I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that Gene Kelly is an important figure in film history and a good filmography list should reflect his contribution to cinema. With the help and advise of others, I have contructed the list of Mr. Kelly's films in chronological order and annotated the list with significant information and also provided what i believe to be a good introductory section. I have also cited my sources for the information presented. I have submitted this list for peer reviews and, after some improvements had been made to the list as suggested from my peers, I was informed that the list should be considered ready to be submitted as a featured list candidate. Jimknut (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I peer reviewed this and felt all of my concerns were addressed their so that it meets the FLC criteria now, Ruhrfisch><>°° 11:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reread and am impressed by the improvement within FLC. I still support under the revised FLC criteria. My only quibble is a WP:ACCESS issue - the cream colored background for musicals is not something a blind person would pick up on. Could there be a symbol added, perhaps an asterisk after the film title, which would identify either the musicals, or if it would be easier, the non-musicals? Ruhrfisch><>°° 12:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about a clef to go along with the cream-coloring? Jimknut (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I like the idea of a G clef, I am not sure an image file would work for WP:ACCESS issues. Anybody know? Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WT:ACCESS is the best place to ask, but I think as long as you use image alt text, it would be okay, because screenreaders will be able to read the alt text; nevertheless, isn't there a text-based symbol that can be used, just to be sure that there won't be any problems? Matthewedwards : Chat 02:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to use plain symbols (e.g. * ^ #). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added this symbol to the musicals: § Jimknut (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the dabs (as found with the checker tool in the toolbox)
Sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "dabs." I need help with this
Look to your right, do you see the toolbox, the first tool finds disambiguation links.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Gene Kelly (1912–1996) was an award-winning American motion picture actor, dancer, singer, director, and choreographer. -- Remove the bold from his name per WP:LEDE
Done.
Kelly was graduated from the University of Pittsburgh in 1933 with a degree in economics. -- Remove the was
Sorry Truco, "was graduated" is grammatically correct (if not the most common way to say it). See this please. Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kept — it is gramatically correct.
Around the same time he was running a dancing school with his brother Fred. -- not the proper way to start off this sentence, either merge it with a comma or semi colon or reword it completely
I removed the sentence completely. It might be an significant point in Kelly's biography, but I now believe its not needed in an introduction to his filmography.
He made his Broadway debut as a chorus boy in the play Leave It to Me! (1938), starring William Gaxton, Victor Moore, and Sophie Tucker. -- (1)What is a chorus boy? A member of the chorus? (2)The people who starred in the film is not relevant to this list as this is about Kelly not the film or the other stars.
I changed this to read "small role" instead of "chorus boy" and also removed the names of the other actors. (By the way, it's a play, not a film).
After playing supporting roles in Two for the Show and The Time of Your Life he went on to create the title role in Rodgers and Hart's Pal Joey (1940). -- Add a comma before he went on
Done.
Then, after staging the dances for Best Foot Foward (1941),[3] Kelly made his Hollywood film debut opposite Judy Garland in Me and My Gal (1942). -- Opposite? You mean as?
Changed to: "Kelly made his Hollywood film debut in For Me and My Gal (1942), co-starring Judy Garland." (I'll leave in Garland's name, as she was significant to Kelly's career.)
From there Kelly went on to work as an actor, dancer and, subsequently, choreographer in a series of musical films that presented, among other innovations, experimenting with a combination of dance and animation (Anchors Aweigh and Invitation to the Dance) and special effects (including the "Alter Ego" number from Cover Girl[5] and the split-screen dance number from It's Always Fair Weather).[6] -- (1)Comma after there (2)The comma should be before and not after it, it should be , and subsequently a choreographer in as series...(3)The and before animation should be a comma, add a comma after the (Invitation to the Dance) parenthesis
This request I found confusing. I have reworded this sentence slightly so that it (hopefully) reads better.
Table
Uncredited as choreographer -- add a before choreographer (this applies to both instances)
I have removed some information, including some footnotes, that I felt was not needed. I believe, then, that what is left should give the article a better, more "streamlined" feel.
References
What makes Ref 7 reliable and what is the publisher?
All instances of refs to this source need the publisher.
Ref 18 needs to be properly formatted
This ref has been taken out. All the awards listed here (Academy Awards, Golden Globe, etc.) are now referenced to the web sites for those awards.
*IMDB is not reliable in sourcing information, see WP:RS--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only a general link to the IMDb has been kept.
Was this all done?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think so — except for the "dabs" (whatever the are) Jimknut (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:34, 25 March 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]
Review by Nehrams2020
I believe that the mention of the awards/nominations should be removed. Ideally, the actor should have his own awards and nominations list. Consider if a certain film he was in had him receive numerous nominations/wins; it would not work to list all of them. Also, by only choosing specific ones, it's not NPOV as its indicating one award is better than another. I'd recommend creating that list and removing the notes for the various films. By the way, I previously fixed the dabs for you, so don't worry about those. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The awards have been removed from the list, although I left in some infomration in the introduction. I hope this is better. I could create a awards page for Gene Kelly but, at present time, my sources are largely the IMDb and some Kelly fan sites —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimknut (talk • contribs) 18:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Kelly was graduated from the University of Pittsburgh in 1933 with a degree in economics." Is this relevant to the list's topic? After reading the lead, I don't see how the degree was related to his contributions to stage and film.
The line has been removed.
"After playing supporting roles in Two for the Show..." Two for the Show links to an album, make sure to fix this dab. Same goes for Pal Joey in the next sentence, and Invitation to the Dance a few sentences later. Also go through the tables and make sure that the links go to the correct pages.
All links have been corrected and should work now.
"From there, Kelly went on to work as an actor, dancer and subsequently, choreographer in a series of musical films that presented, among other innovations, experimenting with combinations of dance and animation (Anchors Aweigh and Invitation to the Dance) and dance scenes involving special effects (including the "Alter Ego" number from Cover Girl[5] and the split-screen dance number from It's Always Fair Weather)." I believe this sentence could be split into two, it's kind of hard to follow.
This is now in two sentences and also reworded a bit.
In the table, perhaps a wikilink should be added for Choreographer.
Support Issues resolved, and below issues seem to be addressed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Review by D7240
The statement in the introduction that "He was noted for his musical films that displayed his creative choreography which often fused tap and jazz" is in contrast with the opening statement in the main article which states "His many innovations transformed the Hollywood musical film, and he is credited with almost singlehandedly making the ballet form commercially acceptable to film audiences". The main article relies on the scholarship of Billman, and later on, Delamater, Hirschhorn and Thomas to justify this, yet the filmography cites an online source. This inconsistency is jarring. The statement about him fusing jazz and tap is a generic one which could be applied to almost any film dancer from 1929-1960 and says little or nothing about his original contributions to this film genre.D7240 (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the Billman, Delamater, and Hirschorn material at present time. If you can add these sources and reword the intro that would be helpful. I'm not sure whether or not the exact wording from the main article would be considered plagiarism, as this is a "satellite" site and no one is getting credit for the writing.
The exact wording would be fine or anything consistent with it. Writing credits aren't an issue in Wikipedia as nobody owns any article. What's important is consistency between the articles.D7240 (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The information on his education and stage career is irrelevant to his film career, and in any case, far more detailed and better sourced information is contained in the main article on Kelly.
Just a general note, leads of FLs are encouraged to go beyond the list and provide context on the subject, albeit not in unnecessary detail. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the info about his stage career could be removed, but it can just as well remain as his stage work provided a foundation to his film career.
The information on Kelly's film career is also inadequately covered/summarised and would be better off left out altogether. Again, there is a wealth of properly sourced detail in the main article.
Once again I'll welcome any upgrading.
The filmography should clearly distinguish musical films from the mainly run-of-the-mill B-movies Kelly was obliged to do early on in his career.
We can present the the musicals with one colored background (I suggest a light yellow or cream color as that won't be too harsh on the eyes) while the non-musicals have a white or "blank" background. Does anyone second this. ("Run-of-the-mill"? Isn't that a matter of opinion?)
That's fine. I suppose run-of the mill is an opinion, but then the term B-movie is generally a term of disparagement as most were nothing more than program fillers for the main features in the olden days.D7240 (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The choreography credits are completely unsatisfactory. The main article's original filmography specified precisely where Kelly acted either as sole or co-choreographer, and without exception he acted as choreographer in every dance musical in which he performed, although in many cases he was not officially credited. He also contributed choreography for other dancers to many of the musical films in which he directed or produced. See Billman's Film Choreographers and Dance Directors for confirmation, or I'll be happy to supply info.
Yes please do so.
I see you've used those available from the article archive - that's fine.D7240 (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion for further enhancement would be to list the names of dance routines performed by Kelly in each of the films - after all, this is what most Kelly afficionados will be interested in. It would be great to be able to see at a glance, for example, where to find Kelly's famous dance with a newspaper, or his one with roller skates.
That's fine with me. Anyone else care to "weigh in" on this?
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the use of "award-winning" in the opening sentence. It gives a positive spin on his work.
Removed.
Please don't link common terms such as United States. I'd also argue against "actor", "dancer" and "singer", but I'd understand if you wanted to keep them.
Link to United States removed. The others I'll keep.
"choreography which often"-->choreography, which often
Fixed.
"He began his acting career the theatre" Missing word.
Fixed.
"co-starring Judy Garland."-->co-starring with Judy Garland.
Changed, although I think the original wording was fine.
"From there, Kelly went on to work as an actor, dancer and subsequently, choreographer in a series of musical films."-->Afterward, Kelly worked as an actor, dancer and subsequently, choreographer, in a series of musical films.
Fixed.
"In these films his choreographic"-->In these films, his choreographic
Fixed.
"and also dance scenes involving special effects "-->and dance scenes that involved special effects
Fixed.
Can you redlink the unlinked films? The chance that the articles may be created one day outweigh the tiny effects on visual appeal.
Done.
"He was also voted the 15th most popular film"
Fixed.
Can you add em dashes to the blank cells in the roles and notes sections? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added.
Please do not strike other's comments. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's all I can find for now. This film is not covered in the Thomas book since the film came after the book. Can anyone find a better source?
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. In short, if you can't prove that the above is reliable, the source may need to be removed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please assure me that IMDb is only being used in conjunction with other sources.
Only an external link to the IMDb's main page on Kelly is featured. (But what's up with the animosity toward the IMDb? Has Wikipedia drawn a lot of heat for using them as a source?)
I added an "External links" header to distinguish it. IMBd generally does not have a reputation for fact checking. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the "features" section be called "filmography", or is there a reason why it isn't?
I changed it to "filmography," although I suppose there could be no section heading at all.
Is there a reason why the tables are split up? I don't think it's particularily long.
I put it back into one section.
If the tables aren't split, they should be reformatted so that the column widths in the three are equal. -- Scorpion0422 17:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The columns are the same width – or at least they're showing up that way on my computer screen. The trouble is that "choreographer" is a longer word than "director" and "actor" so it takes up more width on the page. I tried hyphenating it but that looks tacky and it's difficult to hyperlink that way. Any suggestons? Jimknut (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think a full stop is required in the image caption, not a complete sentence.
Full stop removed.
The first paragraph of the lead read (I'm sorry to say) like fancruft. While it's cited to Billman's book, it strikes me as a heavily one-sided review of Kelly's achievements, and written in overtly glowing terms. Anyway we can say (sort of) what is already said but without rose-tinted spectacles?
This has been reworded. It now reads "He is probably best known today for his performances in musicals, notably An American in Paris (1951) and Singin' in the Rain (1952)."
"notably the "Alter Ego" " - notable according to whom, and why notable? And I would move [3] and [4] to the other side of the period in that sentence.
Changed to "including the "Alter Ego" " - refs have been moved
"..was also successful..." in what sense? Box office? It's not clear to me I'm afraid.
Changed to "appeared in".
What makes The Gene Scene site a reliable source? How is it used in this list?
This ref has been removed.
Four red links, shame we can't get even stubs for these?
I was asked to put these in, so I did. It's possible that these films will get articles later on. After all, Wikipedia is constantly a work in progress, isn't it?
I've also added in the titles of Kelly's musical numbers and put the musicals against a colored background as per a request above. Jimknut (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the dab and most of the redirects (I didn't fix those that had no reason to be fixed). In addition, I fixed the logical punctuation issues; the commas are not part of song titles and should be outside the quotation marks. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes and redirects. Jimknut (talk) 15:08, 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.
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. Neonblaktalk - 04:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the comments I noticed on first perusal last evening have been fixed; good work! Just a few items left.
Lead
done*"With the disolution of the Players' League" - dissolution
done*"Although the team's on-field captain King Kelly returned" - you've mentioned his full name already, so you can remove "King"
done"When the 1891 season completed" - change completed to either "was completed" or "ended"
Tables
done*If an item doesn't appear bold in the table, then it shouldn't appear bold in the key.
done*"Had a pitching record of 18-13 in last season in the majors, he died of pneumonia during the off-season." - win/loss records should use en-dashes, like year ranges.
done*"The future Hall of Fame pitcher had a 27-12 record for the 1890 Reds, the second to last season of his career." - same
done*Statistic names don't need to be capitalized (At bats, Home runs, etc.).
done*Write out statistic names using percentage (on-base percentage, slugging percentage); don't pipelink.
done*"led the Players' league in RBIs 1890" - this happens a couple of times, it should either be in 1890, or the year should be in parentheses.
References
done*Websites are works, not publishers. The publisher for retrosheet.org is Retrosheet, Inc., and the publisher for Baseball-Reference.com is Sports Reference LLC.'
Hope this helps. KV5(Talk • Phils) 12:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, great suggestions, quickly fixed many of the items you mentioned, will work on the sortability issue, and the two questioned resources, later on today.Neonblaktalk - 14:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that any of these have actually been completed in the article's history. Also, per the main WP:FLC page, we don't use graphics in reviews anymore. KV5(Talk • Phils) 15:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should show now, sorry.Neonblaktalk - 15:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would be nice to see sortability, at least for the first four columns. I would sort the positions column by their fielding position number (1, pitcher; 2, catcher; etc.), and the seasons in numerical order, etc.
I tried a few ways, couldn't get it right. I don't see any other FL that sort position in that manner to use as an example. I am going to assume that is not crucial for passing this list. If you know how, feel free to update, thanks.Neonblaktalk - 23:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do know how to do it, but the current way is perfectly acceptable. Well done. KV5(Talk • Phils) 00:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the following reliable sources?
projectballpark.org (also a work, needs a publisher)
thedeadballera.org (also a work, needs a publisher)
To avoid a long discussion about these two sources, I eliminated the cause of death from Cinder O'Brien to rid the article of the reference need, and I used already established sources for the ballpark information.Neonblaktalk - 21:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check through your "notes" column now. With some of the changes that have been made, there are now some complete sentences that don't end in a full stop/period. Some reviewers may ask that they all become complete sentences; I don't mind a mix as long as fragments stay fragments (no punctuation) and sentences become sentences.
Re-wrote them all to conform to a uniform standard.Neonblaktalk - 21:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Section header "List of players for the Boston Reds" can be just "List of players", or even just "Players" would be fine.
If/when sortability is completed, you would need to remove "in alphabetical order" from the last sentence of the lead (honestly, that sentence can be removed entirely, since the title tells you what it is).
I believe I have corrected all the refs now.Neonblaktalk - 21:48, 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.Neonblaktalk - 01:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What purpose does the numbers column in the table serve? It seems superfluous. I recommend removing it and having the player's name as the first column.
No reason to be there, so I removed them.Neonblaktalk - 21:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As KV pointed out, it would be great if the table was sortable.
Table is now sortable, by name, position, and season.Neonblaktalk - 23:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Were the players that also managed the team "player-managers" (they played and managed the team at the same time). If so, you'll want to change the terminology and link.
Changed wording to player-manager per suggestion.Neonblaktalk - 21:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few instances of complete sentences in the table that don't have periods.
The two items in the "literary notes" section should be moved to the "references" section under this heading: ;General. Similarly, the other refs should go under: ;Specific. (Include the semicolens.)
fixed per suggestion.Neonblaktalk - 23:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the refs, an author's last name is spelled two different ways: "Foulds" and "Folds". Which is correct?
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.Neonblaktalk - 23:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Boston Reds were a Major League Baseball franchise that played in the Players' League (PL) in 1890, and then played one season in the American Association (AA) in 1891.
When the 1891 season ended, the American Association folded as well, leaving just the National League as the sole major league, and the Reds were bought out by the surviving National League clubs. -- Per MOS:ABBR, you need to be consistent with the use of acronyms, so you need to use the acronym here.
Actually, replacing all league names has hurt the prose considerably. I would suggest expanding league names in the lead back to full names and leaving the abbreviations in the table, since the requirement is consistent usage. KV5(Talk • Phils) 11:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of players
The highlight should only be on the name of the player, not the entire row.
All entries need to be linked, that includes the positions (since this is a sortable table)
Notes
He played in two games for the 1890 Reds season, which was the last season of his 15 year career. --> He played two games in the 1890 Reds' season, which was the last season of his 15 year career.
He was the starting second baseman in 1890, and was the first Australian born person to play in the majors. -- (1)Unlink Australian per WP:OVERLINK (2)majors is jargony IMO, use major league instead
In 1891, he led the American Association in home runs, and tied for lead in RBIs with teammate Hugh Duffy. -- (1)add the before lead (2)RBI needs to be properly spelled out as runs batted in? (RBI)
He played in just six games during his only season in the majors. -- games played should either be linked earlier or not at all
He played in just one game during his only season in the majors. -- Is majors a proper term to refer to the major league?
Kelly was at the tail end of his Hall of Fame playing career when he became player-manager the 1890 Reds, and then later of the Cincinnati Kelly's Killers. -- (1)Add a before player-manager (2)Add of before the 1890 Reds
He started in left field for both teams. In 1890, he led the Players' league in RBIs. -- what do you mean both teams?
In 1891, he tied with teammate Duke Farrell for the American Association lead in RBIs. -- RBIs should be linked earlier
He had a pitching record of 9–15 for the Reds in 1890, his last full season in majors. -- add the before majors
O'Brien he had a pitching record of 18–13 in his final season. It was his last season in the majors becausebefore he died during the off-season.
Some of these notes should only relate during their time with the Reds between 1890-1891, not what happens in the future.
Be consistent with linking in the notes, either link all instances or don't link at all, like games played
Seek a copyedit of the notes.
Images
Remove 1, the images run over to the next section.
References
The second general ref needs a space between the title and the publisher--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing a thorough review of the list. After incorporating you suggestions, it does appear to be tighter. However, I do have a couple of comments. 1. My monitor is just a normal flat screen monitor (not a wide-screen), so the photos on the right actually run short of the table's end by five players. I had thought of adding another image to make it flush, but I left it alone. 2. Your gonna have to explain what you mean when you talk about checker box/checker tool. Other than that, I think I have addressed all of your concerns, if I missed something, please let me know.Neonblaktalk - 04:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you ask another person to give an input on the image because on mines (widescreen) it does that. Do you see the toolbox at the right on this page? The first link generates the disambiguation links of the article, you need to go to each one and disambiguate them to specific articles.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Most importantly, we need to prove that all of these images were published prior to 1923. I don't mean created, because that isn't the standard. A couple of the photos are from the Library of Congress, but it would be better to link to pages with those specific images on them. None of the others indicate when they were published.
"who won the the AA championship". Double word needs to be fixed. Also, the references are out of order in this sentence. Not the biggest issue in the world, but you might as well deal with it while there.
On the positive side, I really like the idea of having notes for each player. One issue with grammar, from Matt Kilroy: "his last full season in major leagues." The word "the" is missing.
The photo issue is by far the most pressing. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation on the disamb. tool box, I had actually figured it out today at work, but the computer was so slow that I gave up trying to fix the one link. I will look into the photo issue shortly. Looks like I can kill two birds with one stone, just eliminate the photos that do not comply with the publishing standard. Thank you for your comments about the notes, I knew it was a risk, but I thought it fit well in the scope that the list is about the players, might as well throw a tid bit about each of them, make it interesting for the reader.Neonblaktalk - 00:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, just dropped all the photos, including the team photo in the lead, because I could not find a suitable reference indicating exactly when they were published. The closest was Clark Griffith, his was a cropping of a photo taken by the Chicago Daily News in 1902. In the description is states that it may have been printed in the paper. The Dan Brouthers photo was a cropping of the original. So, I have made the changes you have pointed out, if there is room on the right of players to add another one, let me know.Neonblaktalk - 02:03, 2 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.Neonblaktalk - 21:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Reds were an instant success, not only on the field, but also in the public's opinion"-->The Reds were an instant success on the field and in the public's opinion
"they also played in a larger, more comfortable and modern ballpark"
"The PL lasted just one season, which left most of the teams without a league."-->The PL ended (better word could be used though) after one season, leaving most of its teams without a league.
"With the dissolution of the PL" "With"-->After
"former clubs, via the reserve clause." Comma not needed.
"Reds were able to stay intact"-->Reds stayed intact
"leaving just the NL"
"Although he went hitless in seven at bats in 1891, he went on to play seven more seasons from 1895 through 1902." A bit too much detail.
"played in just six games"
"He played a total of six games during his only season"
"in just one game"
A key is needed for the actual positions.
"which was the last season of his 15 year career."-->the last season of his 15-year career.
"Australian born person "-->Australian-born person
"eleven year career."-->11-year career.
"second to last season"--?second-to-last season Dabomb87 (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, especially in an area that is definately a weak spot for me. I made all the changes that you recomended.Neonblaktalk - 22:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A key is still needed for the positions. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I did the same thing to someone else. It was completed, but I hadn't hit enter yet. I will see if I can make the title of the key just one box, not split like the rest of the key.Neonblaktalk - 23:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another NBA list—Chris!ct 01:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
Oppose - Criterion 1. I was looking forward to reading this one, but quickly found some questionable prose. There are more simple mistakes than I would expect in our best work, at least for now. In addition to fixing these, please consider finding to find someone in the NBA project to read through this carefully.
Would it be possible to have pictures of drafted players to the right of the tables? That would be a nice touch.
I'm having a problem with the Notable undrafted players section. Is this meant to give the undrafted players who played in the NBA? If so, perhaps the section should be re-named accordingly. I'm sure there were plenty of undrafted college players who have Wikipedia articles; why wouldn't they be considered notable?
I will removed "notable" and try to add other undrafted players.—Chris!ct 23:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a way, I think that section is out of scope of this article. I mean, this is about the draft and the players drafted. You say yourself the other players were excluded from the draft, so why should they be in the article? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I have this section is b/c the other NBA draft FLs have it. I can removed if it is decided that it is out of scope.—Chris!ct 19:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"and other first-time eligible players, such as players from non-North American leagues." There is a redundancy with "players", seeing as there are two uses here and three in the entire sentence. How about changing the last part to "such as those from non-North American leagues."?
"The draft was broadcast on ESPN at 7:00 PM (EDT)." This is only in the U.S.
"The NBA announced that 91 players, including 69 players from U.S. colleges and institutions and 22 international players, have filed as early entry candidates for the 2008 NBA Draft." "have filed"? The draft was nine months ago.
"The Bulls winning of the lottery..." Apostrophe for Bulls, please. Also, would a result in the lottery technically be considered an upset?
Two NBA Draft Lottery links.
Also duplicate links for the Chicago Bulls, Miami Heat, and Minnesota Timberwolves.
"It marked the first time in draft history that three freshmen were taken with the first three picks." Remove the first "three".
"With five players taken in the draft, the Kansas...". Grammar error after the comma.
"the franchise would relocated". Remove "would". Giants2008 (17-14) 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed all the prose issues you pointed out. I will get someone to look at the prose again.—Chris!ct 23:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One note from the changes above: now that it says University of Kansas, "the" can be put back. It was different when I reviewed it. I struck the oppose above due to the good work that has been done in the last work; here are a few more issues that I want to bring up before I support.
"Another record was also set, with ten freshmen being drafted in the first round and twelve in total." In addition to the struck word, the part after the comma is a noun plus -ing sentence structure that needs fixing.
"22 are forward". Last word should be plural.
A few notes from the school column: Memphis Tigers basketball redirects to the men's program, which is what you want linked for Derrick Rose's column. Rider Broncs could replace the generic Rider University link.
The note in the Team column for D. J. White should be moved next to the team name to match the other similar notes.
Undrafted players: "The following lists players who went unndrafted...". Typo.
Haven't looked at the trades yet, but I may polish that up myself if time permits. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done all except for the D. J. White one. I am not sure if that is a good idea. The note is about Seattle SuperSonics. Moving it next to Detroit Pistons might confuse reader.—Chris!ct 00:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it should be moved outside the parenthesis. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Fix the disambiguation links of the article, as found with the links checker tool in the toolbox.
Fixed after I removed the links to junior and senior. There are no articles existed for college junior/senior.—Chris!ct 20:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, another record was set with ten freshmen being drafted in the first round and twelve in total. --> Another record was also set, with ten freshmen being drafted in the first round and twelve in total.
See above. There is a discussion about the relevance of the section. I will probably removed it.—Chris!ct 19:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what is going to comeabout on this?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am still waiting for User:Noble Story's reply. If he doesn't reply, then I will try to look for the dates.—Chris!ct 05:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Draft-day trades
In a three-team trade, Portland acquired the draft rights to 25th pick Nicolas Batum from Houston; Houston acquired the draft rights to 28th pick Donté Greene, a second-round selection in 2009 from Memphis and 33rd pick Joey Dorsey from Portland; and Memphis acquired the draft rights to 27th pick Darrell Arthur from Portland. -- the semi colons should be commas
In a three-team trade, Chicago acquired the rights to 36th pick Ömer Aşık from Portland; Portland acquired a second-round pick in 2009 from Denver and two future second-round picks from Chicago; and Denver acquired the draft rights to 39th pick Sonny Weems from Chicago. -- Same thing here
San Antonio acquired the draft rights to 48th pick Malik Hairston, a second-round pick in 2009 and cash considerations from Phoenix in exchange for the draft rights to 45th pick Goran Dragić. -- Comma after 2009
Fixed all—Chris!ct 20:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Traded picks
The in at trade involving is really repetitive, is there other ways to state this?
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]
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]
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..."
"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.
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]
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.
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?
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]
I agree with Noble Story that the undrafted picks don't need to be listed here; they can be mentioned in the main article about the 2008 season.
"players and other first-time eligible players, including those from non-North American leagues." Clarify if these "non-North American leagues" are professional or not.
"including 69 players from U.S. colleges and 22 international players"
"early entry candidates"-->early-entry candidates
"second biggest upset in NBA Draft Lottery history behind the Orlando Magic winning in 1993 with just a 1.5% chance."-->second-largest upset in NBA Draft Lottery history behind the Orlando Magic, who won it in 1993 with just a 1.5% chance.
"The Miami Heat and the Minnesota Timberwolves obtained second and third picks respectively." Add "the" after "obtained".
"It marked the first time in draft history that freshmen were taken with the first three picks." Move this to the beginning of the second paragraph and change to "For the first time in draft history the first three draft picks were all freshmen."
"Another record was set when ten freshmen were drafted in the first round and twelve in total." So what was the record? The ten first-round freshmen or the twelve total freshmen?
"Out of the players drafted, 29 are forwards, 19 are guards, and 12 are centers." Links to the positions, please?
"This was also the Seattle SuperSonics' last official team draft."-->The 2008 Draft was the Seattle SuperSonics' last official team draft.
"In July, the franchise relocated to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma as the Oklahoma City Thunder. "-->In July, the franchise relocated to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and was renamed to the Oklahoma City Thunder.
Since you've already mentioned that the first three were freshmen, remove the redundant ", a freshman" part after each name in that second paragraph. It will become "...Rose from the U of Memphis".
A note should be added next to the third and fifth picks. As a reader, I just read that Minnesota traded that pick to Memphis, but I need details! Make it easy to navigate, please!
Same thing with the 11th and 13th picks.
The 15th pick needs a note to click on, as well. Plus, I suggest removing the "as part of the XX trade" part when you add that clickable note because it's kinda unfair to the third pick along with others.
^Same thing with the 17th pick.
I need more details about the 20th pick.
What Jason Kidd trade gave the Nets the 21st pick?
There are many trades that need more notes if you need me to continue listing them, just ask.
"Franchise would relocate to become..." - huh? Sounds weird
Under Traded picks whenever you mention the "second-round draft pick", can you add what pick exactly they received.
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]
No need to oppose b/c most of these are pretty easy to fix. :) I have done several trades and will probably finished them tomorrow.—Chris!ct 06:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed all all of them.—Chris!ct 02:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why exactly are you not removing the "as part of the XX trade" part? I think it's too much info for the table. It's no deal-breaker, of course. I am just wondering.--Crzycheetah 05:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor removed it.—Chris!ct 01:02, 10 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.
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]
Among third basemen, Wade Boggs has won the most Silver Slugger Awards, with eight wins between the rival New York Yankees (two) and Boston Red Sox (six). -- Remove the the
Removing either would make the sentence grammatically incorrect. KV5(Talk • Phils) 23:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the the before rival. Its not right to have it there.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grammatically speaking, there is nothing wrong with that the. It is the article for both New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox. KV5(Talk • Phils) 11:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same comment that I stated in the second base FLC, fix the formatting of your acronym use.
Expanded abbreviations in the lead; captions maintained per MOS:ABBR. KV5(Talk • Phils) 23:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant, see the other FLC.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Schmidt won the first five NL Silver Slugger Awards at third base from 1980, when he led the Philadelphia Phillies to the World Series, to 1984[5] before his streak was broken by Tim Wallach. -- When was it broken?
Look in the list. It encourages the reader to move forward. It's also a matter of math for the reader; not every fact needs to be explicated, or there'd be no need for a list. KV5(Talk • Phils) 23:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to be obnoxious with all your responses. How is it a matter of math when the reader doesn't even know when it was broken?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My response was not intended to be obnoxious, but if you found it to be so, I apologize. As to the comment, it is explicit in the lead that Schmidt won five consecutive awards from 1980 to 1984. Since he did not win 6 consecutive awards, it can certainly be inferred that Wallach won in 1985. KV5(Talk • Phils) 11:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rodriguez batted in 156 runs during the 2007 season as well;[7] the NL record is held by Castilla (144 RBI in 1998). -- This acronym was not spelled out before this.
Untrue. Paragraph 1. However, it's been expanded per MOS:ABBR. KV5(Talk • Phils) 23:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you meant RBI. Please clarify next time. Done. KV5(Talk • Phils) 23:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No comment.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify the most recent winners from both leagues.
See my comment at the second base FLC. The table makes this clear, as do the images, for that matter, and the lead is certainly long enough. KV5(Talk • Phils) 23:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, see mines then.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is still the only concern I have.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I give. Where would you suggest the addition? End of the first paragraph? I'd like to keep it the same since I'm following the same format for all of these winners' lists. KV5(Talk • Phils) 22:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It usually goes at the end of the paragraphs, but in this context, I guess you can do that or find somewhere where it is suitable. If this bothers you, I'm guessing it won't hurt the list not to have it since you did a great job explaining the rest.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done for all lists of winners by position that are completed so far, and they are covered by the general reference. Do you think I need to add a whole paragraph of most recent winners to the main article of the topic or is it OK the way it is? KV5(Talk • Phils) 23:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tables and references check out up to standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
"Among third basemen, Wade Boggs has won the most Silver Slugger Awards, with eight wins between the rival New York Yankees (two) and Boston Red Sox (six)." This is unclear, the use of "with" as a connector (which is clumsy anyway) obscures the logic of the sentence. It's not clear whether "rival" applies to the Yankees or the rivaling teams in general. You might need to split up these sentences.
I tweaked it a little. How's the current version? KV5(Talk • Phils) 00:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better. I think you can change "between" to "with" now. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"but has ten wins in his career as he accumulated seven wins as a shortstop with the Seattle Mariners and Texas Rangers." "but" is used incorrectly here, leading to a false contrast. Use "and" instead. Also, the "as ... as" repetition is annoying. Perhaps break things up with a semicolon: "and has ten wins in his career; he accumulated seven wins as a shortstop with the Seattle Mariners and Texas Rangers."
I don't see how it's a false contrast. Could you explain? KV5(Talk • Phils) 00:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second idea doesn't contradict the first; it just provides additional information. The fact that he has three Silver Sluggers with the AL does not contradict the fact that he won ten total. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I don't like the way "wins" is used here (I always think of actual games), but I suppose there is no better alternative.
I don't like it either, but I couldn't find an alternative. I know it's confusing in terms of wins, but I did the best I could. KV5(Talk • Phils) 00:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something will hit me before the FT, hmm? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"However, Rodriguez holds the Major League record" Another false contrast.
Again, I don't see how it's a false contrast. This one is supposed to be a contrast. The National League record is mentioned first; the "however" is meant to clarify that a higher total has been achieved. KV5(Talk • Phils) 00:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood; in that case, I don't think "However" is the most clear word. Perhaps, "Despite this"? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Rodriguez batted in 156 runs during the 2007 season as well" Why "as well"? Was there someone else who batted in 156 runs?
No, but the "as well" is in reference to the previous sentence: He hit 54 home runs, and batted in 156 runs as well, if you care to think of it that way. KV5(Talk • Phils) 00:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you explained it, it kind of makes sense, but I still don't see why it's necessary; it is also confusing through its ambiguity. I understand your feelings about keeping a certain amount of modifiers and transitional phrases in prose, but forcing them in there, as in here, doesn't help.
I think it looks, reads, and sounds poor, but done. KV5(Talk • Phils) 01:18, 6 April 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:
I find it odd that the Yankees are listed before the Red Sox for Wade Boggs, considering that he spent much more time with the Sox (and this is coming from a Yankees fan). Only time the Sox should ever be ahead of the Yanks. :-)
I don't know why I put it that way, I find it odd too because there's no justification for it. I'll change it though it's really no difference. For the record, I don't like either team. At all. Done. KV5(Talk • Phils) 01:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Miguel Cabrera holds the National League record for a third baseman, with .336." This could give the year he posted the top average.
Done, caught a botched stat too. KV5(Talk • Phils) 01:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other albums with extended chart runs include Jack Johnson's fifth studio album, Sleep Through the Static, and Metallica's ninth studio album, Death Magnetic, each spent three straight weeks on the chart. -- the final comma should be a semi-colon
I think its fine because if the sentence goes this way, "Other albums with extended chart runs include Jack Johnson's fifth studio album and Metallica's ninth studio album, each spent three straight weeks on the chart", the clause is dependent therefore a semicolon is not necessary. --Efe (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread it, eh.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 03:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its my mistake. I thought of spending rather than spent. So the clause "each spent ..." is independent therefore a semicolon is grammatical. And the fact that there are lots of comma, it will help. Sorry. --Efe (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tables and images look fine
Thanks. --Efe (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References
The MTV source should have the publisher as MTV Networks and the work from MTV. This also need to be linked.
Sandy said when the work and publisher are closely 'related', like this case, better remove the publisher. --Efe (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't necessarily right from my view. MTV Networks is the publisher, so thats how it should be not just MTV. So its vise-versa.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 03:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from User:SandyGeorgia, its redundant. But if you really want me to add it, its fine. =) --Efe (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, because this is how its setup in other FLs.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let this go since I was given no feedback.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I love how you only give 1 alternate publishing source ;)--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added one non-Billboard source. They give specific figures, based on SoundScan. --Efe (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know, I'm just complimenting you since I gave you my original thought on this.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 03:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I learned from you dear. And what I like with albums chart is that there are lots of sites publishing figures, ranking, etc. --Efe (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Julian changed it from are to is. I don't know exactly what's the right term. But since we have used "are" on previous FLCs, I'll change it. --Efe (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"tying with veterans Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston." "tying"-->tied.
Done. "tying" also is grammatical. --Efe (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The album also attained the most sales in a week"
Done. --Efe (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"topping the Billboard Top Digital Albums of 2008"-->having topped the Billboard Top Digital Albums of 2008
Done. --Efe (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Pop singer Madonna scored her seventh " Can we have a better verb than "scored"?
have exhausted other terms. Do you have suggestion? --Efe (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
CommentDate 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.
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'sRevenge(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]
Other stuff I mentioned in the season 1 list: Ref dates, worldwide coverage, general ref, awards etc. Rambo'sRevenge(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]
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]
Logan Echolls (Jason Dohring) is accused of killing a Pacific Coast Highway biker gang member after drunkenly picking a fight with Eli "Weevil" Navarro (Francis Capra) and the PCHers. -- The acronym should be formatted as Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), so its later use can make more sense.
"09ers" Dick Casablancas (Ryan Hansen) and Cassidy "Beaver" Casablancas (Kyle Gallner) deal with a gold-digging stepmother, Kendall Casablancas (Charisma Carpenter), with whom they are left when their father flees the country while under investigation for real estate fraud. -- (1)I would give a link to someplace that explains gold-digging (yes I know what it means, but others might not) (2)add with before when their father
Why isn't PCH linked here, but its linked in the Cast section?
Release
Eric Goldman of IGN wrote the season was "entertaining start to finish", with "great" returning characters and a "wonderful array of guest stars". -- Add that before the season was
Goldman was displeased with the lack of extras, and criticized the crew for the lack of commentaries. -- Since this is in a new section (distribution), you should make it aware that this is IGN's Goldman.
Network Ten broadcast the second season in Australia on Fridays at 10.35pm. -- Is it necessary to list the timeslot when the other mentions of broadcasting don't have that?
Awards: Kristen Bell won the Saturn Award for Best Television Actress,[30] and was nominated for the Satellite Award for Actress in a Series, Drama,[31] and the Teen Choice Award for Choice TV Actress: Drama/Action Adventure. -- Reword to Kristen Bell won the Saturn Award for Best Television Actress,[30] was nominated for the Satellite Award for Actress in a Series and Drama,[31] and the Teen Choice Award for Choice TV Actress: Drama/Action Adventure.
Episodes
I would seek a copyedit of these notes, as this is difficult to review for reviewers.
References
The General references are improperly formatted, they should be cited in a cite web template like they are in in this FL.
Some refs are linked more than once, others are not, like the ABC publisher. If you link others more than once, all need to be linked more than once.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the comments. :) I have tweaked all issues, but I haven't inquired for a copyeditor because the summaries were all copied from the "List of episodes" page, which itself is a FL. Thanks again, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
"while Jennifer Gwartz, Danielle Stokdyk "-->and Jennifer Gwartz, Danielle Stokdyk
"Dunn, who portrayed Duncan Kane, " Repetition of "portrayed".
"Logan-Veronica relationship" See WP:DASH, it should be "Logan–Veronica relationship".
"whom he though kept the season "humming along"" "whom"-->who, see Whom#Subject whom as my reasoning.
"performance Emmy-worthy" I'd appreciate a quote on this.
"numerous critics found issue with the complexity"-->numerous critics were frustrated by the complexity
"was displeased with the lack of extras, and criticized the crew for the lack of commentaries." Could you do away with the "lack ... lack" repetition?
"When a number of athletes including Wallace and Meg fail their drug tests"-->When several athletes—including Wallace and Meg—fail their drug tests
"the coach of the team"-->the team's coach
"finds out that"-->discovers that
"and does some investigating of his own to impress her" Very vague.
"She decides to go public with the information" Be a little more precise in the phrasing here. Does she post the information somewhere?
"after a witness comes forward" And... (what do they say)?
"Weevil tells Logan he no longer believes" Insert "that" after "Logan".
"of the bridge witness Dr. Griffith" What does "bridge witness" mean here? Be careful of vague back references.
"and reveals that he has a gambling problem. " Could this be simplified to "and reveals thatis a gambling addict."?
"Veronica is hired to discover who is mugging pizza boys and who is blackmailing gay students at Neptune High." Needs rephrasing to remove close repetition of "who is".
"Keith uses this information to force Sheriff Lamb" Could this be considered blackmailing?
"Hearst College" needs a section link, not just a redirect to the main locations article.
"It is Graduation Day for Veronica and her classmates, but Sheriff Lamb intends to make things difficult for Weevil." Not seeing the contradiction here, which is implied by "but". Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"private-eye sideline job and tough persona" Is there something a little more formal and encyclopedic than this? I have no idea as to what a "sideline job" is.
"and is being blackmailed by Sheriff Lamb" For what?
Not done (yet)
"deal with a gold-digging stepmother" The Wiktionary link is appreciated, but this is still too colloquial.
I can't think of a better phrase without going into too much detail. Any ideas? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 08:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just explain it in plain terms, taking cues from the Wiktionary article. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable. Is there some FAQs or About Us page on the website that might provide clues to their reliability for fact checking? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Veronica Mars ranked #145 out of #156 - something can't rank out "number 156"; should probably be "145th out of 156"
If you could find it, an season average of viewers would work well in the lead
Ignore that :) —97198 (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
six of which were regulars in the first season - "six of whom"
"09ers" Dick Casablancas (Ryan Hansen)... - don't need quotation marks as term has been established above
Thomas, who said he - "said that he"
Brian Raftery of Entertainment Weekly praised the ingenious cast - this doesn't necessary imply that he believed the cast to be ingenious; it just says matter-of-factly that the cast is ingenious, so could do with a reword to clarify that this was the reviewer's opinion
maintaining Veronica's trademark wit and cleverness."[9] - full-stop/period should be outside quotation mark as it's not a full sentence
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]
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]
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.
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]
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#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.
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]
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]
This discography contains nineteen releases. It warrants a stand-alone list and general consesus has it that a discography generally must have atleast ten releases in order to acheive featured-list status. I don't think it would be right to deprive this discography from attaining the aforementioned status, merely because it 'could' fit in the article as an embedded list. Thanks for your comments. Alex Douglas (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Curuenavuli came to prominence, after placing fourth on the first season of Australian Idol in 2003." 1)Comma not necessary; 2) "came"-->rose
Fixed.
Can you mention which record labels she has released her albums on?
Added "on Sony BMG" to sentences about the release of her albums.
"peaked into the Top 40"-->reached the Top 40
Fixed wording.
"failed to receive certification, or peak in the Top 50." Comma not needed.
Removed comma.
"number twenty-six"-->number 26
Changed.
Note 3 should be part of ref 21, not a footnote. Format as follows:<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.bandit.fm/xidol/paulini |title=Paulini |accessdate=2009-04-02 |work=xidol |publisher=bandit.fm |date=2006-08-17 |accessdate=2009-04-02}} To retrieve the director's name for the "I Believe" music video, select the news item "Paulini Still Believes: Check Out Her Gorgeous New Video + Exclusive Pics".</ref> Dabomb87 (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed note 3 to your suggestion. Looks much better. Alex Douglas (talk) 23:28, 4 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."
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]
Not sure that "instore" is essential for the caption.
Agreed, "instore" does seem a bit redundant.
Numbers in the infobox don't match info in the list... 5 or 6 singles? 2 or 5 other appearances?
Fixed to correct numbers.
"..commonly known as Paulini is an Australian..." seems to be missing a comma after Paulini...
Added comma.
"...came to prominence, after placing fourth..." seems to have an unnecessary comma...
Removed the comma and changed the wording of "came" to "rose" as per the request of Dabomb87.
"...peaked into the Top 40 in New Zealand..." sorry? can we be precise here?
Changed to "reached at number 34".
Overuse of "peak" I feel. Not "peaking" in the top 40 could also be written "did not achieve Top 40 status", "did not make it into the Top 40"... whatever, but the prose is hardly engaging I'm afraid, due to the repetitions.
I think you referring to here is "Superwoman" and "Amazing Grace: Songs for Christmas" outside of the "Top 50"? I have changed some occurances of "peak" or "peaked" to "reach" and "reached". I have changed the wording of "Superwoman" and "Amazing Grace: Songs for Christmas" to your suggested wording.
I prefer references in numerical order. So, not [6][5], but [5][6].
Whoops. I've fixed that up now.
"twenty-six", why not just 26?
Fixed.
I would make her co-founding of a girl band a third paragraph in the lead as it is distinct from her solo stuff.
Alright, created a third paragraph, acknowledging her releases with the Young Divas. I've expanded it aswell, to include the group's second album; hopefully it's not too long and not too short. Also, I have added the 'otheruses' template to the discography, similiar to Eminem discography as this will ensure that the scope and inclusion criteria is defined.
[nb 3] refers to a link that you haven't got to yet. If you can't cite this any other way then I suggest you put the note into the citation so it's clear in one place what you need to do to see the information you require.
Fixed note 3 so as to satisfy Dabomb87. I believe I've fixed it now, but if you still have a concern with it, please tell me.
And I am also concerned about the sources that Dabomb87 has noted.
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. The Sanity link has been corrected.
Thankyou for your comments. I hope my edits have addressed your concerns. If you have any further concerns, please state them and I'd be glad to address them as soon as possible. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support but you must fix...
Music Videos doesn't tie up between infobox and list.
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.
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]
This has occurred four times to date - in 2004 to Martin Rees, in 2006 to Richard Fortey, in 2007 to Jim Al-Khalili, and most recently in 2008 to John D. Barrow. -- the dash should be a em dash, without spaces
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 changing publisher= to work= in the citation templates.Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be bigger, I'm afraid, as far as I'm concerned. One para just seems too light.
It was two paragraphs -- Ironholds condensed them into one. What else would you suggest we included? — neuro(talk)(review) 20:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On my browser (Safari), the Name column appears too narrow so most recipient's surnames are on the line after their first name. Consider expanding that column by about 25%.
I think abbreviations such as COPUS ought to be linked or explained. You have no linking in the rationales, and that makes the rationales themselves difficult to understand from a non-expert perspective. We need to appeal to all readers here, not just scientists.
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 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]
I'm not sure that there is too much I can do about this. If you take a look at all of the other player lists, it is a very comparable lead. ([10][11][12][13][14][15] etc.). A few of these articles have some information on players who are, for example, members of the hall of fame, but that information is redundant to other articles on the Blackhawks. If you have something in mind by which to expand the lead, I would gladly incorporate it. I've never had a problem getting in a featured list with 2+ paragraphs before, however. Also note that another user has added some more information to the lead which may make it more satisfactory. Teemu08 (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, FL is becoming more and more prose-demanding these day. But I think you have expand it considerably and the 2 paragraphs look fine, so I change to weak oppose.—Chris!ct 00:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Why no table of content at the top?
Fixed, although it kind of adds some choppiness. Teemu08 (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the layout. At first, you group the Goaltenders in one table and then group all other positions into another. Why not have five sections about players of each of the five positions?
Goaltenders and skaters have completely different statistics and therefore couldn't be in the same table. Additionally, as you may find, some players played multiple positions. Teemu08 (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Color should by accompanied by symbols
I've bolded lines with players who have played this year. The Stanley Cup winners should already be distinguishable based on the year listed in the "Stanley Cup Winner" column. Teemu08 (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:ACCESS requires that colors be accompanied by symbols to alleviate problems with color blindness.—Chris!ct 01:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well based on my experience writing and reviewing FLs, color should be accompanied by symbols per WP:ACCESS. Take a look at recentlypromotedFLs. I am not sure if boldface will suffice but I will ask other reviewers' inputs on that.—Chris!ct 04:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of time I just switched out the bold for crosses. Teemu08 (talk) 19:09, 22 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 -- 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]
If you are looking to expand on what's in the list to improve the lead, here are some ideas: number of players by nationality (not all, just the most prominent outside of Canada, which is obviously number 1), how many players have won the Stanley Cup with the team, etc. Have any jersey numbers been retired? If so, that could be added.
At this point, the lead is probably long enough. It was more of a concern earlier on in the nomination. Thanks, though. Teemu08 (talk)
"Seasons" comment in the key should be in a footnote.
I know images would make the article large, but for a list like this, you have to have at least a lead image, if not one or two. A few isn't going to make a huge difference in size but will do a heck of a lot for Cr.6.
Lead picture added. Unfortunately, there's not much in the way of pictures of Blackhawks in uniform. Teemu08 (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. KV5(Talk • Phils) 23:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
"at least one match for the franchise, either in the NHL regular season or in the playoffs." Are you sure it should be "match" instead of "game"? I think this article should be using American English.
"who were known as the Black Hawks from their inception until 1986"
"who was the team's goaltender for their first Stanley Cup win in 1934"
For consistency, the blue rows should also have a symbol.
Image caption: "He is the franchise leader in goals with 604." Comma after "goals".
General references should usually be placed above the inline citations.
"Centre" and "Defenceman": As I said, US English should be used per WP:ENGVAR. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Comments addressed. Hockeygoalies also cites their sources [16] 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]
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]
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.
"when the team won their second championship in 1938." For correct tenses, change "their" to "its".
In the next-to-last sentence of the lead, there's a space before the reference.
Picky, but why are the reference dates using international formatting in an article on an American subject?
I'd like to see references 4 through 6, which aren't purely citations, moved to a new Notes section; the current Notes section could then be changed to References. The primary benefit would be an improvement in the formatting of reference 6.
Otherwise, good job getting this up to snuff. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments addressed. Teemu08 (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was apparently some confusion with the first comment. We still have "The Blackhawks...have won the Stanley Cup three times in its (their) 83-year history" and "the team's goaltender for their (its) first Stanley Cup win in 1934." I know it's difficult to understand tenses sometimes, but it's important for our readers. Just remember to match a singular with a singular, and vise versa, and everything will be fine. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think I am definitely confused about the tensing. I am under the impression that American English treats plural proper nouns as if they were plural nouns (this issue comes up a lot with American v. English musical groups). I am not sure I understand why the tensing in the lead in reference the Hawks would be anything but plural. Teemu08 (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Hawks" are plural (many hawks), but "team" is singular (only one team). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, that makes sense. Teemu08 (talk) 03:44, 8 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.
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]
The borough of Crawley, in West Sussex, England, has many churches, chapels and other places of worship. - many is unclear, just put the exact number if possible
→I'll think about how best to reword this Actually I've just gone for your suggestion, as it seemed the most sensibleHassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:47, 20 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]
Most of its 44.96 km2 (17.36 sq mi) area is covered by the New town of Crawley, which was planned in the 1940s and built during the next four decades. -- next should be following
The New town development consisted of self-contained neighbourhoods, each of which had at least one Anglican church. -- is New supposed to be capitalized?
→Yes, as it is referring to Crawley's status as a "New Town" under the New Towns Act 1946. Accordingly, "Town" should actually be capitalised as well, which I have done.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New Towns Act 1946 should be pipelinked or linked in the paragraph.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A new, purpose-built temple is under construction in the Ifield area, and is expected to open in late 2009. -- remove the comma after new
Actually, the comma should be there; these are coordinate adjectives. My question is, what does "purpose-built" mean here anyway? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, true. I think they mean multi-purpose built?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→"Purpose-built" is meant in the sense of "with a dedicated purpose", as opposed to the current Hindu temple which was not built specifically for that use. I can remove it if that is preferred, as it doesn't really add a great deal to the sentence.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it would be best to remove it.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance it looks good.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 sections below table
What are these not above the table?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→I thought the order of the article looked better that way: Lead, historical development, demographics, then the most important part (the main list); then the last two paragraphs giving what is effectively supplementary information. It doesn't seem logical to discuss communities with no church of their own before coming on to the main list. Likewise with the airport chapels. I will move them above the list if that is preferred for style reasons, though.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, cool.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Terms should only be linked on their first occurence, and only those that are uncommon to the reader and that help understanding. For example, I don't think World War II should be linked. "Convent" should only be linked on its first appearance. Same with "Listed building", under its various pipe links (link it twice, once to Grade 1 and once to Grade II*).
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]
→Some of the places of worship aren't (Christian) churches. "List of places of worship..." would be an alternative, but as the majority are Christian churches of various descriptions, I felt that "Churches and places of worship" covered the whole topic well. I am willing to rename to "List of places of worship..." if it is felt appropriate.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 09:02, 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]
I don't care one way; I just want consistency and conciseness. I will ask on WT:FLC for more opinions. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply List of places of worship in Crawley seems fine to me. NuclearWarfare(Talk) 01:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, List of places of worship in Crawley is good.—Chris!ct 02:54, 28 March 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.
A shame the lead can't have an image instead of the show/hide box. It doesn't draw me into reading it at the moment...
→ I thought about this for quite a while (before and during FLC). See my comment at the bottom.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Crawley article suggests people had moved in by 1949, but your lead suggests no work was done until the 1950s.. or am I missing anything? (probably!)
→ Probably needs rewording, because the meaning I intended was that building started in the late 1940s (after the master plan was finalised) and continued until the 1980s, when Crawley assumed its present 13-neighbourhood form. Having said that, only a few streets (literally) from the master plan had been completed by 1949! Essentially, I didn't mean "the following four decades" in its strictest sense. I don't want to make that sentence/passage too convoluted, so advice on rewording would be welcome.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You cite the neoconformism but not the town area (which you provide very accurately!). I would like to see the source for that information.
→ Added Census data about population density, which shows the size in hectares. Corrected a small rounding error as well. Hope that will be suitable as a ref.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You spell out "square metres" in the prose but not "square kilometres" (in the second sentence of the lead). I would prefer to see consistency.
There's a mix of "This church is..." and "The church was built.." kind of thing in the Notes column. I'd prefer a single style of building description throughout.
→ Hmmm ... I think that would only work properly if the notes were very short (one sentence or so). It would look very monotonous; and the descriptions for some of the churches would not really fit into that sort of structure (e.g. for Crawley Baptist Church, a chronological description seems to work best). If a standardised form is considered better for the general reader, though, I'm willing to adapt the text accordingly.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Planning permission was refused in November 2008 but was granted again in January 2009." granted again? Had it previously been granted before being refused then?
→ Yes. "Withdrawn" would make more sense than "refused", on reflection, so I have changed.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The table is sortable, so perhaps you ought to relink things you've linked once, like "grade X-listed" as once resorted, no guarantee exists that the first instance of such will be the linked one.
→ Originally, I had more instances linked; but I was asked to remove all duplicated wikilinks (seee Dabomb's comments).Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...other activities take place elsewhere in the neighbourhood...." a rather general statement. What do you mean by this?
Page ranges in the references need an en-dash, e.g. ref [4] has 91-92 where it ought to have 91–92.
→ I think I've corrected all instances. Are there any snazzy gadgets or scripts to check dashes? – I'm thinking about implications for other lists I've done!Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope these help. Feel free to shout at me if you wish to discuss them further. Since you may be about to embark on an heroic mission of more, similar lists, we should work hard to get this one perfected. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your detailed comments and observations. As you correctly guessed, I hope to produce more of this type of list, and this one will be the prototype; indeed, the next gargantuan one is nearing a FLC-ready stage, and I can think of three more districts/boroughs that I am ready to "cover". This one does need to establish some robust conventions, therefore. Regarding a lead image, here are some possibilities; I am open to any, and would appreciate your views and those of others.
One thumbnail image of St John the Baptist's Church (the parish church of Crawley).
One thumbnail image of St Nicholas (the oldest and most architecturally important).
Two or more thumbnails.
A map showing Crawley within West Sussex and/or within England.
A map of the borough showing the neighbourhoods.
Some combination of those.
Something else!
Would it be acceptable to duplicate an image already used in the table? If not, I have shots taken from other angles. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Is the "Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque" the same as the "Broadfield Islamic Centre and Mosque"? This isn't clear. And what's a "purpose-built facility"?
→ It's part of it. I have reworded (and removed the phrase "purpose-built") to clarify. The name "Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque" is ref'd to the Crawley Borough Council website. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For both mosques, do you have any info on their use as an "Islamic center", similar to the info in "Christ the Lord"? Are the mosques Sunni or Shia? Are there any other official associations with specific Muslim denominations?
→ Unfortunately there is remarkably little info about the centres, either online or in reports/books etc. I have managed to confirm the traditions, though (both Sunni). I have searched thoroughly but have found no more Muslim associations within Crawley. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay; many U.S. mosques aren't any more specific than "Shia". – Quadell(talk) 22:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is "A Baptist church plant was established" correct grammar? Should it be "A Baptist congregation was initially planted..."? I'm not familiar enough with the term to know for sure.
I would think "planting" and "establishing" were synonyms, so that a planting wouldn't be established. But nomenclatures don't always make sense. :) – Quadell(talk) 22:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "the village had been rendered uninhabitable by the expansion of Gatwick Airport" needs a source.
→ Added one from one of Goldsmith's books. Although its title suggests a rather picture-heavy book, it does have decently comprehensive and well-researched text. I do have other sources if this is not considered robust enough, though. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, you should slim the notes for "St Francis & St Anthony's" down to "Harry Stuart Goodhart-Rendel built this church on a town-centre site in 1959. It is currently being renovated, and is in the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton's Crawley Parish, consisting of six churches in Crawley and a convent chapel in Copthorne." The rest, I think, should go into a new stub on the church itself.
→ Reduced to four lines (I kept the Capuchin Friars snippit). Actually, I have literally just found out that the church was very recently awarded Grade II listed status, so as part of my drive to write articles for as many of Crawley's listed buildings as possible I will need to do a full article :) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the notes for "St Michael and All Angels" could also be slimmed down.
→ Three sentences now; looks a bit shorter. I think all three are equally relevant, so further pruning might be difficult. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notes about "St Richard of Chichester" seem to mostly be about the church it replaced, right? That's not relevant. Just have one sentence on what it replaced, not 4 1/2, and expand info on "St Richard of Chichester" itself.
→ Unfortunately there is little other info about the new church. I have tried to improve the balance.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Siri Guru Singh Sabha Gurdwara, the phrase "considered inadequate" needs to be sourced. Also, that first sentence needs to be reworded, as in "The Sikh community of Crawley meet in a low, single-storey structure, built in 1982. 200–250 worshippers regularly attend from a wide area, since the temple serves Sikhs across a 25-mile (40 km) radius, and ___ has raised concerns that the meeting place is inadequate." Or something.
→ Reworked (thanks for the suggestion; that prose looks cleaner). I removed the word "inadequate", which featured in the planning app but was not ascribed to anybody in particular.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What was the development committee? Who appointed it, and who was on it? These questions probably don't need to be answered in this article, but there should be a link to an article that answers them. Information such as "25% of the price" probably belongs in that article instead.
Suggestion: I think a pie chart of the religious affiliations would be helpful.
→ Can do, but I'm worried that it would either overlap the next section header and play havoc with the table or would be too small to read. (Assuming it is put in the religious affiliations section.)Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of "Communities with no dedicated building" brings up an issue: several listed "places of worship" are also community centers, and so are not really buildings "used solely for religious purposes". Is there a better way to word the distinction between places on the list and places not on the list?
→ Not exactly; the two mosques are primarily places of worship, although they seem to host some general community/non-worship-related activities as well (so they are specifically religious, rather than secular, buildings); and the Broadfield situation is a separate church within a community centre complex. I have added a bit in the lead (the reference to "secular buildings") which I hope makes the distinction clearer.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be a summary of the rest of the article, but it mentions things not contained elsewhere: For instance, it describes the New Towns Act and gives dates and details that should really be in the "Development" section. It talks about Ifield being a center for non-conformism, which should probably be in the "Religious affiliation" section. Basically, everything in the lead needs to be elsewhere in the article, and every section of the article (communities with no building, airport, etc.) needs to be at least mentioned in the lead. It could use a sentence about the "religious affiliation" (demographics), e.g. "Crawley has places of worship for several religions. Although majority Christian, Crawley has larger Muslim and Hindu populations than England as a whole." Or something. As a more minor point, I find the second sentence of the lead to be bulky and unclear.
→ I have rewritten the lead and second para (now renamed to fit the content better) and moved some bits around. I think all concerns have been covered. In doing this, the clunky second sentence problem was eliminated as well.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all the problems I mentioned in the lead have been fixed. But since it was so thoroughly redone, I'll need to look over it carefully, to make sure it's perfect, when I'm more awake. All other problems with the list have been resolved. – Quadell(talk) 15:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope these help! All the best, – Quadell(talk) 14:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful comments. I will address remaining issues tomorrow (Saturday). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great work so far! – Quadell(talk) 22:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.[19] -- 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 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.
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]
The sourcing issues I previously brought up have been resolved in discussions between us. I am happy this page is reliably sourced. Rambo'sRevenge(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]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk·contribs) I'm copy-editing, but these are questions that I have:
Since you put it that way, I'll answer the questions directly instead of changing the article. I hope that's alright. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The crew decides to divide the work by drawing straws." What work?
This is referring to the work described in the following sentences. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify this? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It refers to: "Luffy, Zoro, and Usopp are sent to gather the fruit while Nami and Sanji survey the island. Chopper is left to guard the ship." -- Goodraise (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He enjoys himself" So is he generally enjoying guarding the ship or does he do something that leads to his enjoyment?
He imagines being captain and giving orders, but the scene is only a few seconds long and I don't think it needs to be mentioned—at least not to adequately summarize the episode. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"them obscure items" What do you mean by "obscure"? Hard to see, or unknown?
It was meant to mean "difficult to understand", but I just re-examined those items and it turns out they aren't (except for me and Luffy). How about "He offers them a variety of items, including a pile of paper that he tries to sell to Nami."? -- Goodraise (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"first-class soup" A bit too colloquial. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A number of words come to mind that could replace it ("outstanding", "excellent", ...) but "first-class" is as far as I can tell the most fitting one. Perhaps you're referring to the fact that it describes the soup as being of high quality. In that case I'll have to clarify that it is not the soup as such, but its quality, that has the effect on him. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. (Though I'm not sure if my change makes it that much better...) -- Goodraise (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
"At the day's end, as they are about to leave" Please clarify in the text who "they" are.
"Zoro eventually realizes it, but by the time he convinces the others to leave, Nami already lost the Straw Hats' ship in a game of chess." Please clarify in the text what "it" is. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to finish tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't stress yourself. It's ultimately my fault for nominating sub-standard lists. I promise to do better in the future. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Sanji has a violent encounter with a tax collector, wearing an electric battle suit." So who is wearing the battle suit, Sanji or the tax collector? Suggest "Sanji has a violent encounter with a tax collector, who is wearing an electric battle suit."
"eventually was locked up in the brig of the wreck of a navy ship" Who locked him up?
"When Lapanui hears Whetton's name, he loses his trust." His trust of whom?
"Whetton orders his men to invade." Invade what?
These are the last issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 4 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.
For me, knowing zero about "One Piece", I would appreciate an introduction into what this whole thing is about. Your introduction makes the assumption that I know what about to read.
This has actually been raised and addressed before (to some degree at least). I have added more content.[21] Is this sufficient? -- Goodraise (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think storyline is either one word or hyphenated, not two separate words in this context.
Four paragraphs in the lead is probably one too many for a list of this moderate length.
Merged 2nd and 3rd paragraph.[22] Though I'm not convinced that this constitutes and overall improvement. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Toei released.." stick with the official name or else place an abbreviation after the original statement.
You talk a lot about the theme music in the lead but don't mention it again in the rest of the article. Usually we'd expect this to be expanded upon.
I'm not sure what that would look like. Could you explain? -- Goodraise (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does EP# mean?
It means "episode number". Are you sure that this needs explaining? -- Goodraise (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you say English airdate, do you mean English language airdate? Not "airdate in England"? Not clear.
Yes, it means "English language airdate". It should be clearer when seen in combination with the second paragraph. Does it really need further explanation? -- Goodraise (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By far the biggest issue for me is the onus on the reader to know what this list is about before reading it. I think the lead needs some work to help me understand what this is all about. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that, although your concerns are all valid, the "theme music", "EP#", "English airdate", and (to a lesser degree) the "four paragraphs" issues are in keeping with currently featured anime episode lists. Anyways, thanks for the review! -- Goodraise (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, it's been five or six months since I reviewed an anime list. However, I'm happy to let the theme music slide, but the EP# needs a note, the English airdate is ambiguous, and leads should still really not be over the top for moderate sized lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added a note and changed "English airdate" to "US airdate". However, if you're saying that the lead is too long, not in terms of paragraphs, but in terms of words, then I have no idea how to fix this. No piece of information present there seems expendable. What could I remove without impairing comprehensiveness? -- Goodraise (talk) 16:24, 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.
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]
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]
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?
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]
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.
Does "rat" really need to be linked. I would be very surprised if readers did not know what they were.
"dreams to become a chef"-->dreams of becoming a chef
"The film is also on the 2007 top ten lists"
"of multiple critics including"-->of multiple critics, including
"It was nominated for five Academy Awards" Comma after here.
"winning only the last one"
"Further more Ratatouille "-->Ratatouille
"13 Annie Awards including twice in the Best Animated Effects"-->13 Annie Awards, twice for Best Animated Effects
"where it lost to Surf's Up"-->losing to Surf's Up
"It won the Best Animated Feature Award from multiple associations"-->It won the Best Animated Feature Award from multiple associations
Blank cells need em dashes (—). Dabomb87 (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done fixed all question though: What should be italicized and what shouldn't ? Should Pixar be italicized and walt disney?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Film names and publications should be italicized. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
All publications (journals, magazines and newspaepers) should be italicized. Examples: The New York Times, USA Today, Variety.
"Metro.co.uk"-->Metro
Why is IMDb used? It is generally not a reliable source.
Spell out HFPA in the publisher of ref 9.
Ref 4, why are the dates linked? They should not be. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say thank you for this deep review.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportReview by 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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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]
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]
"Compilation and specialty albums"-->Her compilation and specialty albums
Done.
"C'mon C'mon which"-->C'mon C'mon, which
Done.
"Crow has been nominated two times."-->Crow has been nominated twice.
Done.
"the MTV Video Music Awards is now a respected pop culture awards show in its own right. " Source? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Phrase removed--unnecessary. Done.
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]
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
Lead
Eventhough Walt Disney Pictures pushed for an Academy Award for Best Picture nomination,[6] it was not nominated, provoking controversy about the Academy deliberately restricting WALL-E to the Best Animated Feature category,[7] American film critic Peter Travers commented that "If there was ever a time where an animated feature deserved to be nominated for best picture it's Wall-E." -- (1)Eventhough is not a dictionary word (from what I researched) (2)The comma after to the Best Animated Feature category should be either a period or semi-colon
Done
The feature has won Best Picture from the Boston Society of Film Critics,[9] the Chicago Film Critics Association,[10] the Central Ohio Film Critics awards,[11] the Online Film Critics Society,[12] and most notably the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, becoming the first animated feature to win the award. -- to win the award should be "to win that award"
Done
References
IMDB is not reliable per WP:RS to verify the awards, even generally.
Done moved it to external links
Ref 25 has an error with the publisher (if I'm not mistaking)
Done changed to the Boston Society of Film Critics official website
I would add more categories, such as the main WALL-E category (if there is one)
Done
Images
One would be nice.--₮RUCӨ 03:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Dabs
Fix the dab, as found in the toolbox.--₮RUCӨ 04:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done
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]
Support After a lot of improvements [27] 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]
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]
*"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...
Non-breaking spaces are needed between dollar amounts and "million", such as $23.1 million.
"The feature further grossed "-->In total, the feature grossed
" WALL-E was highly acclaimed with an approval rating of 96% on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes."--> WALL-E was well received, with an approval rating of 96% on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.
"The film was nominated for several awards" Comma after here.
"WALL-E wasn't successful at earning any Annie Award losing all to Kung Fu Panda." No contractions first of all; second, this can be rephrased for clarity: "WALL-E did not win any Annie Awards losing all of them to Kung Fu Panda."
"nd most notably the Los Angeles Film Critics Association" Why "most notably"?
"The Time Magazine"-->Time (notice that I disambiguated the link)
"directors achievement"-->directors' achievement
"huge audience eventhough"-->large audience even though
"The Character of WALL-E" Why is "Character" capitalized?
"on Empire's online poll of the 100 greatest movie characters, conducted in 2008."-->on Empire's 2008 online poll of the 100 greatest movie characters.
Blank cells need em dashes (—). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:09, 14 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]
That was my own support. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 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]
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]
Okay, sorry for that inconvenience, but it benefits the reader of the article.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:08, 16 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]
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]
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.
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria -- TinuCherian - 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 -- TinuCherian - 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]
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 -- TinuCherian - 04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Juniper was founded by Pradeep Sindhu,[2][3] Dennis Ferguson, and Bjorn Liencres in February 1996. -- (1)No need for the names to be in italics (2)What's verifying the other people?
[TC] : Removed italics, added more references to the other founders also. [/TC]
The company was subsequently reincorporated in Delaware on March 1998 in and went public on the 25th of June, 1999. -- (1)Remove the in before and went (2)Comma before and (3)Per MOS:DATE, the date should be formatted as 25 June, 1999 or June 25, 1999.
[TC]: Fixed [/TC]
NetScreen had acquired Neoteris prior to this acquisition.Unisphere, before the Juniper acquisition, was initially comprised of three other key networking equipment manufacturers such as Redstone Communications, Argon Networks, Castle Networks. -- (1)space between the period (2)The such as should be replaced with a colon
[TC] : Fixed [/TC]
Siemens had bought Castle Networks, for $300 million in 1999, and then combined it with two other acquisitions to form the Unisphere Networks. -- remove the comma
[TC] : Fixed [/TC]
The names of the companies should not be in italics
[TC] : Fixed [/TC]
The lead needs more transitions from each acquistion to the other, right now its really boring to read.
[TC] : Can you help in this one? [/TC]
Transitions like thenlater onafterwards --Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Links should be linked the first time they appear, not after the first time they appear, like the Siemens link
[TC] : Fixed. Removed wilikink to US. Rest due to the template {{USA}} : United States [/TC]
Do not link items that have been already linked once, like computer networking
[TC] : Fixed [/TC]
Juniper has acquired over 11 companies till date. -- till date is wrong grammar, and what you are trying to say is WP:WEASEL talk, give an exact time period (date)
[TC] : Fixed [/TC]
Juniper has officially released the financial details for most of these mergers and acquisitions. -- this list has no mergers
[TC] : Fixed [/TC]
Acquisitions
The business column should not sort because there are more than one entries in some cells.
[TC] : How to disallow sort on a particular column? [[/TC]
References
Ref # 3 is missing a publisher
[TC] : Fixed [/TC]
Ref # 4 is inaccurately formatted, the language field should not have what it currently haves and its missing a publisher
[TC] : Fixed [/TC]
What makes masshightech.com reliable?
[TC]: Fixed. Replaced with alternate references [/TC]
This publisher is also inconsistently formatted.
[TC] : Fixed [/TC]
Some refs have publishers of Juniper inconsistently formatted, it should be Juniper Networks or Juniper Networks, Inc.
[TC] : Fixed. All to 'Juniper Networks' [/TC]
Many refs actually are missing publishers and are inconsistently formatted.
Fixed most of the suggestions. How do I disallow sort on a particular column only ? Can you help me for "The lead needs more transitions from each acquistion to the other, right now its really boring to read." This is my first FLC. Thanks a lot for the kind review -- TinuCherian - 12:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Followup comments
Lead
Unisphere, before the Juniper acquisition, was initially comprised of three other key networking equipment manufacturers : Redstone Communications, Argon Networks, Castle Networks. -- the semi-colon should not have a space before it
[TC] : done
Juniper made most number of its acquisitions in 2005. -- add the before "most number"
[TC] : done
Juniper has acquired over 11 companies till November 2005. -- best stated as Since November 2005, Juniper has acquired over 11 companies.
[TC] : done. "Since November 1999" ?
Table
To make a particular column unsortable, use the same coding that made the ref column unsortable !class="unsortable"|
[TC] : done
Juniper Networks, Inc. M&A Summary
The section header needs to be renamed to Juniper Networks, Inc. acquisitions summary
[TC] : done
"Juniper Networks, Inc. has made 11 acquisitions while it did not take stake in any companies. Juniper has made 1 divestitures till date." -- (1)Reword the first sentence to Juniper Networks, Inc. has made 11 acquisitions, though it has not taken stake in any companies.
I'm sorry, but the since this list mentions the Juniper Networks as Juniper Networks, Inc. (it needs to be as such in the references)
[TC] : done. Changed all corresponding references publisher to "Juniper Networks, Inc."
Ref # 7|The work is from Google, while the publisher is Juniper Networks, Inc.
[TC] : The work is an orginal press release by Juniper. The URL is changed ( or content removed/archived ?). This content is just a cache by the Search engine operator Google.
Ref # 10|No need for the URL of the NYT publisher
[TC] : done.
Ref # 13|Properly format the publisher, it should not be in all lower case
[TC] : done.
Ref # 15|is still missing a publisher
[TC] : done.
Ref # 18|capitalize news
[TC] : done.
Ref # 20|is missing a publisher
[TC] : done.
What makes network world reliable? In addition, the publisher should not be in all lower case
[TC] : Network World is reliable and a popular magazine.
What makes securitypronews.com reliable? In addition, the publisher should be the name of the company who runs the site not the URL
[TC] : done. Looks reliable. Saw many articles in WP referenced to this website. should always publisher to be the holding company or the owner ? Even The San Francisco Chronicle/sfgate.com is owned by Hearst Communications Inc. . It is better to leave as the popular name in some cases.
What makes ITwire reliable? In addition, the publisher should be the name of the company who runs the site not the URL
[TC] : Looks reliable.Reference is uncontroversial. btw saw many articles in WP referenced to this website.
What makes xchange mag reliable? In addition, the publisher should be the name of the company who runs the site not the URL
Now there is an inconsistency with the linking of publishers, either remove the links or add links to all publishers that have articles on WP. In addition, there is still an overlink of US dollars in the lead, and why is acquisition linked so late in the prose and not earlier?--₮RUCӨ 23:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[TC] : done.Wikilinks to publishers that have WP articles are added. Only one wikilink to Juniper references to avoid over linking.
I'll support when the sourcing issue is resolved below, and my comment above about transitions.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:10, 21 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]
"founded in 1996 and with head quarters in Sunnyvale, California." Make this a separate sentence. Are you sure that "head quarters" is two words?
[TC] : done.
"Juniper did not acquire a company for the first three years of its existence, but in November 1999, Juniper acquired Layer Five, an Intellectual property design firm." I suggest splitting the sentence again. By using "but" as a connector, you've created a false contrast.
[TC] : done.
"The company's largest acquisition is the purchase of NetScreen Technologies for US$ 4 billion." Trim redundancy: "The company's US$4 billion acquisition of NetScreen Technologies is its largest purchase.
[TC] : done.
"prior to "-->before (multiple occurences)
[TC] : done.
"The majority of companies acquired by Juniper are based in the United States. Juniper made the most number of its acquisitions in 2005."-->Most of the companies acquired by Juniper are based in the United States. Juniper made the majority of its acquisitions in 2005.
[TC] : done.
"US based"-->US-based
[TC] : done.
"Since November 1999, Juniper has acquired over 11 companies" Missing period at the end.
[TC] : done.
"US dollars" Already linked above.
[TC] : done.
Why do you provide the location and establishment date for some companies, but not for others? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[TC] : I will try to find the rest of them. done
Sources
Publications (newspapers, journals and magazines) need to be in italics. You can do this by changing publisher= to work= in citation templates.
done.changes made per above suggestions -- TinuCherian - 07:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a free image of the company, maybe of its headquarters?
[TC] : done. Found an image at the commons .
This is unusual, but I would say that the lead is actually underlinked. Add links to some of the companies. Also, maybe some technical words, such as "intellectual property" and "networking equipment".
[TC] : done. I tried best to not to overlink.
The "US$" should not be separated from the actual dollar amount. Example: "US$ 19 million"-->US$19 million
[TC] : done.
"though"-->although
[TC] : done.
Some publications (newspapers, magazines, journals) in the references still need to be italicized, for example, Forbes.
[TC] : done.
Follow up
What makes the following sources reliable? We need to know about their reputation for fact checking. Even if they were used in previous FLs, remember that standards have risen. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
[TC] : I will try to find alternative references -- TinuCherian - 03:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC) done -- TinuCherian - 03:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If XChangemag and CedMagazine are publications, they also should be linked. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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. -- TinuCherian - 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.
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
Comments from Bencherlite
For the record, there are no ambiguous links or broken weblinks at this time.
Images:
Don't force the image size per MOS:IMAGES; I realise that this might mean you have to move them around and lose e.g. the hat toss photo (no great loss?)
The hat toss photo is the one thing that stays consistent across all of these lists. To loose it would be to throw away the consistent format that is used throughout these lists. As to the image sizing, let me see what impact that will have before implementing. -MBK004 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a hard/inflexible rule, it only says "as a rule" and many featured items have fixed image width. It's also under 300 as suggested. Plus as MBK004 mentioned, it provides consistency with the other lists in this topic, several of which are already featured. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see why the hat toss photo stays, but at 100px I think the others are far too small. BencherliteTalk 10:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
increased it a bit. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "congressional appointment system"? Can you explain it? Or would explaining it show that this information isn't needed for the lead of this list? (And yes I know it's mentioned in the Naval Academy list without explanation!)
that is explained in the main articles on the academies and in my opinion that is the proper place for it and would be out of scope for an alumni list. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why mention it at all, then? I'm in the UK and that one bald sentence means nothing to me. Are readers meant to guess that the main article has United States Military Academy#Admission? How about linking to that section directly?BencherliteTalk 10:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned because it's a very unique system in the US. I've linked to the main article as you suggest. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Cadets do not become astronauts on graduation, rather those who enter aviation and space-related fields have the opportunity to be selected for astronaut training by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (new para) This list is drawn from graduates of the Military Academy who became astronauts." How about ending the first paragraph a sentence earlier, and starting the second paragraph "Eighteen graduates of the Military Academy were later selected for astronaut training by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)."
The second paragraph of the lead repeats the year that the academy opened, so remove this; if you want to keep the information about the first class year, move that to the first paragraph (although it's not vital information).
Done, and kept first grad. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The most recent" - I'd add something like "As of March 2009", so readers can see how recent the information is.
As for the third paragraph of the lead, if we need it (which I'm undecided about), then perhaps wikilink the main alumni list to "other notable graduates".
I think we need it to keep a standard format throughout all of these lists, many of which are already FLs. As to the wikilink, I have been looking for a place to link to that instead of just the navbox at the bottom. -MBK004 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is the reason the navbox was created on a prior FL for USNA. There's no need to link it again at the top. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't bother forcing a TOC for a two-section list
Again, keeping a consistent format across all of these list, this wasn't an issue at prior FLCs. -MBK004 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It wasn't an issue at prior FLCs" doesn't mean that it can never be raised. Why is a table of contents needed for this list? BencherliteTalk 10:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because lists are long and it makes it far easier on the reader to get to that section vice having to scroll. I use it all the time in all these lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References (not all checked):
We have a mixture of USMA references using either e.g. "publisher=Office of Admissions [no mention of USMA]", "publisher=Office of the Dean, USMA" or "publisher=United States Military Academy". It would be better to be consistent on whether you're mentioning USMA and whether in full or in abbreviation.
made them USMA. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3 has been left as Office of Admissions, was this deliberate? BencherliteTalk 10:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it was oversight, fixed now. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References should have "date=" where one exists e.g. ref 5 and the NASA biographies.
I dislike "2009-03-23" style dates in references, but I can't remember what this week's rule is about dates and date-formatting and the rule would probably change again in another five minutes, but someone else may have a better clue than me what the FLC preference is.
That type of style was just fine in the FLC for the Naval Academy alumni which have all passed FLC within this past month. -MBK004 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not liking a valid date format is not a valid objection, also as MBK004 pointed out, other FLs use this format, and recent ones at that. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "it's not been an issue in the past" doesn't mean it can't be raised. And date formats in references have been raised in FLCs in the past (e.g. in one of my nominations, Colin said "ISO date formats ... should really be discouraged as that's what logged out readers see" (October 2008)). I was raising it as an issue for discussion (not saying I objected on an "I don't like it" basis), preferably by reference to WP guidance rather than arguments based on it not being raised in other recent FLs. However, having done some more looking around, I draw your attention to this current FAC where SandyGeorgia says "ISO dates are used incorrectly throughout the citations" and this current FAC, where another reviewer said "You have a few accessdates that are in ISO format". So, if it's picked up at FAC, why shouldn't it be picked up at FLC? BencherliteTalk 10:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're not at fac and it's better for the topic to be consistent. If the FLC promoters cared about this it would have been mentioned long ago and it's not proper to change the rules in midstream. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, such date formatting is not discouraged by the MoS. It hasn't been an issue in previous lists, and as noted above, we should strive for consistency. –JuliancoltonTalk·Review 20:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, to both of you) So standards can be lower at FLC than at FAC, in your view? BencherliteTalk 20:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not by any means, but I still fail to see any guideline or policy which prohibits the use of YYYY-MM-DD date formatting. Just because somebody raised a concern at FAC doesn't mean it's a legitimate issue. –JuliancoltonTalk·Review 20:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not just "somebody", but User:SandyGeorgia, one of the two delegates of the FA director. I'm sure she doesn't just raise issues for fun, but I'll go and ask her. BencherliteTalk 20:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of who said it, Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Dates says ISO dates shouldn't be used within the text itself; it says nothing about their use within citations. –JuliancoltonTalk·Review 20:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page number for ref 10 (the Borman book)? And ref 14 (the Collins book?)
Lots of nit-picking, but couldn't see anything fundamentally wrong. BencherliteTalk 16:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. I will reply interspersed as I get to them. I have a few rather busy days coming up with school so apologies in advance if things are not dealt with quickly. -MBK004 20:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's tough when the list is so exclusive, but I'd suggest trying to expand the second paragraph — you don't mention Buzz Aldrin, you don't mention Edward H. White, and I think they ought to be mentioned.
Ref 5 just leads to the front cover, so which particular page are you relying on?
several actually, but the URL doesn't change when you choose any of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, that's why I asked. Can't you indicate which somewhere in the reference? BencherliteTalk 10:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem awkward and wordy to me. The TOC on the left seems pretty simple and obvious to use. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem is that I look at the TOC and see courses in geography, English, law, foreign languages, history etc as well as science and engineering, so the bare reference doesn't support the text that "The curriculum emphasizes the sciences and engineering fields". Same problem with the other reference. BencherliteTalk 20:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until:
(a) "The curriculum emphasizes the sciences and engineering fields" is either removed or properly sourced;
(b) My suggestion about expanding para 2 of the lead is either accepted or rejected;
(c) the dates in references are no longer in ISO format.
There is no excuse for standards being lower at FLC than FAC on a minor issue such as date presentation. As noted above, other FLCs have had this issue raised in the past so it's not "changing the rules in midstream" to raise this here. I don't care if other similar lists got past without this being raised; they should be changed as well.BencherliteTalk 20:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re oppose: A) it is sourced, your first post was right, you're being excessively picky, B) being overly picky again, C) I've asked the list mods about this and see Julian's comment above. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(a) No, "emphasizes" is original research as the links show courses in many more fields; (b) shame you didn't address the comment earlier; I still think a lead that doesn't even mention Buzz Aldrin is deficient; (c) noted, and see mine. BencherliteTalk 20:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where in written policy, not Sandy's opinion, does it say yyyy-mm-dd is prohibited (cx Julian's post too)? It is not OR, it's in the ref. For Buzz, I'll let the FLC nominator decide that one. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Dates says ISO dates shouldn't be used withing the text itself. Doesn't seem to say anything about references. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
updated in the light of Sandy's reply - her objection was to dates such as "2009-3-25" rather than "2009-03-25", so I had misunderstood her point. Drama over on point (c). BencherliteTalk 21:13, 25 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]
It is the oldest of the United States' five service academies. -- I don't know but this sentence would be complete if you mention the academies.
Wouldn't that make it wordy? There's a template at the bottom. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the 18 graduates who have become astronauts, other notable graduates include 2 American Presidents, 4 additional heads of state, and 74 Medal of Honor recipients,[6] 70 Rhodes Scholars,[7] and 3 Heisman Trophy winners. -- Remove the and before 74 Medal of Honor recipients
Why is Astronaut capitalised in the article title?
Geez H Christ. You guys really need to settle on one set of rules for lists. The answer is the other list in this series (USNA Astros, etc are all capitalilzed for a reason I forget and no one objected. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I missed this comment first time round. We don't have "rules" but we agree to a consensus on formats. However, whether or not other stuff exists, it doesn't make it right. Could anyone answer my question, why is Astronaut capitalised? Is it a proper noun? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, can't this title be improved? It's hellishly clunky right now. Perhaps, "List of [USMA] astronaut alumni"?
Precisely my point, list reviewers don't agree on format. It is not clunky. You're the one claiming IDONTLIKEIT. Everyone else liked the other lists with this format. See {{USNALists}}, four of them are cureently FLs. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geez H Christ and You guys really need to settle on one set of rules for lists again. It matches all the other lists in the topic and it would be just strange to break the pattern. If we used USMA someone would surely bitch about not knowing what it meant. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No no no , I don't need to settle on rules with anyone, let alone Jesus. I wanted to know why (1) astronaut is capitalised and (2) why the list can't have a more useful and elegant name. I'm not suggesting you use USMA, I couldn't be bothered to expand it. I want to know why you had "(Astronauts)" in the title. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because if you look at List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Astronauts) you'll see it's part of a topic of 5 lists with only one more to go to have all FLs. (Astronauts) is there as putting all notable alum in one list is way unmanageble and Dabomb suggesting making sublists. And yes, you do need to settle on consistency in list reviews--that is part of consensus and you should know that, even the list mods will tell you that, that FL reviews are highly inconsistent. We're trying make the USNA and USMA lists featured topics and that requires a high degree of consistency. All the sublists have the first letters capitalized. Having (Sublist) shows it's sublist of a main list, not a standalone list. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THis Astronaut one is the first in what was planned to be a similar Ftopic on the USMA, like was done for USNA. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article you linked me to does not capitalise astronaut in the lead, by the way. So why would it need to be capitalised in the title? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And also I can see a number of issues with the list to which you pointed me. Perhaps you should revisit these lists. For instance, the singular of alumni is alumnus. The plural version appears to be incorrectly used in the list to which you directed me. It would be worthwhile checking the other lists before attempting a Featured Topic as I would be very reticent to support the promotion of a group of lists which exemplify incorrect grammar. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe all the FLs promoted while you were gone should be reviewed then. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good hyperbole. Is astronaut a proper noun? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The first alumni to graduate and go on to become an astronaut..." presumably you're in the singular here, so the "..first alumnus..." would appear more appropriate.
Same with "the most recent alumni...", I seem to remember it being first declension plural (so, singular alumnus, plural alumni...) back when I was reading Latin in the early 80s...
"In addition to the 18 graduates ..." this is a little bit non sequitur as the previous sentence talks about 25 alumni without specifying who actually had become astronauts.
Images in Safari under Mac OS overlap.
I've played around with the image layout a bit. Take a look to see if it's any better. –JuliancoltonTalk·Review 21:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that bothered but any (even one?) relevant external link?
I don't follow. All of the alums are graduates of West Point. Whether they served in the US Army or Air Force isn't the point, it is that they graduated from the USMA. -MBK004 22:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the hostility directed my way for asking a very, very simple question, i.e. why is Astronaut capitalised? (it is not a proper noun, even our own article doesn't capitalise it, check it out), I offer Julian my sincerest best on his efforts to deal with my concerns. As for "I don't like it", well, no, I think Wikipedia should not incorrectly capitalise nouns. Very straight forward. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, moving incorrectly titled articles is very easy and shouldn't prevent newer articles from being titled correctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for expecting some level of consistency in list reviews. I obviously chose the wrong part of the project to work on this Spring. As for Latin grammar, I don't speak it, few do. Feel free to fix them. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you did if you can't take simple, constructive crticism. And as for Latin, it's a simple case of understanding how to use the words you put in the lists. Alumnus=1, alumni=more than one. Sorry if this wasn't brought up before. I've been absent for five months, I promise if I hadn't been away I'd have told you sooner. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're not being merely simple, you're basically saying everything done while you're gone is inadequate. And yes, the reviews are inconsistent, very much so. Even regular reviewers here don't agree on stuff and that is a problem indeed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Not at all. I'm saying that it seems odd to me that Astronaut is captialised. It isn't. Simple. Fixing it will take two seconds. Fixing the other lists will take five. Get over it. Regular reviewers here are absolutely entitled to disgaree with me. But as yet no-one has said why Astronaut is a proper noun. Wikipedia has many problems. Understanding why people wish to capitalise non-proper nouns is one of them. Pity, once more, that you had to resort to blaspheming at me. My first contribution in five months is to give a detailed review of a FLC and I get your "issues". Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I fixed the issue with the capitalized non-proper noun (along with the non-graduates list). –JuliancoltonTalk·Review 23:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rlevse, could you tone it down a bit? TRM is a veteran featured list contributor, whether it be writing, reviewing or keeping the process going. I would expect a bit more respect toward him, a fellow bureaucrat at that. I agree with the move; the capitalization issue never even struck me, just another reason why TRM is especially respected around here—his attention to detail. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a general rant directed at no one: us volunteer reviewers are not robots; we are humans too and are subject to inconsistency and changing our mind. If we miss something the first time, we can't help it. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disgusted with the bickering between two 'crats that has ensued over this FLC which I initiated. While I am grateful for Rlevse's assistance while I am overwhelmed with school work, this bickering has to stop. -MBK004 23:30, 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]
On the name, I'd prefer the Academy's name to be spelled out; yes, it's more clunky but it is definitely not something commonly known. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my part of the transgressions. The issues are deeper than A/a astronauts. I have removed all USNA/USMA list and their associated FLC pages from my watchlist. You won't be bothered by me again. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per these comments], I hope Rlevse will reconsider. If not the remaining issues may not be resolved quickly since I am overwhelmed with school work at the moment. -MBK004 02:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to take the wheel if Rlevse is burnt out. Feel free to let me know if you need help. –JuliancoltonTalk·Review 02:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By all means please do. This is my first FLC and I got showered in last-minute assignments by professors almost immediately after starting this FLC. I should be back up to full ability by Saturday (USA). -MBK004 02:21, 26 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]
I'm a strong proponent of not linking common terms, but I think "the Moon" should be linked here.
Perhaps [[Moon landing|walked on the moon]]? BencherliteTalk 23:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fixed per bencher. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The first alumnus to graduate and go on to become an astronaut" Is there such a thing as an alumnus who didn't graduate?Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in, if I may, the answer is "yes", according to the references cited in Alumnus: dictionaries refer to an alumnus as someone who attended the institution regardless of graduation, so the phrase is correct. BencherliteTalk 23:03, 30 March 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]
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?
[33]. I didn't realize there were only two sections, though, so I'm not sure if it's justified. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 03:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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]
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'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]
Twenty-four nations earned medals at the Games, and 15 won at least one gold medal. -- From the format of the lead, Twenty-four should be in numeral form
No, actually; numbers at the beginning of a sentence should be spelled out. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 01:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, true. MOS:NUM.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Denmark won its first medal at the Winter Olympics,[2] while Bulgaria and the Czech Republic won their first Winter Games gold medals. -- I'm guessing you mean they won its first Olympic medal?
Changed it to "Denmark won its first Winter Olympics medal".
Medal table
In snowboarding, Canadian Ross Rebagliati briefly had his gold medal in the men's Giant Slalom stripped after testing positive for marijuana. -- Add something like , though he was stripped after..--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean I should try to merge the two sentences into one? I don't think "In snowboarding, though he was stripped after testing positive for marijuana" provides the best flow possible. Any other work you think I could work it? Giants2008 (17-14) 02:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean like reword the last part to my suggestion.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried changed this in a similar way to your suggestion. See how that looks. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It flies with me.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
"A total of 2,176 athletes" "A total of" is redundant. Be careful not to start sentences with numerals; you may have to rephrase.
Not starting the sentence with a number was the only reason I left that there. It now reads "At the Games, 2,176 athletes...".
"Twenty-four nations earned medals at the Games, and 15 won at least one gold medal." "15"-->fifteen to keep comparable quantities written out the same.
Got it.
"none won medals"-->none of these won medals
Did seem fragmented before. I added countries to your fix.
"to win 12 career medals, eight of which were gold." Same comment about comparable quantities. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got this one too. You know I always have trouble with that. At least I got the stops in the captions right this time. :-) Giants2008 (17-14) 14:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the references, instead of using work=Associated Press, use agency=Associated Press.Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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]
You spelled out the acronyms of the American League (AL) and National League (NL) in the lead, thus this either needs to be AL or NL through the other mentions of the Leagues, or remove the acronyms if you aren't gonna use it.
The acronyms are inserted for use in the captions; they don't have to be shortened at every single usage. KV5(Talk • Phils) 22:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you use some instances of the abbreviations and per MOS:ABBRIf used, acronyms should be used consistently throughout the article.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that acronyms always be used after first usage. The requirement is that usage is consistent, which it is. The acronyms are always used in the captions and never used in the prose. That's consistent. If I've missed one somewhere, please be kind enough to point it out to me. KV5(Talk • Phils) 11:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it must have been your other list.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please mention the most recent winners
They are mentioned in the table; the lead certainly has enough information to explain the list. KV5(Talk • Phils) 22:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead needs to summarize in terms of first/recent/most instances.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a written rule, but over 95% of all FLs have this information, you have all of that but the recent ones, I don't see it as a big deal to add it.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References and tables check out up to standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 21:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
"3 foot (91 cm) tall" "3 foot" should be hyphenated.
MOS:NUM says no. "Values and unit symbols are separated by a non-breaking space". KV5(Talk • Phils) 11:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but here we have a compound modifier. In the larger context, ("3 foot (91 cm) tall silver bat trophy"), "3 foot [...] tall" is a multi-word adjective for the trophy, so a hyphen should be used: "a 3-foot-tall (91 cm) silver bat trophy". If you don't like that, perhaps a total rephrase, perhaps " a silver bat trophy that is 3 feet tall (91 cm)". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Rewrite completed. If this is acceptable, let me know and I will make the change throughout the series. KV5(Talk • Phils) 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you did was perfect. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"among all second basemen" Consider the alternative modifiers; you couldn't possibly be saying "among some/none basemen". Dabomb87 (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A slip on my part. Done. KV5(Talk • Phils) 11:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
He and then-teammate Shaquille O'Neal led the Lakers to three consecutive NBA championships from 2000 to 2002. -- We'll see what results from a discussion on the capitalization of "Champion(ship)"
After O'Neal's departure following the 2003–04 season, Bryant became the cornerstone of the Lakers franchise. -- Clarify what departure is meant here. From the NBA or his former team
It should mean career high, but I don't know how Chris will indicate it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 23:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added a note about that—Chris!ct 00:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the "Career" row his total of all seasons?
It's the average of all seasons except for the "Game played" and "Game started". -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 23:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Career highs table: I don't like the use of the symbol Game & date here, I think spelling out the word would be better
Also in this table, why isn't their a game and date for the freethrows?
For your second comment, it is because there were multiple times where Bryant achieved his career high. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 23:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References
I hate to be a dick about this but ESPN.Com is not the publisher, its the work. ESPN Internet Ventures. is the publisher
For the Youtube ref, can you place the work being from the National Basketball League?
National Basketball League... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 23:33, 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:
Bryant's official website is sourcing a few of the records. Can't a better source be found than this? If not, maybe those records aren't notable enough to be included here.-Done
The Youtube link is the official NBA one, correct?-Yes
"Drafted 13th overall by the Charlotte Hornets in the 1996 NBA Draft". Draft is repetitive here. How about "Selected 13th overall by the Charlotte Hornets in the 1996 NBA Draft"? -Done
The NBA.com link in the infobox doesn't work.-Fixed
"the second highest number of points scored in a single game in NBA history, second only to Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point performance." Change "second only to" to "behind only". That change will prevent "second" from being a redundancy. Also consider a hyphen for "second highest".-Done
"winning three All-Star MVP Awards in 2002, 2007, and 2009." Reads like he won three awards each year. I recommend dropping "three". Also, is it worth mentioning in the lead that the 2009 award was shared with Shaq?-Done
NBA awards and accomplishments: There are two citations that need to be moved outside parentheses; both are in the regular-season leader area.-Done
NBA records: "Kobe Bryant shares two NBA records". Then why are more than two items listed?-Fixed
Here and in the next section, I don't think Kobe's first name needs to be repeated.-Done
"Became one of the only three players to reach the milestone under the age of 30." This change would get rid of a little wordiness.-Done
Los Angeles Lakers franchise records: Several instances of references being out of numerical order, such as [41][37]. Also, the references for the four straight 50-point games don't need to be repeated in the photo, since the statistic is cited in the text.-Done
Others: "The Aces defeated Erie Cathedral Prep 48–43 to take home the gold." Could a more encyclopedic phrase than "take home the gold" be used, please?-DoneGiants2008 (17-14) 01:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk·contribs) Overall, really nice job. Just a few things that need addressing.
"Kobe Bryant is an American shooting guard who plays " Delink "American".
"Bryant became the cornerstone of the Lakers franchise. " Personally, I don't dispute this, but is there a source for this statement?
"career high"-->career-high
of points scored in a single game in NBA history"
"winning All-Star MVP Awards in 2002, 2007, and 2009 with O'Neal." What does "with O'Neal" mean here?
"he has had five 60-point games, 24 50-point games, and 96 40-point games."-->he has had five 60-point games, twenty-four 50-point games, and ninety-six 40-point games.
The color needs accompanying symbols.
Per MOS:BOLD, bold should not be used as a symbol; use italics instead.
In the key, I think you should explain that "at" signifies that Bryant's team played against that team on the road and "versus" signifies that his team played against that team at home. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the spacing between the daggers/asterisks and the values; otherwise, the line will break on some browsers. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the colors should not extend across the whole row, only the season column. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Why have we got a 1.1 when we don't have a 1.2? Similarly with 3.1? It always strikes me as odd to have one subheading like that... - Fixed
Last para has "times" five times (!)... Can we spice it up a bit with some more engaging prose? Perhaps "occasions" could be used? - Fixed
Back to the headings thing, you could make Regular season and Playoffs the same level as Career-highs couldn't you? - Fixed
I think the career row should be non-sortable (but it is my opinion). I can't remember the code required to keep it at the bottom, but if we think it's worth it, I'll go on the hunt. - Seem to be a good idea, but I don't know the code either
Check out this - if you still can't work it out, give me a shout and I'll see if I can help. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just confirm that he didn't ever play for the Charlotte Hornets? It may be worth clarifying that in the lead in case people go looking for his career achievements with them... - Based on his career stats, he never played for the Hornets. Should I use note or just add it to the lead?
Shouldn't Game started and Game played be Games ... in each case? - Fixed
Since the career highs table isn't sortable, you could include both cases of his free-throws made and both cases of free-throws attempt(ed??). - What do you mean?
You could name the teams against whom he made both record of each type. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't think that is possible b/c the source I used didn't specified.—Chris!ct 22:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Section headings once more - you could make 3.1 currently held and 3.2 previously held... - Fixed
There's an odd mixture of (As of March 2009) and (present) used to denote, well, today in the records list... I would attempt to be consistent. - The reason I use as of for several records is b/c they change all the time.
I know they change all the time but "present" and "As of March 2009" are very different. I would be consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
The championship was created and debuted on June 19, 2002 at TNA's second weekly pay-per-view event (PPV), which officially aired on June 26, 2002. -- (1)The (PPV) belongs after pay-per-view not after event (2)It should be clarified that June 19 was the date of the taping
The first paragraph lacks. It should state more about the history of the title, see other championship FLs (mostly the recently promoted ones)
That is all the history of the title. The only thing else that is major to the history is when the WWA International Crusierweight Championship was unified with it, but that doesn't change any champions. Nothing really big has happened to the belt over the years.
There has to be more history. How did it come about (like right after the company was established)? You could also note the unification.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well in TNA Year One, it is stated that the idea came along on the first day of weekly ppvs. During a Six Man Tag Team match, they got the idea that an x division would be great, the only problem is, that is the same day the first champion was crowned. Numerous sources, reliable and not, state it was taped on the 19th. So that I'm not sure about. Other than that, nothing too serious. Just a few vacant reigns and a unification is it. This title was seen as a pure title from 2002 to 2007. After that TNA lost focus. I'll mention the unification, that is covered by Solie.org.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 01:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reigns that were won on episodes of TNA's primary television program, TNA Impact!, aired on television two to nine days from the date the match was taped. -- If you don't take my suggestion above about the clarifying of June 19, then broadcast delay should be pipelinked to "tape" in this sentence or in the other one. This also needs a source
I don't have a source they are delayed. It has always been common knowledge they are taped so no one gives a source. I copied the lead mostly from List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions.
Reigns that were won on weekly PPV events aired either during a live broadcast or aired on taped delay up to 7 days apart. -- Did they really air live? In addition, this needs a source
No source, just stating the tape delay since the second weekly PPV was delayed. In addition the live boarddcast were part of the deal with TNA started the weekly PPVs. That they were supposed to be live boardcast each week. Sometimes they were taped. I could source this with TNA's Year One DVD release from 08, when they talk about the deal. I don't have the exact sentence though or the DVD. I only saw it once.
The inaugural champion was A.J. Styles, who is currently recognized by TNA to have become the champion after defeating Low Ki (Brandon Silvestry), Jerry Lynn, and Psicosis in a Four-Way Double Elimination match on the second weekly PPV. -- (1)No need for the real name in lists
Styles currently holds the record for most reigns at six, as recognized by TNA. -- if its recognized by TNA, no need to state it, if it were vise-versa, then that would be different
The longest reign as of March 2009 is 182 days, which was set by Christopher Daniels (Daniel Covell) during his first of four reigns as champion. -- no need for the real name
Most of the notes are not complete sentences and thus do not need full stops. Either reword them into complete sentences or reformat them with semicolons instead
Regarding sources, common sense isn't as applicable to content like such. How would Bill Gates know that TNA was taped live w/o a source?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry dude, I got nothing. No source that states they are taped up to a certain number of days, or one that says they are taped at all. Just a bunch of spoilers. It is even harder to find results for weekly PPVs, so the same is out of the question there as well. If I put a fact tag next to them, would that be okay?--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 01:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then citing the DVD like you stated will be the best thing to do.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the DVD for what? If you are talking about the thought of making an X division I can, though I'm not sure it is true since they are saying they got the idea on June 19, but that means the belt was already created. For this sentence, there is nothing to source with the DVD.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 22:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In May 2003 before the professional wrestling promotion World Wrestling All-Stars closed its doors, then-champion, Chris Sabin, defeated WWA International Cruiserweight Champion Jerry Lynn, Frankie Kazarian and Johnny Swinger in a Four Corners championship unification match to unify the TNA X Division Championship with the WWA International Cruiserweight Championship. -- (1)Closed its doors is not encyclopedic, ceased operation or went out of business (2)Remove the the before professional wrestling (3)State whether the unification had an effect on this title reign.
Finished the first, the second, and questioning the third. Nothing happened to the title. It wasn't renamed, it didn't have a big effect on it. So, I'm not sure that should be stated. Because then I would just be saying, "which had for further repercussions" (a rough draft). After the title was unified the WWA died. Though I have no source for that claim since they weren't an american promotion.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 22:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The championship was created and debuted on June 19, 2002, the taping of TNA's second weekly pay-per-view (PPV) event, which officially aired on June 26, 2002. -- No need for the officially--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now the names for the titles need verification by sources. In addition, my comment about the full stops in the notes column was not done.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I sourced one, the TNA X Title is a no brainer, and I could use a picture of the old NWA X Belt as the article picture to show that it was called the NWA-TNA X Division Championship, if that is okay. I thought I got the notes section finished. They are all complete sentences.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 01:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Defeated The Amazing Red to win the vacant championship. is not a complete sentence, request a copyedit of the notes. Also the image caption The TNA X Division Championship's design from 2002 to 2007 while he was named the NWA-TNA X Division Championship and the TNA X Division Championship. -- he was named?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already fixed. I went and checked. I'm going to add TNA's removal of the NWA to the lead. So after that, I'll ask someone. That must have been a typ-o. I wrote that pretty quick.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 01:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll wait until all is done and well.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm done, everything is sourced and finished. To the best I know how to for a list article that is. Anything you want fixed just tell me, I hope to change that oppose to a support very soon.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 08:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Followup comments
Lead
In June 2002 when TNA began operations, the company executives signed a contractual agreement with the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA) that allowed them control of the NWA World Heavyweight and NWA World Tag Team Championships. -- because both titles both have the NWA acronym, the first title should only have the acronym
TNA followed by changing their name to NWA-TNA, making them an official territory of the NWA in the process. -- (1)followed? Not the best word choice (2)place a [subsidiary] right after territory
When the X Division Championship was created, before the match to crown the inagual champion began, ring announcer Jeremy Borash referred to it as the NWA X Championship. -- (1)No need for the first part, start sentence with Before (2)Typo on inaugural
After this match, the title was renamed the NWA-TNA X Division Championship, being correct with the new name of the promotion and to the design of the championship, with NWA-TNA being on the center plate of the physical belt. -- correct -->corrected
In May 2007, the NWA ended their five year partnership with TNA; regaining control of the NWA World Heavyweight and NWA World Tag Team Championships in the process. -- same thing I said about the other the acronym above
TNA followed by creating the TNA World Heavyweight and TNA World Tag Team Championships, which were debuted on their online podcast TNA Today on May 15 and May 17, 2007. -- (1)followed? poor word choice (2)Same comment about the acronyms applies here (3)debuted -->unveiled
They also re-designed the TNA X Division Championship, removing the NWA-TNA from its plate; even though the title had been referred to as the TNA X Division Championship since late 2004. -- (1)Source? (2)removing the NWA-TNA what from its plate? (3)the semi colon should be a comma
Be consistent with the naming of the title, it should be X Division Championship throughout, except for places where it shouldn't
In May 2003 before professional wrestling promotion World Wrestling All-Stars ceased operation, then-champion Chris Sabin defeated WWA International Cruiserweight Champion Jerry Lynn, Frankie Kazarian and Johnny Swinger in a Four Corners championship unification match to unify the TNA X Division Championship with the WWA International Cruiserweight Championship. -- Now that you added more to the prose, this statement seems out of place, I would reformat the lead to maybe have the history in the first paragraph and squeeze this in somewhere appropriate. Consider splitting it into 2 paragraphs if you take my suggestion
Everything should be right-aligned, including the dashes.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I tried but some thing will just not go right. No pun intended.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 15:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now the paragraphs are too big. I recommend splitting them up into 3 or four paragraphs that are evenly split.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
"After this match, the title was renamed the NWA-TNA X Division Championship, being corrected with the new name of the promotion and to the design of the championship, with the NWA-TNA logo being on the center plate of the physical belt." Very clumsy. This sentence should be split up.
"with different wrestlers involved in pre-existing scripted feuds, plots and storylines or were awarded the title due to scripted circumstances. "-->different wrestlers were involved in pre-existing scripted feuds, plots and storylines, or were awarded the title due to scripted circumstances.
"who is currently recognized by TNA to have become the champion after defeating "-->who became recognized by TNA to have become the champion after defeating
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]
Well this article was slipt a long time ago, plus the TNA X Division Championship article is a future project of mine. I'm working on it in a subpage at the moment. I plan to make a Good or Featured Topic out of all TNA's Championships.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As long as the main article is going to be made more substantial, I have no problem with this remaining separate. It's a long list to want to merge into a decent-sized article. With that resolved, I came here for a regular review, but quickly found myself having trouble with the writing. I'll be happy to strike the oppose at the very least when these are done, but for now I must oppose. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The championship was created and debuted on June 19, 2002, the taping of TNA's second weekly pay-per-view event". Add "during" after 2002.
"In May 2003, before professional wrestling promotion World Wrestling All-Stars forecloser". Add an apostrophe to Stars and please fix that unsightly error at the end. How did everyone here miss that?
Fixed, also what unsightly error at the end? Maybe you can be more direct?--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change semi-colon after "the design of the championship" to a comma. Also, "with it having" is a noun plus -ing sentence structure, a subtle prose glitch. To learn about how to fix it, please see this guide.
"Title reigns are determined either by professional wrestling matches; different wrestlers involved in pre-existing scripted feuds, plots and storylines, or were awarded the title due to scripted circumstances." Reads poorly. I recommend "Title reigns are determined either by professional wrestling matches between different wrestlers involved in pre-existing scripted feuds, plots and storylines, or by scripted circumstances."
"The inaugural champion was A.J. Styles, who became recognized by TNA to have become the champion...". Needlessly wordy. Try "The inaugural champion was A. J. Styles (notice the space), who TNA recognized as their title-holder...".
Note: It should be "whom TNA recognized..." Dabomb87 (talk) 00:39, 28 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"). TJSpyke 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
Comments and please ignore/forgive me for anything I may point out that has been discussed in this extensive FLC, I'm looking at the list with fresh(ish) eyes...
I'd prefer the belt img to be bigger and move the Bashir image into the next section.
Alright, the image is bigger. As for the Bashir image, it is in the lead to show the difference in belt design from the first to the second.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 18:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does (2) refer to against Kazarian and Michael Shane?
What does the + mean on the current reign? It would be worth having a "Correct as of date" at the top of the table so the exact number of days reign is correct per the date statement.
I thought I had a note for that. Anyway one is added now. As for your correct as of date statement, sorry but you've lost me. I don't know how but I'm drawing a blank of what you are saying.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 18:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So when you have 14 days in there, it must have been 14 days on a specific date, like 31 March, so I'd write Statistics correct as of 31 March, 2009. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what good that would do, the reign is being determined by a template that counts the days, so it is correct. But I'll add what you asked for.--WillC 16:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, didn't know you had a template doing that work. Fair enough, apologies, remove the "correct..." sentence and keep your neat template. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your Suicide link points to a video game character, not a human being.
It is because two people are said to be playing the character and we don't know exactly who won the title under the gimmick. Seeing as the character was no wrestler's idea, it was the company's to take the gimmick from their video game to their tv show, the reign technically belongs to the character. We just decided to link to the character instead. More information is at the top of this page.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 18:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't like that particularly. It still appears to me that the character is purely fictional, but what we need to say is that he is a real person, perhaps played by multiple people. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that two different people play the character in the article, but I'm not sure who won the title at Destination X though.--WillC 16:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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? –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 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]
Image caption: "David McCampbell in his fighter plane, probably an F6F Hellcat" I wouldn't take risks on OR on the "probably" statement. Is there an expert who can verify that?
I cut the probably section, just says fighter plane now, which it certainly is. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Spanish-American War"-->Spanish–American War (multiple occurences).
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 (probably so he doesn't look like the bad guy). So here we go:
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:
File:Frank Jack Fletcher-g14193.jpg. The source is dead so cannot verify PD. But it could replacing it by thiswould verify PD. I haven't made this change so it can be left as an illustrative example. (I will mark similar cases to this below as #)
Another Naval Historical Center photo and PD (see pic info and link), see notes below. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Catlin AW.jpg, sources are dead links so cannot verify it is PD (i.e. US Marine Corps is the author).
Found Arlington Cemetery page where it is marked "USMC photo". Because a site is taken down doesn't remove it's PD status. Update image page and also left old links intact. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bauer HW USMC.jpg, source is a dead link so cannot verify it is PD (i.e. US Marine Corps is the author).
replaced with a new one I will upload in a few minutes to commons from NHC: File:HaroldBauer.jpg and see general rant below. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Butch O'Hare.jpg, nothing given to verify the claim that this is a "work of the United States Federal Government" and therefore PD
This is a Naval Historical Center photo from National archives, added web link showing that. Also note, all NHC material is PD, proof here where it says clearly their material is PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Library of Congress Bain photo and is properly tagged as such. Bain photos are all PD. No issues with this one. I added another URL though. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were a few which needed very minor fixes which I took care of. Best wishes, Rambo'sRevenge(How am I doing?) 15:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I did not ask Rambo to ask it because I didn't want to be the "bad guy", but because I am no good at these type of things. Please don't take it as me trying to hide things or have others take the blame for my actions. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I meant no slander on Dabomb87's name, I was making a joke that didn't come across very well. I just meant that at times a lot of people hate image reviews (me included). I am quite happy taking the blame for this, as I did the review voluntarily – anything in it is my fault and no-one elses. Rambo'sRevenge(How am I doing?) 21:34, 24 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]
"...with the mission of educating..." I'm not a big fan of this kind of business speak. If it's a quotation then fine and it can go in quotes, otherwise I'd prefer a less jargony start (personal opinion mind you...)
got a suggestion? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well, not really.... Sorry, I guess since I'm the only objector, and it's a mere personal preference, you can ignore me! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Class of 1881 was the first class to provide officers to the Marine Corps. A few are given the option of..." reads a little bit funny to me, the first sentence talks of an historic class, then the following sentence talks about current procedure. Just doesn't quite sequence right to me...
I'm open to ideas. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe make the 1881 sentence a run-on from the previous sentence, "...with the Class of 1881 being first to provide..." Then start the next sentence with "Graduates of the Academy are given the option..." The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done here and related pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...emphasizes engineering fields..." picky, but could be misconstrued. Prefer "emphasizes various fields of engineering."
Fixed here and in related lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the year the Academy was founded needs to go before "The Class of 1881...", not wait until the second para.
Could you possibly fit "Class year" in the Year column? I'd forgotten the note that explained Class year by the time I got round to wondering how a guy could get awarded a WWI MOH in 1906... (my own fault but something worth thinking about?)...
We had that there but someone, I think Truco, had us take it out. Pls reach agreement on this. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes the column less ambiguous once you're away from the key, so I'd suggest adding Class back in. What was the rationale behind its removal? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He thought it was "too tight" or something like that. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't buy it. It makes the column indisputable. I would add Class. Then I'm done. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gilmore could use an en or em dash instead of a hyphen in his month range in his notability column.
You've used MOH but not put it as (MOH) behind "Medal of Honor" in the lead. Uber picky but we should but abbreviations in parentheses before we use them.
Claud A Jones doesn't really need Medal of Honor to be linked in his notability column.
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]
Like the other sources, this information is from the Wrestling Title Histories by Royal Duncan and Gary Will book, which Solie.org publishes on their site. This has been done with other FLs as well.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 16:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not use the book then as the source instead of a website replicating the same content? MPJ-DK (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because I like to link to a source that shows the info so it wont be speculative.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite both? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why when I placed Wrestling Title Histories by Royal Duncan and Gary Will as the work in the ref, it would be redundant to cite the book for the exact carbon-copy of information.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it would be good to see a definitely reliable source support a potentially questionable website. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For every instance that Solie.org appears? --Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) A general reference would be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:28, 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]
Considering the article sizes of each, I disagree.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 17:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
Comments -
Any reason why brackets are used in the first sentence instead of parentheses? I suppose it's not a big deal, but it's not what I'm used to seeing.
That's how I was taught in school to use them, versus parenthesis. --Best, ₮RUCӨ 21:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Professional wrestling doesn't need two links in the first two sentences.
How did I miss that? Done.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 21:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1963, CWC was renamed as the WWWF and ended their partnership with the NWA". Change "their" to "its" so the tense remains consistent in the article. Also, I'd just end the sentence here instead of using a semi-colon; I find it odd to have two semi-colons in a sentence.
I split them into three sentences. The their was also changed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 21:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there no reference avaliable for the WWF International Championship in the table?
Whoops, it was in the lead but I forgot to place it in the table.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 21:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the note for the WCW World Tag Team Championship, remove the parentheses from the 2001 Survivor Series and pipe the link.
Well that is the article title, but done.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 21:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the WWE European Championship, the references are out of order.
Done.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 21:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another "their" in footnote A that can be changed to "its". Giants2008 (17-14) 21:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 21:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks like it meets FL standards after the changes. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Before it became WWE, the company was also known as the World Wide Wrestling Federation (WWWF) (1963–1979)[2] and the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) (1979–2002).[3]" seems a little out of place and somewhat unnecessary since you go on, in good chronological order to explain the various name transitions. Currently though, we head up to 2002 and then back to 1953...
I removed it since I do explain it later in the lead.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the lead is informative, it's really, really heavy on acronyms which makes for challenging reading. I know there's probably nothing much that can be done - anyone any ideas, or is it just me?
The thing is, the WWE has had titles which were under different acronyms (WWWF/WWF/WWE/WCW), and its hard to distinguish these since they are part of a complicated history.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would "inaugural champions" be more eloquent than "first" champions?
I think it would because saying 'which first champions Mark Lewin' sounds awkward while 'which inaugural champions Mark Lewin' sounds better IMO.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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]
After beginning his acting career primarily with small uncredited film roles and television appearances, he has spent more than 50 years on screen. -- on screen? That's very broad and unclear as to what you mean
I reworded the sentence a bit, please take another look. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has appeared in over sixty films including Hang 'Em High, Escape from Alcatraz, The Bridges of Madison County, and Gran Torino. -- Comma before including
This list includes appearances in various episodes of fictional shows, while excluding appearances as himself on talk shows, interview shows, ceremonies, and the like. -- the like is oddly wordy, how about and other related media?
That does sound much better, reworded. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References
The MTV source should have MTV Networks as the publisher and MTV as the work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I addressed it as you requested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
"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]
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]].
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."
"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]]
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:
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]
Sounds better, changed as suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:13, 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.
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]
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]
Last sentence first para ("appears" again) is out of place - we've moved on from his acting career at this point of the lead.
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]
Rawhide needs an en-dash, not a hyphen for its separator.
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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
*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]
For this and the two below, I know it is a quote; that is why I put the lower case f/i in brackets. You still have to follow the rules of logical capitalization. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, my apologies; I assumed you were simply indicating the thing that had to be changed. So you mean it should be displayed as "[f]or..." on the article? Ironholds (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done them all, although imo they look a bit icky. Ironholds (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is is really necessary to use the brackets? I mean, it is still a verbatim quote with a capitalisation change. — neuro(talk) 03:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every change to the source must be noted, and making the capitalization correct is no more revolutionary than using logical punctuation. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change commas to semicolons when separating listed items that have internal commas.
No time to find and explain, I will fix it myself when I return. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it almost funny that the second paragraph is in fact one long sentence, but it works, I guess. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
*Comments a lovely piece of work. Let's see if I can come up with anything...
May seem odd but why is it [f]or in most cases? What did the actual citation say instead of just "... for"? More my curiosity than anything else. The only thing that alerted me to it was the caption in the lead image(s) doesn't have the [f]...
Dabomb (I believe) suggested that we put [f] in place of a capital F. Ironholds (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as we have WP:PUNC for logical punctuation, we ought to be using logical capitalization too. Besides, it's plain clunky to have a random capital "For" in the middle of a sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had doubts too, but you'd recommend moving it back then? Ironholds (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that worried about the [f]'s in the middle of prose, just the [f]'s and [i]'s etc in the table. No need for them as far as I can tell, just use capital letters. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, remove them from the table. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...it has never missed a year..." seems mildly anthropomorphic to me. Is there a better way of stating that it has been awarded every year since its inception?
"... to James Fraser Stoddart "For his ..." - capital F here seems to be unusual compared to the other f's... There are a couple more capital F's in the lead... and a capital I... can we be consistent with the citations from lead to table etc?
"first awarded in 1877 to Robert Wilhelm Bunsen and Gustav Robert Kirchhoff "for their researches & discoveries in spectrum analysis"" vs "in 1877 it was awarded to Robert Wilhelm Bunsen and Gustav Robert Kirchhoff "for their researches & discoveries in spectrum analysis"" in the lead. Quite repetitive...
I see you have refrained from linking anything vaguely scientific. It's good consistency, but is it helpful to readers? For instance, I'd quite like to know what a "polyisoprenoid" is...
Robert Robertson links to a fella who died 43 years before his Davy Medal was awarded. Can you just check that the links go to the right scientists?
Few issues with links, taking a quick look through. — neuro(talk)(review) 00:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the Robertson link, checking from 1951 now. — neuro(talk)(review) 17:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any awards given posthumously? I note Geoffrey Wilkinson died the year of his medal award... could be useful additional info...
A bit of research indicates that no awards were given posthumously. Sad, would have been interesting. — neuro(talk)(review) 17:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support thanks for taking the time to go through my comments - good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
With regard to the [f]or's etc in the prose, WP:MOS#Quotation marks (Other matters section) says that "if an entire sentence is quoted in such a way that it becomes a grammatical part of the larger sentence, the first letter loses its capitalization". Also, the one in the opening sentence of the lead isn't even capitalised in the source, so there's absolutely no reason to parenthesise the f.
That was a simple error with my regex when changing the article back, fixed now. — neuro(talk)(review) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make myself clear (it was late :-), although I think the example in the MOS section mentioned does. When a capitalised item is quoted such that it becomes grammatically part of the larger sentence, as those quotes beginning [f]or in the lead section are, it just loses its capital, it doesn't gain square brackets. Struway2 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:QUOTE (Minimal change section), you probably ought to mark the Royal Society's typos with {{sic}}. Such as Parsons 2003 (electochemistry should be electrochemistry: see [41] for confirmation); Bartlett 2002 (flourine → fluorine); Pauling 1947 (theor → their). There may well be more, but it's late and my eyes are failing
and an ordinal rather a cardinal number in the edition field, so that the reference shows e.g. (2nd ed.) rather than (2 ed.)
Are you sure (can't find a policy on it). I mean, we use April 1, for example, not April 1st. — neuro(talk)(review) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the policy is that we use standard English unless we're told not to: we're told not to use April 1st. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References currently ##10 and 12 cite works by Marion Clyde Day, one dated 1884, the other 1969. That's either remarkable longevity or there's something wrong somewhere.
I'm impressed by all the books and journals you've cited. Did you access the versions made of dead trees, or online versions? Struway2 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say 4/5 is Google Books work, 1/5 is library scouring. — neuro(talk)(review) 16:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another time, it might be helpful to the reader if you were to add a url for Google Books ones; just linking to the start page for the book (the http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xxx bit), it wouldn't be sensible to link right into the search results. Though I wouldn't expect you to go back and find them all again for this list. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused - If what I think you're saying is what you are saying, that seems nonstandard. — neuro(talk)(review) 21:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably :-) There's a bit of inconsistency... Here at Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style#Electronic equivalents it says link right down to the page you're using, but here Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check/Guidelines it says don't link at all (which seems pretty unhelpful to me), and here Template talk:Cite book/Archive 6#Google book id it says link the id (which is what I suggested). So heaven only knows. What I'm saying is: 1) I think it would be helpful to the reader if there was a link to Google Books if such exist; but 2) there's no obligation to do it by any guideline or policy AFAIK; and 3) there doesn't seem to be any consensus on exactly how to do it anyway. hope this helps (?), cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no clear consensus, I'd rather stick away from it entirely, if that is alright. :) — neuro(talk)(review) 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever... :) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few of the cite templates have fields with the parameter name present but no content, e.g. Cleve 1894 cite book |last= |first= |coauthors= |year=1895 |title=Nature |page=137 |publisher=Nature Publishing Group |isbn= Another time, it might be better to just omit unused fields.
That was simply so that I didn't have to faff around with the fields - I will script a way to remove all unused fields in a bit. — neuro(talk)(review) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not perfect yet; I still caught a few. Also, can you add ISBNs when possible? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are the ones you caught not using {{cite book}}? Also, ISBNs were added when they were present. — neuro(talk)(review) 23:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that shouldn't have occurred (except for the one in the lead, I didn't run the script on that). As far as I can tell that is it, the script isn't picking up anything, and I can't find a problem with the script. Also, your method for finding ISBNs must be superior to mine - what do you use? — neuro(talk)(review) 23:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken this bit back out of the capped stuff, seeing as there are still plenty of cite templates with empty fields, and a bot has just been adding more... Struway2 (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
99% sure I just eliminated all of them (seems it didn't like the running order). I get no results searching for "= |", so that should be it. :) — neuro(talk)(review) 00:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Think it must have been late for you, as well, or too early in the morning... This just removed all the |year= parameters, but left the years; have a look at the references section in your last version :-) Don't worry, (I think) I've fixed them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, crap, I fail so badly. Thanks a lot for fixing them. Don't write scripts when tired, eh? :P — neuro(talk)(review) 09:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
^ abCite error: The named reference academy was invoked but never defined (see the help page).