Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2010: Difference between revisions
promote 1 |
promote 1 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim first-round draft picks/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of American League pennant winners/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of American League pennant winners/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/3,000 strikeout club/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/3,000 strikeout club/archive1}} |
Revision as of 15:46, 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 promoted by Dabomb87 15:46, 20 February 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): Mm40 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another one of the boring draft-pick lists. This is built in the style of the rest, with some minor changes on my part. Pretty interesting; this list contains the only player selected first overall twice and a pitcher born without a right hand who won multiple awards. Review away! Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks good to me. Lead is concise and to the point, and the list doesn't have any problems as far as I can see. ceranthor 17:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 01:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support I still think note u would work better separated, but this works. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Comment Support – "and three first basemen was also taken." "was" → "were". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've got a couple nitpicks. First off, "No players have been selected from outside the United States." True, but since that paragraph consists mainly of numbers and what they 'have' drafted, I'd write it in reverse, saying that all players selected were born in the U.S. Could be just me though. Also, are their five first-round picks last year a record? Even if not, the sheer quantity I think deserves a lead mention. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. They've actually twice made first selections, so it can't be that. Basically, it can happen whenever a team loses two valuable free agents, which happens. Mm40 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good now, so I'll Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. They've actually twice made first selections, so it can't be that. Basically, it can happen whenever a team loses two valuable free agents, which happens. Mm40 (talk) 23:42, 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 promoted by Dabomb87 23:07, 16 February 2010 [2].
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 17:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would never nominate a new list this close to my Dodgers nomination below, but as with the National League version of this list this is an emergency job to satisfy requests at the Featured Topic Candidacy for MLB awards. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Mm40 (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
More later. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- According to B-Ref, the Tigers were second in 1967.
- If you look again the Twins had precisely the same record. And, since being 2nd carried no particular benefit, I do not believe there were any tiebreak methods for naming a particular team the official "second". Staxringold talkcontribs 18:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did see that. How do we interpret the source? I didn't even look for teams with identical records on the NL list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we have to list both as I did. They are both second, and at least in this case are simply in alphabetical order. I'd like to find another example to see if that's true in general. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. I'll check it out. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The 1896 National League shows the Senators above the Brooklyn Bridegrooms for 9th place. Same scenario, same teams in 1897 for 6th place. 1900 has the Cards above the Cubs (or St. Louis before Chicago, don't know which way to look at it) for 5th place. Perhaps most relevant: the Pirates are ahead of the Giants for second place in 1908. All of these are for teams with identical records, and I haven't found any consistency as to who's first when. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Going to leave it with both for now until we figured this out. Both the Twins and the Tigers are 1 game back. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have discovered what we believe to be the solution: Retrosheet's standings for the 1967 season shows the Tigers ahead of the Twins, as does Baseball-Reference; although they have the same win-loss record and the same winning percentage, the Tigers achieved that record in less games because they had only one tie and the Twins had two. Since ties count as a half-win and a half-loss in the standings, this has no effect on the winning percentage, and there is obviously no effect on the pure win-loss record; however, this means that Detroit accomplished their winning percentage and record in less games that Minnesota, ranking the Tigers second and the Twins third. I'm leaving this comment uncapped so that other reviewers can see, but this list definitely deserves my support, if for no other reason than that Stax puts up with all my crap. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, removed the not-a-tie. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick question: In the NL list, I have the "playoff appearances by franchise" table sorted by number of pennants won, since the list is about pennant winners. This one's sorted by playoff appearances. For standard's sake, which one do you want? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the subsection is about playoff appearances I assumed it should be sorted as such. Either one is fine with me, though. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A fair point. NL list sorted to match AL list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - my concerns were addressed when reviewing the near-identical NL list. Though "The format of the ALCS was changed from a best-of-five to a best-of-seven format" - delete redundant use of the word format? Also, as per the NL list, I think that it's worth adding an extra column to link to the ALDS details, it wouldn't be a very wide column and would make these articles much more accessible to the reader. But I'll support nonetheless - rst20xx (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the format...format thing. As for DS results, that really deserves it's own list at that point if anything. The results are currently at the (poorly structured) ALDS and NLDS pages. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Check the toolbox; there is a dead link (one of the baseball-reference.com links is showing as a 403 forbidden). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixing now, I guess B-Ref decided to put the Rays team history at their longer-known name (TBD for Tampa Bay DEVIL Rays as opposed to TBR for Tampa Bay Rays). Staxringold talkcontribs 05:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support thanks for taking care of my nit-pickings...! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 15:47, 13 February 2010 [3].
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 07:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is up to snuff. Now I realize I have several FLCs already open (oldest first have World Series champs, Red Sox draft picks, Astros draft picks, and .400 OBPers), but I am trying to review as much as possible also (to keep the process rolling) and I believe the WS champs list has pretty much wrapped up anyways. Just want to keep a steady stream of work going. Staxringold talkcontribs 07:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The sorting for the innings pitched column does work, it just doesn't seem to like the frac template. If you click it to sort just once it sorts all the IP totals with no frac value into a group regardless of their true order, but if you click it a couple times it properly sorts. Anyone know why? Worst case I could just put sort templates in there with the proper order built in to try and force a sort. Staxringold talkcontribs 07:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Mm40 (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick Comment In your key you list the first column as Player but your first column is listed as Pitcher. Also Roger Clemus' IP column doesn't have a comma while all the others do.Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 10:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "U The batter Walter Johnson struck out for #3000 was Charlie Jamieson, Steve O'Neill, or Stan Coveleski.[3]" I would think it should be "was either Charlie Jamieson, Steve O'Neill, or Stan Coveleski.[3]". Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 16:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I was just wondering another very minor issue, but since Reference #3 is used extensively in the table if it'd be better to switch it to a General reference. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk
- I could, if other reviewers would accept that format. I always prefer specific to general refs when possible. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick Comment - The Template at the bottom is dead Template:3,000 strikeout club. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 22:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Apologies, in "fixing" the delimiting on the template title I actually made the "View this template" link point to a non-existent version with a comma. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have no issues with the list it all seems to check out. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 22:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Does the title need to be moved to "3,000"? Just wondering. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wondered about that as well when I delimited the bolded number. Sadly I see no standing FL to use as a reference guide with a potentially delimited title (the only 4 digit #s in titles are years. Damn motorbike races we only have 125, 250, and 500 cc). I'd love someone else's view on this, but I'd happily move it. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd think it should be, but I'm fine with either. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments (being as picky as I dare to be...)
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comment I notice that the title was moved from "3000" to "3,000". Note that the MOS accepts both, so the move was not absolutely necessary. I don't care either way, although I think if possible the title should reflect what the majority of the sources call it. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That varies entirely depending on whether the individual source delimits the numbers or not. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, but note that there are several other such lists that need to be moved for consistency (e.g. 3000 hit club). Dabomb87 (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yupyup, as those articles are delimited and updated, so should the titles. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Read through the list and saw no major issues, though I'm personally not a big fan of "first...then" sentences. That's my opinion only, so I won't hold it against this particular article. I was hoping to find a free link to the 2005 Chicago Tribune story for use here, but their online archive only goes back to 2006. Oh well. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "The batter Walter Johnson struck out for #3,000 was either Charlie Jamieson, Steve O'Neill, or Stan Coveleski." We don't use "#" in prose per the MOS, so this sentence needs to be rephrased. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Some of the sentences are not necessarily written exactly as I'd like, but there's nothing really wrong with them, it's just more of a preference issue. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:23, 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 15:47, 13 February 2010 [4].
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all the criteria. It is modelled in large part on List of Seattle Sounders FC players, which seems to be heading for FL status at the moment. This is my first attempt at writing an article in American English (I am British), so please point out any turns of phrase which aren't correct for "Stateside talk". And anything else that needs changing too, of course.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gifton Noel-Williams. I was wondering where he had gotten to! This looks pretty good, and the things that are missing from the Seattle list are probably not appropriate here (i.e. international appearances). The one thing I would say is that the Seattle Sounders list was renamed, because some players had played for the club but were never actually on Seattle's "roster". I don't know if any of the Aztecs' players were centrally contracted (i.e. employed by USL, rather than the club), but if so it might be worth considering a similar change. Clearly I'm somewhat biased, but FWIW I'm happy to lend my support. WFCforLife (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comment One quick thing. You might want to be careful with the image captions. They're fine for now that the club has only existed the one year, but as time and seasons pass the "in the first season" factoids won't be sourced by the table anymore (since they will include multiple seasons of statistics). Fine so long as you keep them updated, but could be annoying. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I promise to keep an eye on them and keep them updated -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why the titular inconsistency? This article should be called List of Austin Aztex players to be consistent with all the other player FLs. Reywas92Talk 00:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea, I didn't name the article. All the other articles linked in the template at the bottom follow the same naming scheme. I'm not fussed either way, I'll change it if people think it needs changing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- US soccer clubs seem to have an "all-time roster" while the rest of the world has "list of .. players". Per Chris, I'm not fussed either way as well/either/whatever...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also the existence of existing FLs such as Hartford Dark Blues all-time roster -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- US soccer clubs seem to have an "all-time roster" while the rest of the world has "list of .. players". Per Chris, I'm not fussed either way as well/either/whatever...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support then. I see no other problems. Reywas92Talk 01:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea, I didn't name the article. All the other articles linked in the template at the bottom follow the same naming scheme. I'm not fussed either way, I'll change it if people think it needs changing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Key I would think it wouldn't hurt for it to be a in table. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 11:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisionalsupport – Looks mostly very good.Just one thing I saw during my reading: the NASL's abbreviation is not needed since it isn't used anywhere else.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Check Reference #5. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 00:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed it. I have no idea whether its use in one of the references (as opposed to the article proper) means it should be put back in.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's just in a reference title, as I think, I don't believe it's required. That would be really picky, even by my standards. I've always known abbreviations to be meant for use in the body of a page, not the citations in it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I see no problems with the list, everything looks to be good. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 22:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) As an Austinite it would be criminal if I didn't review this. I do wonder what got you interested in this particular club...
|
I would personally rename it to Austin Aztex all-time roster, or at least something consistent with other lists of this type. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, as I see it the only outstanding issues with the article are that two people think the title should be changed, but, unfortunately, have wildly differing views as to what it should be changed to. How do we proceed from here.............? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like Reywas is fine with "All-time", though I think Wizardman is right in saying that "All-time" should be moved after "Austin Aztex". Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then would someone also mind moving the related articles (Template:USL-1 all-time rosters)? The name/grammar is fine either way, but there should be consistency. Very nice job on the article. Reywas92Talk 03:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I did not notice that so many lists followed that naming convention. Maybe we should discuss this in a more centralized place? Personally, I think that "all-time" should come immediately before the word it is most directly modifying ("roster"), but am willing to hear other opinions on this. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's worth noting that the articles in Category:NBA all-time rosters follow the "<name of team> all-time roster" convention rather than the "All-time <name of team> roster" format followed by soccer articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So should I go ahead and move this one now...........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind if it's done now. However, eventually we will have to deal with the inconsistencies with other articles... Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind if it's done now. However, eventually we will have to deal with the inconsistencies with other articles... Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So should I go ahead and move this one now...........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then would someone also mind moving the related articles (Template:USL-1 all-time rosters)? The name/grammar is fine either way, but there should be consistency. Very nice job on the article. Reywas92Talk 03:08, 9 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 15:47, 13 February 2010 [5].
- Nominator(s): Salavat (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, basically the same as the recently nominated Aurealis Award for best fantasy novel (FLC) page with a few minor changes. There is an additionally sentence added to the lead commenting on the 'no award' situation otherwise thats about it. Salavat (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could the name please be Aurealis Award for best horror novel? Since this is the main article for the award, the very bulky "winners and nominees" in the title is completely unnecessary. Compare with Academy Award for Best Picture.
- Im a bit reluctant to change the page as i based it of two previous FL mentioned on my previous FLC for the fantasy novel and the issue didnt come up for the last FLC. Maybe wait a bit to see if anyone else has anything to add. Salavat (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Reywas, not so much because of the bulkiness but because it makes readers think that there's an article about the award itself. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok well im all up for changing it. Would it be more appropriate to move it now or after the after the FL nom is finished? Salavat (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to move it now; I can take care of everything else (moving the FLC nomination, fixing links, etc.) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- and moved. Salavat (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to move it now; I can take care of everything else (moving the FLC nomination, fixing links, etc.) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok well im all up for changing it. Would it be more appropriate to move it now or after the after the FL nom is finished? Salavat (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Reywas, not so much because of the bulkiness but because it makes readers think that there's an article about the award itself. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sp. "hounarable"
- Took out the "u". Salavat (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "No award given" is not a complete sentence.
- Removed the "stop". Salavat (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Parenthesis" is singular
- I believed i fixed this? Salavat (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great article overall. Reywas92Talk 21:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Pretty good list, just a few comments:
|
- Support I see nothing wrong with the page. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 23:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comment full review will be done, but please explain why there were no winners in 1996, 1998, and 2005. Mm40 (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, this all looks good, and I'm happy to support. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 14:19, 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 15:47, 13 February 2010 [6].
- Nominator(s): RB88 (T) 01:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what the FLC fuss is all about. Like the award, modelled on the Mercury Prize. RB88 (T) 01:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments (hmm, using the Mercury Prize, eh? Good choice...!)
|
- Support I made a few copy-edits to the lead, but the list otherwise looks good. One thing: I saw that you changed "won" to "were successful". I know that close repetition in prose is usually frowned upon, but I think the parallel structure makes the repeated "won"s work here. Also, the current phrasing might make the reader think that "were successful" means something different from "won". However, it's a not a big deal. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I know, I know, repetition is a pet peeve of mine. I tried to find a better synonym, but that's all I could come with. Although, I think that following the sentence's initial clause before the colon, it should be clear we're talking about winners. Plus win is used three time in that same sentence just in case there was any ambiguity. RB88 (T) 23:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points. Like I said, the issue is not a big deal, and your explanations are satisfactory. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I know, I know, repetition is a pet peeve of mine. I tried to find a better synonym, but that's all I could come with. Although, I think that following the sentence's initial clause before the colon, it should be clear we're talking about winners. Plus win is used three time in that same sentence just in case there was any ambiguity. RB88 (T) 23:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I can't find anything and think its a pretty solid job. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 11:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers. RB88 (T) 06:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers. RB88 (T) 17:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
*Shouldn't it be "was an annual music award" as it's no longer being presented?
Response: I've capped issues that were resolved and responded to some others. Mm40 (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- previous issues resolved; now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 503 23:46, 12 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 15:47, 13 February 2010 [7].
- Nominator(s): Peter cohen (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I now believe that the article is as complete as is appropriate for this self-contined topic. I have just closed and archived a peer review Wikipedia:Peer review/Bayreuth canon/archive1 carried out by an experienced reviewer and creator of featured content who has good knowledge of the subject of this article. He has not sought to discourage me from applying for featured list status.
Rather than being in essay form, the article consists mainly of a definition list and a table giving performance details of the ten members of the canon. I therefore think that featured list is the way to go.
This is a self-nomination, my first for featured list though I have contributed as second author of a featured article and took some part in resolving issues at FAC. I am also an occasional contributer at FAC and related pages.Peter cohen (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: An important addition to the stock of Wagneriana.
- No disambiguation links
- All ext. links working
- Image licences OK and alt text present. The alt text is somewhat overdetailed and could be trimmed.
- In the table the information is slightly obscured by a preponderance of inline citations - every cell has at least one. A possible remedy is to group each line's citations in a references column - see List of works for the stage by Wagner for the general idea. This might make the table seem a little less cluttered.
Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Brian. I've trimmed the alt text a little. As far as the refs are concerned, I started putting them in all the individual boxes after seeing other FLs laid out like that. All the links in the last two columns are to the Bayreuth stats page. I could maybe ref the column headers and clear the boxes. As I don't get all the information in each row from the same place, I am hesitant to have a ref box at the end of rows that then mention several sources without being clear which says what. Let's see what other people say.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now folded the refs for the last two columns up into the headings.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Brian. I've trimmed the alt text a little. As far as the refs are concerned, I started putting them in all the individual boxes after seeing other FLs laid out like that. All the links in the last two columns are to the Bayreuth stats page. I could maybe ref the column headers and clear the boxes. As I don't get all the information in each row from the same place, I am hesitant to have a ref box at the end of rows that then mention several sources without being clear which says what. Let's see what other people say.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Like Brian Bolton, I find this important and useful addition to the information on both Wagner's operas and the Bayreuth Festival. The information is clearly presented and complete and very well referenced. I'm not wild about the yellow fields and am not sure how useful they are (especially since yellow as a 'code' is serving two different functions - "introduced by RW" and "part of the Ring Cycle" with disambiguation coming from the † ‡ symbols. Perhaps use a different colour for one of the two functions or just use the symbols? But that's a very minor point. Voceditenore (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Vdt. I've now introduced some pink. Before Brian's peer-review I had a lot more colour-coding and did have to re-use some. I obviously don't need to now.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) This looks like a very well done list. I don't know much about the content area, so most of my comments are related to style and formatting:
|
- Support Etincelles (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A good, well sourced list--Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 07:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
|
Support, now that the issues below have been sorted out. GuillaumeTell
- I've added a heading "Components" to create an extra section which a) makes the lead shorter and b) moves the TOC up. Hope that's uncontroversial.
- I'll be happy to do some copy-editing as suggested above and may be able to fit that in later today. I've been involved in copy-editing some other articles on their way to FA: William Shakespeare, Her Majesty's Theatre, H.M.S. Pinafore, a few others, and am familiar with the subject and with WP:Wagner.
- I'm now scrutinising the article and have immediately hit a few problems:
- The word canon might be unfamiliar to some readers. WP and Wictionary definitions use the sense intended here only for literary works (Shakespeare et al) but not musical ones - indeed, the word "canon" in music is defined only as the musical form. Perhaps the WP article, at least, might need to be changed?
- Western canon links the Wikidictionary entry where the meaning is buried down the list. At the Wikipedia entry canon it is the third entry we are talking about. This search turnd up a few uses of "musical canon" in this sense. You could alter the article in that way. I'm not sure that decisions on the content of other articles are reason to hold up this FLC. Nor can I see it as particularly helpful to link either the wikipedia or wikktionary articles on canon when the relevant meaning is some way down the list in each case.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first sentence refers to "music dramas or operas". However, "music drama" redirects to gesamtkunstwerk, which says that Wagner disapproved of the term. Would it not be better to say something like "total works of art (gesamtkunstwerks)" and forget about music dramas?
- But then, did Wagner mean this term to be used of all the works in the Bayreuth canon? Weren't the earliest three termed Romantische Opern?
- I've opted to remove the reference altogether. I've looked at Millington's article in Grove which talks about Wagner trying out "Festspiel" and "Handlung" and asking readers of his article Über die Benennung ‘Musikdrama’ to come up with suggestions. SP I don't think we can say that Wagner was that happy with GKW either. Im sure I saw somewhere that he rechsristened the romantic operas as dramas.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not very happy with "Attendance at the festival is often considered in mystic terms as a pilgrimage by Wagnerians." What are mystic terms? What is a Wagnerian? How about "Many devotees of Wagner (known as Wagnerians) regard attendance at the festival (?Festival?) as akin to a pilgrimage"? - that is, if this formulation fits the reference!
- I've reworded it somewhat and added an 1891 Mark Twain article as an additional reference.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The word canon might be unfamiliar to some readers. WP and Wictionary definitions use the sense intended here only for literary works (Shakespeare et al) but not musical ones - indeed, the word "canon" in music is defined only as the musical form. Perhaps the WP article, at least, might need to be changed?
- I've now been through the rest of the article - added a few commas, moved things around a bit, altered some of the phraseology, done some clarification, put in another heading, etc. I don't think that there's anything controversial there, but do contact me if I've messed anything up. I haven't touched the tables! --GuillaumeTell 18:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tweaked things a bit more. The biggest issue may be that you've removed the mention of Wagner's nationality which I inserted per another editor's request above.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have any problem with your comments or revisions. I recast the opening sentence and the nationality then didn't really fit in easily. Update - I've now put it back. --GuillaumeTell 22:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tweaked things a bit more. The biggest issue may be that you've removed the mention of Wagner's nationality which I inserted per another editor's request above.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm now scrutinising the article and have immediately hit a few problems:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:16, 12 February 2010 [8].
- Nominator(s): ~Itzjustdrama ? C 00:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I've compared it to similar FLs and I've worked on it to the best of my ability. I feel it also meets the criteria. A note: the series is told in a non-linear format, so some things may read weird. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 00:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Went through and did a quick copy-edit. As Itzjustdrama indicated, this series is really confusing, and the plot summary reflects that, so bear with it while reading. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. References look great, plot may be confusing but understandable overall. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 09:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Having watched the series, I can also attest to the confusing manner in which the story is presented in the show itself. The summary simply follows that while detailing the events as clearly as is possible. My only niggle is that a ref in the lead could be moved to the end of the line instead of being next to a comma.Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been moved. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 11:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - my head hurts after that plot, but everything seems to check out. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 23:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 9 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 promoted by Dabomb87 23:16, 12 February 2010 [9].
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 05:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is up to FLC snuff, covering an interesting and classic benchmark group of great hitters. The traditional "slash stats" are a .300/.400/.500 hitter that is someone with a .300 batting average, .400 on-base percentage, and a .500 slugging percentage. I think it'll be nice to have at least the basic baseball statistics lists in better order as some of them were pretty shabby looking (this list, for example, had only one sentence of prose prior to my expansion). Also, sidenote, but I can't figure out why the equivalent batting average list is .325, despite what I've said above. This is at .400, slugging is at .500, and on-base plus slugging is at .900, but I guess for simplicity (208 players have a .300 career average) we went with a higher mark. Unrelated to this list, though. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Well done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments - once again, I'm squeezing this tight, barely anything to moan about...
|
- Very Minor Issue - I don't know if this has been brought up before, but may I ask why the space template ({{-}}) is after the table, is it really needed? Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 09:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Support - Everything looks good. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 19:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisionalsupport –Only real issue I see is a number starting a sentence: "26 of the 42 eligible players with a career on-base percentage of .400 or higher have been elected to the Hall of Fame."Other than that, everything looks good. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you prefer "Of the 42 eligible players... 26 have been elected"? Staxringold talkcontribs 20:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. That looks good. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, found something to link and did that, but otherwise the list is good. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:43, 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 promoted by Dabomb87 23:16, 12 February 2010 [10].
- Nominator(s): 03md 01:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC), Mephiston999[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is ready to become featured. Any guidance on improvements to referencing etc. is appreciated. 03md 01:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Mephiston999
Resolved comments from Mephiston999 (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*There are lots of links to redirect pages.
|
- Support. All major issues fixed. Ready for the promotion.Mephiston999 (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Quick comments
As I said, quick ones... more once these are dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
I can see myself potentially supporting. A few things though:
Hope those help, WFCforLife (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: We're both in the wikicup. WFCforLife (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support, referencing is much more helpful now. I know we can't indefinitely semi protect, but this one will be more prone to vandalism than most. It'll be worth keeping on a few watchlists. WFCforLife (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Comments resolved; meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 503 23:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just one thing, you shouldn't put use images (such as the check marks) on FLC pages because they slow down page-loading. Mm40 (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
More to come. Mm40 (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This list is very good, and I'll support once my above issues are resolved (including Pocket-lint's reliability). One comment, though: You Brits have bad taste in music; Bob the Builder at #10! How?! |
- No major problems with the images. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as long as you fix the typo in the title of ref 4 and remove that random > from near the end of the lead.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed both issues.Mephiston999 (talk) 11:36, 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 promoted by Dabomb87 00:21, 7 February 2010 [11].
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 22:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Built in the style of List of Philadelphia Phillies first-round draft picks (a FL) and List of New York Mets first-round draft picks (a soon-to-be FL), I think this big sucker is ready (that was a LOT of compensation/supplementary pick notes). Staxringold talkcontribs 22:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good enough to break my boycott of this process. Durova391 02:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"They have also drafted two players from outside the United States". Nothing is wrong if you only look at this sentence, but the last mention of the team name is singular ("The team"), so the tenses are off. Perhaps starting it with "The Red Sox" would be preferable?
Comma after "in his second major league start". By the way, was Buchholz on the postseason roster in 2007? If so, that's three draft picks who won the World Series with the Sox.
- I checked and checked. He definitely didn't appear (as shown in the B-Ref page) and I've found nothing saying he was on the roster. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove comma after Jimmy Hack (1970).Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Support – Can't believe it, but it finally happened: I'm supporting a Red Sox-related article. (Insert confused face here :-) Meets all the standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
What's JC? I know; will others?
And that's really it. Great job! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 01:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heartily support this list for promotion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two things I saw: I've added accents for one player, and, as asked in the edit summary, please check for this throughout (I did it in the LAD list). Also, states are linked at random points in the table: I saw 1969, 1977, and 2007. Mm40 (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delinked states (whoever fixed the city-state templates that didn't work linked the states) but I left Alberta and Puerto Rico linked. No more accents I see. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved; meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 503 23:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments Mm40 (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I count seven players from Texas and five from SC
- Right you are on the Texas count, corrected. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upon the first year in parenthesis, you may want to put "drafted in" before the year, to clear up any confusion. At least when listing awards won, it may give the impression that, for instance, Rice won the MVP in 1971.
Catchers definitely doesn't go where we want it to.
- Heh, fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I count 15 supplemental picks
- 16, actually, but the lead was still wrong. Fixed.
Bryan Price isn't the right Bryan Price (2008)
- Don't know what to do here, since even Bryan Pryce (baseball) goes there. I'll delink it for now. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accent for Manati (2009 pick location)
Link "Rookie of the Year Award" in Garciaparra's caption (CY Young is linked in Clemens')
I guess Fossum and Murphy are really boring, huh (captions)?
- Yeah. I tried to liven up captions where possible, but sometimes there's not much to say. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The titles of Refs 3 and 12 don't match the title of the link
- Fixed, dunno what happened there. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can differentiate the titles of references 15 and 16 by adding ":Draft Report: 1970s" and ":Draft Report: 1980s" after the current titles. Mm40 (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can put references 3 and 12 directly after the sentence they reference.
- They already do. They cite the general statement, and then V goes into detail about what "particularly valuable" means. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I was talking about the first two sentences of the last paragraph. Mm40 (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those also cite that sentence though, showing they never made the first overall pick (listing both the Red Sox picks and first overall picks). Staxringold talkcontribs 18:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 4 and 5 should have ndashes
- Did you do this? Mm40 (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, done. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:02, 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 promoted by Dabomb87 22:44, 6 February 2010 [12].
- Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it was requested as an addition to the MLB awards featured topic. That topic nomination is on hold, but quick reviews on this would be greatly appreciated, and I will address all comments as expediently as possible. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no problems. Nice job! Reywas92Talk 01:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by NuclearWarfare
- Overall, this article is quite good, Just a few comments, and then I'll be happy to support.
- The article starts off rather oddly, I thought. Maybe it would be better if it went something like "The National League pennant is won annually by a team in the National League, which makes up Major League Baseball along with the American League. The National League pennant denotes the champion of this year's league and gives the team the right to play in the World Series against the winner of the American League pennant." Or something like that; what I wrote was probably atrocious. I don't know why, but I didn't really like the intro paragraph as it currently stands.
- "The current National League pennant-holders are the Philadelphia Phillies, who won the league in back-to-back seasons (2008–2009) for the first time since the 1995–96 Braves." I'm not sure if that means that was the first time in 12 years that anyone went back to back, or the first time in 12 years that the Phillies went back to back. Do you think you could clarify please? Thanks.
- That really seems to be it. If you could respond to those two points, I'd be happy to support. Oh, and images are good. NW (Talk) 02:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See if the changes I made work for you. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)`[reply]
- Excellent. Happy to offer you my support. NW (Talk) 02:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from rst20xx (talk):
- Would it be worth noting in the tables which divisions each of the teams came from?
- Would it be worth mentioning the unique format of the 1981 playoffs?
- For 1981 and 1995 onwards, would it be worth linking to the article on the NL Division Series? It would be more informative to name the other two teams involved as well, though that might be a bit too unwieldy.
- Should the C and T in the Key should be superscripted, as they are when used?
- Impressively quick work! - rst20xx (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To quickly address these: I also considered linking to the NLDS, but the table did become huge and bulky-looking, so I took it out, and it's why I included the link to the NLDS in the "See also" section. The "C" and "T" are merely superscripted in the tables because they are indicators; I left them full-size in the key so as to be easier to read. I could probably construct a notation to show the divisions, but I definitely don't want to make the table wider by adding more columns. I'm indifferent on the 1981 playoffs, but a footnote is easily added if you'd like to see it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Divisions now indicated by superscripted "E", "C", and "W" in the second table; Chronicle-Telegraph Cup was changed to "C-T" to compensate. Footnotes now exist for 1981 and for the realignment in 1995. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - OK, I still think it's worth adding an extra column to link to the NLDS details, it wouldn't be a very wide column and would make these articles much more accessible to the reader. But thanks anyway - rst20xx (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Divisions now indicated by superscripted "E", "C", and "W" in the second table; Chronicle-Telegraph Cup was changed to "C-T" to compensate. Footnotes now exist for 1981 and for the realignment in 1995. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
To begin with you've got some mis-marked Temple Cup winners. According to Temple Cup Baltimore won in 94, 95, and 96 and Boston in 97, but this list only matches that in 1896 (has the runner up marked in 94, 95, and 97).Staxringold talkcontribs 19:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Think you misread that. The results that you wrote above are the final league standings (e.g. "Baltimore 1st, New York 2nd" from the Temple Cup). After that, it shows the result ("New York won Series, 4 games to 0") of the actual Temple Cup series. The pennant-winner only actually won the Temple Cup once; the other three years, the pennant runner-up won the series. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, yeah, you just beat me (got an edit conflict) was gonna strikeout that, I'm dumb. My bad. I'll give a fuller review once I get through the AL. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- K, if you need a hand, let me know. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nothing to change here. Staxringold talkcontribs 07:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Also known as Philadelphia Quakers and Philadelphia Blue Jays (unofficially)" - does this mean they were unofficially known by both names, or only the second? If the latter, I suggest a change to "Also known as Philadelphia Quakers and unofficially as Philadelphia Blue Jays"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Check the toolbox; there is a dead link (one of the baseball-reference.com links comes up as a 403 forbidden). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixing now. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Found no issues when I looked at the list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support good work, particularly on the areas I noted. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:00, 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 promoted by Dabomb87 23:50, 5 February 2010 [13].
- Nominator(s): Neonblak talk - 10:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the standards for a FL. The lead seems to be a bit long; one suggestion during the peer review process indicated a "history" section be implemented. How to go about this, and not interrupt the flow, might be better answered here.Neonblak talk - 10:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
I don't think the lead is too long; I know that the MOS recommends no more than four paragraphs, but this is basically a very concise history of the team that covers most of the major elements in the list. That said, I have a couple of comments:
That should do it. Nice work. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments – Still have some notes to read, but this will do for now:
|
Support – Nice work responding to all of the prose issues; the list looks much better for it. Still not crazy about the linking, but I won't withhold support over it, since it does seem to be accepted here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A little more info on the team's end would be great, but I just dug through my Bill James Historical Abstract and found nothing. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - just a few points:
- "Providence .... were officially approved on February 6" and "Providence was successful in signing several star players for their inaugural season" - I get very confused by singular/plural usage in US English for sports teams, but it certainly seems like you're using both here to refer to the same thing
- "White pre-dated both Moses Fleetwood Walker and his brother Welday Walker, whom both played for 1884 Toledo Blue Stockings " - "whom" is not correct here, and shouldn't there be a "the" before 1884?
- "a season in which they finished at their lowest position in the standings in their history, as well as their worst winning percentage" - I think there should be another word in here, maybe "gained" or "secured", before "their worst winning percentage"
- Think that's it........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed all three items. Let me know if you see anything else.Neonblak talk - 13:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all seems OK now those have been addressed (and I removed on duplicated word) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What makes http://www.19cbaseball.com/game-2.html#references a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In re-reading the content culled from the source, it appears that I using it to reference the 20-game win streak, but it looks like the writer was talking about Radbourn personally having a 20-game win streak instead. So I cross referenced with the teams game log, and it looks like it was only 18. So instead of playing with fire (OR), I just eliminated the information and the reference. So, to answer your question, the reference that I used, was not reliable after all.Neonblak talk - 23:29, 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 22:24, 3 February 2010 [14].
- Nominator(s): BencherliteTalk 17:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another Oxford-related list to keep TRM happy. You may have seen in the news last year that Cambridge University are thinking of selling off the "naming rights" to its library to raise money. Once again, Oxford is 400 years ahead of Cambridge, naming the main university library after the man who refounded it in 1602. Here's a list of the 23 men and 1 woman who have run the library since then. One of these days, I'll write an FLC where I don't have to write lots of mini-bios first... BencherliteTalk 17:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Light blue comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Good stuff; couldn't find much to quibble about.
|
- Support One small thing, might it be worth mentioning that Thomas is the first foreign librarian again in her notes section? I realize it's in the lead, but that's a rather big first for a 400 year old institution. Also, it would be nice (if the info is out there) to know something about the selection process, even if only for the modern librarians. Staxringold talkcontribs 07:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note added re Thomas. Haven't found anything about the appointment process, old or new, but will keep looking. Many thanks for looking at this one. BencherliteTalk 07:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have added material from an interview with Thomas in 2007 where she mentions being approached to apply, and her feelings about taking up the job. BencherliteTalk 14:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
*Comment hopefully full review forthcoming, but two quibbles. First, could some more images be added? Maybe one of the current librarian (Thomas) in the lead and one or two of particularly notable or long-serving librarians next to the table? Preferably, they're a bit more recent; it seems sort of unbalanced for there to be images of the first four only. Also (very pedantic), the alt texts seem very choppy. I think there may be a few too many commas. Or maybe not. Not sure. Mm40 (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More comments from Mm40 (talk)
I'll do a review of the table tomorrow (?). Mm40 (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After these issues are fixed, I'll gladly support. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comments from KV5
"The head of the Bodleian Library, the main library at the University of Oxford, is known as Bodley's Librarian: Sir Thomas Bodley, as founder, gave his name to both library and librarian." - this seems like a lot of use of forms of the word "library". 5 times in the opening sentence? Is there any way to re-word some of these (for example, gave his name to both the building and the position?I don't think "Rector" is a proper noun... unless that's a full title? I'm never sure...
Other than those two minor things, well done. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point, changed to "the institution and the position" as (being boring) the library is more than the buildings it is in.
- I think a capital letter is appropriate since the title is "Rector of St Aldate's" e.g. the church website says "Charlie Cleverly, Rector of St Aldates, commented..." BencherliteTalk 16:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both well-resolved. I support the promotion of this list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 3 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 14:00, 3 February 2010 [15].
- Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because in the last FLC discussion there were alot of problems with the article that have now been addressed and more time has passed so there is now more information and article is longer. Mister sparky (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick drive-by comment - in the "other appearances" section, is it really necessary to have a notes column stating that the song was from the soundtrack of film X when the column immediately to the left lists the album the song's on as being the soundtrack to film X......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any plans to respond to this point I raised nearly two weeks ago, even if only to tell me to get lost? :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- hey, oops! sorry i missed that one! its just how ive seen the table set out in other articles and sometimes the column is necessary. i agree that it probably isnt this time. oh and i'd never tell you to get lost :p Mister sparky (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- thank you for your comments! :) Mister sparky (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I noticed the IRE cell in the Singles section looks different than the others. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- no idea how just that 1 cell ended up a different font size... fixed now tho Mister sparky (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two more comments - there is a single listed as charting in 2010, when we are still only in 2009, and the second video album is mistitled, it should be Live from Sydney to Vegas (no "Las") -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- fixed :) Mister sparky (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk · contribs). Ugh, not another discography! =p
Thanks for your work on the article; averaging over 1,000 hits per day, it's probably one of the most viewed discographies. I'll be happy to support once there issues are dealt with. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Check the toolbox; there is one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- fixed :) Mister sparky (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comment Looks really good. My only comment is that ref 35 needs to be formatted (it's just a bare URL right now).Dabomb87 (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- has now been formatted like the rest, but isn't showing up as formatted. which i don't understand... Mister sparky (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the URL, there is a space between "Mas" and "Que", and between "Que" and "Nada". I think you need to either delete the spaces or make them underscores (_). Dabomb87 (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, refs that are not in English need to be denote as such, using theDabomb87 (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]|language=
parameter.- thanks for that. fixed now :) Mister sparky (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! Mister sparky (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #25 is in a different language and needs to be specified, other than that it looks fine to me. Afro (Not a Talk Page) - Afkatk 05:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- that ref is itunes and is in english? the refs that are in french, dutch or german say so. Mister sparky (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time of my comment it wasn't specified, but since has been, so my comment is outdated. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 17:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)
In the video albums section, why aren't the labels of the albums given?
You are pipe-linking "Universal Island" (which I suppose you read on the physical album) to Island Def Jam Music Group. How do you know that "Universal Island" is Island Def Jam Music Group?
Reference 39 could use a date of publication.
Why is the director field empty for the music video "Union"?
- could not find via a reliable source. Mister sparky (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thus far, all attempts at convincing me that Chart Stats holds up to our standards for sources have failed. I suggest you look for another source.
- chartstats was included because so far every other reviewer has accepted validity. however, have added everyhit.com Mister sparky (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyhit.com apparently doesn't cover titles that didn't reach Top 40. This leaves several entries sourced only to Chart Stats, the presence of which among the references is, by the way, not acceptable. Goodraise 17:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- removed the positions that couldnt be sourced by everyhit, used chartsplus for the others. removed chartstats completely. Mister sparky (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you considered adding rankings in the Japanese charts? The E.N.D. for example peaked there at number two.[16]
- the e.n.d charted highly in a number of countries around the world. but only choosing the countries where the band charted highly would not give a fair representation of chart performance. Mister sparky (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I never suggested doing that. I was merely giving a sourced example. Let me put it differently: Right now all countries covered are either European or primarily English-speaking. Adding (just for example) Japan wouldn't make the representation less fair, but more balanced. Goodraise 17:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have given this nomination a thorough review and fixed various issues myself and would support if it weren't for the issues listed above. For now, I will have to oppose, mainly because of the usage of Chart Stats. Goodraise 07:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can now weakly support this nomination. What's keeping me from fully supporting is the imbalance of covered national charts with all nations being either European or primarily English-speaking.Goodraise 00:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I'm sorry, but I have to oppose again. After reading everyHit.com's two about pages, about.html and about2.html. I fail to see how the page meets the criteria. My apologies for accepting the source initially, I should have acted more carefully. Goodraise 19:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the BBC regularly uses everyhit.com as a source for its music articles one eg here, the BBC would not use a source which is unreliable. Mister sparky (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- also, everyhit.com has been cited by British MPs during policy discussions: [17]. Mister sparky (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the BBC regularly uses everyhit.com as a source for its music articles one eg here, the BBC would not use a source which is unreliable. Mister sparky (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I have to oppose again. After reading everyHit.com's two about pages, about.html and about2.html. I fail to see how the page meets the criteria. My apologies for accepting the source initially, I should have acted more carefully. Goodraise 19:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- also by Reuters and even in Norway. Mister sparky (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, the reliable sources noticeboard thread on everyHit.com did not produce a lot of feedback. Looking at the provided examples of everyHit.com being cited by other sources myself, I have to admit that it's a start, but it's not enough for me to accept the source, especially since better sources do exist. Then there is the newly introduced source Video Static that looks to me like a random blog. What makes it reliable? Finally, there's the fact that the list limits itself to charts of primarily English-speaking and European nations, which is a balance problem at best, a lack of comprehensiveness at worst. -- "A featured list exemplifies our very best work." I'm sorry, but this list does not. Remaining opposed. Goodraise 02:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, the newly added reference 28 seems to be broken. It brings me to Allmusic's start page. Goodraise 03:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, the reliable sources noticeboard thread on everyHit.com did not produce a lot of feedback. Looking at the provided examples of everyHit.com being cited by other sources myself, I have to admit that it's a start, but it's not enough for me to accept the source, especially since better sources do exist. Then there is the newly introduced source Video Static that looks to me like a random blog. What makes it reliable? Finally, there's the fact that the list limits itself to charts of primarily English-speaking and European nations, which is a balance problem at best, a lack of comprehensiveness at worst. -- "A featured list exemplifies our very best work." I'm sorry, but this list does not. Remaining opposed. Goodraise 02:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- well nothing else i can do about your chart opinion, each position can be individually cited by using chartsplus but that would be an unnecessary last resort. out of a list of 10 counties, only 5 are english-speaking and only 6 are european. the only other country you could be meaning to add would be japan. then that demonstrates an unfair bias towards japan on your part because of your insistance of its addition. and fixed ref 28. Mister sparky (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said before, I was merely giving a sourced example. You said yourself that "the e.n.d charted highly in a number of countries around the world". I may assume that is the case for other of the band's albums and singles too? Those charts are published somewhere, aren't they? If they are, then not including them becomes an issue of comprehensiveness. Goodraise 00:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- well have had a good search through the net using various translators to find BEP charting info in japan. but so far, have only found that 1 album that charted there, the example you provided. which other country that has a reliable chart archive that isn't already included would you recommend? Mister sparky (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here the database entries for BEP albums that charted in Japan with online translation links for your convenience: [18] trans. [19] trans. [20] trans. [21] trans. [22] trans. [23] trans. [24] trans. [25] trans. BTW, the website can be searched conveniently from here. As for your question: You don't seem willing to understand that the existence of a convenient online archive is not a prerequisite for inclusion. Any reliable source will do, even ones printed on paper. Goodraise 00:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- well have had a good search through the net using various translators to find BEP charting info in japan. but so far, have only found that 1 album that charted there, the example you provided. which other country that has a reliable chart archive that isn't already included would you recommend? Mister sparky (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said before, I was merely giving a sourced example. You said yourself that "the e.n.d charted highly in a number of countries around the world". I may assume that is the case for other of the band's albums and singles too? Those charts are published somewhere, aren't they? If they are, then not including them becomes an issue of comprehensiveness. Goodraise 00:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- also removed the videostatic ref until a more reliable source becomes available and added footnote. Mister sparky (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments
|
- Support -- Comments resolved; meets WP:WIAFL.Truco 503 03:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick Comment - Is there a reason why Shot is in Caps in Ref #50? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 20:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- having a quick look, the section of the article where the information is located has it as the heading. Mister sparky (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I would think per WP:ALLCAPS it shouldn't be All caps. Plus #37 ^ a b ""Blackl Eyed Peas: Discography: DVDs & Videos". " typo. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 00:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- good point! thanks, fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Now that those minor things are fixed I have no problems with the list. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 11:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I cannot find any issues with this article. It is well written, properly charted and well sourced. It meets all the FLC criteria and does demonstrate the best WP has to offer. GroundZ3R0 002 22:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you fix the reference that Goodraise has noted above? It does, indeed, just lead to the Allmusic homepage. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- when i click on ref 28 it goes to the correct page? Mister sparky (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, you're right. The link in the article is correct. The link posted above by Goodraise does link to the homepage. No problem then. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- silly goodraise. Mister sparky (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I pointed it out. You fixed it. Why am I silly? Goodraise 00:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- silly goodraise. Mister sparky (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, you're right. The link in the article is correct. The link posted above by Goodraise does link to the homepage. No problem then. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I agree that everyhit.com is not of the highest quality, I think the links provided ensure that it's at least acceptable, and as it used sparingly, I don't think it's a big enough issue to deny this list FL status. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Though the About section of the site is makes it kind of questionable, I think it can be used in this case and as it was said at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard BBC Radio One does recommend it. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 00:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks guys :) Mister sparky (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments – The writing itself seems fine, but why is "I Gotta Feeling" linked twice so close together? That has to be the closest repeated linking I've ever seen in an article. I also noticed the missing director in the video listing; this may have been tried already, but is the name given in the video itself? If so, you could just cite the video. Not a big deal if it isn't there, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- fixed the overlink, no idea why it was linked twice so close together lol. but the director for Union has only been found via blogs and fansites so far :( Mister sparky (talk) 22:40, 30 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 14:00, 3 February 2010 [26].
- Nominator(s): Reywas92Talk 23:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry there aren't a ton a references, but the two with the list and department information were pretty good. I've tried to include all relevant information, but I'm happy to research something further without going into too much detail. Reywas92Talk 23:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And, to clarify, I'm in the Wikicup. Reywas92Talk 03:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment - Should acting secretar(ies) be included? I am asking because based on my research on this list, Maria Cino was the acting Secretary of Transportation briefly and she isn't on the list.—Chris!c/t 00:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer not to because most did so with limited duties for only a few days or weeks as an interim until the newly-appointed Secretary took office, when they returned to the usual Deputy. They are rightly not included in most other lists, and they disrupt the table. Reywas92Talk 00:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I suppose you are right.—Chris!c/t 22:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments.
- Should not the article be renamed to List if United States Secretaries of Transportation?
- No. As Chris said, this is also still the top article for the position, and a split is a 3b violation. The other secretary lists are also this way.
- The salary of the Secretary of Transportation is $199,700. This sentence is out of places and should be moved to the end of the second paragraph.
- Done. Thanks! Reywas92Talk 22:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ruslik_Zero 20:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it should be renamed since this article is about the position as well. And per criteria 3b, both United States Secretaries of Transportation and List of United States Secretaries of Transportation should not be split and should be combined as one article.—Chris!c/t 22:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am satisfied with the answers, so I am supporting. Ruslik_Zero 19:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it should be renamed since this article is about the position as well. And per criteria 3b, both United States Secretaries of Transportation and List of United States Secretaries of Transportation should not be split and should be combined as one article.—Chris!c/t 22:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments Nice list, but two things strike me: 1) It would be natural to include the party of the minister 2) Would it not be better to link to the article about the cabinet (or the US equivalent term) instead of just the article on the president? See for instance how this is done at Minister of Transport and Communications (Norway). Arsenikk (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Given recent edits to related lists, I disagree that this has to follow other styles. Nonetheless, Reywas is saying that half of these articles do not exist. The options are therefore:
I'm against the third option. Although I am a fan of good redlinks, removing the direct links to the presidents means that they will not be linked at all. That does not strike me as an improvement. The fourth would solve this, but would also look silly. The second option means that this list will be more useful for some presidencies than others. I think Arsenikk makes a valid point, but I question whether there is a better way of doing it. WFCforLife (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Support excellent list which deserves a star. Arsenikk (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comment: The party thing seems off to me. It's a non-partisan office, and candidates who are registered with another party are occasionally chosen. But the main thing is, it's unreferenced. The only general ref doesn't mention party affiliation at all. --Golbez (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really care. While it is still partisan, it's not really political. The point is to show those cross-overs. I doubt I could find a reference other than individual irrelevant mentions. Any other opinions? Reywas92Talk 22:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ref #6 contains 2 References, I'm just wondering as to why these aren't 2 separate references. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 09:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The two work together. One indicates that the Secretary is Class 1 of the executive schedule, and the other gives its salary. Reywas92Talk 22:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I was just wondering, since it looked kind of odd, it was no big problem anyway. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 09:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I support it, though the date on Ref #5 should be formatted more like the others. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 23:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Thanks! Reywas92Talk 03:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WFCforLife
Was Mineta 69 at the start or the end of his tenure?- Start. I think it's inferred from the first part of the sentence.
- That's the way I read it. I just thought it would make more sense to give his age at the end. This is a bit of a Brit-orientated example, but in a list of the oldest footballers, we would say that Stanley Matthews played professionally until he was 50, not that he joined Stoke at 46. WFCforLife (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to retiring age. Reywas92Talk 16:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the way I read it. I just thought it would make more sense to give his age at the end. This is a bit of a Brit-orientated example, but in a list of the oldest footballers, we would say that Stanley Matthews played professionally until he was 50, not that he joined Stoke at 46. WFCforLife (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Start. I think it's inferred from the first part of the sentence.
Not being from the US, I don't understand the relevance of "State of Residence". I understand what it means, but not the significance. What if one of them moved house?- No significance, really, but often it's nice to have where they're from listed. Politicians are normally associated with a certain state, which doesn't change very often; they're referenced in the general ref.
Agree with Afkatk on the date- Fixed.
Otherwise it looks pretty good. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Disclosure: Not certain about Reywas because I can't load the page, but I'm in the wikicup. WFCforLife (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! (And I am.) Reywas92Talk 03:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have no real preference between the solutions I have given above. WFCforLife (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! (And I am.) Reywas92Talk 03:57, 31 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 14:00, 3 February 2010 [27].
- Nominator(s): Scorpion0422 01:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy, my first nomination since August. For those of you who may have forgotten me, I'm that guy that used to hang around here and occasionally nominate lists. This list is largely modeled after the List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Canada and List of Men's World Ice Hockey Championship players for Canada (1977–present) (though it's more similar to the former, because it does not use the medal tally system used in the latter). This page might just be the most work I've ever done for a list, so enjoy. -- Scorpion0422 01:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments - bit too long buddy, scared off even our regulars! I'll need to do this review a bit at a time if that's okay... Lead first. Ping me when you're ready to move on!
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so onto the table...
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Still a lot of images without alt text. I'll leave it to others to decide if the list should be promoted as-is. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Support – All looks good to go now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 23:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments Ah, a sports list, something I feel like I can talk about.
|
- Support I would ref the lead a bit differently, but it's a style choice. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments -
|
- None of the images have alt text, which is a requirement per WP:ALT.
- I'm going to say right now that I will not be adding alt text. It will be a waste of my time, and it will add thousands of bytes to an already huge page. I've always found that guideline horrible, and I don't see how it helps out in a list like this. Each one would be along the lines of "an ice hockey player wearing a red jersey and holding a stick while on ice", and how does that help people who are unable to see the image, given that there are dozens of them? Of course there's going to be pictures of players, what else would there be?
- I will try to take care of the alt text when I get the time. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, please don't waste your time doing it. -- Scorpion0422 05:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't just pick and choose the guidelines you follow. Featured content requires images to have alt text, and besides that, it's common courtesy to those accessing wikipedia with a screen readers; would you want to hear "Link image colon Theodore zero one two seven zero nine dot jee pee gee"? Harrias (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Too late, already done. It didn't take that long. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the first, and hopefully last, time I am ever going to point to this guideline, but we are allowed to ignore all rules. In this case, I feel that the alt text adds a lot of unnecessary bytes to the article and gives very little in return, which is why I am against it. If we were talking about one or two images, then okay (I would still find it pointless, but whatever), but we're talking about dozens of images in an already very large list. -- Scorpion0422 00:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Too late, already done. It didn't take that long. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't just pick and choose the guidelines you follow. Featured content requires images to have alt text, and besides that, it's common courtesy to those accessing wikipedia with a screen readers; would you want to hear "Link image colon Theodore zero one two seven zero nine dot jee pee gee"? Harrias (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, please don't waste your time doing it. -- Scorpion0422 05:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will try to take care of the alt text when I get the time. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to say right now that I will not be adding alt text. It will be a waste of my time, and it will add thousands of bytes to an already huge page. I've always found that guideline horrible, and I don't see how it helps out in a list like this. Each one would be along the lines of "an ice hockey player wearing a red jersey and holding a stick while on ice", and how does that help people who are unable to see the image, given that there are dozens of them? Of course there's going to be pictures of players, what else would there be?
- All in all, it looks a very good list, and while there seem to be a fair few issues listed here, considering the size of the list, that's to be expected. Definitely worthy of FL in my opinion, once these issues have been cleared up. Harrias (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion0422 00:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, nice list, good work! Harrias (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion0422 00:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I figured after adding alt text to all the images and looking at the list several times there was no way I could remain neutral. This is good stuff, and the list meets the FL criteria. Also, I made a few copy-edits to the lead for redundancy, flow, grammar and MOS compliance, so you may want to check over them. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:57, 31 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 14:00, 3 February 2010 [28].
- Nominator(s): A Stop at Willoughby (talk), Golbez (talk)
I am nominating this for featured list because after considerable work, I am confident that this list is comprehensive and meets the featured list criteria. It was peer-reviewed here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"duty to enforce state laws, and the power to either" No comma needed."and Richard Codey, and also affected" No comma needed."original thirteen colonies, and was admitted" No comma needed.The red coloring for Kim Guadagno is unnecessary. Since the Lt. Gov. runs on the same ticket, he/she will always be the same party as the Gov.
Great job overall! Reywas92Talk 23:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All changes made, though I would prefer to keep the coloring there. --Golbez (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed "and Richard Codey and also affected Jim McGreevey's numbering" to "and Richard Codey, affecting Jim McGreevey's numbering," which is a better wording in my opinion. I've no preference either way regarding the coloring. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But what's the point of it? On many of your lists there should be colors because they may be different parties, but for NJ that's impossible, so the color is always redundant. Reywas92Talk 01:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily impossible; unity tickets do happen, even in the presidency. --Golbez (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, it can be readded if/when that happens. Anyway, Support and good work! Reywas92Talk 02:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily impossible; unity tickets do happen, even in the presidency. --Golbez (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, co-nominating. --Golbez (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Request - Since we have a new governor, can someone please review the alt text for the new lead image? Also, did I pick the right author for the new book reference, the Manual of the Legislature? Fitzgerald is credited as 'Publisher' but her name is the only one on the book's cover, so I figured that was safer than going with the 'Compiler', Dullard. --Golbez (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And also, when citing it, should I say "Manual p. ###" or "Fitzgerald p. ###"? --Golbez (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, in case anyone has already looked at the article, here's the recent batch of edits that *finally* bring it to full quality, I think: [29] Just full disclosure since these are rather major things being added after the FLC started. --Golbez (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And also, when citing it, should I say "Manual p. ###" or "Fitzgerald p. ###"? --Golbez (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Comments: Leaning toward support. In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I peer reviewed this list and discussed aspects of it on its talk page. The article has steadily improved since my review and is generally excellent. I have a few remaining quibbles.
I think the fractions in the "Term" column of the tables should all appear in the same type size; i.e., 1⁄2, 1⁄5. I would recommend the {{frac}} template for them all.- Frac is ugly. :P I'd like to avoid that, but if others agree, then I'll do it.
- Actually, frac should be used for accessibility reasons. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All right then. I changed the entire column to {{frac}} for uniformity and per the suggestions here. It doesn't look as good in my opinion, but I suppose accessibility takes precedence. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, frac should be used for accessibility reasons. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Frac is ugly. :P I'd like to avoid that, but if others agree, then I'll do it.
"Under this Constitution, the governor was president... " - Lower-case "constitution" for consistency?- Fixed.
"Under the 1776 constitution, the Vice-President of the Legislative Council would act as governor should that office be vacant." The verbs seem a little odd to me since we are talking about the past. Perhaps "The 1776 constitution specified that the vice-president of the legislative council would act as governor should that office be vacant."- Done.
- Alt text of Chris Christie looks fine to me.
- Agreed. I made a couple of minor modifications, but I think it's in good shape now. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Books summary page for Fitzgerald's Legislative Manual, 1921 lists several authors under "More book information", starting with F.L. Lundy. If the Google information is correct, this could be entered as "Lundy, F.L. et al. Usually citations take the form "Author, p. X" rather than "Title, p X". In the case of two or more books by the same author, the date is added; i.e., Author (date), p X. If the citations were organized by "Author, p. X", it would be easier for a reader to find the corresponding author in the "General" list. As it is, a reader is forced to figure out the match between say, "1921 Manual" in citation 27 and "Fitzgerald, Josephine A" in the General list. It appears that the 1905 manual has the identical multiple authors so you would need to use Lundy et al. (1905) and Lundy et al. (1921) to distinguish them.- OK, I'll switch to this.
The General subsection of the Reference section should be arranged alphabetically to make it easier to find any particular item.- I've set the book refs apart from the major general refs and alphabetized them, is that okay?
- Looks good to me. Finetooth (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
George W.F. Gaunt should not be redlinked more than once. He's redlinked in notes 30 and 31.Finetooth (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)<[reply]- Done. --Golbez (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the first table should be sortable—Chris!c/t 19:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not possible, unless you want me to get rid of the rowspan and make 76 "None"s appear. Also, what is the point? If you want an alphabetical list of governors, we have a category for that; it's already sorted by date; I suppose you could sort by party but those are already counted and easily visible; and number of terms, but that wouldn't help too many people, not many people want to know how many times a governor was elected. --Golbez (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, the category can't replace the list in terms of usefulness, so I still think sorting is important here. But I will wait and see what others think.—Chris!c/t 20:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Having 76 cells all saying "none" before you hit the first lt. gov. is simply unnecessary. Like Golbez, I don't think sortability would be particularly valuable in this particular list. Why don't you think the category is a sufficient replacement for an alphabetical sort? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you insist, then my comment could be ignored. Sortability is a part of the FL criteria and it should be implemented unless there is a valid reason not to. In this case, I think you can argue that a valid reason exists because of the rowspan. But I still disagree with the notion that a category can replace a list. List provides far more information than a category.—Chris!c/t 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, lists offer more than categories, but again, let's think about what sorting gains you. You would only reasonably gain three sort abilities by making this list sortable: Name, party, and # of terms. # of terms is useful for finding out who was elected the most times, but that's about it. It doesn't tell you how long the person was in office. Party is somewhat useful, but since we already tell the reader how many people were in a specific party, it won't help for counting, it will only help to make finding people of a certain party slightly easier to find. And name isn't useful because it's duplicated by a category. My point is, if there were a table whose only sorting utility were to alphabetize it, would you still say that the category couldn't do just as good a job? This isn't like a list of countries where being able to sort by population, area, HDI, GDP, etc. gives you more insight into the list, without requiring multiple, pre-sorted lists, or a list of, say, marathon winners, where you could sort by time they took to run the race as well as name and year (assuming it would be sorted by default on year). My point is, sorting is extremely useful, but let's recognize that there are some tables where it is far more useful than others. --Golbez (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with Golbez, and I note that the FL criteria do not require sortability except where helpful. My opinion is that sortability in this table would be of negligible helpfulness and come with the negative side effect mentioned above. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, lists offer more than categories, but again, let's think about what sorting gains you. You would only reasonably gain three sort abilities by making this list sortable: Name, party, and # of terms. # of terms is useful for finding out who was elected the most times, but that's about it. It doesn't tell you how long the person was in office. Party is somewhat useful, but since we already tell the reader how many people were in a specific party, it won't help for counting, it will only help to make finding people of a certain party slightly easier to find. And name isn't useful because it's duplicated by a category. My point is, if there were a table whose only sorting utility were to alphabetize it, would you still say that the category couldn't do just as good a job? This isn't like a list of countries where being able to sort by population, area, HDI, GDP, etc. gives you more insight into the list, without requiring multiple, pre-sorted lists, or a list of, say, marathon winners, where you could sort by time they took to run the race as well as name and year (assuming it would be sorted by default on year). My point is, sorting is extremely useful, but let's recognize that there are some tables where it is far more useful than others. --Golbez (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you insist, then my comment could be ignored. Sortability is a part of the FL criteria and it should be implemented unless there is a valid reason not to. In this case, I think you can argue that a valid reason exists because of the rowspan. But I still disagree with the notion that a category can replace a list. List provides far more information than a category.—Chris!c/t 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Having 76 cells all saying "none" before you hit the first lt. gov. is simply unnecessary. Like Golbez, I don't think sortability would be particularly valuable in this particular list. Why don't you think the category is a sufficient replacement for an alphabetical sort? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, the category can't replace the list in terms of usefulness, so I still think sorting is important here. But I will wait and see what others think.—Chris!c/t 20:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not possible, unless you want me to get rid of the rowspan and make 76 "None"s appear. Also, what is the point? If you want an alphabetical list of governors, we have a category for that; it's already sorted by date; I suppose you could sort by party but those are already counted and easily visible; and number of terms, but that wouldn't help too many people, not many people want to know how many times a governor was elected. --Golbez (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side issue, one note lack references. I can see why some (like "Resigned to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency") don't need any because one can refer to the biography of the governor. But others such as note 39 do need one.—Chris!c/t 21:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although all of my concerns above have been satisfied (and I have switched to "support"), I agree with Chris that the claims in note 39 should be supported with a citation to an RS. Finetooth (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I usually omit specific references when they are easily verified on the NGA list, but when there are complex ones that aren't extremely easy to verify, they need a specific citation, and you are right, that one needs a specific citation. I will fix it. --Golbez (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference (a 2002 NY Times article) added. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Sortable or not, this is still a great list. So, I am comfortable supporting.—Chris!c/t 03:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I think everything looks in order. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 17:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Lead image could be expanded potentially, if the resolution supports it.
- NJ Legislature is overlinked.
- "of the Senate.[6] which was continued" I'm guessing you mean a comma here rather than a period?
- Indeed. I rewrote the entire sentence; I think it reads much better now. A Stop at Willoughby (talk)
- "have officially been 55 governors" why not, "have been 55 official governors"?
- I would have thought images exist freely for all of these governors. Why not include them in the table?
- For many (possibly most) free images do exist, but I'm reluctant to include the images in the table like that. My personal preference is to have images of a few governors off to the side, as with this list, Governor of New York, List of Governors of Delaware, etc. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify: If we had images for every entry, we'd include them, but FLC in the past, as I recall, has told me that if we shouldn't use placeholders, and if not every cell has an image then some are randomly narrower and it becomes, well, ugly. And we don't have pictures of everyone. --Golbez (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For many (possibly most) free images do exist, but I'm reluctant to include the images in the table like that. My personal preference is to have images of a few governors off to the side, as with this list, Governor of New York, List of Governors of Delaware, etc. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Italic numbers don't appear to be explained.
- Fixed. A Stop at Willoughby (talk)
- "Other offices held" table is sortable, the main table isn't. Seems a bit odd (but I understand that your row spanning Lt Governor col wrecks it) - perhaps think again?
- ... Think what? We can't make the main table sortable, are you suggesting making the lower table unsortable? --Golbez (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What does H & S mean in the second table?
- "House of Representatives" and "Senate." Do you think it's confusing? The titles of the columns make the "H" and "S" self-explanatory. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to try including congressmen and senators in text rather than using H/S, but that would lead to a lot of repeated mentions. --Golbez (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "House of Representatives" and "Senate." Do you think it's confusing? The titles of the columns make the "H" and "S" self-explanatory. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 30 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 promoted by Dabomb87 16:03, 2 February 2010 [30].
- Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria as it is based on the templates set forth in previous FL on similar lists of stations. Patriarca12 (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments: A nice list that has all the basics, but a few picky details remain before the star can be added.
Arsenikk (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for taking the time to look and comment on this. It is appreciated! Patriarca12 (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Support Arsenikk (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
This is a really nice-looking list. Here are my thoughts and suggestions:
Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for taking the time to look and comment on this. It is appreciated! Patriarca12 (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Conditional Support pending resolution of Eubulides' comments on alt text. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment. Alt text done; thanks. I was asked to look at the alt text. The alt text for the first image doesn't convey the gist of the map, namely that the routes form a rough T shape with the University line across the top, the Sandy/Salt Lake line on the left arm and going to the bottom, and the Murry/Midvale/University line on the right arm and going to the bottom, with the free fare zone on the left arm, etc. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for more guidance here. Two of the alt text entries contain details that can't be verified just from the image, and which need to be removed or moved to the caption as per WP:ALT#Proper names and WP:ALT#Verifiability; these are "Salt Lake City" and "Siemens Light Rail Vehicle". The phrase "large, white piece of public art" is pretty vague: it could describe a snowman, for example; see WP:ALT#Essence. The image File:UTA TRAX and FrontRunner at Night 1.JPG appears to be purely decorative, and I suggest marking it with " Eubulides (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|link=
|alt=
" as per WP:ALT#Purely decorative images.
- The alt texts have been changed to best fit the guidelines linked here. I hope they will be satisfactory! Patriarca12 (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that looks good. Wow, I didn't see the elephant until the alt text mentioned it: that's funny! Eubulides (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The alt texts have been changed to best fit the guidelines linked here. I hope they will be satisfactory! Patriarca12 (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Everything looks great, nice job. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 19:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks good—Chris!c/t 03:40, 2 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 promoted by Dabomb87 16:03, 2 February 2010 [31].
- Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This list of National Treasure shrine structures is modeled after the featured paintings and sculptures lists. As a novelty there are extensive architectural notes explaining technical terms. I tried to implement comments from previous featured national treasure list candidacies. bamse (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- there is one dead link
- Fixed.
- should there be the little box at the top of the article saying that the article contains Japanese characters?
- Don't know if it is required but I put it there just in case.
- all images have alt text, which is great
- agreed :-)
- the references seem all to be in the correct format
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 60cm, use 60 cm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 60 cm.
- Fixed two occurences (in a footnote). Hope those are all.
I'll keep it in my watch-list. Mephiston999 (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the comments. I addressed all of them. bamse (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More comments
- The red link I think should go.
- The term Shinto should be used with care, because the existence of Shinto and the meaning of the term itself before the Meiji era are hotly disputed subjects. Many do not believe Shinto as an organized religion existed before the modern era, and think the word itself in the past meant something like "religion". The situation is described here. The term many prefer for Shinto before the modern era is "local religious beliefs". I would therefore replace the first sentence with "The practice of marking sacred areas began in Japan as early as the Yayoi period (from about 500 BC to 300 AD) originating from primal religious beliefs".
- The illustration has numbers but no legend. Would it be possible to add one?
Urashima Tarō (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. I created Ōsaki Hachiman-gū, so the read link is gone; changed the first sentence as you suggested and added a legend to the image caption.bamse (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am satisfied with Bamse's alterations made after I made some suggestions, and I think this is an excellent article. I was invited to comment, but since I am also one of the article's editors and I often collaborate with Bamse, I don't know if I can or should vote for the article's promotion to Featured List. If I can, I vote Support Urashima Tarō (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments (another staggering list, well done!)
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Second image etc, bright blue rectangle - what's that about?
- The picture shows three national treasures: the fence (Tōzai Sukibei), the gate (karamon) and the building in the back. The blue rectangle is indicating which of the three is meant here. Unfortunately there is no better viewpoint to get a decent picture of the building in the back. The gate and fence could be isolated in a picture. I used the same picture in order to show how the structures are located relative to each other (the fence is surrounding the building and there is the gate in the fence).
- The blue rectangles need explanation, in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added: If the image shows more than one structure, the respective structure is indicated by a blue rectangle. to "Images" in the "Usage" section. bamse (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The blue rectangles need explanation, in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The picture shows three national treasures: the fence (Tōzai Sukibei), the gate (karamon) and the building in the back. The blue rectangle is indicating which of the three is meant here. Unfortunately there is no better viewpoint to get a decent picture of the building in the back. The gate and fence could be isolated in a picture. I used the same picture in order to show how the structures are located relative to each other (the fence is surrounding the building and there is the gate in the fence).
Support. I think this is a well-written and well sourced list. Ruslik_Zero 20:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" Over time the temporary structures evolved into permanent structures that were dedicated to the gods": slightly repetitious with "structures", could do with a little change.
- Reworded. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the following means: "The honden is 2×2". Are we talking 2 by 2 metres (6 ft 7 in × 6 ft 7 in)? This applies to notes two, three, and four, and the remarks in the main table.
- This is explained in the "Usage" section under "Remarks": "m×n" denotes the length (m) and width (n) of the structure, each measured in ken. So a 2×2 structure is one which has three pillars on each side: one at each corner and one in-between these two.
- Sorry I missed that. I would suggest though that for the notes it be made clearer, as they come before the usage section Nev1 (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Forked finials act as ornamentation" sounds a little bit clumsy, how about something like "They are decorated with forked finials"?
- Changed as suggested.
"date to before 552 AD": surely "date from before 552 AD"? I'm genuinely not sure about which to use or whether one is incorrect, but I've seen "date from before xyz" more often than "date to before xyz".- Changed: "to"->"from".
Dates suffixed by BC or AD need a non-breaking space in between. It means that if there's a line break on some screens, you won't get a BC/AD marooned on its own.- Done.
- " The concept of temples as a place of assembly was applied to shrines": I know what this is trying to say, but at the moment it sounds like shrines were made into temples. How about something along the lines of "Borrowing the idea from temples, shrines became places of assembly"?
- To me it does not sound as if shrines were made into temples since specifically: "concept...as a place of assembly" is mentioned.
- Ok, I'll leave this. I think the meaning is clear, although it could perhaps be better phrased. It's a minor issue though. Nev1 (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To me it does not sound as if shrines were made into temples since specifically: "concept...as a place of assembly" is mentioned.
" At the end of the Heian period two-storied gates and grand colonnades, replacing torii and fences, were copied on a large scale from temple architecture": in this case does large scale mean making the gates and colonnades bigger (in which case the phrasing is fine), or that they were widely copied?
- Reword to clariy, (I hope!). Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"gongen-zukuri was introduced as a method of building shrines": the article linked indicates that gongen-zukuri is an architectural style, or a different kind of plan, rather than a new method of construction, which surely relates to what kind of materials were used and how they were put together?- Indeed. Replaced "method"->"new plan'.
"The main hall was joined with the oratory via a connecting structure known as ai-no-ma as is also found in the hachiman-zukuri style": is the second "as" meant to be "and"?- Reworded. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth considering moving the last paragraph of the lead to the start, so the reader knows immediately about shrines as National Treasures and then goes on to read more about shrines in general, but this is not a deal breaker and I'm happy to leave this to the author's discretion.- Moved it.
Similar to my comment on the paintings list, it would be useful to know what National Treasure status does for a shrine; for example in the UK scheduled monuments are protected from unauthorised change.- Added: As such they are eligible for government grants for repairs, maintenance and the installation of fire-prevention facilities and other disaster prevention systems. Owners are required to announce any changes to the National Treasures such as damage or loss and need to obtain a permit for transfer of ownership or intended repairs. and a reference.
Might it be useful to have the tables in the statistics section sortable? The layout out for the first might make it impractical.- The second table is small enough to be sorted by the reader (It is currently sorted by age.) Removing the rowspans in the first table, I could make it sortable. Unless you think it is essential, I'd prefer the present version.
- I made the small table sortable.bamse (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not at all essential to make the first sortable, and as you say it's short enough for the reader to be able to "sort" it mentally. Nev1 (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the small table sortable.bamse (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The second table is small enough to be sorted by the reader (It is currently sorted by age.) Removing the rowspans in the first table, I could make it sortable. Unless you think it is essential, I'd prefer the present version.
There's a good explanation of the origin of shrines, the history is good although could do with a little copyediting, and the lead image is useful to get an idea of a typical layout, which can be difficult to explain well in prose. It's interesting to see that the shrines are more spread out than the paintings (presumably because you don't get shrine collectors) but from the discussion in the last FLC I presume there's little that could be said about the distribution without venturing into WP:OR. Otherwise, the descriptions seem detailed enough, and the main table looks good. I can't think of anything else to add. A nice article. Nev1 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied to all of your comments, which were not done by Truthkeeper88 already. Please let me know if you require any further changes. (I cannot see any system in the geographic distribution, so I don't dare to discuss it.) bamse (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for taking so long, I've now switched to support. Well done for producing a fine list. Nev1 (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ref #81 is a dead link. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 20:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. bamse (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - It all looks in order. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 15:34, 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 promoted by Dabomb87 16:03, 2 February 2010 [32].
- Nominator(s): NThomas (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After working and getting List of Texas Tech Red Raiders football seasons to FL I'm starting to understand what it takes to get to FL status. I couldn't find a FL basketball season list so I combined elements from the football season FLs and List of Akron Zips men's basketball seasons to make it in my opinion FL worthy. NThomas (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
|
- No need for the 2009-10 season row yet.
- Because the article isn't "List of completed Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball seasons", I feel as long as the parameters aren't constantly being changed after every time a game is played and having In Progress solves that problem instead of empty parameters. NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is actually fairly consistently applied across sports season FLs that play more often than once a week (the NFL, with one game a week, usually doesn't create a problem, but basketball and baseball teams, which play more often, tend to be kept at a stable point). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As KV said, leaving the current season's row off is general practice. Go through the current FLs that would have a similar row and you will see that they do not. It needs to be removed. Good job on the creation of the season articles.—NMajdan•talk 17:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I really believe the current season belongs on the list. When I read KV5's comment, I took that as it was common on non-football FL season lists. I'm not wanting to get into WP:WAX but, three of the four NBA FLs have the current season in the table. Since this will be the first NCAA basketball seasons list, we're breaking new ground here and the most similar FLs are the NBA FLs. The current season is still a season right? If the current season is not to be included on this list then I propose all season lists be moved to List of completed <team name and sport> seasons. Thanks about creating the seasons. That was really the hardest part but, only one more section to go! NThomas (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having the current season in the list removes a component of stability, inviting vandalism, edit wars, edit conflicts, and other unpleasant things. I know that the general practice for baseball lists, since they play pretty much every day is to either wait until the season is completed, as per my current practice at the List of Philadelphia Phillies seasons, or use stable points in the season for updates, meaning ends of months (not preferred) or the All-Star Break. I would recommend applying the same standard here. But that's just me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having the all of the parameters covered by In progress would solve any problems for constant updates and though. I even included an editors tag about not updating the stats until the season was completed.
- I suppose we can probably live with that for now, though I would consider leaving the list at a stable point once the end of the current season is reached. That's generally the progression that I follow with lists of this type that are nominated in-season. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel this individual comment is finished right? Or is there still opposition to the In progress column for the current season? After all, it is stable and will be until the end of the season when the two final polls are released. NThomas (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I assumed that it was resolved per my last comment, but didn't mark it because it's not mine originally. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I figured it was but just wanted to make sure. I left a message on NMajdan's talk page to close this comment if everyone, including Nmajdan, was satisfied with the outcome. NThomas (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't agree with it being there, but it is not a big enough issue to keep me from Supporting.—NMajdan•talk 15:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
—NMajdan•talk 16:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for a quick response and comments. NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
:I really think a link to the season and the tournament is enough and doesn't overwhelm the rest of the list. I know the other season by season lists include the results to the playoffs, but there's a potential for three tournaments in every season and it overwhelms the rest of the information. Including only the last game won't solve the problem either, it just adds information more appropriate for the individual season and tournament articles when the name of the tournament and wikilinked result convey the the information just as well. I propose this list and future college basketball FLs only include the final result similar to how playoffs are handled in NCAA football (see:List of Appalachian State Mountaineers football seasons). NThomas (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support – Seems to meet FL standards now. I'm not that fussed about the tournament results, knowing now how many of them there are; in fact, I'll be interested to see what that list is like. While I'm here, can the table be capped? I haven't been able to do it properly. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Capped? You mean like a totals at the end of the list? I'm confused. NThomas (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think he was referring to this FLC page (the table doesn't fit in the {{hidden/FC}} template properly); I moved it to the talk page of this FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved; now meets WP:WIAFL.Truco 503 01:36, 2 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 promoted by Dabomb87 16:03, 2 February 2010 [33].
- Nominator(s): Arsenikk (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This list of the stations of the Copenhagen Metro fits into a growing number of metro station lists. I feel the article now meets the FL criteria, but if there are any comments or feedback, I am more than happy to look into it and amend the article as needed. Arsenikk (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You probably need to change the Line column from using images to using text. Accessibility and all that. Also, at least in the future stations table, you list two stations as being termini... which they are, but you don't specify for which line. --Golbez (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback. Concerning the termini, it says in the last sentence of the first paragraph: "Line M3 will operate the full circle, while M4 will only operate the eastern half." This should imply that M3 does not have any termini, and that any termini of the City Circle Line would belong to M4. In my opinion this is sufficient, especially since there is a map to the right that shows the circle. I am also a little unsure how to incorporate the more detailed information and where you want it. Concerning the icons, they will either show up as an image or they will show up with the alt-text (M1, M2, M3 and M4). Arsenikk (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Images used in Line column do not need alt text per this guideline because they are purely decorative; also, what does S in the first table stands for? I assume that is for the S-train.—Chris!c/t 02:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The info in the Line column is not otherwise available, so those images' alt text ("M1", "M2") should be fine as-is; without the alt text, the visually impaired reader of a table row won't know the row's line. Eubulides (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. The 'S' was just a stray letter that must have been put in by mistake—it is now removed. The icons are not purely decorative, so they still need alt texts. Arsenikk (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I thought they are purely decorative.—Chris!c/t 20:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. The 'S' was just a stray letter that must have been put in by mistake—it is now removed. The icons are not purely decorative, so they still need alt texts. Arsenikk (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —Chris!c/t 22:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have found no problems, except that you may want to move 'min' to the caption of the fifth column of the first table. Ruslik_Zero 15:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support. I have removed 'min' from the list and added a two-word specification of the time scale in the key. Arsenikk (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Check the toolbox; there is one dead link (soft 404). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Amazing how linkrot has reached the level that links become dead during the FL review. I took the opportunity to instead instate the 2009 ridership figures. Arsenikk (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any way the text on the map of future stations can be enlarged? At the moment, it is useful only for the shape of the routes, as the text in illegible from the article. Mm40 (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried playing around with the map, but this seems to be rather difficult. Although possible, the whole map is scaled to the current dimensions. Making the text by itself larger will make the map look rather ugly in full size. Instead, I can force the image size to 400px, which should make the text readable (since the map is the same width as the current map at the top). Arsenikk (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Overall, this list is well-constructed, well-referenced, and aesthetically pleasing. I would gladly support following the resolution of the above comments. Cheers! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Gladly add my support to this nomination. Great work! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
Thanks for the feedback. Nice to get some feedback from someone who isn't too indoctrinated in rail transport and has some tricky questions.
|
- Support -- All issues fixed, the center aligning is a minor bug but its okay. Meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 503 03:56, 31 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.