Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2009: Difference between revisions
promote 2 |
Giants2008 (talk | contribs) +3 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Sanath Jayasuriya/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Madonna singles discography/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chicago Cubs Opening Day starting pitchers/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Skunk Anansie discography/archive2}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Skunk Anansie discography/archive2}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oslo Metro lines/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oslo Metro lines/archive1}} |
Revision as of 17:30, 22 December 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 Giants2008 17:30, 22 December 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another centuries list, and the first Sri Lankan one. This is based on the already existing ones of Ponting, Sehwag etc. My first list of this type, so your comments and suggestions would be most welcome. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from -SpacemanSpiff 04:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 18:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Comments addressed, don't see any other issues. -SpacemanSpiff 04:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Yep - about time for another Aussie however. What about the Waugh twins, Border or even Bradman? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Seems mostly solid. Just found a couple of little nit-picks:
Remove the space after a dash in the last sentence of the lead.
- Done
The Test table has an H/A column, while the ODI table has H/A/N. Why are they different?
- That's because none of the tests were played at neutral venues, so only "home" and "away" are there. Test series are usually played between two countries, so the venue is either at their own country or the other's. However, in ODI's there are triangular series etc (and tournaments like the world cup, ICC champions) which bring together more than one team. So the venues may be neutral for a side in such a case. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, just to add a bit of backing, Test cricket matches are always played "home" or "away" while one day matches, such as those in the Cricket World Cup (in a different country every four years or so) could be played in neutral venues, hence the difference... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be a pest: What about Australia playing three Tests against Pakistan in England :) Aaroncrick (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks good to me. Harrias (talk) 11:53, 20 December 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 Giants2008 17:30, 22 December 2009 [2].
- Nominator(s): --Legolas (talk2me) 06:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this is a wonderful list which features the singles and the song released by a veteran artist, whose catalogue is really huge and is one of the greatest artists of all time. I believe this discography deserves featured list as it is the most complete discography you can find. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Some suggestions:
Hope these suggestions help. Jimknut (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Woww. good many thanks Jimknut! --Legolas (talk2me) 12:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alrighty, made the changes. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Woww. good many thanks Jimknut! --Legolas (talk2me) 12:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — The information seems complete and the sources look good. Jimknut (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - Looks great anyhow, Haven't gone through sources however. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.
Wasn't she also credited on "Sidewalk Talk" as backing vocalist? It should be in other appearances. Allmusic provides a complete list of credits to Madonna. Also, why are "Me Against the Music" and "Hey You" listed twice? I can understand the former, but why would her song ("Hey You") be in Other appearances?--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Good point. Will take a looky. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright I corrected the section, by adding "Sidewalk Talk" and removing "Hey You". --Legolas (talk2me) 11:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks good, nice job! --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright I corrected the section, by adding "Sidewalk Talk" and removing "Hey You". --Legolas (talk2me) 11:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Will take a looky. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments –
- "Other singles released from the album included 'Borderline' and 'Lucky Star',of which...". Space needed after the comma.
- Minor point, but I would consider moving the link for her debut album in the lead to where it actually says debut album. It's a little confusing to me just having the link piped at eponymous. When I first saw it, I wondered to myself where the album link was before figuring it out. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected. Thanks Giants2008. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:57, 18 December 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 Giants2008 17:30, 22 December 2009 [3].
- Nominator(s): Rlendog (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. This list is more similar to List of Philadelphia Phillies Opening Day starting pitchers than the other Opening Day starting pitcher FLs because, like the Phillies list, this list goes back to the 19th century, and less information is available for the 19th century and early 20th century (and the sources do not summarize the data as usefully) than more recent data. Rlendog (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Looks good to me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
—NMajdan•talk 15:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, pending the resolution of the image issue mentioned by Giants2008.—NMajdan•talk 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
To add one note on the new Fred Goldsmith photo, the licensing is incorrect. The uploader couldn't have placed this into the public domain, unless she was around in the late 1880s and took the photo (unlikely). This image was published before 1923, so it should have that template instead, and the source should mention the newspaper. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, though with areservation on the image. I'd at least like to know where the image really was from (clearly from a newspaper; I think it's from The Sporting News but that's not verifiable unless someone has archive access). Wizardman 18:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Commons link states the sketch is from "The Official Baseball Record". As per my reply to Giants2008, I don't have a problem removing the image if it is problematic, but I don't think it is and it is always nice to see what some of these old-time, mostly forgotten players looked like. Rlendog (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My suggestion would be to add the publication name and date (visible in the photo) to the image description on Commons. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Rlendog (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My suggestion would be to add the publication name and date (visible in the photo) to the image description on Commons. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Commons link states the sketch is from "The Official Baseball Record". As per my reply to Giants2008, I don't have a problem removing the image if it is problematic, but I don't think it is and it is always nice to see what some of these old-time, mostly forgotten players looked like. Rlendog (talk) 02:29, 16 December 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 17:48, 19 December 2009 [4].
- Nominator(s): Marcus Bowen (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because, after the last nomination I feel I have made the page a vast improvement since then.Marcus Bowen (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and I've replied to a few comments. Mm40 (talk) Mm40 (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
Pretty good overall, after these are fixed, I'll be happy to support. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- Below the Singles table, what does "|*" mean? Done
- "2x" Use the character "×" instead of the letter. Done
- Delink Italy in the lead; see WP:OVERLINK on linking commonly known geographical terms. Done
- "2009 saw the band return" Not sure what this means. Done Dabomb87 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
- Ref 1, the publisher link redirects to Sun. Done
- What makes http://www.skinmusic.net/content/bio/skunk.html a reliable source? Done removed for the time being, but is an official source Dabomb87 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I didn't know it was an official source. Feel free to reinstate it. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/Support from Dt128 (talk · contribs) Hi!
Resolved comments from Dt128
|
---|
|
- Just to let you know, the Dutch-Charts.nl site shows the chart positions for the Dutch Single Top 100, rather than the Dutch Top 40. Maybe you could change the column header to something like "NLD 100" to avoid confusion?
- Comment Have Dt's concerns been addressed? If so, has he been asked to revisit this FLC? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Supported Dt128 let's talk 20:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Support Looks solid to me. Only one complaint: some general references would be helpful, a la The Prodigy discography. Drewcifer (talk) 12:42, 19 December 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 17:48, 19 December 2009 [5].
- Nominator(s): Arsenikk (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new flavor of list that shows the ten lines of the Oslo Metro in chronological order. It includes the service numbers and lengths and opening dates of all expansions. I believe it meets the FL criteria, and hope the vultures agree. I am more than happy to improve the article further if need be, and will respond to any feedback. Arsenikk (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What is the difference between the lines and the service numbers? Are the service number lines, too? I am sure that there is a difference, but at the moment I am a little confused about this.—Chris!c/t 20:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of historic reasons, there are ten lines, that are the physical infrastructure, and six services, that are the operating numbers. The latter has changed several times in the course of history, while the former has been constant. A (physical) line may have one or more service numbers, while each service operates two lines, plus the Common Tunnel. I have made a slight rewording in the first paragraph that might make this clearer, but perhaps more is needed. Perhaps a new map (as I discuss below) could make it clearer. Although the system is logical as such, it breaches with the way metros are normally lined (with the service and physical infrastructure bearing the same name), so the Oslo-method seems to be confusing to people. Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so the service and the physical lines are separated. This is a bit odd, but ok I understand now.—Chris!c/t 20:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks good, but some questions:
Support, all questions have been addressed. bamse (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
#Looking at the table it appears that the article is rather about the history of Oslo Metro lines. Did you consider to move it to History of Oslo Metro lines?
bamse (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
This is a good list which I have given a very light copy edit to tidy some of the (very few) language oddities. There are a few further things which I wasn't quite sure about.
- The caption to the network map talks about the T-bane but you haven't mentioned anywhere else that this is the local name of the metro.
- "The Østensjø and Lambertseter Lines were converted with the opening in 1966." Not sure what opening this is referring to.
- I think that Bamse has already touched upon this but I think that the merged cells to the right of some of the 'Metro Standard' cells are not what is intended.
Boissière (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the copyedit and feedback. I've fixed up the text per point one and two. Regarding the last, I cannot see anything wrong with the numbers, since no metro standard upgrade has changed the length of any line, although they sometimes have reduced the number of stations. I can of course merge the cells to the right, but in my opinion this visualizes that the length, and if applicable, the number of stations, has not changed. But I do see that this style "breaks" the blue rows, so perhaps what you suggest is not so bad. The numerical values are all correct. Arsenikk (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On closer inspection I think that there are two discrepencies. For the Common Tunnel it shows the length of the Stortinget-Nationaltheatret section and the metro conversion of the whole Stortinget-Majorstuen section to both be 4.8km. That can't be correct. In fact in comparing the lengths in the table with the diagram in the Common Tunnel article it looks as though the table has the length of this section incorrectly stated as 2.1km. The article has it as 0.5km. The Songsvann line also shows two different sections to have the same length of 6.0km. The two other parts where you use a merged distance cell are fine as the left hand cells are for the same sections of line. Boissière (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the distance column shows the total length of the line with the upgrade. For instance, for each new section, the length value increases. Regarding the calculation of the common tunnel, this may be so complicated it need a footnote or a remark in the key or something. What has happened, is that the tunnel has been built from both ends. The station distances are (in km) Majorstuen–Nationaltheatret: 2.0, Nationaltheatret–Stortinget: 0.7 km, Stortinget–Jernbanetorget: 0.5, and Jernbanetorget–Tøyen: 1.6. That sums up to 4.8. For the three first entries, the two then-separate tunnels have km-counter independently. Arsenikk (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I had totally missed the statement that said that the lengths were the total lengths after the opening of each section though I put it to you that this is an unusual way of presenting information about sections of line. I am not totally against things being presented this way but I wonder if other people may also be confused. Boissière (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This idea not struck me as an issue when I though out the article. Perhaps two columns would be suitable, one for the extension length and one for the total length? Arsenikk (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list now has an additional column with the length of each extension. Arsenikk (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This idea not struck me as an issue when I though out the article. Perhaps two columns would be suitable, one for the extension length and one for the total length? Arsenikk (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I had totally missed the statement that said that the lengths were the total lengths after the opening of each section though I put it to you that this is an unusual way of presenting information about sections of line. I am not totally against things being presented this way but I wonder if other people may also be confused. Boissière (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the distance column shows the total length of the line with the upgrade. For instance, for each new section, the length value increases. Regarding the calculation of the common tunnel, this may be so complicated it need a footnote or a remark in the key or something. What has happened, is that the tunnel has been built from both ends. The station distances are (in km) Majorstuen–Nationaltheatret: 2.0, Nationaltheatret–Stortinget: 0.7 km, Stortinget–Jernbanetorget: 0.5, and Jernbanetorget–Tøyen: 1.6. That sums up to 4.8. For the three first entries, the two then-separate tunnels have km-counter independently. Arsenikk (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On closer inspection I think that there are two discrepencies. For the Common Tunnel it shows the length of the Stortinget-Nationaltheatret section and the metro conversion of the whole Stortinget-Majorstuen section to both be 4.8km. That can't be correct. In fact in comparing the lengths in the table with the diagram in the Common Tunnel article it looks as though the table has the length of this section incorrectly stated as 2.1km. The article has it as 0.5km. The Songsvann line also shows two different sections to have the same length of 6.0km. The two other parts where you use a merged distance cell are fine as the left hand cells are for the same sections of line. Boissière (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WFCforLife
Original lists. That's what I like to see. Apologies for my lack of understanding of rail systems in general, but hopefully these will be of some use.
- The lead states that there are 90 stations. In the list, I added up the number of stations on each line as of the most recent upgrade. So I added the 20 for Holmenkoll, the 10 for Røa, and so on for all ten lines, reaching a total of 92. Does this mean that only two stations are on more than one line? Or have I done something silly? If there indeed are only two stations served by multiple lines, maybe it would be worth naming them?
- On a related note, am I right in believing that the bottom column of each line is the one that gives the information about the current situation of the line?
- Ref 8 should be marked as (in Norwegian).
- References 9 and 27 are exactly the same.
- Inline citation needed for "highest ridership" claim in the last paragraph of the lead.
- "The last two lines are in the process of upgrade, with the Holmenkoll and Kolsås Lines planned to open in 2011 and 2014, respectively." Are the lines closed until 2011 and 2014 respectively, or are they open but using light rail?
- "Services are omitted from lines where they serve only one or two stations." This is a strange question to ask, but am I right to take this sentence literally (i.e. that any service that serves three or more stations is included?). If so that's fine and no amendment is needed, I just want to be sure that the statement is accurate.
Hope those help for now. I have a few other ideas, but I'd rather make sure I understand what I can currently see first. WFCforLife (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the feedback. I have made some adjustments to the text to adress the language, duplicated ref, inline citation issue (it was cited, but I added another that is probably a lot more accurate). As for your questions, the reason that there are 92 stations is that the Lamberseter Line was incorrectly stated (it said 9 instead of 8); the more problematic station is Majorstuen, that was built as the terminus of the Holmenkoll Line in 1898, and still was that at the last time of the line extension. Since then, the station became the western-most line of the Common Tunnel (and thereby not any more on the Holmenkoll Line). When the table is updated after the upgrades, the station will as such not be listed. Your assumption in the second point (about the bottom line) is correct. However, the Holmenkoll Line and parts of the Kolsås Line exist, but are closed. Regarding your last question, the reason for this is that for instance service six runs from the Common Tunnel, then serves two stations on the Røa Line before running along the Kolsås Line. Similarly, service 4 and 6 serve one station on the Grorud Line before branching off to the Ring Line. This is just an arbitrary choice to avoid giving the impression that services 6 serves the Grorud Line and the Røa Line, etc. Arsenikk (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WFCforLife (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not coming back to this sooner but I now support this list. Boissière (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 5 December 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 Giants2008 21:30, 15 December 2009 [6].
- Nominator(s): -- BigDom 12:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it properly covers the topic and meets the featured list criteria. This is my first FL nomination, so I look forward to your comments, and thanks in advance for your reviews. -- BigDom 12:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments hey BigDom, welcome to FLC, hope you enjoy your visit and will return with more good lists!
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
—NMajdan•talk 14:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support.—NMajdan•talk 18:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from WFCforLife
I think this is a subtle reminder that I need to pull my socks up and get involved with my own club's equivalent.
Hope those help, WFCforLife (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments
- Re sorting: FL criterion #4: Structure says a list "includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities" (my italics). Personally, I can't think of any reason why it might be helpful to sort a season list, which is basically a timeline, into another order. It does no harm, but it seems pretty pointless. Struway2 (talk)
- Made the column unsortable.
- Sorry, that's me failing to make myself clear as usual. It was the idea of having this particular type of table sortable at all that I was ranting about. If you and other reviewers think it should be, then obviously you need the season column to be sortable as well, so you can get the thing back to the proper order without having to refresh the page. I've changed it back. Struway2 (talk)
- Ah, I get you now. I totally agree with you but, as you can see further up this nomination, after his comment from NMajdan me and him spent quite a while changing the whole format of the table to make it sortable. -- BigDom
- Perhaps the sort of lists that NMajdan has been working with are the sort where it is helpful to have them sortable :-) Discographies and filmographies aren't expected to be sortable, presumably by prior consensus, nor are episode lists, which are actually quite similar in structure to a season list. As you pointed out above, prior consensus for season lists is that they aren't sortable, and I don't think requirements have changed in that regard. However, please don't think I'm trying to get you to change it back to unsortable (unless you actually want to... :-) Struway2 (talk)
- Comment Please sign your comments. I can't make head or tail of what's being said if there is no date or username to associate with the comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, it was clearer before I capped the other comments: the intervening comments are by the nominator, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Signed mine as well just for clarity. -- BigDom 08:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, it was clearer before I capped the other comments: the intervening comments are by the nominator, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I get you now. I totally agree with you but, as you can see further up this nomination, after his comment from NMajdan me and him spent quite a while changing the whole format of the table to make it sortable. -- BigDom
- Sorry, that's me failing to make myself clear as usual. It was the idea of having this particular type of table sortable at all that I was ranting about. If you and other reviewers think it should be, then obviously you need the season column to be sortable as well, so you can get the thing back to the proper order without having to refresh the page. I've changed it back. Struway2 (talk)
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* FL criterion #3a suggests that "where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items". I know some of us go a bit over the top where annotations are concerned, but is there really nothing even remotely interesting, quirky, or needing explanation?
cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support. List now meets criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support if the top-scorer details genuinely aren't recorded anywhere. For the record, I also fail to see why a table of this type needs to be sortable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 9 December 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 Giants2008 21:30, 15 December 2009 [7].
- Nominator(s): EA Swyer Talk Contributions 21:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because the only objection from the last FLC has been fixed. The problem was that one of the sites I used went down so reviewers couldn't confirm the data or that the site was a reliable source. I only use alphacharts as a source to show the general performance of a song; raw data is taken from the hung median charts. The list is complete and well-sourced. EA Swyer Talk Contributions 21:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would the FL director look at the previous FLC, here, when reviewing this nomination because it contains most of the issues resolved. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 01:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Don't see any problems. Tezero (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - can't see any issues. Certainly a huge improvement over the version that was delisted a while back -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Dt128
|
---|
|
- Have none of Stefani's singles been certified?
- Has this been addressed? Dt128 let's talk 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
In progressDone[reply]
- Has this been addressed? Dt128 let's talk 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Have Stefani's albums not received more certifications?
- Has this been addressed? Dt128 let's talk 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Done[reply]
- All found? I give my support now. Dt128 let's talk 15:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Has this been addressed? Dt128 let's talk 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Done[reply]
- Support.—NMajdan•talk 19:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still maintaining my neutrality on the list. I still do not like that aCharts is used (not a high-quality source), but understand that it may the only available source for important information. Therefore, I will sink this FLC by opposing, and will allow the closing director (I will recuse from closing this, obviously) to weigh my comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All the information taken from aCharts is backed up by the Hung Medien charts. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 18:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a prospective closer of this FLC, I've looked at what is being cited by the aCharts references, and have grown doubtful that most of them are necessary at all. Most are simply repeating information found in the tables; in those cases, no cite is required on top of the ones in the tables. There are only a few facts that seem uncited in the tables. First, there's the bit about "Rich Girl" performing well on different formats; I'm not sure this is even necessary to say, since a top-ten single figures to do well in multiple formats. Second is "Cool" "replicating the popularity of its predecessor", which is called into question by the figures themselves. Third, there's "Now That You Got It" charting in Norway; I don't suppose there's a good site with Norwegian charts? Also, if you're concerned about the sentences that say "released in all countries" or similar, you could re-phrase to indicate that it covers all countries with major charts. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All the information taken from aCharts is backed up by the Hung Medien charts. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 18:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- sorry to butt in! the hung medien norway ref from the albums table confirms that "now that you got it" charted in norway. :) Mister sparky (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed aChart references. They weren't needed - I just wanted references that showed how well a particular song charted across several countries, rather than many songs charting in one country (i.e. the Hung Medien charts). -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 13:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- yea acharts are useful because then you only have to use 1 ref instead of lots of them but ah well. Mister sparky (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That still leaves a couple issues I'd like to see sorted out. As I said above, I don't see how "Cool" can be described as similar in popularity to her previous single when it did worse on the charts. Also, the Norway part can apparently be cited by Hung Median, which I recommend doing since it is uncited now (it's only being used to cite the albums' performance now, not any singles). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cited the Norway part. Reworded the sentence about "Cool". Any other outstanding issues? -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 01:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That still leaves a couple issues I'd like to see sorted out. As I said above, I don't see how "Cool" can be described as similar in popularity to her previous single when it did worse on the charts. Also, the Norway part can apparently be cited by Hung Median, which I recommend doing since it is uncited now (it's only being used to cite the albums' performance now, not any singles). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- yea acharts are useful because then you only have to use 1 ref instead of lots of them but ah well. Mister sparky (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed aChart references. They weren't needed - I just wanted references that showed how well a particular song charted across several countries, rather than many songs charting in one country (i.e. the Hung Medien charts). -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 13:08, 13 December 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 Dabomb87 00:50, 12 December 2009 [8].
- Nominator(s): --WillC 04:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel it meets the FL criteria. Remember me? Yeah, I'm back. Been a while since I nominated a list, but finally got another finished. As usual all comments will be fixed as soon as I become aware of them. I expanded this thing fully. From the old bad format to a newer cleaner better sourced look. Was pretty annoying considering the history of changes is unsure at times, but I believe I have gotten it to be correct.--WillC 04:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
Hopefully these comments get you started.—NMajdan•talk 19:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support.—NMajdan•talk 01:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
I've got to go for now, but hopefully I'll finish the review at some point in the near future. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty good, I'll support once these issues are fixed. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The vacant rows don't sort correctly. They should show up at the top when the arrow is pointing down for names and days held.
- Which column are you going by? Because I have them sorted by Vacant, to be like the rest.--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean to be like the rest? Currently, if someone wanted to see who held the title for the most days with the table, the vacant rows come up first. Forget what I said about the names, I guess it's a matter of opinion. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean now. Not sure how to correct that. The days held column is done by the age in days template, combined with Template:nts (|{{age in days nts|month1=02|day1=27|year1=1974|month2=05|day2=10|year2=1974}}). Vacant sections are done with the sort template, with a dash and sorted by double zz to appear last (|{{sort|zz|—}}). Not really sure how to fix the problem.--WillC 22:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, no big issue. If someone wants to help fix it, the can go ahead. Mm40 (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks for the support.--WillC 14:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, no big issue. If someone wants to help fix it, the can go ahead. Mm40 (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean now. Not sure how to correct that. The days held column is done by the age in days template, combined with Template:nts (|{{age in days nts|month1=02|day1=27|year1=1974|month2=05|day2=10|year2=1974}}). Vacant sections are done with the sort template, with a dash and sorted by double zz to appear last (|{{sort|zz|—}}). Not really sure how to fix the problem.--WillC 22:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean to be like the rest? Currently, if someone wanted to see who held the title for the most days with the table, the vacant rows come up first. Forget what I said about the names, I guess it's a matter of opinion. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which column are you going by? Because I have them sorted by Vacant, to be like the rest.--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
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 Dabomb87 00:50, 12 December 2009 [9].
- Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 17:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. I welcome any comments and suggestions. Pyrrhus16 17:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments; I'm new to the voting process, so I may be incorrect, but I have some comments:
- The colour of the yellow, pink and purple used in the table is very harsh, and the purple especially is difficult to distinguish from the black text, making it difficult to read.
- Changed the purple to orange. I'll wait for further opinions on whether others share the view that the colours are harsh; as I had thought they were ok. :)
- Maybe the table should also list who holds the patents, unless of course this is unavailable or unable to be referenced, after all, they are mentioned in the lead, then (almost) never again.
- There is no detail on whom owns the patents, though it is usually the songwriter(s).
- Were any reasons given as to why some of the songs were not listed on their original albums?
- Information is given where possible, because reasons have not been given to the majority of the songs.
- Which songs were the ones brought up in the court case, or were they already previously released songs and thus not on the list?
- The unreleased songs mentioned in the court case are highlighted in blue with an accompanying asterisk (*).
--Lightlowemon (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. :) Pyrrhus16 18:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your welcome, I thought you had listed the court case ones, but after a couple of read throughs I couldn't find where it was, *wipes egg off face*. I stand by my statements on the colours, but the orange is much better. Thanks for answering the other questions too, if you don't mind, I think I'll wait for some other comments before a final decision. But I'm happy right now.--Lightlowemon (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, all comments by other editors addressed, and I have no other qualms. --Lightlowemon (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your welcome, I thought you had listed the court case ones, but after a couple of read throughs I couldn't find where it was, *wipes egg off face*. I stand by my statements on the colours, but the orange is much better. Thanks for answering the other questions too, if you don't mind, I think I'll wait for some other comments before a final decision. But I'm happy right now.--Lightlowemon (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* I don't like the third paragraph in the lead. It's very vague and seems more a token attempt to list his discography. I think there is scope for talking about his albums, but I don't like the way it's been done.
Hope those help! WFCforLife (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WFCforLife:
At this point I would consider myself neutral. Of my two remaining comments, one is a small thing that I'm not really too bothered about, and have left it on the off chance that someone else has an opinion. But the clarification about Jackson 5 songs is what is keeping me from supporting. IMO they should either be removed, or the lead should explicitly state that released Jackson 5 material is included, with an explanation as to why they are considered unreleased for the purposes of this list. Covers are a slightly different kettle of fish, but with Jackson 5 strictly speaking Jackson has released the material. WFCforLife (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support. WFCforLife (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments: I am not familiar with the subject (apart from having heard of Michael Jackson), so please ignore if my comments don't make sense.
|
Support. bamse (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Thanks. Pyrrhus16 18:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments –
- Not a big deal, but could the out of order references in the second paragraph ([4][1]) be changed to numerical order?
- Done.
- Should internet be capitalized in the fourth paragraph? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is in the Internet article, so I guess it should be. I never knew that... Thanks for your comments. Pyrrhus16 13:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Complete sentences in the notes need to have periods at the end, example: "Jackson worked on the song with Temperton and Quincy Jones during the Thriller recording sessions" Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added periods to the ones I think are sentences. Hopefully, I got them all... Pyrrhus16 23:40, 10 December 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 Dabomb87 00:50, 12 December 2009 [10].
- Nominator(s): Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because, after much work (with major help from User:Georgejdorner), I believe it qualifies. I have checked the FL criteria and it seems to hold up. A recent peer review offered some comment, which I used to improve the list, but such little comment that it may have not needed much improvement. Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Citations should be formatted properly. Some miss publishers and accessed dates.
- Legends should be at the top, not the bottom
- Is "If All is selected, expect the page to load very slowly, or even crash." necessary?
—Chris!c/t 21:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cleanup up the refs, moved the legend to the top, and removed the "if All..." statement, which is no longer applicable anyways. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—Chris!c/t 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If there is a sortable list with all the aces, with the same level of detail, why do the sublists exist? Either the "all" list should be deleted/merged as being too long and redundant, or the sublists fail 3b and should not exist. It currently fail this: "...does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article".
- Can the KIA/MIA/DOW asterix be changed to a dagger or other symbol, to avoid any chance of confusion with the awards asterix. I would make them clickable too, as the list is so long and there is so much footnote info (scrolling continuously back and forth is annoying for readers).YobMod 13:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list of all aces was once at List of World War I flying aces, but it was deemed too long, and at 300k+bytes, too big. It was split into the current lists, which are all trancluded into the "All" list at List of World War I flying aces-All. Therefore the all list (at 600bytes) does not technically exists as a list, per se. I'll change the KIA asterix to a dagger. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 13:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But transcluding cannot be used to simply bypass the 3b criterion, otherwise all lists that should not be seperate articles could become FL. Transcluding the lists still means it largely recreate material from another article. As long as the "all" list exists, this list is redundant, and according to the criteria cannot become a FL. I could cut up a FL discography into "albums", "singles" and "eps", and tranclude them all into the parent, but that likewise should be opposed for failing 3b, rather than giving 4 FLs. Another example is our TV series FLs. For the main list and the season specific lists to become featred, they have to do more than just recreate the info and transclude it back to the parent list. If a parent article is desired to link all the lists together or for a topic, it should be written as an article using summary style - i'm certain a GA could be written on this topic.YobMod 13:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think I understand. But I wonder, would it be better to delete the all list, or replace it with some sort of summary text? I'm thinking along the lines of List of Medal of Honor recipients/List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 16:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think summary text. Even if only a stub with links or short paragraphs for each sub-list, it gives a starting point for expansion and links all the similar articles for interested readers.YobMod 16:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've deleted the "All" page, since without the actual lists it would just be a rehash of the base page List of World War I flying aces. Any attempts at summaries of each list can be made there. I've changed the killed * to a dagger. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as my concerns were met.YobMod 13:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've deleted the "All" page, since without the actual lists it would just be a rehash of the base page List of World War I flying aces. Any attempts at summaries of each list can be made there. I've changed the killed * to a dagger. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think summary text. Even if only a stub with links or short paragraphs for each sub-list, it gives a starting point for expansion and links all the similar articles for interested readers.YobMod 16:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think I understand. But I wonder, would it be better to delete the all list, or replace it with some sort of summary text? I'm thinking along the lines of List of Medal of Honor recipients/List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 16:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But transcluding cannot be used to simply bypass the 3b criterion, otherwise all lists that should not be seperate articles could become FL. Transcluding the lists still means it largely recreate material from another article. As long as the "all" list exists, this list is redundant, and according to the criteria cannot become a FL. I could cut up a FL discography into "albums", "singles" and "eps", and tranclude them all into the parent, but that likewise should be opposed for failing 3b, rather than giving 4 FLs. Another example is our TV series FLs. For the main list and the season specific lists to become featred, they have to do more than just recreate the info and transclude it back to the parent list. If a parent article is desired to link all the lists together or for a topic, it should be written as an article using summary style - i'm certain a GA could be written on this topic.YobMod 13:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment very nice list. I think the Template:Wwi-air should be taken out of the table and put at the end of the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, if accidenlty deleted the table close bracket. Should be fixed now. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- question would it be possible to separate the notes from the citations? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a line break, and removed notes that weren't strictly applicable. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 14:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article page of Fulco Ruffo di Calabria indicates that he received 1 gold, 2 silver and 4 bronze Medals of Military Valor. The legend explains that an * denotes a second presentation (a bar is added) of the same award. In the table Fulco Ruffo di Calabria is listed with MMV(Gold), MMV**(Silver), MMV****(Bronze) which would mean that he received 1 gold, 3 silver and 5 bronze. I think something is wrong here or not? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad, it happened with this award for a few aces. I've fixed them all. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 14:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One more issue: for every FLC I created citations for every item I listed under the "Notes" column was required. If this is a rule than it should be applicable here too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All three are only linked to in the Legend. I use the same code for each use, regardless of use. For example for the first one, Medal of Military Valor, which is a disambig linking to the three levels of a specific award, I use the same code MMV for all three (e.g. "MMV(Gold), MMV**(Silver), MMV****(Bronze)" ). For the second, Military Merit Cross, and the third, Order of the Star, I again use the same codes, MMC and OS throughout the pages. I think the disambig links work in these cases, but if you disagree, I can try to fix it. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 04:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I rewrote Medal of Military Valor so it is no longer a disambig page. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 14:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the link to Military Merit Cross, dividing the awards by Country. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 15:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why the hopelessly small text for the key? I had trouble reading it, and I have perfect vision. Try using this code in the first line of the table instead of all the superscript tags: style="font-size: 90%" (make the number smaller if need be).
- Isn't MOH is the more common abbreviation for the US Medal of Honor? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the key from List of RAF aircrew in the Battle of Britain. I'm not sure why "sup" was chosen. I'll replace it with style="font-size: 90%". You're right, MOH is the generally accepted abbreviation. I'll fix it. I don't think there is an official abbreviation for most of the awards, including MOH, so I had to make them up. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Bump) Have I addressed all the problems above, or have i missed anything? - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments - very interesting subject, especially as we head towards 11/11...
Interjectory note: This site lists its link to references in the left hand sidebar on the home page. Georgejdorner (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interjectory note: The World War I aviation historians who run the site have listed their sources under the misleading heading of "Links". The Aerodrome Links can be found at http://www.theaerodrome.com/links/. The link to references is found on that page; it is http://www.theaerodrome.com/links/index.php?ax=list&cat_id=9. Georgejdorner (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Neutral – while the majority of the issues I raised have been addressed, I do not quite feel I can support this article. The reason for my hesitancy is predominantly based on the concerns raised by Ian Rose, several of which I have considered myself to be an issue when previously reviewing this article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mention in Despatches is present in the key, but not a single ace has this in their note section.
- The key is used across several lists, it is used in at least 1 of them. Should I create a separate key for each?
- No, it would probably be best to keep the lists consistent. However, it is highly likely that a number of these top British/Commonwealth aces were Mentioned in Despatches (for example, prior to 1943, one had to be MID before they could be awarded the DSO), just that it may be a little harder to find out exactly which ones were. It might be an idea to drop the MiD from the lists althgether. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The key is used across several lists, it is used in at least 1 of them. Should I create a separate key for each?
Interjected note: I was not aware of the significance of Mentioned in Dispatches when I was doing the data entry on this list. In the future, I will keep this in mind. Thank you for the information. As the saying goes, "It's a good day when you learn something."
Georgejdorner (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started to fix the above. More (mostly reference issues) to come. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 03:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from WFCforLife:
Overall, looking very good. WFCforLife (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
I'm happy to support. WFCforLife (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Given this nom is for Featured status I have concerns about the presentation and, more importantly, about the verifiability of the information here, but will refrain from opposing outright until I've had a response just in case I've missed anything.
- Presentation/style-wise, there's still tidying up to be done:
- Inconsistency in citation formatting, e.g. "pg." (which equates to "p.") and "pp." - I think the most common way of denoting page references is "p." and "pp.", and these should be used here.
- Capitalising citations #7 and #15; even if the titles are all upper case in the references, simply capitalising each word is sufficient for here.
- Since there are a fair few footnotes mixed with the citations, I think you'd be better off separating them into Footnotes and Notes (or Citations), though I won't oppose outright on that point.
- In Bibliography, the title of Kennett's book needs all words capitalised, likewise Toliver in Further Reading.
- Referencing-wise, I have three main issues:
- I can't see where the total for each ace is cited or, alternatively, where a blanket statement is made along the lines of "All figures are based on such-and-such source, unless otherwise noted". For data which is so often disputed, you need to spell out who or what you're relying on for your figures. Further, citations #20 and #21 both say the figure in the table is disputed, but give no source of the original number, nor of the alternative.
- I don't generally push particular sources but I would have liked to see Shores/Franks' Above the Trenches (British/Empire WWI aces), Above the Lines (German aces), and Over the Front (US/French aces) utilised. I know you've employed the Osprey books by the same authors, which is helpful, but the aforementioned titles would certainly add still greater weight to the referencing - plus I see no book in the Bibliography for sources of German and French aces, only British/Empire and US. Also, including the Nieuport book makes things look like they were employed for convenience not comprehensiveness; this was just one of the relevant aeroplanes involved.
- I can't really accept TheAerodrome as a reliable source at Featured level. Despite its sober tone and excellent presentation, it's still not an official source nor does it generally cite where it gets its figures. In any case, with so many printed works to choose from, I can't see the need to reference it anyway. By all means include it as an External Link for convenience, but it shouldn't be relied upon like the book sources.
- Generally this is good work, but I'd like the above comments addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've fixed the reference style issues. I'm
notnow working on adding sources for each score. I don't have any of the books you mentioned (although if I can find a copy to buy online, I plan to), so I have to use others. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 07:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I found a copy of Above the Lines, and have been using the other Osprey books I have to source each score. I should soon be able to have a source for each one. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Trevor. Let me know if you can't find anything you need; though I don't own any of the titles mentioned, I have access to a number of them. Also, aside from the hard copies, I find GoogleBooks and Amazon have a number of Ospreys available for online preview. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a copy of Above the Lines, and have been using the other Osprey books I have to source each score. I should soon be able to have a source for each one. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've fixed the reference style issues. I'm
In answer to Ian Rose's concerns: The Aerodrome is run by the same aviation historians we also rely on in print. So why are they unacceptable online, and acceptable in print (I ask for the zillionth time)? If online information cannot be deemed to be accurate, then what are we doing building Wikipedia?
Nor do I understand Ian's preference for older books as being better sources than newer ones. Especially if they are being written by the same authors. Don't you think that the authors may have learned a bit more in the intervening years? The Aerodrome forums reflect the fact that the research continues.
Lastly, I do not believe there is any other listing as complete as The Aerodrome's listing of aces. Except for ours. Certainly, without The Aerodrome, we would be bereft of most or all of the Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Belgian, Russian, and Australian aces. Now I realize some of these nationalities do not show on this particular list, but there are eight more lists on this subject.
Georgejdorner (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Self-correction: All nationalities of aces do show on this table. However, without the aerodrome, I do not know how we would gather lists of the Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Belgian, Russian, and Australian aces.
Georgejdorner (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trevor/George, first off, the above responses don't address my question of why the individual claims are not directly cited in some fashion, either one-by-one or by using an overarching source with exceptions noted. WP requires citations for information that is contentious or may be challenged, and aces' claims certainly fit those categories. One of WP's pillars is verifiability, not truth, and at the moment I can't even verify the presumed sources of truth employed for the numbers presented. Again, if I've missed something, then pls let me know.
George, to take your responses in order:
- As I've said, TheAerodrome is a great site. I use it myself, even relying on it where it clearly cites its sources. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the majority of its pages. I also don't see that expressing concerns about relying on this particular site in an FA candidate article casts doubts on all online sources. There are a number of official online sites and online copies of books that are acceptable as sources for WP articles, I've used them myself. I also don't see that my comments cast doubt on an online encyclopedia like WP, for the very reason we're having this discussion: WP demands inline citations to reliable sources and effectively has a transparent peer reviewing system for its more highly rated articles, i.e. what we're doing right now - I don't see the evidence that TheAerodrome does. I'm also not sure where the evidence is that TheAerodrome is run by the same people we rely on in print; I saw your reply to an earlier query on the reliability of the site but the Links page appears to go to a number of government sites and some private ones but I didn't see key books or authors mentioned - as usual, happy to be pointed in the right direction if I've missed something.
- I don't recall expressing a preference for older books as references, I would always look to recent books or even online sources that are reliable according to WP guidelines. Of course authors learn more as time goes on, hence Above the Trenches having a supplement printed 6 years after the original book. Not using particular books isn't the major stumbling block for me, more not using a decent range of sources. As I said, the Osprey books used are worthwhile and certainly satisfy the reliability criteria, but they only explicitly cover British, Empire and US aces, not French or German.
- This last response leads to your final point, George, about where one sources figures for Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Belgian, Russian, and Australian aces. Well, Osprey has titles for the first two, and Australian aces should be covered under the British and Empire book, and I'd be surprised if Belgian aces aren't in a French aces title. Admittedly I can't help with a Russian one at the moment but therein lies the problem with such list articles, one does have a broad amount of data to source and verify. Be that as it may, I still have to treat this as I would any FA candidate when it comes to referencing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the status on Ian Rose's concerns? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They should almost completely addressed. The style issues have been fixed, and I am in the process of referencing each score, and re-sourcing any currently using TheAerodrome.com. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've sourced every score that I could find in my books. There are a few still missing, and they all seem to be observers who became aces while flying with various pilots. I should probably be able to cobble together sources to get a score foe them, but it will take time.- Trevor MacInnis contribs 02:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They should almost completely addressed. The style issues have been fixed, and I am in the process of referencing each score, and re-sourcing any currently using TheAerodrome.com. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, old cobber,
Thank you for answering questions I have been asking for many a moon. And I must confess, when I look at what I thought was the sources for the Aerodrome, I find I have been deceived.
I made the remark about the books you mentioned because they are all older than the Osprey releases. I do believe you are the one who mentioned they were by the same authors; I must confess, I did not check for myself.
When I started populating this list 14 months ago, as a brand new contributor to Wikipedia, I worked off the Aerodrome master list because I could find no other. I thought I had cited it at that time. Of course, that was many many iterations ago, before it was divided in nine because of its size.
I've hung around the Aerodrome long enough to have a pretty good idea of whom to trust. The guy who writes the forum asking, What color was the Red Baron's plane? is obviously unreliable. However, I have learned that Greg Van Wyngarten and Adrian Hellwig are both contributors, under the screen names Greg Wyn and Breguet. Dan-San Abbot has written extensively for "Cross and Cockade, and has interviewed more aces than anyone alive. There are many more contributors whose screen names I have not penetrated, but seem reliable, such as rammjaeger.
And, Ian, I don't expect anything of mine to get preferential treatment. I do what I can, and it gets rated however it gets rated. I've become rather unconcerned about that end of Wikipedia. I am only concerned about doing the best, most objective research and writing that I can.
Georgejdorner (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, a great deal of work has been done citing individual entries per my request so I am close to supporting, there are just a few items I'd still liked actioned:
- The final paragraph of the introduction needs one or more citations.
- Just waiting on this still, but also noticed Footnote A needs a citation... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see these are now taken care of. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just waiting on this still, but also noticed Footnote A needs a citation... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We're missing citations for the scores of Gass, Fletcher, Hayward, Cubbon and Edwards.
- I've taken care of this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still some reliance for citations on TheAerodrome that I believe should be removed per my earlier points, specifically:
- 19 - the figure currently listed in TheAerodrome differs slightly from what we have in the article anyway and, given continuing research, the article may always be out of sync with TheAerodrome so much simpler to drop this citation and find one from a book that says "approximately 1,800" or some such; failing that, drop the whole sentence, since we're concerned with a minority of aces here anyway, namely those scoring 20 or more
- Removed the statement completely. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 02:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 89 - Roderic Dallas' undisputed score of 32 and his possible tally of over 50 doesn't need to be cited from TheAerodrome; both Above the Trenches and Dennis Newton's Australian Aces tabulate the 32 which are beyond question and can be used as sourcing for that figure; Newton is also a source for the "official" score of 39 and the figure of possibly over 50 - I'm happy to provide relevant publication/page details for both Above the Trenches and Australian Aces
- Aerodrome "source" removed. That would be great if you could add those sources, and I'll look again in my books. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 02:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aerodrome "source" removed. That would be great if you could add those sources, and I'll look again in my books. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 02:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 19 - the figure currently listed in TheAerodrome differs slightly from what we have in the article anyway and, given continuing research, the article may always be out of sync with TheAerodrome so much simpler to drop this citation and find one from a book that says "approximately 1,800" or some such; failing that, drop the whole sentence, since we're concerned with a minority of aces here anyway, namely those scoring 20 or more
- Just formatting, there's some rubbish immediately below the table of aces that needs to go.
- Fixed, was a problem with the footer template. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 02:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the hard work, if you can just take care of the above, I'll be happy to throw in my support. This'll be a great source of concise info not just for the general public but for those of us working on WP bios of the individual aces. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with alacrity - all issues I raised have been taken care of - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments –
- Table: Air Service(s) column should be made so that the second word isn't capitalized.
- This was mentioned previously, but I countered that because early air forces were usually called Air Services, and the words were part of the name and capitalized, e.g. United States Army Air Service. I'll change it, but I reserve the right to change it back if somemone else confirms my view. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the notes column, the quotation mark in "The Red Baron" (first entry) is throwing off the sorting. Not sure if this one can be fixed or not, but it's at least worth an effort.
- Removed the quotes. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The References column looks shrunken, as do the cites themselves. Is the column width setting causing this? It's not the most aesthetically pleasing setup I've ever seen, that's for sure.
- Oops, that was caused by the notes template being a mistaken ly removed. It's now fixed. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Page ranges in references require en dashes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:38, 10 December 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 Dabomb87 23:27, 8 December 2009 [13].
- Nominator(s): Felipe Menegaz 19:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very detailed medal table that can be compared to the Featured Olympic similars. Felipe Menegaz 19:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Just participated in the Peer Review and I think this list is featured quality. My only remaining concern is the lack of images of athletes from countries other than Brazil, but if that is all we have to work with then I am comfortable with the list as is. Geraldk (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However, if we expand the type of images beyond simply those showing medal awards, there are images available of athletes from other countries, or at least of other athletes in addition to Brazilian athletes. Some standouts from commons include: table tennis, volleyball, Badminton, basketball, Soccer, and Swimming. I'm curious what other reviewers think - keep the images to medal awards or expand the scope to allow for some diversity of nationalities. Geraldk (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
Just one quick comment I noticed in a drive-by: the legend is ambiguous. Does "First medal in the Pan American Games" mean that the country earned its first medal in the Games (ever?), or does it mean that the country earned the first medal in these particular games? Likewise for the "First medal in the Pan American Games". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it means that those countries earned their first ever medals. Added ever in the sentences. Felipe Menegaz 22:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Joey80
The legend for the table (i.e. host nation, first ever medal, etc.) seems to contain two legends per subject--the numerical superscript/note, and the color coding. Maybe this can be simplified by removing one or the other. Personally, I prefer removing the numerical superscript, since that gives the idea that there is are notes at the bottom of the table/page worth considering, which is not the case. Joey80 (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The numerical superscript must be there to meet the needs of readers who have trouble seeing colors, as per Wikipedia:Colours#Using colours in articles. If your concern is simply that symbols may work better than numbers, than I'm sure Felipe can find alternatives to the numbers. Geraldk (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If such is the case, then the numerical/text legend is ok, but the color coding can be removed? Joey80 (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think is better to keep both. As you said, numerical legend only gives the idea that there are notes. The featured list 1998 Winter Olympics medal table already use this template. Felipe Menegaz 23:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If such is the case, then the numerical/text legend is ok, but the color coding can be removed? Joey80 (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to support Geraldk's comments, it might be better to also include images of athletes of varying nationalities other than Brazilian. Joey80 (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we should only use images related to the medals. Felipe Menegaz 15:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So this includes images of non-Brazilian athletes who won medals. Joey80 (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no free pictures of non-Brazilian athletes during those awards ceremonies. Felipe Menegaz 14:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So this includes images of non-Brazilian athletes who won medals. Joey80 (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of my comments have been resolved. Thanks. Joey80 (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Mm40
The ALT text needs work. For the pictures of athletes, you shouldn't mention their name in the ALT text because a non-expert can't see that just be looking at the picture. Instead, describe what the athletes look like, what they're wearing, etc. See Wikipedia:ALT#Verifiability. Also, for the map at top, there's no need to describe the colors, just describe what you would take from it. Maybe something like: "The United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, etc. received at least one gold medal" and continue that going over most countries (see Wikipedia:ALT#Maps). Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After a huge blackout here in Brazil, I am back. Alternative texts improved. Felipe Menegaz 15:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments from Giants2008
Mostly of the picky variety, since the list is very good overall. Regarding the images, I would like to see one or two that represent a country other than Brazil. Having four Brazilian photos and none with athletes from other countries could be seen by some as introducing bias. I also have a hard time believing no alternatives are avaliable, because the Brazilian agency where the existing photos come from has such friendly policies for our purposes; surely they didn't photograph just Brazilian athletes. Any of the team-sport finals photos in particular would make an ideal addition to the list, and are still strongly related to the medal count. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – After the resolution of these and the other comments, I'm confident that this meets the standards. Saw a grammar glitch in the alt text of a photo before coming here, but fixed it myself to expedite matters. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Everything looks great and seems to have already been taken care of. Reywas92Talk 22:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Comment
What does the "..." mean in the "Changes in medal standings" table? Also, why do you use pictures of the medals in that table but use words in the main table?Dabomb87 (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are just aesthetical reasons. Medal pictures removed. Felipe Menegaz 20:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant for you to clarify in the article what the three dots meant. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They mean nothing, zero, unchanged. I saw the 2004 Host City Election — ballot results table in Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics with the dots and I liked. Well, dots removed. Felipe Menegaz 15:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just made the blank spaces dashes (since they mean the same thing). Problem solved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They mean nothing, zero, unchanged. I saw the 2004 Host City Election — ballot results table in Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics with the dots and I liked. Well, dots removed. Felipe Menegaz 15:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant for you to clarify in the article what the three dots meant. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 5 December 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 Dabomb87 23:27, 8 December 2009 [14].
- Nominator(s): —Chris!c/t 22:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC) & User:Hydrogen Iodide[reply]
I am nominating my first tallest buildings list and I think it fulfills the FL criteria. —Chris!c/t 22:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I am aware of the criteria regarding red links. I am reluctant to create extremely short stubs for shorter, less notable buildings, but I will do so if requested.—Chris!c/t 00:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looking over the history of the article, User:Hydrogen Iodide should also get credit for this nomination, as he was also a primary contributor to the article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added.—Chris!c/t 23:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
Comments
—NMajdan•talk 15:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support.—NMajdan•talk 12:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments from WFCforLife
Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* "Tallest building in the 1900s" could do with a footnote to disambiguate between the decade and the century. I know it's a bit picky, but sort by year and you will see why this could potentially cause confusion.
I'll leave it there for now. As an aside I absolutely love the panoramic shot. WFCforLife (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I'm not asking for the redlinked articles to be created. Indeed, the creation of articles for the sake of an FLC is a bad thing in my opinion. But I'm wondering if some of them should be linked at all? Oakland is a city of around 500,000 people, and it strikes me as somewhat surprising that it would have that many notable buildings (and that's ignoring the fact that there are several notable buildings that aren't skyscrapers).
- I have tried finding an articles to link the building to,but I don't see anything.—Chris!c/t 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a speific guideline that relates to buildings? I just find it difficult to believe that every high-rise in the world warrants an article. WFCforLife (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you, so I can remove the red links. I don't know of any guideline specifically—Chris!c/t 02:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a speific guideline that relates to buildings? I just find it difficult to believe that every high-rise in the world warrants an article. WFCforLife (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried finding an articles to link the building to,but I don't see anything.—Chris!c/t 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Drive-by from KV5
- I like the panorama too, I think it's a great idea, but it's even wider than my widescreen monitor. It may need to be made scrollable in consideration of WP:ACCESS. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Resize—Chris!c/t 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments: Good article, but some questions.
bamse (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] two more questions:
|
Support. bamse (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "feet (m)" should be "feet (meters)" or "ft (m)". --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done—Chris!c/t 00:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, per WP:MOSNUM the conversion is always abbreviated, so I undid this edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I didn't know that.—Chris!c/t 02:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, per WP:MOSNUM the conversion is always abbreviated, so I undid this edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done—Chris!c/t 00:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:11, 8 December 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 Dabomb87 18:33, 5 December 2009 [15].
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another cricket list, but this time not an Australian... I hope I got the basics right, sortability, dabs, live ext links, alt text, MOS-compliance, and hope that the list meets with the approval of the community. I look forward to any and all comments, thanks in advance for your time and reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Another, shame it's not an Australia; at least it's not a pom :) "He was named as one of the Wisden Cricketers of the Year in 2000, as well as both ICC Test Player of the Year and ICC Player of the Year in 2004." Is this really necessary for a list on centuries? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 11:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not strictly necessary but it adds a little flavour to suggest that he was recognised, in some part, for his successes with the bat (especially in 2000 after his amazing 1999...) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from -SpacemanSpiff 17:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment -- Really good to see Dravid here! Shouldn't the 180 in the Second Test, 2000–01 Border-Gavaskar Trophy find mention in the lead? While he's scored better, this innings has received a lot of coverage, although it wasn't the highest score in that game. -SpacemanSpiff 16:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support All comments have been addressed. -SpacemanSpiff 17:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Looks good. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks like another century to add on another pathetic track. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 09:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Went through the list and found no problems. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:19, 2 December 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 Dabomb87 18:33, 5 December 2009 [17].
- Nominator(s): Harrias (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it comprehensively covers the topic. The list is unlikely to expand at a rapid rate as women's Test matches are not played that regularly. This is laid out in the same format as the current FL (List of India women Test cricketers and I have read and used the comments from that FLC when creating this list. All comments and questions are welcome, happy reviewing! Harrias (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from -SpacemanSpiff 22:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
cheers, -SpacemanSpiff 20:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Comments addressed. -SpacemanSpiff 22:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 18:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image needs alt text, no? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support: Looks good. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 18:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"the SA&RWCA accepted an invitation from the Women's Cricket Association to join an International Women's Cricket Association along with Australia and New Zealand, and that international matches would be played between the four nations." Second part of the sentence doesn't match grammatically with the first; more specifically, "accepted the invitation" ... "and that" is the problem. A rewording is in order.- Done: have added agreed into the sentence, hopefully it makes more sense now.
"The first Test involving South Africa national women's cricket team...". Add "the" after "involving".- Done: changed as siggested.
- What makes http://beta.ancestry24.com/articles/women-in-cricket a reliable source? I fail to see how a genealogy website would be considered reliable.
- I have the same concern as you here, however the article itself is taken from Die Burger, a reliable daily newspaper from Cape Town. I have been trying to find an original or better source of this article, but living in England, that's the best I've been able to get unfortunately.
- If this is from a newspaper, you could have an offline citation for the newspaper story with a page number. Instead of sourcing from a shaky website, why not cite the paper itself? There's no requirement that reliable sources have to be online, either here or in general. Is that what you mean when you can't find an original, or can you not find it on Die Burger's website? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify; the source I cite lists Die Burger at the bottom as the source of the article. However, beyond that I can't find it; Die Burger's site is in (I assume) Afrikaans, which I'm not too good at, and finding an original of a foreign paper is beyond my means.. Harrias (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: until I can find a better source, I have removed the part regarding the Dutch team; as they were unofficial Test matches it's not vital information. Harrias (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify; the source I cite lists Die Burger at the bottom as the source of the article. However, beyond that I can't find it; Die Burger's site is in (I assume) Afrikaans, which I'm not too good at, and finding an original of a foreign paper is beyond my means.. Harrias (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is from a newspaper, you could have an offline citation for the newspaper story with a page number. Instead of sourcing from a shaky website, why not cite the paper itself? There's no requirement that reliable sources have to be online, either here or in general. Is that what you mean when you can't find an original, or can you not find it on Die Burger's website? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have the same concern as you here, however the article itself is taken from Die Burger, a reliable daily newspaper from Cape Town. I have been trying to find an original or better source of this article, but living in England, that's the best I've been able to get unfortunately.
Is an image possible for the lead?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I wish it were! I've scoured the web for PD or free use images to put here that show South Africa played Test cricket, but the only image I can find anywhere is one I took myself of them at a Twenty20 presentation, which wouldn't be appropriate. Harrias (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it better than nothing? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 23:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It does the job. Needs alt text, however. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text appears to be there (as far as I can see) at the moment - is it sufficient for you? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It does the job. Needs alt text, however. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it better than nothing? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 23:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish it were! I've scoured the web for PD or free use images to put here that show South Africa played Test cricket, but the only image I can find anywhere is one I took myself of them at a Twenty20 presentation, which wouldn't be appropriate. Harrias (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 22:33, 3 December 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 Dabomb87 18:33, 5 December 2009 [18].
- Nominator(s): —Chris!c/t 05:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's ready. This is my first award list in a while. —Chris!c/t 05:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Geraldk
|
---|
Comments: Did a quick c/e for spelling and grammar issues hope you don't mind, but also had these:
Geraldk (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - well done list. Geraldk (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jan Kameníček
|
---|
Comments. Generally, I like the list, and have just a few comments:
I was thinking about the article a little more and have a few more questions:
|
- Suppport. I like the list and at the moment have no more questions. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Bencherlite
|
---|
Otherwise, looks in good shape. BencherliteTalk 23:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support, issues resolved (I reworded prize 1 and prize 2 as "one of the prizes" and "the other"). BencherliteTalk 08:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 14:30, 4 December 2009 [19].
- Nominator(s): —Chris!c/t 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC) & User:Dabomb87[reply]
Second list for the Basketball Hall of Fame FT.—Chris!c/t 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringold |
---|
|
- Support per discussion and expansion. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabomb asked me to stop by, as I'm the major contributor to the group of Jesus College lists. Initially, there was only one list – "List of people associated with Jesus College, Oxford" – and that got the FL star. As more articles were written and added, the list had to be split into various sub-lists: at one point, the template limit had been reached on the page, breaking the citations, and the page regularly exceeded 200kb in total; it's still 190kb+ even with four offspring lists. I hope that it's a good way of doing things where the length of sub-lists means that combining all the names on one page would result in a list that was very difficult to load and edit; looking at the HoF lists, I think that would be the case here too. Another perhaps more relevant precedent, approved by FLC rather than edited this way later, is List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign / Wikipedia:Featured topics/Lists of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign - a FL (and lead list of the FT), which links to 8 sub-lists (all FLs) in simple fashion. So I don't agree that this list has to contain all the names in each sub-list in order to be comprehensive, with further details being given at the sub-list. That seems unnecessary duplication. Personally, I wouldn't even have a table for the most recent recipients - it looks odd to me to have such a short table (which hardly need to be sortable), as on first glance it makes it look as though these are the only recipients, and it would help to distinguish between the sections which are complete (e.g. referees) and the summaries if only the complete sections had tables. Far better, I would think, to summarise the sub-list, and mention the most recent recipients in the text. In the Jesus lists, the summaries follow the leads of the sublists, but I think that the summaries here need to be longer and mention more names, as the leads of the sub-lists are quite thin. So, at present, I think the "coaches" section summary needs to be expanded somewhat, and the "contributors" and "players" have no summary at all. Hope this helps. BencherliteTalk 13:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started to revamp those sections according to your advice. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Criterion 3. I have the utmost respect for both nominators, but can't believe in my own mind that this list "comprehensively covers the defined scope" of this topic. There have been nearly 300 inductions into the Hall of Fame, and the list has tables for exactly 19 of them. List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame, the closest related FL, has a similar number of inductees, yet does have a table with every inductee that is of manageable size. Why couldn't there be a full table with basic information in the main list, with full achievements notes in the sub-lists so that they could still meet 3b? Giants2008 (17–14) 20:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, 3a doesn't require a list to have all items. It says a list need to have "useful and appropriate information about the items," which in this case is provided by the section summary. Having a full list w/ content forking sublists violates 3b, in my opinion.—Chris!c/t 23:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with Chris on this one. Creating sublists just for the sake of the achievements column is overkill, while a list with all of the inductees on one page would be too long, unless somebody will draft such a list in their sandbox and prove me wrong. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a link to the version before it was split. The list wasn't complete at that time, but was already long and took a while to load.—Chris!c/t 01:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been exactly one more induction in the Basketball Hall of Fame than the Baseball Hall of Fame, and the size of the Baseball Hall of Fame list (more bytes than the old Basketball Hall of Fame format) wasn't an issue in the recent FLRC. Regarding usefulness, if I wanted to know everybody who was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1985, this list is not useful to me at all in its present form. I'm remaining in the oppose column, but have no fear. I'm sure that if enough reviewers support, it will wind up promoted anyway, as you know. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well yes, the numbers of Basketball Hall of Fame induction and Baseball Hall of Fame induction are almost equivalent. But the reason why Basketball Hall of Fame get split up in the first place is because it is too long. No disrespect to the editors who worked hard on the Baseball list, but I think it is too bare bone compared to this list. It merely lists all inductees without providing much description about them. I have absolutely no problem with you opposing, but I feel that the oppose is based more on preferences than a specific criteria in WP:FL?. And I am not sure what I can do to satisfy your request.—Chris!c/t 23:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been exactly one more induction in the Basketball Hall of Fame than the Baseball Hall of Fame, and the size of the Baseball Hall of Fame list (more bytes than the old Basketball Hall of Fame format) wasn't an issue in the recent FLRC. Regarding usefulness, if I wanted to know everybody who was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1985, this list is not useful to me at all in its present form. I'm remaining in the oppose column, but have no fear. I'm sure that if enough reviewers support, it will wind up promoted anyway, as you know. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a link to the version before it was split. The list wasn't complete at that time, but was already long and took a while to load.—Chris!c/t 01:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with Chris on this one. Creating sublists just for the sake of the achievements column is overkill, while a list with all of the inductees on one page would be too long, unless somebody will draft such a list in their sandbox and prove me wrong. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, 3a doesn't require a list to have all items. It says a list need to have "useful and appropriate information about the items," which in this case is provided by the section summary. Having a full list w/ content forking sublists violates 3b, in my opinion.—Chris!c/t 23:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Disagree with both Staxringold and Giants. I think this list (and the alumni of Jesus College list before it) is a decent compromise between splintering into too many sub-pages and having a very long list that's largely inaccessible. The mixing of the player and non-player inductees in the baseball version drives me nuts. This style is much more useful to readers. Plus, there's plenty of precedent for both lists of lists and partial lists of lists. However, I do believe that the lead, and the leads of the individual sections, could do with expansion. In that area, I think the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame is a decent example. Geraldk (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can definitely try to expand the lead, but don't think I can make it as long as the one on Baseball Hall of Fame. It seems to me that the long length is due to the complexity of the induction and selection criteria. The criteria for induction here is much simpler.—Chris!c/t 18:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Splitting players and non-players is one thing, I'm fine with that. My issue is with no information on the individual Hall of Famers for several of these groups on the list page. As I say below, Rawlings Gold Glove Award lists every 1st baseman who has won the award even though List of Gold Glove Award winners at first base exists. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment I understand and on balance agree with the splitting of players and coaches from the main article, but contributors seems like an odd split to me. WFCforLife (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Seperate to the discussion above, my only queries are:
I'm unsure whether List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (contributors) is a content fork or a necessary and logical split, and can't support without further discussion for that reason. I think it passes all of the other FL criteria. WFCforLife (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Merged now, although I don't agree with it.—Chris!c/t 23:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per previous comment regarding contributors being in this article. I have two questions for the opposers, assuming they are still opposed:
- 1. Are List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (coaches) and List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (players) worthy of articles?
- 2a. If yes to 1, what information about players and coaches would you expect to see here, while still making those articles meaningful and useful additions?
- 2b. If no to 1, are you saying that the length of a merged list would not prevent you from supporting the list, if other concerns were met (for instance the player achievements column was completed)?
Hope those questions help the discussion. WFCforLife (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Re WFCforLife: I appreciate your attempt to help restart the discussion. There seems to be a deadlock about this issue.—Chris!c/t 06:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To opposers: I echo WFCforLife's comment. Please respond below to keep discussion unfragmented, thanks.—Chris!c/t 06:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To the first question, I would say that, in their present format, they could be seen as meeting 3b; in fact, I believe I supported the coaches list when it was at FLC.
- I would expect a very basic table, without the extensive achievements notes since those are a critical factor in the seperate lists meeting 3b. If the seperate list needed to be beefed up further, perhaps a team column could be considered as well.
- One more note: I feel better about this list now that the contributors have been merged in. To me, it now feels more like a list in its own right, rather than something that primarily redirects the reader to other lists. Even in Bencherlite's example, the main list has plenty of content on its own without the split-off sections. The merge that happened brings this list closer to that standard. Giants2008 (17–14) 17:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've asked User:Staxringold to revisit. Hopefully he will response soon.—Chris!c/t 18:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The format of the list is still not my cup of tea, but the work during FLC has improved it a bit, so I'm switching to neutral. Fair enough? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I guess neutral is better than oppose. :) Thanks.—Chris!c/t 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The format of the list is still not my cup of tea, but the work during FLC has improved it a bit, so I'm switching to neutral. Fair enough? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've asked User:Staxringold to revisit. Hopefully he will response soon.—Chris!c/t 18:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comments from KV5
I like the format of this list; it reminds me a lot of List of Major League Baseball awards, in that a lot of subsections have their own articles but some others are just part of this list. That said, just a few minor comments:
- I see some undefined abbreviations; AAU jumps out at me right from the start. Further down in the list, I see this: "National Association of Intercollegiate Basketball (NAIB)/National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA)". Maybe it would make sense to key all abbreviations at the top of the list and then remove the written-out names from the tables. This especially makes sense because sortability could easily cause a single written-out name to occur after an abbreviation.
- Not sure if a key is a good idea. There are 20 or more abbreviations used, done AAU.—Chris!c/t 22:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other shortened names that aren't explicit are "Trotters" and "Rens".
- Done, after edit conflict 3 times. :(—Chris!c/t 22:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Big 8" - the name of the article is Big Eight Conference, and MOSNUM would agree that it should be written out.
- Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "7 Big Ten titles during late 19th century and early 20th century (Chicago)" - what school is this? A link may be helpful.
- Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "having coached the Kansas Jayhawks (college) and the Detroit Pistons (NBA) to championships" - should be consistent: either (college) ... (professional) or (NCAA) ... (NBA)
- "As of induction of the Class of 2009" - date?
Due to the length of this list, I may come back with more later. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm comfortable supporting at this time. Good work. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:40, 3 December 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 17:35, 1 December 2009 [20].
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles List of Indiana state symbols, List of Kentucky state symbols, and List of Maryland state symbols, all of which have FL status. Currently, the list has no disambiguation links, all external links are functional, and all images contain alt text. Thanks! Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to make aware one issue that has been raised. In working on this list, I essentially followed the formats used in List of Indiana state symbols, List of Kentucky state symbols, and List of Maryland state symbols (all of which have FL status) for the sake of uniformity. In some ways, I feel the Oregon list is even better in that the description actually indicates why the symbol is significant in relation to the state itself; the other lists mentioned either lack descriptions or do not offer specific significance. Over at WikiProject Oregon, Esprqii and Katr67 commented on the list; I feel I addressed Esprqii's request for the Description column, but Katr67's preference for a single sortable column has not been accommodated (nor has Katr67 edited the list to be a single table). I have no problem with Katr67's request, but I was not sure if having sections (Insignia, Flora, etc.) was preferable to FL reviewers. I will leave it up to review to decide whether a single table is preferable; it makes no difference to me, as I care more about the symbols and descriptions themselves, not necessarily how they are displayed. To all reviewers, thanks for taking the time to offer suggestions and comments. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - lead is a bit short—Chris!c/t 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can certainly work on expanding the lead.
Doing...--Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done. If additional suggestions are made for expanding the lead, I will be happy to try to accommodate. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ok, I am satisfied.—Chris!c/t 02:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. If additional suggestions are made for expanding the lead, I will be happy to try to accommodate. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that Esprqii also mentioned that he would prefer a single sortable table (it's not a !vote, but might be leaning towards a consensus) and that I'm not going to arbitrarily change it to that format while someone is working on it, without discussion. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Until it is decided whether one table would be better or not, I went ahead and made the tables sortable by Type, Symbol or Year (apart from the first one, which does not need the sort function). --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Confirming my preference for a sortable table. I just think people might want to sort by date of adoption or name of the item. Really nice job on the descriptions. --Esprqii (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Again, until it is decided whether one list would be better or not, I went ahead and made the tables sortable by Type, Symbol or Year. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was initially skeptical of this article's nomination, but I'm really pleased with how it turned out and impressed with the nominator's willingness to work hard and extremely courteously for consensus. (Disclosure: I did a small amount of work on the article prior to its nomination, and somewhat more after the FL nomination.) --Esprqii (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Esprqii. Your support is much appreciated, as are your contributions. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Geraldk
|
---|
|
Support - Rey makes a decent argument, but I'm ok supporting whether or not they are combined. Geraldk (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather the tables not be combined. Really, I don't think a state's symbols are the kind of thing one would want to sort. I believe the current layout is great as it is. You just need a longer lead. Reywas92Talk 22:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Working on the lead now. Any other suggestions as far as expansion goes? I wanted to indicate which symbol types were unique to Oregon (for instance, if Oregon was the only state to have an official Statehood Pageant or Team), but I cannot find sources to cite these claims. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I strongly support having the information in a single table. The current multiple table format is great so far as a presentation by category, but it would also be useful to view the list by year of adoption. To accomodate both presentations requires either two lists or a single sortable table; of these two possibilities, the single sortable table is much preferable. The loss of horizontal real estate could be made up by putting the image directly under the symbol name and putting the notes directly under the year of adoption. I'd be glad to do the heavy lifting on this, but don't wish to do it unilaterally. YBG (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For comparison's sake, I created a single-table version in my user space here. I like being able to sort by year and type in one table rather than individually. See what you all think. --Esprqii (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it. Thank you for taking the time to make the single list. It appears there is a preference for a single, sortable table, so feel free to copy the table over (being sure to adjust for the corrections you made to the list since then). I had the symbols sorted chronologically by default, but it does make more sense to go alphabetically by symbol, as you have it. Then, if interested, the table can sort by date. Once you have copied the table over, I will be sure to add the flag and seal, as discussed on the list's talk page. Thanks again! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Esprqii's single table looks great -- though it does not include a column for the 'category' or whatever the section headings should be called. Is there any interest in trying to combine columns for better presentation and better usage of horizontal real estate? I tried briefly, but wasn't satisfied. Also, the Portland State Office building includes some artwork for some of these state emblems. The Public Health Division page in the Oregon Bluebook has photo that gives you some idea of what is there, but close-up pictures might make a nice addition here. YBG (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it looks good as is--I doubt there is a need to indicate that a flower is "Flora" and milk is a "Culture" symbol. I went ahead and used Esprqii's single table form to edit the list, incorporating the wording changes made since then. I added the Flag, so all that remains is the seal (which has quite a bit of history). The list looks great! Thanks so much for collaborating. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Esprqii's single table looks great -- though it does not include a column for the 'category' or whatever the section headings should be called. Is there any interest in trying to combine columns for better presentation and better usage of horizontal real estate? I tried briefly, but wasn't satisfied. Also, the Portland State Office building includes some artwork for some of these state emblems. The Public Health Division page in the Oregon Bluebook has photo that gives you some idea of what is there, but close-up pictures might make a nice addition here. YBG (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it. Thank you for taking the time to make the single list. It appears there is a preference for a single, sortable table, so feel free to copy the table over (being sure to adjust for the corrections you made to the list since then). I had the symbols sorted chronologically by default, but it does make more sense to go alphabetically by symbol, as you have it. Then, if interested, the table can sort by date. Once you have copied the table over, I will be sure to add the flag and seal, as discussed on the list's talk page. Thanks again! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For comparison's sake, I created a single-table version in my user space here. I like being able to sort by year and type in one table rather than individually. See what you all think. --Esprqii (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I strongly support having the information in a single table. The current multiple table format is great so far as a presentation by category, but it would also be useful to view the list by year of adoption. To accomodate both presentations requires either two lists or a single sortable table; of these two possibilities, the single sortable table is much preferable. The loss of horizontal real estate could be made up by putting the image directly under the symbol name and putting the notes directly under the year of adoption. I'd be glad to do the heavy lifting on this, but don't wish to do it unilaterally. YBG (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: Should 1854 be displayed in the Year column for the motto, as opposed to 1987? 1854 was when the motto was originally used, as mentioned in the lead, though 1987 is when the most current motto (which happens to be the same as the original) was adopted. The same question applies to the seal, which has a somewhat complicated history. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (Edit: Issues addressed) --Another Believer (Talk) 20:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - fails criterion 5. (b) File:Blazers original.png has no fair use rationale for use in article. Dubious as to whether it would meet the criteria for non-free content. Guest9999 (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Image removed and replaced with free alternative. Guest9999 (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I am not terribly familiar with which images can be used and which ones cannot. Am I right in assuming that all Portland Trail Blazers logos are unsuitable for use on this list? Surely there must be an image we can use to illustrate the Trail Blazers. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a free team photo if one can be found or a photo of their stadium (like this one? In order to be included in the article the current image would have to meet all 10 criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Currently it fails 10c but the real question is whether it could ever pass criterion 8, does having it really "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" - probably not. Guest9999 (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Replaced image, along with the caption and alt text. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the 'state team' designation given to the 1990-91 Trailblazers, it seems a picture of that year's team would be more appropriate. In any event, ground was not broken on the Rose Garden until 1993, so a picture of the Memorial Coliseum would be better. YBG (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. While I am not familiar with uploading images, apart from album covers for infoboxes, I went ahead and changed the Rose Garden image to one of the Memorial Coliseum. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the 'state team' designation given to the 1990-91 Trailblazers, it seems a picture of that year's team would be more appropriate. In any event, ground was not broken on the Rose Garden until 1993, so a picture of the Memorial Coliseum would be better. YBG (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Replaced image, along with the caption and alt text. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a free team photo if one can be found or a photo of their stadium (like this one? In order to be included in the article the current image would have to meet all 10 criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Currently it fails 10c but the real question is whether it could ever pass criterion 8, does having it really "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" - probably not. Guest9999 (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great job by the nominator to implement all the right suggestions by the reviewers. This is the best list among these state symbol lists and should be used as a model by the editors who work on these lists.--Cheetah (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.enature.com/fieldguides/detail.asp?shapeID=1095&curGroupID=9&lgfromWhere=&curPageNum=1 reliable?Dabomb87 (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All I can say is that, according to the site, the information on eNature is the "same data set used to create the printed Audubon Field Guides", and "all the data has been carefully reviewed and vetted by leading biologists, zoologists and other natural history specialists." If the site is not considered reliable, I'd be happy to track down another source to provide a physical description of the Oregon hairy triton. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be appreciated, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doing...--Another Believer (Talk) 03:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be appreciated, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retracted idea about combining columns from YBG
|
---|
(Outdent) I've boldly reduced the number of columns by two -- first merging 'Notes' into 'Year adopted' and then 'Image' into 'Symbol', resulting, I believe, in a better appearing table. Please feel free to object to and/or revert one or both of these changes! Cheers. YBG (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
(Outdent) Here's a few additional ideas to mull over:
- √ Consider using a horizontal rule to separate the obverse and reverse of the State Flag. I made this minor change in the version mentioned above and thought it looked nice.
- √ Consider using 1987<br>1854-1957 for the state motto dates.
Consider putting 'State<br>Animal' and the like in the first column.Retracted YBG (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]Consider grouping topically like section titles in the non-tabular version.Retracted YBG (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]Consider left-justifying the contents of description column; centered prose seems a bit odd.Retracted now that column widths are better, no appreciable difference YBG (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- √ What about the State Seal? Should it have an entry like the flag?
Discussion of the above now retracted or resolved ideas from YBG
|
---|
Though I could implement these ideas unilaterally, they are much easier to visualize than the changes I did with the columns, where I thought a picture was worth 1000 words. So I offer these ideas for your consideration and possible implementation. By the way, I really do like the tabular format with descriptions much better than the previous bulleted list with section headings. Great collaboration, folks! YBG (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Note: I've changed the lists above and below from bullets to numbers for ease in cross-referencing YBG (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
OK, here's a couple more ideas:
(a) √ Change column header from 'Year adopted' to 'Adopted'
(b) Combine 'Note' into 'Symbol' column -- eliminates a column, but still evident that the note applies to the entire row. (Retracted YBG (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC))
What do you think? YBG (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of these retracted/resolved ideas from YBG and column width
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Outdent) I can readily appreciate your frustration with excess white space. That was one of my problems with the previous version -- the way the table was laid out, on my browser, the description column was unnecessarily narrow, creating an excess of white space in the other columns, with the result that you couldn't see very many of the symbols simultaneously. I have put back in some percentages that seem to work on my browser, but you'll have to let me know how it appears on yours.
As you can see, the previous percentages added up to 122%, but the ones I used add up to 100%. I intentionally made some of the percentages too small in order to avoid putting any extra white space into those columns. My browser at least expands them. Is this any improvement? Any comments about left-justifying the description column or changing the column order? YBG (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment I'm happy with the rejected symbols being discussed in prose rather than a bullet point list. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 30 November 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 17:35, 1 December 2009 [21].
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 18:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets criteria. I made similar lists for Big Brother and Project Runway, so I feel I know most of the issues that need to be addressed. Another Believer (Talk) 18:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can already predict two issues that might need to be addressed. As much as I would love to include the ages of all the contestants that have participated, I have had trouble trying to track down the ages of all the contestants in reliable news sources, especially for some of the earlier seasons. However, I was still able to find sources to provide the ages of the youngest and oldest contestants. Also, I considered adding an "Occupation" column to display how the celebrity became famous, but I didn't know if that would be redundant information, as users could simply click on any celebrity name or even the season number to learn more information about the celebrities participating and how they became famous. To me, a list should be a single source that branches off to other sources of information, as opposed to a single source that includes as much information as possible (and therefore can be somewhat overwhelming). However, I am willing to add this column if reviewers find it necessary. Thanks so much! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that would be a good idea to include why they are celebrities. Reywas92Talk 18:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Doing...--Another Believer (Talk) 18:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! Another concern is that Status and Finish are redundant. 2nd runner-up=3rd, Runner-up=2nd, Winner=1st, and Eliminated=4th and below. Keep just the Finish. Also, the lead needs to talk about the professional dance partners, many of which were in multiple seasons. Reywas92Talk 23:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will definitely add something to the lead to include the dance partners... I will have to think of something.What I like about the Status column is that it displays which contestants withdrew from the competition. In that sense, I thought the column was relevant. Perhaps I could combine them to just say "Withdrew: 3rd" or "Eliminated: 5th" or something similar, still sorting by final placement.Doing...-Another Believer (Talk) 06:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Actually, before I spend the time to make a change that might not be kept, could I get some feedback about how you think the Finish column should look? I like how now it shows the Status and Finish placement, but I can see how it is possible they could be combined. Maybe something like "{sort|05|5th (Eliminated)}" or "{sort|08|8th: Eliminated}"? --Another Believer (Talk) 17:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still a given that anyone 4th and below was eliminated. The three who withdrew are already in the lead and could be denoted with a symbol or footnote. I think just the placement is sufficient. Reywas92Talk 18:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Removed Status column. If you think an asterisk should be placed in the Finish cells of the three contestants that withdrew, just let me know and I will add it. Such as "14th*", with a note at the bottom indicating that contestants with an asterisk withdrew from the competition.
Also, I realize I still need to add something to the lead about the professional partners, though I am still trying to think of something that is relevant.--Another Believer (Talk) 18:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Although I am not sure if the wording is correct (grammatically speaking), I added information about the professional partners to the lead. Let me know if any edits need to be made. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I added a little more about the professional partners, and everything looks great. You can add the star if you want, but I don't care. Reywas92Talk 19:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support. Hope you don't mind that I re-arranged the professional dancers that won at the end of the lead so that they are in roughly chronological order. Figured that would be best since the celebrity winners are listed in chronological order. I appreciate your time, assistance, and suggestions! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Removed Status column. If you think an asterisk should be placed in the Finish cells of the three contestants that withdrew, just let me know and I will add it. Such as "14th*", with a note at the bottom indicating that contestants with an asterisk withdrew from the competition.
- It's still a given that anyone 4th and below was eliminated. The three who withdrew are already in the lead and could be denoted with a symbol or footnote. I think just the placement is sufficient. Reywas92Talk 18:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! Another concern is that Status and Finish are redundant. 2nd runner-up=3rd, Runner-up=2nd, Winner=1st, and Eliminated=4th and below. Keep just the Finish. Also, the lead needs to talk about the professional dance partners, many of which were in multiple seasons. Reywas92Talk 23:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comment I would mark some things on the list with colors the way that baseball lists like Major League Baseball Rookie of the Year Award. At the very least mark winners and the contestants who withdrew from competition. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought about both of these, but I thought it might be overkill, as that information is already conveyed in the lead and within the table (in the case of the winners). I'd be more than happy to add coloring if additional reviewers feel it is necessary, though past nominations for other lists I have created seem to indicate that 'less is more'. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do any other reviewers have a preference for or against adding coloring for the winners and competitors that withdrew from the show? --Another Believer (Talk) 00:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I could see what the list would look like with color, I might be able to decide. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would look similar to this list, with three cells colored blue (to reflect the three competitors that withdrew), and nine red cells (to reflect the winners of each season). --Another Believer (Talk) 04:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I could see what the list would look like with color, I might be able to decide. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do any other reviewers have a preference for or against adding coloring for the winners and competitors that withdrew from the show? --Another Believer (Talk) 00:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks good.—NMajdan•talk 14:36, 24 November 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 17:35, 1 December 2009 [22].
- Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 10:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this list after working on it for a long time, both the copyedit and the red link criteria. I've created articles for Jack O'Brien (wrestler), Alberto Muñoz, Kung Fu (wrestler), Américo Rocca, Franco Columbo, El Supremo (wrestler), Mocho Cota, Chamaco Valaguez, Águila Solitaria, Ciclón Ramírez, Fantasma de la Quebrada, El Salsero, Nygma (wrestler), El Torero, Karloff Lagarde, Jr., Tigre Blanco, Doctor X (wrestler), Valiente (wrestler) and I now believe it fulfils all FL criterias.
The remaining names on the list are not linked, I could not find much information on them in general, the only notable thing seems to be winning this title and no other titles. I left them unliked as I don't think it's realistic that anyone could find enough information to establish much in the way of notability. It follows the pattern and format of all the other wrestling championship lists I've brought to FL status.
Any and all comments are welcome. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 10:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Meets to me.--WillC 06:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wrestlinglover
|
---|
Give review tomorrow hopefully. At the moment, it seems fine from just skiming it, but never know.--WillC 06:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Fixed and yes I think it should be. MPJ-DK (36,6% Done) Talk 01:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Two more things I found during a second look:
|
Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3, what does "pp. all" mean?Dabomb87 (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It means the entire book is the source. The claim is that it's one of the oldest still existing titles, the book is the collective title history going back to the turn of the last century and it proves that there are only 2 or 3 titles as old as this one still around (and they're all "Mexican National" titles) I changed the "All" to the page range of the actual title history in the book. MPJ-DK (40,4% Done) Talk 11:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the input. MPJ-DK (40,4% Done) Talk 11:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.—NMajdan•talk 14:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 28 November 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.