Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2009: Difference between revisions
promote 7 |
belated promote 10 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of defunct National Basketball Association teams/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Ricky Ponting/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of bridges to the Island of Montreal/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Major League Baseball All-Star Game Most Valuable Player Award/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/David Bowie discography/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New York Mets managers/archive3}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Listed buildings in Widnes/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Seinfeld (season 2)/archive3}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Desperate Housewives (season 1)/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of teams and cyclists in the 2009 Giro d'Italia/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of teams and cyclists in the 2009 Giro d'Italia/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I/archive3}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I/archive3}} |
Revision as of 19:13, 21 September 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 The Rambling Man 19:13, 21 September 2009 [1].
List of defunct National Basketball Association teams
- Nominator(s): —Chris! ct 22:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC) & User:SRE.K.A.L.24[reply]
I am nominating this with User:SRE.K.A.L.24 for featured list. We wrote this a while ago, but neither one of us managed to start the nom.—Chris! ct
- There is currently no reference that cites the first part of the second sentence, and the fourth sentence of the second paragraph. We will do our best to find one. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're looking for the reference that mentioned that the Packers, the original Nuggets, the Hawks, and the Red Skins were playing in NBL before joining NBA, perhaps you can use this (page 87) and for the Jets here (page 306). — Martin tamb (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And here (page 180) for the fourth sentence. — Martin tamb (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "and are also only defunct team" - missing "the". Also there's a link to the 1949–50 season which is piped simply as "1949", might be better to reword it to something like "at the start of the 1949–50 season". Other than that I couldn't find anything amiss, and will happily support once you've sorted out the minor sourcing issue you mention above. Oh, don't suppose an image is available at all, is it.....? Not a deal breaker, but would be nice....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Why is North America linked? Who doesn't know what that is?Note a: Change "which" to "who".Giants2008 (17–14) 16:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything should be fixed now.—Chris! ct 23:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Nice list on a creative topic. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks OK to me now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Just some minor comments, that might be useful addition to the prose.
- Is it worth mentioning that the Bullets won the title in 1948, when the league was still called BAA.
- Is it worth mentioning that the Stags, the Olympians, the Red Skins and the Rebels were successfully qualified for the playoff in every years they were active in the NBA.
You don't need to follow my comments if you think adding these infos are excessive. Other than that, I think the list already looks good. Great job. — Martin tamb (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Martin tamb (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is ".....were successfully qualified for the playoffs" a standard usage in American English? Because to me, in the UK, it sounds incredibly weird. Why not just ".....successfully qualified for the playoffs"? Oh, BTW, well done on finding an image to go in the article. As I mentioned above, this wasn't a deal breaker on my support, but it's really nice to see one added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
[2] says the Packers had a playoffs appearance. Also, table needs to mention championship-winning teams.Dabomb87 (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please go back and check your math on everything. The Bullets had only 158 wins, not 161.Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]And 292 losses, not 303.Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:52, 13 September 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 19:13, 21 September 2009 [3].
List of international cricket centuries by Ricky Ponting
- Nominator(s): Aaroncrick (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. Ricky Ponting is third on the list for most One Day International Cricket Centuries and second on the list for most Test cricket centuries. Although his career is not over, at least 80% is done and dusted. Aaroncrick (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "This list shows all instances in which the Australian cricketer" Featured lists no longer begin like this. See List of international cricket centuries by Sourav Ganguly for an example of a better start. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I've already commented here, why can't we have a "List of career achievements by cricketer? If we create that page and have all the achievements and records from the respective sections in the main article, then there'll be a chance to have a featured list and a featured article. I can see that you're one of the main contributors of Ricky Ponting's main article and I am sure you want to make that page as good as possible. By just skimming through that page, I notice that the last two sections just don't belong there because they're in a list format. I believe it will be beneficial to have a separate page for the achievements. Since having international centuries is an achievement, the info in this page should be a part of the aforementioned list.--Cheetah (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While I understand what you mean, List of international cricket centuries by Ricky Ponting is notable enough to have its own article. As we already have FL on List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar and List of international cricket centuries by Sourav Ganguly Aaroncrick (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am talking about the present. The two that you mentioned were promoted before and I don't really care per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I can also show you the List of international cricket centuries by Virender Sehwag that was not promoted, by the way this was the latest similar nomination. --Cheetah (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest keeping List of international cricket centuries by Ricky Ponting and then creating Achievements of Ricky Ponting for all other records like at Achievements of Sachin Tendulkar. Then List of Test awards for Ricky Ponting could be merged into Achievements of Ricky Ponting along with other jargon that was in the main Ricky Ponting article. It would be a lot easier to do this, as we then wouldn't have to change Tendulkar and Ganguly. Regards, Aaroncrick (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I really like your suggestion. However, I'd like to see how the future list of achievements of Ricky Ponting looks first before making a decision. To me, when the main page for the cricketer, like Ricky Ponting, gets big, the achievements section should be separated first. If/when the achievements page becomes big, international cricket centuries can be separated. I just don't like skipping steps in the process. Also, I am a little worried that this page is too young. It was created within the last 24 hours and it is impossible to see whether this page passes the criterion #6, more specifically, its content does not change significantly from day to day.--Cheetah (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose criterion #6 hasn't really been tested yet as created the article in my userspace first. Although the content can't really change much except for a few tweaks. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I really like your suggestion. However, I'd like to see how the future list of achievements of Ricky Ponting looks first before making a decision. To me, when the main page for the cricketer, like Ricky Ponting, gets big, the achievements section should be separated first. If/when the achievements page becomes big, international cricket centuries can be separated. I just don't like skipping steps in the process. Also, I am a little worried that this page is too young. It was created within the last 24 hours and it is impossible to see whether this page passes the criterion #6, more specifically, its content does not change significantly from day to day.--Cheetah (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest keeping List of international cricket centuries by Ricky Ponting and then creating Achievements of Ricky Ponting for all other records like at Achievements of Sachin Tendulkar. Then List of Test awards for Ricky Ponting could be merged into Achievements of Ricky Ponting along with other jargon that was in the main Ricky Ponting article. It would be a lot easier to do this, as we then wouldn't have to change Tendulkar and Ganguly. Regards, Aaroncrick (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am talking about the present. The two that you mentioned were promoted before and I don't really care per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I can also show you the List of international cricket centuries by Virender Sehwag that was not promoted, by the way this was the latest similar nomination. --Cheetah (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While I understand what you mean, List of international cricket centuries by Ricky Ponting is notable enough to have its own article. As we already have FL on List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar and List of international cricket centuries by Sourav Ganguly Aaroncrick (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 20:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (17–14) 20:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Provisional support – Pending replacement of the links recently discovered to be dead. If I may offer a couple of additional comments, I would like to see ABC spelled out in ref 1, as that could be confusing for some (The US has an ABC of our own, for example). Also, I'm not sure why the first few Cricinfo references don't have publisher links when the many others do. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Ponting, among 38 centuries, has scored four double centuries and remained unbeaten on 26 occasions." As this article is about his centuries, to me "remained unbeaten on 26 occasions" refers to being not out in 26 of his 38 century innings. Schumi555 22:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I removed as it is not relevant. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Number 18 is out of date order, or the date is wrong. Hesperian 00:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi sir, Number 18 where? Aaroncrick (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. | Score | Against | Inn. | Test | Venue | H/A | Date | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
16 | 206 | West Indies | 1 | 2 | Queen's Park Oval, Port of Spain | Away | 19 April 2003 | Won[1] |
17 | 113 | West Indies | 1 | 3 | Kensington Oval, Barbados | Away | 1 May 2003 | Won[2] |
18 | 169 | Zimbabwe | 1 | 2 | Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney | Home | 31 January 1999 | Lost[3] |
19 | 242 | India | 1 | 2 | Adelaide Oval, Adelaide | Home | 12 December 2003 | Lost[4] |
20 | 257 | India | 1 | 3 | Melbourne Cricket Ground, Melbourne | Home | 26 December 2003 | Won[5] |
Fixed thanks. Very clumsy indeed. Aaroncrick (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nice work Aaron! Some questions however:
- Rules about photos "looking off the page"? Do they apply at FLC? Perhaps other commenters may have some advice. Personally I don't see the problem.
- I have seen FAs with left-aligned images in the lead (Joseph Priestly). However, I agree it's not a big deal. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The photo for the One-day section sits above the table while the photo for the Test section sits to the right. Is this a deliberate editing choice and if so, why? My immediate thought is that consistency would be preferred but there may be a valid reason for this approach.
- Rules about photos "looking off the page"? Do they apply at FLC? Perhaps other commenters may have some advice. Personally I don't see the problem.
- Not sure what you mean. Looks the same to me. Aaroncrick (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Might be just my browser and screen resolution, but the one-day photograph sits above the table, against the right hand side of the screen. This leaves an unsightly piece of white space above the table and to the left of the photograph. I am not sure you can do much about it, some other commenters may have some ideas. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are different date formats used in the two tables, the Test table uses "8 July 2009" and the One day table uses "February 24, 2008". This should be consistent and I prefer the former for this list.
Not sure how to change this. Tendulkar and Ganguly are like this and if I try in doesn't like it. Aaroncrick (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The one-day table includes position in the batting order and the Test table does not. Is this by design?
- That's how Tendulkar's was, but I'll do that later. Bit busy now.Aaroncrick (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The one-day table includes batting strike rate and the Test table does not. Is this by design? Is strike rate information available for Test match innings? Do you think that that the strike rate for Test innings is relevant or important. I would tend towards including it, if the information is consistently available.
- Tendulkar's is like that. Didn't change it because thought there might have been a reason for it. Can do though. Aaroncrick (talk)
- Have you given any thought to including innings length (jn minutes), especially for the Test table?
- Yeah, but I probably wont. Aaroncrick (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, great work. Once these have been addressed let me know and I will take another look. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 01:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support well done! -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment needs a note/info that the century against Asia was for the World XI, not Austraila YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What symbol do I use? Aaroncrick (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it matters, but it has to be noted surely. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, done. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it matters, but it has to be noted surely. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "In Test matches, Ponting has scored centuries against all the Test-cricket playing nations and has scored a century in at least one cricket ground of all Test-cricket playing nations" - won't saying just that he has scored hundreds in all Test countries cover both the things mentioned in this line ? Tintin 02:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are a few dead links; check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Argh Crcinfo links have just died. I'll wait a couple of day. Surely they will have to spring back to life? Aaroncrick (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All working again. :) Aaroncrick (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose (reviewed version) - No major issues but there's an awful lot of 'minor' things which need fixing. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead
- "has scored hundreds in all Test playing countries" He hasn't scored a century in Zimbabwe or Pakistan.
- Done Aaroncrick (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure about the third sentence, mentioning his retirement from T20I is fine but mentioning the IPL in an list on international centuries seems unnecessary.
- Done Aaroncrick (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "He has been dismissed four times above the score of 90" Wrong even if you interpret you mean nineties.
- "both of which are Australian records." True, but could do with a ref(s) as it's not backed up by the list.
- done. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "He has scored 13 centuries in home grounds" 12 according to the table.
- Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead mentions that Melbourne Cricket Ground is in Melbourne three times when I'm not sure you need to say it at all.
- Done Aaroncrick (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Seven of these centuries were hit at the Melbourne Cricket Ground" 'these' suggests you're talking about away/neutral venues as that's the last thing mentioned.
- Done Aaroncrick (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead, which lends largely from Sachin Tendulkar's article, seems a bit bland and could do with some uniqueness to make it more engaging. It may be worth mentioning the century in a WC final, the World XI century or scoring two centuries in a Test on three occasions - a joint record. You could mention the circumstances of his highest score in ODIs, you cover it in less words than his first ODI century when it's in fact one of the most memorable ODIs in history.
- Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tables
- Innings number needs fixing, first seven Test centuries use match innings number (1-4), the rest is Australia innings number (1-2). I'd prefer 1-4s as it provides more information to the reader and would be consistent with the ODI list, which would be all 1s if you used Australia innings number throughout.
- Test number (within the series) incorrect for century numbers 1, 11, 12, 31, 33 and 37.
- Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Match results incorrect for Test century numbers 18 and 32.
- Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Test century numbers 11 and 12 were neutral grounds.
- Done Aaroncrick (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Test century number 14 and ODI century number 5 have wrong date.
- Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Scores for Test century number 9 and ODIs 15 and 24 need fixing.
- Done Aaroncrick (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strike rate incorrect for ODI century 2.
- Done Aaroncrick (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Key above the table would make more sense.
- Yep Aaroncrick (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Linking 'Asian XI' to List of Asian XI ODI cricketers might be better than nothing.
- Ok Aaroncrick (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Grounds - wrong Old Trafford, wrong Headingley, wrong Warner Park, Kingstown?? Kensington Oval in two different locations, 13th Test century should have a Brisbane to be consistent with the rest. The tables are sortable so all grounds should probably be linked.
- Done, although what's wrong with Kensington Oval? Links to the correct one. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References
- Refs 4, 5, 7 and 8 need fixing.
- Done, but might need to be tweaked a bit... Aaroncrick (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 7 could be titled better/consistent with other refs.
- Done Aaroncrick (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs 9, 10, 20, 27, 39, 42, 58 don't link to where they should.
- Done Aaroncrick (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor quibble but reference titles have incorrect dates for ref numbers 13, 16, 25, 29, 38, 48, 51.
- Done Aaroncrick (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other
- Alt text could be improved, in the second image they're not playing cricket they're facing each other/talking. On the third image you assume the person will know what an Australian ODI uniform looks like.
- Caption in second image could link Warne and 2006-07 Ashes, there needs to be a ref for the 576 runs scored. Third caption date differs from table.
- Done. Aaroncrick (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Jpeeling (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the WC final in 2003 shoudl be mentioned. Isn't that the highest score in a WC F ?? Also the 145 against Zim in 1998 equaled the Aus record at the time I think YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to meet the FL criteria, assuming that Jpeeling's concerns are resolved satisfactorily. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 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 19:13, 21 September 2009 [4].
List of bridges to the Island of Montreal
- Nominator(s): Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth, Peter Horn User talk
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the information is now complete, adequately sourced, and meets the criteria for featured lists. Some of the pictures may need to be replaced and/or updated. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I second the motion. Peter Horn User talk 14:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should Peter Horn be considered a co-nominator for this FLC? Also, the images need alternative text; see WP:ALT (alt text is different from an image caption). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely. Peter Horn set the foundations for this article. I will fix the alt text tonight unless someone beats me to it. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Feel free to edit the text. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text is done; thanks.
The alt text needs a bit of work, I'm afraid. Most of the proper names in the alt text fail the WP:ALT#Verifiability test and need to be removed. For example, a non-expert can't verify the alt text "Saint-Laurent Railway Bridge seen from under Mercier Bridge in LaSalle" merely by looking at the image. In a few cases there's text in the image that tells you the bridge's name and can be transcribed as per WP:ALT#Text, but other than that the alt text should just describe the visual appearance. The highway shields (e.g., Image:qc138.png) are all purely decorative and should therefore haveEubulides (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]link=
instead ofalt=text
as per WP:ALT#Purely decorative images. The map's alt text is passable but could be improved; pretend you're trying to describe Montreal's layout (as given by that map) to someone over the phone (please see WP:ALT#Maps for examples).- I added |link= where necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the alt text for the map. I would like some feedback on that before I do the rest. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The map alt text looks good; thanks. As advice for the rest of the images, alt text normally doesn't need to be that long; please see WP:ALT#Brevity. Eubulides (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've done the Saint Lawrence crossings. I'm trying to be as brief as possible, so I am assuming that readers are familiar with the different bridge types. As for the Lafontaine Tunnel, should I mention the twin towers in the background, given that those are merely air intakes for the tunnel? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, brief is good. Your call on the twin towers. The alt text can't say they're air intakes due to WP:ALT#Verifiability, but it's certainly OK to mention the twin towers as they're clearly visible. Eubulides (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.
However, the images' alt text entries have several WP:ALT#Verifiability problems as described above. For example, a non-expert can't tell that File:Mercier Bridge, Lasalle side.JPG is of the Mercier Bridge, so the alt text shouldn't say "Mercier Bridge". In general, the proper names should all be removed from the alt text (unless there's some text in the image identifying the bridge).Eubulides (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.
- Fixed. I left the name on Lafontaine Tunnel, since the picture shows a road sign identifying it. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text is done; thanks.
- Done. Feel free to edit the text. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lead needs more references. Especially, the sentence "But because Montreal was built on an island surrounded by three rivers, land access must necessarily make use of a bridge." which sounds very much like original research.—Chris! ct 20:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On this particular statement, I would invoke WP:NOTOR#Simple or direct deductions, since the information can be verified (and indeed noticed!) just by looking at a map. But it could be reworded, though. The rest would just be a matter of copying and pasting references found further down. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, see below Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
The colors needed accompanying symbols (e.g. * ^ #).Some of the notes need citations, such as "The Champlain Bridge Ice Structure, known in French as "l'Estacade Champlain," was built to control ice floes coming from the Laprairie Basin." andThe abbreviations need to be spelled out, at least on their first appearance. If you want, you can make a key.Dabomb87 (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Actually, the reason why there are no citations on footnotes is that the Mediawiki software won't allow me to insert them. What I did was, I inserted the citations next to the footnotes, that is to say, wherever you see [#][note §], that means reference # is the source for note § as well as the construction date itself. I tried it by modifying this revision. If you can propose a better solution, I'm open to it. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the symbols, just give me a day to decide which symbols, specifically, will be used. :-) -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Symbols inserted, using a scheme partly inspired by List of Harry Potter cast members. Abbreviations spelled out. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good, with the caveat that I could not effectively check the foreign-language sources for reliability. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://grandquebec.com/montreal-touristique/pont-jacques-cartier/ reliable?All references that are in French need to be denoted as such.Refs 6 and 7 need publishers; ref 9 needs a last access date.Dabomb87 (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- All fixed except for the GrandQuebec.com site. If there are reasonable doubts about the reliability of this site, alternate sources are plentiful wherever I used this one. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For Champlain and Jacques-Cartier bridges, I could use the site of the Champlain and Jacques-Cartier Bridges Corporation, which is the same site already used for Mercier. For Victoria, I found this, this, and this. And that's just the first two pages of Google hits. :-) -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support With regard to formatting and prose, the article looks OK from my eyes (I also spot-checked a couple sources with the article and everything looked good). However, I would like the article to be reviewed by someone who is more knowledgeable about bridges, as well as a French speaker, before fully supporting. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Montreal Metro Tunnel doesn't seem to have a source. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What happens if someone creates an article on the Viaduc Rosemont – Van Horne, or Wellington Bridge, or another bridge that lies wholly within Montreal? --NE2 04:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are not within the scope of this list, but they may be added to the See Also section - as a matter of fact, Wellington Bridge is already indirectly listed there, through Crossings of the Lachine Canal. Now I realize that a smart aleck might add the Metropolitan Expressway to List of longest bridges in the world, but the fact of the matter is, the Met (as it is known locally) does not cross any body of water. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ruhrfisch comments This is interesting and generally well done, but I think it needs some work before it is ready for FL. It has been some time since I commented on a FLC, so I apologize if there are changes in criteria I am unaware of.
I agree that the name of the article is not accurate. Would something like "List of bridges and tunnels connecting the Island of Montreal with the mainland" work? Not sure if tunnels has to be in there as some lists that only have bridges in the title also include tunnels
- Personally, I think that title is too long. Inaccurate too, since several of these bridges connect to Laval, which is on another island. I was thinking of "List of bridges to the Island of Montreal" (although technically, that would leave out Champlain Bridge, the most important entry of this list...). -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article would be much clearer if a better map were used - the current map does not identify the bodies of water and refers to islands like Ile de Jesus as Laval. If someone is unfamiliar with the geography of Montreal, the current map does not help. Would this map File:Archipel Hochelaga.PNG be better? Or could File:Ile de Montreal.PNG have labels added?
The references for the intro sections are inconsistent - the lead is fully cited, the "Spanning the Rivière des Prairies" intro is mostly cited (though the last sentence needs a ref), but the "Spanning the Saint Lawrence River and Saint Lawrence Seaway" and "Spanning the Lake of Two Mountains and the Ottawa River East Channel" introductions have no refs.
Is there any reason why the tables aren't sortable?
- The split rows required to give the Communities linked column its current look are turning any attempt at sorting into a mess. See Help:Sorting#Limitations. Given the relatively low number of entries, I don't think we should be too concerned about sortability. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Name origins has several blanks that seem easy to fill - the Metro tunnels could all just list the Montreal Metro, and the railroad bridges could be named for the CN and CP railroads. The bridge under constuction could just say under construction.:*Actually, since these blanks reflect, in some way, the lack of an official name, I would leave them blank. "Canadian Pacific Rail Bridge," for example, could refer to hundreds of other bridges across Canada, and the one in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue does not seem to have any other name, not even an unofficial one. None was ever mentioned in any history book I consulted. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, is "Île Bigras railway crossing" really an official name? I ask because "Île Bigras" is given in the name column for it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why no coords for the tunnels?
- This is just a verification issue. Perhaps including them, but with a lesser degree of precision, say only degrees and minutes, would be satisfactory. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are Pont de la Concorde and Pont des Îles in one entry and not two separate entries?
- Because for all practical purposes they are a single entity, with only a short fill separating them, and by any other standards there would probably be a single name to refer to both of them simultaneously. In fact, I made one a redirect to the other. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at a map I would not call an island "fill". Could a note be added explaining that the Concordia Bridge connects Montreal to Ile Ste Helene and the Pont des Iles spans Ile Ste Helene and Ile Notre Dame (sorry for the lack of accents)? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I was referring to what's on top of the island, which is in fact, for the most part, a large artificial fill all by itself. Looking at Google Earth, what I see on the island is the shadow of the bridge, and only the intersection with Chemin MacDonald is on solid ground. (Compare with Jacques Cartier Bridge, which, on that same island's natural part, uses a War of 1812 fort as a pillar, yet on both sides it bears the same name.) As for your suggestion, yes, that can be added to the footnote. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not speak French, but I know Canada is officially bilingual. As it is most bridges are listed by their English hame, while a few are listed by their French name. Would it make sense to list them all by their English name, then have the French name after in parenthhesis? So "Concordia Bridge (Pont de la Concorde)"?
- The only two that are referred to by their French names are Pont de la Concorde and Pont des Îles. I wouldn't have a problem with replacing "Pont de la Concorde" with "Concorde Bridge," which already exists as a redirect. Optionally, "Pont des Îles" could be left out altogether, mentioned only in the footnote on Concorde. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bridge stuff looks fine to me (though I am not very familiar with Montreal). Could stubs be made for the red links (not required, just personal prefernce). I am leaning toward support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 19:13, 21 September 2009 [5].
Major League Baseball All-Star Game Most Valuable Player Award
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 03:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikiproject Baseball has undertaken the task of raising List of MLB Awards to featured topic status and I picked this little article to fix up. Used NBA All-Star Game Most Valuable Player Award for All-Star Game MVP style/content and Roberto Clemente Award (along with other various baseball award articles) for baseball award style. May be some slight MOS things, but all-in-all I think this list is up to the featured quality we've established. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment
|
Support —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm40 (talk • contribs)
Resolved issues, Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk · contribs)
|
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 20:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Support – My comments have been addressed, and Dabomb has satisfied my concern about the one source. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment Great list! I made tweaks all around (list, caption, alt text, formatting, etc.). My only issue is that there is no explanation for the numbers in parentheses. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Key expanded on that point to match the style of already FL Hank Aaron Award. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: Just an FYI, I've moved this page and World Series Most Valuable Player Award per naming conventions to not have MVP abbreviated in the title. Just don't want a redirect getting promoted if this passes. :) Changed the lead here. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, thanks for that. This is what the award looks like, but I have no source info on the subject. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But then it looked like this this past year, it doesn't seem to have a standard shape. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine then; I thought it had a distinct appearance as that of the Rawlings Gold Glove Award. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it seems to always be some kind of crystal thing, but it changes up. I think Ichiro's was a statue with two crossed crystal bats. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "players from the Cincinnati Reds and San Francisco Giants are tied for the most in the National League with five each" What about Los Angeles Dodgers, their players are listed five times.
- Fixed, dunno what happened there... Staxringold talkcontribs 22:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have OF in the key, but break it down into RF, LF and CF in the table. Needs consistency one way or other.
- Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Leon Wagner and Maury Wills don't sort correctly.
- Fixed. Good catch on this and the Dodgers thing, what odd little hiccups. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Jpeeling (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why do the positions need to be abbreviated? Having the full position name in the table wouldn't make the table too wide, and can also remove that huge whitespace between the key and the images. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's okay, I'm going to also do this to every other MLB awards list after I have your's and WP:MLB's permission. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine with me, that's the only reason I had formatted the table in this and the Rookie award like that, because I'd seen it in other MLB lists. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer the question you asked me on my talk page, I will definitely be starting that at least this week or next week. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: Mass changing of all lists should not be undertaken. Each of these lists needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Having some with linked position abbreviations and some with positions written out does the list quality no harm, but standardizing them may cause harm due to the width of some particular tables. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about if I just do this to lists have will have absolutely no affect when written out? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: Mass changing of all lists should not be undertaken. Each of these lists needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Having some with linked position abbreviations and some with positions written out does the list quality no harm, but standardizing them may cause harm due to the width of some particular tables. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer the question you asked me on my talk page, I will definitely be starting that at least this week or next week. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine with me, that's the only reason I had formatted the table in this and the Rookie award like that, because I'd seen it in other MLB lists. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:23, 18 September 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 19:13, 21 September 2009 [6].
List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes
- Nominator(s): -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the current featured list criteria. It is well-sourced, well-written, well-formatted, and the episodes are all of an appropriate length per WP:MOSTV. It has undergone a recent peer review, and all issues from it have been addressed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment I made a few tweaks to the lead, and spot-checks of the episode summaries (I don't have time to go through them all) indicate that they are well-written and generally clear for even a reader who doesn't know about the topic. My only comment is that the alt text covers information that cannot be verified by looking only at the image. Describe it, do not add things such as names. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks :) I'm not sure I understand on the alt image - its hard to describe without noting it has the main character and her appearance? Still new to those, though, so may be misunderstanding how they should be. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, describe the image's appearance as you would over the phone to a friend. I'm learning on the fly, too, so I understand your difficulty :) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The basics are right. One extra thing Wikipedia imposes, though: verifiability. As per WP:ALT#Verifiability, the alt text shouldn't contain the phrases that can't be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image. Generally speaking proper names should be removed (except for "TOKYO MEW MEW" which is in the image). Also, the following words or phrases are suspect and should be rewritten or removed: "main", "'cat' pose", "robot", "weapon". A relatively small point: I'd omit mention of the pink double border and the scripted font, unless those are important for some reason, as per WP:ALT#Brevity. Eubulides (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, describe the image's appearance as you would over the phone to a friend. I'm learning on the fly, too, so I understand your difficulty :) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good, though I didn't evaluate foreign-language refs for reliability. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support My issues were addressed in the peer review. My only recommendation is to use the trans_title
parameter for Ref 2 as well. All refs should also be consistent in using either human readable dates or ISO dates. Arsonal (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doh, missed that one! Trans title added. Thanks :) Also fixed the remaining dates that hadn't been converted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support seeing that grammar is fine according to Dabomb and that all the issues were solved.Tintor2 (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images There's not much of a reason for File:Tokyo Mew Mew DVD.jpg. It's not aiding critical commentary (such as comments about the packaging of the home video releases) and is really just decoration. Our understanding of the subject would not be significantly impinged by its removal, in my opinion. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a normal part of any episode list to have an image representing the episodes, in this case the first DVD, same as any other media list (chapter lists have the first volume, DVD lists have either a season set or the first volume). I see no reason to remove the image. It meets WP:NONFREE and is no different from an infobox image, just that lists have no infoboxes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree with David Fuchs. The image is decorative, and the fact that other articles use invalid images shouldn't justify it here. Stifle (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Every other FL episode list has an image, which would seem to speak to its appropriateness. Without any image, it would get pinged for having none at all. No box set was released for this series in Japan nor in English, so that leaves the first DVD cover to be a representative image. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree with David Fuchs. The image is decorative, and the fact that other articles use invalid images shouldn't justify it here. Stifle (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a normal part of any episode list to have an image representing the episodes, in this case the first DVD, same as any other media list (chapter lists have the first volume, DVD lists have either a season set or the first volume). I see no reason to remove the image. It meets WP:NONFREE and is no different from an infobox image, just that lists have no infoboxes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:55, 9 September 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 19:13, 21 September 2009 [7].
David Bowie discography
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. I spent quite a few months getting it up to scratch only for the BPI to decide to redesign their website and take the certification database down. It's finally back and I've rechecked the BPI certifications and it looks like we're good to go. The BPI certification database does seem to be a bit flakey, so perseverance may be the key if it doesn't work for you. JD554 (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
- The third link in the infobox (Compilation albums) doesn't link to the correct section name.
- "Born as David Jones, Bowie's debut..." I think you can take out "as".
Some "notes"/"details" entries have periods while others don't. Make this consistent.
A very good article, and I'll have no problem supporting once these issues are fixed. Mm40 (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed, the remaining notes/details without a full-stop at the end are sentence fragments which shouldn't have one. --JD554 (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Excellent list. I'd like to give it some more time for a thorough review, but here's a few quick things I noticed on a first-pass.
Resolved comments from Drewcifer
|
---|
q=%22tin%20machine%22&f=false]. --JD554 (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I don't think the Tin Machine stuff should be included. This has been an issue in the past with FLC discogs like Gwen Stefani discography and Devin Townsend discography, and I believe the consensus is to not include separate work done in bands outside of their solo career. Same thing would go for the first three singles. Though I would say that that type of stuff should at least be mentioned in the lead, perhaps a la what I've done for Santigold discography. Kind of a round-about way of getting that info in there one way or another, but keeps the tables and stuff to the solo career.
- I really think this belongs, so long as it is properly noted (as it is here). Maybe I'm just thinking ahead to my eventual work on [[Alison Krauss]' discography, but work with a group is still your work. Staxringold talkcontribs 11:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources such as Pegg's The Complete David Bowie, Buckley's Strange Fascination: David Bowie, the Definitive Story and The Great Rock Discography list the Tin Machine and the earlier works under "David Bowie"[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2C6I4KfgJ1kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=great+rock+discography&client=firefox-a#v=snippet&
- "Non-album single" isn't a proper noun, so don't capitalize it.
- As a single data item, being capitalized doesn't mean it is a proper noun and this is used in other FL-class discogs such as Nirvana discography and Pearl Jam discography.
- Just because another article does it doesn't meant it's right. Besides those articles were promoted two years and a year ago, respectively, and standards have improved since then. As a solitary data item I would agree that it doesn't mean it's a proper noun, but since it is mixed into a column meant to feature list items that are proper nouns (album titles), a distinction should be made. Drewcifer (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is right to capitalize the first word of a single data item in a cell without it meaning it is a proper noun. I'm really struggling to find any policy/guideline which would suggest otherwise, or a substantial number FL- or FA-class articles which show the consensus is against this. --JD554 (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough; there's no policy on this either way. Nor is there necessarily a precedent set either. Most lists that I've seen promoted to FL have been un-capitalized, but that doesn't necessarily make it a rule. So I'll respectfully disagree with you guys and move on. Drewcifer (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is right to capitalize the first word of a single data item in a cell without it meaning it is a proper noun. I'm really struggling to find any policy/guideline which would suggest otherwise, or a substantial number FL- or FA-class articles which show the consensus is against this. --JD554 (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because another article does it doesn't meant it's right. Besides those articles were promoted two years and a year ago, respectively, and standards have improved since then. As a solitary data item I would agree that it doesn't mean it's a proper noun, but since it is mixed into a column meant to feature list items that are proper nouns (album titles), a distinction should be made. Drewcifer (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a single data item, being capitalized doesn't mean it is a proper noun and this is used in other FL-class discogs such as Nirvana discography and Pearl Jam discography.
- Drewcifer, by your logic shouldn't each of the table headers (Title, Director, Peak chart positions) have to be in small-letters too? As for confusing Non-album single with actual album/song names, shouldn't the fact that these are in Italics and "Quotes", respectively, deter that from happening? indopug (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'd disagree with your first statement since column headers are proper nouns: the names of the columns. "Non-album single" is not the name of anything, hence, it is not a proper noun. And my point about caps was never to avoid confusion between album names and the words "non-album single" (you'd have to pretty stupid to think that is an album title). My point was that in a series of proper-nouns, any non-proper nouns should be treated differently, as far as types of grammatical rules that applies to proper nouns. Honestly, I don't want to waste my our anyone else's time arguing about petty grammar rules, which is why I was happy to move on. Drewcifer (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Try abbreviating the names of the secondary charts. "UK Singles Chart" could definately be abbreviated as just "UK" (I don't think there's any other singles chart in the UK, at least not as "official" as the UK Singles Chart, is there?) Same with "GER Albums Chart" → GER. "US Hot 100" could be abbreviated to "US 100", "US Mainstream Rock" to "US Rock" or "US Main", etc. It doesn't really matter what stupid name Billboard is calling the chart this week (and it changes alot, believe me), just as long as we get the idea of what the chart is charting. It would also fix some of the too-big cells with these long names in them. Drewcifer (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've change "US Mainstream Rock" to "US Main. Rock" and "US Modern Rock" to "US Mod. Rock." The "US Hot 100" column header shouldn't be affecting the width of any columns as it is only a maximum of 3 characters wide. For the EP, I feel we need to specifically say "UK Singles Chart" as, being an EP, it could be either the singles chart or the albums chart. Also in the UK we have the downloads chart, the indie chart, the dance chart, etc. Similarly for the video, I feel we need to specifically say the albums chart for Germany as, being a video, it is quite plausible for it to be a video chart.--JD554 (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My main concern was actually vertical space, not horizontal space (some of the headers took up 4 lines, which looked odd). I made a few small edits myself to further fix the problem and to get those cells down to two lines to match the others. Feel free to undo them if you hate it, but it's a minor change that I think helps. As far as the UK Singles chart and GER Albums chart, that's fine, since there's a rational behind it, but what about removing the word "chart". That seems a bit redundant to me. Again, that would save some vertical space in those cells and would get them down to two lines. Drewcifer (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I had to revert as the browser won't put a line-break in between the last character and the reference, which caused the columns to go wider than the 3.5em I'd set them to. --JD554 (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've change "US Mainstream Rock" to "US Main. Rock" and "US Modern Rock" to "US Mod. Rock." The "US Hot 100" column header shouldn't be affecting the width of any columns as it is only a maximum of 3 characters wide. For the EP, I feel we need to specifically say "UK Singles Chart" as, being an EP, it could be either the singles chart or the albums chart. Also in the UK we have the downloads chart, the indie chart, the dance chart, etc. Similarly for the video, I feel we need to specifically say the albums chart for Germany as, being a video, it is quite plausible for it to be a video chart.--JD554 (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Spell out IFPI in the references.Would be nice if you could find a better source than ChartStats, but won't push it.Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (massively) Been keeping an eye on this for a while. JD's done a ridonkulous job. Content/source wise I dare say it's without peer in Wikipedia artist lists. Well done and it deserves the star (and more). RB88 (T) 05:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jpeeling (talk · contribs) |
---|
Comments
|
- Support - extremely impressive work, producinga discography article for an artist who's been around as long as Bowie is a staggering feat! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 16 September 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 19:13, 21 September 2009 [8].
List of New York Mets managers
- Nominator(s): Mm40 (talk), Blackwatch21 (talk)
I am nominating this for featured list because I (duh!) think it meets the criteria. I felt it was ready last time, and it seemed on course to pass, but due to apparent miscommunication, some issues went unaddressed. This is the third attempt for the list (the other two were as List of New York Mets managers), so I'm hoping third time's the charm! Mm40 (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, shouldn't Blackwatch21 get nomination credits for this? He did do approximately half the work. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll ask him if he particularly wants it; it seems like he's done less than half the work, and the only content of his remaining is the list of managers. Mm40 (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well he did do some of the prose, like how many managers, and current manager, etc. I just think it'll be rude if an initial contributor does not get credit for half of the work he has done to an article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll ask him if he particularly wants it; it seems like he's done less than half the work, and the only content of his remaining is the list of managers. Mm40 (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we standardize the name? It's inconsistent with other manager lists and redundant (repetition of "manager" is quite clumsy). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had the name as List of New York Mets managers, but it was moved after I left. How does Management of the New York Mets sound? Mm40 (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The correct name should be List of New York Mets managers, it doesn't matter if the general managers are listed. BW21.--BlackWatch21 21:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only way we should deviate from the "List of [team] managers" format is if there are owners listed (a la List of Pittsburgh Pirates managers and owners). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The correct name should be List of New York Mets managers, it doesn't matter if the general managers are listed. BW21.--BlackWatch21 21:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 19:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (17–14) 22:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Cautious support – Consensus on the source here and at RSN seems to be against my opinion, so I am willing to bend on it as long as others feel it's okay, though I'm not 100% convinced myself. Everything else appears fine. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Rlendog (talk) |
---|
Comments
|
Comment
- "Johnson is the longest-tenured manager in franchise history, with 1,012 games of service over 7 seasons (1984–1989 and part of 1990)" If you're defining longest tenure by seasons then it looks like Johnson shares the record with Bobby Valentine, if you're defining it by games then the record doesn't need repeating at the end of the third paragraph. --Jpeeling (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The lead got cleaned up nicely. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:13, 19 September 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 19:13, 21 September 2009 [10].
Listed buildings in Widnes
- Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this as a featured list candidate because it is a complete list of all the listed buildings in the town of Widnes. The text has been copyedited. It has not had a peer review because its format is similar to the FLs List of listed buildings in Runcorn (urban area) and List of listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area), other than that the "Refs" column has been omitted, the citations having been added to the "Description" column. The title has been recently changed by deleting "List of" in line with the consensus reached here. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Hassocks5489
|
---|
Comments from Hassocks5489 Lovely, well-presented list as ever from Peter. Some small tweaks needed, but no significant concerns: ~Lead~
~Table~
~ALT text~
~Refs~
My editing will be severely restricted from 1st to 18th September because of holiday (computer rooms on cruise ships are all very well, but not at about £20 per hour!), so I will keep this FAC on watch until Monday night. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support from Hassocks. All of my comments have been addressed, and the point about precision of coordinates has been explained to my satisfaction (buildings with a small footprint such as chimneys → more decimal places needed to ensure precision). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And just a further thought (not to do with the FL candidacy): on the Catalyst image, it might be an idea to obscure the registration plates of the three cars that are in full view. I can read them when I look at the full-size image, and blanking them out is generally advised these days because of the increased "popularity" of car cloning. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't think of that. Done. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Very well done.
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "The Hollies" should be sorted as "Hollies, The". -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I think this is a great example of what this kind of article ought to look like. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- I am concerned about the similarities in some of the description details and the accompanying references. I'm not sure if this is a valid concern so have asked Moonriddengirl, who's more qualified in this area, to take a look. --Jpeeling (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not particularly knowledgeable about copyright issues and should certainly welcome an expert's advice. It's a bit difficult when you're giving a brief architectural description to do it in alternative wording, etc. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is, but I'm afraid that I agree. US copyright law (which governs Wikipedia) not only protects the language, but also the organization of a piece. The facts are protected, but unless the structure of those facts is devoid of creativity, fact selection and arrangement is. Let's take for example the following text (I'm not carrying over wikilinks just because its easier not to):
This sewer ventilation shaft is built in red brick with a blue brick plinth. It is approximately 30 feet (9 m) high and 4 feet (1 m) square internally. The vent has a projecting cap with a corbel support. It is the only remaining shaft of an early sewage system designed to take effluent from the local chemical industry
- This is a summary of the cited source, [11]
Red brick with blue brick plinth standing approximately thirty feet high and four feet square internally.... The vent has a weathered projecting cap with corbel support. The only remaining shaft of an early sewage system designed to take effluent from the chemical industry.
- I've removed the one sentence that was not carried over. Not only is this the same information in the same order, but some of the language is duplicated. The article's sentence "It is the only remaining shaft of an early sewage system designed to take effluent from the local chemical industry", copies that of the source, with only two words tacked on to the beginning. Rewriting this kind of thing is a pain, but, unfortunately, we don't have much choice unless we use limited amounts in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline. The site, sadly, does not permit free re-use: "© English Heritage 2007 - All rights reserved."
- Another more problematic entry
St Michael's is a Catholic church built in red sandstone ashlar with a slate roof. Its plan is cruciform with an eight-bay arcade which passes by the short transepts to the chancel. At the west end of the nave there is a tower with a steep saddleback roof. It was built for a Jesuit community expelled from Germany in 1872.
- This is a much more succinct summary, eliminating several sentences, but still contains some problems. Compare with the source:
Catholic Church 1876-9, by Henry Clutton, in red sandstone ashlar with slate roof. Cruciform with 8 bay arcade which passes the short transepts and takes in the chancel. At the west end of the nave there is an impressive tower with steep saddleback roof.... Built for a Jesuit community expelled from Germany in 1872.
- Organization of facts is less the issue here that duplication of text is. The last two sentences of the article are almost verbatim.
- This kind of close paraphrasing does constitute a copyright concern. It would be good to evaluate each entry to ensure that other such similarities in structure and language do not persist. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. OK, thanks for that. I'll have a go at rewriting the problematic descriptions – but it will not be for a few days. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment - I'm now going to be incredibly rude and say the list doesn't match the sources enough. There's a few minor differences between the English Heritage site and the date column, which may need fixing. On the source...
- Runcorn Bridge was built between 1864-68, listed as 1868.
- Former power house was built 1901, listed as 1910.
- Cemetery chapels was built 1897, listed as 1895.
- Wayside pulpit, St Mary's Church was built circa 1910, listed as 1908-10.
- Silver Jubilee Bridge was built between 1956-61, listed as 1961.
--Jpeeling (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Not rude at all! In two cases I had given completion dates rather then ranges - amended; two were typos - corrected; I had given the pulpit date the same as the church - now amended per ref.
I have re-written most of the descriptions in a way that I hope now avoids any copyright violations. Are they now OK? Do I need to alert Moonriddengirl to this, or will she be watching this page? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They look OK to me, but I have asked MRG to return and take a look. One final seperate comment from me would be possible inconsistent capitalisation, for example some churchs are capitalised while others not, is there a reason for this? --Jpeeling (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. Corrected. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Moonriddengirl may be too busy to take a look but I'm pretty sure the descriptions are now fine, all other comments resolved. --Jpeeling (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very sorry for my delay in responding. I've had a look, and I think that the descriptions have been well-rewritten. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the trouble you have both taken over this matter. I've learnt a lot. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very sorry for my delay in responding. I've had a look, and I think that the descriptions have been well-rewritten. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 19 September 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 19:13, 21 September 2009 [12].
Seinfeld (season 2)
I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the Featured List criteria. Thanks.--Music26/11 16:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support I can see that it's the 3rd nomination; not much wrong with this list.--Cheetah (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since the Season list has been significantly expanded the lead needs one more paragraph. Maybe one about the general plot of the season...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport WOW this FLC has been quiet. One comment, could the DVD section have some more info on the sales? It mentions the pre-sales, but that's it. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, really quiet, but hey. I understand your request for DVD sales info, but I just don't know where to look for that sort of information. Diaa asked for it during the previous FLC, so I browsed around in Google News, but I couldn't find anything. I've also looked at some other FLs, but none of them had sales information.--Music26/11 08:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair nuff. Though, a quick Google found this. Whatever. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, really quiet, but hey. I understand your request for DVD sales info, but I just don't know where to look for that sort of information. Diaa asked for it during the previous FLC, so I browsed around in Google News, but I couldn't find anything. I've also looked at some other FLs, but none of them had sales information.--Music26/11 08:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support
- Please add the information about 4 million DVDs from the source by Staxringold. Staxringold if you have more sources please put them forward. This is about comprehensiveness.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is
awfulnot nice and bynosome means not Feature quality. Please expand it. At least three 6 line paragraphs should be made for the lead. You can do this by summarizing each section with a paragraph. Do this and you would have a 4-6 paragraph lead. The lead as it currently stand doesn't qualify the list for featured status.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no more sources, that was just a quick Google. As for the lead, "awful" is pretty harsh. 30 Rock seasons 1 and 2 have similar leads and are featured, and I'm working off that template for 30 Rock season 3. If you want a different template, The Simpsons (season 8) also has a similar lead, just with a mention of the awards won for that season (worth including if you want). Staxringold talkcontribs 20:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to be over criticizing. I used to support this list in the previous nomination but now the lead is just too short to be called a FQ lead. It doesn't really summarize or give an overview of the subject. I'm just saying that a list as comprehensive and big as that needs a longer lead with info from each section.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support After copy-editing the episode summaries a month ago, and after the nominator's improvements in response to reviewers' comments at this FLC, I believe this list meets the FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 22 September 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 19:13, 21 September 2009 [13].
Desperate Housewives (season 1)
I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked and improved on this article for the past month using my sandbox, then tranferring it to the actual page. I saw it had great potential to become an FL so I did some sprucing up, and added some sources. I think it looks FL worthy now. Please tell me how you feel about the article, thank you! (SUDUSER)85 14:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Diaa
|
---|
|
Support--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image comments
File:Desperate Housewives season 1 poster.jpg; resolution is above .1 megapixels, but not significantly so. The rationale could use some beefing up; how does the image aid reader understanding (providing easy reference to the form the work was marketed as, et al.) Also, the raw img link spits me a 403. You need to find the page it's used on and use that as the source URL instead.I don't think File:Housewives season 1 cast.jpg's rationale sticks. The appearance of the characters is not markedly different from their (free image replaceable) real life appearances; there's only a line of critical commentary relating to their appearances. Furthermore the most important characters are shown on the season 1 poster.--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeon image and prose concerns. Per David Fuchs above, the rationales aren't strong and we don't need two images to depict largely the same thing. Writing needs a tuneup; at random, "Season one was nominated for a total of fifteen Primetime Emmy Awards. Six of the fifteen nominations were won" is clunky and repetitive, "Gabrielle bribes a little girl to keep quiet after catching her and John 'in the act'." is too colloqial. The summary length of the first episode is much longer than that of the other one. Personally, I think the other summaries should be expanded, as right now they don't flow at all; all I see is a series of events. MOS breaches too: "Carlos is arrested, claiming he was 'set-up'. " Use double quotes not single; "as first in its timeslot of 9:00pm Eastern Standard Time / 8:00pm Central" Spaces between the time and am/pm; publications are italicized (e.g. USA Today) I recommend withdrawing and submitting for a peer review. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]partiallydone I have taken care of the MOS breaches,though i am still rewriting episode summaries. As for the image concerns, see my responses for David Fuchs' comments above. Also per your suggestion, I did not want to send it for a PR because I felt that it would take alot of time. (SUDUSER)85 17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Wrestlinglover
Stay tuned.--WillC 04:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Desperate Housewives season 1 poster.jpg is the promotional poster. Why use this instead of an image of the boxset?--WillC 09:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the promotional poster was the original image in the article, and after looking at articles such as Lost (season 1) and The O.C. (season 2), I thought using a poster would be okay?
- Was wondering, the South Park articles have the boxset.--WillC 09:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the promotional poster was the original image in the article, and after looking at articles such as Lost (season 1) and The O.C. (season 2), I thought using a poster would be okay?
- "Marc Cherry wrote the script for the Housewives pilot and his agent appealed it to six networks; CBS, NBC, Fox, HBO, Showtime and Lifetime, only to have all of them turn it down." → "Marc Cherry wrote the script for the Housewives pilot and his agent appealed it to six networks (CBS, NBC, Fox, HBO, Showtime, and Lifetime); however, only to have all of them turn it down." Sounds better imo.
- "In the initial season, 13 roles received star billing." Makes no sense to me. What? From what I gather from the section, move it to the end of the paragraph and change it to (rough draft) "Overall, there are 13 main starring roles in season one.".--WillC 09:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Eva Longoria Parker starred as Gabrielle Solis, the materialistic ex–fashion model who cheats on her husband" Wasn't a Parker at the time of the season, make that noted. Like "Eva Longoria (now Eva Longoria Parker) starred as Gabrielle Solis," or any way that may be better.--WillC 09:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- done changed it per your suggestion.
Changes addressed with comments by (SUDUSER)85 13:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) |
---|
Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
Looks pretty good otherwise, although I haven't had time to read the episode summaries. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] done all suggestions by Rambo's Revenge fixed. (SUDUSER)85 06:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
I read a few episode summaries in full, and am happy to assume that the rest are of a similar quality. I gave the whole thing a quick check for formatting, spellings and ndashes and only made a few minor changes. Anyway the list now looks in excellent shape and I am happy to lend my support. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What makes http://www.thestudiotour.com/ush/backlot/street_colonial.shtml a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The images still need alt text per WP:ALT.Dabomb87 (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Could you tell me which images need them and give me an example on how to write it?(SUDUSER)85 05:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- done I have filled the images with alt text, you can use this to check it. (SUDUSER)85 11:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The alt text for the infobox is excellent. The map alt text needs work; I've asked Eubulides (talk · contribs) to help you out. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. Is there anything regarding the prose that you would like address? (SUDUSER)85 13:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done; thanks.
Yes, the map text needs work. It currently says "as described by the text" but I don't see any description in nearby text of where the characters' houses are located. Instead, the alt text should say that Wisteria Lane is a cul de sac, and list the houses in order. If the house numbers are important they should also be listed. The idea is to convey the gist of the map to the reader; please see WP:ALT#Maps.Eubulides (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The alt text for the infobox is excellent. The map alt text needs work; I've asked Eubulides (talk · contribs) to help you out. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- done I have filled the images with alt text, you can use this to check it. (SUDUSER)85 11:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the summaries might benefit from a final copy-edit for polish (I made a few), but overall this list meets featured quality. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:18, 12 September 2009 [14].
List of teams and cyclists in the 2009 Giro d'Italia
With the conclusion of the 2009 Giro d'Italia in May, the WP:CYCLING-project have now decided to enhance the article's quality. And coherent to that I decided to try and get our project it's first Featured List. The same outline have been used in multiple lists from other races, so I'm looking forward to hear your comments in order to freshen up the other ones. All comments will be addressed as soon as I can address them, and I look forward to hearing them. lil2mas (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "This list of teams and cyclists in the 2009 Giro d'Italia contains the professional road bicycle racers who competed at the 92nd edition of Giro d'Italia. " FLs don't begin like this; see recently promoted FLs for an example of more engaging starts. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Introduction changed, the reason why the intro sounded so lame is because I've always thought that the title of the article/list always had to be included and bolded early in the article/list. I looked at 2008 IIHF World Championship rosters, while enhancing this list, but looking at other FL's, it seems that isn't the case. =) lil2mas (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comments
In the tables, some cyclists' names are written in bold. At first I confused them for team laders, but they appear to be the top ten of the general classification. I would remove the bold font, or explain it somewhere.
Also: DNS and DNF are explained in the "Cyclists" section, but they are used above that, in the "Teams" section.
- Good luck in getting the FL!--EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (member of WP:CYCLING so will not vote)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
If nothing else, this list certainly meets the comprehensiveness criterion!
Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Addressed many of these concerns. Nosleep break my slumber 18:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an awful lot of overlinking in the lead. The use of the template is the issue here. After the first use for each team, add the
|
Support. A hearty thanks to the members of WP:CYCLING who put in hard work on what appears to be a great article! If this is truly the project's first FL, I wish you many more. Cheers! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 00:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (17–14) 20:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support – My comments have all been addressed, and FL criteria appears met. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text is done; thanks. Alt text looks fairly good (thanks!) but I spotted two problems:
The first four small jersey icons, in the legend at the start of the Teams section, are missing alt text.
- Added alt text. lil2mas (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly good. One thing left: some of the alt texts for the jerseys don't actually describe the jersey. For example, "Konovalovas wore the Lithuanian time trial champion jersey during time trials" should be something like "A yellow-, red-, and green-striped jersey". Dabomb87 (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added alt text. lil2mas (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The alt text for the map doesn't convey the gist of the image to the visually impaired reader. Please add a brief summary of the gist, e.g., "The U.S., France, Spain, Italy, and Russia had more than ten riders each, and riders in smaller numbers came from other countries, mostly in western Europe, but also in South America, Canada, Australia, and South Africa."
- 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 18:18, 12 September 2009 [15].
List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I
I am nominating this for featured list because I previously submitted it twice and it failed and after making a number of edits and major changes to the article I believe that I have (along with help from others) made all the necesary changes to get this article to featured status. Kumioko (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a large space in the second footnote. I would fix it, but I don't go near footnotes (I tried to put one in once, and I was up all night trying to put it in. Not fun.) Mm40 (talk)
- Comment I performed a quick copy-edit of the lead. The article is much improved from when it was previously at FLC. However, I want to see other users' opinions first before supporting. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, see below for reasoning.
Woody's resolved issues
|
---|
|
- Excellent work. I have struck the resolved issues with only the double recipients outstanding. That isn't a deal-breaker for me but I do think there should be some explanation on the page. By the way, I have removed the note about quotations as there aren't any quotations left. Regards, Woody (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Kumioko has effectively retired. Per his comment here, this FLC can be closed or taken up by somebody else. Does anybody want to work on the issues raised? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to try to address the issues, might take me a few days. — jwillbur 07:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support My issues were resolved in the previous FLCs, and I'm satisfied that the list meets FL criteria after Woody's and Crzycheetah's concerns were resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:18, 12 September 2009 [16].
List of Spanish football champions
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria necessary to become a featured list. Thanks NapHit (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Cheetah (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
|
Conditional support – I still believe the lead to be a bit short, but won't hold up my support over it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "Top scorers clubs" is missing an apostrophe
- If the winners of the Copa Del Rey were regarded as the champions of Spanish football prior to 1929, as you assert, why are they not included on a list of the champions of Spanish football?
- No need for capital A on "As of 2009" in the lead#
- "FC Barcelona is only Spanish team whom have won The Treble" should be "FC Barcelona is the only Spanish team to have won The Treble"
- If you are going to separate out the book into a bibliography, then it should come before the refs, as currently you have "Cresswell p489" as a ref but at this point the reader has no idea what "Cresswell" is........
- Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all requests, and turns out Copa del Rey was not properly regarded as national championship so not going to include them. NapHit (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
No need for two Copa del Rey links in the lead.In the table, Cesar Rodriguez Alvarez is sorting as the final player, below the Zs. Is this the intention?No italics for publisher in reference 5, since UEFA is not a printed publication (assuming this doesn't come from a publication of theirs).Giants2008 (17–14) 20:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all requests NapHit (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Good list overall. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with one minor quibble - I would move the bit about three clubs never having been relegated to after the sentence that introduces the concept of relegation....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Possible discrepancies, according to the source...
- Unamono scored 20 goals in 1939/40.
- 1943/44 top scorer was Edmundo Suárez with 27 goals.
- Telmo Zarra scored 19 goals in 1944/45.
- Hans Krankl scored 26 goals in 1978/79.
- Ronaldo scored 25 goals in 2003/04.
- The only of these that was right is Edmundo Suarez, and Zarra, the rest are not correct and the info currently in the table is fine, out of interest where did you get your information. NapHit (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure about the second section, it's titled Total titles won but has runners-up/third place details which doesn't seem quite right. Also there's teams who've come second and third who aren't listed because they never won the title, could the title be changed to Results by team, like some other football FLs, and the teams who've finished only second/third be included? --Jpeeling (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hink it's fine the way it is personally, and should not include teams who have not won the league so it is the same as other league champion lists. NapHit (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]
- The article looks like an article about Spanish football playoff seasons, instead of champions, since it is also showing the third place winners, and the top scorer, both of which does not relate to the Spanish football champions. I think you should use the format in List of Super Bowl champions.
- That format would not be appropriate, as the championship is not contested via play-offs. The champions are the team that finished top of the division at the end of the season, simple as that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then shouldn't the article be called List of La Liga seasons? Since right now, that title fits perfectly with the article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That format would not be appropriate, as the championship is not contested via play-offs. The champions are the team that finished top of the division at the end of the season, simple as that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Spanish football champions are the winners of the primary football competition in Spain, La Liga." So can only La Liga teams play for the championship?
- It's not a case of "teams who can play for the championship", the team that finishes top of La Liga at the end of the season wins the championship..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So why is this called the "Spanish football champions"? Why not "La Liga champions"?
- Dunno, just to match equivalent articles on England, Scotland, etc, I guess...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So why is this called the "Spanish football champions"? Why not "La Liga champions"?
- It's not a case of "teams who can play for the championship", the team that finishes top of La Liga at the end of the season wins the championship..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the "Total titles won by town or city" section is redundant, as you can just put the cities into the "Total titles won" section.
- Overall, the article is pretty confusing for people who don't know how soccer playoffs work.
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply put, there are no play-offs in soccer....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That should be clarified in the article IMO, since I never knew that. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, all articles on championships in sports which don't use a play-off system (ie pretty much all of them outside the USA) need to specifically state "the championship is not decided by play-offs" in case Americans assume it is? Seems a bit unnecessary........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Sorry, that was a bit snippy. Bad morning..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Laugh out loud. It's 2:00am here, which is even worst. I do get what you're saying, but really was confused at first. And considering the fact that around 50% of Wikipedia users are American, at least one sentence would be nice, like for example "The winner is determined by seasonal play", or something similar. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have added a sentence to this effect -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate it! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have added a sentence to this effect -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Laugh out loud. It's 2:00am here, which is even worst. I do get what you're saying, but really was confused at first. And considering the fact that around 50% of Wikipedia users are American, at least one sentence would be nice, like for example "The winner is determined by seasonal play", or something similar. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that was a bit snippy. Bad morning..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That should be clarified in the article IMO, since I never knew that. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:41, 7 September 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 18:18, 12 September 2009 [17].
Timeline of the London Underground
This timeline provides a chronology of significant events in the history of the development of the London Underground. By containing links to the events listed, it forms a valuable hub for exploring the wider field. DavidCane (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (Disclaimer - I added some of these). It's such a sprawling subject that a full list of station openings, renames and closures isn't desirable, and I think the balance here is just about right. Ought it to mention the ending of freight services and the MR spur to Smithfield Market, which played such an important part in making the two systems viable back in pre-automobile days? – iridescent 19:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Station opening dates and name changes are, of course covered by the List of London Underground stations and Closed London Underground stations articles. I've been looking for a closing date for Smithfield goods station and the best I can find so far is sometime in the 1960s. As you say, I think that it's worth mentioning the freight services operated over the London Underground as it's seen purely as a passenger network today. I'll continue looking for a Smithfield closure; I suspect it is sometime around the date of the fire which destroyed the Smithfield Poultry Market. --DavidCane (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. The link issue is not a dealbreaker. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) This is an interesting, nicely done article (made a few tweaks to lead, hope you don't mind). I have a few nitpicks:
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Date formats (in the references) are mixed; some are DMY while others are YYYY-MM-DD. I can fix this easily if you indicate which you want.Dabomb87 (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Personally, I would prefer all dates to be in the DD-MM-YYYY format and would set it this way except that it seems to be standard for the "Retrieved on" date to be presented in the ISO format, hence publication dates of The Times articles are in DD-MM-YYYY and the retrieved on dates are the ISO format.--DavidCane (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jpeeling (talk · contribs) |
---|
Comments
Looks good, I could find just a few minor referencing differences which may need fixing:
|
- 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 18:18, 12 September 2009 [18].
List of tablets on the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice
I am nominating this for featured list because... This is my first FLC nomination, so apologies if I've got anything wrong, but as far as I can see this meets all the criteria. A sister article to Postman's Park, this documents an interesting piece of both social and artistic history, and an unusual collaboration between four leading figures in different artistic disciplines (George Frederic Watts, Ernest George, William De Morgan and Mary Fraser Tytler). – iridescent 01:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: The alt-text intentionally just gives the design style of each plaque, as the text is already listed for each entry separately. – iridescent 01:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly one of the more unusual lists I've seen. You're going to be annoyed at this comment, but we really should use human readable formats in the table rather than ISO. You can use {{dts}} for this purpose. Alternatively, I could do this, but you would have to wait about 14–16 hours. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ✓ Done. Regexes are a wonderful thing sometimes. Any way to force the date columns narrower, as the expanded date format is squishing the two end free-text columns now? – iridescent 02:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, an AWB expert. I'll look into the width thing. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so after playing around with the widths for a little bit I decided that it looked messy no matter what. So, I changed the note system and moved the "Notes" column into footnotes instead. See User:Dabomb87/Misc. What do you think? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, although I've used line-breaks instead of bullet points to separate the notes as the bullets looked a bit obtrusive to me. – iridescent 11:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The line breaks are fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to use {{sortname}} for Commemorates column. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered it, but I thought it would cause more problems than it solves, as some of the tablets commemorate multiple names. I think it may make more sense to make that particular column unsortable - realistically, I can see no circumstances in which someone will want to put these in alphabetical order (chronological order by date of installation and date of the event commemorated are the only ones that really ought to be sortable IMO) - someone looking for a particular name is more likely to either scroll down or ctrl-f. The designer column is sortable just because that particular column was sortable on the table I copied this code from and there wasn't a pressing need to change it, but there's no particular reason for that to be either. – iridescent 20:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to use {{sortname}} for Commemorates column. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The line breaks are fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, although I've used line-breaks instead of bullet points to separate the notes as the bullets looked a bit obtrusive to me. – iridescent 11:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so after playing around with the widths for a little bit I decided that it looked messy no matter what. So, I changed the note system and moved the "Notes" column into footnotes instead. See User:Dabomb87/Misc. What do you think? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, an AWB expert. I'll look into the width thing. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neat-o. I like this alot. I whole-heartedly endorse Damomb's mock-up, namely in taking the notes out of the table. Two text-heavy columns made the table unwieldy and therefore too big for smaller monitors. And there wasn't quite enough of them to warrant adding a whole big text-filled column, I thought. Also, I think the last designer cell, credited to Royal Doulton, needs a note, since it wasn't really him (right?). Drewcifer (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the last designer cell is correct. Royal Doulton is a ceramics design team (currently part of Waterford Wedgwood), not a specific individual - John Doulton himself died in 1873. Doulton don't credit the individual designers of pieces (from the style, the main 1908 batch would probably have been by Leslie Harradine or George Tinworth but that's pure OR). – iridescent 11:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very nicely presented piece of social history with excellent photographs of the tablets. Some poignant stories of selflessness here. Couple of comments:
- Is there any information on the original process for nominating or selecting a candidate for a tablet? Note i suggests that the original list was prepared by George Watts, but, after his death, were the other choices made purely by Mary Watts or was there a committee of worthies?
- Given that we now have a new tablet for Leigh Pitt, is there a procedure for considering new nominations and, if there is, will it only cover new actions or will there be a review of potential candidates during the 80 years between 1927 and 2007?
- Is the red-link for Alice Ayres deliberate?
--DavidCane (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The story is given in more detail at the main Postman's Park article - I was trying to avoid content-forking, and intentionally only put enough on this article so that someone stumbling across it can work out what they're looking at.
- The original 24 were selected by Watts from newspaper reports that caught his eye (hence the bias towards London and Surrey, where he lived);
- In 1904 Watts handed over control to the vicar and churchwardens of St Botolph's Aldersgate, but Mary Watts retained effective control;
- The 24 added in 1908 were selected by Mary Watts from George Watts's list (hence nothing more recent than 1902); in 1910 she gave up on it to dedicate her time to the projects in Compton;
- Alfred Smith was added at the behest of his local MP;
- The three policemen added in 1930 were the result of the vicar & churchwardens canvassing assorted public bodies for nominations, and the Met Police replying first;
- Leigh Pitt was added when his fiancée approached the Diocese of London directly and they flexed their muscles to get the church to authorise it.
- There doesn't seem to be a formal process for submitting nominations. The Diocese of London's official position is "Watts created the memorial to pay tribute to unsung heroes and it is appropriate that Mr Pitt should be commemorated in this way. The Diocese welcomes the renewed interest in this important part of London’s heritage. We would consider applications for further commemorative plaques, on individual merit, for acts of remarkable heroism.", which I would read as only accepting recent cases - if you'll forgive the OR, I suspect they don't want it overwhelmed with WWII-related nominations.
- Yes, the Alice Ayres redlink is intentional - it should turn blue fairly soon. She was a very high profile case back in the 19th century (for some reason, the New Zealand press seemed particularly obsessed with the case), and Closer means she's by far the best known name there now, so I really want to fill that one in. (Because the names were all chosen from press reports, and covered in the press at the time of the relevant installations, technically every name should be a live redlink, but I thought that would be too ugly. The Watts Gallery have a book in the pipeline with biographies of all the people listed, so it may be possible to turn this into a true linkfarm at some point.) – iridescent 19:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The story is given in more detail at the main Postman's Park article - I was trying to avoid content-forking, and intentionally only put enough on this article so that someone stumbling across it can work out what they're looking at.
Support My main concern—table formatting—was resolved. The writing, length and structure of the lead are very good. Just a few minor points:
"Postman's Park was built on the church's former churchyard, and the church " If there is any way to rephrase so that "church" doesn't appear thrice in part of a sentence, that would be nice.The alt text is good; my only minor nitpick is that, like captions, sentence fragments should not have punctuation at the end.I agree that it's probably not necessary to sort by commemorates, but perhaps make "designer" sortable? Some readers may find it useful, and it's easy (no hidden sortkey needed).Usage of the interpunct is inconsistent; best to omit it.Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reworded it to "Postman's Park was built on St Botolph Aldersgate's former churchyard, and the vicar and churchwardens were at that time trying to raise funds to secure its future", even though it forces a repetition of "St Botolph's Aldersgate". I think the full name of the church is necessary, as there's also a St Botolph's Aldgate nearby just to add to the confusion.
- To be honest, even though it's blasphemy against WP:ACCESS I'm not that concerned about getting the alt-text perfect here as long as it's adequate. This is essentially an article about the visual arts – and only gets around 10 readers per day, despite currently being listed at FLC and its sister article being listed at FAC. Realistically, the number of visually impaired people reading it will be so minimal as to be negligible.
- I tried to use the interpunct whenever De Morgan had used it as a text separator (i.e., in the middle of a row of text, rather than as one of the semi-random dots he put at the end of the lines). I think it looks better off including them, otherwise we're left with hard-to-parse lines like "Aged 30 Metropolitan Fire Brigade Saved six persons". – iridescent 00:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think that the Designer column should be made sortable (again, no sortkey needed), but it's not a deal-breaker. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have made "designer" sortable, although it doesn't really make much difference - "order of installation" puts them in de facto order of designer, anyway. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the subject commemorated shouldn't be sortable, as for those that commemorate more than one person it means we need to pick a "primary" subject. – iridescent 17:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jpeeling (talk · contribs) |
---|
Comments
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:18, 12 September 2009 [19].
List of Governors of West Virginia
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the featured list criteria. It's based on other featured lists (List of Governors of Connecticut, List of Governors of Indiana, etc.). Designate (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeez, over a hundred years without a death or resignation? Impressive. :P I'll take a closer look at this later, on its face it looks pretty good. Except for, "All representatives and senators mentioned represented Connecticut." --Golbez (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Images need alt text per WP:ALT. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- This is very much a case where 3(b) comes into play; the first two paragraphs of this list are identical in content to the first two at Governor of West Virginia, and that article only has three paragraphs. I propose a merger.
- Is there any particular reason you used {{frac}} instead of ½?
- I could go on all day about that – but, basically the same reasons the MOS says to use <sup>2</sup> instead of ². The fraction characters are designed for less sophisticated interfaces, we should take advantage of quality typography when we can. Or that's just me, anyway. Designate (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The notes dealing in any detail (i.e. Wilson's remaining in office) need specific references.
- Please link the previous constitution and borrow the formatting style from List of Governors of Alabama for constitution citations.
- I can't find the previous constitution online. Why abbreviate the citations? Designate (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was the closest to a standard method of constitution citing that I could find online, and it makes the references section much less a wall of repetitive text. I'll take a look around; Google Books has been pretty helpful in finding old constitutions. --Golbez (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find the previous constitution online. Why abbreviate the citations? Designate (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bob Wise served in the House.
- Right, thanks. Designate (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fix the bioguide cites; use {{cite web}} instead of just including the URL in quotes. --Golbez (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any particular reason? Seems like it just makes things more complicated and looks the same. Designate (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, I'll get to the missing references soon. Designate (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job. I concur with Golbez. You can either merge Governor of West Virginia into the list or expand it to include the history of the position and elections. See Governor of Indiana. Reywas92Talk 21:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. It would be better to have a separate article, but I'm not interested in writing it so we might as well merge for now. Designate (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, it would be better as a separate article, but for anything else on Wikipedia, if we had a 30k article, and then a 3k article, of which 2k is a direct copy from the 30k article, that smaller would have no chance of survival. It's only in cases like this where people question it. --Golbez (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- "To be elected governor, a person must be 30 years old, and must have been a citizen of West Virginia for five years, at the time of inauguration." Suggest tweaking. I'm presuming these are minimum requirements, however it technically reads as a very specific criteria. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As father of the U.S. governor lists on Wikipedia, I hereby anoint this article with a Support. --Golbez (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I supported, but you might add in the note Golbez suggested about Francis Pierpoint. Just a suggestion, not a dealbreaker. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with comments. DaBomb and Golbez have done great work on this article. However, on the statement "No governor of West Virginia has held any other federal office," I get that no governor has become president but no WV governor has ever become a Cabinet-level secretary? I just want to make sure. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:11, 4 September 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 18:18, 12 September 2009 [21].
IWGP Tag Team Championship
I feel it passes the criteria. Was an FL once before, but was removed. Any comments will be addressed quickly as well. Though FLC is short on reviewers, I will be reviewing a few more than usually to not cause a problem.--WillC 14:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. I trust that WrestleView is not being used for anything controversial. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 16:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Support – After concluding my review, I waited a while for subsequent reviews to be completed. In addition, I cleaned up a few more prose issues and fixed sorting in a couple places. Meets standards, though I do wish the lead wasn't as long in comparison to the new History section. Giants2008 (17–14) 16:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Note Tenzan's and Satoshi Kojima's second reign and Junji Hirata's and Shinya Hashimoto's only reign are tied for second
Satoshi Kojima is red-linked when it shouldn't be. --Numyht (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSupport - Although you need to let Me move stuff into the resolved box or at least respond before you do. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 00:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from MPJ-DK
|
---|
|
Resolved comments from Jpeeling (talk · contribs) |
---|
Comments
|
Strong opposeA lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. Not the article, itself. I can't support until the lead is moved to a "History" section, and the lead is used the proper way, as a summary of the article. iMatthew talk at 14:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it better now?--WillC 05:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not, you didn't do what I requested. I said move the history to it's own section, and make the lead a summary of the article. I didn't say remove information from it... iMatthew talk at 02:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't like the idea of a history section, but I went ahead and did one.--WillC 03:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the lead is still too long. The information in the lead needs to be shortened to a summary of the championship, and a summary of it's history, and maybe a summary of it's appearance. The rest of the information up there should be moved to the history section or removed if it's not notable enough to be moved. iMatthew talk at 22:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't like the idea of a history section, but I went ahead and did one.--WillC 03:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not, you didn't do what I requested. I said move the history to it's own section, and make the lead a summary of the article. I didn't say remove information from it... iMatthew talk at 02:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about now?--WillC 00:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) |
---|
Comments:
|
All issues resolved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from iMatthew talk |
---|
*"As a professional wrestling championship, it is not won legitimately; it is instead won via a scripted ending to a match." -> "Like most other professional wrestling championships, the title is won via the result of a scripted match."
iMatthew talk at 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Issues above resolved. Not supporting as I'm still not sure this is an example of Wikipedia's best work. Not opposing because it's better now than it was before. iMatthew talk at 15:18, 5 September 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 Crzycheetah 17:27, 5 September 2009 [23].
Santigold discography
Been working on this on and off for some time now. Finally hunkered down and finished it, and I believe it passes both FL criteria and MOS:DISCOG. Any comments and suggestions are appreciated and welcomed. Drewcifer (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
"White's discography under the name Santogold consists of her eponymous debut album, four promotional singles, a mixtape, and four music videos." - Extend the wikilink to include the word "her".FIXED"In 2009, White released a download-only, liveFIXEDEextended play via iTunes, ...""... which peaked at #20 on the Dance/Electronic Albums chart." - In what country?ADDED A MENTION OF BILLBOARD"Burned Again and their 2003 EP Sex Sells." - Write "extended play" out instead of wikilinking it (again). If you feel the need for abbreviations, introduce them in parentheses after first occurence of the term, as per the manual of style.FIXEDWhat makes ChartStats.com a reliable source?REPLACEDRef. 11 is missing a title.FIXED- Several references give the name of the respective website (belongs into the
|work=
parameter of {{cite web}}) instead of its publisher.
- I think this is a somewhat moot point. Regardless of which attribute the website itself is in, it is presented in the citation in the same way. The only difference being if it is put into the work parameter, the website is italicized. Website's shouldn't be italicized in the same way a movie or a book should. So to get around this I've put them in the publisher attribute, which places the website in the same place/format, but un-italicized. Drewcifer (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Goodraise 10:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if I follow you here. Which refs in particular are you concerned with? Some refs only have one pub/work/website, since it's redundant. PopMatters is publisher by PopMatters (or something like PopMatters Inc or PopMatter LLC). The ASCAP site is published by ASCAP, etc. Drewcifer (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'd format
- ref. #02 like this: "Santogold". Ultratop.be. Ultratop & Hung Medien. Retrieved 2009-08-17.
- ref. #03 like this: "Santogold". Lescharts.com (in French). Hung Medien. Retrieved 2009-08-17.
- ref. #04 like this: "Santogold". Dutchcharts.nl (in Dutch). Hung Medien. Retrieved 2009-08-17. and
- ref. #18 like this: "Trouble Andrew...The Male Santogold?". Altsounds.com. Altsounds. Retrieved 2009-01-12.
- BTW, note that I skipped the language parameter on #02, as the page is in English. (I wonder why in the article it says "in German" while the page itself says "Belgian Charts".) Goodraise 18:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed 2, 3, and 4, including the language thing in 2. There is some German dispersed on the page, but you're right, it's mostly in English. As for #18, I think it is a bit redundant restating Altsounds. Is there an MOS that requires the website and publisher be stating even if they're one and the same? It seems clear to me that AltSounds' website would be AltSounds.com. Drewcifer (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, there isn't. Wikipedia:Citing sources basically boils down to: "Do whatever you want, just try to keep it consistent." However, it does not seem "clear to me that AltSounds' website would be AltSounds.com." It might just as well be AltSounds.org, AltSounds.nl, or something completely different. Keep in mind: "A featured list exemplifies our very best work." The style guidelines set a bare minimum that is meant to be exceeded, not only met. By the way, I believe Dutchcharts.nl and Lescharts.com should be capitalized per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters). Goodraise 10:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, "work" is supposed to be used for publications (newspapers, magazines, journals). Many editors use work also for when a website is part of a larger entity, say Baseball-Reference from Sports Reference LLC; the improper italics are an unfortunate byproduct. What Drewcifer did here is actually stylistically correct and a neat workaround; I wish I had thought of it 12 months ago. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you say that the
|work=
parameter "is supposed to be used for publications (newspapers, magazines, journals)", when the template's very own documentation says otherwise? What does it matter what other editors do? Many editors vandalize pages, that doesn't make it right, does it? And since when is italicizing the name of a website "improper"? APA style for example, which is an acceptable style per WP:CITE#HOW, requires them to be italicized (as far as I know at least). As for sticking information into a template parameter that wasn't intended to hold that information in order to get the result you want: Templates change. Abusing them in such a manner is not "neat" at all. It's an unpredictable source of errors. If you don't like the way the template is supposed to be used, don't use it at all. Fork the template or use plain-text citations instead. Goodraise 18:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at this discussion that I started some time ago. There never really was a solution reached, but suffice to say that there doesn't seem to be a consensus about how to fix the situation, and that neither of us are crazy. So until something gets fixed, I'm comfortable with this work-around. Drewcifer (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But we don't follow APA guidelines; we follow Wikipedia's style guidelines—the MOS—and the MOS says to italicize newspapers, magazines and journals, not websites and news channels. Compare the article on The New York Times to CNN or CNET. The citation templates' documentations are confusing, internally inconsistent and contradictory, which is why many editors don't use them at all. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's style guidelines are "confusing, internally inconsistent and contradictory", not to mention oftentimes vague, imprecise, plain unhelpful, saying nothing and hard to navigate. However much you and I may wish them to be more precise and more strictly applied (I certainly do wish that was the case), they're not policy and, as you are most certainly aware, even policy isn't absolute. As I said above: The style guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources explicitly allows APA and several other styles to be followed. What I don't know is which one of our countless style guidelines actually "says to italicize newspapers, magazines and journals, not websites and news channels." I simply don't see it. Anyways, we're mixing several issues/straying off topic here. Whether the website names are italicized or not is irrelevant to me as far as supporting this nomination goes. More or less the same is the case for what's happening in the source code of the page. As much as I frown upon this kind of abuse, only the end product matters and it was/is only the lack of naming the publishing entity in the references that I took/am taking issue by. Goodraise 10:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you say that the
- Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jpeeling (talk · contribs) |
---|
Comments
--Jpeeling (talk) 22:16, 1 September 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.
- ^ "West Indies vs. Australia, Queen's Park Oval, Port of Spain, April 19–23, 2003". Cricinfo. Retrieved 2009-06-27.
- ^ "West Indies vs. Australia, Kensington Oval, Barbados, May 1–5, 2005". Cricinfo. Retrieved 2009-06-27.
- ^ "Australia vs. Zimbabwe, Sydney Cricket Ground, Syndey, October 17–20, 2003". Cricinfo. Retrieved 2009-06-27.
- ^ "Australia vs. India, Adelaide Oval, Adelaide, December 12–16, 2003". Cricinfo. Retrieved 2009-06-27.
- ^ "Australia vs. India, Melbourne Cricket Ground, Melbourne, December 26–30, 2003". Cricinfo. Retrieved 2009-06-27.