Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2009: Difference between revisions
Scorpion0422 (talk | contribs) + 3 |
Scorpion0422 (talk | contribs) + 5 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Gold Glove Award winners at second base/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Orange Prize for Fiction/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of places of worship in Brighton and Hove/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of CZW World Heavyweight Champions/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (engineers)/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (engineers)/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Commandant of the Marine Corps/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Commandant of the Marine Corps/archive1}} |
Revision as of 21:28, 23 June 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 Scorpion0422 21:28, 23 June 2009 [1].
List of Gold Glove Award winners at second base
Yes, again (I'm going fast with this project!). Enjoy the read; comments appreciated. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment –
"Ryne Sandberg has the second-highest total overall, and his nine awards are the most by a National League player, having won them with the Chicago Cubs." I thought the last part of this sentence was awkward. Can the team be mentioned earlier?Giants2008 (17-14) 21:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Support – Looks fine, just like the rest of the list. Another great baseball awards list. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:25, 19 June 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 21:28, 23 June 2009 [2].
BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award
- Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while but this is the last list in the SPoTY awards topic I have been working on. I had some early discussion with Scorpion about how to format it, and hopefully it is now okay. If there are still problems I guess the images could go. Also note that Checklinks for me is indicating that a Times article is dead even though it isn't. Thanks in advance for any comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
|
- What makes http://www.televisionheaven.co.uk/spoty.htm (ref 3) a reliable source?
Reference 47 should have publisher (Hello!) in italics.- Done
Giants2008 (17-14) 23:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for the comments. They have either been addressed or commented on. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support – Maintaining some caution because of the one source I'm hesitant about, but everything else is good. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support As for the flags, I think both should stay: flags and linked abbr. In a sortable table, abbreviations without links are useless.
- I'm staying out the flag thing now. As my sandbox shows, I'm willing to make changes if deemed necessary. I just await an outcome from discussion between reviewers. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Crzycheetah 01:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Hassocks5489
|
---|
Comments from Hassocks5489 – I am close to supporting.
Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support – everything resolved. The AWB replacements of "Athlete" with "Athletics" broke one external link, which I repaired. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:07, 23 June 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 21:28, 23 June 2009 [3].
Orange Prize for Fiction
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I'm just really looking for things that are off my radar. In a few hours, I've tried to turn this from a collection of 3,145 bytes of unsourced facts to 14,329 bytes of extensively sourced information. The list is the article, i.e. this is no content fork, so hopefully it meets the expectations of the community, not only WP:WIAFL. So, all criticism gratefully received, and I'll do my best to act on all comments as soon as possible. Cheers y'all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comment - I think the Nominees column would look neater if you put names in bullet form —Chris! ct 04:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but it would also unnaturally elongate the table. I'm not that keen to implement this as the main focus should really be on the winners anyway. But perhaps we'll see what others think. Cheers for your comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No objection to the list... but regarding the text, would it be possible to provide more context? The second paragraph has a lot of criticism but it could be more balanced with defenses or explanations of what they are referring to. What does "Lemon Prize" mean? is that supposed to be disparaging? The critics call it "sexist", is there a defense on why it was created for women only? It is a lot of criticism for something that is "one of the UK's most prestigious literary prizes"...basically why is it so prestigious if all the criticism is negative? Other suggestions:
- "sponsored by Orange since then." - context on what Orange is.
- "literary prizes, awarded annually for the best original full-length novel written in English by a female author" - perhaps "awarded to a female author for the best ..." would be a better order since the prize is awarded to the author, rather than the work. --maclean 02:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey maclean, thanks so much for your comments. I've tried to address them as best I can - I've added some references for why the prize exists, both from the Orange website and an interview with Mosse. I've linked the "lemon" quote to Lemon (automobile) which, on the face of it may seem odd, but the meaning is correct. I've given Orange some context, i.e. what they actually do as a company, and I've reworded according to your second specific point. The prestige side of things, I had hoped, was covered by the four different references I have in the opening sentence of the lead. Are the edits I've made satisfactory, or could I do more? Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still find it unbalanced. 'Prestigious' is a subjective adjective and what I'm looking for is why is it described as such. Yes, several media outlets label the award "prestigious". But they don't explain why it is prestigious. Is it the oldest? most lucrative? most sought after? does it have the largest following? BBC News has some redeemable content with its quote on why the author finds the award useful. However, the rest:
- Irish Times - article about 2009 shortlist - does not expand beyond labelling the award "prestigious" in article title.
- Telegraph - article about a winner - calls it powerful and prestigious and ends there.
- Guardian - article about non-fiction - calls it "prestigious" and never comes back to it.
- BBC News - article about 2007's winner - calls it "prestigious" and backs it up with quote from a past winner who believes the award led to more people reading her book.
- From what I'm reading, half of the text is given to negative criticisms, and only one word of positive recognition. I get the Lemon thing now - I was totally on the fruit aspect and didn't think of the car connection (...so it is a hunk of metal that people accept not knowing it is defective and will cost them thousands of dollars to fix?). ----
- Thanks once more maclean for your help. I've been away and I'm exhausted but I will do my best to read through the really helpful articles you've sent me in order to extract some nuggets that I can include that will meet your expectations of a fully balanced article. Any suggestions as to how best to phrase and structure the lead would be great. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for adding those advantages to the prize (significantly increased readership and sales). On the comprehensive side, could you also add a bit about the role of Mitsubishi (the Women's Studies article should help here) and Orange Broadband. Also, please clarify this sentence "libraries ... reported that "48% said that they had tried new writers..." - the libraries tried new writers? --maclean 07:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully I have covered these issues adequately now? Cheers once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Dabomb87 (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) |
---|
Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
Good work, don't know how much you've had to change, but it is definitely in a good shape at the moment. Here are my nitpicks:
|
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC) –Capped 22:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. My comments were very picky in the first place, mainly because I couldn't find any obvious faults. All my comments have had an adequate response, and although I have responded to a couple they're all pretty much a matter of taste. This meets the criteria, so congratulations TRM on improving another list, which I believe should hopefully become your first FL since your return. I hope to see many more... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. As a compromise I'll modify that reference to comply with the MOS. No harm done either way really and if makes you happier then so much the better! Thanks for your comments and support. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. My comments were very picky in the first place, mainly because I couldn't find any obvious faults. All my comments have had an adequate response, and although I have responded to a couple they're all pretty much a matter of taste. This meets the criteria, so congratulations TRM on improving another list, which I believe should hopefully become your first FL since your return. I hope to see many more... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:31, 22 June 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 21:28, 23 June 2009 [4].
List of places of worship in Brighton and Hove
- Nominator(s): Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here I go with this epic! Credit should go to Vox Humana 8', who had the idea for this list and started it a long time ago; and Kierant, Circeus and Aldux, who have spotted all sorts of errors, inconsistencies and additions that I had missed as I went along. This started as a prose article, with each church under a second-level heading; then I went for a prose-cum-list sorted by denomination; then I finally decided to put it in true list format after finding a workable design when doing the equivalent list for Crawley. A lot of this spadework went on in sandboxes; ask me if you want to inspect the edit history (I would need to find the sandbox in question!). Some points I need to make first:
- The order of the two tables is quite complex and has been deliberately chosen. "Denomination" is the first criterion, in descending order of number of churches of that denomination, then alphabetically by denomination name; then within each denomination, listing grade (I/II*/II/none), then alphabetically by church name. I hope this is suitably logical!
- Every church with listed status has an article, as do one or two others with enough notability. Churches with no articles are not notable enough to be mentioned separately outside this list.
- I am happy to create a "Refs" column and consolidate them in that if preferred. (As demonstrated here.)
- I know ... it's huge. Sorry! There are so many places of worship in the city...
All comments will be attended to promptly. Thanks for your interest. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment - nice list, but it can be better if you actually explain some of the things clearly to readers
—Chris! ct 19:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) This is very good for a list of this size.
Dabomb87 (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→I've removed the disambiguation link to Church of God on the basis that the church identifies itself only with the general "Churches of God" movement rather than with a particular denomination within that body. "Churches of God" currently redirects to "Church of God". Found a few other fixes to make as well: incorrect use of "date" parameter in refs, and some redundant use of "website" in other refs (must have missed those first time round!) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In references in which the website name and the publisher is the same, it is redundant to have something like "Fabrica website. Fabrica."Dabomb87 (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- →All examples removed, I think; I have left the JCR-UK examples (3 in the synagogues section) as I'm not sure whether they are redundant or not. Thanks for your helpful review. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 14:59, 14 June 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]] 21:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support I'll just AGF the references, as I'm sure you live there, and know the places more than I do. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support All issues resolved, good to go. – (iMatthew • talk) at 14:33, 21 June 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 21:28, 23 June 2009 [5].
List of CZW World Heavyweight Champions
I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel it meets the criteria. This list was once an FL under the CZW World Heavyweight Championship. Bad sourcing and prose problems caused it to be delisted. Having noticed this, I looked for new sources and expanded the lead and other sections into a list. I was not the user who got the title to FL the first time, but I hope to be the second time. The main article has also been expanded.WillC 00:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments –
|
Support – My comments have all been taken care of, and so have most of Dabomb's. The lone exception is the source query, which I posted a note about below. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/DVDs_-_VGames_-_Books_25/article_15971.shtml reliable? Sorry if I have asked about this before.Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Supposedly because it has credible editors and a long lasting news letter.--WillC 13:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the always-handy User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet, the site is acceptable for non-contentious information, such as match results. Apparently it is the website of a printed publication. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Supposedly because it has credible editors and a long lasting news letter.--WillC 13:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
I don't think you needed to split this one. The main article is barely start-class, yet it's expanded as much as it could. I highly suggest merging this table with the main article and nominate again. --Crzycheetah 06:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(→)*Comments I am going to comment on this list anyway
|
- My primary concern is the lack of background info, which can be achieved by merging the list into the main article.
- My secondary concern is the centered text mainly in the "Name" column that should be left-aligned for easier reading.
--Crzycheetah 01:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24
|
---|
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Since Crzycheetah's comments are minor, and can easily can handled with, I'll just go ahead and support. Hope to see more from you. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You will. I have many many many more planed to come. I was going to start reviewing FLCs but with this one and the tag title having alot of problems, I'm not sure I know what an FL is yet. One I have planned is List of Pro Wrestling Guerrilla employees.--WillC 07:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Dabomb and Giants' reviews being completed. – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cautious support
Resolved comments from MPJ-DK
|
---|
Comments –;;General
|
- I'm willing to change anything, but I disagree with some of the changes. The italics I do not believe are policy, I've been told only tv shows should be italics and not PPvs. I feel live events are just like PPVs. Plus like has somewhat to do with it, but I see no policy regrading it other than me hearing preference. I've stated around two of three times, if a policy was shown that said they should be left aligned, I would change it right away. I also feel the only reason you want it changed is preference as well. I somewhat feel solie is reliable and has been used in multiple FLs. I'll remove it though it sources minor things seeing as the promotion's site is also there and it is only a back up. Plus there is nothing wrong with using mainly primary sources. There are two other third party sources within the article to establish notability and since you are also from the project you know CZW is reliable how hard it is to find sites regarding indy promotions. Plus per the wrestling MoS it says that the promotion's website is the best one to use. I'm willing to change anything to get your oppose changed to a support, but if I feel it doesn't improve the article, then I probably will not comply. I will discuss any changes as well so I understand the reason too and to explain to others why it was changed. I don't mean to be difficult since I kind of feel I'm seeming like that. But I'm trying to get this to become an FL plus I want it to be the best it can since there are very few good indy articles.--WillC 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright breakdown time
- Italics, skip the shows it's a minor thing really. In the tag article I think you need either quotation marks or italics for team names to make it clear "This is their team name".
- Alignment - well if that's all we end up disagreeing on then I can live with that.
- Solie.org's "Reliability" - Considering that Solies & CZW's own site state the exact same data from the looks of it (I didn't compare every single entry) it can be left in and apparently used in other FLs I'll withdraw my objection.
- I think we'll have to disagree on the use of primary sources, they're okay up to a degree IMO. But I do definitly know how much of a pain it can be to find reliable wrestling sources and well I'll remain neutral on that instead of oppose on that front.MPJ-DK (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks you for the support. Even people who seem to be having the same abbjective tend to disagree and it was bound to happen sometime or another. I understand all your opposes on the format, just for you to know. I also agree on the Solie and CZW site sourcing. I don't like using alot of primary sources, but all I got at the moment. I'm unsure of Solie's reliability but I don't know how to check that so I'm not sure. Used in other wrestling FLs so I use it.--WillC 13:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:32, 20 June 2009 [6].
List of United States Military Academy alumni (engineers)
I am nominating this for featured list because it is next in my series of US service academy lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done, the topic seems hard to make a good list on, but it has a comprehensive lead and the table is sufficient, thus I support. No need for any color codes IMO (which I have been nitpicking over in the last few candidates I've reviewed). Hello32020 (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
"The Academy was the first engineering school in the United States and the Academy still places a strong emphasis on the sciences and engineering." Too repetitive, try "The first engineering school in the United States, the Academy places a strong emphasis on the sciences and engineering.""Army ranger" Shouldn't it be "Army Ranger" since it's an official title?"for his for actions at the Battle of Malvern Hill though acutely ill" Suggest "for his for actions at the Battle of Malvern Hill despite acute illness"Dabomb87 (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I checked the references, checked for disambiguous links and spelling errors and I ran the page through the general edits of AWB and it came out clean. The one issue that I have is that it may not qualify due to 3a. since the list is incomplete. Other than that It seems good to go and I will let someone else decide the symantics of whether it meets FL without being complete.--Kumioko (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's certainly passable when a few things are fixed: a good list. I like the arc of the lead, where you focus the reader on the list itself only by the second para.
- "of the United States' five service academies"—Saw someone call that a hissing apostrophe the other day (odd description); it's a little ungainly—please consider "of the five American service academies".
- Why are words as terms (within quotes) given an initial upper-case letter (e.g., "Cadet")? The "official" endorsement, ref 1, leads to a page that doesn't confirm this usage (in which case can you specify in the footnote which part of that site does?).
- "its predecessors"—excellent use of a pipe (single word may have been misleading).
- "The first engineering school in the United States, the Academy places a strong emphasis on the sciences and engineering."—Two issues: we've been told already that it's the oldest ... is that the same? Second, the two ideas in the sentence don't really fit together—no logical connection, so a comma is not a sufficient boundary, I think.
- "remained" --> "was".
- End of first para: amazing claim, but I'm not doubting it. "the bulk of" could be "most of" if you want. (Bulk wheat)
- "chiefs of engineers"—this came up last time. I think you might switch to lower case default for generic usage. See MoS: kings of France, but King Louis XIV. Same with "Class of".
- I checked with a wiki user who is a West Point grad and instructor there. He says if you refer to the class itself, capitalize it, but if to someone's class, lower case. So, it should be "The class with the most generals was the Class of 1915" but "Joe Blow, class of 1915...". I will fix this in this list and my others later. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Three-item list: "is fourth on the list of total winners for Rhodes Scholarships, seventh for Marshall Scholarships and fourth on the list of Hertz Fellowships." Can you make all three "for"?
- Do we have a convention about where to place the "incomplete list" statement? I'd have thought at the bottom, but please correct me if not. It's just a bit negative at the start.
Tony (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've forgotten to mention this for all your previous alumni lists, but per WP:MSH, we shouldn't repeat the articles' titles in section headers. So, for example, "United States Military Academy engineers" should be "Alumni" or "Engineers". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, how can so many people miss something on so many lists? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We're human, and don't have the multitudes of MOS pages memorized :) Dabomb87 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This still needs to be remedied, even if it is an obscure rule no one ever cares about that was not enforced before. I'd be willing to make the changes in the other lists, if that's the reason for hesitation. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're going to enforce it, do it across the board, not just this list and not just the US service academy lists; you'd at least then be consistent. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Would you rather the section title reflect the occupation (e.g. "engineers", "academics", "MOH recipients") or just "Alumni"? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alumni is too boring. So, engineers, MOH recipients, Chiefs of Naval Operations, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're going to enforce it, do it across the board, not just this list and not just the US service academy lists; you'd at least then be consistent. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This still needs to be remedied, even if it is an obscure rule no one ever cares about that was not enforced before. I'd be willing to make the changes in the other lists, if that's the reason for hesitation. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We're human, and don't have the multitudes of MOS pages memorized :) Dabomb87 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, how can so many people miss something on so many lists? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:32, 20 June 2009 [7].
Commandant of the Marine Corps
I am nominating this for featured list because it seems to meet the criteria to be a Featured List. Kumioko (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I do not deem this as a problem per sey I am requesting comment on the title. I submitted the article with the title it was created with but I think it would be more appropriate as Commandants of the Marine Corps.--Kumioko (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest either Commandants of the Marine Corps or List of Commandants of the Marine Corps. Geraldk (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The current title is fine. WP guidelines say to never have a title be plural, and it doesn't have to have "List of" just because it includes a list. cf. the FL Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article is about the position, but it's not long enough to have List of Administrators split off from it, just like your article. Reywas92Talk 01:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
It's a great list, but I can see more coming from it, namely a short history of the position. You reference a 580-page book devoted to the Commandant, so I'm sure some more info could fit in here. In a paragraph in the lead, include the first and current Commandants, as well as the longest/shortest-serving Commandants. Has/will President Obama nominate a new one? Looking through the names, note that Anthony Gale was the only one to be fired. It's in the see also, but note that the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps is next in line and many of which were upgraded. You've listed the home, but also include that the office is at Headquarters Marine Corps. And is the home an actual house provided for him where he would live? These shouldn't be too hard to expand on. Otherwise, this is an excellent article! Reywas92Talk 02:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I will add some more details. You mention some trivia type things such as first, current, longest serving, etc. I will add in a column for notes to cover some of these and I will expand the intro and opening paragraphs to cover more details. Not sure if the president is planning on picking a new one yet but I would expect it in the future at some point. Yes he actually lives in the house.--Kumioko (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice that 1936-1972 his term was three years from Jan 1 to Dec 31 and 1972-1999 it was four years from July 1 to Jun 30. Does this have any significance, and should it be in the lead? You've added some great interesting notes! Reywas92Talk 16:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly don't know if that is by design or by accident and I cannot find anything to state either way.--Kumioko (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know if it's related, but Barrow's note says "Was the first Commandant to serve, by law, a regular four-year tour as a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff". I made a few further copyedits, shortened long notes, moved HQMC to the lead. I Support this excellent list. Reywas92Talk 20:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly don't know if that is by design or by accident and I cannot find anything to state either way.--Kumioko (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice that 1936-1972 his term was three years from Jan 1 to Dec 31 and 1972-1999 it was four years from July 1 to Jun 30. Does this have any significance, and should it be in the lead? You've added some great interesting notes! Reywas92Talk 16:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the last point, I doubt it will happen soon. In recent times, the Commandant usually serves for several years, and then retires (or steps down in the case of Gen Jones) at the time of his choosing, and not at the behest of the President. There is also some info in United States Marine Corps#Leadership that might be adapted here. I'll also note that I support this nom, but I'm incredibly biased here. :P bahamut0013wordsdeeds 06:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have thought so too along with Gen Hagee but aside from serving there doesn't seem to be any source that mentions duing anything notible during his tenure.--Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Although the list portion of this is an excellent list, there is a fundamental problem with the prose portions. If this is meant to be the main article about the position of the Commandant of the Marine Corps, then there should be a lot more content relating to what the office is, what its history is, what commandants have done in the past, how their office is set up (see Chief of Naval Operations), what happened to former Commandants (see President of the United States), etc. This is one of those cases where there needs to be a lot more prose to make this a featured list. I would advie the creation of a new section or two between the lead and the list to accomodate this. Further, the lead right now, especially near its end, is a series of short, choppy paragraphs and the transitions between sentences could use some work to make it flow more smoothly. Finally, the responsibilities section should not simply be one long quote from the US code. That can be turned into prose that offers much more description than dry legalese bereft of context. Geraldk (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I believe therre needs to be a bigger better article about what the commandant is, what its history is, etc this is intended to be a list of commandants and not the full article. I will fix the prose and clean up the lead. I expanded it based on other users recommendations.--Kumioko (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the lead just needs some clean-up and you will still likely want to turn the responsibilities section into a short, prose section of the lead. It also seems to me the article is misnamed after all. If the intention what you are nominating is just the list of Commandants, then by definition the list would need to be separated from the main article. I'm going to mention the question to the other reviewers to ask how they would recommend dealing with that. Geraldk (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's fine how it is now, and I might even oppose if there was a split. Currently, there is not enough information to really need a separate article and list. Maybe in the future when more info is added, but if the list were to be split out now, all we'd have is a stub about the position and a list with a lead that is redundant to the former. Sure, you can add more about the history, but one page is fine. There is no problem with having an FL for a main article/list. Reywas92Talk 23:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, then my original opposition comment stands. If this remains the main article for the position of Commandant, then it needs a lot more about the position itself before it meets the prose (1) and comprehensiveness (3) standards for FL. Geraldk (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this is not meant to be a comprehensive article about the commandant. As Reywas92 stated there just isn't enough info at this time to have a seperate article. We can add a seperate article in the future when more info is added but for now we just don't have it. I believe that perhaps with some minor pruning of the lead this is a good list, I agree that it does not have enough content for a full article. I understand your comments but again this is just meant to be a list.--Kumioko (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be, but unfortunately right now this is the article about the Commandant of the Marine Corps. I have no problem with there not being a split, but split or not, in the meantime, for this to meet both the prose and comprehensiveness requirements, it needs more thorough information about the office, its responsibilities, etc. Specifically, it needs:
- a rewrite the responsibilities section so it is a prose explanation rather than a block quote of the US Code.
- more information about the nomination and confirmation process.
- more information about how the commandant's office is organized, like with Chief of Naval Operations
- more information about what happens to most commandants - do they retire? why? after how long? have any ever been pushed out?
- the lead should encompass some information from the table, for example first, most recent, only one to be fired, etc. (and why was he fired in the first place???)
- there's really nothing interesting about Hagee or Pate?
- Geraldk (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I see what you mean, no problem give me a day or 2 and I will get that taken care of. By the way the CNO article doesn't have much more than this one.--Kumioko (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding how the office is organized: a few people have looked to Chief of Naval Operations as an example, but the equivalent to that section for the Marine Corps is at Headquarters Marine Corps. And I would be very opposed to a merger here. In any case, there isn't a great deal more information at the CNO article than the CMC article... not that there is a great deal to add. The role of the Commandant hasn't changed much in 234 years. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just mentioned CNO because it included a small bit of information that was lacking in this article. That's the reason I only mentioned it in regards to one suggestion for improvement. And I don't think all the information from the HQMC article should be merged either as much of it is simply a list of offices. Whether or not the role of the Commandant hasn't changed much since its creation, the article needs to be clear about what that role is, both in its immediate sense as a position and in a historical sense as that position has interacted with historical events. As an example, see President of the United States, though there's no reason for this article to be anywhere as long as the POTUS one. There are a lot of topics that can be covered about a position like this one. Or for other featured lists about positions with leads that provide a lot of depth see List of French monarchs, List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty, or Monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty. Geraldk (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding how the office is organized: a few people have looked to Chief of Naval Operations as an example, but the equivalent to that section for the Marine Corps is at Headquarters Marine Corps. And I would be very opposed to a merger here. In any case, there isn't a great deal more information at the CNO article than the CMC article... not that there is a great deal to add. The role of the Commandant hasn't changed much in 234 years. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I see what you mean, no problem give me a day or 2 and I will get that taken care of. By the way the CNO article doesn't have much more than this one.--Kumioko (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this is not meant to be a comprehensive article about the commandant. As Reywas92 stated there just isn't enough info at this time to have a seperate article. We can add a seperate article in the future when more info is added but for now we just don't have it. I believe that perhaps with some minor pruning of the lead this is a good list, I agree that it does not have enough content for a full article. I understand your comments but again this is just meant to be a list.--Kumioko (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, then my original opposition comment stands. If this remains the main article for the position of Commandant, then it needs a lot more about the position itself before it meets the prose (1) and comprehensiveness (3) standards for FL. Geraldk (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(undent)Geraldk, take a look at it now and see if you want me to add anything else. I need to add a couple references to the data I just added but let me know if you want any more content. Again, this is just a list and I can create a seperate article for the Commandant. --Kumioko (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's coming along. Take a look at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a, especially the section on flow, for more on what I mean about the lead being choppy. Geraldk (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I rephrased the lead a little bit and I see a couple other small changes I am going to make but I am still opposed to making this the main article for the commandant. I think that this list has about as much as it can hold before it becomes more about what the commandant is and less about the commandants as a list. I created a seperate article to discuss the commandants history, election process, organization, etc here. I still have a lot to do to flush it out but it will give you an idea about what it will look like.--Kumioko (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - much improved lead and prose. Geraldk (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prose needs work.
- You might remove "also" in the first and second paragraphs. It's up to you, but two of them is too much. I'd use neither, unless is feels clunky without.
- "The Commandant is nominated by the President and must be confirmed by the Senate[3] and by statute, the commandant is appointed as a four-star general." Thought it was a comma splice. It's not, but needs a comma boundary before "by". But why not get into semicolons, one of which might provide just the right strength of boundary here: "... Senate [3]; by statute, the ...".
- I'd remove "total", and "located" (which is missing anyway from the second "in").
- Not sure where you are talking about for this one.
- MUCH prefer US without the fly-specks, but we're in a bind in citing legal code names. The inconsistency is odd.
- Not sure what you mean could you clarify please. Are you referring to the U.S.?--Kumioko (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This humungous quotation from the Code is totally inappropriate. If you really want the text, please footnote it. But frankly, it's such s... that it needs WP to bring it down to earth by simple paraphrasing: "As stated in the US Code the Commandant shall preside over the Headquarters, Marine Corps, transmit the plans and recommendations of the Headquarters, Marine Corps, to the Secretary and advise the Secretary with regard to such plans and recommendations, after approval of the plans or recommendations of the Headquarters, Marine Corps, by the Secretary, act as the agent of the Secretary in carrying them into effect, exercise supervision, consistent with the authority assigned to commanders of unified or specified combatant commands under chapter 6 of this title, over such of the members and organizations of the Marine Corps and the Navy as the Secretary determines, perform the duties prescribed for him by section 171 of this title and other provisions of law and perform such other military duties, not otherwise assigned by law, as are assigned to him by the President, the Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of the Navy." Can you remove the legal stuff the readers don't need to know ... simplify, get rid of the repetitions, the clunky language, remove 3/4?
- "As of 2008, thirty-four [5] men have been appointed as"—what, some were appointed but didn't take up the position? (It does happen.) "served as".
- "also sometimes"—remove the redundant word. Can you run through these exercises some time?
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:32, 20 June 2009 [8].
List of Philippine–American War Medal of Honor recipients
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. I have spent a lot of time and made a lot of edits to it to bring it up to where it is. Kumioko (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several of my comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Medal of Honor recipients (Veracruz)/archive1 apply here. Edit as necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks,I don't mean to sound ungrateful but could you paste a few of the bog ones here.--Kumioko (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on your comments from the Vera Cruz list I changed some things: I added spaces before and after endashes for date spans, merged the medal of honor section and a couple other minor tweaks. I would still appreciate some more comments though.--Kumioko (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the lead could use with a little expansion (especially take out the "This is a list of" start that has been deprecated at Featured lists). Also, this is more general, but is there any way that you could make {{Medal of Honor recipients}} collapsible? Right now, we're in a dilemma: The {{clear}} causes a lot of whitespace to appear and makes the lead look small, but removing it would squash the table badly, impeding readability and detracting from visual appeal anyway.
- Based on your comments from the Vera Cruz list I changed some things: I added spaces before and after endashes for date spans, merged the medal of honor section and a couple other minor tweaks. I would still appreciate some more comments though.--Kumioko (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't start lists with "this is a list" in the prose part anymore. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I'll be back for more.
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 5 needs publisher and last access info.
- File:Edward E Lyon.JPG – there is absolutely no proof it was taken before 1923. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what I need to do about this, if I remove the image would that be accesptable?--Kumioko (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first time reviewing these "medal of honor" lists and I am very disappointed. I felt like I went back in time. I see a vertical navigational template on top and many general references with no inline citations for the table. If there were one or two general references, I'd understand, but five? That's a little too much.--Crzycheetah 06:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Undent) If you want me to pick one way to identify the service thats fine, but whatever we decide I will go and change it for all the Medal of Honor lists so they are all consistent. Most of them use [Service] vice [U.S. Service] so I would recommend sticking with [Service] since the Medal of Honor is only granted to US service members (except for the tombs of Unknown soldiers for a couple countries). Also, in regards to the nowrap thing, the Vera cruz and iwo jima lists are also featured and use this template so see if you have the problem on them as well. I do not see what you are seeing on my computer so I have to conclude that its at least possible that its something to do with the settings on your computer. --Kumioko (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comment. How would you feel about re-naming the list. At present, reading it quickly it's easy to think you're about to see a list of American Medal of Honor recipients of Filipino descent. There doesn't seem to be a definite convention on naming these (of the three FLs of this type, I see three different naming patterns), so how about List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Philippine-American War (currently a redirect)? Cool3 (talk) 16:10, 19 June 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 20:47, 16 June 2009 [9].
Rawlings Gold Glove Award
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the criteria. The lead article for a second baseball awards featured subtopic and an important article in the overall scheme of the main awards topic. Comments welcome and will be addressed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Would you consider adding a color corresponding with the † symbol? I realize it is a little complicated because the annotation with the * and ** symbols is often noted on the same player, but perhaps you could add a color field for if both apply. Meh, I may be making more trouble then it's worth :) Hello32020 (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered the option when building the Silver Slugger list, then realized that because some of the players who lead their position are also Hall of Famers, so it makes it eminently complicated to have two extra sets of colors for the sake of adding one thing. The rationale behind excluding it is basically that being a Hall of Famer is important, but it's not essential to the understanding of this list, so the color was excluded. However, it's still noted for accuracy purposes, and the names of all Hall of Famers by position will be outlined in the new winners by position lists that are soon to come. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense, well otherwise the lead is terrific and the table is very comprehensive so I will now support. Hello32020 (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments –
|
Support – All looks well after the changes. Looking forward to many more reviews of other lists in the topic in the weeks ahead. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:00, 10 June 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 20:47, 16 June 2009 [10].
List of Mexican National Trios Champions
I am nominating this for featured list because it is up to the standards of Featured Lists. It was listed once before but due to one editor it was closed and not promoted even though all issues were either addressed or needed to be clarified by the FL-Reviewer. I believe this is ready. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Review by Truco (talk · contribs)
|
|
- Comments
- "wins" - why the quotation marks?
- I am still not satisfied with the prose in the lead, but I can't help. I'll reserve my judgment after someone with copyeditting skills reviews this page.
--Crzycheetah 18:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well there is an alternative, in quite a few FLs the concept is described in a different way, would this be better?:
- Title reigns are determined either by professional wrestling matches between different wrestlers involved in pre-existing scripted feuds, plots, and storylines, or by scripted circumstances. Wrestlers were portrayed as either villains or heroes as they followed a series of tension-building events, which culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches for the championship.
- That one was made by SRX just for everyone to know. There is one I came up with that is a bit smaller that goes directly to the point which I use in the main championship article since I haven't tested it out that much yet but hasn't gotten any complants by users yet. It is this: Being a professional wrestling championship it is not won legitimately; it is instead won via a scripted ending to a match or awarded to a wrestler because of a storyline.--WillC 07:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Title reigns are determined either by professional wrestling matches between different wrestlers involved in pre-existing scripted feuds, plots, and storylines, or by scripted circumstances. Wrestlers were portrayed as either villains or heroes as they followed a series of tension-building events, which culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches for the championship.
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments –
|
Support – Took a while to get this one up to scratch, but I believe it's there now. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:29, 15 June 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 The Rambling Man 16:42, 16 June 2009 [11].
The Simpsons (season 14)
The previous nomination failed because of a lack of polished language. I have since copyedited the text and I believe that it ha simproved. Enjoy! -- Scorpion0422 19:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- It's a great list, but the episode descriptions just seem bland. They seem generic and incomplete. I've seen most of these episodes and their summaries don't cut it. WP:SPOIL it a little bit. They all have good, identifiable short summaries, but they should go into a little more detail.
- Write the external links as external links, not as references.
Excellent list overall, but I want more of what transpires in the episodes. Reywas92Talk 02:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the external links and I tried expanding the summaries. -- Scorpion0422 22:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I meant something like Ratings in the The Simpsons (season 5) list. Nergaal (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It seems a bit odd that two consecutive paragraphs in the Awards section begin with "Other nominations include:". Support otherwise. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Looking better, and I'm doing some copy-editing of my own.
More comments later. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Lots of stuff here, much of it simple copyediting things.
- Probably want to link show runner, it's a specialized term.
- Done.
- In the production section, can'tyou link to the appropriate section in the recurring Simpsons character article for characters like Agne Skinner and Maude Flanders?
- Done.
- when you're listing the annie awards, either drop the colon and semicolons for commas, the only way a colon works is if the first clause in the sentence is, "The show won four Annie Awards", which starts the previous sentence. While you're at it, starting two consecutive sentences with a variation of 'the show won' doesn't flow well.
- Done.
- "in the category" should be 'that category'
- Done.
- The last paragraph where you list other nominations needs rewriting. It's doesn't flow particularly well. Too many commas, too many clauses.
- Done.
- "whose ghost, along with other infamous criminals" was it other criminals or the ghosts of other criminals?
- Fixed.
- "The rock stars ask Homer help out at a concert" - missing a 'to'
- Fixed.
- "After Grimes is arrested, Bob tries to kill Bart, but he finds that he cannot do it." - could use clarity. Physically can't do it? Moral qualms?
- Fixed.
- "to nominate her for Teacher of the Year Award" should be 'a' or 'the' teacher of the year award
- Fixed.
- Also in Special Edna, one sentence says that Skinner was given a trip to Epcot, another says he followed Edna there. So did he go for free or stalk her? It's a little unclear.
- I'm not sure who added that, but Skinner followed Edna there. Fixed.
- 'The Dad Who Knew Too Little' needs work. They didn't go on the run because of the bill, they went on the run b/c Lisa was accused of a crime. Also, there's little in the summary about the last half of the show and the whole circus scene.
- Expanded.
- In 'Pray anything', first two sentences start with 'Homer'.
- Fixed.
- "Tony Hawk lives on one of the above floors" - floors above?
- Fixed.
- "he will never ill-treat him again" is unwieldy, try 'will never treat him badly again' and in the previous sentence, you have a stary them that seems to be referring to only Homer, so specify 'his family' if that's who he says it to
- Fixed.
- "Homer decides to quit give ownership back to Burns" missing 'and'
- Fixed.
- "and suggests that pick one career" missing 'she'
- Fixed.
- "only results in a rise in the crime rate" 'an increase' works better than 'a rise'
- Done.
- "Meanwhile, Bart and Homer go to war with a group of beavers" <--- just about the funniest line I've ever read on wikipedia. May need a tiny bit more explanation, otherwise it's just pretty damn random.
- Well, the subplot itself is pretty damn random. I clarified it a bit. The problem with these summaries is that you need to keep them short, and some of them have very complex storylines that require explanation. One way to shorten them is to avoid too much detail about any sub-plots.
- "Old Yeller Belly" and the last two episodes also need more about the end of the episodes.
- Done, done and done.
I know that's a lot. Sorry I didn't get around to reviewing it sooner. Geraldk (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a well done list. Geraldk (talk)
- 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 The Rambling Man 16:42, 16 June 2009 [13].
List of members of the International Ice Hockey Federation
Another list relating to international hockey, enjoy. -- Scorpion0422 19:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Why are New Zealand and Norway in the same cell? Error or intentional?
- For some strange reasons, both Men's and Women's Ranking columns only sort correctly for the first time.
—Chris! ct 20:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any error with the New Zealand or Norway cells, they both look fine to me. I fixed the sortability. -- Scorpion0422 20:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Otherwise, good work, boss! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments –
|
Support – I'm not overly concerned about the primary sources, and everything else appears to be fine. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Update: I have fixed the hyphens, and I have switched the bolded links in the table to italics (note that it's a template, so you may need to purge to see the change). -- Scorpion0422 19:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Truco (talk · contribs)
- Lead
- 'It is based in Zurich, Switzerland and maintains the international ice hockey rulebook, processes international player transfers, and dictates officiating guidelines and is responsible for the management of international ice hockey tournaments.' --> The 'and' in 'and dictates officiating' should be removed because the 'and' between 'guidelines' and 'is responsible' do not relate to each other
- Done.
- 'The IIHF was created on May 15, 1908 under the name Ligue Internationale de Hockey sur Glace (LHG).[1]' - Maybe explain what language this is in?
- Can the language which the name was originally in not be noted?--Truco 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, missed that. It's in French. I'll add it.
- List
- Whats the point of gray links? I don't really see it well in the explanation you gave above.
- The gray links are in there to make it easier to differentiate between active teams and non-active teams. otherwise, it's hard to pick out (especially with italics) and it looks messier.
-
- Okay, I'll add something to the key.
- One more question, what does it mean "they participated in that event"? What does 'that event' refer to?--Truco 21:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References
- Is there anything specific that you think requires a non-IIHF source? Thanks for taking a look. Good to have you back. -- Scorpion0422 19:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can't find the guideline but there was a guideline that stated that refs should not come from 1 source, but I can't find it. Is there anything that can just be replaced by 1 non-IIHF ref? If not, its ok. Also, thanks! It's great to be back, but it's taking awhile to catch up with all these noms =P--Truco 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Crzycheetah 03:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - Late comer to the discussion, and I could frankly care less about the grey links, but I think there are two compromises that will work: A. do something similar to what Cheetah suggests, drop the gray, turn into redlinks, but add an asterisk or ref label note to mark those teams which did not participate to add more emphasis than just the italics, which frankly given the size of the text is hard to see. B. Ignore MOS:Bold - it seems to be written with prose articles in mind rather than lists, banning bolding to avoid confusion with its use to identify article topics, which is not a confusion likely to happen if the bolding is inside a table. It's a risk that KV or someone else may then oppose, but I'd chalk it up as being bold. No pun intended.
- A couple other comments too that don't rise to the level of opposition. First, at some point you should make a version of the map that is usable by people with color blindness. Second, there are far too many redlinks here. You should fill some of them in. Geraldk (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you aren't opposing over it, but I just want to clarify that red links aren't justification for opposition. See WP:RED. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the map myself, and my map making skills are very limited, so I just used the most obvious colours I could. What would be the best ones to use? As for redlinks, I will try to create some more stubs for the national federations. Also, I would be willing to go back to using bold, and then removing the gray. Crzycheetah, would that be acceptable? -- Scorpion0422 16:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update The organizations for all of the full members now have small, crappy, stub pages. -- Scorpion0422 17:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the map, I wasn't thinking of completely changing it, I like the one you have. But because it's so useful, I think Wikipedia:Colours#Using_colours_in_articles comes into play. What I've seen on other lists in the past is the creation of a version with different contrasts to help the color-blind, linked to from the thumb caption underneath the main map. Just can't find an example of it right now. As I said, not a reason to oppose, but maybe a good diea for future article improvement. Geraldk (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update The organizations for all of the full members now have small, crappy, stub pages. -- Scorpion0422 17:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Question - How many of those redlinks can actually become valid articles? If the articles cannot be turned into notable articles, could you please delink them? Thanks. NW (Talk) 20:04, 11 June 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]] 05:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Would still want to know how the membership transfers from one to another. Do they do this formally, or do they just list it, without media attention? Ehh...I Support. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Finally got around to reviewing this article, but something sticks out for me. In regards to the national federations, some are listed in English (Iceland, Hungary, etc) while other are listed in their respective official languages (Germany, France, etc). I'm going to assume this is because the IIHF lists them as such, but perhaps some consistency would be appropriate for the article? Maybe keep them all in English, which is logical, or find their official name in whatever language used, which could be an issue for countries that use a different alphabet (Russia, China, Thailand). Other than that, the list looks great. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed some of them, but I haven't been able to find English translations for all of them. Do you know of any sites that might be of use? -- Scorpion0422 02:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through and translated most of the ones left. However, my knowledge of Spanish is non-existant, so there are only 3 left (Mexico, Spain, and Macau (Written in Portuguese, not Spanish)). So if someone who knows Spanish is available, then it should all be cleared up. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed some of them, but I haven't been able to find English translations for all of them. Do you know of any sites that might be of use? -- Scorpion0422 02:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009 [14].
List of Washington Metro stations
The first time I've nominated a transportation list, so be gentle. Note that there's been a debate about including the row of images on the right. Reviewer input on that issue would be helpful. Should they be there? Geraldk (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment
|
CommentsSupport from Hassocks5489.
A pleasing and attractively designed list. I am close to being able to support.
Resolved comments from Hassocks5489
|
---|
|
Thanks for your work on this list. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And thanks for the excellent and thorough review. I've made all the corrections you suggest. As to the codes, I was also intrigued by them. I'm a local and rider of the system and had never known there were codes for the stations until I started working on this list (they were there when I started). The only place I've been able to find the codes is on the track shcematic used as a reference, I searched pretty hard to find something on the WMATA website and couldn't. So I assume they're an engineering or maintenance-related identification system used for internal operations only, but have no proof of that. Geraldk (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for working on the above so quickly. I am now at home and can confirm the images and table layouts are fine on the much higher resolution I use here; and I accept your rationale for the codes mystery. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Just a few comments here, but on first glance, the list is extremely pleasing aesthetically and does an excellent job of conveying information in an efficient style.
Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Strong Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You've got a lot of dash problems in the table. Whenever the separated elements have internal spaces (e.g. Addison Road–Seat Pleasant), then there should be spaces around the dashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority doesn't use spaces around the dashes in the station names? Geraldk (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm a column with the residential area to which station pertains should be listed also. Say somebody travels to Washington, and knows that he is in the town/residential area X, he should be able to easily find in this list if that X has a metro station. Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand what you mean. The stations are nearly all named after neighborhoods, towns, or geographical features of one kind or another. I could link it to more local jurisdictions (i.e. Montgomery and Prince George's County, Maryland instead of just Maryland) but those are fairly large jurisdictions and would have a number of stations in each. If we did it by city (according to the postal service), we'd still have the problem of every DC station being in Washington, DC, since it is one, large, 800,000 person postal city. Geraldk (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, listing "neighborhoods served" could be original research, unless specified by a source. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 14:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC) |
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24
|
---|
Comment - It would be nice if you could talk more about the history of the lines and stations, like in List of Vancouver SkyTrain stations. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More comments from -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]][c]
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 14:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Nice job on the list. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009 [15].
List of State University of New York units
I am nominating this for featured list because I created it several months ago and have put many hours into making it a useful and visually pleasing list. I believe it meets all of the FL-criteria and have fixed the problems noted at its peer review. MBisanz talk 00:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
*I don't know if male/female ratio is an important enough statistic to even be included here, but they should definitely be merged into a single column, as they are simply inverse to each other.
*County is probably fine, but I would think the town/city the college is in is more important.
I think the lead and everything else look fine. Just combine those two identical columns. Reywas92Talk 02:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there are an awful lot of references on the page. Do so many all need to be linked to Collegeboard, College Navigator, and the Carnegie Institution lookup? What do others think? Reywas92Talk 02:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- reference column doesn't need to be sortable
- link for ref 124 doesn't work
—Chris! ct 03:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support –
In the third paragraph, "despite the fact that" is not the best structure possible. "although" or "even though" are both less wordy.Comma after "The largest institution is the University of Buffalo"?First sentence of the fifth para needs a couple more "the"s before associations.Giants2008 (17-14) 23:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change ref titles that are allcaps to title case, even if they were like that in the original (refs 3 and 124).Dabomb87 (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009 [16].
List of United States Military Academy alumni (athletic figures)
Another list in the series of West Point alumni. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
List is looking good. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and questions
- I agree with Killervogel, either use General reference or General because there's only one general reference. I tend to use the latter, but it's simply a stylistic thing between the two.
- Is this done with "External links" when they only have one link too? But Dabomb has now made them all "General" in this topic series. This sort of reminds me of the issues that the date delinking arb case was about, thankfully that case is about to close ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference in the sizes of the two images in the lead is visually disconcerting. I would suggest either increasing the size of the logo slightly or decreasing the graduation picture slightly so they are more equal in size. That, or you could drop one of them, but I think they're both great images.
- Why on this list is the default sorting by year of graduation rather than name? It makes sense to do it chronologically on the superintendant list (where you are listing the holders of a single office chronologically) or even on the list of medal of honor winners (where again the list is sorted into chronological sections based on the wars where the medals were earned). However, there seems little reason for that sorting here, so it would seem to make more sense to sort in the default method for lists of people generally, that is alphabetically by last name in the first column of the table.
- There's a hanging semi-colon in James Hartinger's entry.
- In the notability for some entries you lead with information about athletics (Ronald Zinn), and in some you lead with information about their military careers (Doc Blanchard). It's debatable on the grounds of notability, but personally I would begin with their athletics information because that's the topic of the list. I know for some of them they are more notable for their military careers, but readers of this specific list are likely to be most interested in the athletics.
- "The Academy was founded in March 1802 and graduated its first Cadet in October 1802." - in the second paragraph of the lead but repeats information in the first paragraph.
- Please include more information in the lead about the athletics program at the Academy. You mention the academic curriculum, but very little about the athletics program. Is athletics an emphasis at the Academy? etc.
Geraldk (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Geraldk (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd recommend including John Roosma. He's a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame, [17] [18] and Army's basketball MVP award is named after him. [19] Zagalejo^^^ 02:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comment – There are several categories for Army Black Knights athletes and coaches in use here; football players have one, for example. Has an effort been made to check these categories for possible additions to this list? Giants2008 (17-14) 23:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Nice list overall. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009 [20].
2008 IIHF World Championship rosters
- Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the conclusion of the 2009 IIHF World Championship at the start of May, and the effort involved in maintaining articles regarding the tournament, I got the idea to work on the roster article for the previous year and get it up to be a FL. I have spent the past few weeks working on it, and the result is totally different than what existed before. All comments will be addressed as soon as I can address them, and I look forward to hearing them. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]
- Add
importScript('User:Splarka/dabfinder.js');
to your monobook to fix all the redirects.
- Don't quite understand what this is for.
- It is to fix all the redirects...add it to your monobook, refresh, and it will appear on your toolbox (left of screen, below interaction). -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No references for the lead? General references don't cite the first half of the first paragraph.
- Added some references, should be good now.
- Could add some images beside the rosters.
- I looked through Commons for images of the participating players wearing international jerseys, and this is all that currently exists. If more are added, they will be placed into the article.
- They don't have to be in their international jerseys...An article will just look bland with barely any images. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some more images, so there is now one per team, except for Italy, which has no images uploaded. Added the tool suggested, and everything seems alright. So, all comments addressed again. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't fix the redirects...It's Jonathan Toews, not Johnathan Toews. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a case of me not knowing how to use these crazy new tools. I thought I pressed it, and when nothing showed up, I figured it was good. But it has been taken care of now, and anything left is either because the team name has changed, or a left the "HC" instead of changing it to "Hockey Club," as most teams are known by the abbreviation, not the full name. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't fix the redirects...It's Jonathan Toews, not Johnathan Toews. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some more images, so there is now one per team, except for Italy, which has no images uploaded. Added the tool suggested, and everything seems alright. So, all comments addressed again. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The general references need to be formatted with publisher, access date, etc.Dabomb87 (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is there any reason why goalies are also included in the skater section? -- Scorpion0422 23:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its what the IIHF does, so I followed suit (see Canada for example). It also enables the showing of goalie statistics like assists and PIM, which would look unusual in the goaltender section. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment I've been working on the 2007 equivalent of this list, and I've been wondering if it would be useful to have a team summary table near the top. Something along the lines of:
Rank | Nation | Head coach | Captain | # of players | GP | W | L |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9 | Belarus | Curt Fraser | Some guy | 25 | 6 | 1 | 5 |
Canada | Ken Hitchcock | Shane Doan | 25 | 9 | 8 | 1 |
And if you wanted, you could throw in something like leading scorer, leading goalie, etc. This table would accomplish a few things, it would give users a quick reference point for rankings, it would allow a convenient place to link to national teams (since they can't be linked in headers, and using {{main}} 16 times looks weird) and a better place for coaches (because as it is now, they look randomly thrown in). -- Scorpion0422 03:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good, except the only problem I can potentially see is that I don't know if there is any sources regarding the captains of the teams, especially for a team like Italy, Norway or Slovenia. I'll look into it over the next few days, and hopefully it is out there somewhere. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it comes down to it, Captains could be eliminated. -- Scorpion0422 23:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After looking it over, I'm going to suggest that this may not be the right fit for the rosters list. Seeing how it is about the rosters, it is not as relevent to the article. That said, I would definetly say it should go on the main article, as it would be better placed there. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it comes down to it, Captains could be eliminated. -- Scorpion0422 23:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Move the full name of the IIHF to an earlier use."If a country selects fewer than the maximum allowed, they must choose the remaining players prior to the start of the tournament." I think this would be better if it was switched to past tense. There's another sentence like this at the end of the second paragraph. Are these intended to be for the tournament in general?Can some uses of "country: in the third paragraph be changed to something else? There's just so many of them that it becomes tiresome to read after a while."This switch may only happen once in the players life." Missing apostrophe.Giants2008 (17-14) 21:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed comments. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Didn't have many comments to begin with, and they're all addressed now, so I'm happy to support. Great idea for a list. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009 [21].
List of PWG World Tag Team Champions
I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it passes the criteria and I'm trying to get title histories to FL. Seeing as List of PWG World Champions is doing pretty good with two supports, I thought to go ahead and nominate this one.--WillC 03:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GaryColemanFan |
---|
Comments from GaryColemanFan
|
Weak support - Not weak because of anything wrong with the article, but simply because I try to avoid supporting or opposing wrestling articles to avoid any semblance of a conflict of interest (it has been stated in the past that members of the professional wrestling project is the only wikiproject that shouldn't be allowed to comment on lists nominated by its own members). I feel that it meets the criteria, though, and all of my concerns have been addressed. I was hoping someone else would stop by and comment, but it has been 16 days, so supporting a list that meets the criteria makes more sense to me than allowing it to fail because nobody else is willing to comment. GaryColemanFan (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Some of GaryColemanFan's comments apply to your earlier FLs. Please edit them as necessary."history at 1 day"-->history at one dayI'd rather that em dashes rather than en dashes were used in the blank cells."reigns with the exact number mean they are tied for that certain rank." Insert "that" after "mean".Dabomb87 (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – My concerns have all been addressed, and everything else appears to be in order. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Review by Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009 [22].
List of awards and nominations received by Snow Patrol
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is satisfying all the rules to be a featured list, it is comprehensive and easy to read. Suede67 (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning oppose: I'm not sure that this needs to be a separate list. See FL criterion 3b; this list of awards could be conflated into one table and kept on the main article. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I know this is not that long of an article, but there are FLs of about the same size, like this one. Suede67 (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria changed recently, and there are many current awards list FLs that can be merged; we just haven't brought them to FLRC yet. I think this list is in—as they call it at RfA—the "discretion range"; you could go either way, but I'm leaning merge. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the article was merged into the main article... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is acceptable. In comparison, I've seen pages about actors which included filmographies that were a lot longer than that. -- Scorpion0422 02:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying that the list could be separated from the main article? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I would like to see the list on a separate page. As you said, some filmographies are longer than this, that's fine, but we dont have control over a band winning awards or getting nominated. If they've been nominated 25 times, thats it. By the way, is it just the length of the article that's a problem? is there a specific word limit that must be reached? I cannot find any info on this. Suede67 (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a separate list can be created doesn't mean it needs to be. Unfortunately, although it would make it much easier if we had a firm limit on listed items, there are too many exceptions and factors to consider to set a boundary. So, we at FLC have to play it on a case-by-case basis, which is a real impediment to editors, but I'm not sure what we can do. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I would like to see the list on a separate page. As you said, some filmographies are longer than this, that's fine, but we dont have control over a band winning awards or getting nominated. If they've been nominated 25 times, thats it. By the way, is it just the length of the article that's a problem? is there a specific word limit that must be reached? I cannot find any info on this. Suede67 (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—3b. After hearing the opinions from the two above and seeing the version of the main article with the merged awards table, I don't think this list needs to be on a separate page. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck my oppose for now, taking into consideration the new awards added. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. Fine, is there no way it can have a standalone article for itself, if not a FL? It's long enough I think. Also the merged article, as we see doesnt show what nomination was for what award, it looks incomplete.
By the way is this deserving a place on the awards list? Suede67 (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but still wondering about this - the merged article doesnt tell us what nom/win was for what award! Suede67 (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Calm down...it was just an example. Besides, the main articles with awards just add what award it was with the award category. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but still wondering about this - the merged article doesnt tell us what nom/win was for what award! Suede67 (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--I'm back online, just so you know. Suede67 (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per 3b - after reading the entire discussion, I still don't see why this can't be merged with the main article. As far as I can see, this only has a few more item than List of awards and nominations received by No Doubt, which is currently at FLRC. What I am wondering is why we should make an exception for this particular list?—Chris! ct 21:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain - I think per 3b and the FLRC precedents, this list shouldn't be promoted. But the list itself appears to be long enough to stand on its own. Since I don't know what to think, I prefer to stay out and not !vote. But this is not an oppose.—Chris! ct 18:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Chris, as per 3b, it's not long enough to be featured, thats fine, but is it not long enough to have an article of its own? Suede67 (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like you are trying to say that you're going to withdraw this nomination... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: On wait, i found info about 2 more BMIs, here. Let me add them. Suede67 (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I am going to coin a new term - let's call it 3b creep. Def. 3b Creep, n., 1. A process whereby FL reviewers begin to reject more and more lists based on criterion 3b under the justification that the list under review is only slightly longer than a previously rejected or de-listed article. Over time, this results in longer and longer lists being rejected, due to the inherent ambiguity in criterion 3b. The illogical extreme of 3b creep will result in lists of any length being rejected. All joking aside, I believe that this is an extensive and detailed list. In my opinion, it easily qualifies under 3b. And this becomes yet another example of how 3b is currently overly ambiguous and a problem for editors seeking to submit content to FLC. Geraldk (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Thank you, Gerald! Suede67 (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To Geraldk: Well, List of awards and nominations received by No Doubt, which has a few items less than this one, is currently at FLRC and received several delist votes per the 3b criteria. My oppose is based mainly on those FLRC precedents. Though I kind of agree with you that the criteria is currently unclear and can be subjected to different interpretations. I think you should take it to the talk page if you really disagree with the current criteria. Cheer—Chris! ct 18:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sorry, but I'm an incorrigible mergist. I feel that SREKAL's example of a merge looks just fine. I think it's excessive to have every different type of award having its own section and intro with info that can be found elsewhere. Reywas92Talk 02:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to note, the article now has two more awards than my merge example. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Meets all the criteria at WP:WIAFL. Regarding 3b, I feel that adding this list (even as one table) into the existing Snow Patrol article will make it too list heavy towards the end. I also think Geraldk makes a valid slippery slope argument above - it may be one or two now but in a few months it could easily be a lot more than now. --JD554 (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, JD! Yes, I am hoping the band would get nominated for some award for their latest album, so it may very well get expanded. And added 2 more IFPI, Eyes open went 3x in 2009 and final straw 2x in 2008 and a BMI. Suede67 (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thanks Reywas92 and Chris! Can we finally have a final verdict on this one? Suede67 (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to FL directors Please hold off on promotion or archiving; I intend to do a full review here later. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am a huge 3b supporter! That being said, I believe this list length-wise, at the current version, can and should be a stand-alone list; thus, passing the 3b criterion. At the same time, the problem I have with all these awards pages is the visual appeal (5a criterion). Out of 12 awards, six have only one nomination and, of course, a table with one row, which look very dull. If someone could come up with an idea how to avoid those one-row tables, that would be great! --Crzycheetah 00:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The one thing I really like about these awards lists is their ability to go into more detail about the awards. For that reason, I find the award descriptions that precede the tables useful. Of course, if the list is too small, the content-fork concerns outweigh the usefulness of having separate awards lists. However, that doesn't seem to be a problem here. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really like these descriptions that are on this page? In most of them, there are two sentences only. The first one usually states something obvious about the awards and the second one states the fact that is already listed in the table. Do you call that "into more detail"? Is it really useful to state that the BMI awards are awards by BMI? or the MTV Japan awards are organized by MTV Japan? Are there really some people who would think that the MTV Japan awards are organized by an organization other than MTV Japan?--Crzycheetah 02:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of them are blatantly obvious, but others aren't so self-explanatory, e.g. Choice Music Prize and Meteor Awards. I think it's important to know why some of the awards are worth mentioning, especially the less well-known ones. I'm biased, I know; having seen (and allowed) dozens of these awards lists to pass through FLC, I've grown used to the format. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really like these descriptions that are on this page? In most of them, there are two sentences only. The first one usually states something obvious about the awards and the second one states the fact that is already listed in the table. Do you call that "into more detail"? Is it really useful to state that the BMI awards are awards by BMI? or the MTV Japan awards are organized by MTV Japan? Are there really some people who would think that the MTV Japan awards are organized by an organization other than MTV Japan?--Crzycheetah 02:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The one thing I really like about these awards lists is their ability to go into more detail about the awards. For that reason, I find the award descriptions that precede the tables useful. Of course, if the list is too small, the content-fork concerns outweigh the usefulness of having separate awards lists. However, that doesn't seem to be a problem here. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) – a real review
- The Metro is a newspaper Metro (Associated Metro Limited). - About the reliability of sources, I think they are. Is there a way I can check this? But Jeepster is good, its the home page of their previous label. And that ref is from their Snow Patrol news archive. - The pdf part, I'm not aware how to add it to the ref, I tried. Can you do it yourself please? - The IFPI awards. One is wards AS the album reaches a million, then two, three. So they all are separate. Otherwise, I think I've addressed your concerns. Suede67 (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC) are mostly good, but I'd like more opinion on the sources that aren't struck.[reply]
- I found new sources, one is Contactmusic, which was already being used for ref on the same page, and the other is "winter music conference" which is the homepage for the "international dance music awards". I think this will do. Suede67 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! So this means the review is over? It gets featured?!Suede67 (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A featured list director (either Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) or Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)) decides if there is consensus to promote or archive and closes the nomination accordingly. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! So this means the review is over? It gets featured?!Suede67 (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found new sources, one is Contactmusic, which was already being used for ref on the same page, and the other is "winter music conference" which is the homepage for the "international dance music awards". I think this will do. Suede67 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spell out publisher abbreviations such as IFPI and BMI.- What makes the following sites reliable:
Ref 22, is Metro a magazine? A link would be useful.Ref 24, addDabomb87 (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]format=PDF
to the citation template.
- Looks good except the sources. Jeepster should be fine, but we need to know the fact-checking methods of the other two. To determine the reliability of the sites, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw your message. The "Businessofcinema" site seems reliable, as per here (First link in the "about us" part. As you said, backed by a company). And "About.com" the other site referenced, if you scroll all the way down here, on the bottom right, its written "a part of The New York Times Company". Will this work? Suede67 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for Dabomb87: Just in case you missed my message on your talk page. The "Businessofcinema" site seems reliable, as per here (First link in the "about us" part. As you said, backed by a company). And "About.com" the other site referenced, if you scroll all the way down here, on the bottom right, its written "a part of The New York Times Company". Will this work? Suede67 (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Businessofcinema should be fine, as long as it's not used for negative BLP material. For about.com, see this discussion. In a nutshell, the author of the cited article from about.com must be proven to be an expert on the subject per WP:SPS. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. You still haven't spelled out IFPI and BMI in the sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, my bad. Sources mean the ref template, right? I did that now. About "about.com", here is the link to the article. If we click the link to the author, thats' here, i think thats a reason enough we need. He has experience and is a regular writer, for others as well, apart from the stated website. Suede67 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Crzycheetah 03:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Weak support I still can't fully support theses awards lists, but I am trying...--Crzycheetah 01:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Review by Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009 [23].
Roberto Clemente Award
Same reason as always. :) iMatthew : Chat 13:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I made some copyedits, and everything looks fantastic! Reywas92Talk 17:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- "The Roberto Clemente Award is given annually to a Major League Baseball (MLB) player selected who best exemplifies...". The "player selected who" part is awkward.
- "the award was renamed after Clemente after...". Don't like two "after"s in three words.
- "out of 30 nominees, one nominee from each club." Remove second "nominee" as redundant.
- Remove space before reference at end of second paragraph.
- Don't think the table should be split because there is only one award for the whole league, as opposed to most other baseball awards. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Got everything, thanks. iMatthew : Chat (Review Me) 11:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.baseball-almanac.com/awards/aw_moy.shtml a reliable source?Dabomb87 (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed everything, and got the source removed. I forgot this was still open. Sorry for the late replies! iMatthew : Chat 17:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009 [24].
Duffy discography
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that the discography is well-referenced and definatley a worthwhile candidate to be a featured list. Dt128 (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is one dead link, check the toolbox to the right. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no (as far as I know) alternative to this link, as it is a certification. Instead, I have placed {{dead link}} on the reference. I realise this is most likely to be unacceptable. Any suggestions? Dt128 (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources
No need to spell out MTV, as it's better known in its short form.- Done Dt128 17:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Italicize all publications (books, magazines, newspapers, journals). Example: "New Musical Express".- Done Dt128 17:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
What makes [25] reliable?- Official website of the Warchild series, this source lists Duffy as recording the song for the specific album. Dt128 17:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Likewise for [26]?- Replaced with PromoNews reference. Dt128 17:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- The dead link still needs to be resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, the BPI no longer publishes its certifications without BPI membership, meaning it is impossible for me to obtain a direct BPI source. Therefore, it has been removed and the ChartsPlus reference has been left. Dt128 17:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- What makes ChartStats reliable? Usage in another discography FL does not mean it is reliable. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsure, however, I have found that all chart positions listed correspond with those listed at aCharts and the like. The problem is, this is one of the very few UK chart archive websites. However, it is listed as a reliable archive site at the Wikipedia chart sourcing guide. Dt128 08:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Looks good! All my concerns have been addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Drewcifer
|
---|
Comments I have to admit, I'm getting a little tired of these barely-big-enough-to-warrant-their-own-page FLCs, but that said I won't hold it against you. Overall, the discog looks pretty good. I only have a few comments and concerns:
That's it for now. Drewcifer (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments Hi!
Resolved comments from Kiac
|
---|
Extra comments, back for more.
|
- did not replicate her early success, although they still sold well. - What says they sold well? Use some examples from the sources you have, eg. "although they still sold well, as "Warwick Avenue" entered the top ten in Denmark, Netherlands and the UK."
- working on this.
- How about Her follow-up singles, "Warwick Avenue" and "Stepping Stone", did not replicate her early success, although they still sold well, for example "Warwick Avenue" charted at number 3 on the UK Singles Chart.[14]
- working on this.
- Mainly seeking clarification from other reviewers here, what is the situation with the Dutch Singles Chart? There was a brief explanation at WP:Record Charts, saying that we should be using the Top 40 as opposed to the Top 100.
- Unclear on this.
- This just seems to be a trivial issue. Technically the Top 40 Singles Chart should be used, unless the song didn't chart in the Top 40 - which would mean you should use the Top 100. They are derived from different methods, apparently the Top 40 is more notable. You could also use acharts, compare the acharts and dutchcharts.nl peaks to see what I mean.
- Duffy has charted higher on the Top 40 chart, however I am unsure whether the chart positions/refs should be changed?
- This just seems to be a trivial issue. Technically the Top 40 Singles Chart should be used, unless the song didn't chart in the Top 40 - which would mean you should use the Top 100. They are derived from different methods, apparently the Top 40 is more notable. You could also use acharts, compare the acharts and dutchcharts.nl peaks to see what I mean.
- Unclear on this.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009 [27].
List of Medal of Honor recipients (Veracruz)
I am nominating this for featured list because it appears to meet all FL criteria, is a complete list and is well formatted. Kumioko (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"This is a list of United States military personnel who received the Medal of Honor for their actions during the United States occupation of Veracruz, 1914." Featured lists don't start like this any more, see recently promoted lists for examples of more engaging starts. Also, why is the date linked? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I fixed the date link but I am not sure what you want me to do for the title. If you have some suggestions for a better title please let me know.--Kumioko (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients—it's not a featured list but is still a good example. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - title of the article is a bit long, just wonder if there is a way to shorten it.—Chris! ct 01:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wholeheartedly agree and if you have any suggestions I am open.--Kumioko (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been thinking about it and what if I say something like "List of Medal of Honor recipients (Vera Cruz)".--Kumioko (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the title is fine personally, but if you want to shorten it, consider this:
- Did the US occupy Veracruz more than once? If not, you can remove the year.
- Has anyone other than the US occupied Veracruz? If not, you can remove United States.
- Just some things to consider. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the title is fine personally, but if you want to shorten it, consider this:
- Thanks, not sure of anyone else occupied it but I think the US was only there once.--Kumioko (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the United States occupied Veracruz in the Mexican-American War, and aside from the Spanish, the United States, and Mexico, the French occupied Veracruz in the French intervention in Mexico. mynameincOttoman project Review me 00:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been thinking about it and what if I say something like "List of Medal of Honor recipients (Vera Cruz)".--Kumioko (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Captain is a disambiguation link; please fix it. There is one dead link, check the toolbox to the right. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed captain and a couple other ranks, I also fixed a broken link in the references section and cleanup some dates. Not sure about the broken link in the toolbox. I clicked them all and they all seem to work for me.--Kumioko (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - a few points that stand out:
- Both Veracruz and Vera Cruz are used in the article. Please choose one and use consistantly throughout.
- Done, I chose Vera Cruz.--Kumioko (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you chose Vera Cruz, shouldn't the article be moved to List of Medal of Honor recipients for the 1914 United States occupation of Vera Cruz? mynameincOttoman project Review me 22:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We can if everyone thinks thats best. Its ok with me either way.--Kumioko (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the consensus is "Vera Cruz" the article should be renamed List of Medal of Honor recipients for the 1914 United States occupation of Vera Cruz. Same with "Veracruz". Point. Blank. Period. Any other way, all uniformity is thrown out. mynameincOttoman project Review me 00:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats cool with me, if thats what it takes to get this to featured status. It's a en second change, just tell me what the consensus is and I'll make the change.--Kumioko (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We can if everyone thinks thats best. Its ok with me either way.--Kumioko (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you chose Vera Cruz, shouldn't the article be moved to List of Medal of Honor recipients for the 1914 United States occupation of Vera Cruz? mynameincOttoman project Review me 22:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endashes (–) should be used in the Date of action column rather than "to".
- Were any of the awards posthumous? If so, this should be signified in the columns in a simular mannor to that in List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima.
- The two images in the "Medal of Honor" section do not go well with the section and create quite a bit of white space. I suggest they be moved or removed from the article.
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'd go with "List of Medal of Honor recipients (Vera Cruz)", MOH tells you it's a US thing, not someother country, and dates of actions will tell you when. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In regards to changing the name of the Article I changed it to List of Medal of Honor recipients (Vera Cruz). I also changed the link to the article from the List of Medal of Honor recipients article and the link in the Medal of Honor template.--Kumioko (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose with comments
- I prefer linking Vera Cruz first time, rather than the second time in the lead.
- Quick search (and some comments above) reveal this Wikipedia actually calls the place Veracruz - not sure which is "more" correct but would prefer to see this list use whichever one is...
- Done. I do not know either however I changed all to be a standard Vera Cruz.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The table is sortable so I would link all instances of things you have linked because there is no guarantee that the first instance will be the linked one.
- Link Josephus Daniels.
- "In total 63 Medals of Honor were received for actions during the occupation; 1 Army, 9 to members..." reads strangely and perhaps needs to be fixed in your other lists - "received" and "to" here. Perhaps "received" and "by" or "presented" and "to".... do you see what I'm trying to poorly explain?!
- Why is "(Medal presented...)" in parentheses? It is a note, after all.
- Done.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it's linked but no explanation as to what USMC means.
- Done, Changed to Marine Corps.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This came up before in another article also. I can chaneg this however WP states that common abbreviations are ok (although I cannot remember where) and I would argue that just about anyone anywhere in the world would know what USMC means. I have been to countries where all they could say in english was American USMC or American Marines. If thats what it takes to pass it though I could change it to something like U.S. Marines. Would that be acceptable?--Kumioko (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "April 22, 1914" under "Date of action" vs "22 April 1914" in notes. Occurs more than once - I'm not bothered on the format you choose, just be consistent.
- Done.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can change the date in the notes however most of the notes are the actual verbatim citation and I hesitate in changing it. Would it be more appropriate to put it in quotes?--Kumioko (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "leading 3 picket launches" - three, and what is a picket launch?
- "of the 22d and " 22d?
- Not sure the repetition of Vera Cruz, Mexico is required on every single line. Perhaps the col is needed for the topic to remain consistent but maybe just lose the Mexico each time?
- Done. I left it as Vera Cruz, Mexico but I linked all of them.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- " 21-22 April" - en dash required.
- Moffett's entry contains "Vera Cruz" three times and "Mexico" twice - overkill?
- "Vera Cruz 21 and 22 April 1914." no comma, "Vera Cruz, 21 and 22 April 1914." comma... consistency?
- "Vera Cruz Mexico" comma?
- "...of the USS Florida's landing..." shouldn't that Florida be in italics?
- Done. I also italicized several other ship names as well.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bio Citation" - can we make these references using {{cite web}} please?
- "On board the USS Florida, for extraordinary heroism in the line of his profession during the seizure of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 21 Ap
ril 1914." - odd carriage return in there, and same comment about italics on the ship... check others if need be.
- "One of five pairs of brothers to have both won the Medal of Honor." minor point but probably needs a specific reference.
- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also changed some other things such as reowrding some of the notes slightly, removing the periods from none full sentences in the comments and some other minor edits.--Kumioko (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I started adding "align=left|" to the notes column, see my sample edit; please finish that up. Is this material copied directly from the MOH citation? If so, it needs to be in quotes. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed them although I still don't agree with centering all the data in the table. I think it looks ugly and is the reason we have to make this kind of change. I will check on the notes but I think most of them are reworded abbreviations of the citation. --Kumioko (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, you can remove the centering if you want. I'm not going to force that on you :) Dabomb87 (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, if we need to have it ok I just don't like it (it displays the data poorly on my monitor and makes it look messy) and it seems counter-construcive to center the table and then have to go back and align certain things to the left because of it. I am also concerned that the more additional formatting we include the less likely it is for non expereinced editors to make changes without breaking it. The required formatting is confusing enough without adding more. Not trying to be argumentative here its just a perception that I have.--Kumioko (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, you can remove the centering if you want. I'm not going to force that on you :) Dabomb87 (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with a comment: Overall, the list presents a comprehensive view of the topic at hand, while supplying an equally good description of those awarded the award down in the table. Regardless of my support, I believe you should add a very brief description of the Tampico Affair into the lead, instead of just a link to the article itself. Hello32020 (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if the Wikipedia article for this location is Veracruz, shouldn't the title here be fixed? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 20:38, 9 June 2009 [28].
List of U.S. state and territory mottos
I did a whole lot of work on this list a while back and had two peer reviews, but then didn't bother to nominate it. I think it is fully referenced and accurate and ready for FL. I know I've got all the mottos, but, as explained in the article, the years are more difficult. Some states have made the motto official, but for others it's just part of the seal, complicating things. Anyway, lots of researching states' dissimilar websites led to what it is now. Thanks! Reywas92Talk 23:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I hope to eventually work on List of national mottos. Do think it would be acceptable to not have the year? US states were okay, but finding some of them was tough enough. Years of adoption (or even no official adoption) of a motto or seal of countries with other languages, bad websites, etc. could be impossible to find. Reywas92Talk 02:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - After reviewing this at peer review and making some fixes, I think it fulfills all criteria - though I think empty cells in translation column should have emdashes also to ensure consistency—Chris! ct 02:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I tried the dashes and they don't look too bad, so I kept them. Reywas92Talk 02:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well done. Looked hard for some improvement that could be made, came up empty. Geraldk (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- Check the toolbox, there is one dab link.
- "All of the United States' 50 states have a state motto, " You link "United States" and then "U.S. state" soon after. Why not ditch the link to the United States, since U.S. state has a direct link to United States anyway?
- "State mottos can
oftenbe found on state seals or state flags" "often" is subjective. Maybe "sometimes"? - "
which wasproclaimed by Congress and signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on July 30, 1956." - "which do not have any mottos, official or unofficial." Ditch the last three words. No mottos means no mottos.
- "most used languages"-->most-used languages
- "
which wasgranted" - The images need a licensing check; for example File:Arizonastateseal.jpg has an obsolete tag.
- I'd prefer if the em dashes were centered. It looks better and makes them more noticeable.
- Notes 3 and 13 need refs. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All done except the dashes and 13. I'd rather they be less noticeable, and everything else is also left-aligned. I can't find a ref that explicitly says that Washington's is the only one not official, but it make sense since all others are. I could just link to the ref used in the table[29] just like all the other notes.
- The dab link hasn't been addressed either. If you can't find a more specific link, you might as well just delink it. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, got it. I had Eureka (word) correctly linked in one place, but didn't notice the Eureka link in another.
- The dab link hasn't been addressed either. If you can't find a more specific link, you might as well just delink it. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All done except the dashes and 13. I'd rather they be less noticeable, and everything else is also left-aligned. I can't find a ref that explicitly says that Washington's is the only one not official, but it make sense since all others are. I could just link to the ref used in the table[29] just like all the other notes.
Sources
- What makes http://www.netstate.com/states/mottoes/ok_motto.htm reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is a great informative site. It cites its sources and has all important information. The only reason I'm using it is because the book and the state site have nothing regarding the dates. Reywas92Talk 19:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/emblems/flag.htm (ref 44) deadlinks.Dabomb87 (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I would prefer
- Only six states and territories use another language, of which each language is only used once.
having those six languages listed. Also, please change "Date" to something like "Year chosen" or something more specific. Nergaal (talk) 18:20, 7 June 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 20:38, 9 June 2009 [30].
List of Grade I listed buildings in Sedgemoor
I am nominating List of Grade I listed buildings in Sedgemoor for featured list status because I feel it meets all the FL criteria. It follows the format of the recently promoted List of Grade I listed buildings in Taunton Deane. — Rod talk 20:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Review by Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- 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 20:38, 9 June 2009 [31].
List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty
- Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 21:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe it meets all the FL criteria and it is the final piece to the puzzle in passing my Han Dynasty featured topic! Pericles of AthensTalk 21:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments leanning for support but:
- the intro should contain some mention of the more notable emperors (longest reign? founders? etc)
- it would be nice if there was some sort of a link to help readers with the Chinese characters (something like the pronounciation column in this list).
- try using more noticeable colors for the breaks in the table (darker grey?)
- most of the current monarch lists have some columns with some small pictures. I know that most of the current entries don't have any pictures at all, but try adding some for the ones that do have.
Nergaal (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Nergaal. I like your first suggestion very much, so I added a new paragraph to the intro. This should be sufficient. As for helping readers with pronunciation, I am no linguist, so I don't even know where to begin. Wouldn't I need proper citations for that sort of thing, too? It could be considered original research if I don't provide a source which outlines the proper way to pronounce, although it may be common sense given that the Hanyu Pinyin tones are available in the Latin-based translations. As for the colors for breaks, I am no expert with tables. Could you show me how to choose a better grey and where I should put it? Also, there are no pictures of Han emperors. I repeat: none. Han artists did not make any artistic renditions of Han emperors that I am aware of. Professional portrait painting did not exist in China until the 6th century; painted artwork of tomb murals that have survived from Han usually just show people riding in chariots, eating at banquets, hunting and performing archery, and other general scenes. It is rare to ever confirm who the paintings actually portray. Three-dimensional art of statues and the like were also never used to portray Han emperors; they almost always portray nameless servants, soldiers, officials, commoners, mythical animals and beasts. Sometimes devotional statues were made to honor sages and philosophers of the past, but these statues were often carved hundreds of years after said persons lived. There's no point in adding any more pictures.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it a bit overzealous to have references like "
Bo Yang (1977), 467–468. ^ Bo Yang (1977), 468. ^ Bo Yang (1977), 468–470. ^ Bo Yang (1977), 470–471." Is it really necessary to get 100+ notes by doing this? Other users might think differently, but wouldn't it be enough to merge all the notes by say chapters? Nergaal (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't own the book and I did not use it either. I asked User:Nlu for help on this, since he has access to Bo Yang's book. I can't single out the book chapters which have said page ranges. I could ask him to include the book chapters used instead of page numbers, but personally I think it is better to be precise. You don't want people bugging you later about which exact pages were used, and then tagging the article with a bunch of "page # needed" tags. I've seen this dozens of times on Wiki and it is not pretty.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent! Thanks for reviewing the List article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CORRECTION: I have a correction to make (reading into several sources). Although portrait painting as an art did not flourish until the 6th century in China, portrait paintings of emperors did exist during Han, although the originals are lost. For example, Anthony Barbieri-Low, in his book Artisans in Early Imperial China (2007), says that the Han scholar Cai Yong provided eulogies and painted portraits for five generations of the Yang clan, which produced many prominent military officers and civilian officials. Before Cai Yong's combination of writing the eulogy and painting the portraits himself, it was always the lowly artisans who painted the portraits (no wonder their work does not survive!), while the distinguished scholar-officials wrote the poetic eulogies. According to Rafe de Crespigny in his Biographical Dictionary of Eastern Han (2007), there was also a 'Cloud Terrace' built in the capital Luoyang which housed portraits of the emperors and their assistants.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - some more images would be good, but as so few Emperors have images of them I think that to add them to the table would be disruptive, maybe add some higher up in the text? rst20xx (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, dude, there are no contemporary images of these emperors. There are some paintings of them done several hundreds of years later, as well as some woodblock print illustrations of them in books of the Ming Dynasty. But no, there are no Han-era depictions of these emperors. We have no way of knowing how they truly looked, and I find much later depictions of them kind of irrelevant, since the artist couldn't possibly know how they looked either. However, since both of you are now instisting that a picture should be placed somewhere, I added a much later portrait painting of Emperor Guangwu by the Tang artist Yan Liben (lived 600–673 AD).--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I realise that the portraits are from later on but still think it's a good idea to include a few - rst20xx (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added another picture. However, the article's prose size isn't very large; wouldn't adding a bunch of pictures push the images down far enough to mess with and overlap with the table below?--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Jappalang over at Wikimedia Commons has identified a major problem with File:HanZhaoDiLiuFuling.jpg, which I have removed from this article until the issue can be resolved. According to one scholar, Chen Baozhen, the painting supposedly represents Emperor Zhao of Han. However, since the caption provided is possibly an interpolation by later scholars after Yan Liben died and the painting itself is of a middle aged man, not a twenty-some year old like Emperor Zhao (who died as a young man), it could even be Wang Mang! Paludan notes that it is Emperor Guangwu, but her book, published by a commercial publisher and not a credible university press, is peppered with factual errors which throws much of her material and assertions into question. Therefore I am keeping one image which Paludan most likely mistakenly captions as Emperor Wen, when in reality it is Emperor Guangwu. Unfortunately, the website for the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, where the scroll is physically located, is not of much help as they do not provide adequate descriptions for the emperors in the scroll (at least on their website).--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added another picture. However, the article's prose size isn't very large; wouldn't adding a bunch of pictures push the images down far enough to mess with and overlap with the table below?--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I realise that the portraits are from later on but still think it's a good idea to include a few - rst20xx (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, dude, there are no contemporary images of these emperors. There are some paintings of them done several hundreds of years later, as well as some woodblock print illustrations of them in books of the Ming Dynasty. But no, there are no Han-era depictions of these emperors. We have no way of knowing how they truly looked, and I find much later depictions of them kind of irrelevant, since the artist couldn't possibly know how they looked either. However, since both of you are now instisting that a picture should be placed somewhere, I added a much later portrait painting of Emperor Guangwu by the Tang artist Yan Liben (lived 600–673 AD).--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I think this is an excellent list, and extraordinarily well-referenced. My two cents on the images discussion - if it would be historically misleading to show images of emperors by later artists who have no idea what the emperor looked like, and I think it would, then I would focus the images on things related to the emperors, for example palaces, capitol cities, any existing works of art that may have been associated with the emperors or their reigns (I know this is later than the Shang, but an example from that time period that comes to mind would be oracles bones). Geraldk (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny enough, the Han court still used oracle bones, but even then plastromancy was considered an archaic practice. Michael Loewe (1994) says that oracle bones dated to the Han are very, very rare, since the use of oracle bones during Han was very, very rare. Nevertheless, I'll try to find another picture that is suitable to the topic of Han-era emperors of China.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found a suitable replacement indeed. Have a look!--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny enough, the Han court still used oracle bones, but even then plastromancy was considered an archaic practice. Michael Loewe (1994) says that oracle bones dated to the Han are very, very rare, since the use of oracle bones during Han was very, very rare. Nevertheless, I'll try to find another picture that is suitable to the topic of Han-era emperors of China.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I read the article and the prose seems very good. One final ask: Is it possible to list the regents somewhere? I realise this may be difficult to do, in that it may often be unknown/ambiguous as to who the regent was at any particular time, if there even was one, but as they were the de facto rulers they are very important, and with this list at only 30k there's plenty of room to add them in - rst20xx (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm...wouldn't that alter the original purpose of this article? In other words, wouldn't this article's title have to be changed to something wordy like "List of Emperors and Regents of the Han Dynasty" in order to include regents?--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, I guess it depends on how many regents there, which I have no idea about; if there aren't that many at all then probably not but if there are quite a lot then you're right. My thought process was more along the lines of that that information deserves to be listed somewhere and that this is probably the best place for it given the current article structure. I'm not going to oppose over it or anything so don't worry about it too much but if there's something you can do then that would be great - rst20xx (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we know which empresses dowager and their relatives held power over very young emperors, but there wasn't always a very young emperor on the throne. In the prose text, I could mention the most prominent case of an empress dowager's male relative regent, Huo Guang, who unofficially reigned in a brief triumvirate with Jin Midi and Shangguan Jie before assuming total power as the sole regent. For all the empresses dowager that were regents, I will simply include two more links in the "further information" template at the top of that section on regents. Plus, the History of the Han Dynasty article linked there already explains who the regents were. This allows readers to search elsewhere in more relevant articles about regents.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, I guess it depends on how many regents there, which I have no idea about; if there aren't that many at all then probably not but if there are quite a lot then you're right. My thought process was more along the lines of that that information deserves to be listed somewhere and that this is probably the best place for it given the current article structure. I'm not going to oppose over it or anything so don't worry about it too much but if there's something you can do then that would be great - rst20xx (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm...wouldn't that alter the original purpose of this article? In other words, wouldn't this article's title have to be changed to something wordy like "List of Emperors and Regents of the Han Dynasty" in order to include regents?--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I feel my concerns have been addressed sufficiently, and hence am now happy to endorse, very well done - rst20xx (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I'm glad that I have addressed all of your concerns. Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I made some minor fixes, but it is a really nice list, good work.—Chris! ct 22:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing the article! And for fixing a few things in the process. Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
- I think it would be worth noting somewhere that the years indicated in the table do not correspond exactly to those of the Western calendar. For example, the first year of the Jianwuzhongyuan era of Guangwu went from May 4, 56 to February 22, 57 AD (see this date conversion site). I don't mean we should give the exact dates all the time: just make clear at the beginning of the table that these are approximate dates.
- The Yuanshi era of Pingdi is currently said to start on 1 BC. I think it should be 1 AD. Zhongguo lidai nianhao kao 中国历代年号考 (a work on era names) supports this (the date converter I just cited also agrees). Could someone check out Bo Yang's book? If Bo Yang is already saying 1 AD, all we need is to correct the table, not the footnote.
- Because most sovereigns started a reign period at the beginning of a new lunar year, we have dates like 28-25 followed by 24-21 and 20-17 without overlap. But I also notice that some years do overlap. For example the year 61 BC was part of both the Yuankang reign and the following Shenjue period. Can this issue be clarified? If necessary, I will provide the necessary info from Zhongguo lidai nianhao kao 中国历代年号考, which indicates the (lunar) months in which some reign periods were changed in the course of a year. If we don't want to burden the table, we can explain at the beginning of the table that a few era names were adopted without waiting for the first month of the following year. A general indication at the beginning of the table would also take care of the following problem.
- The only place where months are mentioned right now is in the very last reigns of the Western Han, where they are mistakenly indicated as "October," "November," and "December" of AD 8. They should actually be 10th month of Jushe and 11th and 12th months of Chushi: these months do NOT correspond to Oct.-Dec. of AD 8. For example, the 11th month of Chushi went from December 17, AD 8 to January 14, AD 9. The date we give for the reign of Ruzi (6-9 AD) actually takes this into account already. Now if we don't correct these months, we'll have inaccuracies ("Oct.-Dec."), but if we do we'll have misleading and cumbersome entries like "Chushi: Dec. 17, AD 8 - Jan. 14, AD 9" that break with the style of the rest of the table, where specific months are not mentioned anyway.
- So my suggestions to take care of these minor problems are: 1. indicate (just before the beginning of the table) that the years of the Chinese calendar are lunar-solar years that do not correspond exactly to the years given in the table; 2. also at the beginning, explain that some years (e.g.: AD 143, 74, 61, etc.) are counted in two reign periods because some new era names were adopted in the course of those years instead of waiting for the beginning of the following year as was customary; 3. remove mentions of "Oct.-Dec." in Ruzi's reign because explanation 2 would already take care of it; if necessary, mention in a footnote that Wang Mang took over in the 12th month of Chushi, sometime in January or February of AD 9.
- If these minor concerns are addressed, I will gladly support the current nomination. Good job, PoA! Madalibi (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have followed your suggestions except for one: instead of making a note in the table, I have created a new "note" link in a relevant spot located in the introduction of the article, which redirects readers to a "notes" section just above "footnotes". User:Nlu used Bo Yang's source to cite the date ranges for era names, but I can check back with him to verify the exact date ranges if necessary. Also, feel free to cite Zhongguo lidai nianhao kao (中国历代年号考) in the article where necessary.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Nlu responded on his talk page yesterday to my request, but he said to wait until tonight for any help. He must have been busy. In the meantime, feel free to cite Zhongguo lidai nianhao kao (中国历代年号考).--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have followed your suggestions except for one: instead of making a note in the table, I have created a new "note" link in a relevant spot located in the introduction of the article, which redirects readers to a "notes" section just above "footnotes". User:Nlu used Bo Yang's source to cite the date ranges for era names, but I can check back with him to verify the exact date ranges if necessary. Also, feel free to cite Zhongguo lidai nianhao kao (中国历代年号考) in the article where necessary.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The new note sounds useful. Thank you! Now I don't know how readers will approach this List, but I assume that many will skip the intro and jump straight to the table itself. This is why readers will be more likely to notice the new note if it's located near the beginning of the table than if it's in the lead paragraph. (More below at the end of the next point.)
- To turn to the content of the note itself, I have a problem with the first sentence: "The naming convention that should be used for the table is "Han" + posthumous name, excepting Liu Gong, Liu Hong, Ruzi Ying, the Prince of Changyi, the Marquess of Beixiang, and the Prince of Hongnong." I can figure out what this means because I know some Han history and I know that these guys, for various historical reasons, didn't have a posthumous imperial title, but I doubt non-initiated readers will understand all this just by reading that sentence. Also, saying "the naming convention that should be used" sounds like you're finding fault with the current table. Readers may just ask: if this is the form that "should be used," why not just use it? You could say something like this instead: "the conventional way of referring to these rulers in Chinese is "Han + posthumous name" (for instance "Han Wudi," "Han Jingdi")." The examples and the mention of Chinese conventions would make the sentence much clearer. You could then explain why some rulers included in the list reigned as emperors, yet did not have such a title because they were overthrown by usurpers, died young, etc. The note would become longer and should probably be split. I think the part on the conventional way of referring to emperors could be included on top of the column on "posthumous names" in the Table itself. The explanations on the lunisolar calendar and the overlap of some years over two reign eras should appear next to "Range of years" in the table too. This is where they will be most relevant and most likely to be noticed.
- And one more thing: what about adding a brief explanation of the functions of the Han emperor, as in the List of American presidents, which explains the presidency in some detail? You already have an explanation of naming conventions (including the term "huangdi" itself), but very little about what emperors did, how they were selected, how many of them there were, etc. The lead paragraph would look more substantial (and arguably more interesting) if you borrowed some content from Government of the Han Dynasty to flesh it out. What do you think?
- Madalibi (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm game; I like your suggestions. When I made that note last night I was really tired, about to go to bed, and very congested (I have a really bad cold right now), so I didn't put too much thought into the note. Let me see what I can do now.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's done. I moved the info about "Han + posthumous name" into the table where it can be seen at the top. As for the discrepancy about date ranges for era names, I moved that note from the intro to the right of the label "era names" at the top of the table. As for expanding the prose text info on the emperor, I will get right on it.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The paragraph on the emperor's various functions as a supreme head of government is finished and moved to the introduction of the article. Everything good?--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's done. I moved the info about "Han + posthumous name" into the table where it can be seen at the top. As for the discrepancy about date ranges for era names, I moved that note from the intro to the right of the label "era names" at the top of the table. As for expanding the prose text info on the emperor, I will get right on it.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm game; I like your suggestions. When I made that note last night I was really tired, about to go to bed, and very congested (I have a really bad cold right now), so I didn't put too much thought into the note. Let me see what I can do now.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! Thanks for reviewing the article and pointing out these mistakes. Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little late, but I think this list looks great! Good work, especially with organizing those cites. --haha169 (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sweet! Thanks for reviewing my list. And I love your user page! It's gnarly. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another brilliant article Pericles! Keep them coming....Zeus1234 (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I try my best. I'm glad you took the time to review the article. Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 09:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then, it's been twelve days since I nominated this list. If this thing has enough supports now, can we get this show on the road? I hate to hold up the nomination for the Han Dynasty featured topic any longer.--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of the bot processing schedule, FLCs are only promoted or archived around 0:00 (UTC) on Sunday and Wednesday. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh. Well that's kind of lame. Thanks for telling me, though. I hate being at the edge of my seat waiting for things to pass.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which really means the article needs to be ready on Saturday/Tuesday, not Sunday/Wednesday.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of the bot processing schedule, FLCs are only promoted or archived around 0:00 (UTC) on Sunday and Wednesday. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then, it's been twelve days since I nominated this list. If this thing has enough supports now, can we get this show on the road? I hate to hold up the nomination for the Han Dynasty featured topic any longer.--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I try my best. I'm glad you took the time to review the article. Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 09:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeutral for now I'll look this over a little closer right now, but that table is extremely hard on the eyes. I really did not like it. I noticed that the first four or five columns always use the same exact source accross the record. Rather than citing each and every cell, try putting the reference in a new field called reference. Take a look at how I did it on List_of_World_Series_of_Poker_Main_Event_Champions#World_Series_of_Poker_Main_Event_champions. Makes it much easier to read, as is, I would not consider this one of our best pieces---too many unnecessary references. Also, could you standardize the size of the pictures. The lead one can be larger, but the subsequent ones would look better if they were the same size or put into a gallery.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Nice work on List of World Series of Poker Main Event champions. About the citations: yes, there are several rows which utilize the same inline citation, but not all of them. I would like to be concise and allow the reader to know where each bit of information came from. In regards to rows that do not use the same citation for each cell, how would a reference column accommodate them? I'm not sure how that would work. Also, the table already has eight columns; wouldn't adding a 9th column bunch everything together even more? In regards to the pictures, you will notice that only the lead picture has forced image sizing. According to Wikipedia:Manual of style, no other picture in the article should have forced sizing. Even though it looks as if this is the case in this article, it is actually not. They use the "upright" option, which is totally acceptable. The text looks like this for the first image in this case: [[File:Han Guangwu Di.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Emperor Guangwu of Han]] (r. 25–57 AD), as depicted by the [[Tang Dynasty|Tang]] artist [[Yan Liben]] (600–673 AD)]] I originally did not include the "upright" option, but one of the reviewers here insisted since his monitor was very wide and the images were forcing down the table as he viewed it. I did not want to get rid of any images either, since other reviewers showed concern for having too few images in the article and wanted as much as possible. I also don't think a gallery is the best option, either, since galleries are rather discouraged at Wikipedia, with a few exceptions. I hope you understand that I must accommodate and show thought for every reviewer's concerns. Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about consolodating references for each row. EG you have a cell with a reference, and in the reference you indicate that the name came from source 1, the chinese spelling came from source 2, and so on. Visually, I find the references overwhelming the content of the table.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. That could work. Let me see what I can do. Hold on...--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh. Who would've thunk it? The table actually looks a lot better without all those citations. I hope that, with their removal, you will now consider supporting the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, I woulda thunk it ;-) It is vastly improved... but there is still something visually that I don't like. I can't put my finger on it right now, so I'm going to go Neutral on this for now. I'll take a look at this tonight and see if I can figure out what I don't like and if it can be solved.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Ok? I guess it's better than a stick in the eye. Is it perhaps the lack of pictures in the table itself? Aside from the reference column, I'm trying to think how the table in this article is really any different from any of the tables you utilize in your featured list articles. So far I can't find the difference.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, I woulda thunk it ;-) It is vastly improved... but there is still something visually that I don't like. I can't put my finger on it right now, so I'm going to go Neutral on this for now. I'll take a look at this tonight and see if I can figure out what I don't like and if it can be solved.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh. Who would've thunk it? The table actually looks a lot better without all those citations. I hope that, with their removal, you will now consider supporting the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. That could work. Let me see what I can do. Hold on...--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about consolodating references for each row. EG you have a cell with a reference, and in the reference you indicate that the name came from source 1, the chinese spelling came from source 2, and so on. Visually, I find the references overwhelming the content of the table.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Great list, I particularly liked the Naming Convention section. I saw the comment above me, but I believe the current format of the table is fine. I was considering asking if a color code for Emperor's who were infants and couldn't act as Emperor, and for other circumstances, but I suppose that would make it too complicated. Hello32020 (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, others might complain if that was the case; there's already appropriate color breaks in the table with headers and normal cells. Thanks for supporting the article!--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:51, 6 June 2009 [32].
Rolaids Relief Man Award
- Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 21:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found this page around less than a week ago, and felt like making it into a featured list. Of course there are some grammar corrections needed to be done, so any grammar issues can just go straight onto the list instead of posting it here. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 21:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the first paragraph has no references—Chris! ct 22:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is referenced by the general. I'll try to find more that could fit into the first paragraph. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 22:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Because the first closers were nicknamed "firemen," a reference to "putting out the fire" of another team's rally, the trophy is a gold-plated firefighter's helmet."
- "Unlike other awards such as the Cy Young Award or the MLB Most Valuable Player (MVP) Award, the Relief Man of the Year is based objectively on statistical performance, rather than subjective opinion."
- These two in particular need reference; otherwise it constitutes original research.—Chris! ct 22:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was on the site, but on another page. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 22:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is also helpful to note those who win multiple times.—Chris! ct 00:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about...I already did... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 00:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean in the list, like Bill Russell NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Award—Chris! ct 01:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do that after the Lakers game. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 02:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, never mind. The reason why there are no notes of multiple winners on the tables of MLB awards is because of the AL and NL. For example, Rollie Fingers had 1 from AL and 3 from NL; some readers will probably look at the table and be confused. i did though denote the BHOFs and active players. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 04:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can still do it within AL and NL. Rollie Fingers is really the only exception since he won from both AL and NL.—Chris! ct 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So what do I do with Rollie Fingers? Lee Smith also has won the award in both leagues. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Also, merged the two, and added a lot more stuff. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 22:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So what do I do with Rollie Fingers? Lee Smith also has won the award in both leagues. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can still do it within AL and NL. Rollie Fingers is really the only exception since he won from both AL and NL.—Chris! ct 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, never mind. The reason why there are no notes of multiple winners on the tables of MLB awards is because of the AL and NL. For example, Rollie Fingers had 1 from AL and 3 from NL; some readers will probably look at the table and be confused. i did though denote the BHOFs and active players. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 04:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do that after the Lakers game. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 02:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean in the list, like Bill Russell NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Award—Chris! ct 01:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about...I already did... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 00:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (17-14) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – There was another bit that was identical to the source, but I took care of it myself so as to not hold this up any more. Please ensure that a better paraphrasing job is done in future nominations. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no further problems. Reywas92Talk 16:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:54, 6 June 2009 [33].
Manager of the Year Award
Another baseball award-related list. Comments will be addressed by me. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Good work on fixing the issues. Looks like a great list overall. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Don't use parentheses in the captions. Say "Joe Maddon, 2008 AL Manager of the Year" or other.
- For what reason? This is a common format; nothing wrong with it as far as I can see. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Parentheses are to set text apart from others, usually subsidiary and less important. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but they signify the parenthetical text to be excess. Just being set off by a comma keeps that info important. Parentheses signify "John Maddon (Oh, and by the way, he was 2008 Al Manager of the Year)", whereas a comma says, "This is John Maddon, and he was 2008 AL Manager of the year". Punctuation really does make a difference.
- According to the article you link to, "parentheses … contain material that could be omitted without destroying or altering the meaning of a sentence … [and] to add supplementary information". Noting when they won is redundant to the table; it's purely supplemental and merely a helpful reference. Therefore, it can be omitted without destroying or altering the meaning. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, the parentheses aren't wrong, but a single comma is much cleaner.
- I'd rather the formula for the scoring be in the lead, not a note. Also, don't make it mathy, just say 5 points for first place, 3 points for second, and 1 point for third.
- The formula was removed from the lead because it broke up the prose. Since it is a formula, it's mathematical by nature, which is why it's shown as such. The same thing is done with ERA and other elements that require calculation in other baseball lists. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I don't think you really need to include a formula at all and especially not in that formatting. Neither reference given does it that way: one is 5-3-1, and the other gives it in plain words. "five points for first-place votes, three points for second-place votes, and one point for third-place votes." is a lot simpler than "The formula used to calculate the final scores is Score = 5F + 3S + T, where F is the number of first place votes, S is second place votes, and T is third place votes." People really don't want some math formula; you're just making it more complicated. I think that info is vital to the text and shouldn't be a note; honestly, when I first read it I wondered how the score was tabulated - it just went from voting to the highest score without any indication of why. When I noticed the note, I was like "Oh, why the heck didn't he just say it up there?" Reywas92Talk 21:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I copied the references, it would be plagiarism. Speaking to "what people want" isn't objective. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything else looks great. Reywas92Talk 16:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Review by Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:54, 6 June 2009 [35].
List of Grand Rapids Griffins players
Churned this out in a week, following along with List of Chicago Blackhawks players and List of Detroit Red Wings players and their FLCs. Zeagler (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The disambiguation link-checker indicates two dabs that need to be fixed. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
made their NHL debut after playing for Griffins. |
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first general ref needsformat=PDF
added to it.The Grand Rapids Press citations should be formatted consistently. Either all cites have the publisher info, or none.Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for your support, and for taking the time to review. —Zeagler (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Review by Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support – Spotted no problems when I went through it. Why can't all reviews be this easy? Giants2008 (17-14) 17:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:54, 6 June 2009 [36].
Hank Aaron Award
I am nominating this for featured list because it should meet the criteria. iMatthew : Chat 18:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Weak support, Could the table be split so AL and NL winners are split as this would look better and make the list easier to read and understand. This my view it would be interesting what you think, this does not affect my support. It will be a normal support if you state good reason for not following my suggestion or do adopt the idea as i think it is a potential issue in my opinion.02blythed (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like some other opinions on this before I make the change. It sounds workable, but I'm not sure. iMatthew : Chat 22:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As i said it was only a suggestion if others do not agree then i fully support the nomination. 02blythed (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Is the Baseball Almanac reference necessary? We aren't really sure about its reliability as a source; it's been debated a lot, and it doesn't verify anything independently.
- Support Copyedited previously, and I see no further problems. Reywas92Talk 23:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- "The Hank Aaron Award is given annually to the Major League Baseball players selected who are the top hitter in each league." Change to "selected as the top hitter in each league." Also place the MLB initials in parenthesis.
- To avoid ending the second sentence with a number, try "surpassing Babe Ruth's career mark of 714 home runs."
- "via MLB's official website, MLB.com website." Remove second "website"?
- "with broadcasters' and analysts' votes accounted for the other 70%." "with" → "while" to ensure proper tense and the best possible sentence structure.
- Barry Bonds is linked twice in the third paragraph. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, everything. iMatthew : Chat (Review Me) 12:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:11, 30 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 22:54, 6 June 2009 [37].
List of counties in Alabama
I am nominating this for featured list because it turns out that it really sucks editing Olympic medals tables. Also, this one's ready for FL, newly referenced and fixed up. Tompw, as always, deserves credit for his excellent work on this and other county lists. Geraldk (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments The lead is too long. This should focus on the counties, not the history of Alabama, so I'd cut most of the first two paragraphs. I don't think I see any other problems. Reywas92Talk 20:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Crzycheetah 07:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Back to support! I found the book's first pages.--Crzycheetah 04:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think List of Alabama county name etymologies can and should be merged into this list. I doubt anything needs to be done, just redirect it. Reywas92Talk 16:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- The only thing that stands out is whether the lead image can be decreased because there is some whitespace left in the lead between it and the TOC table. In addition, a citation may be needed for the note.--Truco 18:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Working on finding a way to get the size reduced. Also, in searching for the reference for the note, found a source which actually does give a death date for the Colbert brothers, so the note is moot and I'm updating the two articles. Thanks for the suggestions. Geraldk (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:54, 6 June 2009 [38].
List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (Canada)
- Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 03:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First nomination in almost a month. The prose and referneces were written and researched by me in less than 6 hours, and had a minor copy-edit from Dabomb87. Also my first nomination related to record charts. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 03:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was also thinking of putting the albums of the number-one singles, since I feel that they are important, and are related to the article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 05:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Personally, I would switch the two paragraphs around. The article is about the number-one singles of 2007, not the Hot 100. It's not actionable; you don't have to do it. Just something to ponder.
- I, personally, like to introduce the bigger "item" before the specifics. Also, most lists do this, so... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 07:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove the easter egg link (2007) which no one will click on. You already have it in the See Also section, which is the right place for it.
- Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 07:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matthewedwards : Chat 06:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- I think it would be relevant to include info on the "Canadian content" requirement.
- I was trying to find more information about how the Canadian content criteria works on the online version, but I couldn't find any relevant sources to it. If you could find the criteria for it, then go ahead and add it on to the article.
- "single of 2007, beginning its run atop the chart for the last nine weeks of 2007, and the first four weeks in 2008."-->single of 2007; it was the number-one single for the last nine weeks of 2007, and the first four weeks in 2008.
- Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Plain White T's' "Hey There Delilah", and Kanye West's "Stronger"
allstayed at number one"
- Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "having been on the chart for 12 weeks."-->and his singles were number-one for a combined 12 weeks.
- Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Britney Spears' "Gimme More" is noted for its jump from 25th to 1st place on the Canadian Hot 100, making it the largest leap to 1st place in 2007."-->Britney Spears' "Gimme More" went from 25th to 1st place on the Canadian Hot 100, the largest jump to the number one in 2007.
- Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Rihanna, Fergie (with the Black Eyed Peas), and Britney Spears all have had another number-one single on the Canadian Hot 100.[5]" This is unclear, do you mean "multiple number-one singles"?
- I meant that they all had another number-one single on the Canadian Hot 100. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "first
evernumber-one single."
- Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabomb87 (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
- What makes http://acharts.us/song/12504 reliable?
- What makes it not reliable? To be honest, I have no idea how I found it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 23:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't have a reputation for fact-checking. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure you could at least AGF on the source, since I don't really see anything wrong with it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 23:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the highest level of quality content, I can't just "AGF"; we have to use the best sources possible. aCharts does not describe its method of obtaining its information, and is not backed by a reliable third-party institution. There is no evidence to demonstrate that aCharts is a reliable source. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's the only free source that could provide every single Canadian Hot 100 charts. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 18:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the highest level of quality content, I can't just "AGF"; we have to use the best sources possible. aCharts does not describe its method of obtaining its information, and is not backed by a reliable third-party institution. There is no evidence to demonstrate that aCharts is a reliable source. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure you could at least AGF on the source, since I don't really see anything wrong with it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 23:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't have a reputation for fact-checking. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Globe and Mail" should be italicized.
- Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 23:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabomb87 (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me (prose). However, why not widen the columns—especially the first one, for dates—so that the text is less likely to wrap on default display size? September onwards wrapped on my display until I grabbed the corner and widened. There's tons of space to the right.
- Well the list is already stretched to 50%, which is the minimum for my featured lists. The reason why I didn't stretch the Issue Date column is because I don't feel the need to do that. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 17:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All but a few references are to the Nielsen Billboard site. I presume this is reliable; but take "The online version of the chart features the Canadian flag next to tracks that qualify as Canadian content.[2]". Where on the site can I find the information that supports this claim about Canadian content? Tony (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Though it seems pretty obvious to some that the Canadian flag means that the artist was probably raised from Canada, there is no source for it!, which angers me. So to answer your question, there is no site you can find the information that supports this claim about Canadian content. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 17:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update Most of my concerns have been resolved. Here are the remaining two:
I think it would be relevant to include info on the "Canadian content" requirement. Here are two sources:[39] and [40].
- Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 18:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
acharts is not considered reliable. Have you searched all available sources, even print publications?
- No, but I'm pretty sure that no national newspapers publish the Canadian Hot 100 or the records. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 18:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabomb87 (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
Uhh...Ealdgyth is currently not replying to my message, Probably because she's busy with other more important stuff. Since I don't know that much fact-checkers like Dabomb87 and Truco, I'm hoping one of you guys ask one of them for me. It will obviously be appreciated. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
--Crzycheetah 04:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(←)In other words, you want readers to do their own research every time they want to verify the info on this page? I just want a sentence in some reliable article that can assure me that the info on this page is correct.--Crzycheetah 05:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Weak support This list could have been a great list if we had some more reliable references. Too bad there are so little info on this topic on the net.--Crzycheetah 22:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support per above. I feel wary about letting a major sourcing issue by, but I don't know if there's anything we can do about it. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:39, 31 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 22:54, 6 June 2009 [41].
2007 World Series of Poker results
- Nominator(s): ---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I will be travelling from Wednesday through Saturday and will have limited internet access. If there are any open issues at that time, I will try to address them when I return. I ask that this not be closed as a failure if on Saturday if there are open issues.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POKER is proud to bring the 2007 WSOP results to be considered for a FL. I think I've prepared this per the guidelines that have been used in previous Poker FL's.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
There are some MOS issues that need to be fixed here. Some of the ones that jumped out at me are below.
Hope that these comments give you somewhere to start. This was just a quick, 15-minute once-over, so there may be myriad other issues which could have been fixed, as I mentioned, at a peer review. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just returned from vacation where I had internet connectivity issues, will try to resolve these tonight or tomorrow.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Review by Truco (talk · contribs)
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Strong oppose with (hopefully) some kick-ass comments to help turn it to a support...
All comments resolved.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Reference 4 is broken. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still uneasy about supporting this. Besides another error I caught (according to the source, Lubarsky finished 193rd and not 197th), the last paragraph has some new problems. The prize/glory dichomoty is only sourced in regards to Korfman and Bennett, not the field in general. Also, the source for Yang's Main Event win doesn't say anything about how money was important to him, and doesn't indicate that he quit his job. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 197th was the official standing, added link to that. The first ref is good because it talks about the disability. I'll look at the other issues later this evening.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the money/bracelets debate, that is a common theme among poker players. Michael Mizrachi is known for his mantra of "Money over Bracelets." David Rheem similarly makes no bones about it. Many of the first timers are just hoping to make it big. Phil Gordon and many of the big names talk more about winning the bracelet than the money. I could give example after example on both sides that it isn't even funny.
- As for Yang, expanded section... I wish I could find the quote, "I would say the money. The bracelet to me is a title where you get the notoriety. However, with the money, you can do a lot of good. You can help a lot of people." In a more reliable source.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still uneasy about supporting this. Besides another error I caught (according to the source, Lubarsky finished 193rd and not 197th), the last paragraph has some new problems. The prize/glory dichomoty is only sourced in regards to Korfman and Bennett, not the field in general. Also, the source for Yang's Main Event win doesn't say anything about how money was important to him, and doesn't indicate that he quit his job. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The dead-link checker shows that several links are having trouble with their connections. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I saw, apparently the software doesn't like the WSOP cite.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:12, 2 June 2009 [42].
List of tallest buildings in San Diego
- Nominator(s): Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked on this list for the last few weeks after walking around the city and taking pictures of the tallest buildings. Looking to the other similar FLs, I have attempted to format this list accordingly and I believe the article now meets the FL criteria. Let me know if you see any issues and I will get to them as soon as possible. Thank you for taking a look and happy reviewing! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- For some reason, on my comp the ordered lists display 15=, 15=, 18, 18=, 18=, 21... I'm not entirely sure what these are, but they should be fixed.
- Shouldn't you include a couple of sentances (I'd go with a para) describing each skyscraper in the last row? Right now it contains only refs or a line, and I find that boring. I'd rather learn a bit about its history then read numbers. ResMar 00:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking the article over, I appreciate it. The equal sign after each rank is to indicate that there is a tie between the two buildings in height. Rather then list buildings of the same height as, say, 1, 2, 3, it would be best to rank them the same since they are of equal height. Because two buildings (or more in certain cases) share a rank in this list, the next successive rank includes the next number. For example, in the case of this list, it goes from 4, 5=, 5=, 7 (which is 4, 5, 6, 7). This helps to maintain the actual number of buildings that are taller than the pre-determined height included in the criteria of the list. Concerning the blank cells, I only tried to include the significant ranks relevant to the topic of the list. Each of the buildings has their own respective articles where readers can pursue further information (as well as look at the given sources). If you take a look at the other buildings FLs, you'll see a similar setup. Obviously some of the other lists may have more information to mention since they likely have some of the tallest buildings in the world (it's hard to have that with a 500-ft limit!). Let me know if you need further clarification or if this didn't make sense. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I too would like to see a little more information listed for each building in the "notes" section, but this is a fine article regardless. Ahodges7 talk 02:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The general references need to be formatted (publisher, last access date)Dabomb87 (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the formatting with available fields. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Review by Truco (talk · contribs)
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose but comments which will hopefully help.
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 31 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 22:12, 2 June 2009 [43].
List of extant papal tombs
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it exemplifies the featured list criteria. It uses only free images, and despite that restriction still manages to illustrate the vast majority of the extant papal tombs. I believe that the list structure makes it easy to assess and understand trends in papal funeral sculpture. Although for the purpose of completeness I included quite a bit of information about non-extant papal tombs and tombs where there are multiple claimants (which is common with early Christian relics), this information is hidden by default so as not to interrupt the visual flow of the list. For interested readers, it is only a click away. As for inclusion criteria, I stuck with the List of popes, a former featured list (which was delisted for unrelated reasons). I'd be happy to field any comments or suggestions for improvement. Savidan 05:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I has split the content about non-extant papal tombs into other articles in response to the second and third comments here. Savidan 21:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - FLs no longer start with "This is a list of ..." - see recently promoted lists for suggestions—Chris! ct 05:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments and questions
- 1. Why hide the non-extant or unknown tombs? I ask because I think it actually makes the navigation more difficult and confusing. If it's just so people can identify the unknown tombs, it may be better to simply color code those in some way, or make a note, or something other than collapsing them, which breaks up the flow of the tables.
- 2. For Gregory XVI (1830's), Luigi Amici is both the sculptor and the slightly cryptic note.
- 3. There are a ton of redlinks, mostly sculptors. Not a cause for opposition to me, but you may want to leave a note with associated wikiprojects to try to get some of those articles created.
- 4. There are several broad statements in the lead that could use some in-line cites. There are currently no in-line cites in the lead.
- 5. Regarding the number of in-line cites in the table... holy everloving crap. I'm impressed.
- 6. It really bothers me that there is so much whitespace after the lead. I know it's similar to the List of popes, but it might make sense to combine the sub-sections in each broader section so the ToC isn't so long, and to drop one the images (I'd suggest if you do this keeping the procession - it's much more visually appealing), e.g. collapse the 1st-5th centuries into a single table.
- That's all for now. Geraldk (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments Geraldk. I appreciate your specificity and candidness. I will address your comments in order:
1. I hid the non-extant and unknown tombs because there is generally much less (and much less reliable) information about them, and there is certainly no picture. In particular, this information is somewhat repetitive. For example, dozens of tombs were simply destroyed during the demolition of Old Saint Peter's; maybe another dozen were destroyed in one of two fires in John Lateran (for most it is not even known which fire did them in). If you want to see what the article looked like before I collapsed them, uncollapse several of them and scroll up and down. I don't think it's particularly appealing, but maybe that's just a subjective decision. I think the primary usefulness of this article is art historical, and in that sense, the "flow" between the extant tombs is more important.I'd be open to discussing this issue further with you and am curious what other reviewers think.- 2. Typo on my part. Thanks for catching it.
- 3. I have notified the Visual Art, Architecture, and (defunct) Sculpture WikiProjects. Just for the record, my view is that redlinks along the lines of Tomb of Pope John II and Tomb of Pope Martin I would be inappropriate, but redlinks to articles which are not the primary subject of the list are value enhancing (although I anticipate that others may disagree). David Gerard has a lot of interesting blog entries on the subject in support of redlinks. [44]
- 4. My philosophy on the lead was that it should summarize facts that are cited in the article, which in my view does not necessitate re-citation. I would be open to adding some if you could be more specific in your justification.
- 5. Thanks.
- 6. I will drop the first image as you suggest. I have created a specialized TOC. If it is to your liking I suggest it is superior to combining the article categories, which may raise issues about trapping the reader in very long tables. E.g. readers wanting to jump to the 4th century would have to wade through three preceding centuries of table. Savidan 02:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - much improved. Splitting off the non-extant tombs was a good idea. Now, when are you going to get that list of popes up to FL? Geraldk (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
(UTC)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose with comments...
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed "Tomb" to "Image". This makes no promise to the reader about what they are going to see. It could be a picture of the tomb; it could be a picture of whatever part of the tomb is left; it could be a picture of the church where the tomb/remaining fragments are housed. I hope this resolves your concerns about "misleading" the reader. Your last comment caused me to think a little. I think that syntactically (and correctly) this sentence means that the antipope/claimant is illegitimate, but it does imply that the claim is illegitimate (or, more naturally, incorrect in the eyes of the current Church). Illegitimacy is a property of the person themself, as in an illegitimate child. Savidan 21:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:12, 2 June 2009 [45].
List of Key games
Even though I just created the list, I believe it already satisfies the criterion described at WP:FL?. At this date, the list is comprehensive, though as stated at the end of the lead, Key's latest game has yet to be released or even given much details on (such as release date, and its rating). I didn't think any images were appropriate for inclusion. I attempted to follow a similar structure laid out on List of Nintendo 64 games and List of Virtual Boy games (initially basing the idea for the list on List of Square Enix games and its structure).--十八 03:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not happy yet
- "all-ages": why the hyphen? There are two instances.
- "and is described as a "kinetic novel" by the development team due to having a completely linear storyline."—not a pretty sentence. "... team, because of its completely ..."?
- Most readers would expect commas to be used in the running text. (There's one lonely comma.) Tony (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I updated the lead, changing all-ages to 'everyone', rewrote a couple sentences, and added commas where appropriate.--十八 19:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and questions...
- Can't find any images that help illustrate the topic? I know there would be fair use issues with a lot of potential images but the page seems pretty bare as is...
- In the lead or after the sub-heading that starts the list, you should explain what eroge and availability mean. The former is less obvious (and more tehchnical) than the latter, but both aren't fully clear to the lay reader. I know you semi-explain them in the notes, but that requires an extra and unnecessary step by the reader.
- Why don't all the entries in the table have kanji translations?
- Certainly not required, but it would be interesting to see sales data for these. Is there any place such information would be available? Geraldk (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not that I can't find suitable images, it's that none exist. I imagine a group image of at least the 7 current different game cases would suffice, but beyond that, I can't think of anything.
- I'll transfer what is explained in the notes to the lead, in a second paragraph. This'll also give me the chance to explain the box set to be released in more detail, as I was worried it was kind of vague.
- The titles that don't have kanji equivalents were not manufactured with such equivalents. For example, as given at Kanon's official website, two versions were titled Kanon Standard Edition in plain English.
- Sales data for visual novels is generally hard to come by, but some have been able to be found for these games, which is viewable on their articles. Certainly, I could add in all the data already available, but by no means is it possible that all the versions would have such data, so having some with and some without probably wouldn't make sense for an FL.--十八 23:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as is, satisfied with responses though I still think the list could be better if there were an image available. Geraldk (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, it is detailed and comprehensive. The only thing that it needs right now is an image, which I guess the Memorial Box's cover art would do, when it is released, that is. -- クラウド668 23:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Twas Now
- Support, looks good. Remember to move the article to List of video games developed by Key. Initiate a discussion through Wikipedia:Requested moves if you think another title might be more suitable. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reservations about the article's name. First, it should probably say "video games", not just "games". Second, as someone who's never heard of the company, I find the article name rather ambiguous. "Key" can mean a number of things. Is this a list of important ("key") games? Is "Key" a type of game, or genre, like List of puzzle video games? I propose List of video games developed by Key. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with renaming the article, but I was just going by the previous examples set out in Category:Video game lists by company, where the majority of the articles are "List of COMPANY games". Not to mention that since "Key" is capitalized in the article title, shouldn't that be enough to say that it's a proper name? And this would thus exclude the examples you gave where 'key' would have to be lowercased. Of course, we could make this article an example article if it passes FL, since there are no other current FLs of video game lists by company.--十八 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The capitalized "Key" is what clued me in that this was not meant as a "list of important video games". However, people less familiar with Wikipedia and its conventions might not know that. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a good argument since it's not something unique to Wikipedia. The English language capitalizes proper names, therefore anyone who knows English will know it's a proper name.--十八 02:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen enough articles with improper capitalization to know that is not the case. (Not to mention all the wild capitalization that exists across the rest of the internet). My point is that I didn't know what this article was about when I saw the name. Homocysteine methyltransferase offers more clues about its subject matter. I initially thought "Key" was the name of a video game series. That's a close guess, but only because I first noticed it listed at WikiProject Video games, so there was some context to suggest it was about video games. What about people who see the article name without such context? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I understand your argument now. I'll agree with the proposed rename, but can it be held off until this FLC closes (so as to remove the need of moving other pages for the time being)?--十八 05:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think the "video games" part is crucial, but I won't press the issue. If others think it should moved first, then let's move it. (Although it would only take roughly one minute with AutoWikiBrowser to fix all the links, which I could do tomorrow). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I understand your argument now. I'll agree with the proposed rename, but can it be held off until this FLC closes (so as to remove the need of moving other pages for the time being)?--十八 05:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen enough articles with improper capitalization to know that is not the case. (Not to mention all the wild capitalization that exists across the rest of the internet). My point is that I didn't know what this article was about when I saw the name. Homocysteine methyltransferase offers more clues about its subject matter. I initially thought "Key" was the name of a video game series. That's a close guess, but only because I first noticed it listed at WikiProject Video games, so there was some context to suggest it was about video games. What about people who see the article name without such context? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a good argument since it's not something unique to Wikipedia. The English language capitalizes proper names, therefore anyone who knows English will know it's a proper name.--十八 02:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The capitalized "Key" is what clued me in that this was not meant as a "list of important video games". However, people less familiar with Wikipedia and its conventions might not know that. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fair use rationale for the image used in the article needs to be improved.— Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The date format in the references (currently 2009-05-16) should match the date format in the article (e.g. May 16, 2009)."As of September 2008" — Could this be updated? Not a showstopper, but it would be good to have it up-to-date, if possible.— Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the reason for having these tables sortable? The tables are each short enough that this information can be easily discerned at a glance.— Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Remurmur (talk · contribs)
- Is there any real reason we can't have the section titles bluelinked instead of using "Main article:"?
- I'm uncomfortable with the wording on the "Availability" column. I'd prefer something more along the lines of "In print/Out of print".
- Perhaps have another column for the extras that come with the various versions? And maybe get rid of the Japanese titles (having translations for things such as "limited edition" isn't really all that helpful IMO).
- I think the Japanese titles should stay for the reason that these were the original titles, and then translations like "limited" and "regular" aren't exactly word-for-word translated; they are just general concepts of what these games were manufactured as. For example, all of the limited editions carry the kanji 初回 which would translate as "first time", but this isn't included since it's not standard, and is unnecessary in understanding what these versions are. Not to mention that from Tomoyo After, all the games carry were printed originally with Japanese names, unlike from Kanon to Planetarian. As for the extras, only the limited editions ever came with extra stuff, and adding them in would mess up how the table looks, especially when the majority of the versions released didn't come with extras.--十八 20:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List seems to imply that the games were only released on PC, with no mention of DC, PS2, and PSP ports.--Remurmur (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This list was created to list all the titles actually released by Key, not affiliates that released the ports: Interchannel and Prototype. Would an addition akin to this example suffice?--十八 20:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Amazingly I found no issues, thus it meets WP:WIAFL. Great job.--Truco 16:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose with comments
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:12, 2 June 2009 [46].
The Ting Tings discography
- Nominator(s): Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to be well referenced and informative. Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The band has one studio album only. Is it really necessary to create a new page for this band's discography? I don't want to discourage you or anything, but I think any discography with one album should NOT be created as a separate page.--Crzycheetah 07:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment My issues were resolved in the previous FLC, but I'm concerned about whether this list meets 3b. Also, I am still wary about promonews.tv; however, I'd like more opinions before deciding either way. Also, there is one dead link, check the toolbox to the right. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed PromoNews.tv and replaced it with links to articles published by MTV. I have also removed the dead link and replaced it with another reliable source. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, great job. I will support for now, although I would invite more input on the 3b issue above. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 3b doesn't really concern me in this case. Not counting the music videos, the list reaches the rule-of-thumb limit of 10 releases. With them, it definitely does. I'd say it's on the cusp of being enough content to simply transfer to the main page, but I think it warrants its own page. Besides, if they're main page is and indiciation, they'll have a new album soon, which will make this question moot. Drewcifer (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, great job. I will support for now, although I would invite more input on the 3b issue above. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks really good. I can't find much of anything to complain about. The only thing I have to mention is that there's 12 chart columns in two of the tables. MOS:DISCOG suggests a limit of 10, since anymore borders on an indiscriminate stat dump (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Beyond that, if you make the tables too wide, smaller monitors can't handle them and they get squished. For both these reasons, I don't wanna support until this is addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have limited the tables to 10 charts each. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks great, happy to support now. Drewcifer (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- My previous issues were resolved in the previous FLC. But I strongly recommend addressing the table problem that Drewcifer mentions above.--Truco 15:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support - if a band did nothing other than release EPs, singles, videos etc, we shouldn't discriminate against them having a separate discog list. It really is a borderline 3b case but I'm one foot in the support camp. Can't see anything else wrong with the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 30 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 22:12, 2 June 2009 [47].
List of winners of the London Marathon
- Nominator(s): Matthewedwards : Chat 04:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After working on this for about a week, I think it's pretty much ready. There's a few redlinks, but they should be blue by the end of the nomination. Lede section may be a bit long for some. If that's the case I can shift some of it over to London Marathon, which is a bit anemic in well referenced statements. Matthewedwards : Chat 04:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment
—Chris! ct 04:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments - on lead prose
"7,741 participants entered ", don't start sentences with numbers per MOSNUM"first Men's race", I'm not sure capitalise Men's, similarly with Women's. I wasn't sure but I notice this FL is lower case for "men's discus" in the lead."19 people competed, and seventeen finished" comparable quantities"saw 35,859 competitors" - don't think "saw" is the most encyclopaedic word here"It remained here for twelve years" - this might not be right, but I'd have thought it should be "there" not "here""In 2005 the route" comma after 05
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambo's Revenge (talk • contribs) 21:37, May 16, 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking. I've done everything except the "Men's race"/"men's race" thing. I've seen both, but capitalised is used more often at the BBC, Guardian and what-have-you. What do you think of the "7,741 participants" sentence now? I can't come up with anything less clumsy. Matthewedwards : Chat 23:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I downloaded a torrent of the BBC's coverage of this year's race, and they refer to the races as Men's Elite Race, Women's Elite Race, Men's Wheelchair Race and Women's Wheelchair Race on the on-screen graphics. I've updated the page to reflect this. Matthewedwards : Chat 18:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No issues of mine remain, and I'm happy with your take on the Men's vs men's comment. Saying that, I haven't had an in-depth look so I don't feel it would be right to support. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I downloaded a torrent of the BBC's coverage of this year's race, and they refer to the races as Men's Elite Race, Women's Elite Race, Men's Wheelchair Race and Women's Wheelchair Race on the on-screen graphics. I've updated the page to reflect this. Matthewedwards : Chat 18:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Nice one. Only a couple of things I saw stuck out at me:
Link for Isle of Dogs in the second paragraph? Also, there are two River Thames links in a single paragraph.
- Done Matthewedwards : Chat
"The most recent win by a British athlete was the 2008 London Marathon, by David Weir in the Men's wheelchair race." Soemthing about this is bothering me. I think it's the fact that we're saying Weir won the marathon, when he actually only won one of the event's races. Is this considered normal usage in the media when describing winners?Giants2008 (17-14) 01:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think putting "The most recent win by a British athlete was in the 2008 London Marathon, by David Weir in the Men's wheelchair race." will solve the problem?
- Yes, I think it would. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Took care of it myself. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Constitution Hill is a disambiguation link.Giants2008 (17-14) 01:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Thought I'd got them all. All done Matthewedwards : Chat 15:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I expected to see the info about the course in the first paragraph. I think it's more important than all the stats in the first paragraph, but that's just me.- Done Matthewedwards : Chat
Why do you have "Wheelchair race" as a section with 2 sub-sections? I think those sub sections need to become sections. It looks offending to me.
--Crzycheetah 05:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Matthewedwards : Chat
- Redlinks are gone now. (breathes a giant sigh of relief)----> Geraldk (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've done a great job on that, Gerald. Well done! Matthewedwards : Chat 15:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any progress forthcoming on the text size? I'm inclined to support otherwise. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Font size now at 100% after a bit of resizing of the table's column. It should look okay at most resolutions now. Matthewedwards : Chat 04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Matthewedwards : Chat 04:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – My issues were taken care of a while ago; I was just waiting for the font size issue to be resolved, which it is now. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Truco (talk · contribs)
- Lead
- A lot of use of Heading, can it be used less often as the starting word of the sentences in the second paragraph?
- Done Matthewedwards : Chat
- 'In 2005, the route around the Isle of Dogs between the 14- and 21- mile marks was switched from a clockwise to an anti-clockwise direction, and at 22 miles the route was diverted to avoid the cobblestoned area near the Tower of London.' -- 1)Shouldn't it be 21-mile marks? 2)'anti-clockwise' --> counterclockwise? 3)Comma after '22 miles'
- British English is "anti-clockwise" Matthewedwards : Chat
- List
- Why are the notes not starting with capital letters?
- They don't in the other Marathon FLs. Fixed. Matthewedwards : Chat
- It would be better if the commas separating different ideas in the notes be replaced with semicolon's.
- OK Matthewedwards : Chat
- I'm not a real fan of using the '1st, 2nd, 3rd' numbering system for things like the number of victories, why not just spell them out?
- OK Matthewedwards : Chat
--Truco 15:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing. Everyhing's been done. Matthewedwards : Chat 17:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Very weak oppose - I fixed a cell without an edge in one of the tables, and I made a (better?) categorisation from "Marathoning" to "Marathons in England" (two levels more specific category). I think you're missing one of the other "major" marathons in your "See also" section, and I would consider a template maybe? Does everyone know what a "pub" is? Also, you could increase the size of the lead image? And a description of what the difference between "Elite" and non-"Elite" would be useful, incorporating info that states they set off first, with all the crazy gang afterwards. But real close to support. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Everything looks great! The lead is very long, but I think it's okay. I'm sure you have, but be sure the main article is good quality too. Reywas92Talk 17:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I agree with Reywas92 that the lead is quite long, but it is still very informative and is a help rather than a hindrance to the list overall. I'm still thinking of a decent image stacking solution for images alongside tables, but it's more of a niggling technical issue rather than a true problem. You have my support. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU! 05:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Yes, the lede is rather long now. The route paragraph has already been copied over to London Marathon, perhaps it would be better removed from here and just leaving the 26.2 mile detail in. It is after all the only paragraph not related to the actual winners, and doing this would reduce it to four paragraphs, in line with WP:LEDE. Matthewedwards : Chat 06:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like a good decision to me. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU! 15:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since there's a template available now, the see also section can be removed.--Crzycheetah 03:09, 2 June 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.