Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2010: Difference between revisions
fail 1 |
fail 1 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New Testament uncials/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New Testament uncials/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of forty-plus point games by Kobe Bryant/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of forty-plus point games by Kobe Bryant/archive1}} |
Revision as of 15:43, 20 February 2010
- 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 not promoted by Dabomb87 15:43, 20 February 2010 [1].
List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain
This list is the end result of a split from Hawaii hotspot, when it got too long to manage. I'm nominating it for FL because it's well-referenced and well-written. However, this list is a bit bold, because it has issues with completeness that can never be really surmounted, that is that in addition to the stuff listed, there are countless more. The list covers signifigant seamounts, but I can't find a clear distinction between what's listed and what's not, other then that the vast majority of what's not listed has a coordinate and a name, sometimes not even a name. ResMar 20:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Some comments after a very quick glance (mainly on sorting):
bamse (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] One more quick comment: I was told in one of my FLC, that featured lists don't start like: "This is a list of..." anymore, so you should probably change the start.bamse (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support now. All issues have been resolved. bamse (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from M4gnum0n (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
The introduction is six paragraphs long. Should be four or less per WP:LEAD. --M4gnum0n (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Just a couple of things:
|
- Note: At the time of the review, KV wasn't a signifigant contributor to the article, although I asked him for help with it (which he's been doing a wonderful job with ;) ) ResMar 22:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it typical for FLCs to backlog for so long? ResMar 15:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We are short on reviewers right now. Additionally, the header on the main FLC page does state that nominations remain open for at least 10 days or longer (this one has only been open for nine) and that the bot only runs twice a week for promotions. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, very short...ResMar 14:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You might ask earlier reviewers to re-visit their comments, as lnog as your aren't canvassing. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, very short...ResMar 14:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Emperor" or "Emperior"? Spaced en dash or hyphen? These consistencies in the main article have me confused about this one. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Emperor and en dash. ResMar 22:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- "only known " should be hyphenated?
- ? Please elaborate. ResMar 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- only-known... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would put Notes above References, but would also ensure that Notes are all referenced.
The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. ResMar 23:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes need references? oO The notes outline a trend to mot include the two volcanoes in the ordinary defenition of Hawaii island, that's a little hard to reference...ResMar 22:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I really can't find a ref for that. It's true, yes, but not directly implied anywhere...should I remove it? ResMar 01:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes need references in general, particularly if you make claims in the that some may dispute. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I really can't find a ref for that. It's true, yes, but not directly implied anywhere...should I remove it? ResMar 01:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed, still can't find applicable source. ResMar 23:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks overall great. I made some tweaks to the lede. I have two suggestions:
Although it may be obvious, I think it would be helpful to make a note at the start of the tables that you're going from the present-day hotspot location to the farthest point away from the hotspot on the Emperor seamount chain.Done.- Dunno about a full-blown note, but I added to the part of the intro about the list that it's organized by distance. ResMar 21:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, thanks. Awickert (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dunno about a full-blown note, but I added to the part of the intro about the list that it's organized by distance. ResMar 21:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the grammar of, "Named after former emperor of Japan Emperor Kammu."? It seems clunky to me, but I can't find a better way to say it except for, "Named after Emperor Kammu of Japan," which leaves the reader to imply the "former" and so is arguably worse.Done.I just asked Dabomb87 if sentence fragments are OK; if they are, great! If not, there are a bunch of minor edits to do to tweak the notes in the tables. [Update: Dabomb87 says that they are OK so long as they don't have sentence-ending punctuation.Done. Awickert (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)][reply]
Other than this, I'll just do a grammar/style check of the descriptions in the table (once I know whether or not they need to be complete sentences), and I'll be happy to support. I'm just going to assume that you all have cross-checked the numbers :-). Awickert (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Point 2 uh, so is there a better way to say it? Seems just fine. 3 seems to be resolved...ResMar 17:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Point 2 isn't very important. Point 3 is not resolved: there is sentence-ending punctuation at the end of non-sentences. Awickert (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For point 2, if I may suggest: Named after Emperor [so-and-so], former ruler of Japan? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good - I'll do it. Awickert (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And point 3 is now sorted. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! This takes care of all of these concerns. Awickert (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For point 2, if I may suggest: Named after Emperor [so-and-so], former ruler of Japan? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Point 2 isn't very important. Point 3 is not resolved: there is sentence-ending punctuation at the end of non-sentences. Awickert (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There seem to be some issues in date consistency: the dates given for Kilauea are for its first subaerial eruptions, while the dates given for Mauna Loa are for its first eruptions, period. A convention should be decided upon, and noted (maybe as a footnote), such that we know what "age" means. I'd suggest (where possible) giving a full range of dates from the estimated first to most recent eruptions. Another viable option would be to only give the date of first eruption, or perhaps the date of first subaerial eruption (so when the volcano surfaced). I guess that there are 3 important dates actually (start volcanism, breach surface, and end volcanism), so there are multiple ways to include some or all of these. Awickert (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is, I believe, the last outstanding issue, and I am unsure about the best way to execute it. I can certainly provide a footnote; I just need to know what it should say. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm... well, a range of dates given could be from first (submarine) eruption to final eruption. Then if we wanted, we could put in the table (or as a footnote) a surfacing age. Does this sound good to you? If so, I'd be happy to help straighten it all out. Awickert (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be eminently grateful for any help you could provide, as the topic itself just isn't a strong suit. I must say, though, that helping ResMar with this list has made me more interested in volcanoes! And that's really the point of Wikipedia, isn't it? Collaborate; learn; lather, rinse, repeat... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, it's fun! I'm no volcanologist either... Awickert (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Volcanologist? Where? ResMar 14:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Bencherlite
"is responsible for the volcanism that forms the volcanoes in the chain" – perhaps "is responsible for forming the volcanoes in the chain", to avoid near-repetition of a word?"cause the volcanic edifice to become lower" – "make the volcanic edifice smaller"?- In the Northwestern Hawaiʻian islands table, the cells with dashes sort in between the cells with numbers. This took me some time to work out. Am I right in saying that it's because Maro Reef, for example, is in between Laysan and Gardner Pinnacles in the chain and therefore in age, even though the actual age is unknown? Ref 29 (eventually) yielded that information to me, but a simple browser search didn't find "Maro", for example, because the text is sideways on in the diagram! Perhaps a note to explain this, at the head of the table if nowhere else strikes you as suitable? It was particularly confusing because the Emperor seamounts table sorts differently, with "unknown" together at the end.
- Otherwise, a very full list that is clearly the product of much hard work. BencherliteTalk 15:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bencherlite: I've addressed your first two concerns, and can explain the third since I did the sorting stuff, but you've essentially explained it yourself. It's easily inferred that the age is between x and y due to location, but the true age or even estimated age is unknown or unrecorded. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that makes sense. I've added a note to that effect, which I hope is OK. That would just leave Awickert's point about dates, I think. BencherliteTalk 01:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note is good; spelling corrected :-). I've left a reminder for Awickert so he can perhaps revisit this. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Spot the geological noob... Anyway, if you can satisfy Awickert, then I'm happy too, so that's probably a conditional support (I know FL Directors like bold type...) BencherliteTalk 01:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawl
Unfortunatly this nominations trawled its long and painful path into finals week. I have no time to devote to Wikipedia for at least a week and a half. Sorry. ResMar 00:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ResMar, I can help out with the last few outstanding issues, so if you want to consider striking the withdrawal, I'll see what I can do for you. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck, ResMar. And if KV5 can get this one over the finishing line, that might even put a smile on your face during exams. BencherliteTalk 01:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, K5, if you can wrap it up I'd be grateful. No pressure though. Immense thanks...you can put up a star for yourself when all's said and done :) ResMar 02:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Crawling through the list
- Made it down to Koolau, but the refs leave me confused as to whether it is truly a part of the island that the article says it is. I'll come back to this later on, but if someone who knows about Hawaii has a chance to clarify this before then, I'd greatly appreciate it! Awickert (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have checked and haven't been able to make sense of it either, at least not enough to verify that. Although I fixed the spelling there, I don't know if that verifies the refs. We might need ResMar, or perhaps we can recruit a member of an appropriate WikiProject to translate. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see if I can make sense of it then, probably later in the day when I have more time. Awickert (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the status of this? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Woot, finals are all done. Now I have 6 days to relax...ahhh... Ok lemmie see...ResMar 14:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno what your issue is, this pretty clearly states where it is...ResMar 14:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to contact Awickert to ask if his concerns have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy Saturday - and now I'm back too. The source says it's on Oahu, but we say that it's on Molokai. My question was whether its location is in error, or is just something I don't know about Hawaiian geography. Awickert (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to contact Awickert to ask if his concerns have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno what your issue is, this pretty clearly states where it is...ResMar 14:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolved.[2] Errors accidentally introduced by User:Killervogel5 on 19 December 2009.[3] Further review of diff may be needed. Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. The dates for the whole Hawaiian chain are now done. Emperors will come soon. Awickert (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolved.[2] Errors accidentally introduced by User:Killervogel5 on 19 December 2009.[3] Further review of diff may be needed. Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Loihi Seamount is generally classified as part of the Big Island, but someone has also removed the category from the Loihi article as well. It was appropriately classifed under the Big Island in December 2009.[4] I think it should be listed as part of the Big Island category (as it is on the flank of Mauna Loa) and the category should be added back to the main article. Books and papers generally categorize Loihi under any discussion of the Big Island, and category literalism is not helpful. Viriditas (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed. ResMar 00:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Avenue
- Some scientists have argued that Kauai was not formed by a single volcano, but from two.[5][6] Even one of the sources we cite acknowledges the two-shield model as a valid alternative.[7] But we list it as a single volcano, without any indication that this is controversial. -- Avenue (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead says "As the volcano sinks and is eroded, it first becomes an atoll and then an atoll island." How is an atoll island different from an atoll? The linked article doesn't mention the term.
- Next the lead says "Further subsidence causes the volcano to sink below the sea surface, becoming a seamount and/or guyot." Neither the cited source nor our Evolution of Hawaiian volcanoes article suggest that further subsidence is to blame, instead saying it is due to the coral reef dying. This in turn is blamed on the volcano's movement into colder waters, past the Darwin Point, in the "Evolution ..." and various other articles.
- I have two main concerns about the next part of the lead: "This list documents the most significant volcanoes in the chain, ordered by distance from the hotspot; however, there are many others that have yet to be properly studied."
- The first is that it seems to gloss over the distinction between volcanoes and the islands, atolls, and seamounts they produce. This is linked to my initial point above about Kauai possibly comprising two main volcanoes. Other islands or seamounts might likewise represent more than one volcano, and future research might bring this to light, but we do not acknowledge this possibility anywhere.
- My other concern is that "most significant" (previously "most notable") doesn't seem to be a good description of what's included here. I would be happier with something like "known". Again, I think this should include a caveat about some seamounts etc being listed singly when the true situation may be more complex. -- Avenue (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now, based on the problems noted above with the lead and comprehensiveness. -- Avenue (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dates
I've been noting whether dates are an estimate, whether they span the whole lifetime of the volcano, or whether they're a single radiometric date. I've been spot-fixing a couple of the numbers at the same time and finding some new ones. Some things I need help with:
- I've been identifying tons of potassium-argon dates. This seems to clutter things; should I just make the dating method be a footnote?Awickert (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd rather not. I really want to keep notes out the way; it's not that bad of an issue; any other opinions? ResMar 00:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I'll leave them, easier for me that way too. Awickert (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find any of the dates noted in this reference, Duncan, R. A. and Clague, D. A. (1984) The earliest volcanism on the Hawaiian Ridge (abstract), EOS American Geophysical Union Transactions, volume 65, page 1076. Can anyone access this and confirm the dates in the article, and how they were obtained?Awickert (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Mm40 (talk). Argh, I like FLC because I can stay away from science lists. Oh well, geology isn't that bad.
- "The chain has been produced by the" just checking, you mean to imply that the chain is still being formed? Is there some way you can clarify this?
- I guess you can use "ocean crust" and "oceanic crust" interchangeably?
- "and is eroded" why not just "erodes"? (sorry if I don't understand verb conjugations for you ecology types)
- Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "it is both the youngest part" either take out "both" here or the "also" later in the sentence; I'd prefer taking out "also"
- Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "in the chain
that isin the submarine pre-shield stage"- Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a link for "extinct islands"?
- Is there a more common synonym for "phase-out"?
- In the "Age" column, some date ranges use dashes while others use "to"
- I have no idea what a "rift-zone eruption" is; elaborate
- In Lanai's column, there should be some sort of punctuation after "Sixth-largest island"
- "the southern half remains above
thesea today" - "including religious places" is there a better word than "places"?
- Can you link "rock outcrop" somewhere?
- In the notes for Lisianski Island, you may want to link to the captain himself; you might pipe it like you do with "a key battle" in Midway Atoll's notes.
- The plus-or-minus signs (±) are sometimes spaced and sometimes not; be consistent
- The Age box for Suiko makes no sense; you can be plus-or-minus a date range, just go with the bigger value, and what does the second ± mean?
- References
- There are a couple abbreviations in the references readers may not be familiar with. I noticed USGS, KQED, and QCC.
- Add the authors in reference 5
- You note that links are PDFs 3 different ways: letters before link (ref 6), symbol after link (end of ref 6, ref 44), and symbol with letters after link (34).
- Ref 6 claims the first link is the pre-press version, but the second link is titled "Pre-press version"
- Sometimes you link the USGS, sometime you don't
- Refs 7, 10, and 11 cite the same observatory three different ways
- Reference 11's retrieval date is in a different style than the others
- Can geology.com (ref 13) be replaced with something of higher-quality?
- Funny typo in ref 18: "Vulcanology"
- In ref 43: You know Clague's first name (David, from ref 15). More importantly, though, why not use {{cite journal}} as it's formatted differently than the other journals
- Ref 46: "page 199" -> "p. 199"
OK, that's enough nitpicking for me. I found this article accessible and not too covered in unexplained jargon. Thus, I'll gladly support once these issues are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Have these been addressed? Mm40 (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to go through and fix the grammar and formatting nit-picks in the next few days; hopefully Awickert or ResMar can address the other things. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Based on the above comments I also have to oppose at this time. --Kumioko (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read my comment? The above are all minor nitpicks ("that's enough nitpicking for me"), and I said that I was about to support, not oppose. Please rescind your oppose or come up with a better rationale. Mm40 (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you stated, I wil gladly support once they are corrected. I am most concerned about the reference issues and the inconsistent plus or minus signs. All of these are fairly easy to correct but at the same time I think they should be correct and consistent for a featured article/list--Kumioko (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as the ± inconsistencies, this is the result of my large-scale ongoing updating and spot-checking of dates. I'll fix the ones that I've gotten to so far. Awickert (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you stated, I wil gladly support once they are corrected. I am most concerned about the reference issues and the inconsistent plus or minus signs. All of these are fairly easy to correct but at the same time I think they should be correct and consistent for a featured article/list--Kumioko (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note for nom: this paper summarizes a lot of dates for the volcanoes. As I've already put in 10+ hours on this article (looking things up, formatting them, checking info) and have other articles that I'd like to work on, I'd appreciate if you went through this and checked it against the current dates. For now, I'm going to add a couple more things and then sign off, Awickert (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind on the newness; looks like you already found it, so I'll add a link to that ref. Might be good to double-check against the others anyway. Note that multiple K-Ar dates don't provide a date range per se (due to inadequate sampling to say something that specific), so best to just state what the acquired ages are. But I'll fix these (I already have done many) so no worries, Awickert (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Mm40's tweaks are implemented I'll support; until then I cannot, so hopefully it's done quick else this will probably be archived. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Content Support: the content is correct. Can't say much about MoS or inclusiveness (though it seems to include every volcano that is usually talked about, and a few that aren't), but I've finally gotten through all of the dates and they look good. Once these non-content issues are taken care of, you (pl.) can assume that I fully support. Awickert (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2010 (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 not promoted by Dabomb87 22:54, 12 February 2010 [8].
List of New Testament uncials
- Nominator(s): Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete, referrenced, and based on all important editions of the lists of the New Testament manuscripts... Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose/Comments from KV5
There are a lot of style issues with this list that need to be corrected before it's of featured quality. I've included some of the more glaring issues below, and this is without even a full review.
- No links in the bold text of the lead.
- Large amounts of unexplained abbreviations and pipelinked last names without first names throughout the entire article. Abbreviations should be explained at first prose mention or, if they are only in the table, keyed. This is a very large issue and is currently epidemic throughout the entire list.
- All ranges of dates and verses joined with hyphens should be changed to en-dashes (see WP:DASH).
- Throughout the "Classification of uncials" section, em-dashes are used inappropriately. There are also some sentence fragments and comma splices throughout this section that are created by the incorrect usage.
- Blank cells in the table should be filled with em-dashes, footnotes explaining why they are blank, or both.
- Daggers in the table should be superscripted, and I don't see any indicator as to what those actually mean.
- "074, 084, 090, 0110, 0112, 0113, 0117, 0119, 0123, 0124, 0125, 0137, 0138, 0139, 0149, 0179, 0180, 0190, 0191, 0193, 0194, 0195, 0202, 0215, 0224, 0235, 0285, 0293" - is this giant list of numbers really needed in prose? Would be better indicated in the table using an asterisk and color or some other method like a footnote.
- "So, the number 318 is merely nominal, the actual figure should be somewhat lower." - this is unencyclopedic, informal tone.
All in all, the entire article needs a good copyedit, and likely should have been peer-reviewed before its nomination. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost everything is done. "So, the number 318 is merely nominal, the actual figure should be somewhat lower." - in this language are written books which I use. In fact I use this style in every language. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's a direct quote from one of those sources, then it should be quoted. If not, it should still be changed because the language is much too informal. As to everything else, I see evidence that some things have been completed, but other comments appear to have been overlooked (the incorrect usage of dashes, unexplained abbreviations, daggers). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aland wrote (in 1989): "Insgesamt 299 (...) Majuskeln sind heute bekannt, und zwar nominell, in Wirklichkeit wird ihre Zahl infolge der im Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung fortschreitenden Arbeiten zur Identifikation bisher getrennter Fragmente ständig niedriger..." Erroll F. Rhodes translation (1995): "(...), this is only a nominal figure. The actual figure should be much lower as a result of the Institute fo New Testament Textual Research's success in identifying fragments separated from their manuscripts." - (p. 104 - book is quoted in the article and it was the basis for the article + Aland's Kurzgefasste + weblinks of INTF). Since October 2009 - 320 manuscripts (source - weblink of INTF).
- The Rhodes translation is much better formally, so I think that you should simply replace the paraphrasing, which sounds informal, with a direct quote of his material. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aland wrote (in 1989): "Insgesamt 299 (...) Majuskeln sind heute bekannt, und zwar nominell, in Wirklichkeit wird ihre Zahl infolge der im Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung fortschreitenden Arbeiten zur Identifikation bisher getrennter Fragmente ständig niedriger..." Erroll F. Rhodes translation (1995): "(...), this is only a nominal figure. The actual figure should be much lower as a result of the Institute fo New Testament Textual Research's success in identifying fragments separated from their manuscripts." - (p. 104 - book is quoted in the article and it was the basis for the article + Aland's Kurzgefasste + weblinks of INTF). Since October 2009 - 320 manuscripts (source - weblink of INTF).
- If that's a direct quote from one of those sources, then it should be quoted. If not, it should still be changed because the language is much too informal. As to everything else, I see evidence that some things have been completed, but other comments appear to have been overlooked (the incorrect usage of dashes, unexplained abbreviations, daggers). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost everything is done. "So, the number 318 is merely nominal, the actual figure should be somewhat lower." - in this language are written books which I use. In fact I use this style in every language. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I'm also going to oppose, if there wasn't enough evidence above, the "Other uncials" table looks vastly incomplete and there is no indication as to why information is missing which is why I'm going to oppose. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 21:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The List is complete, but I agreed there is some work to do. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Just 2 quick questions. Why are some of the rows completely filled with blanks? eg 0179, 0180. also "0136=0137" is linked but "0149 = 0187" isn't why aren't they linked? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 03:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The List is complete, but I agreed there is some work to do. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A few comments:
- "Vatican City-state" is not the name of a country.
Why use Munchen when there's a perfectly viable English name?- Why say and link Athos when you mean Mount Athos?
Why are there random blacklinks in the city column of the second table?- No explanation is given as to why 0190-0194 are blank.
- You have some "c. ###" in the year column, implying circa; but the rest lack that "c.", but are all rounded to the nearest 50. Should you simply say the column is all "circa"? --Golbez (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All is done. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Vatican" is not the name of a country either. The name of the country is Vatican City.
- Still several Athos remaining.
- I'm reading through the prose and I'm also not seeing any explanation for the equals signs; are these uncials identical to the numbers they're equal to?
- "Now 320 sigla for uncial codices have been catalogued by the (INTF) in Münster." This is a bad sentence, for one thing because of the parentheses, but I just don't understand what it means or why it's in its own paragraph. One table says there are 45 sigla, this says 320?
- In the text, you say the years are given to the nearest 50, which matches what the table used to say; however, the table now only gives centuries, and no x50 years. So either the old years should be put back, or the note about rounding to the nearest 50 should be removed. If you keep the current system, some mention, perhaps a footnote of the Date column, should point out that these are xth century AD. --Golbez (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All is done. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a couple of dead links too. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I found one. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The dab link still needs to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I found one. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a couple of dead links too. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In the table, both United Kingdom and UK are used. Please be consistent and use the full name.—Chris!c/t 01:38, 11 February 2010 (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 not promoted by Dabomb87 13:59, 10 February 2010 [9].
List of forty-plus point games by Kobe Bryant
- Nominator(s): —Chris!c/t 20:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. And I am competing in Wikicup. —Chris!c/t 20:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restarted, old version.
- Note I have restarted this nom, as the page was getting long with comments, and it was not clear what had been addressed and what hadn't. Can all reviewers please restate their opinions and list whatever concerns they have left? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment still not sure what makes 40 points more significant than any other number of points. Seems like an arbitrary choice to me. Regardless, the list quality is high. So I'll remain neutral. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The middle column between Team and Opponent, I'm wildly confused about.
- Is Note B meant to be for this column or the Opponent?
- Isn't it easier just to split it into Winning Team and Losing Team?
- I'd like to specify, Currently I'm remaining Neautral on this. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 21:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At and verses are used to distinguish between home and away games. There are other ways to show this, but this is the easier and clearest imo. And I can called the columns Winning Team and Losing Team, but Team and Opponent captured the same meaning.—Chris!c/t 22:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KV5: My comments had all been resolved when the nomination was re-started. I believe that the media examples that Chrishomingtang provided establish the notability of the forty-point guideline and, as before, I support the promotion of this list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – My comments were taken care of before the re-start, and everything appears fine on a second look. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list looks good but as someone who knows nothing whatsoever about basketball my main concern, like The Rambling Man above, is that the article gives no indication of the significance of a "forty-point game". Why do we have this list rather than, say, List of thirty-plus point games by Kobe Bryant or List of fifty-plus point games by Kobe Bryant? Is it simply that players' totals of "forty-point games" are a widely-reported stat, one of the "magic numbers" by which players are measured? Is there some way in which this could be briefly touched on in the lead? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See below.—Chris!c/t 22:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose on indiscriminate grounds. The list is good but, per TRM and Chris, 40pts seems rather arbitrary. I readily admit I know little about basketball but in a quick google I found hits for Kobe lists of 60+ and 50+. The only significance of the 40 seems to be that he hit the 100 milestone of them late last year[10]. I realise the 60+ is unrealistic as a list but 50 also seems widely reported and I'm not sure of the significance of 40 over 50. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I can use 50 as the arbitrary cut-off point, but likewise I'm not sure if 50 is anymore significant over 40. I totally did not expect that the use of 40 points as the arbitrary cut-off point would cause such a concern. Not trying to use WP:WAX as an argument, but there are many other FLs that involve the use of arbitrary cut-off point. Tallest building FLs, for instance, often use 300 feet as an arbitrary cut-off point. As I said the only reason "forty-point games" are used here is that it is a widely-reported figure that media often used and it seems like a reasonable cut-off between 50 points which is quite notable and 30 points which is a typical occurrence in basketball.—Chris!c/t 22:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "I totally did not expect that the use of 40 points as the arbitrary cut-off point would cause such a concern" - well, speaking only for myself, it's solely because I know absolutely nothing about basketball and the significance of the stat is lost on me. If "number of 40-point games" is a widely reported stat for players, then I am absolutely fine with the scope of the list, as long as the significance of the stat is explained, even if only briefly, in the lead. But to me, with my lack of knowledge, there's no obvious reason why 40 points would be chosen. As a football (soccer) fan, if I put together a list of, say, List of twenty-plus goal seasons by Alan Shearer, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see US editors popping up and asking "why 20? why not 10? or 25? or 30?" But, as mentioned above, if the stat is a widely-used one and that is explained, I will support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I don't think there is anything I could do about that. Forty-point games is indeed widely used by the media, but unfortunately they typically do not mention or explain why that is the case.—Chris!c/t 00:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not asking for an in-depth analysis of why 40 points has been deemed to be significant in the grand scheme of things, just one sentence explaining that a player's number of 40-point games is a widely reported and analysed stat, something like that will be fine..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion you'd also need some evidence to support the fact that Kobe has done it a significant number of times - I don't know if he's 999th of a list of 1000 or top of a list of five.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I added a general statement about the significance of 40-point games and his numbers of 40-point games relative to other players.—Chris!c/t 22:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I said I would support if that was taken care of, hence I support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I added a general statement about the significance of 40-point games and his numbers of 40-point games relative to other players.—Chris!c/t 22:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion you'd also need some evidence to support the fact that Kobe has done it a significant number of times - I don't know if he's 999th of a list of 1000 or top of a list of five.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not asking for an in-depth analysis of why 40 points has been deemed to be significant in the grand scheme of things, just one sentence explaining that a player's number of 40-point games is a widely reported and analysed stat, something like that will be fine..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I don't think there is anything I could do about that. Forty-point games is indeed widely used by the media, but unfortunately they typically do not mention or explain why that is the case.—Chris!c/t 00:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "I totally did not expect that the use of 40 points as the arbitrary cut-off point would cause such a concern" - well, speaking only for myself, it's solely because I know absolutely nothing about basketball and the significance of the stat is lost on me. If "number of 40-point games" is a widely reported stat for players, then I am absolutely fine with the scope of the list, as long as the significance of the stat is explained, even if only briefly, in the lead. But to me, with my lack of knowledge, there's no obvious reason why 40 points would be chosen. As a football (soccer) fan, if I put together a list of, say, List of twenty-plus goal seasons by Alan Shearer, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see US editors popping up and asking "why 20? why not 10? or 25? or 30?" But, as mentioned above, if the stat is a widely-used one and that is explained, I will support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I can use 50 as the arbitrary cut-off point, but likewise I'm not sure if 50 is anymore significant over 40. I totally did not expect that the use of 40 points as the arbitrary cut-off point would cause such a concern. Not trying to use WP:WAX as an argument, but there are many other FLs that involve the use of arbitrary cut-off point. Tallest building FLs, for instance, often use 300 feet as an arbitrary cut-off point. As I said the only reason "forty-point games" are used here is that it is a widely-reported figure that media often used and it seems like a reasonable cut-off between 50 points which is quite notable and 30 points which is a typical occurrence in basketball.—Chris!c/t 22:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the scope issue, I raised this article for discussion at a thread at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#Notability of lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Referred here by Dabomb87 from above). I have to agree that this list is problematic. First, as we don't generally list regular season games of pro sports save for box scores for a team for a season, these lists are normally not things we include. Now, recognizing that scoring a lot of points in a game is something that can be notable, but there needs to be some source(s) that assert that 30, 40, 50 - whatever - points is an extraordinary result, otherwise it is an arbitrary value. But once you assume that, the question becomes, why are we limiting that to just Kobe? Surely others have reached this goal, and if the value is chosen right, this is representing a rare feat, similar to Mile run world record progression, that covers all athletes of the sport. That is, a better list is List of forty-plug point games by single players in the NBA, presuming 40 is the magic number for justification. --MASEM (t) 05:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't help but think all the "opposes" and hesitations are pretty nit-picky. Bryant is one of the top NBA scorers ever, so having a list of his top-scoring games seems quite encyclopedic to me. If we don't have similar lists for Chamberlain and Jordan, we ought to. As for what the cutoff/inclusion criteria should be, 40 seems very reasonable to me, at least for Kobe. It produces a good-size list (~100 entries); is something of a "wow" figure (I know any time I hear about a 40-point game -- by anyone -- I think, "ooh, nice"); and so what if the cutoff is 40 or 50 or whatever? The point is to have a list of his top-scoring games, so as to underscore what a top scorer he's been.--Father Goose (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the goal is simply to show how good Kobe is by indicating how many games he scored more than 40 points, that can be done in one sentence in the article about him or in List of career achievements by Kobe Bryant; a full list with both the arbitrary break for including and the strict focus on Kobe is again before our goals of being indiscriminate and unbiased. That's not to say a list of individual achievement across the NBA of highest individual scores above some threshold (50?, I dunno) wouldn't be appropriate, as long as that threshold is clearly shown to be considered significant by the field. I point out that other similar individual achievements, like perfect games, 50 goals in 50 games for NHL, or winning a Grand Slam (golf) are considered across the board for all applicable players, so it seems very strange to focus on just one achievement for one player here. --MASEM (t) 07:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the argument about bias is that we don't have similar information about other players, the answer is to add similar information about other players. Balancing by adding is always preferable to balancing by removing, even though removal is tempting because it's so much easier to do. And "indiscriminate" -- that one tends to be as bad as "unencyclopedic". Ten different people will give you a different answer as to what an "indiscriminate" vs. a "discriminate" list is. A 40-point game is, to me, noteworthy. It's not a made-up list and this particular cutoff makes sense to me for this list.
I have to veer far off the track to editorialize for a moment here: Wikipedia seems to be getting more and more closed-minded as time goes on. I keep seeing people voicing more and more reasons for doing stuff or not doing stuff that seems to have less and less to do with our mission: gimme information. Any time I see someone arguing that we shouldn't add information in one form or another, I want to hear a really solid reason for it -- preferably one that derives from the five pillars. I suppose you could say, well, it isn't neutral, but if there's no compelling reason to not add a set of lists to round things out, then the answer is balance by expansion. And what would be wrong with having a "highest-scoring games" list for all players in addition to "highest-scoring games" lists for the highest-scoring players?--Father Goose (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- You can claim "nit-picking" but most, if not all of us are just asking to be informed of the significance of this list. As you yourself said, the cutoff makes sense to you, and that's key, we need a rational, neutral reason for this list to have such a cutoff, not just a "feeling" (from someone who clearly knows about basketball) that it's okay. The list has to be universally accessible as does its reason for existing and being Wikipedia's finest work. If NBA players don't have analogies such as hat-tricks, centuries, five-wicket hauls etc, which are widely accepted as a benchmark of excellence, then it's unfortunate and these kind of lists (and their inclusion criteria) will always be questioned at FLC. This doesn't mean (and no-one is saying) the list shouldn't exist, by the way, as you seem to be asserting... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A 40 point game is rare enough that it is noted in records (streaks,[11] career,[12] season[13]), and in general it's just a rather high score. It's not one of those things that "has a name", like a triple-double, but it's a big deal in basketball to have gotten as many as Kobe did. Mind you, if we did a similar list for Chamberlain, I'd choose 50-point games, as he had 118 of those, vs. 271 40s. The point is that these guys are amongst the highest scorers ever, so they each deserve a list of their highest-scoring games ever. Where the actual cutoff is, is to me unimportant: 40 is a suitable "round number" that is impressive in its own right and produces a list of a good length for "The highest-scoring games of one of the three highest-scorers in the NBA ever". If we were doing a list of "all players ever", I'd probably go with 60-point games[14], since there have been almost 400 50-point games,[15] which is too long a list. It's the "high scoring" that is important, not the specific cutoff -- much like with our skyscrapers lists. And Bryant, being one of the premiere scorers, gets to have a list of just his best scores.[16]--Father Goose (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well these are precisely the kind of refs we're looking for, although "in general it's just a rather high score" is still vague. Once again whether something is "unimportant" to you and whether a score is, in your opinion, "impressive" doesn't cut it, a widely reported and universally significant statistic, on the other hand, is worthwhile reporting in its own right. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would still also argue that even if one is able to show that a 40pt game is considered through sources a "rare" personal achievement (though the fact there have been 400+ 50-pt games suggests that 40pt games are certainly not "rare" when one comes to perfect games or hat tricks), this is the type of statement that is better summarized on WP in one or two sentences rather than a full list like this. Part of this is the fact that we don't consider individual games notable and the only time we list such games out is generally as a box score for a season page for a team; individual stats for players are typically averaged per course of the season (spot checking, I cannot find any other use of single game player stats for major sports). In the case here, I would certain limit this to, at most, a season-by-season breakout of the number of 40 pt games. It is important to note that that is giving me the same information that this list does now from a high-level perspective. So don't get me wrong, the number of 40+ games is impressive and should be stated for sure, but providing a detailed list of each of those 40+ games is indiscriminate. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well these are precisely the kind of refs we're looking for, although "in general it's just a rather high score" is still vague. Once again whether something is "unimportant" to you and whether a score is, in your opinion, "impressive" doesn't cut it, a widely reported and universally significant statistic, on the other hand, is worthwhile reporting in its own right. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A 40 point game is rare enough that it is noted in records (streaks,[11] career,[12] season[13]), and in general it's just a rather high score. It's not one of those things that "has a name", like a triple-double, but it's a big deal in basketball to have gotten as many as Kobe did. Mind you, if we did a similar list for Chamberlain, I'd choose 50-point games, as he had 118 of those, vs. 271 40s. The point is that these guys are amongst the highest scorers ever, so they each deserve a list of their highest-scoring games ever. Where the actual cutoff is, is to me unimportant: 40 is a suitable "round number" that is impressive in its own right and produces a list of a good length for "The highest-scoring games of one of the three highest-scorers in the NBA ever". If we were doing a list of "all players ever", I'd probably go with 60-point games[14], since there have been almost 400 50-point games,[15] which is too long a list. It's the "high scoring" that is important, not the specific cutoff -- much like with our skyscrapers lists. And Bryant, being one of the premiere scorers, gets to have a list of just his best scores.[16]--Father Goose (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can claim "nit-picking" but most, if not all of us are just asking to be informed of the significance of this list. As you yourself said, the cutoff makes sense to you, and that's key, we need a rational, neutral reason for this list to have such a cutoff, not just a "feeling" (from someone who clearly knows about basketball) that it's okay. The list has to be universally accessible as does its reason for existing and being Wikipedia's finest work. If NBA players don't have analogies such as hat-tricks, centuries, five-wicket hauls etc, which are widely accepted as a benchmark of excellence, then it's unfortunate and these kind of lists (and their inclusion criteria) will always be questioned at FLC. This doesn't mean (and no-one is saying) the list shouldn't exist, by the way, as you seem to be asserting... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the argument about bias is that we don't have similar information about other players, the answer is to add similar information about other players. Balancing by adding is always preferable to balancing by removing, even though removal is tempting because it's so much easier to do. And "indiscriminate" -- that one tends to be as bad as "unencyclopedic". Ten different people will give you a different answer as to what an "indiscriminate" vs. a "discriminate" list is. A 40-point game is, to me, noteworthy. It's not a made-up list and this particular cutoff makes sense to me for this list.
- If the goal is simply to show how good Kobe is by indicating how many games he scored more than 40 points, that can be done in one sentence in the article about him or in List of career achievements by Kobe Bryant; a full list with both the arbitrary break for including and the strict focus on Kobe is again before our goals of being indiscriminate and unbiased. That's not to say a list of individual achievement across the NBA of highest individual scores above some threshold (50?, I dunno) wouldn't be appropriate, as long as that threshold is clearly shown to be considered significant by the field. I point out that other similar individual achievements, like perfect games, 50 goals in 50 games for NHL, or winning a Grand Slam (golf) are considered across the board for all applicable players, so it seems very strange to focus on just one achievement for one player here. --MASEM (t) 07:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Chris, "The number of forty-plus point games players accumulate over their careers is often reported in media." this needs multiple refs, as you say "often" reported. But good work thusfar expanding the explanation of the significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as no matter how skillfully this list is arranged, it is for all intents and purposes a synthesis, because it lacks an externally validated definition in accordance with WP:Source list.
Synthesis in this context involves collecting and organizing material based on an editor's original understanding of the subject, not in a way that has been externally validated or defined. The rationale for this list is provided by the (unsourced) statement "The number of forty-plus point games players accumulate over their careers is often reported in media". However, this statement provides a rationale for this list that is based on mass attribution.
If I was Chrishomingtang tutor, I would award him with top marks for his research efforts, and would say he had a bright future in sports publishing. Alas, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and that lack of a clearly defined and externally validated rationale for this list disqualifies it from being a featured list. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note This is uncharted territory for an NBA list at the FL level, and I'm glad Chris put in the effort. However, the concept of a list with a seemingly "arbitrary" inclusion criteria does not have consensus among FL reviewers, or even in the list guidelines, so I am archiving this FLC as unsuccessful. I hope discussion about the scope continues so we can solidfy the boundaries of what is acceptable in a list. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2010 (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 not promoted by Dabomb87 13:54, 10 February 2010 [17].
List of bowlers who have taken a wicket with their first ball in international cricket
- Nominator(s): ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't originally intend to bring this to FLC. However, now that I've finally created it, I think it's worth a shot. All comments and suggestions would be much appreciated, as always. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Bencherlite
An interesting idea. However, a couple of obvious things jump out at me.
- Perhaps you can clarify – if someone has bowled in a test before taking a wicket with their first ODI delivery, do they make the list? Or is it only for their first delivery in any form of international cricket?
- T20s? Has anyone taken a wicket with their first delivery in T20s?
- Answering my own question: yes. Although Cricinfo doesn't have a list, surprisingly (unless I missed it), at least one bowler has taken a wicket with his first T20 delivery: Joe Denly (SA v England 15 Nov 2009). This stats page shows it was his first over in T20s, this news report says he took a wicket with his first ball. Or, to go back to the previous question, would you only count someone if it was their international debut, not just a T20 debut?
- First sentence: "A limited number of bowlers have had the opportunity of capturing a wicket with the very first ball they bowled in an international cricket match." Wrong – every bowler has the opportunity of capturing a wicket with his very first ball! What you are trying to say, I think, is that few have done this.
- Later on you say "joined the record holders", but I don't think it's a record, really.
- "this coveted accomplishment" – your words, or somebody else? Sounds a bit POV without a citation;
- Please sort the names (bowlers, victims) by surname, not first name. {{sortname}} is what you want.
- At the moment, the lists aren't well referenced. Clicking on a reference for a name at random in the ODI list, Clive Lloyd, I get the match scorecard, but nothing about him taking a wicket with his first delivery. So I clicked on a couple more: Shane Thompson and Wavell Hinds both have scorecard references but no reference for the accomplishment. I think you need to reassess how you're using your ref 3 and your ref 11, which give the lists of people who've achieved this in Tests and ODIs respectively and are the key references for the list.
- Refs 6 and 14 have typos.
Perhaps more later. BencherliteTalk 18:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, I completely forgot about T20I. There's obviously a lot more work to be done here, and I'd like to withdraw the nom for now. Very sorry for the trouble. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:48, 10 February 2010 (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 not promoted by Rambo's Revenge 10:29, 6 February 2010 [18].
List of hydroelectric power stations
- Nominator(s): Rehman(+) 13:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because i believe that this list now suites to be a FL after changing the page from this to this, (note that i have moved smaller stations to regional lists). Regards. Rehman(+) 13:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Formatting definitely improved the look of the list greatly. However, there are no references. The list must be verifiable. Jujutacular T · C 18:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. But just a question, what would be the case if all the links were blue, meaning that should be duplicate the refs from the article? Regards. Rehman(+) 01:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, duplicate refs from the 'child' articles are fine. Jujutacular T · C 08:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. Just asking, would i be able to withdraw the nomination? These points makes me feel like its just not the right time for the article... :) Rehman(+) 09:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, duplicate refs from the 'child' articles are fine. Jujutacular T · C 08:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. But just a question, what would be the case if all the links were blue, meaning that should be duplicate the refs from the article? Regards. Rehman(+) 01:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – the formatting did improve this list, but without references, it fails the FL criteria. It also has barely any lead to speak of; see WP:LEAD and WP:SAL for information on leads in stand-alone lists. Also, see recently promoted FLs for better opening sentences than "This is a list of...". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you have a point. :) I will be working on the lead asap... Regards. Rehman(+) 01:38, 6 February 2010 (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 not promoted by Dabomb87 22:27, 5 February 2010 [19].
List of Britney Spears concert tours
- Nominator(s): Xwomanizerx (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because i worked on it, and i feel it's well written and organized.Xwomanizerx (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose from KV5
- This fails criterion 3B (it can "reasonably be included as part of a related article"), not to mention the deficiencies in the prose of the lead. This information could probably be covered in two paragraphs of prose in the main Britney Spears article. It doesn't need its own list and is thus a content fork. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - It fails 3 of the Criteria, the Comprehensiveness is lacking in an extreme way, the image also doesn't have any Alt text. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 15:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the alt text, but i actually worked on the article after seeing List of Kylie Minogue concert tours had passed. I think they're quite similar and i don't understand what's wrong with the prose. Thanks, Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah it passed 2 years ago now by the edit from 2007 it doesn't look as if its been updated to current standards. This article is more of the standard you should be trying to meet. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 16:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I still oppose, with my original reasoning that it doesn't seem to be comprehensive enough. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 04:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah it passed 2 years ago now by the edit from 2007 it doesn't look as if its been updated to current standards. This article is more of the standard you should be trying to meet. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 16:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the alt text, but i actually worked on the article after seeing List of Kylie Minogue concert tours had passed. I think they're quite similar and i don't understand what's wrong with the prose. Thanks, Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- It's nice but as the previous reviewers have said, not reason at all why this shouldn't just be merged into Britney's main article. Certainly not up to WP:FL standards per our 3b criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2010 (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 not promoted by Dabomb87 22:27, 5 February 2010 [20].
List of Slipknot concert tours
- Nominator(s): CrowzRSA 03:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's of a comparable standard to existing featured lists. If you see any problems, flaws, or something, please notify me on my talk page or please fix it. Thank you. CrowzRSA 03:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Mephiston999 (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mephiston999 (talk) |
---|
* the picture is missing alt text
|
Oppose
- Is "solo tour" normal nomenclature for a band?
- I'm pretty sure it is, it sounds correct and would make sense. CrowzRSA 22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed CrowzRSA 22:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "in which it was named after" poor grammar.
- "This tour showed a record amount of " poor again.
- "the classic Slipknot song " classic is WP:WEASEL.
- "The tour lasted for 28 months, performed in ..." was performed in...
- "In this tour, Slipknot toured in " tour repeated, reads poorly.
- "a few shows that had to be done a few members short" poor grammar.
- The lead needs an overhaul, once that's done I'll look at the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still issues with the lead - please find a copyeditor... for instance:
- " two minor tours emerged" tours don't "emerge"
- For the record, emerge means arise. Two minor tours arose makes perfect sense so why shouldn't emerged make sense. Emerged also means came out, so "...two minor tours came out/arose..." CrowzRSA 19:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I understand the literal meaning of "emerge" but in this context, it reads badly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded CrowzRSA 01:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "a record amount of Slipknot concerts in one tour" poorly worded.
- "Slipknot performed the Slipknot song from the first issue of Slipknot's" Slipknot, Slipknot, Slipknot....
- "Slipknot toured in new countries," what's a "new country"?
- "There were, however, a few shows where few members short could not perform, usually because of injuries[7]." this doesn't make sense, and the ref is incorrectly placed.
- Reworded and Fixed reference. CrowzRSA 19:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still an oppose I'm afraid, and that's just the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with the "Tours" section. This is my first nomination for anything basically. CrowzRSA 19:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing yet, I haven't reviewed it. The lead needed a lot more work before I was prepared to move onto the next section. I hope you understand that the criticism is designed to improve the list, and while there's a way to go, it's great to have you here nominating the list, I'll hopefully be able to help you further, when I can review the rest of the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WFCforLife
- There should be introductions to the "solo" and "supporting" sections.
- List of Michael Jackson tours is a featured list, and it doesn't have introductions for those, that is the tour that I used as a guide for this. CrowzRSA 16:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps change "solo" to "headline".
- I thought Slipknot wore masks for the majority of their tours?
- I don't see where that's mentioned in the article, but if you think I need it, I have a reference I could use.
- Europe wasn't, isn't and never will be a country. It should be treated the same way as "North America", and certainly not compared to Canada, Japan or New Zealand.
- Europe just symbolizes many countries In Europe such as Germany and UK, I can change United States to North America though. In that case it's Done. But I can't imagine what I could do with Japan and New Zealand, they didn't perform in other places of those, so I think it looks fine the way it is. CrowzRSA 16:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get why Ozzfest 2004 is treated differently to the other two.
- (I don't know that much about them) did they really go three years without touring? Perhaps worth discussing this in the prose? I'm in the wikicup. Not sure if you were, just thought it safer to mention. WFCforLife (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- After there release of Iowa (album), Slipknot only toured afte there releases, and there third release and fourth release were 4 years apart. CrowzRSA 16:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose since this list is so short, it ought to include more details than it has now to make up for it. Furthermore, supporting acts should be added as another column. Nergaal (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is almost as long as List of Michael Jackson tours, and it is two groups combined, yet it is a featured list, and it has the ideal layout IMO . I don't see what you mean by "supporting acts should be added as another column," if you mean other bands (including side projects), they should not be included. If you mean other tours, thay are included in the "Supporing tours" section. If it's neither if those, please clarify. CrowzRSA 23:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Way to aim low. Anyways, jsut look at "World Domination Tour was a tour including the band Slipknot in late 2000[20]." Do you see this being worth featuring? Nergaal (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, Okay, and yes It is somewhat necessary. The minor tours that include Slipknot are also performed with others, and where it says "included the band Slipknot," that is naturally what someone would think, but should still include that context. CrowzRSA 22:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Way to aim low. Anyways, jsut look at "World Domination Tour was a tour including the band Slipknot in late 2000[20]." Do you see this being worth featuring? Nergaal (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - nine separate wikilinks to Slipknot (band) is eight too many........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, contrary to what you stated above, the image still does not have alt text -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait what is "alt text?" CrowzRSA 21:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ALT Gary King (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done CrowzRSA 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been partially done, thanks. However, much of what you wrote in the alt text cannot be verified by just looking at the picture. For example, I could not look at that picture and be able to tell that Corey Taylor was on vocals; in general, proper nouns should not be used in alt text. Please look at the examples in WP:ALT to see how to improve the alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's fixed now. CrowzRSA 02:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been partially done, thanks. However, much of what you wrote in the alt text cannot be verified by just looking at the picture. For example, I could not look at that picture and be able to tell that Corey Taylor was on vocals; in general, proper nouns should not be used in alt text. Please look at the examples in WP:ALT to see how to improve the alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done CrowzRSA 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ALT Gary King (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait what is "alt text?" CrowzRSA 21:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's not terribly a big problem but it worries me about the lack of information given, especially on the Tour Durations nothing terribly wrong with stating the months but I would think there'd at least be some type of source out there which is reliable enough to give end dates or start dates or both for that matter for the tours. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 14:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done CrowzRSA 20:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how adding references to the Tour Durations settles down my worries about the lack of information on the list. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 23:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, now everything but "World Domination Tour" is fixed, I couldn't find anything on that... CrowzRSA 01:51, 25 January 2010
- Ref #18 I'm confused about and the confusion should be obvious as I don't understand the sourcing. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 13:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref # 18 gives a list of Slipknot tours from December 5, 1998 all the way to July 13, 2008. It's pretty obvious that between every large gap in between each date (varying from a month to 3 years) represents the start of a new tour. From other minor references, such as separate wikipedia articles (i.e. Livin La Vida Loco and Iowa World Tour), an derived and idea of which tour the gap represents. CrowzRSA 21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the people shouldn't have to search for the information it should already be linked in the references, they shouldn't have to go round their elbow to get to their wrist. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 23:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So your saying I should cite wikipedia articles? CrowzRSA 00:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea where you derived that from what I said, I honestly don't get how Ref 18 helps any information on that article it does not cite any information regarding tours. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 00:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, well I put some more in, I couldn't find any for Livin La Vida Loco or World Domination Tour. CrowzRSA 22:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [21] I still don't know how this is useful as a source... Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 21:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It pretty much just specifies tour dates, but gives no names. The other places cited are much more specific, but the reference pretty much confirms that the tour date did exist. CrowzRSA 22:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (undent) ok let me put it this way, for the Kill the Industry tour, the dates it sources are "May 9, 2001 – June 2, 2001", where will I find this within the source? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 22:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well for basic it can be found here, it only says mid-2001, this is a fan website but has dates close to those, this is another fan-site, but it states the same dates as Kill the Industry, but "Rebels With a Cause" is the closest thing I can find, it isn't a website though, I didn't include anything but the last source.. CrowzRSA 23:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not which sources can it be found at, but where can it be found within the link we are discussing, if you have forgotten which link its this one. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 23:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I get it, the reference isn't really useful, But I did find some for others, so i think your comment has been half-resolved. I'll continue to try to find a source for the tours that need it. CrowzRSA 00:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ok, we got there in the end, now the Ref can be removed. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 00:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the reference off. CrowzRSA 01:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (undent) You need to sort out the refs since most of them in the Duration column are small, plus Ozzfest 2001, 2004, theres no need for the "June 2001". Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 20:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done (sorted references), and Fixed (the 2001 Ozzfest date was messed up and I fixed it). CrowzRSA 21:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was actually talking about "June 2001 – June 8, 2001 – August 12, 2001 (United States)[3][20]" "June 2001 – July 10, 2004 – September 4, 2004 (United States)[3][20]". Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 04:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done CrowzRSA 23:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As far as I can tell ref 9 says absolutely nothing about the nations or dates for their first tour, yet it's the only ref applied for that information (and the only place it's used). It seems to be an article that just gives some background info on the band and talks about Anthony Soprano, Jr. liking them. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —Terrence and Phillip 00:38, 5 February 2010 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:27, 3 February 2010 [22].
Italian orders of knighthood
- Nominator(s): Chrisieboy (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it gives a comprehensive account of the Italian orders of knighthood. Chrisieboy (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WFCforLife
My initial reaction was to oppose, but I normally let a review run its course before making a final decision. While this is some very good work, I have multiple concerns. I'll deal with the technical, stylistic and more general prose-related things first, and when these are addressed I'll be happy to do a detailed review.
Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) |
---|
* One of the images is copyrighted, and I'm unsure if it falls into the fair use category. My gut reaction is that it doesn't, but if it does, a rationale needs to be provided.
|
- What does "Below these are a number of other medals" mean? Is this a reference to the other medals in the Kingdom of Italy section? Or that there are medals below knighthoods? If it's the former, the sentence doesn't belong in the lead, and if it's the latter it could do with a bit of expansion.
- Hopefully I've clarified this; that sentence now reads differently. Chrisieboy (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It reads differently, but the issue is the same. WFCforLife (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that better? Chrisieboy (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The paragraph (indeed the entire article) starts by saying that "there are currently five orders of knighthood", closely followed by "Below these are...". It's a nicely constructed sentence, but what it is saying? That the "Kingdom of Italy" awards are not knighthoods? That they were knighthoods, but are now lesser awards? That there are other awards, not mentioned in this list, which you have chosen to introduce before even explaining the contents of the list? WFCforLife (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is essentially saying that the orders of knighthood are at the top of the honours system. It is nothing to do with the Savoy orders. First, there are the five orders or knighthood; second, there are a number of other decorations (some related and mentioned in the list) that are not knighthoods. Chrisieboy (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to have been a bit of a content dispute on the 12th. I can't tell whether it stopped because of adherance to 3RR, or because it is now resolved. Can you enlighten us on this?
I'll keep this on my watchlist, and return to give further feedback when most or all of these points have been addressed. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please leave comments when points are actioned; I'll be the judge of whether of not they can be struck completely. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these points have now been addressed. I'm not sure if the ribbons are purely decorative images and should instead have |link=
; if so, this can easily be changed. Per my nomination, I believe this article meets the featured list criteria. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It could go either way here. There definitely should be alt text in each subarticle's use of the ribbon image. For this, the main article, I'd lean toward omitting alt text as needless detail. and using "
|link=
|alt=
", but it's not a big deal. I did one spot check, and the ribbon for the Order of the Star of Italian Solidarity disagrees with what's in Order of the Star of Italian Solidarity, so there's a bug there somewhere. I suggest double-checking all the ribbons. Eubulides (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D.P.R. No. 385 of 21 September 2001 modified the insignia of the Star of Italian Solidarity, but also retained use of previous insignia. This is the only one without an additional clasp. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been asked to revisit this. The comments I have made that are not capped or struck are still issues. From a brief look, this has improved considerably. I look forward to re-reading it properly in the near future. However I would prefer to do so after those outstanding points are actioned (or responded to if you feel that I am wrong to raise them). Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Neutral A lot of good work has been done in this FLC, and I have moved from oppose to neutral. But I have a slight concern about criteria six, which will hopefully be resolved with a response to this. Also, but I remain unsure about the lead. WFCforLife (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied here. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC) The above points have now been addressed. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- "Letters patent.." caption doesn't need a full stop.
- I have kept this, per MOS:CAPTION.
- It's an incomplete sentence isn't it? I don't see a verb... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mephiston999 (talk) |
---|
* is the see also section at the top of the article really necessary? can we just put it in the see also section at the bottom of the article?
|
- Support - Mephiston999 (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it might just be me but I am kind of confused about the brackets in the lead "Knight (Cav.), Officer (Uff.), Commander (Comm.), Grand Officer (Gr. Uff.)," What are they supposed to mean? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 15:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They're abbreviations of the Italian translations—Cavaliere, Ufficiale etc.—prefixed to names like "Sir" is in the Commonwealth. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well wouldn't it just be easier to spell the whole thing? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 16:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is they are prefixed in their abbreviated form, like "Mr." rather than "Mister". Chrisieboy (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had another look at this. I hope it's clearer now. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- this may seem confusing after my previous comments but after viewing a little closely I notice that the Abbreviations are only used in the top paragraphs, I was just wondering why are the abbreviations included anyway. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 13:12, 25 January 2010 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:27, 3 February 2010 [23].
George Orwell bibliography
- Nominator(s): Justin (koavf)
I am nominating this for featured list because it is on a par with the other featured bibliographies. The Ministry (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but possible conflict of interest, as I made most of this list. I had always intended on submitting it after I got a hold of Davison's volumes to round out the list of publications, but I suppose it can go through the procedure now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems you are the primary contributor, so I added you as a co-nominator and unbolded your support here. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to clarify, that koavf is without the primary contributor. I just found the list while browsing, did some edits, and then nominated it since I thought it was of FL quality. The Ministry (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems you are the primary contributor, so I added you as a co-nominator and unbolded your support here. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comments This article is going to need a bigger lead. Also, I thought the book section was lacking, perhaps the original publishers of the books, and possibly a more specific publishing date could be added? -- Scorpion0422 05:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done The lead is somewhat longer to give some more context and I made more detail to the books and novels list. Of course, the intro could probably be better. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Resolved comments from Kumioko (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
--Kumioko (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I keep nickle and diming you but this list is huge and its taking a while to go through. I noticed one more thing.
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The table is mammoth. I'll look at it once these comments are addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Oh, refs 13 and 15 need accessdates, publisher details etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
See Talk:George Orwell bibliography/Comments for a simple list of all of the suggestions.
Comment According to the list, "War Commentary" #7 and "War Commentary" #8 were broadcast the same day; while perfectly possible, I just want to check that this is correct rather than a typo when writing the article. Nev1 (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The article is a valuable contribution, but:
- Surely the lead should mention that Orwell's real name was Eric Blair?
- There are a lot of red links ot BBC Eastern Service. Is there a reason why you chose to link it more than once? I notice that the service is mentioned in connection with Orwell in BBC World Service. While the latter article could do with an improvement around this area, I think it would be useful to create a redirect to the World service under the name you use.
- You mention six novels but this are not identified sepcifically. Form reading the subsection I wouldn't have immediately worked out that Burmese Days counted as one. I suggest you identify the novels explicitly.
- The foot notes needing checking for notable people to link such as Scott Bradfield and John Freeman (politician). There may be others.
--Peter cohen (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
- Several uncited paragraphs and sections need references.
- The ISBN's are ugly and hard to read when they are included in the prose.
- In the full list of publications, what do the acronyms in the "Collected" column mean?
- Does ref 3 really support the sentence it references?
- Yes, I have now added page numbers. P. S. Burton (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes references 4 and 5 reliable?
- If 4 is reliable, it needs a publisher.
- I have replaced 5, with The Cambridge Companion to George Orwell. I can't find a publisher for 4, but I will continue searching. However, Peter Davison is the editor of the 20-volumes of The Complete Orwell and have written George Orwell: A Literary Life, published by Random House. P. S. Burton (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If 4 is reliable, it needs a publisher.
- Refs 15 and 16 have really long quotes that I don't think are necessary. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the quotes are necessary, as the explain something that is quite complicated, and disputed. P. S. Burton (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Status?Have Peter cohen's concerns been addressed, as well as the uncited section issue raised by the_ed17? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I have taken it upon myself to fix these errors, but I have been slack about doing so for the past couple of weeks. I will try to get to them tonight or tomorrow. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 1 February 2010 (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 not promoted by Dabomb87 16:00, 2 February 2010 [24].
List of Australian number-one albums of 2009
- Nominator(s): Sk8er5000 (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the featured list criteria. I have put a lot of work into this list, adding references to each entry, merging rows and ensuring each entry is listed. I have also created a prose heading which I believe is of a professional standard. Regards -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from ChrisTheDude
- "....among the releases that have reached peak position in 2009" - wrong tense, 2009 is over
- "Kings of Leon's Only by the Night....spent 14 non-consecutive weeks atop the chart, beginning in the 2008 chart year and continuing until April 13, except for three weeks in March" - this does not match the table, which shows it as off number one for
sixfive weeks in February/March - Michael Jackson's name is spelt wrong in the lead
- I Dreamed A Dream was 2009's highest selling album on the ARIA end of year albums chart, before P!nk's album Funhouse" - odd use of "before" here - do you mean that Pink's album was the second best seller? In that case used "ahead of" rather than "before"
- Sorting is a bit odd. Because you have put multiple "issue dates" into the same row, separated by <br> tags, if you reverse sort that column, the first entry is for November 30. I'm not sure how likely it is that anyone would want to reverse sort on that column, but if they did they would get an odd-looking result
- Also, I think some people might take umbrage with you describing Susan Boyle, who is only 48 years old, as an "old woman" in the alt text :-)
Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestions actioned on. Tense fixed, MJ's name fixed, use of before changed and SuBo no longer described as old. The Kings of Leon bit refers to the total amount of time it spent at number one ("Kings of Leon's Only by the Night....spent 14 non-consecutive weeks atop the chart, beginning in the 2008 chart year and continuing until April 13, except for three weeks in March"), which included part of 2008. As far as the sorting goes, it makes sense to me, as the top entry would be the last number one for 2009. Thanks for your input -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We seem to be at cross-purposes regarding the Kings of Leon point. As it stands, the lead states that it was number one from some time in 2008 right through until April, other than for three weeks in March. But it was actually off the top for five weeks, not three, according to the table. Does that make sense? -- 10:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sk8er5000 deserves to be hit with a large trout xD! Done -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We seem to be at cross-purposes regarding the Kings of Leon point. As it stands, the lead states that it was number one from some time in 2008 right through until April, other than for three weeks in March. But it was actually off the top for five weeks, not three, according to the table. Does that make sense? -- 10:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Suggestions actioned on. Tense fixed, MJ's name fixed, use of before changed and SuBo no longer described as old. The Kings of Leon bit refers to the total amount of time it spent at number one ("Kings of Leon's Only by the Night....spent 14 non-consecutive weeks atop the chart, beginning in the 2008 chart year and continuing until April 13, except for three weeks in March"), which included part of 2008. As far as the sorting goes, it makes sense to me, as the top entry would be the last number one for 2009. Thanks for your input -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is actually a pretty short list. How about a nice merged one like the FL List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK)? This is close to a 3b vio. Reywas92Talk 02:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (U.S.) contains the same amount of entries, yet is a FL. With all due respect, I personally think that this is long enough (per the precedent I just mentioned, and about another (at least) 10 more FL's). -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Don't see a need to bold Aria Charts.
- "ARIA also issues a weekly singles chart and an end of year albums and singles chart, among other charts." chart x 3 in one sentence...
- " 6 acts received their" - six.
- "November 30[2], " move ref to after punc.
- I would have thought end of year should be end-of-year.
- "Funhouse[3]." ditto re ref position.
- Your col heading says "Weeks at number one" and then you have "... weeks" in each cell. Do you think it's necessary to repeat weeks in every row?
- Both image captions need full stops as they are complete sentences.
- Don't mix up date formats in the references.
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.