Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2009: Difference between revisions
promoting 10 |
promoting 6 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/29th Golden Raspberry Awards/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Jessica Mauboy discography/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (Superintendents)/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New Jersey County Colleges}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New York Mets seasons}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Worcester Ruby Legs all-time roster}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Detroit Red Wings players}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Detroit Red Wings players}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Clergy/archive2}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Clergy/archive2}} |
Revision as of 22:48, 16 May 2009
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:48, 16 May 2009 [1].
29th Golden Raspberry Awards
- Nominator(s): Cirt (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently done a bit of work on this page, and got some great pointers at a peer review, which also helped to improve it further. I present it here for consideration for WP:FL status. I'll do my best to address comments. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the heading of the image column should say "image"—Chris! ct 04:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Cirt (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Look pretty good, I'll support.—Chris! ct 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Cheers and well done. I support this list's promotion per WP:WIAFL. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Weak oppose (and forgive me if I cover something that's been mentioned, dealt with and dismissed beforehand!)
Thank you for these above comments. I will work on addressing them and note here when done. Cirt (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Bingo!, or Support! Cirt has produced a great list but, more importantly, acted positively on advice and created an excellent list. Fab. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments- I think you need to mention that people need to pay for the membership in order to vote. Right now, it says that if you visit the website you can vote as if there's a poll on the website or something.
Can you remove "center" from all images in the table. It makes all images overlap with the "recipient" column in the IE browser.
--Crzycheetah 02:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. and Done. The fact that individuals must pay to become members is already stated - See the beginning of the sentence Paid members of the Golden Raspberry Award Foundation... Cirt (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I offered my suggestions at the peer review. This list has only improved since then. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:48, 16 May 2009 [6].
Jessica Mauboy discography
- Nominator(s): Alex Douglas (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The third and final former Young Divas member discography! The discography has been formatted similarly to other predominantly Australian-charting artists' discographies, Paulini Curuenavuli discography (FL) and Ricki-Lee Coulter discography (FL). When writing the lead section, I self-reviewed it with knowledge received by other featured list reviewers, given in candidacies where I was the nominator. I'm willing to address all concerns and will check this candidacy several times a day. Please see below for further notes on objections or comments that may arise.
NOTES:
- Jessica Mauboy's albums have only charted on the Australian Top 100 Albums Chart.
- The music video director's name for "Been Waiting" has not been found in reliable sources. I have searched the internet for hours. According to a friend, it is not on the liner notes of the single, however it may be on one of her subsequent releases. I have also had several telephone conversations with Sony, however they were unable to provide me with their name. Unless, consensus has changed, a previous precedent made in the successful featured list candidacy of Paul Kelly discography and reinforced recently in the successful featured list candidacy of Paulini Curuenavuli discography, found 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 "The director's name for this music video has not been found in reliable sources."
- The "promotional appearances" section is similar to the relevant section on Rihanna discography (FL).
- In regard to objections merely because it is too short or could be "reasonably be included as part of a related article," then please include ALL of you objections so that I can address all of your actionable concerns.
Discographies have more justification to be separate lists. Furthermore if the artist's article was up for featured article nomination, the reviewer would require the discography to only include a bullet list of studio albums and the year in which they were released in. By opposing the discography featured list-class because it is able to "be included as part of a related article", you are opposing it because the artist's main article is not Wikipedia's "very best work" and not because this discography is not Wikipedia's "very best work".
I ask you to consider, all of the above, before reviewing this discography. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from KV5
- I have read and understand your concerns as outlined in the notes above; however, considering the sizes of the main article and of this article, this may very well fall under a 3b oppose, though I won't comment on my status toward this as the extent of my review was a brief overview of the size. Regardless, this isn't the place to expound on your feelings toward the new criteria in regards to this and other lists. Please don't presume to tell reviewers what they can and cannot oppose simply because this piece may toe a very fine line in the criteria. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well, I have striked through some of my comments. I'll take that discussion elsewhere, however I'd still like to tell reviewers to include all of their actionable objections. In conclusion, I was trying to say "don't oppose this candidacy because the main article is not a FA." Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
"is an Australian, pop singer and songwriter." No comma."after placing second on the fourth season" "on"-->inNumbers below ten should be spelled out, e.g. "number 3", "number 4"."Mauboy released her first studio album, Been Waiting in 2008" Comma after "Waiting"."The album's second single "Burn" was released to coincide with her performance "-->The release of the album's second single "Burn" coincided with her performanceDabomb87 (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I have addressed your concerns. diff. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou very much for your support and yours concerns that led to it. I'll be sure to spell out all numbers lower than ten and check over my situation with commas in all the discographies I edit. Thanks again! Alex Douglas (talk)
Comments from Shaidar cuebiyar (talk · contribs)
- Consider further wikilinks (these are only suggestions):
- Australian Top 100 Albums Chart > Australian Top 100 Albums Chart
- cover album >cover album
Verification needed:
- and received platinum certification.[3][10] Ref #3 verifies chart position alone. Ref #10 is the artist's own website and not reliable for certifications/chart positions. Platinum/Gold certifications should be verified by ARIA. Try 2009 Albums which has the artist's album as Platinum. Also fix tabled ref.
Copyediting:
- "Because (Lead section, last sentence) >"Because"
- Chart positions given in Lead such as, number four > number four should have a non-breaking space, see MoSNUM.
- (feat. Flo Rida) > (featuring Flo Rida) or if too long put in a note.
References:
- General section: Macrovision as publisher for Allmusic?
- You may want to change <ref name="aria-accred-2007albums">{{cite web|url=http://www.aria.com.au/pages/httpwww.aria.com.aupagesARIACharts-Accreditations-2007Albums.htm|title=2007 ARIA albums certification|publisher=[[Australian Recording Industry Association]]|accessdate=19-09-2009}}</ref> into <ref name="aria-accred-2007albums">{{cite web|url=http://www.aria.com.au/pages/httpwww.aria.com.aupagesARIACharts-Accreditations-2007Albums.htm|title=2007 ARIA albums certification|publisher=[[Australian Recording Industry Association]] (ARIA)|accessdate=19-09-2009}}</ref> which gives the acronym used in the title. Similar for other ARIA refs.
- De-link Sony Music Entertainment (already linked in ref#16).
- Support - my issues have been resolved to meet the FL Criteria. Congratulations and best wishes on future efforts.--Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I have addressed your concerns. diff. Alex Douglas (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou very much for your support and yours concerns that led to it. I'll be sure to use non-breaking spaces and dates without commas in all the discographies I edit. Thanks again! Alex Douglas (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:48, 16 May 2009 [7].
List of United States Military Academy alumni (Superintendents)
- Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk • 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it's the next in my service academy alumni set and it's ready for review. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
a[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose for now
|
- Support - good work, but one final question - "Chief of Staff of the Army (1968–1–72)" - what does that date mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs considerable work. Support now—it's much improved. I wanted more fleshing out of the topic in the lead, but the link now to "Academy leadership" does it pretty well. Tony (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the need for citations, and please remember that many readers are not American, and may be unfamiliar with the notion of "president of an American civilian university. (Is it, as I once heard, like President and Congress?) "Historically, the Superintendency was often a stepping stone to higher prominence within the Army." Maybe I haven't read it carefully enough, but is this claim supported in the lead or table? And is there another article section that could be linked to about this? (Only if useful to the readers, though.) Need to cover it somehow, even though I have no reason to disbelieve the claim at the moment.
- tweaked this — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've pluralised "officer" to avoid the gender-specificity. Women have more power in the military now, yes?
- True, but no woman has been Supe of USMA, so in reality the wording was correct. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a case of correct or incorrect, but of avoiding the implication that the position is either (i) naturally occupied by a male; or (ii) will always be occupied by a male. The gender of the previous incumbents is irrelevant. Besides, there's another reason to use the plural form: it's a list, which is plural by its very nature. Tony (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but no woman has been Supe of USMA, so in reality the wording was correct. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Goodpaster: is that an example? If so, can you make this exemplification clear to the readers?
- An example of what? What are you talking about.? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "What are you talking about?" comes over as snippy. Do you mean to respond in that way to well-meaning comments? Here is the passage:
- An example of what? What are you talking about.? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The billet carries the rank of lieutenant general, and is not counted against the Army's statutory limit on the number of active-duty officers above the rank of major general. General Andrew J. Goodpaster originally retired from active duty as a full general, was recalled to assume the superintendency as a lieutenant general, and reverted to his four-star rank upon his second retirement.
- The two sentence do not flow logically: is the second an example of the "non counted" aspect? Unless he was the only example, you could fix this simply by adding "For example, General ...".
- Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The two sentence do not flow logically: is the second an example of the "non counted" aspect? Unless he was the only example, you could fix this simply by adding "For example, General ...".
- "Notability" texts need a copy-edit. "was" elected". Do you need "(did not resign)"? Certainly not twice; vacated is pretty clear, isn't it?
- Once again, Tony, you expect people to read your mind. I do not copyedit the way you do. Please be specific. Also not list notabiltiy sections are not written in standard prose format. — Rlevse • Talk •
- The prose within the chart itself seems fine to me. In my opinion, the text shouldn't have to be perfect when the goal is to provide a brief description. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely, Tony is mixing apples and oranges, lists are essentially bulleted summaries, not prose. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not expecting a brow-beating for well-meant comments. Was I being aggressive?
You are both confusing brevity (technically "short texts") with some kind of release from the need to write well. Whether bulleted or newspaper headine or book title or picture caption, the language needs to be correct and of a professional standard (Criterion 1). In the "Notability" section, the grammar is wrong in several ways, and makes the reading harder. So, the first one is this:
"Colonel; Williams vacated (he did not resign) the post of Superintendent in June 1803; returned to the Superintendency in April 1805; elected to the Fourteenth United States Congress". Try this:
"Colonel; he vacated (rather than resigned) in June 1803, returning to the Superintendency in April 1805; elected to the Fourteenth United States Congress in 1815."
So may I suggest that the incumbent's name not be repeated here (we've just read it half a second before, to the left). We know perfectly well what post he vacated, so it's unnecessary to specify (although perhaps the return to it needs to be explicated, as you've done). Why not give us the year of his Congressional office? You've done this for Wadsworth's later invention, directly below. All of the Notability notes need to be audited for smoothness and brevity; I may be able to do a few more as examples, if you wish. BTW, my example of "was" elected was not good—it's fine as it is. "his administration was noted as being unsatisfactory and negligent to duties"—As soon as there is "was noted as", the readers deserve to know who noted. Is "to duties" not redundant in this tight context? Tony (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Any specific examples to improve the list are appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not expecting a brow-beating for well-meant comments. Was I being aggressive?
- Precisely, Tony is mixing apples and oranges, lists are essentially bulleted summaries, not prose. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability column a bit speckledy with repeat links. No big deal, but WW I and WW II may not need linking so many times. "General" and "Major general" ... mmmm ... any way they could be referred to and linked to in the lead, once, rather than repeated in the table? Seems important to the big picture, which as an outsider I find just a little hard to grasp.
- This is another case where reviewers need to agree on what the standard is. Some agree with you some say "repeat links in a sortable list". I'm doing it the way I've done my other recent FLs and I'm not going to switch the method every article. I'm sticking with one method until the time and if the list reviewers ever come out with a stable rule on this. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I said: "No big deal", because I recognised that there is no standard rule and didn't want you to think I asserting that. You responded by telling reviewers what they need to do. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my rider. Tony (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is another case where reviewers need to agree on what the standard is. Some agree with you some say "repeat links in a sortable list". I'm doing it the way I've done my other recent FLs and I'm not going to switch the method every article. I'm sticking with one method until the time and if the list reviewers ever come out with a stable rule on this. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- En dash for ranges ... 1931–32.
- Will ask for a bot to run through this. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will ask for a bot to run through this. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good pics, nicely nestled in at the side (unlike the jostle factor in many lists). How many of them are unfindable?
- Go look. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I compliment with "good pics" and you tell me brusquely to "go look". It was an innocent question as to whether you had fully researched the Commons or elsewhere, since the pics are good. BTW, it's hard to locate the subject of each pic, since you have to sort the names column into alpha order. Would it be possible to add the years of their terms in parentheses in the captions, for easy location? (1929–32). But I'm expecting a brow-beating for suggesting this; perhaps I'll be told "You do it your way; I'll do it my way". Tony (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made that remark because "How many of them are unfindable?" is snippy and insinuating in a negative way. That being said, we got off on the wrong foot here so let's let be water under the bridge and restart okay? Later today I will the terms in captions if you still want, but did you notice the pics are in the order they served as supe? — Rlevse • Talk •
- I compliment with "good pics" and you tell me brusquely to "go look". It was an innocent question as to whether you had fully researched the Commons or elsewhere, since the pics are good. BTW, it's hard to locate the subject of each pic, since you have to sort the names column into alpha order. Would it be possible to add the years of their terms in parentheses in the captions, for easy location? (1929–32). But I'm expecting a brow-beating for suggesting this; perhaps I'll be told "You do it your way; I'll do it my way". Tony (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK—I'll try to do a few; you'll need to check them. Capital S for "superintendent". I'm too distracted to go look at the Naming MOS, but I'd have thought the generic usage would have a lower-case s. Unsure. Tony (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added caption dates. I asked about the "S" and didn't get a solid answer. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Feeling that the lead needs to be beefed up (something's missing), I clicked on the link to USMA and, hey presto, it's what is much more commonly known as "West Point". I do think this FL should be a little more of a stand-alone article, such that the reader doesn't have to hunt down basic information via links, to understand the topic. There's also a section largely devoted to the superintendent within that article, and I wonder whether a piped section-link to that location might appear somewhere here. I prefer the link to "president of a university" in that location to the link to the much broader "university" here (of questionable value to the reader). In the table, interesting info appears about curriculum development and other such themes, so would it be possible to position the superintendent with just a little detail in relation to the institution? Does the s. have control over curriculum, training, etc? Is the s. the chair of whatever board sits over the institution? And upwards, to whom is the s. answerable to, next in the chain? For all readers but the most familiar with the structures and institution at issue, such info would remove that "something is missing" feeling ... it's kind of hard to jump into the list without this orientation, and get the best out of the table. A few more key sentences might lift it. Tony (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will work on this later today. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Check now. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will work on this later today. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images need checking
I must confess I only clicked on one image. And you may be incredibly unlucky in the sample result, but it was File:2003-31625.jpg, which actually makes this list fail 5b. Because I'm short of time, and you know what is required of the images, can I request that you check through all of them. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted that one. Did some minor fixes on others, which all appear okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they still need checking. For example the first 2 images of superintendents both have deadlink sources. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we really have to go down the deadlink hole again? Those two images are also about 150 years old. Are you claiming a copyright is in effect still? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick google search reveals Willams on USMA site and as for Swift, it's listed as US Army, has all the looks of an Army portrait and why can't we have some AGF here? This is precisely what got the whole PD Review thing started. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, you're right. I was doing a bad job of rushing an image review, for which I apolgise. I will AGF on the first 7, because they are "old enough". File:Gen Garrison Davidson West Point Superintendent 1956 1960.jpg is fine, but I haven't PD reviewed it as it isn't on Commons (not sure why). Of the newer images that weren't PD reviewed, I have put together relevent info. and reviewed them. The others you'd already done. I have noticed the IfD on the logo, but looking at the comments don't see it being a problem. Declaring these images okay. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick google search reveals Willams on USMA site and as for Swift, it's listed as US Army, has all the looks of an Army portrait and why can't we have some AGF here? This is precisely what got the whole PD Review thing started. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we really have to go down the deadlink hole again? Those two images are also about 150 years old. Are you claiming a copyright is in effect still? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they still need checking. For example the first 2 images of superintendents both have deadlink sources. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted that one. Did some minor fixes on others, which all appear okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
"within " Can simply be "in"."However, in the modern era" Ambiguous, what is "The modern era"?"they will be retired at the end of their appointment. " I think you mean "they will retire".I'd appreciate just a couple inline citations in the lead, maybe at the end of paragraphs.Dabomb87 (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, and FYI looking for more refs. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TIME-->Time.Ref 18 needsformat=PDF
.
- Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - If the first two superintendents were not alumni of West Point, why is the article titled "List of USMA alumni (Superintendents)" rather than "List of USMA Superintendents"? Geraldk (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So it's a complete list of supes. This was discussed and agreed upon back in the beginning. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand why it makes sense to include them, for completeness and all. But it means that the article title is not accurate. It's no longer a list of USMA alumni who were superintentendants, it's now a list of all USMA superintendants, most of whom happen to be alumni. Geraldk (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also those who argue faculty are alums. We have other alum lists that have faculty that weren't students at the school. See the naval academy alum lists, which are already FLs. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The other two comparable articles are titled List of Superintendents of the United States Naval Academy and List of Superintendents of the United States Air Force Academy. Geraldk (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And, in addition, the wiktionary definition of alumnus is... 1.a male pupil or student, 2. a male graduate, 3. a student, 4. a graduate Geraldk (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said before, this all came up when we started working on this series and no one else had a problem with it. I appreciate your opinion but I honestly think this isn't a big deal having notable faculty in them. Dozens have people have reviewed these various lists and think it's okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per conversation above, specifically concerns related to Wikipedia: Naming conventions. Article titles should take the simplest and most recognizable possible form without being ambiguous, as well as the most descriptive of the actual content of the article, and the current article title does not meet either. Geraldk (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- That is against consensus and several articles, not just the service academy lists that are already FLs. For example, your cited defition does not allow for fictional alumni and many of these FLs have fictional alums. There are also others with alum in the title that list faculty. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see on the talk page where there is consensus, and lists having been approved as featured in the past with mistakes is no reason to allow this one to pass with one as well. Why, if I may ask, do you think the current title is better than the original 'List of United States Military Academy superintendents'? Geraldk (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, the faculty discussion was on another list in this series when we started working on them. If you're going to apply your interpretation of the matter, do so equally and not single out one list, ie, get all the others fixed, the logical result of the line of reasoning is not including those with fictional alums. Fictional people are not actual alums, so that shouldn't be in those lists either. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At some point soon, I think we'll be down to text about one letter wide with all these indents... With the fictional alumni issue, the definition of alumni doesn't forbid their inclusion because an article title of alumni doesn't specify whether the alumni are actual or fictional. And yes, other lists which are titled alumni and include faculty who aren't need to be renamed. But if in addition to raising this issue with this nomination, I had gone around moving every other article that has the same problem, including some you've nominated in the past, you'd be even more annoyed at me than you are now. I'm not trying to be an ass, but it is a fundamental issue with an otherwise excellent list. Geraldk (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't say fictional is included either--so they're, so if you're going to be a strict interpreter of the rules, at least be CONSISTENT with it. You can't say "this doesn't cover X so it's out" then say "this doesn't cover Y so it's in". You're being contradictory. So have you moved to clean all them up yet or are you only after this list? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue you raise is not comparable. Again, my point is that this is a list of Superintendents, not a list of Alumni, and it should be named as such. Your argument would only apply if the lists you reference were titled "List of Real Alumni of X" and then included fictional alumni. If you disagree, that's perfectly fine, but you'll need to either convince me there is a strong reason for the title being the way it is or convince enough other FL reviewers that I'm wrong. In either case, I think you have yet to address the fundamental question, which is why you think the current article title is a better and more accurate title than "List of Superintendents of the United States Military Academy", which conforms with other similar lists of superintendents. As I said, it's a great list, it just has a title that doesn't conform to the naming conventions. Geraldk (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are totally comparable. And since everyone else is supporting this FLC, even after you brought this up, and given precedent of other FLs, right now it looks like you're in the minority. I think you're being overly pedantic. If someone besides you and I would weigh in, it'd help. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a history teacher, so being overly pedantic kind of comes with the territory. Happy to drop it if the majority of other reviewers here agree with you. Geraldk (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a history teacher, so being overly pedantic kind of comes with the territory. Happy to drop it if the majority of other reviewers here agree with you. Geraldk (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are totally comparable. And since everyone else is supporting this FLC, even after you brought this up, and given precedent of other FLs, right now it looks like you're in the minority. I think you're being overly pedantic. If someone besides you and I would weigh in, it'd help. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue you raise is not comparable. Again, my point is that this is a list of Superintendents, not a list of Alumni, and it should be named as such. Your argument would only apply if the lists you reference were titled "List of Real Alumni of X" and then included fictional alumni. If you disagree, that's perfectly fine, but you'll need to either convince me there is a strong reason for the title being the way it is or convince enough other FL reviewers that I'm wrong. In either case, I think you have yet to address the fundamental question, which is why you think the current article title is a better and more accurate title than "List of Superintendents of the United States Military Academy", which conforms with other similar lists of superintendents. As I said, it's a great list, it just has a title that doesn't conform to the naming conventions. Geraldk (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, the faculty discussion was on another list in this series when we started working on them. If you're going to apply your interpretation of the matter, do so equally and not single out one list, ie, get all the others fixed, the logical result of the line of reasoning is not including those with fictional alums. Fictional people are not actual alums, so that shouldn't be in those lists either. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see on the talk page where there is consensus, and lists having been approved as featured in the past with mistakes is no reason to allow this one to pass with one as well. Why, if I may ask, do you think the current title is better than the original 'List of United States Military Academy superintendents'? Geraldk (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is against consensus and several articles, not just the service academy lists that are already FLs. For example, your cited defition does not allow for fictional alumni and many of these FLs have fictional alums. There are also others with alum in the title that list faculty. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said before, this all came up when we started working on this series and no one else had a problem with it. I appreciate your opinion but I honestly think this isn't a big deal having notable faculty in them. Dozens have people have reviewed these various lists and think it's okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also those who argue faculty are alums. We have other alum lists that have faculty that weren't students at the school. See the naval academy alum lists, which are already FLs. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand why it makes sense to include them, for completeness and all. But it means that the article title is not accurate. It's no longer a list of USMA alumni who were superintentendants, it's now a list of all USMA superintendants, most of whom happen to be alumni. Geraldk (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So it's a complete list of supes. This was discussed and agreed upon back in the beginning. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, point taken. Will withdraw my opposition. Though, really, with a name like Rambo's Revenge, shouldn't you be handing us grenades and egging us on instead of trying to resolve things? Rambo himself would be ashamed. Geraldk (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks good. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gerald, if you're familiar with Naming Conventions, should it be an upper- or lower-case S for "superintendent" where used generically (most of the time on the page, I think). Tony (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My reading of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) is that, because this is a specific office, it is capitalized. But, then, I'm not particularly knowledgable about grammar. Geraldk (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about this bit? I'm being a pernickety nerd, though. Tony (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I read that too. It's not entirely clear. We need to find a grammar genius to help us through that one. Comparable articles are unclear, the USNA and USAFA lists have it capitalized, but other lists with titles don't. It may be the distinction is between 'Superintendents of the USMA' and 'USMA superintendents'. Bah, I hate English, I'm gonna have to learn another language... Geraldk (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about this bit? I'm being a pernickety nerd, though. Tony (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My reading of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) is that, because this is a specific office, it is capitalized. But, then, I'm not particularly knowledgable about grammar. Geraldk (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gerald, if you're familiar with Naming Conventions, should it be an upper- or lower-case S for "superintendent" where used generically (most of the time on the page, I think). Tony (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:48, 16 May 2009 [8].
List of New Jersey County Colleges
I am nominating this for featured list because it seems like a well documented topic that I have expanded and has gone through Peer Review. I added all the aerial images and created a template to link all the list items together. MBisanz talk 22:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The writing is pretty good, except for one aspect: punctuation (mostly a matter of unnecessary commas; one comma splice):
The New Jersey County Colleges is a system of 19 public community colleges, encompassing over 60 campuses, in the state of New Jersey.[1][2] Most of the colleges were created by the state during the 1960s, to provide access to higher education to New Jersey residents. As of 2009, there are 19 county colleges statewide, this reflects the fact that each college serves one of New Jersey's 21 counties, except for Atlantic Cape Community College and Raritan Valley Community College, each of which serves two counties.
This would be smoother to read:
The New Jersey County Colleges is a system of 19 public community colleges, encompassing more than 60 campuses in the state of New Jersey.[1][2] Most of the colleges were created by the state during the 1960s to provide access to higher education to New Jersey residents. As of 2009, there are 19 county colleges statewide; this reflects the fact that each college serves one of New Jersey's 21 counties, except for Atlantic Cape Community College and Raritan Valley Community College, each of which serves two counties.
Comma after "female" would be good. "more than 350,000". Before "the oldest", you might consider a colon or a period, and then a semicolon before "It". Makes the relationships between the statements more logical, perhaps. MoS says no hyphen after "-ly", with good reason.
Have you thought of not piping "1964" so readers know there's something interesting behind what looks like a plain year link? It might work in such large boxes, just the top one (unless you don't like the idea of sorting via other columns, which would render it in the middle). Tony (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Made the grammar and style corrections (I think). I tried doing the founding column a bunch of different ways, and not piping it make the column huge with lots of extra words in comparison to the other columns. Also, unless I un-pipe all of the rows, it breaks the sorting feature. I think I'd rather just leave it the way it is now with the note Dabomb suggested to keep the balance among all the rows. Thanks for the corrections. MBisanz talk 18:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per Wikipedia:LISTNAME, it should be called "List of New Jersey County Colleges."—Chris! ct 01:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have renamed the page. MBisanz talk 01:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FLC page moved accordingly. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
"in the state of New Jersey." I'd prefer "U.S. state"."campuses ranging in size"-->campuses that range in size"Not all of the county colleges were founded by the State of New Jersey," Comma should be a semicolon.Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Nominator is on WikiBreak until June 1. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy to take over in the meantime. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are a number of unreferenced sentences throughout the lead section. Geraldk (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide examples, please? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking back it's really only two sentences...
- The latter part of this: 'Most of the colleges were created by the state during the 1960s to provide access to higher education to New Jersey residents.'
- I'm usually pretty strict about citing info, but is that fact likely to be challenged? It seems obvious to me; in fact, I wouldn't mind if it were removed. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, you're right, it's a little nitpicky. It's just that the wording makes it sound like that is the official reason why it was created. Don't know if there's a way to reword to avoid that reading of it, deletion of the clause is fine too - doesn't seem to add much factually to the article. Geraldk (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And all of this: 'In 2003, the state further established the Community College Consortium for Workforce and Economic Development as a single point of contact for employers looking for skilled workers in New Jersey.' Geraldk (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fairly certain I have a source for that (or some similar wording of that) in one of the proclamations. I'll try to find it tonight or tomorrow. MBisanz talk 09:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I have sources, I just need to find time to add them, probably in 20 hours or so. MBisanz talk 03:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the sentences was a holdover from before I started work on the article, so I removed it. The other sentence now has a citation and I added another sentence on history with an interesting legislature link I found. MBisanz talk 04:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking back it's really only two sentences...
Support now. Well done. Geraldk (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images
I've just been through and reviewed all of these. All great, with two comments:
File:Raritan Valley CC-NJ.jpg - the source listed is currently incorrect (I have no concerns about this not being PD, as it is exactly like the others, but it would be nice to have the correct URL in the source)A very minor thing, but I'm just commenting for consistency. The majority of the images have the top side pointing north, with the exception of File:Salem CC-NJ.jpg and File:Middlesex County CC-NJ.jpg. Is there any reason these are rotated, it just seems slightly odd.
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Source fixed. I rotated Salem because it is so oblong that it would make the table look odd, Middlesex is less oblong, but I still felt it looked better rotated. MBisanz talk 03:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images okay. I've verified the corrected source, and added a note on the image pages for the two rotated ones. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:48, 16 May 2009 [9].
List of New York Mets seasons
- Nominator(s): Giants2008 (17-14)
Under the new criteria, there haven't been nearly as many nominations, and the number of sports lists nominated in particular has dropped substantially. Even before the changes occured, seasons lists had rarely been seen at FLC in the previous few months. I had always planned to work on a fifth seasons list at some point, and this is the perfect time for it. The list works in ideas I've gleaned from the previous lists I've improved, and from a peer review. As before, I'll be around to address reviewers' concerns. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural: I peer-reviewed this list; I believe it to be of featured quality and support this nomination. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support in terms of the writing. It's good, at least in terms of prose and my knowledge of tables. Haven't yet looked properly at the new criteria, though.
- "forty-five" and "47"? See MOSNUM. And "In 47 seasons" depends on the year this was written. Would it be repetitious to say "As of 2009"? Tony (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two aren't comparable quantities. "As of 2009" would also have to be updated just as often as the number of seasons (once per year). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence in question reads, "after playing two years at the Polo Grounds and forty-five years in Shea Stadium." Are these not comparative quantities? And who said that comparative quantities should be treated differently than regular numbers in the first place? That's always been the most annoying part of the MoS for me. I suppose I should leave it for now, though I would have no problem switching to a numeral if Tony insists, and would actually prefer it that way. As for the sentence, I went with "Since their inception in 1962" to avoid repetition, and tweaked the second paragraph for the same reason. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your previous write-up was actually correct (two and forty-five are comparable, which forty-five and 47 are not in this case). However, it could be rectified by going to 2, 45, 47, which wouldn't be a problem since there are an equal number of >10 and <10 numbers in the sentence using comparables. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's no big deal. And MOSNUM just says "We may write [using the "comparable units" thing". I'd use "two" and "45" in the same sentence, because a single digit just seems to stick out unless a value next to a unit. Whichever. Tony (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we should take it out of MOSNUM then? That's been one of my pet peeves; i.e., I hate seeing "five cats and 32 dogs". Dabomb87 (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
"The Mets compete"-->They compete to avoid "The ... Mets" in consecutive sentences."After six more years in which their best division finish was ninth," I thought there were no divisions until 1969."After winning two pennants in five years, New York struggled for the next decade, not coming within 10 games of the NL East leader until 1984." Please clarify what a "pennant" is for us readers who don't follow baseball.Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Made the changes. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24
|
---|
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 07:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Nothing wrong with it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 01:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:48, 16 May 2009 [10].
Worcester Ruby Legs all-time roster
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria for promotion, but will quickly make any changes deemed necessary by the reviewers. Neonblak talk - 02:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural: I peer-reviewed this list and believe that it is of featured quality. I support this nomination. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco 03:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Couple more issues before I support, both involving the references. First, what makes Baseball Almanac a reliable source? Second, Slate should be given as the publisher of reference 12. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - After a lot of work, I finally think it meets the standards. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
"and were replaced with the likes of Hick Carpenter and Pete Hotaling" What does "with the likes of" mean here? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spell out "UPNE".Dabomb87 (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is there anything you could add as a lead image? -- Scorpion0422 21:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In asbence of any team photos, or anything else depicting the team in any way, I could slide one of the photos I added along the side up to the lead. I would really like to use a John Richmond photo, but cannot find one that definitively states a published date. I'll try and come up with a solution.Neonblak talk - 21:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- added photo to lead, made corrections per suggestions.Neonblak talk - 05:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good picture for the lead, but considering the lead's length, I might upsize the picture. Lead images are good up to 300px; 250 might work here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- added photo to lead, made corrections per suggestions.Neonblak talk - 05:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose and comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) - apologies for any repetitions from previous reviewers...
- "They played in the National League (NL) from 1880 to 1882, and played their home..." 2x played in one sentence doesn't read particularly exciting.
- "...vacated spot left by the departing..." vacated, left, departing, a little tautological for me. Perhaps "pursued the spot vacated by the departing..."?
- "The team was voted in ..." into the league?
- "began play in 1880" bit colloquial for me. First season?
- "moved with the team" did it move geographically to be in the NL then?
- "Center fielder / first baseman " should there be spaces before/after the slash? Not sure what the MOS says.
- "win–loss record of 40 wins, 43 losses, and 2 ties, finishing in fifth place" - "win–loss record of 40–43, with 2 ties, finishing fifth in the league."?
- "a much different experience" not keen on this linguistically. Can you rephrase?
- "Many of the players departed as well,..." quick repetition of "departed", maybe "Many of the players also left the team..."?
- "The team's play had declined significantly..." jargony - are you referring to the fact they were not as successful this season? Spell it out to non-experts.
- "Things did not improve ..." - things. Yuck. Perhaps "Matters did not improve.."?
- "to complain of exhaustion due and accused management of overuse.." - exhaustion due... is something missing here?
- "8th place", "A second consecutive last-place " - need to make it clear that 8th the previous season was last.
- "...hich had dropped to a season average of 50.." from what? We have nothing to compare it with.
- "One of the bright spots for the Ruby Legs ..." seems to be a bright spot for the pitcher, not the Legs, they still finished bottom and dropped out of the NL.
- "local sporting good retailer " - goods?
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review, I made the changes you suggested. Onthe slashes; the one in the lead section, was correct with spaces in between per MOS, but it was unclear on abbreviations like the ones I used for the player position in the table, so I put a space with a non-breaking space as if they were spelled out, ie, RF = right fielder. But to make it look uniform, I used a space for all of them regardless.Neonblak talk - 23:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [12].
List of Detroit Red Wings players
I've expanded this list to meet the FL guidelines. This is similar to already Featured lists such as List of Columbus Blue Jackets players, List of San Jose Sharks players and others. Thanks in advance. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Look at List of Chicago Blackhawks players as an example. List of Columbus Blue Jackets players and List of San Jose Sharks players were promoted more a year ago, so they may not exceed the current standards. Adding one more paragraph onto the lead would be nice. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 03:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I was already working on this before your note. I've expanded the lead now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck with the future comments, and no need to tell me about replying, as I always (and I mean ALWAYS!) watchlist where I comment on. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 04:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. Thanks again. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck with the future comments, and no need to tell me about replying, as I always (and I mean ALWAYS!) watchlist where I comment on. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 04:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion as a Leafs fan. Is there anything you could add as a lead image, maybe Nicklas Lidstrom since he's the current captain? Also, could you add images of players to the right like what is done in List of Calgary Flames players? -- Scorpion0422 04:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aw, a leafs fan. ;-) I've moved Lidstrom's image to the lead and replaced it with another. As for moving the images "to the right", I'm not sure what you mean there. Both articles look the same to me, as far as image format goes. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think he's suggesting that you add MORE images to the right. If not, then I have no idea. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 04:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I somehow missed the images during my first look through. However, more would be nice since we do have images of Zetterberg, Cleary, Draper, Franzen, Kronwall, Hossa and probably several others. -- Scorpion0422 05:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a few more images. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I somehow missed the images during my first look through. However, more would be nice since we do have images of Zetterberg, Cleary, Draper, Franzen, Kronwall, Hossa and probably several others. -- Scorpion0422 05:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think he's suggesting that you add MORE images to the right. If not, then I have no idea. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 04:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rjd, it's not bad. The article on the team is large, yet the lead here is pretty short. I wonder whether you might add a few points about the history of the team, which seems to be full of interest in their article. A featured list needs to be a bit special in terms of the lead-in you give the readers to the list. We want their interest to be peaked in some way. Can you identify, as well, a few of the more striking or interesting facts in the larger article and its siblings?
- Idea: the Seasons column wraps the year ranges, causing the rows to be double the height. Except for 1999–2001 etc, the closing range could be reduced to two digits (as mandated by MOSNUM and as used all over the home article (1946–53). Have you thought of whipping it through Word's find and replace (find –19 and replace with –)? Most people will experience this wrapping unless they manually stretch the window.
- I like that pale green background. Pity there are so many red links, but I guess you're gonna help with stubs ...? Tony (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Tony. I've fixed the numbering of the seasons as you suggested. I've also further expanded the lead. As for the red links, yes - I definitely plan to work on creating those. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just an update in case you're interested - I've already corrected over 100 of the red links. A lot of them were just linked to alternate names or nicknames. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice! Tony (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images
- File:Terry Sawchuk.jpg - You cannot use due to it being copyrighted. It wouldn't be fair-use eligible either.
- I'm going to AGF on File:Lidstrom stanleycup2.jpg and File:Gordie Howe.jpg. Neither, seem to be copied of another website and although I am a bit concerned with the amount of image warnings the second's uploader has, the photo's scratches make me think it's an authentic digitization.
- All other images check out fine.
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was waiting on correspondence regarding the Sawchuck photo but I'm not sure how long that will be, so I've removed and replaced that image. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope these comments are helpful. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Thanks again. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments -
|
Support - Looks quite good. The photo position seems like a necessary evil with these large player lists with many columns. Wish we could do something about it, but I won't hold up my support. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [13].
List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Clergy
- Nominator(s): BencherliteTalk
Most issues at the last FLC were resolved during the course of the FLC; however, it was agreed that it would be better for the list to include all the clergy alumni of the college, not just those who became a bishop or archbishop; so I took it away and added in the names of other members of the clergy from the main list of alumni, and here we are again. As for comprehensiveness, I've trawled the usual sources (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Dictionary of Welsh Biography etc) and written so many articles about minor Welsh clergymen of the last 400 years that my wife thinks I'm slightly nuts. The list follows a similar format to the other Featured Lists in the series, such as the law and government list and the maths and science list. Comments welcome, and appreciated. BencherliteTalk 08:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.westminster-abbey.org/press/news/16454 deadlinks. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, thanks. BencherliteTalk 00:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments from that same old derisible meddling fool....
|
- Support, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Niiiice. Please prepare more nomination like this. One point: where space is short, why not do the MoS suggestion and make the closing years in a range two digits (provided the century is the same): "1892–97". Could fix in five mins. Tony (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the list of Principals and Fellows I sort by years of tenure, and 1890–1904 would (incorrectly) sort before 1890–99 but (correctly) after 1890–1899; so I've used the long form there, and for consistency in the other lists as well. The MOS says that both are permissible, even if the short form is the more usual. Do you mind if I keep it as it is? Thanks for your time. BencherliteTalk 06:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Very well done.
"but later went back to Anglicanism" Maybe "returned" rather than "went back"?No links to Methodists and Baptists (in the lead)?"his 'Blue' for rugby" Double quotes, I think.Dabomb87 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done. Thanks for your review. BencherliteTalk 06:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [14].
2008 World Series of Poker Europe results
- Nominator(s): I'm Spartacus!---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus!'
I am nominating this for featured list because... I had nominated this article back in February and it looked like it was going to pass, unfortunately, there were a few open items and I was unable to address them due to real life activities. I have since taken care of those open items, and this list should be good to go or close to it.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I will try to resolve all open items before mother's day, but should anything come about between Sunday and Wednesday I may not be able to address it until Thursday. If there are open items that prevent this from being promoted on Wednesday, please do not close it as I will be travelling.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 4's access date is formatted in a different format from the other articles.Ref 5 needs a last access date.Dabomb87 (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed-it was a formatting error.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - How reliable are Poker News, Poker Listings, and Gaming Business? I'm not up on most of the poker sites. Will wait until after Dabomb's review is looked at before commenting on the prose. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- quick response, will deal with Dabomb's stuff tonight, Poker News and Poker Listings are what I would consider B grade in reliability. Eg I'd put them on par with your local newspaper. Gaming Business is one that I wasn't as familiar with. The site looks pretty legit and reliable, eg it isn't a mere blog, and the article that is being referenced is derived directly from the Press Release, so for this purpose I would argue that it is solid.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose review:
- Repeat poker tournament link in the second paragraph. If readers want to know more, they'll have already clicked on the first link.
- "In marketting the WSOPE". Typo.
- In a contrast to my first comment, I'd like to see Betfair linked.
- "Furthermore, as the laws that govern the age of gambling differ in England than the U.S.; the WSOPE admits younger players." I think the semi-colon should be a comma.
- Citation needed for Obrestad being the youngest player to win a bracelet. Should be easy enough to find a good source for that.
- That's about it. Looks fairly good overall, which I would expect since this is the list's second time at FLC (and probably would have passed before if circumstances were different). Giants2008 (17-14) 02:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose review:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [15].
2009 WWE Draft
I am nominating this for featured list because... after working on it for about a week, I feel that I have met the criteria for featured lists. This is in a way based on its predecessor FL, but not entirely. Unlike the other FL, this is set up a bit different and I hope it is more comprehensible. It was copyedit by Mattisse and Nikki (thanks alot), so hopefully only few mistakes are found. Happy reviewing. Note: I don't think stability will be an issue since the event is completely over now, and will not be affected heavily by future events.--Truco 01:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I, Truco, am taking a semi-leave from Wiki at the time I'm typing this. Any further comments will be addressed by members of WP:PW. Thanks!--Truco 03:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good-looking list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments -
|
Support - Note that I made a sentence structure improvement myself before coming here. I was ready to support when I saw it, and figured it would be easy enough to fix it myself. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources
- What makes http://www.gerweck.net/ratings.htm reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They got their information from Nielsen Media Research.--Truco 01:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They got their information from Nielsen Media Research.--Truco 01:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would it be feasible to add embedded images in the tables? After all, a large portion of the wrestlers do have free images. -- Scorpion0422 21:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [16].
List of Silver Slugger Award winners at pitcher
The last of the Silver Slugger series. To all reviewers who have been so helpful in the promotion of the first six lists, I thank you. As with the DH list, it is half the size of the others! As these are completed, I will progress to WP:FTC. I appreciate all help and comments. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco 00:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Only a few minor things to clear up before I support. Good luck with the topic.
Move reference 5 to be after the comma."Mike Hampton has won the most Silver Slugger Awards as a pitcher; he won five consecutive awards with four different teams from 1999 to 2003." Redundant use of "won". Perhaps change the punctuation and use "winning"?"Hampton has hit the most home runs in a pitcher's Silver Slugger-winning season; he hit seven in 2001." Here, "hit" is repeated. Personally, I like the "with" setup for numbers in the other lists, and later in this one. How about some variant of that.Giants2008 (17-14) 21:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all. I don't know HOW I missed that first one... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks fine now. Great work on this series. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
"Hampton's 1999 on-base percentage is also a record " Besides being unnecessary, "also" is confusing since it sounds as if you've referred to his on-base percentage before.
- Sigh. Reworded. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Orel Hershiser leads pitchers in batting average, with the .356 mark he set in 1993.[14] Micah Owings is the slugging percentage leader (.683 in 2007)." So Orel Hershiser leads pitchers in general, or just Silver Slugger-winning pitchers? Same with Owings.Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [17].
List of Silver Slugger Award winners at designated hitter
OK, we are reaching the end of the Silver Slugger series. To all reviewers who have been so helpful in the promotion of the first six lists, I thank you, and reward your diligence with this (and one more) list to review... and they are half the size of the others! As these are completed, I will progress to WP:FTC. I appreciate all help and comments. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco 00:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Same high quality as the others in the series. The only thing I saw that I wasn't thrilled with is "that position receives a Silver Slugger Award rather than the pitchers". "the" could be removed. Other than that, the list looks good. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Great job on the topic.
"David Ortiz won his four consecutively" Unnecessary word.
- Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Harold Baines won the award while playing for two separate teams in the same season" The logic of the sentence is off; he sounds as if he was playing with two teams in the same time.
- The second half of the sentence doesn't explain it? "Harold Baines won the award while playing for two separate teams in the same season; he was traded by the White Sox to the Texas Rangers in the middle of the 1989 season." KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image caption: "Edgar Martínez is tied for the Silver Slugger lead among DHs." It's not clear what "lead" is referring to here.Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a suggestion that doesn't repeat the Molitor or Ortiz captions? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "a bat trophy" personal perhaps, but this reads oddly to me. "a trophy in the shape of a baseball bat?"
- I've looked at this myself and been quite frustrated with the wording, so I'm glad someone else brought it up. What about "bat-shaped trophy", for succinctness? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done as per my above. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked at this myself and been quite frustrated with the wording, so I'm glad someone else brought it up. What about "bat-shaped trophy", for succinctness? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "in the American League" - you've already abbreviated this to AL above so why not use the abbreviation?
- Same with National League.
- To the two above, this is in keeping with the "consistent use" guideline for abbreviations. IMO, using abbreviations in prose looks ugly (unless it's something extremely long and tedious to read like Trinitrotoluene vs TNT), so I use them in the captions and nowhere else. This is the same convention followed in all of the Silver Slugger lists. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough but it runs a high risk of a reader getting to the abbreviation before the explanation if you use the abbreviation in lead images, which, in my opinion, is suboptimal. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I never actually use the league abbreviation in the lead image because that spot is reserved for the overall leader in MLB. The DH is the only one where I could see this causing an issue. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, my mistake, it was the DH in the lead caption that worries me. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be breaking with the "consistent usage" guideline to say "designated hitter (DH)" in the first caption? Or should I perhaps consider that the "first usage"? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone would complain if you simply said "designated hitter" without the abbreviation in the lead image. That would certainly get my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone would complain if you simply said "designated hitter" without the abbreviation in the lead image. That would certainly get my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be breaking with the "consistent usage" guideline to say "designated hitter (DH)" in the first caption? Or should I perhaps consider that the "first usage"? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, my mistake, it was the DH in the lead caption that worries me. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I never actually use the league abbreviation in the lead image because that spot is reserved for the overall leader in MLB. The DH is the only one where I could see this causing an issue. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough but it runs a high risk of a reader getting to the abbreviation before the explanation if you use the abbreviation in lead images, which, in my opinion, is suboptimal. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To the two above, this is in keeping with the "consistent use" guideline for abbreviations. IMO, using abbreviations in prose looks ugly (unless it's something extremely long and tedious to read like Trinitrotoluene vs TNT), so I use them in the captions and nowhere else. This is the same convention followed in all of the Silver Slugger lists. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I may be showing my ignorance (as a Brit who considers baseball even more tedious than US football!), but I am really struggling to get my head around "Because lineups in the American League include the designated hitter (DH),[4] that position receives a Silver Slugger Award[5] rather than pitchers, who receive an award in the National League[6] because they are included in the batting order"...
- I've tried re-wording this several times; I fought with it in the regular list too. I already changed it once in this list as well; I have no idea how to make it better at this point, which could just be my frustration with off-Wiki issues. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the wording in the pitcher list any better? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The wording there is clear, in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I copied that wording into Silver Slugger Award and tweaked the wording in this list, following that pattern, to be more clear. Should be done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The wording there is clear, in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "1983, 1985–1986" - would be better a 1983, 1985, 1986 in my opinion.
- Again, this follows conventions from other lists; the en-dash is used to emphasize consecutive wins. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just think it adds potential for confusion that there may have been a season spanning over two years (like our European football seasons), and thus one missing year. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your concern; however, I think that the table explicates clearly that seasons are self-contained in a year (i.e., links to the individual MLB seasons). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just think it adds potential for confusion that there may have been a season spanning over two years (like our European football seasons), and thus one missing year. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this follows conventions from other lists; the en-dash is used to emphasize consecutive wins. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd expand DH in the lead caption as it may be one of the first things someone reads and it may not be terribly clear to a non-expert.
- See above comment on abbreviations. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "a bat trophy" personal perhaps, but this reads oddly to me. "a trophy in the shape of a baseball bat?"
- Otherwise good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [18].
List of Grade I listed buildings in West Somerset
I am nominating this as a featured list because it is comprehensive, supported by appropriate references and images and, I believe, meets all FL criteria. It follows the design & layout of the recently promoted List of Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset. — Rod talk 21:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved; list now meets WP:FL?. Excellent work!--Truco 01:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's not really much one can find to object to, or helpful criticism to improve it; or at least, I'm not good enough to help. There is one single issue that leaves me a bit skeptical, and this regards the Church of St John the Baptist, Carhampton. You write: "The most recent buildings included in the list" is "the Church of St John the Baptist in Carhampton, which was rebuilt in 1863". Now, as you know better than me, the great majority of parish churches were subject to heavyhanded restoration in the Victorian age; now to single out St John is in my opinion misleading, because while the tower was rebuilt the church remains essentially medieval, nothwstanding the restoration, and not a Neo-Gothic building. On the same grounds I'm not sure saying in the tables for date completion at St John "1863" is fully correct.--Aldux (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comment When you say "date completed" among the columns, what does "completed" stand exactly for? The doubt came reading the description of the Church of St Andrew, Stogursey; you date completion 1117, but it was considerably enlarged in 1180 and remodelled in the 15th-century, according to your article on the church.--Aldux (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - thank you for your comments. As you know obtaining accurate dates and other details of buildings hundreds of years old can be difficult, and as you say the majority have undergone extensive changes. I have tried to take as the key date the first sentence of the descriptions at Images of England or the Somerset Historic Environment Record as these are the details used by reliable sources (English Heritage and the County Council) as part of the formal record of listed buildings, but would agree "completion" is often nebulous. I am aware of one Grade I listed building at Downside Abbey which is still listed as unfinished! Perhaps you could suggest another heading for the date column or we could add another "note" explaining that completion date is often unclear? I will also remove the "most recent" claim from the lede.— Rod talk 11:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the lede. I personally believe the date column is a useful bit of information and I perfectly understand your difficulties - I'm currently facing similar ones with that column in a separate article. Maybe a good idea was what you propose, i.e. a note clarifying that medieval churches were generally built and rebuilt through an arc of several centuries.--Aldux (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further response - I've added a note, but it seems "wordy" and tries to cover lots of options - if you can improve the wording that would be great.— Rod talk 15:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave a try, but somebody with a better control of the language than me would be certainly more successful. That said, as all issues are now covered I pass to support.--Aldux (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further response - I've added a note, but it seems "wordy" and tries to cover lots of options - if you can improve the wording that would be great.— Rod talk 15:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose this seems an unnecessary forking of content that should be in the article List of listed buildings in West Somerset as is with the case of List of listed buildings in Runcorn. Nergaal (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don't take this personally, but your comment hasn't exactly striked me as one of the most thoughtful and ponderated I've had the the opportunity to read at FLC... Do begin with, you know that Runcorn is just a civil parish, while West Somerset is a district with 43 civil parishes in it; and that while Runcorn has only 59 listed buildings, West Somerset has 1228 listed buildings. And you seriously want to put these all in a single page? Oh, and lets not forget another tiny detail: List of Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset, List of Grade I listed buildings in Bristol and List of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester are all featured lists; and also, there are such lists of Grade I listed buildings for every single county of England, while the case of the Runcorn list is quite exceptional.--Aldux (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Thanks to Aldux for making most of the points I would have done about the numbers & if all listed buildings were included it would exceed the recommended page size. If there is any forking it is of List of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset which was split into districts because of the page size issues. I'd also point out that as it says in the article - Grade I structures are those considered to be "buildings of exceptional interest" and therefore the most important.— Rod talk 20:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also think that this page passes on 3b. -- Scorpion0422 20:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Thanks to Aldux for making most of the points I would have done about the numbers & if all listed buildings were included it would exceed the recommended page size. If there is any forking it is of List of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset which was split into districts because of the page size issues. I'd also point out that as it says in the article - Grade I structures are those considered to be "buildings of exceptional interest" and therefore the most important.— Rod talk 20:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don't take this personally, but your comment hasn't exactly striked me as one of the most thoughtful and ponderated I've had the the opportunity to read at FLC... Do begin with, you know that Runcorn is just a civil parish, while West Somerset is a district with 43 civil parishes in it; and that while Runcorn has only 59 listed buildings, West Somerset has 1228 listed buildings. And you seriously want to put these all in a single page? Oh, and lets not forget another tiny detail: List of Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset, List of Grade I listed buildings in Bristol and List of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester are all featured lists; and also, there are such lists of Grade I listed buildings for every single county of England, while the case of the Runcorn list is quite exceptional.--Aldux (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Hassocks Great list! I'm very excited to see this here, as I am currently preparing several similar lists for other parts of England. I am comfortable with the layout in its present form, but will suggest some things to think about (maybe you have already considered these, Rod, and found them to be inappropriate for this list, which is fine). Also some other comments...
- You could work in a quote about Grade I buildings being considered "of more than national importance". I've got a ref for it somewhere if it's not in ref [1]. It would help to put the buildings' importance in a wider context.
- Second paragraph might need refs for the largest centres of population and administrative HQ information; I'm not sure, but I would probably add them to be on the safe side.
- There are numerous religious structures in Somerset, with the largest number being Anglican parish churches, dating from norman or medieval eras. Some problems:
- →Perhaps "Somerset has many religious structures..." for the first clause
- →"With" as a connector is ungainly; try "...religious structures; the largest number are from the Norman or medieval eras".
- →"norman" should be capitalised.
- Suggest wikilinking manor house.
- It would be lovely to have a picture column with a small (100px?) image of each building. Many are already available on the individual articles, and others would be reasonably easy to source, I imagine...? I wouldn't necessarily recommend this for longer lists of listed buildings, or those which contain lots of private houses, farms etc. I "don't mind the ribbon of pics down the side" approach, and have used it myself in the past; but for a relatively short list, adding pictures for each would bring benefits without causing the page to be too huge.
- Did you consider coordinates rather than grid references? I prefer coordinates for their precision and more intuitive feel.
- To save space, especially if pics are added (thereby making your rows wider), the grid ref (or coordinates) could be added to the location column. I have done this on some articles and it seems to work quite well.
- Refs are good – Images of England is a resource I know well :) All buildings have their own articles, which is also good.
Also agree with comments above that the content fork argument is not an issue. Lists of "all" listed buildings (i.e. all grades) have their place in instances where there aren't many: hence List of listed buildings and structures in Crawley, a borough with only 95, and indeed the FL-status Runcorn list mentioned above. In Crawley, only three are Grade I, so a split into the three grades would not serve readers well. In the other direction, whole counties are far too large to create lists for, even for individual grades. Even some districts are problematic once you get down to the Grade II level (Brighton and Hove has about 1,120...). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Thank you for helpful suggestions and good luck with the similar lists in your area.
- The extra quote for Grade I being "of more than national importance" would be good. It is not in [1]. I looked at List of listed buildings and structures in Crawley and thought it might be in ref [4] on that page - but this gives a broken link - help appreciated.
- I haven't given figures of populations for largest centres, these can be confirmed from the articles themselves if needed and are not key to the list.
- I have accepted & revised the lede based on your comments about the churches sentence & linking manor house - which I've also done on List of Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset which was recently promoted & I will apply to all the districts listed at List of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset which are all at various stages of development.
- A picture column has been discussed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset/archive1. I can see the attraction but have previously been advised against having too many images because of download times. It also doesn't look good where pictures are not available for all entries in a list & (having searched extensively while doing all the articles) I do not believe that appropriate free/licenced images "would be reasonably easy to source" (although I will be in West Somerset with a camera this weekend :).
- The gridrefs link to the same GeoHack Tool as other forms of coordinates - which form has a "more intuitive feel" will probably depend on a readers previous experience. I would be happy to add these to the location column if others think this would be a good idea.
- Thanks also for your comment on forking and size of lists. The one which is scaring me just to think about is List of Grade I listed buildings in Bath and North East Somerset and possible Grade II* and II lists. The council claims over 5,000 listed buildings of which 663 are grade I (although there are only around 100 English Heritage listings covering them).— Rod talk 16:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Weak support - a few minor issues and a suggestion...
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disappointed. I find it hard to get a grip on the articles this relates to. There appear to be no links to articles on the architectural styles, and precious little summary information on them. I'd be happy for a lead twice that size—it seems necessary to prepare our readers to get a lot out of the table. Can we have just a little info as well on the listing process / agency? How long has listing been going on for (since the 70s, if I had to have a guess). It's a fabulously rich topic and the list is much-needed. Lovely pics; but could you expand the captions for them by stating, at the very least, the century or year of construction, the style, and the location? Tony (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Thanks for your comments. I have attempted to expand the lede with a little more information about the listing process (begun by a provision in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947), but I would suggest readers who want more about English Heritage etc could read the specific articles about them. The architectural styles are very mixed but I've added some dates and further info on the structures mentioned. I've also expanded the captions on the images to provide further context. I would be grateful for further guidance about what else should go in the lede & perhaps make you less disappointed with the list.— Rod talk 21:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is there a better title for the "Date completed" column? The column has no specific dates, just years and centuries. Perhaps "Year completed" instead? -- Scorpion0422 20:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response column title changed as suggested.— Rod talk 21:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [19].
List of United States Military Academy alumni (Medal of Honor)
I am nominating this for featured list because it is the next in my long term work on service academy alumni. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 19:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I added {{main}} at the top because I think it's important to have a visible link to the main list (perhaps you could add one to the other lists?). Is the hat tossing image really the best one to use as the lead image? I realize it shows graduates, but I'm assuming that none of them are actually in the list. Perhaps an image of the campus would work better? -- Scorpion0422 15:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Starting a list/article off with "main" simply doesn't set right with me. That's the whole purpose of the template at the bottom linking them all together, plus the template links all together not just the main one. Yes, hat tossing over a school photo as we're mainly dealing with grads here, not the curriculum, buildings, school history, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Why do you have the "a" note as a general reference? It's used for George Ritter Burnett only, isn't it? Why is it a "general reference" and not an "inline citation"?
- Because the ref provides a ton of info on all of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it provides info on all of them, then it should be listed as a general reference with an asterisk next to it. Right now, it looks as if it only provides info on Burnett. This format is very confusing and inconsistent with other WP:FLs. --Crzycheetah 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the ref provides a ton of info on all of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "b" note is used for everyone, so why can't you have just an asterisk next to the source under "general references" and remove all repetitive "b" notes?
- I could, but there's more than one way to skin a cat ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet in all FLs only one way is used...why should this be any different?--Crzycheetah 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A problem to this solution would be nice. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 23:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet in all FLs only one way is used...why should this be any different?--Crzycheetah 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could, but there's more than one way to skin a cat ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the difference between the source you used as "c" and any source in the "inline citations"? In other words, why is "c" listed in the "general references"?
- Because the ref provides a ton of info on all of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In short, there's a whole series of these lists and I like to keep them consistent in layout, format, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the ref provides a ton of info on all of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you have the "a" note as a general reference? It's used for George Ritter Burnett only, isn't it? Why is it a "general reference" and not an "inline citation"?
I apologize if you already answered these questions...--Crzycheetah 06:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your response layout is so confusing I had to read it by using the diff. Over the course of the nine FLs I have to my credit, you're the first to complain about this, so I'd like more input. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide some links to your previous FLs?Thanks!--Crzycheetah 21:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Nevermind, I just found some. I see that you were using that way to list your references. OK, let's wait for more input.--Crzycheetah 21:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your response layout is so confusing I had to read it by using the diff. Over the course of the nine FLs I have to my credit, you're the first to complain about this, so I'd like more input. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment well I already support the list. I've reviewed and supported several of the other lists in this series, I see no major trauma in keeping them as a series with similar layouts. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images: I don't have time to do a full image review. But I clicked on a small sample and found no issues. In case no full image review is done, I'm assuming from what I've seen that they are okay. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [20].
List of number-one albums of 2008 (Japan)
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets WP:FL's criteria and feedback could also help the article improve, if needed. ~Moon~月と暁~Sunrise~ 03:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
done ~Moon~月と暁~Sunrise~ 17:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support -- Previous issues resolved; the list now meets WP:WIAFL. Great work for one of the first album lists from Japan.--Truco 14:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Companies and websites (e.g. Oricon and Excite) should not be italicized.Dabomb87 (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how to remove the italicization. The cite web template did that itself. ~Moon~月と暁~Sunrise~ 16:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change
work=
topublisher=
in the templates. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- done ~Moon~月と暁~Sunrise~ 16:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change
Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.Dabomb87 (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done? Does that exclude YMO, SMAP, and KAT-TUN? Because all three are acronyms. ~Moon~月と暁~Sunrise~ 18:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove "which is"?
- "2008" looks like a useless sea of trivia in the year article. For hidden links like this, why not instead list them in the "See also" section (UNpiped and possibly with your expert comment for readers). Otherwise, no one's gonna click on them. And separate the numbers: "In 2008 alone, 37 albums reached the peak of the chart." ... or put "in 2008" at the end of the sentence. Or "2008 saw 37" ...
- "eighteen" but "28"? See WP:MOSNUM on spelling out.
- in 2008, not of?
- "1,447,149 copies"? I hope it's iron-clad accurate; otherwise, don't repeat your source's unreasonable claim to accuracy: "more than 1.4 million copies" ... easier to read, too. Same one second later.
- The source clearly says the number of the sales. 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 11:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what Tony is saying is that it's a super-extraordinary claim, and one that should be supported by more than one reference. Narrowing down to such an accurate figure is dangerous. "The best-selling album overall of 2008 was R&B group Exile's Exile Love, released in late 2007, which sold 1,470,959 copies. The second-best-selling album was Amuro's Best Fiction, which sold 1,447,149 copies, followed by pop folk band Kobukuro's 5296, with 1,404,658 albums sold." For one thing, the reference is dated December 11; that leaves 20 more days in 2008 to accumulate more sales, meaning the figure is probably wrong (and yes, I'm aware of Verifiability vs Truth). If the paragraph said "The best-selling album overall of 2008 was R&B group Exile's Exile Love, released in late 2007, which sold over 1,470,000 copies. The second-best-selling album was Amuro's Best Fiction, which sold more than 1,447,000 copies, followed by pop folk band Kobukuro's 5296, with nearly 1,405,000 albums sold." it's still correct and the source still verifies the statement. Please follow up with Tony at his talk page to make sure that I'm not putting words in his mouth, though. His concern may be different and I've interpreted it wrong. One other thing here, could you do something about the "parastub"biness of the two sentences? Matthewedwards : Chat 06:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oricon starts it's new chart in the middle of December of the previous year and ends it in the middle of December the current year. The sale figures are correct. Any sales made after the yearly chart is posted and ends gets counted into the new yearly chart, in this case the 2009 yearly chart. The source which supports the claim is from the Oricon itself, which is the official chart in Japan. Anyway I'll ask him if that's what he meant. 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 12:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what Tony is saying is that it's a super-extraordinary claim, and one that should be supported by more than one reference. Narrowing down to such an accurate figure is dangerous. "The best-selling album overall of 2008 was R&B group Exile's Exile Love, released in late 2007, which sold 1,470,959 copies. The second-best-selling album was Amuro's Best Fiction, which sold 1,447,149 copies, followed by pop folk band Kobukuro's 5296, with 1,404,658 albums sold." For one thing, the reference is dated December 11; that leaves 20 more days in 2008 to accumulate more sales, meaning the figure is probably wrong (and yes, I'm aware of Verifiability vs Truth). If the paragraph said "The best-selling album overall of 2008 was R&B group Exile's Exile Love, released in late 2007, which sold over 1,470,000 copies. The second-best-selling album was Amuro's Best Fiction, which sold more than 1,447,000 copies, followed by pop folk band Kobukuro's 5296, with nearly 1,405,000 albums sold." it's still correct and the source still verifies the statement. Please follow up with Tony at his talk page to make sure that I'm not putting words in his mouth, though. His concern may be different and I've interpreted it wrong. One other thing here, could you do something about the "parastub"biness of the two sentences? Matthewedwards : Chat 06:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you widen the first column so that it's more likely to avoid the wrapping of many of the dates? Rob from the second (or better, the last) column.
- I don't know how to widen the columns. Can you tell me how? 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 11:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So the nav-box should be tucked away right down the bottom?
- List of number-one albums of 2008 (U.S.) has the box at the bottom. Where do you propose I put it then? 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 11:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this one will be fine also; the navbox placement is a WikiProject standard. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it probably will pass, but needs a little finishing off. Tony (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Moon, the hyper-accurate figure is no big deal. Matthew explains it perfectly: which particular hour was that arrived at? It will remain for ages until updated in this list. But it was only a thought. Tony (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed it again. Do you support the article now or...? 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 17:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony doesn't usually support; if his concerns are addressed that's usually good enough for him. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OIC. Thanks for informing me. 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 23:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony doesn't usually support; if his concerns are addressed that's usually good enough for him. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed it again. Do you support the article now or...? 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 17:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - why does dates of chart go from April 7 to April 19? And the publication date of the reference for the album on April 19 is April 10 - did they predict the future? Same with ref 23, dated 1 April but used to reference April 7 charts... Perhaps there's a simple explanation for this? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a mistake while editing the article. It's suppose to be April 14. The Oricon charts work like the Billboard charts. 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 13:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [21].
List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for Canada
My second Canadian Olympic player list, modeled after List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Canada. This one is different because it contains columns for each Olympic year. I figured this would be useful because there are so few teams and because many have participated in multiple tournaments, the sort feature didn't work properly before. I realize that it may be a little confiusing because the years column doesn't have an "Olympics" header, but I tried to add one and I couldnt' figure out a way to do it without killing the sortability. Just in case someone asks, I don't think this system could be used in the men's list because there is an extra 70 years of history (thus making it far too wide) and only a handful have played on multiple teams. Also, I was considering adding a small unfancy list of the other potential players for the 2010 team. Does anyone think I should? Anyway, all comments are welcome. Enjoy. -- Scorpion0422 15:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The column Notes shouldn't be sortable. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 05:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the formatting of ref 5 (Podnieks & Szemberg 2008 as well as a link); are that two separate refs? Also, ampersands shouldn't be used.Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- It's a book called the top 100 IIHF stories. However, all 100 stories have been posted at the IIHF website. So it credits the author, then links to the online page. That system is used because a similar page, Ice hockey at the Olympic Games, cites that book about 40 times and it was very unweildy having to repeat the same stuff (publisher, date, etc.) over and over again, so I just switched to the format used for books.
- Thanks once again for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 00:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco 20:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments -
|
Support - Was a very good list to begin with and surely meets the FL standards now. The only thing I would recommend for the future is more photos to the right of the tables if they become avaliable; more than enough room exists for them. That doesn't affect the current status of the page, however. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some more free ones on Flickr, but they aren't particularily good. (example) -- Scorpion0422 15:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Not well-written; glitches.
- MOS prefers numbers above ten, doesn't it? No big deal, tho. There are other examples ... and then "14" etc.
- I was told that you should try to be consistant with numbers when they are in one sentence. So either have 6 and 17 or six and seventeen.
- Out-of-order statements: "Canada has sent a team to all three tournaments. Those teams have consisted of five goaltenders and thirty-two skaters, all of whom have won Olympic medals." The goal-keepers and skaters needs to be a separate, prior statement, yes? Join up the three tournaments and medals bits?
- Done.
- "previously", like "currently" so often, is redundant.
- "Before 1998, women's hockey had been dominated by Canada's national team. Canadian teams had won every World Championship up to that point". Isn't just "Until 1998," good enough, without the last four words? Look throughout for redundant wording, and try these exercises in distributed sessions.
- Fixed.
- "and is tied with the United States for the most overall medals"—The "is" looks funny to me. What, right now? Last year? When? WP doesn't like time-phrases that immediately become obsolete. There's another "is" a few seconds further on. See MoS on this.
- Fixed the first statement.
And other things. Please find an unfamiliar word-nerd to copy-edit. Lots of red links; I guess this means your next task is to write stubs and see them through to something better? Tony (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to find a copyeditor. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 16:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images Check out fine. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 21:49, 5 May 2009 [22].
List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire
I am nominating this for featured list because, after much hard work, I think it is now up to the FL standards. The subject is obviously of vital historical importance. There are very few monarchy-related FLs, so this one has been modeled after the recently promoted List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty. Since the image issue is likely to be brought up, I would like to say that I uploaded nearly all the images used in the article, and reviewed each one of them several times to ensure proper sourcing/licensing. Therefore, I think it is unnecessary to disturb one of the regular image reviewers as this would be a waste of their time. However, if you do find a problem with a particular image, please point it out. Regards. BomBom (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd like to point out that I notified members of WikiProject Turkey about this FLC, and asked them to review it (just review, not support). This seemed logical to me, because people from an article's WikiProject are likely to be familiar with the topic and are thus the most apt to do content-related comments. However, I was informed by Truco that this was not OK as it constituted potential canvassing. I was not aware of this and apologize for my actions. I will no longer notify WikiProject members when submitting an FLC in the future. Anyway, even if one were not to take into account the 5 support votes from members of WikiProject Turkey (Darwinek, Gökhan, Chapultepec, CeeGee, WillMall), the list still received 3 support votes from users who are not part of the project and whom I didn't notify of this ongoing FLC (Truco, Quadell, Qp10qp). Regards. --BomBom (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "Sultans" capitalized in the title? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that's the why List of Sultans of Zanzibar, a current FL, is named. Do you think it should use a lower case s? --BomBom (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. "sultan" is not a proper noun (unless "Sultan of the Ottoman Empire" is an official post). The other list should be moved also. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --BomBom (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. "sultan" is not a proper noun (unless "Sultan of the Ottoman Empire" is an official post). The other list should be moved also. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that's the why List of Sultans of Zanzibar, a current FL, is named. Do you think it should use a lower case s? --BomBom (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support - Great work: previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco 15:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice list! Best of luck, – Quadell (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Strong support. Fantastic list. – Quadell (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but a question about the dates of the first three sultans. Checking in my copy of The Ottoman Empire by Colin Imber (Palgrave, 2002), he gives the following: Osman I, d. c. 1324; Orhan, c. 1324–62, Murad I, 1362–89. The Wikipedia article gives the change from Orhan to Murad as 1359. Looking around the internet, there's some variation (for example: [24], [25], [26]). The use of circa is always a good get out in these cases, unless you can be very sure. qp10qp (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I put circa for the first three sultans. The dates used are those given by the Turkish Ministry of Culture, which are themselves based on the book Padişah Portreleri. --BomBom (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by members of WikiProject Turkey
|
---|
|
- Comment I grouped comments by members of WikiProject Turkey in a collapse box because of the potential canvassing issue discussed above. Whether or not their support votes should be taken into account is for the FL director to decide. --BomBom (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Aramgar
|
---|
Otherwise, good work on this important topic. Aramgar (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support. Content issues have been resolved. Good work on this important topic. Aramgar (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent list! Very informative lead and a great table with clear descriptions. I really like that they all have images and tughras. You seem to have taken care of everyone else's remarks, though I agree that a better source than Britannica should be used, if possible. Reywas92Talk 19:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Encyclopædia Britannica has been replaced by two other sources. --BomBom (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments - very very good indeed.
|
- Support an already excellent piece of work has been improved to an exceptional level during this process. Good work to both reviewers and contributing editors alike. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - a superb list, very well referenced, perfect format. Top draw, nice work! Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 21:49, 5 May 2009 [30].
Kronos Quartet discography
I am nominating this for featured list because after peer review it seems to be a pretty decent list, and I am interested in its improvement. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Before I fully review, the format of the tables is not the standard used, it should be formatted as other discographies. Such as the FLs located here.--Truco 15:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those tables (I looked at a bunch of them before I got started) are predicated on chart success in their very layout, something which hardly applies to (contemporary) classical music: the table would be dashes for their main content. But The Make-Up discography has a different format from many others, and Neutral Milk Hotel discography is not unlike the one for Kronos. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to wait for another reviewer's input before I review this, I hope you understand.--Truco 02:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those tables (I looked at a bunch of them before I got started) are predicated on chart success in their very layout, something which hardly applies to (contemporary) classical music: the table would be dashes for their main content. But The Make-Up discography has a different format from many others, and Neutral Milk Hotel discography is not unlike the one for Kronos. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that those two discographies wbecame Featured in late 2007. Since that time, around 50 other discographies have become Featured, albeit none of them of the same genre of music. Also, a Wikiproject has been established, WikiProject Discographies. Drmies, perhaps you could get some input from members there? Regards, Matthewedwards : Chat 03:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Started a thread. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate it. Truco referred me to the list of FL discographies, but there's a whole lot of em, and I didn't look at every single one; I certainly didn't look to see when any of them were featured. It would be helpful, in advance of any discussion on the thread you just opened, if I could get an idea of precisely which discography could function as a model, though I have to say, if it's 50 Cent discography then I don't really know what to do--the chart-heavy model simply isn't really relevant here. I went for another type of content: the verification of different elements and qualities of the record. Cannibaloki offered good suggestions in peer review, but he did not suggest that I change the format of the table, and I sure hope that it's not just the format of the table that determines the quality of an article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the second, as well as the whole work. Cannibaloki 06:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I support either one, but mostly the first one because it is what other discographies are commonly formatted as.--Truco 15:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the particular layout of the table stands in the way then I'll gladly change it--but before I do, I'd like to hear if there is consensus on this, since I'm sure you realize it's an awful job... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It kinda is, in a way. Just because its about a different genre of work shouldn't make it different from other formats/layouts.--Truco 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, the first time you referred me to some other discographies I didn't know what to look for, since a lot of those discographies were not like the ones above; instead, they were concerned with chart positions. In other words, I didn't know what you were pointing at, and that's why I remarked on genre. Now I know. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The tables have to change, because you're arranging according to year and not title. The first column is mostly the one the list is arranged with. Plus having a uniform layout between all Discographies is sort of a push towards a better usability. User Drmies should state what he'll do, so that the nomination would show progress.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do what I have to do, it's simple; I'll follow the first format. As far as progress is concerned, as you can tell from the dates I've been waiting to hear what the desired format is. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It kinda is, in a way. Just because its about a different genre of work shouldn't make it different from other formats/layouts.--Truco 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the particular layout of the table stands in the way then I'll gladly change it--but before I do, I'd like to hear if there is consensus on this, since I'm sure you realize it's an awful job... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I support either one, but mostly the first one because it is what other discographies are commonly formatted as.--Truco 15:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I probably won't support or oppose the nomination, but I have a few questions about the list. Why are the names of composers and musicians linked to within the "Title" field? Has Floodplain been released; if not shouldn't it have the "Released" field state "2009 (forthcoming)" like 2081. Also, shouldn't Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters link here? Alex Douglas (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They were linked as a leftover from the original, which was merely a list on the main article. I've taken care of those links now. Thanks for the Floodplain note; I've corrected that. The album is in pre-order and I'm waiting anxiously. ;) Drmies (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest the external links are transformed into generic citations, since almost all of the information seems to be sourced from there and is the only way anyone can verify the releases, catalogs, dates etc. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 06:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no--I got the release dates and catalog numbers from the Nonesuch website, and some of the others (soundtracks, etc) from Amazon whenever I could. The Allmusic list only has six titles, the Strings article is old and thus incomplete, and the Parker book has a bibliography, not a discography. I'll gladly make a generic note to the Nonesuch website, but there again, there's a difficulty: look at this, the entry for the Sigur Ros CD--it has the catalog number but not the date; the release dates are in the "ALSO FROM KRONOS QUARTET" menu on the right, and I wouldn't know how to cite that. What would you suggest I do? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was really talking about Kronos Quartet on Nonesuch Records and Kronos Quartet Website - discography. They seem to cover very much of the information provided so I figured they were the original source for some of the content. Overall, anything used as a source should be referenced. In regards to the release dates, you can simply cite this and in the reference add something like "See Releases section on right". Readers aren't stupid and they will understand were to look at. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 22:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I see now--I confused Bibliography with External links. Now it makes sense, sorry. But you wouldn't want a note for every single entry, right? I'll see what I can do and what looks good. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not, that would be ridiculous and a waste of time. Most discographies separate their references in "General" which are used all throughout the table, and "Specific" for the more common inline citations. For example, see Kaiser Chiefs discography#References. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 00:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a "general" note on that model--thanks. I'm not happy with the vagueness of the Amazon reference (and I really dislike having to use that as a source), but that's the way it is. As time goes by, some more of this information will be filled in. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not, that would be ridiculous and a waste of time. Most discographies separate their references in "General" which are used all throughout the table, and "Specific" for the more common inline citations. For example, see Kaiser Chiefs discography#References. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 00:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I see now--I confused Bibliography with External links. Now it makes sense, sorry. But you wouldn't want a note for every single entry, right? I'll see what I can do and what looks good. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was really talking about Kronos Quartet on Nonesuch Records and Kronos Quartet Website - discography. They seem to cover very much of the information provided so I figured they were the original source for some of the content. Overall, anything used as a source should be referenced. In regards to the release dates, you can simply cite this and in the reference add something like "See Releases section on right". Readers aren't stupid and they will understand were to look at. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 22:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the tables, all of them, and turned them into the preferred format. That was a very lengthy and tedious job...I need a beer. Now, the only place where I was a bit at a loss is the "contributions" section--there's a ton of info in the second cell (I hope I did it consistently for all of them, but right now I can't proofread anymore) but I can't rightly figure out how to do it and make it look better. I'll get to the reference(s) for the catalog info as soon as I can. Thanks for your feedback. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the tables sortable, if u don't mind. In any case wether sortable or not I support the promotion of this list to FL status.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks--but see note below by Chris: can you make the third column "unsortable"? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the tables sortable, if u don't mind. In any case wether sortable or not I support the promotion of this list to FL status.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - is there any reason for the "notes" column to be sortable (I can't see anyone wanting to sort the notes into alphabetical order)? Also, the columns should retain consistent widths across all the tables. Oh, and the "contributions" table has a stray extra cell on the line for "Heat", which is making a very thin extra column appear at the far right -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (In reverse order:) Thanks--it was the next one, actually. I'm glad you noticed it; after I got done with it I couldn't see straight anymore. I see that the width is not perfectly consistent, but I don't know why that is. In all honesty, I barely know how these tables work; if one of you could have a look that would be great (the second column has a fixed width and the first is nothing but years, so I figured they'd all end up the same way--plus, I copied and pasted them all from the one up on this page). No, they don't need to be sortable by notes, but I don't know how to fix that--perhaps Diaa, who was kind enough to make them sortable in the first place, can help here. Thanks for your comments! Drmies (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, both for the sorting and the partial unsorting. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Think I've sorted the table column width disparity issue, hope it looks OK. I support the FLC -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks great, thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "a string quartet playing "-->a string quartet that plays
- "The quartet's music is released on "-->The quartet's music has been released on
- "by composers like"-->by composers such as
- "their music covers a who's who of 20th century composers, as one critic phrased it in 1998." "who's who" is a bit loose, can we have a quote for that?
- "besides contributing to the soundtracks of five other movies, including Heat and 21 Grams"-->and has contributed to the soundtracks of five other movies, including Heat and 21 Grams
- "Their interest in collaborations is evident in their contributions to albums by other artists," This is WP:OR; it needs to be rephrased.
- "ranked in the "-->ranked on the
- "The quartet won a Grammy for the 2003 album Lyric Suite (music by Alban Berg), and were the" Inconsistent subject verbs, you use "has been" but "were the" (has is singular, were is plural).
- In the notes, single sentence fragments should not have periods at the end.
- Can you link all notable works, not just the ones that have articles? There is nothing wrong with red links. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
- Publication titles (newspapers, magazines, journals) in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}, use the
work=
field for the title of the paper instead ofpublisher=
. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've taken care of all your comments, incl. the wikilinks--there's a lot of red on the page now (I've been working on individual articles for the albums, but that's a lot of work). Oh, I disagree (grammatically) on your 2nd remark and have not changed that. (And the who's who thing, that was a quote--I put quotation marks around it.) Thanks for that ref template bit--if only I'd realized that before... I haven't yet taken care of your sentence fragment comment but I'll get on it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead
- 'The discography of the Kronos Quartet, a string quartet playing contemporary classical music founded by violinist David Harrington in 1973, includes numerous albums, compilations, and contributions to others' releases.' || 1)'playing' --> that plays 2)'numerous' should be replaced with the actual values
- done
- 'Since 1978 the quartet has been based in San Francisco, California.' || 1)Comma after '1978'
- I disagree--it's a short phrase and a comma is not required.
- That does not matter, all grammar rules apply to all complete sentences. A pause is needed after 1978, this is for all statements like this.--Truco 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying to explain to you that that is not a grammatical rule. At best, it's a rule of usage that after an introductory clause, such as a prepositional phrase, a comma can be applied. Please don't try to tell me that such comma usage is part of grammar, since it isn't--at most its style, and all the style manuals agree with me here: after a short introductory phrase one is not required to use a comma. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Early recordings by the quartet contain contemporary classical music and adaptations of more popular music, such as jazz and even rock and roll.' || 1)Unlink Jazz and Rock and Roll, they are common genres and do not need to be linked 2)remove 'even' its POV
- done--though I don't see why I should de-link these.
- 'Since the 1980s, and especially with the release of Cadenza on the Night Plain, written as a collaboration between composer Terry Riley and the quartet, much of the quartet's repertoire and album releases contain music written especially for them, by composers like Terry Riley, Kevin Volans, Henryk Górecki, and Ástor Piazzolla; their music covers a who's who of 20th century composers, as one critic phrased it in 1998.' || This just needs to be reworded, its a run-on (possibly split)
- Sorry, it's not a run-on (note the semicolon). But I'll split it.
- 'Kronos has recorded five soundtracks (music composed by Philip Glass, Clint Mansell, and Lee Brooks), including the score for the 1998 music for the silent movie Dracula, besides contributing to the soundtracks of five other movies, including Heat and 21 Grams.' || 1)No need to state the composers here 2)What does 'including the score' mean? 3)I recommend splitting this sentence or rewording it as well.
- I'm keeping Philip Glass in because this is, after all, the lead to an article and should state something about the importance of the subject. Philip Glass is one of the most influential composers of the 20th century, and that they recorded his music on such things as soundtracks goes to notability. The sentence is reworded.
- That does not matter, unless you give composers for all albums mentioned in the lead, then you can keep it, if not its best to remove it per consistency purposes.--Truco 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all of them are among the most influential composers of the 20th century. In a lead you pick the most salient, the most significant details. You don't give Billboard rankings for each album, but if there's a #1 you'd mention that. I left Philip Glass in there for the same reason.
- 'Their interest in collaborations is evident in their contributions to albums by other artists, especially pop artists, such as Joan Armatrading, Dave Matthews Band, Andy Summers, Nelly Furtado, and Nine Inch Nails.' || The first part is POV, how do you know its their interest? Remove sentence or reword it.
- done (see Dabomb's comments above)
- 'The quartet won a Grammy for the 2003 album Lyric Suite (music by Alban Berg), and were the performing artist for Steve Reich's Grammy-winning 1988 composition Different Trains.' || This is really not needed because its not in the main list/tables itself.
- done
- Table/list
- The notes need to be copyedit because some of the notes are not complete sentences and the periods need to be removed from them.
- Dabomb said the same thing. I'd like to know why--why do sentence fragments not require periods? In any published piece of writing they do. Moreover, it'll give rise to inconsistencies; some cells (like the third) have two fragments. Surely they should be separated by something, and if that something is, for instance, a semicolon, then you have punctuation in the middle but not at the end. Sentence fragments in tables are acceptable since information needs to be economical, and rephrasing all fragments into complete sentences is awkward and wordy. Look at Music of Bill Evans--two fragments, then a balanced compound sentence containing two independent clauses. Turning a fragment like "With Jim Hall and Eddie Gomez" into a sentence would be very wordy.
- Okay, which is why we're telling you to remove the periods. In all featured lists, its encouraged to do so because they are not complete sentences and a statement like "It was great." is not acceptable. Yes you're right its too wordy to make into complete sentences, which is why the solution is removing the periods.
- So, look at "Compositions by Thelonious Monk. With Ron Carter (bass improvisation)." Do you want me to remove both periods, and produce "Compositions by Thelonious Monk With Ron Carter (bass improvisation)" ? OK, so just the last, "Compositions by Thelonious Monk. With Ron Carter (bass improvisation)" ? That looks weird also. In this case, since both fragments are short, I could change to "Compositions by Thelonious Monk; with Ron Carter (bass improvisation)" but that doesn't work for all the entries--it won't work very well for the next one. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first note, although it is a quote, is used in POV-ish manner, possibly paraphrase the quote or remove it.
- With all due respect, if a critic says something like that about your first release, it's pretty notable. The notes in this discography also substitute for the lack of individual articles on the albums, and so they have both evaluation (all from RS, I may add) and information.
- Yes, but the section is for notes about the album not critical reception.--Truco 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It says "notes"--and many of them have "critical reception" (which is evaluation). If Leonard Feather gives five stars to an album of Evans songs recorded by a string quartet, is that not a "note about the album" and an evaluation to boot? As I said elsewhere, since there are no individual articles for these albums I tried to collect information from reliable sources, and many of these notes are reviews, yes. Now, if you want me to go through and take all of that information out, that would be sad. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References
- Billboard, the San Francisco Chronicle, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, TIME, Chicago Tribune, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Boston Globe, The Independent, and Washington Post are all literary published works, they need to be in italics.--Truco 20:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Dabomb's comments above. However, "literary published works" they are not. I've moved all the newspapers but not Billboard, since their website is not called "Billboard," and the same goes for a few other websites
- You're right, Nielsen is the publisher but the work is from Billboard magazine, which need italics. So Billboard goes in the work field. --Truco 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The work is from Billboard magazine, it is not Billboard magazine. But I'll go ahead and change it. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't really a requirement, but can something be done about all of those redlinks? Since they are a notable group, it makes sense that all of their albums should have pages. -- Scorpion0422 15:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was told (above) that I should wikilink the most important albums (kind of difficult to decide): "Can you link all notable works, not just the ones that have articles? There is nothing wrong with red links." So I did. I've gotten to work on that, but I don't want to create a ton of stubs; something like this one, Kronos Quartet Performs Alfred Schnittke: The Complete String Quartets, took quite a bit of time. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here, Winter Was Hard, is another one. And another: Kronos Quartet Plays Sigur Rós. You see, I'm on it! Drmies (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing wrong with redlinks. Per WP:RED, "a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there exists no candidate article, or article section, under any name." Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One more redlink gone: Terry Riley: Cadenza on the Night Plain. That took hours! Drmies (talk) 04:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing wrong with redlinks. Per WP:RED, "a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there exists no candidate article, or article section, under any name." Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Contemporary classical music that was founded by Harrington? The opening sentence is also a long snake. Solve this ambiguity problem by splitting with a semicolon and making two related statements.
- "others' releases": releases by other artists? groups? "similar groups"? Unsure.
- "The quartet's music is released on Nonesuch Records since 1985"—wrong tense.
The opening indicates that the whole lead needs a proper copy-edit. It's short, so surely there are word-nerds who are willing. I agree with Scorpion that the red links are obstructive. If you want a wishlist of articles, at least write stubs for them and there's the next mini project to shepherd them towards post-stub status. Unusual for international date format to be used for a US-base group, but I don't care a toss. Tony (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rearranged per your desire. I hope the "contributions" bit is more clear now; I appreciate you playing the devil's advocate. The tense in the Nonesuch sentence is in fact correct (I am a word-nerd, professionally). The international date format (from your "toss" I gather you're British) is becoming more and more accepted in the US and is, for instance, recommended by the MLA--thanks for noticing. I've heard different opinions now on the red links; I am inclined to agree with you, but I'm simply trying to follow orders here. Maybe I'll just find a middle way and remove half of them, and I'll write a few more stubs over the next few days. The problem with stubs, though, is that it lessens the likelihood of such an article being eligible for DYK status (five days from creation, an almost biblical measure), and after I got one for Terry Riley: Requiem for Adam I've become greedy for more. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose
Changed "Billboard charts" to "various Billboard charts"; individual entries (in "notes") identify which charts.
|
- Weak support a very comprehensive list, but we still have a bare URL in ref 6 and a hyphen, instead of a en-dash, in ref 62. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabomb took care of the one (thanks again...!), I took care of the other, and I added two more references for that album. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 2 May 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.