator(s): WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!)
I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel it meets the criteria. Been wanting to make it an FL for a while now since it is the only current TNA Championship that has enough champions to become an FL. It is reliably sourced to best I can. I can't find reliable sources for the weekly PPVs at the moment but if WrestleView.com will allow me to get to their results, which for some reason they've made off limits while they re-design their site, I'll add those into the list. I'll answer any questions rather quickly to speed this along; not a fan of long reviews. This is my first FL nomination just to state.WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 03:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to state that there is a problem going on right now with the title. The character Suicide, is rumored to be played by two people: Christopher Daniels and Frankie Kazarian. Reports state that Kazarian is injured and being replaced by Daniels. Though Suicide won the title this week, and we don't know who was in the match, since there is no reliable that states that Daniels was Suicide that night. The reports he took over the gimmick are around two months old. So, a few ips might edit the article based on rumors that he was the character on Sunday. If it is wanted I'll get the article protected.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 08:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- This list has come a long way since I first review, as you can see ;). I can't support yet because I am very used to this list now and I also expand these types of lists, so by supporting first I feel it maybe COI. I will support once another reviewer gives it an okay, I hope you understand.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah okay, it is cool. Also, it being referred to as the TNA X Title since 2004, it covered by solie.org. Just thought to make sure that was covered.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 01:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
"prior to "-->before
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Question - Why can't this be merged into TNA X Division Championship? That article is very small at the present time, and I don't see why a split is needed. A combined article would still be a good FLC candidate, if that's a concern. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - Looks much better now. One more thing I wanted to ask about was the initials of A. J. Styles' first name. The usual naming convention on Wikipedia is to have a space between the two initials, and I was wondering if Styles' name should be like that throughout the list. Not something I'd hold up support over, though. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure, I usually just write it the way the article title has it spelt. Never took that into consideration.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 21:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never seen his name spelled with an extra space. I've only seen it with the standard English of no spaces between initials or no periods (i.e. his name is always either "A.J. Styles" or "AJ Styles", never "A. J. Styles"). TJ Spyke 22:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just found WP:NAMEPEOPLE, which states that while most articles use spaces between initials, there is no consensus either way. In other words, don't worry about it too much. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man
|
---|
|
- Support. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnotes are out of order, they go D, C, A, B?? MPJ-DK (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--WillC 04:21, 4 April 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 22:19, 4 April 2009 [36].
List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Medal of Honor)
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 were awarded the Medal of Honor. It is hopefully the last in a set of five lists of USNA alumni. All images are free licensed. All entries have refs. I'm in WikiCup — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The lead looks fine, but I was going through the notes and I noticed many errors (some I have fixed) but I recommend seeking a copyedit of the notes. In addition, are some of these notes actual quotes from the sources because using "courage" without quotes is WP:POV, if it is a quote, please use quotation marks.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed "courage and leadership" to actions, will ask Julian to ce. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read through the list, and admitted I could find nothing to change. Could you please provide examples of said errors? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm guessing it was done? Or I must be smoking. Support -- meets WP:WIAFL standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter seems more likely. ;) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm guessing it was done? Or I must be smoking. Support -- meets WP:WIAFL standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good—Chris! ct 23:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Meets the criteria as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) After seeing the above comments, I was afraid that I would not find anything ;)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved image issues |
---|
Dabomb87 asked me to do an image review on this Firstly a note about the images from http://www.history.navy.mil. Images from that site are PD if the image can be verified as being from there. Currently many of these images have a dead source pointing directly to the (no longer existing) "image". However by searching the site many (all?) of these can probably be verified:
For example:
There were a few which needed very minor fixes which I took care of. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 15:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Images look good. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 11:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General rant directed at no one: This is directed at a general situation, not at any person. I've also seen this trend at other Featured Candidate pages. Why do we have to reverify an image's PD status because of something like links changing? If it was PD, it's always PD. It does not lose that legal status because some website dropped off the net and User:JoeBlow can't find it anymore. But as it is, there is a trend to say "I can't find it, so you have to prove it even though we all know it was PD". Here I'm talking cases like it was sourced to a known PD site or even just trusting the uploader didn't invent a URL, but no, we say "the guy could have been faking a URL, so prove it again, to me". This is all unnecessary and avoidable by using a method that is used on Commons where trusted users verify a flickr image's status for Commons; it's called Flickr review. We could have "PD review", where trusted users verify a PD status and tag the image with a template. That way, two years later when User:JaneBlow posts a FLC/FAC, etc, you, me, and others don't waste our time reinventing the wheel. Not to mention a known PD image can't be used anymore because a URL changed or whatever. Do we do this with images from books? Not yet, but we probably will...Do we say "I don't own that book and it's not in my local library so you have to prove it's PD from 1900 by sending me the book", nope we don't yet, but that's basically what we do with images. Obviously, I'm not talking cases such as when the uploader didn't source the image at all. Food for thought. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PLEASE CENTRALIZE DISCUSSION HERE ON COMMONS: commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#PD_review — Rlevse • Talk • 01:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments another good MOH list.
|
- Support, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 2 April 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 22:19, 4 April 2009 [37].
List of former championships in World Wrestling Entertainment
I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel that it meets the FL criteria, and in hopes of a future FT of the former titles. Yes I know the lead is a tag long, but that hasn't been a problem at FLC before. This is the first of this type of list at FLC, so I don't know what to expect. Happy reviewing ;)--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The paragraphs are not consistent, try to merge into two dense, or three that are proportional. While editing, hide temporarily the image (using
<!-- Comment -->
) and see how the paragraphs are divided. Cannibaloki 03:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- That's because they all are about different topics. The first is mostly about the early history of the company and the first titles. The second is about the titles that were lent to other promotions, while the last is about titles that were retired as a result of the acquisition of WCW. Which is why they maybe disproportional.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Sources
(outdent) A general reference would be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With the addition of the wrestling title book you actually also have a source to say that this is as accurate a list as you're going to get, they did a LOT of research and if they don't mentione another WWWF/WWF/WWE title then there isn't one or it was too short lived to even matter. A problem a lot of "list of fomer" lists suffer from, excellent. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I still think this could be merged with List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment to create a "List of World Wrestling Entertainment championships", but I guess the PW project disagrees with me. -- Scorpion0422 16:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the article sizes of each, I disagree.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 17:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments -
|
Support - Looks like it meets FL standards after the changes. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Weak support - meets the criteria, still not keen on the acronym farm for a lead, but unavoidable I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 1 April 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 22:19, 4 April 2009 [38].
Clint Eastwood filmography
- Nominator(s): Nehrams2020 (talk)
After working on this list, I now believe that it meets the FL criteria. There currently are not that many actor filmographies that are featured and after recently getting Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography passed, I moved on to Clint Eastwood. 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) 23:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. This is much better than the Arnold list that came here the first time.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 03:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I reviewed this list pre-FLC, so these are minor things.
In the lead, "Gran Torino" links to a car article.
- I thought I had already fixed that, but it's taken care of now. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"and other related media." Not sure what "related" would mean here.
- Removed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"while excluding appearances as himself on talk shows, interview shows, ceremonies, and other related media."-->and excludes appearances as himself...Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed as suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments I would like to add:
- The introduction states: "After beginning his acting career primarily with small uncredited film roles and television appearances, his career has spanned more than 50 years in both television and film productions. He has appeared in over sixty films, including Hang 'Em High, Escape from Alcatraz, The Bridges of Madison County, and Gran Torino. Eastwood also appeared in several television series, most notably Rawhide." I think this would be better if this introduction was reworded so that Rawhide is mentioned before the film titles are, thereby putting the listings in a chronological order. It should also be stated that Eastwood starred in this series for its entire eight-season run and that it provided him with the foundation for his later film success.
- I rearranged the sentences and expanded on his role in Rawhide. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I remember correctly, Eastwood made an unbilled cameo appearance in the film Casper (1995). If he did, then this should be added to the filmography. Eastwood also directed episodes of the TV series Amazing Stories (1985) and The Blues (2003). These should be added to the TV section. Perhaps two "Yes" columns could be added for actor and director in this section.
- I added the several roles. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might consider hyperlinking the years for the filmography and TV listings. Examples: {{fy|2009}} or [[2009 in film|2009]]; {{ytv|2009}} or [[2009 in television|2009]].
- Done. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The notes section of the filmography could include information about awards that Eastwood won or was nominated for. Just having "uncredited" for a handful of films seems barren and makes this column seem rather superfluous. I also don't think it's necessary to have "—" for the cells with no information.
- Filmographies don't cover the awards. Usually there is a separate list for awards/nominations won by an actor/director. That will likely be created down the line. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope these suggestions make your day help. Jimknut (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for you suggestions, I appreciate it. According to the Man with No Name: "You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with FLCs and those who review. You review." --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second look:
- "His role in the eight-season series led to his leading role in A Fistful of Dollars and its two sequels." — The other two films are not really sequels. Perhaps it would be better to state "... leading roles in A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly."
- Reworded. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Eastwood started directing in the 1970s, and in the 1980s, began producing many of his films." — I think it would be better if you state the exact year and film that he made his directing and producing debuts.
- Specified, please check to see if it reads well. I must have rewritten that sentence ten times. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the filmography where you have category headings change "Music" so that it's hyperlinked: [[Film Score|Music]]
- Done. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the television section all the green "yes" listings should be centered so that they're uniformed with the filmography section.
- Fixed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can, list the character he played in the episode of The West Point Story (provided you can find the information, which might be tough considering that's its not currently a well-known series).
- I've looked for this on numerous sites already and haven't been able to find anything. I'm sure if the show is ever put on DVD we'll eventually get the answer. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although perhaps not necessary, you might want to list the titles of the TV episodes that he appeared in or directed, rather than just the series title (with the obvious exception of the Rawhide episodes — a listing for them warrants an entire page of its on). Possibly you can do it this way:
Year | Title | Credited as | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Series | Episode | Director | Actor | Role |
- Changed as suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For Rawhide you could put "Series regular — 217 episodes", or something similar. You may also consider this link: [http://epguides.com/Rawhide/ List of ''Rawhide'' episodes]
- I just stuck with the 217 episodes. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this helps. Jimknut (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Random musing The one set of columns is named "credited as", but some rows also say "uncredited". Isn't that a contradiction?
- It still lists his roles in the films, and although they seem to contradict, I can't think of a better way to list it. I adjusted the column so it doesn't include credited as for the role. Instead of "credited as" should it be "involved as"? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Gene Kelly filmography page uses "Functioned as", would that work here? -- Scorpion0422 02:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds better, changed as suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Gene Kelly filmography page uses "Functioned as", would that work here? -- Scorpion0422 02:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be possible to add a table that has his top 10 highest grossing films or even just mention his highest grossing films as an actor and director in the lead?
- In previous FLCs about filmographies, it was discouraged to include highest grossing films as the box office may be the result of other factors not necessarily the actor's role in the film. The citation about his total box office can be visited by the readers to learn more about his top-grossing films. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You should remove "Academy Award-winning " from the opening sentence. Generally, we're supposed to avoid such phrases due to POV concerns.
- Removed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of the Oscars, would it be possible to note which films he received Oscars and nominations for (or any other major award)? -- Scorpion0422 16:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Filmographies are not supposed to cover awards, in the future, an awards and nominations page for Eastwood will likely be created. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but could you at least note how many of the awards he's won somewhere in the lead? -- Scorpion0422 02:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I mentioned in general some of the types of awards he had won. I'm going to try and develop a list over the next few days so that I can perhaps mention how many. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but could you at least note how many of the awards he's won somewhere in the lead? -- Scorpion0422 02:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "...film ... and television... " + "...television and film..." in one sentence reads poorly.
- Reduced it to mention that it has spanned 50 years, cutting out the television and film. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to be a predominance of repetition, perhaps it's unavoidable but, for instance, in four sentences we have "appear" (or derivatives) three times.
- Reworded some of the sentences to limit its use, please take a look. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- " Eastwood's started directing in 1971..." presumably a hangover from a previous way of expressing his debut?
- Could you clarify on this? Not too sure what you're asking. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not grammatically correct. So perhaps you could say "Eastwood started..." or "Eastwood's directorial debut..." - you choose... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I can't believe I missed that. I didn't notice the Eastwod's. I changed it to Eastwood started. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not grammatically correct. So perhaps you could say "Eastwood started..." or "Eastwood's directorial debut..." - you choose... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you clarify on this? Not too sure what you're asking. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Last sentence first para ("appears" again) is out of place - we've moved on from his acting career at this point of the lead.
- Fixed as mentioned above. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason why the roles you've stated as "notable" are more "notable" than any of the other roles? Or is it just your opinion?
- I just mentioned some of the roles in his filmography (had seen this in other filmographies). The majority of those were well-received by critics are performed well at the box office. Do you think that they should be removed? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just nervous about your choice of what of Clint's back catalogue is "notable". That's all. It's borderline WP:OR. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just chose some of the roles not already mentioned in the lead already. I can add/remove some or all if you think there is a better alternative. Or I could just remove notable? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just nervous about your choice of what of Clint's back catalogue is "notable". That's all. It's borderline WP:OR. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just mentioned some of the roles in his filmography (had seen this in other filmographies). The majority of those were well-received by critics are performed well at the box office. Do you think that they should be removed? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rawhide needs an en-dash, not a hyphen for its separator.
- Done. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 1 as BBC News twice. Why?
- The first occurrence was as the author (since I don't see a single author listed) and the second was for publisher. I removed the first occurrence. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am not a fan of the green-shaded cells at all. Readers can discern the "Yes" without the need for color. Also, I am not sure about the "year in film" links. In an individual film article, linking to that film's release year is relevant. This is a filmography where these links are less useful; they feel too one-step-removed from the topic to be relevant here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This FLC has been hilarious. When I change one thing, another editor wants to see it done differently. I think you guys are messing with my mind! :) I've removed the year in film. For the green boxes, I did a short study (through e-mails/phone calls/standing outside of a grocery store with a clipboard), and I think Clint Eastwood fans enjoy reading more when they see green yeses. No (indicating my sarcasm), I had used the green-shaded cells to agree with the previous FLs that use it (such as Spike Lee filmography). I know we had that discussion a few months back about the green/red for awards/nominations but I wasn't sure if we were speaking for filmographies. I'll change it if there is consensus to do so, as all of the above editors haven't disagreed with it. I don't care too much either way, but I would probably recommend that WP:FILMS determine the best way to handle these types of tables so we can revise previous FLs and future nominations. Thanks for taking a look, I appreciate it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a problem with the green since there is accompanying text. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabomb87, what is the accompanying text for the green-shaded cells? If a cell says "Yes", then does color need to be injected? Nehrams2020, I was reflecting on this layout, and I was wondering why "Yes" cells were being used at all. When I first came to the article, I scrolled down through the list, but I had to go back up a couple of times to identify which columns were which. I imagine that this is grounded partially in precedent, but would it not be easier to identify the extent of his involvement in one cell beside each title? For example, "Actor" for Escape from Alcatraz, and "Director, producer, actor, and musical contribution" for Gran Torino. ("Musical contribution" can be something else, obviously.) It may use less of the table, but readers will identify his involvement with each film immediately. Just food for thought until we have a broader discussion about filmographies. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you're saying, but I think as it is currently labeled is the best method. I think it would be redundant to keep mentioning each role for each film especially since he contributes in so many capacities. Would it be easier to read by also adding the same role heading to the bottom of the table (or halfway through) as well? I didn't have any problems with the headings, but then again, I added them so that may be why. In my opinion, this format works, and since the table isn't especially long, any scrolling wouldn't be too much of an issue. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabomb87, what is the accompanying text for the green-shaded cells? If a cell says "Yes", then does color need to be injected? Nehrams2020, I was reflecting on this layout, and I was wondering why "Yes" cells were being used at all. When I first came to the article, I scrolled down through the list, but I had to go back up a couple of times to identify which columns were which. I imagine that this is grounded partially in precedent, but would it not be easier to identify the extent of his involvement in one cell beside each title? For example, "Actor" for Escape from Alcatraz, and "Director, producer, actor, and musical contribution" for Gran Torino. ("Musical contribution" can be something else, obviously.) It may use less of the table, but readers will identify his involvement with each film immediately. Just food for thought until we have a broader discussion about filmographies. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a problem with the green since there is accompanying text. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:41, 2 April 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 22:19, 4 April 2009 [39].
Davy Medal
The latest in the series of Royal Society medals at FLC, seems FLable. — neuro(talk) 01:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to mention, I am in the WikiCup. — neuro(talk) 20:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose due to the almost total lack of prose. Don't drag my good FL name into the dust with you, dammit! :P. Ironholds (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose-- Due to the lack of prose, the formatting from a glance looks fine, but the lead lacks.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of my comments are the same as pointed out by Dabomb below, except the following
- The medal has been repeatedly awarded to multiple individuals in the same year; in 1877 it was awarded to Robert Wilhelm Bunsen and Gustav Robert Kirchhoff "for their researches & discoveries in spectrum analysis",[3] in 1882 to Dmitri Mendeleev and Julius Lothar Meyer "For their discovery of the periodic relations of the atomic weights",[3] in 1883 to Marcellin Berthelot and Julius Thomsen "For their researches in thermo-chemistry",[3] in 1893 to Jacobus Henricus van 't Hoff and Joseph Achille Le Bel "In recognition of their introduction of the theory of asymmetric carbon, and its use in explaining the constitution of optically active carbon compounds",[3] in 1903 to Pierre Curie and Marie Curie "For their researches on radium"[4] and in 1963 to John Cornforth and George Joseph Popjak "In recognition of their distinguished joint work on the elucidation of the biosynthetic pathway to polyisoprenoids and steroids". -- the semi colon should be a colon
- The lead needs to summarize the list more, as in who was the first recipient, the most recent, and how many overall, etc.
- It does: "*The medal was first awarded in 1877 to Robert Wilhelm Bunsen and Gustav Robert Kirchhoff "for their researches & discoveries in spectrum analysis",[1] and has since been awarded 131 times.[1] .... The medal was most recently awarded to James Fraser Stoddart "For his contributions in molecular technology".[1]" Ironholds (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, my bad. I must have not paid attention.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The name column should not be sortable because some cells have more than one entry, and when sorted, it isn't representative of everything sorted.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All points addressed. Ironholds (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is the name column all squeezed in? The rationale column shouldn't need all that space.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Try now?
Oppose Can't accept such a short lead—Chris! ct 04:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Can I ask that this is put on hold whilst I get Ironholds to write a lead? He wrote all of the other ones and did a really good job, but it seems that whilst I thought that I had done all right I in fact did not. — neuro(talk) 06:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Try now; prose added. Ironholds (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I ask that this is put on hold whilst I get Ironholds to write a lead? He wrote all of the other ones and did a really good job, but it seems that whilst I thought that I had done all right I in fact did not. — neuro(talk) 06:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—Chris! ct 22:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Every row uses a quote, so there should be attribution for each one. -- Scorpion0422 16:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless I'm missing something, are all attributed. — neuro(talk)(review) 20:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The entries for 1995, 1997, 2001, 2003, 2007 and 2008 do not have any reference, so the quotes are unattributed. -- Scorpion0422 23:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, all the quotes are attributed by the "general" references at the bottom. The references in the notes section are there as third-party verification that X won the medal in Y year. Ironholds (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments a lovely piece of work. Let's see if I can come up with anything...
|
- Support thanks for taking the time to go through my comments - good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
|
- All issues resolved, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:36, 4 April 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.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
academy
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Libby Mccarthy (2008-01-11). "ACE Eddies announce nominations". Variety. Retrieved 2009-03-09.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
annie
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Libby Mccarthy (2008-01-11). "ACE Eddies announce nominations". Variety. Retrieved 2009-03-09.