Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2009: Difference between revisions
promoting 4 FLCs |
promoted 12 |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cardinal-nephews/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Pritzker Prize/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cutaneous conditions/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of pre-Stonewall LGBT actions in the United States/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Donkey Kong games/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (coaches)/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Space Invaders video games/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of 2006 Winter Olympics medal winners/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of pre-1920 jazz standards/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/19th Golden Melody Awards/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mercury Prize/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Toronto Blue Jays seasons/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (academics)/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (academics)/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Turner Prize winners and nominees/archive2}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Turner Prize winners and nominees/archive2}} |
Revision as of 19:06, 11 July 2009
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [1].
List of cardinal-nephews
This list is the counterpart to the featured article Cardinal-nephew. It is useful for assessing the frequency of the practice over its history and the variation therein. All the image are free. The first nomination failed as a result of the redlinks, but the relevant language has been removed since the criteria were modified last year. User:CarlosPn has also contributed substantially to this list. Savidan 19:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - dashes between years should be endashes—Chris! ct 02:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Kumioko
|
---|
Comments Just a couple things that I recommend
|
Support --Kumioko (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comment
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Comment The usage of pictures as symbols is not compliant with WP:ACCESS; see this discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Oppose until alternative text for images is added. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Should CarlosPn be considered a co-nominator? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CarlosPn is certainly a co-author, having added dozens of cardinals and sources to this list, and I have notified him of this nomination. He informed me that he was preoccupied with external cardinals at the moment, and I think that I will likely have to take the lead on any remaining comments/objections. Savidan 18:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I ran this article through AWB and found a couple of minor things that I fixed. --Kumioko (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent List and Images. KensplanetTC 07:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose
|
- Support all my comments well resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [2].
Pritzker Prize
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tripled in size, masses of lovely references and images. Comprehensive, a complete list, not a content fork. What more could one ask for? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs), including image review. |
---|
Note on images I'm not an expert on this field so would like you get someone experienced to comment. For all the builiding images (most Flickr uploaded I think) they are reviewed because the license on flickr matches our requirements. However an uploader on flickr may falsely believe they own the copyright and therefore mistakenly release something they don't have the full rights to. It seems that photos of buildings might be derivative works unless the country has freedom of panarama which, according to this, France and Italy don't have. Like I said, I'm reading most of this information for the first time, but I think it needs looking into or and more knowledgeable editor to comment on. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not many comments as I guess most issues were resolved through reviews below, just a few issues I found. Will support once these are sorted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support, all issues resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lord Richard Rogers, winner in 2007, designed Senedd, which is at FAC. Random fact. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Interesting. Presumably the images used there are okay under FOP?! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't it be more appropriate under the "example work" column to use structures that were only built or designed at the time the architect was awarded the prize? Medvedenko (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the point of the prize is specifically not to award it for a particular recent work, more to award it for a body of work over a considerable period of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the point. The architects weren't awarded for buildings he or she hadn't designed yet. The example works should show works that were part of the architects portfolio at the time of the award. Phillip Johnson's example was built 20 years after he was awarded. Richard Meier and Frank Gehry examples were designed 10 years after they received the award. These examples are not representative of the reason the architect received the award. Medvedenko (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These illustrations are examples of the architect's work in general, hence the title "Example work" rather than "works for which the architect won their award". I will, however, attempt to find works that predate their award, although it may result in some going without images, and then I'd need to add a note to say why. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, all images now from either the year or years preceding the award. Some missing since I can find no examples here, on Commons or Flickr. I'd appreciate a suggestion for what to write as to why there's no image for those. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is a good idea to have examples for those missing. Maybe adding a note to explain those that are from a later date briefly. That would mean extra work, so not sure if you want to do that.—Chris! ct 23:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was only a suggestion to help give a better representation of what the award was awarding. I have no problem using a later piece of architecture if an early example is not visually available. Medvedenko (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also it might be a good idea to insert a hidden note telling editors not to randomly switch images. They might not aware that the works shown are near the time they received the award.—Chris! ct 01:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images are now dated (with a "completion date") in the heading to avoid any ambiguity. All architects have an image. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also it might be a good idea to insert a hidden note telling editors not to randomly switch images. They might not aware that the works shown are near the time they received the award.—Chris! ct 01:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was only a suggestion to help give a better representation of what the award was awarding. I have no problem using a later piece of architecture if an early example is not visually available. Medvedenko (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is a good idea to have examples for those missing. Maybe adding a note to explain those that are from a later date briefly. That would mean extra work, so not sure if you want to do that.—Chris! ct 23:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, all images now from either the year or years preceding the award. Some missing since I can find no examples here, on Commons or Flickr. I'd appreciate a suggestion for what to write as to why there's no image for those. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These illustrations are examples of the architect's work in general, hence the title "Example work" rather than "works for which the architect won their award". I will, however, attempt to find works that predate their award, although it may result in some going without images, and then I'd need to add a note to say why. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the point. The architects weren't awarded for buildings he or she hadn't designed yet. The example works should show works that were part of the architects portfolio at the time of the award. Phillip Johnson's example was built 20 years after he was awarded. Richard Meier and Frank Gehry examples were designed 10 years after they received the award. These examples are not representative of the reason the architect received the award. Medvedenko (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I echo Medvedenko's suggestion that the structures shown in example work should be the one that were built or designed near the time he/she won the award. The current choice seem a bit arbitrary. Everything else looks good, though.—Chris! ct 02:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See my reply to Medvedenko. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see any faults, so I am leaning to support. Though I think you should note Ieoh Ming Pei's birth place. He was born in China.—Chris! ct 20:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Birth place noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - ok, I am satisfied.—Chris! ct 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check the toolbox to your right; a few (external) links are redirecting. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The official Pritzker website has been up and down for past few days. But since when did redirecting cause a major issue? The links still actually work for me... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - anyone fancy commenting on the actual content of the list, the prose, the details?! All comments are, as always, welcome, but there seems little in the way of comments against WP:WIAFL at the moment. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
--Truco 503 22:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Dabomb87 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Oppose until alternative text for images is added. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the links, I mean that some of the specific links redirect to the main page of the site. For example, Nomination Process, ostensibly about the nomination process, just goes to the main page.Dabomb87 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Old link. Duplicated anyway. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [3].
List of cutaneous conditions
I am nominating the list of skin-related conditions for featured list status as I believe this content meets the six featured list criteria. ---kilbad (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The topics I raised below have been resolved satisfactorily.
There are still some red links that I introduced due to WP:ENDASH fixes (see Talk:List of skin-related conditions #Endash) but these will be easy to fix soI'll just change my vote to "support" now. Eubulides (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Comment.A very impressive list, unique among the medical lists in Wikipedia. A few relatively-minor comments.- Having all the article body (aside from references etc.) in a single section seems overkill. Why not have multiple sections in the article body?
- It links to disambiguation pages (see "disambig links" in the toolbox); these should get fixed.
- Several of the citation URLs don't work, e.g., are to a web site that requires a subscription. Please see "external links" in the Toolbox for a list.
- The See also section should be removed. Its two wikilinks should be moved to the lead (with some text to include them).
- The Footnotes section should be removed. That footnote can be in the main text.
- The Further reading section seems quite a bit too long. By and large these should be inline citations, or removed. (Andrews' is probably an exception.)
- File:Gas gangrene.jpg seems to illustrate more than just a skin condition. If so, I'd remove it.
- The list is so long that it might not hurt to have a brief list (at the start) of the most common skin diseases; each item in that list can be a forward link to the relevant entry. Just a thought.
- I am no expert in the area and can't comment on whether the list is consistent or complete.
- Eubulides (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, this appears to be stunning work. I've had a twiddle here and there, but it sets a great standard. I say this while tapping my hat to Eubulides's suggestions above, and in advance to those of my other colleagues, especially WRT content issues. Just one issue, though: I still find it hard to consider muscle and glands (wholly) to be part of the skin organ system ... just checking that you mean all muscle and all glands in the body? (The pituitary gland?). Otherwise, why not insert change this: "the organ system that covers the entire surface of the body and is composed of skin, hair, nails, muscle, and glands." into this: "the organ system that covers the entire surface of the body and is composed of skin, hair, nails, and related muscle and glands."? Also, is there a possible wiktionary link to "interdigitates"? Conflict-of-interest disclosure: I had a look-see and provided a few pointers on this list a couple of months ago by request, along with other editors. Tony (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC) PS "Based on the distribution of these cells, the structure of this tissue may be divided based on ...". I can't work out how to fix this repetition. And "on the basis of" might clearer if you were going to retain the second one, but you may decide not to. Tony (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I'd like to echo the users above in saying this is a massive work and an impressive list. I only had a couple of minutes to look it over, but it seems very complete and pretty expansive. My only complaints would be these.
- I went through and searched out a bunch of conditions I knew should be listed and cross-referenced with a pathology texts. The only one I didn't find was Familial Melanoma Syndrome, not sure if it is missing or under a different name.
- The classification system seems to utilize many different classification systems from Etiology, to Symptom, to Location. I'd try to stick to one theme overall, you'll probably have some need to throw in something that doesn't fit overall here and there, but the way things are now is rather confusing. For instance under Blistering Disorders, I find Epidermolysis Bullosa classified as a blistering disorder and not as an autoimmune disorder. Under Metabolic Disorders, I find poryphyrias but they also are blistering disorders. You need to decide which categories will have priorities over the other so a predictable system for locating a disorder can be used. It doesn't really matter it could be priority based etiology>symptoms etc. or it could be the first thing the disorder fits into alphabetically. I think this would go a long way in helping people to navigate the list successfully, especially as it's so comprehensive and large.
- I'd try and include some more pictures if you can find any. There aren't many organ systems which manifest with the vast array of visual symptoms, so a list like this could certainly capitalize on that aspect.
Keep up the great work! Let me know if you need anything. --Syntrik (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a See also link to ICD-10 L00-L99? Bobjgalindo (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Echo the above, but we don't start lists with "This is a list of..." any more. Please see recently promoted lists for examples of engaging starts. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update 1
- Resolved issues
-
- I integrated the "See also" section into the text and subsequently removed it
- File:Gas gangrene.jpg has been removed
- The first sentence now is worded to read "...and related muscle and glands."
- There is now a link to wiktionary:interdigitate
- There is now a link to ICD-10 Chapter XII
- The list no longer starts with "This is a list of..."
- Follow-up questions/comments
- @ user:Eubulides - Thank you very much for your feedback. With that being said, could you elaborate on a few of your comments so I can better understand/respond?
- 1. Could you discuss your first comment? What do you mean regarding having the entire body in a single section?
- 2. The list will always link to some disambiguation pages, since some disease names have been used to refer to different conditions and therefore require a disambiguation page (see: Keratosis follicularis for example). However, in all honestly, I am uncertain where to find the "disambig links" or "external links" buttons in the toolbox, and wanted to know if you could give me instructions on how to find these tools so I can better look into the issue.
- 3. I have tried to use mostly free, full-text articles available through PubMed for inline citations; however, occasionally I had to use articles in which only the abstract was available (i.e. the full text article is not free). In these latter cases, if someone wishes to see just the abstract, they can go through PubMed, else the citation URL is going to take the user to the journal's login page, where they can sign-up and pay for the full text if they want. The links are working, but users have to sign-up to see the article. Does that make sense?
- 4. How would you go about integrating the footnote into the main text?
- 5. I agree the "Further reading" section has a good number of articles, but I think they supplement the list nicely, and most are free full text. I added this section after seeing it suggested at WP:MEDMOS. As the article currently stands, the existing text already has good inline citations; therefore, I think I would either like to simply keep the section (my preference), or get rid of it, but not convert the articles over to inline citations. What do you think?
- @ user:Syntrik - Thank you as well for your feedback, and I also had a few follow-up questions/comments:
- 1. I personally do not have a source discussing "Familial melanoma syndrome," and was neither able to find an ICD-9 or 10 code for it, nor find it at OMIM or PubMed. I certainly am not saying it doesn't exist, but perhaps you could find out if "Familial melanoma syndrome" is know by any other synonyms, synonyms which I can then use to do some additional research, possibly allowing me to integrate that term into the list? Regardless, as far as the list's completeness, I believe that the overwhelming majority of skin diseases and disease synonyms are found within this list. Of course, from time to time I am sure an occasional disease and/or synonym may surface that will need to be added. However, I believe this list to be essentially complete.
- 2. With regard to the list's "classification system," the list's headers/organization reflect the current categorization scheme for dermatology-related articles, which is outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. However, you are exactly correct in your assessment that the organization utilizes many different classification systems. In response to that, I would encourage you to read the last paragraph of the lead which addresses the nosological challenges that are associated with classifying skin diseases. For even more information on this issue, there is a great free article, which is cited in the list, you can read at Historical outline of attempts to classify skin diseases. Does that help clarify how the list is organized?
Further comments:
- I haven't had too long to read over the list, and my area of "expertise" is more in referencing and citations, so my comments will be short and in that regard.
- WP:LS pretty clearly says that "[t]he lead should contain no more than four paragraphs..." I don't know if you want to take this into account, as a list may be an exception, but the MOS is pretty clear.
- The placement of the "See also" categories is, at least aesthetically, bothering me. I don't know if there is some guideline on the placement of them, but I think they should be moved under the header, so, for example, it would read: Acneiform eruptions > See also Category: ... > so on and so forth. This would follow what other articles do with See also within the text (however, a list may have different procedures).
- To echo what was said above, I'd remove the solitary footnote and place it in the text.
- I'm split on the issue of the Further reading. It is long, so cutting it down a bit to the bare essentials might be nice, but on the other hand, you've got a huge list altogether, and the further reading has links that look (to my medically uneducated eye) to cover most of the stuff above.
- Other than that, it all looks really great. You did a good job. Hope that helps. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, lists are still articles, so they should follow the MOS, including WP:LS. That said, the Lede should be of a size in comparison to the main body, and I don't see five as too much in this case. An WP:IAR situation for me. Matthewedwards : Chat 19:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The see alsos should be directly under the header, rather than under the section prose: WP:LAYOUT Matthewedwards : Chat 19:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The Toolbox that contains links to find dabs and registration-required external links is at the top of this FLC nomination, to the right.
- Is Arygria listed? I couldn't find it. Something about turning skin blue from drinking colloidal silver
- You admit that this list is probably, but may not be complete. How about sticking {{expand list}} or {{dynamic list}} into the page?
- I'm a bit concerned that only the lead section has citations. I understand how inconvenient and ridiculous it would be to cite each individual entry, and I did notice the footnote, so maybe it isn't really an issue after all. As I said, I'm only very slightly concerned so I'm just noting it here for any other reviewers to perhaps comment on. If it doesn't worry anyone else then it's OK for me, too.
- Because each item is bullet pointed with no description of each condition, are there any plans for sublists - List of Acneiform eruptions skin conditions, List of Dermatitis skin conditions etc that could describe symptoms and causes? As a single page online, it's very good. But for anyone accessing it offline (a printed version, for example), it may not help them because they cannot view the relevant pages. Even for those online, they may not wish to navigate away from this main page, but at least if there were subpages with more indepth information, one could perhaps go to the Dermatitis skin condition list and compare conditions far more easily than here.
- Again, just throwing it out there, but for me, this list is more akin to an Outline than a regular list (such as we have with Outline of health and Outline of medicine.
Looks very good otherwise. Matthewedwards : Chat 19:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, that's an incredible list you've compiled, kilbad! I'm not sure how the rest of Wikipedia does it, but to me, "skin-related conditions" is such a large topic that I think you should break this massive list down into smaller, more manageable sublists. That would make it much easier to add to/edit/verify the completeness and accuracy, compared to this monolithic list. It should be easily done, too, since all the information is here. Nevertheless, it is an incredibly thorough list that deserves praise and recognition! I just don't know about the usefulness of a massive list like this, compared to sublists. (Yes, I'm a splitter, not a lumper.)Danierrr (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update 2
- Resolved issues
-
- The "See also" statements are now found directly under the section headers
- I integrated the one, solitary footnote into the text, and subsequently removed the footnote section
- All links to disambiguation pages have been corrected
- I have added the {{dynamic list}} template
- Follow-up questions/comments
-
- I tend to think that, for the size and scope of this list, a five paragraph lead is ok; however, if there is a significant community drive to cut the lead down to four paragraphs, I am willing to pursue that.
- Again addressing the "Further reading" section, in addition to my initial comments above, I believe that for a list of this size, the number of articles listed in this section is not overkill. In fact, I believe the articles included there add a lot of substance to the list as most are free (if not all), and constitute some of the best review articles available.
-
- Argyria is present in the list under "Disturbances of pigmentation."
-
- Creating sublists in the future could definitely be an additional task pursued by the dermatology task force. However, with regard to this list, I am opposed to breaking it up into separate sublists, and this is for several reasons. First, this comprehensive list allows a rapid lookup of disease names and synonyms all in one place. Second, the list helps to guide the initial categorization of cutaneous conditions. Third, and one of the most important reasons, is that it allows for the use of the "related changes" link in the toolbox, enabling any user to immediately see all recent changes made to any of the cutaneous condition articles on wikipedia (a nice feature for new task force members who are not watching every derm page).
- Once again, and I sincerely mean this, thanks for your additional comments, and I look forward to continued feedback! If possible, for sake of readability, I respectfully ask that you please add comments/responses/feedback below, and not within my text. ---kilbad (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments...
-
- Re: Familial Melanoma Syndrome (FMS): I did some snooping around and managed to find a slight connection of FMS with Dysplastic Nevus Syndrome (DNS) via this link: [4] (ctrl-F and type in Familial Melanoma Syndrome if you can't be bothered to read the entire link hehe). Furthermore, there is a slight connection found here: [5] between DNS and familial atypical mole-malignant melanoma syndrome (FAMMM) which does have an article on Wikipedia- so what I am getting at is: a redirect will solve the problem here once an expert can judge the info provided and confirm that all of the above are more or less the same. Further info can be seen here: [6] and here is the Google results of FMS: [7]. Now re: article itself, I think it is absolutely brilliant. I am unsure what the standards are on FL but it should definitely be passed. I would have made a suggestion to make this list into a table format (since I always see lists in that form) but then there would be a need to include more than just the name itself (e.g. OMIM, ICD9/10, discovery, epidemiology data etc etc.) which I am not sure if it would be suitable on this massive list. I suppose a future goal for this list could be to have a picture for every single disease (this is where the table format would come in handy) but again, I am just throwing things out there just for the sake of it (the amount of work you would have to put in would be incredible!) and unless the table format is there, would make the list too messy if there were so many pics. Finally, kudos on having an AKA after the name of the item on the list. Cheers and keep up the great work!Calaka (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Could you discuss your first comment? What do you mean regarding having the entire body in a single section?" Currently section 1 is Conditions of or affecting the human integumentary system, which is basically the entire list; then section 2 is References. Wouldn't it be better to have section 1 be Acneiform eruptions, section 2 be Autoinflammatory, ..., and then section 34 be References? I'm not familiar with how lists are typically done in Wikipedia, but thought I'd ask.
- "I am uncertain where to find the "disambig links" or "external links" buttons in the toolbox" I meant the toolbox at the top of this page, i.e., at the top right of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of skin-related conditions/archive1.
- "if someone wishes to see just the abstract, they can go through PubMed, else the citation URL is going to take the user to the journal's login page, where they can sign-up and pay for the full text if they want." Common practice in medical articles is to supply a URL only if the entire article (not just the abstract) is freely readable. See WP:MEDRS #Formatting citations. This provides readers a useful visual cue to identify sources that are easier to access. The DOI and/or PMID suffices for non-free articles.
- "As the article currently stands, the existing text already has good inline citations; therefore, I think I would either like to simply keep the section (my preference), or get rid of it, but not convert the articles over to inline citations." Now I'm confused. Some of the sources in Further reading are duplicates of what's in References (e.g., Alsaad et al. 2005, PMID 16311340). Other sources are not, e.g., Bickers & Athar 2006 (PMID 17108903). Often, once a source is listed in References it is removed from Further reading. Should that be done here? Or is this a list of useful sources for skin conditions? If so, perhaps it should be moved into a subarticle.
Eubulides (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Levine2112
IMHO, the first four paragraphs in the lead - while well-written and informative - don't really have a place in this list article. For me, the lead doesn't get on-point until the fifth and final paragraph when it beings to discuss the basis for skin conditions. However, I feel all that is needed here in the lead is an engaging introduction to the subject and some sort of scope definition of the list contents. The main thing is not to confuse the reader. I felt a tad confused four paragraphs in, when I felt I had just read informative and well-sourced prose about skin in general, but learned nothing about skin-related conditions nor the contents of the list to follow. -- əʌləʍʇ əuo-ʎʇuəʍʇ ssnɔsıp 19:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update 3
- Resolved issues
-
- I removed the single, overarching "Conditions of or affecting the human integumentary system" header
- I removed the redundant "Further reading" articles that were already in the "References" section
- I removed all links/URL's to non-free articles, while leaving all DOI and/or PMID links in place
- I added Dysplastic nevus syndrome and associated synonyms to the list
- Follow-up questions/comments
-
- Thank you for getting back to me. Your additional comments helped to clarify your initial post. I hope the changes I have since made address your feedback.
-
- I did some research, and it seems that the entity which is "Dysplastic nevus syndrome" was described at the same time by several different people around the late 1970's (Clark and Lynch being the two most notable, independent authors); therefore, as a result, this condition was described by several different names, all of which refer to the same thing. After looking at the sources more closely, I believe all of the following terms are synonymous: "dysplastic nevus syndrome," "familial atypical multiple mole-melanoma syndrome", "familial melanoma syndrome," and "B-K mole syndrome." Therefore, I have created a Dysplastic nevus syndrome stub, and redirected all the other synonyms to that stub. I hope that helps clarify things a bit?
-
- Thank you for your comments. Currently, the lead section is based on a working outline that first gives a basic four paragraph introduction into the structure and function of the skin, followed by a fifth paragraph introducing cutaneous conditions. At the time of writing it, I felt that an initial basic discussion about the structure and function of this skin was important because a lot of dermatologic terminology can be confusing if the reader has no background in the topic. I feel that, for example, giving the brief introduction to the integumentary system allows a general reader to have a basic understanding of what "Epidermal nevi, neoplasms, or cysts" might be, or where within the skin a "Dermal or subcutaneous growth" is occurring. My preference would be to leave the basic structure and function introduction in place, but, certainly, if the community consensus is to remove it, I will do so.
- Comments by Fvasconcellos
First of all, I believe this list meets all of the FL criteria. I do have a couple of nitpicks, and I must admit I didn't read everyone else's comments, so I apologize in advance if any of this is redundant :)
- The lead is much too long. While it provides an impressive introduction to the anatomy and function of the skin and associated structures, I don't think this is necessary in this particular list. Readers should be led into the actual content of the list as briefly as possible while being given enough context to understand the content; the current lead pretty much goes beyond this need, and I feel it could be trimmed considerably without detriment to the reader.
- Would you object to moving the lead image up to coincide with the first paragraph?
- Are predominantly non-cutaneous infectious diseases with cutaneous manifestations really considered "skin-related"? This isn't entirely clear from the fifth paragraph of the lead (which mostly defines the scope of the list). I was somewhat surprised to see a photo of measles as the list's second image; I thought the idea of measles as a cutaneous disease (i.e. one of the classical exanthems of childhood) was outdated. I guess I didn't quite get it :)
That's it. This is a very impressive piece of work, and serves as a perfect introduction to the WP:DERM categorization scheme to boot. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments...
- Any more thoughts on this being moved to Outline of skin-related conditions? User:The Transhumanist, who has spent at least a year working on Wikipedia's outlines feels it should be, too. User talk:The Transhumanist#List of skin-related conditions. He also raises a good point that I hadn't thought of. Why is this not "skin conditions"? Matthewedwards : Chat 07:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. The lead is not a big issue, and it is a good, if detailed, introduction to skin conditions. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) An impressive list/outline. Here are my thoughts:
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update 4
- Resolved issues
-
- The list's use of dashes now conforms to WP:DASH
- The last sentence in paragraph four now reads "Functionally, the subcutaneous fat insulates the body, absorbs trauma, and serves as a reserve energy source."
- The list has been renamed to List of cutaneous conditions
- Follow-up questions/comments
-
- With regard to the lead length, I have read comments supporting the existing content/length, and comments stating the lead is a bit too long, and, with that being said, I am not sure what the consensus is. My preference would be to leave the lead as is, which is why I have yet to cut it down. Perhaps more people could comment on this issue so I can get a better idea of what the community consensus is regarding the lead's content/length?
- I also found a reference to familial melanoma syndrome after snooping around for a while. In Robin's Pathology, Edition 7 pg 1245 it's listed as an Autosomal Dominant mutation in the 9p21 chromosome of CDKN2 gene leading to deficiences in p16INK4A and p14ARF. It doesn't have much detail outside of this. Syntrik (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could add that information/citation to the new dysplastic nevus syndrome stub? ---kilbad (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments...
- Support - I support this article as a featured list in its current state. I like the lead how it is, and don't think it's too long. I am a pathologist at the Cleveland Clinic, and can definitely see how all these dermatology/skin terms/language could be very confusing to the general reader without some type of basic introduction. Great job kilbad! ---Bojilov (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - nice list about medical conditions —Chris! ct 19:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A phenomenal effort and a great contribution to Wikipedia. (p.s. I like the lead as is.) Sasata (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Regardless of my feelings about the lead (discussed above), this list deserves to be featured as what all Wikipedia lists should strive to be. -- əʌləʍʇ əuo-ʎʇuəʍʇ ssnɔsıp 07:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Avoid squashing text between images as you have in the lead per WP:MOS#Images.
- Also, use the regular
thumb
andupright
tags instead of forcing image sizes. - Have you checked you're meeting WP:ITALICS for foreign terms?
- Otherwise it appears incredibly comprehensive. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the heads-up on images. I redid the images to try to address those issues; see Talk:List of cutaneous conditions #Image style. Eubulides (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update 5
- Resolved issues
-
- The lead now only has one photo, which alleviates prior squashing of the text
- Images now use the "thumb" attribute instead of forcing image sizes
- All images now use "alt" attributes
- Follow-up questions/comments
-
- I have made some additional edits, and believe the list conforms to the WP:ITALICS guidelines for foreign terms. However, if someone wants to review the list to confirm this, feedback would be much appreciated.
- Further comments...
- I wonder if Lupus erythematosus is too broad to be listed under the Conditions of the skin appendages. Besides, there is a fine list under Connective tissue diseases. How about the malar rash? Is it implied under SLE? I wonder if it ought to be listed on its own. Bobjgalindo (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally feel that lupus erythematosus is appropriately included in the list, particularly given all its cutaneous manifestations. It should also be noted that lupus erythematosus is not synonymous with systemic lupus erythematosus, but instead, systemic lupus erythematosus is a subtype of lupus erythematosus. Also, the term "malar rash" is simply a descriptive term used to denote a skin eruption of the cheek (hence the adjective "malar"), and is not a specific condition/diagnosis. Hope that helps? ---kilbad (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [8].
List of pre-Stonewall LGBT actions in the United States
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that although it's a new list, it meets all of the FL requirements and addresses an aspect of American history that is under-represented both in Wikipedia in general and in the Featured material specifically. Note that the list is going to be featured on the main page as a Did you know... item on June 28. Appearing on the front page is a vandal magnet, so while tomorrow's edits may look like edit warring, it will likely be vandal-fighting instead. Otto4711 (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Interesting stuff. I'm glad you've returned to FLC.
Oppose until alternative text for images is added (I could be convinced it's not necessary but you might make the caption a bit more descriptive then) (discussion). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.tangentgroup.org/history/articles/motorcade.html reliable?Dabomb87 (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a reprint of a magazine article that was published by a homophile group. The magazine, Tangents, is described in various reliable sources as having high standards of editorial quality and control. I can back it up with another citation if you think it's needed. Otto4711 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Goodraise 01:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Goodraise 01:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*"To protest US military treatment of gay people" - Sounds wrong to me. How about "To protest the US military's treatment of gay people"?
A very nice list. I'm looking forward to supporting this nomination. Goodraise 00:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [9].
List of Donkey Kong games
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the requirements laid out at WP:WIAFL. The list is extensively based off of two previous FLs in format, List of Kirby media (which I guided through its FLC) and List of Harvest Moon titles. For a complete history of my work on this list, please see the history page at User:Nomader/Donkey Kong. Cheers and good reviewing. -- Nomader (Talk) 05:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest changing the style of the whole list instead of tables it would do more sense having subsections for each title as it seems that the notes take a big part of the information included in the tables.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't be totally opposed to the idea. If I were going to place it in that format, I'd probably do something along the lines of what's seen at video games notable for negative reception. I'd like to know that the format seen in that article is preferable before I go ahead and change the list to match it, though. -- Nomader (Talk) 02:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then again, however, I'm wary about changing from a format that's been widely accepted for other video game FLs (see List of Kirby media, List of Harvest Moon titles, List of Castlevania media, and etc.). Either way, I'd like further input from reviewers about whether the format needs to be changed. -- Nomader (Talk) 04:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think subsections would be more awkward—admittedly I've spent a lot of time working on {{VGtitle}}. Though some of the games have a good number of notes, not all do. The ones with only two short sentences wouldn't have enough to really fill a section. Such games are kind of common on lists like this. Also, I think that many subsections would bloat the table of contents. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- I'd suggest changing the style of the whole list instead of tables it would do more sense having subsections for each title as it seems that the notes take a big part of the information included in the tables.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Comments from Guyinblack25
- Maybe split the lead into two paragraphs to break up the large chunk of prose. I think it would improve readability.
- I would remove the "Games" heading and make the subsections level 2 headings. It seems kind of redundant to me.
- For the early titles, why are the Famicom and NES listed separately? Since they are the same system, shouldn't the first instance be used?
- Any specific release info on the Game & Watch DK games?
- Maybe wikilink "packaged" to Product bundling when talking about the conga.
Other than those minor issues, everything looks good to me. The sources look fine and the content looks to be well organized. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- I added in all of your suggestions except for the Game & Watch games. I'm not too happy with "Early 1980s" either, but I just can't find the games in any sort of reliable source except for later reviews. The only list of dates that I can find is here, and I can't use a Wikipedia page for my source -- I looked through all the links at that page, but none of them seem to have the release dates. For now, unless I stumble on a reliable list with release data, I just can't enter them with any degree of confidence. -- Nomader (Talk) 16:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably fine if that's the best we can find. I think I may have a magazine that did a feature on the whole Game & Watch line though. I'll try to find it when I get home later. I'll check one of my books too. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- The only issues I see left are the release dates for Donkey Kong Jungle Fever and the use of both Famicom and Nintendo Entertainment System. I'd stick with NES since the list is intended for English speaking regions. Once those are done, I'll gladly support. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- I've changed all instances of "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System". With regard to Jungle Fever, it's an obscure Japanese-only arcade game that I almost didn't even notice existed. The only release date I've been able to find has been at GameFAQs -- it's not listed at GameSpot, IGN lists no release date, and the 1UP page on it doesn't hold any release information. For now, 2005 is what I have to go on. -- Nomader (Talk) 22:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: My concerns have been addressed. I believe the list meets the FL criteria. Nice job Nomader. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just wanted to say, thanks for everyone who gave comments and supported and such. I figure I should say that somewhere... so I did. -- Nomader (Talk) 03:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [10].
List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (coaches)
- Nominator(s): Dabomb87 (talk), Chrishomingtang (talk)
Co-nom with Chrishomingtang (talk · contribs). We hope that this will be the first successful nom of a future featured topic on the Basketball Hall of Fame. Thanks in advance for your comments. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- I cleaned it up a bit, fixing the starting position of the chart and de-sorting the reference column, but now it has my full support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very well-referenced list. Excellent work. --Carioca (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Excellent list, the only thing I have to say is why not actually mention who the first 3 coaches to be inducted were? In addition, do the 2009 inductees not have achievements?--Truco 503 22:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They have achievements, obviously. But since we use achievements that are listed on the hall's official entry online and the formal induction doesn't come until September (and they don't update the site very often), the entries are emptied. As for the first 3 coaches, I will add that shortly.—Chris! ct 23:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24
|
---|
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]
|
- Support Though I would suggest you list achievements for the 2009 coaches, even if they don't have a BHOF website yet. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Easily meets and exceeds FL standards. I did a review on the article's talk page before it came to FLC, and a second look turned up nothing of concern. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose but probably a lot of Brit-nonsense that can be ignored...
|
- Support thanks for addressing my concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) |
---|
Comments by Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
Other images checked out fine, I transferred 2 to Commons and PD reviewed others where appropriate. Couldn't find much wrong with the list. I would have commented on MOSNUM as the current way wouldn't have been my interpretation, but I can see you've been running in circles with it, so I'll leave it be. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your comments. I'll reply with corresponding bullets to make it easier to follow the discussions:
|
Support, all issues resolved. Well done, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to everybody who has commented and/or supported. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [11].
List of Space Invaders video games
- Nominator(s): Guyinblack25 talk 16:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved this list from a draft in my user space to article space, but had been working on it on and off for about a year. I tried to make this list as comprehensive as I could, but omitted clones which tried to capitalize on the original's frame; mainly because most are non-notable.
There is one source which could be construed as dubious: Handheld Museum. I used a page that has photos of the subject in question that displayed the copyright year in the image. The specific link is here. Other reliable sources have described the Handheld Museum as a reliable resource.
- CNET Asia- an article that was originally on Tech Republic.
- Kotaku- an article from one of their associate editors.
- Retro Gamer- issue 42 p. 107. (Sorry no online version)
- Author David Ellis- listed them as an additional resource in his book Official Price Guide to Classic Video Games. (Sorry no online version)
Any comments are welcome and would be appreciated. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Spaced en dashes should be used as spaced separators instead of em dashes (see List of Kirby media). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Switched. Thanks for the catch. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: Per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Date_autoformatting, it's no longer desirable to wikilink dates (including release dates).-- Nomader (Talk) 05:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and can we have them converted to a more readable format? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Comments from -- Nomader (Talk)
- Lead
- It also inspired several other games. – The sentence seems a bit isolated. Could you either list some examples in the sentence (i.e. It also inspired several other games, including F-Zero X and the Metroid series)?
- List and References
- For citation #24, you listed the author as the IGN Staff (and linked to this page at IGN) when in fact it's a Nintendo press release (the same page can be seen here on Nintendo's site). The author needs to be changed accordingly.
- WonderSwan and Playstation 2 were never wikilinked in the list -- the first appearance of a console should be linked in the system release section.
That's about it for my kind of brief look through. I'm not too experienced with these things, so I probably didn't catch a lot of stuff -- but from what I saw, the list looks stellar, good job Guyinblack. If you can make those few changes, I'll support. -- Nomader (Talk) 04:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I addressed your comments about the list and refs. For the lead, I used a semicolon to connect that sentence with the proceeding one. Hopefully, that'll explain it better. I tried downplaying the clones for two reasons: I felt the focus should be on the real games and digging up sources for the many different SI-inspired shooters is kind of tough. That's why I put Galaxian in the "See also" section; it's the most notable game based on SI. Let me know if it still needs tweaking. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Check the toolbox to your right; there is a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found another page on Taito's website to source. Let me know if there's anything else. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
FYI: I removed the Handheld Museum reference and replaced it with a book reference. I also did a little condensing of content related to the LCD games. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Oppose until alternative text for images is added (discussion). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, tries as I have I can't really come up with anything except maybe suggest that all game titles are linked even if no article exists right now, WP:RED would indicate that this may be a good idea, but that's just a suggestion on my part. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [12].
List of 2006 Winter Olympics medal winners
Another exciting Olympics list, fashioned in the mold of the List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners. Enjoy! -- Scorpion0422 16:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
-
- General
- Dabs, external links check out fine.
- Lead
- In total there were six more events than in the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, United States. -- +Comma after In total
- Fixed.
- Eight new events were held: Snowboard cross,[4] team pursuit (speed skating),[4] team sprint (cross country skiing)[2] and the mass-start race (Biathlon). -- Now looking at the article, Snowboard cross has so many spellings, is it Snowboard Cross, Snowboard cross, or snowboard cross?
- I'm going with "snowboard cross", which is what the IOC uses.
- The classical men's 30 km and women's 20 km distances, which were held at the previous Winter Games in 2002, were not held in these Games, as these events were alternated with freestyle events of the same distances. -- Me being unaware of how the Olympics work, these distances were part of skiing right? In addition, are these the official titles of the races? If not, then I recommend adding a conversion template for the km.
- They are the official titles. I added that it is cross country skiing.
- Athletes from 26 National Olympic Committees won at least one medal, while 18 nations won at least one gold medal. -- Unlink NOC, per WP:OVERLINK
- Done.
- American Apolo Anton Ohno and Chinese athletes Yang Yang (A) and Li Jiajun have all won five medals total -- so this extends their records right?
- Changes in medal winners
- Russian biathlete Olga Pyleva won a silver medal in the 15 km race, but tested positive for carphedon and lost her medal. Germany's Martina Glagow was given the silver medal and fellow Russian Albina Akhatova won the bronze. -- The thing about the conversion template applies here, unless I'm wrong, disregard
- References
- Inconsistency with the linking: I would link the general IOC and then not the specific ones, unless you are planning on linking all publishers on all instances. If its the latter, than link the other IOC publisher.
- Fixed.
- The sports-reference.com ref should have Sports-reference as the work and Sports Illustrated LLC as the publisher, or just the latter by itself.
- Done.
- Per {{cite web}} and MOS:NUM the dates in the refs should be consistently formatted as they are in the main body of the article.--Truco 503 01:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it doesn't matter if the ref dates are different from the body of the article; the only thing is that the refs have to be internally consistent, and the body has to be internally consistent. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Format consistency. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with comments: I've made some edits to the article, mostly copy-editing the lead and adding more relevant information, so basically this is top notch for me. The only issue that needs to be resolved by the nominator is the same mentioned by User:Truco in the 3rd bullet of his "Lead" review. Whoever reads that sentence, cannot identify which sport is associated with those distances, and the reference does not ellucidate as well. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Heads up I'll be going away for a week starting tomorrow. I hope to be able to find a user who can address minor concerns and keep this open until I get back. -- Scorpion0422 15:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - On List of Olympic medalists in badminton, I removed the rankings as the IOC ranks the medals by country by golds, not total medals. The ranking will also be confusing and false, since the readers don't know how the ranks are ranked, and two people who have the same exact medals should be tied. I'm going to suggest this to WP:OLYMPICS unless you think the rankings are really needed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is anyone going to reply? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I actually didn't give it much notice, until you mention it now. I think that if the athlete medal table is sortable, allowing the reader to rank them by either gold, silver, bronze, or total medals, then there's no need whatsoever to have a specific column displaying a rank based solely on one of the previous items. I'm not against removing the ranking column from the athlete medal table (as you did with badminton), if other reviewers are not as well. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go ahead and notify WP:OLYMPICS. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments –
- "Two disciplines were open only to men, nordic combined and ski jumping." Change the comma to a colon.
- Done.
- "In cross-country skiing, some of the events involved different distances from those in the 2002 Games or alternating between classic and freestyle techniques." The "alternating" bit is confusing me. Should it be "alternated", and what does it have to do with the rest of the sentence?
- Wow, with all the editing I completely forgot to remove that extraneous sentence, which, as you said, doesn't have anything to do with the rest, anymore. Thanks for pointing it out.
- Dmitry Dorofeyev link goes to a disambiguation page.
- Linked to skater page.
- Reference 17's publisher should be Sports Reference LLC, not Sports Illustrated LLC. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until alternative text for images is added. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with that policy. These images are certainly not essential to the page, and all it does is add extra length to some already very long captions, which already give a strong indication of who the image depicts. -- Scorpion0422 01:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. I was a bit hasty in posting these opposes. The first picture, in fact, is an excellent description of the image. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think, though, that the other images would benefit from alt text, although I won't oppose over it. See (discussion). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. I was a bit hasty in posting these opposes. The first picture, in fact, is an excellent description of the image. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [13].
List of pre-1920 jazz standards
This is the first part in a series of five articles that were split from List of jazz standards for article size concerns. It has been completely rewritten since, and I'm nominating it for FL because I think it now meets the FL criteria. A peer review was made when this article was still a part of List of jazz standards (before 1930), which has now been split in two. The archived peer review can be seen here. Much of the lead and a part of the list items have remained the same since the split. Jafeluv (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment - Is JazzStandards.com a reliable source?—Chris! ct 01:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Oppose until alternative text for images is added (discussion). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick question based on personal preference - chould the page title be List of pre-1920 jazz standards? I hate parentheses in titles if they can be avoided. Matthewedwards : Chat 05:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [14].
19th Golden Melody Awards
I am nominating this for featured list because it is the most complete and thorough article for any Golden Melody Award-related articles. It is the most recent award ceremony excluding this year's awards which has not occurred. The awards is dubbed the "Chinese-language Grammys" (actual citation in the GMA article). There hasn't been any changes to the article since I updated it in December and nominated it for a DYK. Arsonal (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll do a full review later, but please note that we do not link dates in articles anymore (see WP:MOSNUM); I already fixed this in this article, but keep that in mind for future reference. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comment Check the toolbox to your right; there are a few dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources are mostly good, with the exception of the dead link. I don't mind, though I'm not sure what other reviewers will say. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The dead links need to be resolved.
- Partially done Arsonal (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the GMA2008.asia website from the list of external links.
- I have removed Ref 10 because I don't think I can get that data back, and none of the pages from this GMA2008.asia page is archived. At this point, that detail seems too minor anyway.
- Ref 11 (now Ref 10) now has a Google archive. The content is readable.
- I have added a new reference for the performers section, but I don't know if I can get one for the award presenters section because that list also comes from the unarchived GMA2008.asia website (Ref 5). I have been unable to find a replacement. I am reluctant to remove it completely because that is a lot of content. This list can be cross-checked with the mirror article on the Chinese Wikipedia, which was added prior to the addition of the performers section here on the English Wikipedia.
*Ref 9, add Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
format=PDF
to the citation template.
Image comments
- File:Jay Chou in Seoul.jpg needs a source and author.
- [
[:File:ChurchoftheLight-jAdore.jpg]] – is this vital to an article about an awards ceremony? I could see it being in an article about the music video, but not here. Strongly suggest removal.Dabomb87 (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Add alternative text to the images]] (discussion). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [18].
Mercury Prize
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following my literary success, the music one is next, hence my attempt here. List is 50% fatter than when I found it, is now appropriately cited, formatted nicely (in my opinion), illustrated with both free and fair use images, and is not a content fork. I'd be thrilled to bits to receive as much comment, suggestion, support or otherwise as possible. And, by now, you know that I'll be working 24/7/365 to fix up anything standing in the way of the list's promotion. Thank you, as ever, for your precious time in reviewing and commenting. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Oppose until alternative text for images is added (discussion). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, will meet WP:WIAFL once alt text is added. Goodraise 03:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [20].
List of Toronto Blue Jays seasons
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it satisfies the criteria. This is my first nomination via this process. I did not create this article — it was created some time ago — however, I did make significant enhancements to it following a review of existing featured lists that are similar. I have also sought feedback at the relevant project talk page and via a peer review, and have made further changes based on the comments provided. Mlaffs (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - When viewing the article in a 1024x768 resolution, the images in the "Regular season results" section creates a big ugly white-space before the table starts (see here). The only way to fix it is by removing the images or somehow make the table smaller. TheLeftorium 12:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The pitfalls of working on a 1920x1200 setup, I guess — good point. I'm trying to recreate the problem by changing my resolution, but it's not creating the same problem as is obvious from your screenshot, so it's tough to solve it short of just stripping out the images. Question — how legible is the current font size in the table itself on that resolution? The table is set at 95% font right now. I've tried reducing it to 90% and it shrinks the width of the table by about 3/4 of on an inch on my screen, which I suspect may solve the problem. I'm just worried about it making the size too small to read. Mlaffs (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd have to reduce the text to around 75% for the problem to be solved on a 1024x768 resolution. I don't know if that is too small, but removing the images is a better option in my opinion. TheLeftorium 16:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But they make the article look so pretty! No seriously, I was already a little worried about 90% on my large monitor, which is why I was asking the question in the first place — I don't think 75% would be a good idea. So, unfortunately, I'm off to nuke the images. Thanks for the feedback. Mlaffs (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we sure that it's the resolution causing this issue? I don't see any difference between List of Philadelphia Phillies seasons and this article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only difference is the how the notes are formatted in the tables. List of Philadelphia Phillies seasons uses "[a]", while this list uses "[nb 1]" and thus makes the table longer. TheLeftorium 12:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. I think that the pictures add a lot too, so I'd like to see them included. Might you consider either a) re-formatting the footnotes into the other system or b) putting an arbitrary linebreak so that the notes sit under their entries in the header rows? Also, while I'm here, all win-loss record should use en-dashes, and I would prefer that the "21.5" and "21.0" decimals be re-formatted as "21½" and "21", respectively. Looks cleaner. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way is fine with me. :) TheLeftorium 16:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd absolutely consider that — I'll have a look at the Phillies article and see how the coding on it is different from I've done here. Mlaffs (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made all the changes. TheLeftorium, I'd love it if you could let me know whether they've fixed the layout problem with the images. Mlaffs (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. I think that the pictures add a lot too, so I'd like to see them included. Might you consider either a) re-formatting the footnotes into the other system or b) putting an arbitrary linebreak so that the notes sit under their entries in the header rows? Also, while I'm here, all win-loss record should use en-dashes, and I would prefer that the "21.5" and "21.0" decimals be re-formatted as "21½" and "21", respectively. Looks cleaner. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only difference is the how the notes are formatted in the tables. List of Philadelphia Phillies seasons uses "[a]", while this list uses "[nb 1]" and thus makes the table longer. TheLeftorium 12:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we sure that it's the resolution causing this issue? I don't see any difference between List of Philadelphia Phillies seasons and this article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But they make the article look so pretty! No seriously, I was already a little worried about 90% on my large monitor, which is why I was asking the question in the first place — I don't think 75% would be a good idea. So, unfortunately, I'm off to nuke the images. Thanks for the feedback. Mlaffs (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd have to reduce the text to around 75% for the problem to be solved on a 1024x768 resolution. I don't know if that is too small, but removing the images is a better option in my opinion. TheLeftorium 16:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The pitfalls of working on a 1920x1200 setup, I guess — good point. I'm trying to recreate the problem by changing my resolution, but it's not creating the same problem as is obvious from your screenshot, so it's tough to solve it short of just stripping out the images. Question — how legible is the current font size in the table itself on that resolution? The table is set at 95% font right now. I've tried reducing it to 90% and it shrinks the width of the table by about 3/4 of on an inch on my screen, which I suspect may solve the problem. I'm just worried about it making the size too small to read. Mlaffs (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Little known fact: I used to be a big Blue Jays fan, I was at game 2 of the 1993 World Series and the opening game of the 1994 season. If only I'd had the foresight to take pictures... But, I digress. A few comments, would it be possible to add in a table for their post-season record? That is a bit of a gaping hole at the moment. I think you should either add more images so that there are images alongside the entire table, or remove them all together. I'm leaning towards the latter, because they do crowd up the table and I'm not sure if they add a whole lot to the article. Rather than having the notes towards the bottom, perhaps you should instead add a key above the table, that would be of more use as it would be easier to find. -- Scorpion0422 20:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm at about 15-20 home games a year myself, and was lucky enough to have a chance as a student to intern for NBC during the '89 ALCS, including time in both locker rooms after the game. Those would have been some pictures. Anyway... There is a column for the post-season showing their record each season, as well as a row at the bottom totalling their post-season record — did you have something else in mind? I'd love more images myself, but they just don't exist either here or on Commons that I could find, otherwise I would have included them. I'm reluctant to go without entirely — see discussion above — so I'd like to wait and see if there's any more feedback on this point, if you don't mind. Similarly, I'm kind of torn about the key above the table; among the other featured lists like this one, the Mets and Yankees articles use the key, while the DBacks, Phillies, and Rays articles are set up like this one. The Cardinals article doesn't provide any explanation of the abbreviations, and it's moot for the Red Sox article, as it doesn't include award winners in this manner. Again, if you don't mind, I'd like to chew on this a bit. Mlaffs (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- <rant directed at no one in particular> One of my pet peeves is the inconsistency of team articles of the same sports topic (e.g. seasons, Opening Day starting pitchers, managers, etc.). One of these days, WP:BASEBALL needs to come together and decide on a format. That would make reviewing these a hell of a lot easier</rant> ; Dabomb87 (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't agree more. I'm not a project member — more of an interloper, really — but a consistent approach would be great. Us gnomes can really make magic happen when we have an approved model to worth with. That being said, reminder below that there was an open issue served to remind me that there was an open issue up here as well. Scorpion0422, in case you're still watching the discussion, I think I'd prefer to stick with the notes rather than moving to the key. As with the totals issue, personal preference mostly, but there's also no real consistency among the existing featured lists in this series, nor has there really been any consensus among the comments here. Mlaffs (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the NBA coach lists have been remarkably consistent with each other. Making these lists consistent has been on my to-do list for ages. Scorpion's on vacation, by the way. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't agree more. I'm not a project member — more of an interloper, really — but a consistent approach would be great. Us gnomes can really make magic happen when we have an approved model to worth with. That being said, reminder below that there was an open issue served to remind me that there was an open issue up here as well. Scorpion0422, in case you're still watching the discussion, I think I'd prefer to stick with the notes rather than moving to the key. As with the totals issue, personal preference mostly, but there's also no real consistency among the existing featured lists in this series, nor has there really been any consensus among the comments here. Mlaffs (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- <rant directed at no one in particular> One of my pet peeves is the inconsistency of team articles of the same sports topic (e.g. seasons, Opening Day starting pitchers, managers, etc.). One of these days, WP:BASEBALL needs to come together and decide on a format. That would make reviewing these a hell of a lot easier</rant> ; Dabomb87 (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Lead
- 'Toronto made their MLB debut in the 1977 baseball season, as an expansion team.' -- Better formatted as -> Toronto made their MLB debut during the 1977 baseball season, as an expansion team. Also, do not pipelink the word "the" in the link.
- 'After a stretch of unsuccessful years following their debut, the team's fortunes began to turn, resulting in them capturing the American League East Division in 1985.' -- A bit wordy, can't it just say that they won their division? Something like After a stretch of unsuccessful years following their debut, the team rebounded by topping the American League East Division in 1985.
- 'They lost the American League Championship Series (ALCS) to the Kansas City Royals, in a series that went the full seven games.' -- When was this?
- I think that I'd want to address all three of these points by rewriting the text as follows: Toronto made their MLB debut during the 1977 baseball season, as an expansion team, and were unsuccessful for several years. They first made the playoffs in 1985, by capturing the American League East Division, but lost the American League Championship Series (ALCS) in seven games to the Kansas City Royals. Mlaffs (talk)
- 'However, in 1992, they became the first Canadian-based team to win the World Series, with a pair of six-game victories over Oakland in the ALCS and the Atlanta Braves in the finals.' -- Since this is a new paragraph, its not the best way to start with "However". How about In 1992, however, they .... Also, why do you call it the "finals" here and in the sentence that follows you call it the "World Series"? Be consistent.
- The lead should state something about their recent years.
- Table
- It would be best IMO if the acronyms and other things that stand for something be explained above the table and not in the notes, thats what a key would be for.
- 'These statistics are current as of the end of the 2008 Major League Baseball season.' -- Can this be at least like accompanied with an asterisk or seomthing that says "Note:"?
- Images
- I'm not too big of a fan of how the captions are formatted, but how would "Name (pos., year-year)" fit?
- References
- For the mlb.com refs, replace this field with "Major League Baseball" in the publisher field (w/o the quotes)
- For the baseball-reference refs, add "Sports Reference LLC" to the publisher field
- For the sportsillustrated.cnn.com ref, remove this and just leave "Sports Illustrated" in the publisher field.--Truco 503 02:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes vs. key I've created a duplicate version of the article in my userspace for comparison purposes, using a key at the top of the table for the column headings and the abbreviations, rather than having them in notes. Please see here. Mlaffs (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reviewed both formats, and I think that a key of that size is much too large in comparison to a table of this length. Just my humble opinion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a thought: have you considered using {{tooltip}}? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if WP:ACCESS would be very happy with that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not... Dabomb87 (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, here it is in WP:ACCESS: "Don't use techniques that require physical action to provide information, such as tooltips or any other "hover" text." Dabomb87 (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I hadn't considered it, as I didn't even know it existed. Wicked cool, though. Thinking outside the box, all of these "List of TEAM seasons" articles probably use essentially the same column headings and abbreviations. Would it be too weird and wacky an idea to have the key be a separate page — say Key of column headings and abbreviations for Major League Baseball List of seasons articles — to which all of the articles could point from a note right at the top of the table along the lines of See here for an explanation of the data and abbreviations used in this article. Too outside the box, right? Never fly? Mlaffs (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if WP:ACCESS would be very happy with that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a thought: have you considered using {{tooltip}}? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
*Oppose – Found quite a few issues with the list during a close examination:
|
- Another idea I came up is to seperate the all-time records into their own table, as is done in the Yankees and Mets seasons lists that I worked on. It's not crucial enough for me to withhold support over, but I do feel it would improve the appearance of the bottom of the table.
- I'll have a look at that. Mlaffs (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been left untouched. If you don't want to do this, feel free to say so; as I said, it's not a deal-breaker. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry — can't even blame it on the holiday weekend, as we had ours on the 1st. I just forgot to come back here. I think both approaches for the totals are good, although I think I prefer the way it is. More pragmatically, though, if I look at the other articles in this series that are already featured lists, it's consistent with more of them in the current form. Dabomb87 in their !rant above has a good point, though — would be worth knocking some heads together to come up with a consistent standard. Mlaffs (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's something that can be added to potentially improve the structure of these managers lists, like Giant's suggestion, by all means add/edit and make the other articles conform; if you need help coordinating the efforts to bring about consistency, ping me. Congrats on your RfA, by the way. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry — can't even blame it on the holiday weekend, as we had ours on the 1st. I just forgot to come back here. I think both approaches for the totals are good, although I think I prefer the way it is. More pragmatically, though, if I look at the other articles in this series that are already featured lists, it's consistent with more of them in the current form. Dabomb87 in their !rant above has a good point, though — would be worth knocking some heads together to come up with a consistent standard. Mlaffs (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been left untouched. If you don't want to do this, feel free to say so; as I said, it's not a deal-breaker. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember being told during the Yankees season list's FLC not to restrict the font size of the table identifying the colors.Giants2008 (17-14) 22:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, although not by me. Thanks, Dabomb87, and for that fraction template too — I've never seen that before. Mlaffs (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going on a short vacation starting tomorrow and will be unable to return until at least Monday. With the one comment unresolved unstruck, this gets a weak support from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to explain further before I go, I can't consider the unstruck comment fully resolved when Dabomb indicates that he would support the change; now I'm not the only reviewer who feels that way, although he's supporting. Most of the recent sports seasons FLs have seperate sections for all-time records, and I've found this method to be useful in my own work on FLs. As I said, however, it's not a deal-breaker for me, though I am tempering my support. It would be great a set format for the baseball season FLs, by the way. Something for me to think about when I come back. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Nice job.
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until alternative text for images is added (discussion). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless I have the coding wrong, I've already included alt text for all three images. I'll go back and read the instructions again in case I've done something wrong. Mlaffs (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 04:57, 8 July 2009 [21].
List of United States Military Academy alumni (academics)
I am nominating this for featured list because it's next in my series of USMA alumni lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is ref 37 a magazine, newspaper or journal? If so, it should be italicized.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 04:57, 8 July 2009 [22].
List of Turner Prize winners and nominees
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Renominating. Despite having considerable support last time round, User:Tyrenius raised a number of concerns which caused me to withdraw the nomination and work the list up a bit. Hopefully I've addressed most, if not all of his concerns, and in doing so have created an even better list than the one I first nominated. Comments, concerns, questions will, as ever, be handled as quickly as possible. Thanks in advance for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a few changes rather than quibble about minor things here; feel free to revert if I've accidentally reintroduced misphrasings that were picked up last time round. Looks good to me, so unless someone comes up with something I've not spotted, I'll support. BencherliteTalk 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. As far as I can tell, you've done nothing more than polish the existing markup (and inevitably claim that dark blue is the colour...) As ever, charmed, enchanted and grateful. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I made a couple minor tweaks [23], and the bulk of my concerns were addressed last time around. Nice job. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport -- Looks good, I did a few minor tweaks but other than that the list meets WP:WIAFL.However, one thing: in this sentence 'Winners' reactions to the award range from Hirst's "A media circus to raise money for the Tate and Channel 4" to Deller's "It blew me away, people's hunger to see what I'd done".' -- It could use a link and full spelling of these winners.--Truco 503 00:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- All "first time links" are linked, including Tate Britain which wasn't linked anywhere in the prose (I think....!) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as I did before...Modernist (talk) 01:15, 26 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 Matthewedwards 04:57, 8 July 2009 [24].
List of CMLL World Light Heavyweight Champions
I am submitting this for Featured List consideration as I feel like it's got the quality for it, I've worked in comments from previous FLCs. I know that right now the state of the CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship article doesn't initially warrant that the list is split off, but I am planning on expanding it pretty soo. As always I'm open to anything, major or minor. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Weak Oppose/Review by Truco (talk · contribs)
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments –
|
Support – I believe it meets the standards after the resolution of the capped comments. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 04:57, 8 July 2009 [25].
Dream Theater discography
- Nominator(s): Cannibaloki (talk), Burningclean (talk), and Blackngold29 (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because the request of add sources for all the directors (music videos section), and reword the lead section were done. Cannibaloki 22:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
* Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Kiac (talk) |
---|
Comments - Howdy.
|
Support, all resolved. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) |
---|
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support. The reason I don't really reviewing discogs is because there is little variety and lots of refs to check. But check out they do and I have no further problems here, so I'm happy to lend my support. Well done, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I also know little about reviewing a discography's but below are a couple suggestions.
- I ran the article through AWB and nothing turned up there.
- The lead and table structure looks good.
- I think a little verbage would be useful for each of the sections of the different types of albums. I personally don't know the difference between a studio album and a compilation album is an I hope I am not alone.--Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It still has many issues though. The lead section for example, is much too short.--Matthew Riva (talk) 11:27, 8 July 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 14:29, 5 July 2009 [28].
List of Gold Glove Award winners at shortstop
So I've grown tired of "I am nominating this for featured list because...". Same stuff, different day. I hope we all enjoy reading about the defensive exploits of one of the most defensive positions in all of baseball. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note: this is your fourth running FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I know. I didn't know if there was an issue with that. I try to keep on top of them so there are no outstanding issues for an extended period of time. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I couldn't find any problems either. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- I also ran this article through AWB and found a couple of minor things that I fixed. Mostly related to references.--Kumioko (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What AWB did was break references that were intentionally placed where it considered to be "misplaced". Please don't run AWB on the other articles; they are in a different order intentionally. If you need to know why, I can tell you. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if it did not function as intended but its too late I already ran it through all the articles that appeared to need a change. With that said, there is no way for AWB to know if the references where placed due to personal preference and it is likely that someone else will happen by and make the same change eventually so its good to find that out now. Aside from the personal prefence placement of the references the MOS also states that there should not be a space between punctuation and references so thats why I removed the speces before the references. --Kumioko (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the spaces that you removed were not with punctuation. I'm well aware of the MOS and its reference requirements; the spaces that were removed were all in tables. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um yes your right it was in the table but only in the references column of the table. I am going to drop a line on the AWB site to have them modify the logic so it does not remove the space after a pipe and well see what they say about it. I still think that space should be removed in accordance with the the MOS. --Kumioko (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it makes no difference in the way it displays, WP:MOS#Internal consistency should apply here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um yes your right it was in the table but only in the references column of the table. I am going to drop a line on the AWB site to have them modify the logic so it does not remove the space after a pipe and well see what they say about it. I still think that space should be removed in accordance with the the MOS. --Kumioko (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the spaces that you removed were not with punctuation. I'm well aware of the MOS and its reference requirements; the spaces that were removed were all in tables. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if it did not function as intended but its too late I already ran it through all the articles that appeared to need a change. With that said, there is no way for AWB to know if the references where placed due to personal preference and it is likely that someone else will happen by and make the same change eventually so its good to find that out now. Aside from the personal prefence placement of the references the MOS also states that there should not be a space between punctuation and references so thats why I removed the speces before the references. --Kumioko (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What AWB did was break references that were intentionally placed where it considered to be "misplaced". Please don't run AWB on the other articles; they are in a different order intentionally. If you need to know why, I can tell you. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:54, 4 July 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 14:29, 5 July 2009 [29].
List of Olympic medalists in snowboarding
I have been debating with myself for a few months about whether or not I should try to take this page to FLC, because the main portion of it is rather small - 14 items, and some may believe it fails 3b. It doesn't help matters that Snowboarding at the Winter Olympics is basically a stub (although it could easily be expanded quite a bit). However, I think it passes based on its notability and because WP:OLYMPICS has a long-established guideline and the page is simply following it. I guess notability is relative, but I've always seen 3b as being more against small lists of questionable notability rather than against all small lists. So, this is one of the smaller lists I've worked on, but I decided to try it because even if it fails, it'll still be a near-FL page, which is good enough for me (and, in 8 months, it will grow).
You'll notice that the table is a little different than some of the other similar FLs. I decided to try using {{flagIOCmedalist}} rather than {{flagIOCathlete}}. I also used a "details" link, similar to what is used in the List of 2008 Summer Olympics medalists. Enjoy! -- Scorpion0422 20:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, but I prefer consistency. I slightly prefer the details link because it is more obvious, but since the Olympics medalist lists are so related, the same should be done for all. I also significantly prefer the athlete template; if you changed due to the comment at WT:OLY, I disagree with that discussion. The linked abbr is better than having the flag and the italisiced name and the abbr. Whatever you think, but I can help changing if it's a lot. I do like how you described what the events are in the lead. Reywas92Talk 22:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC) And I have no problem at all with the length. There is subtantial information, will (eventually) grow, and can be separate for consistency. Hopefully the main article will also be expanded. Reywas92Talk 22:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Weak support - I am hesitant to support fully because I don't like how the main article is still a stub (3b concern). But I agree with nominator that the Olympic Games is notable and that lists should be consistent. Also, the list looks okay.—Chris! ct 01:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – "In snowboarding cross, competitiors race down a course with jumps". Typo hiding in here.Giants2008 (17-14) 18:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- The typo was fixed during a round of changes by Parutakupiu,
but I found a couple of new glitches that crept in. It's common for this to occur, but they should still be fixed before promotion."In 1998, four events, two for men and two for women, were disputed in two specialities". I wouldn't call Olympic events "disputes". There was nothing wrong with "held", the word used when I first reviewed the list."In this event, competitors race against each other down a a course with jumps, beams and other obstacles." One typo was traded for another.Giants2008 (17-14) 22:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Reverted the verb change and fixed the typo. Thanks for pointing out those. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – All my comments were addressed, and everything seems up to par. It is a short list, but the main article could be expanded in a similar way as the wrestling title articles. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverted the verb change and fixed the typo. Thanks for pointing out those. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The typo was fixed during a round of changes by Parutakupiu,
- 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 14:29, 5 July 2009 [30].
List of national parks of Sweden
I am nominating this article for featured list status because I've been working on it for a few days and I think it meets the FL criteria now. It is partly based on the featured list List of National Parks of Canada. TheLeftorium 21:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Shouldn't this be "List of National Parks of Sweden" with capital N and P?--Crzycheetah 00:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These nation park lists seem very inconsistent, some have capitalization, some don't. I think it should be in lower case unless it is used as proper noun.—Chris! ct 01:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd just like to point out that in the case of List of National Parks of Canada, "National Parks of Canada" is the name of the actual organization, so I figured that was the most suitable title for it. -- Scorpion0422 20:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I didn't review the references, but besides that, it seems like a solid list. Eklipse (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I noticed no problems when read the list. Ruslik_Zero 14:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the capitalization issue is a separate one and doesn't seem to affect the list much as a move will fix that quite easily, hence my support - also color should be accompany with symbols per WP:ACCESS—Chris! ct 21:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
|
- It's very confusing to see Ängsö National Park listed last. Assuming the list is alphabetical, most readers expect to see it at the beginning, don't they?
- "ÅÄÖ" are the three last letters of the Swedish alphabet.
- Since you added the map, there's a useless horizontal scrollbar. Are you able to fix the template?
- I don't know what's causing that either. I'll ask Reywas92.
- It's very confusing to see Ängsö National Park listed last. Assuming the list is alphabetical, most readers expect to see it at the beginning, don't they?
--Crzycheetah 01:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Please have titles of the NP articles be consistent. Many links in the table with "National Park" in the title redirect to a title with just the name, like Dalby Söderskog National Park, which redirs to Dalby Söderskog. Please check all of them and move some to include the full name. Unless it's a special exception or is not only an NP, they should all have National Park in the title. All official names seem to include it [31]- Done.
- Great. I think Muddus, Padjelanta, and Stora Sjöfallet could be moved as well, and Sonfjället National Park should be changed to Sånfjället National Park.
- Yeah, I need to
add them to Wikipedia:Requested movesdelete them with Template:Db-move first.- All done.
- Yeah, I need to
- Great. I think Muddus, Padjelanta, and Stora Sjöfallet could be moved as well, and Sonfjället National Park should be changed to Sånfjället National Park.
- Done.
Can we have a map? The article I linked to has a simple numbered map already on WP, and the EPA site has a pretty colored one with names, but I don't know if it's useable.- Would a map like the one used here be good?
- A clickable map? That would be great! You can use File:Sweden location map.svg. I've also worked with these. See Template:Indiana NHLs map, replacing "USA Indiana" with "Sweden". I can help if you get me a set of coordinates. Reywas92Talk 18:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to make it look Template:Indiana NHLs map. I have started on it here.
- I have added the map now.
- I'll try to make it look Template:Indiana NHLs map. I have started on it here.
- A clickable map? That would be great! You can use File:Sweden location map.svg. I've also worked with these. See Template:Indiana NHLs map, replacing "USA Indiana" with "Sweden". I can help if you get me a set of coordinates. Reywas92Talk 18:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would a map like the one used here be good?
Perhaps you could have a link to each NP's site from the EPA.- Done.
I don't know. The list is good, but I think that neither this nor the Canadian one is the best it can be. I wrote the FL List of National Monuments of the United States, which has more info. There could be a photo for each NP, but only if that's possible. I would really like a short description of what's actually in the NPs. We've got a nice list of names, but why are they special? Reywas92Talk 15:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see if I can add something. Thanks for taking a look! :) TheLeftorium 21:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - nice to see what you have done with this article in the four years since I last edited it. Fine map. / Fred-J 11:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Please double check your future nominations for plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comment I had to remove most of those quotation marks. Although they are the same words the source used, they should be used as paraphrases, not quotes. You can quote a sentence, but not just a generic word. Quotation marks around a single word are misconstrewed as scare quotes and are taken the wrong way. Either just write it as a paraphrase that happens to use one of the same words, or find a synonym. Reywas92Talk 18:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a dead link (check the toolbox to your right). I'll try to revisit today or tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:14, 3 July 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 14:29, 5 July 2009 [33].
List of convicted computer criminals
This is round 2 for this article. All the problems/comments were resolved during the review process except for a request for a good copyedit. The copyedit has since been completed so resubmitting the article. Esemono (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
The list looks great after the copyedit, and my comments were resolved in the old FLC; however, the only thing that stands out now is that the publishers in the refs need to either be all linked (those with articles) or do not link any at all. I.e. link to CNET Networks.--Truco 503 00:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment - does the list contain all notable convictions of computer crime? I just want to make sure per the comprehensiveness criteria. I am leaning to support—Chris! ct 01:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- I seem to hark on about this, but reference dates should be consistent. Currently I see two formats "Month DD, YYYY" and "DD Month YYYY". Both are fine but it should be used consistently, per this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I copy-edit the article slightly, and do not see any serious problems. Ruslik_Zero 15:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Oppose for now. In the introduction, the last sentence mentions Ancheta who was convicted for controlling botnets "to do his bidding". I think some specific details are needed here, what were the botnets used for? Spamming? ID theft?
- Some of the sentencing dates have specific dates, and some do not.
I was unable to verify the date of sentencing using the reference provided for Jan de Wit, and the Richard Jones reference specifically states he pled guilty on June 3, 1993. The penalty for Gerald Wondra is missing a cite. These inconsistencies are no small issue and seem to indicate a lack of thorough copyediting. If necessary, I would add citations to the sentencing dates for full transparency and just to be sure there are no errors.--ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleared up the confusion for de Wit and while Richard Jones reference states he pled guilty on June 3, 1993 that doesn't mean he was sentenced the same day. Wondra's cite while was in the conviction column so I also added it to the sentencing dates for full transparency and just to be sure there are no errors. Also double checked, and confirmed all dates for the rest of the criminals. -- Esemono (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks better, but some entries have the year only, while some have dates. Are some of the specific dates not available? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I can only find the year for Abene. I know when he started the jail sentence, Jan, 1994, and who sentenced him, Louis L. Stanton, but no specific date. Same with the Australian hackers Phoenix, and Electron. Their case too I can only find the year. -- Esemono (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Abene himself, he was sentenced in 1993. Is he mistaken about the exact year, or am I missing something? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 21:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool you found a recent interview! But no more specifics eh? No exact date?-- Esemono (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can tell you when he was indicted. I found another link that narrows it down to in the "last week". And this one which seems to indicate it happened on Nov 3. But I couldn't find any specifc dates for anyone else either, so I'm satisfied. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 14:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Magazines, journals, and newspapers should be in italics. You can achieve this by changingpublisher=
towork=
in the citation template.
Since this is the English Wikipedia, you don't need (in English) in the citation templates.Dabomb87 (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- My concerns are not so much with the prose, the sources or the technicality of the sorting etc. My problem is: what's the criteria for inclusion? How is it decided who goes on the list and who doesn't? What's the lowest cut off point? And frankly can a list with such an "open" definition ever be exhaustive? I just don't see how this list is complied and thus would not know how to add to it. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria is listed in the intro and only those who are notable criminals or have done notable crimes are included. -- Esemono (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria for what constitutes a "Computer criminal" is defined yes in a very broad sense, in this definition hacking your boss' mail would make you a computer criminal. What makes one a "notable criminal" however is vague at best. I mean if say "Mark Abene" had only been convicted of the misdemeanor would that count? He's a criminal, but maybe not "notable" - and there is no way to say that these twenty-something criminals are the only "notable convinced criminals" out there? MPJ-DK (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes stealing and reading someone's mail is a criminal offense. Not sure where you're getting the ages from, the list ranges from early 20s to early 40s which makes sense considering the computer industry is only a few decades old. And Mark Abene wasn't only convicted of a misdemeanor and a quick google search will confirm that he is quite famous and notable. Also, the article will be able to handle the notable question just like other featured lists like, List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, or the List of Dartmouth College alumni -- Esemono (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not ages, there are 23 entries on the list, does not sound like it's a very exhaustive list, just the 23 that you happened to find sources for. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As talked about before, this is a comprehensive list of Notable computer criminals. The people are chosen because they are notable or involved in a notable crime. I was able to find references for these people because they are notable. The list will be able to be controlled by limiting the amount of people to just notable people much like the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, or the List of Dartmouth College alumni -- Esemono (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I ran this article through AWB and found a couple of minor errors that I fixed. I will come back and look at it closer soon.
- I also noticed that there are a couple of unformatted references (missing brackets or missing the proper cite template). --Kumioko (talk) 04:08, 4 July 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 14:29, 5 July 2009 [34].
List of Maryland Terrapins football honorees
- Nominator(s): Strikehold (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. Strikehold (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – looks good to me, very informative, useful and accessible. That's quite a compliment, as I know absolutely nothing about either American football or the Terrapins. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 17:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Got two questions. Why is the All-Americans table aligned center? And is there a reason why the tables are not sortable?—Chris! ct 23:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Is that better? I nested the key and All-Americans table inside an invisible table and aligned the table to the left margin and centered the key above it.
- For consistency and appearance mainly. The All-ACC table is really long, and would make scrolling a pain, so I cut it into thirds. Making it sortable like that would defeat the purpose of sorting (if that makes sense). Ditto the UM Hall of Fame table. Strikehold (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — I was asked to do a pre-FLC review and copy edit, which I performed. Even with that, I didn't find very much to fix. It's a clean and clear list that simply looks nice. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – During a review I did before this came to FLC, I noticed two photos that were licensed as in the public domain, but no evidence existed on the images' pages that they were published before 1923, as stated. Has an effort been made to research this further? Giants2008 (17-14) 21:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For everyone's awareness, Giants2008 is referring to the lead image (Maryland/Johns Hopkins) and the last image (Curley Byrd). Both were without a doubt produced before 1923, but there is a question as to whether they were actually published before then. The source (Univ. of Maryland library system) is not clear on that point. I replaced the lead image with one that was published in 1915, and am looking for a suitable replacement for the Curley Byrd image. I might also send an e-mail to the Univ. of Maryland to see if they can shed light on the publication dates for the two images in question. Strikehold (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still haven't found a definitive answer to this, so I removed the picture. I believe this addresses the image issue. Strikehold (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I gave this a pre-FLC review, and it looked like a very strong list even then. The FLC process has strengthened it further. There was one New York Times reference without an access date, but I added one myself to expedite my support. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:03, 30 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 14:29, 5 July 2009 [35].
List of highways in Essex County, New York
I am nominating this for featured list because this, after 15 months, have been finally finished. I worked hard and recently got help copyediting for grammar and other errors. All comments are welcomed. (NOTE: If you have prose concerns, can I ask that he or she put out an entire list of issues? Grammar is not a strong point and would be helpful. Thanks.) It meets the criteria and has the precedents of List of highways in Warren County, New York (to which this is based), and List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan. Mitch/HC32 20:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - I have some concerns before I can support this article to be a FL:
- Why are there citations in the lead?
- Can the headers for the list of routes be changed to match what is in List of highways in Warren County, New York.
- In the table for State routes, U.S. Routes, and Interstates, I-87 and US 9 should be listed before the state routes rather than mixed in with them.
- Are the formation dates for any of the reference routes (besides NY 915K) known?
- Request shields for the county routes.
- Can lengths be added for the county routes? Dough4872 (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Citations are allowed in the lead if the comment doesn't come later in the body. Fixed the second one. Fixed the third. For the fourth issue, that is really doubtful, as 910L (now 185), and 915K are really the only two with ways to have it. The fifth thing: Requested, don't think you'll get them in time. The final thing, it would take weeks to get all those in, and besides, Warren doesn't have him, so its following a precedent.Mitch/HC32 18:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
I'm stopping there because I think that's enough to show you that you need a copy-editor—Juliancolton (talk · contribs) is a good one. The issues are easy to spot, but I've neither the willpower nor the obligation to list them all. No need to ping me when the copy-edit is done; I'll be watching. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) | ||
---|---|---|
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope all of your concerns are resolved.Mitch/HC32 19:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am done, this was a major headache, and now instead of 15 sources, there are 104 - meaning 89 sources. Wow. I hope this now gets your support.Mitch/HC32 20:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Well done, I realise as a result of my review you've had to put in a fair bit of time to this list. I'm glad you persevered, and I can now support this list. Congratulations, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good! iMatthew talk at 15:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I can't put my finger on any problems. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:26, 5 July 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.